• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Aluminum clip used at a firewall with an expansion joint

T

tuzi

Registered User
Joined
Jun 14, 2016
Messages
45
Location
Colorado
I was searching for an aluminum clip to use at a firewall condition as below. The complexity I have is where I use the 2 layers of 1” gyp to separate two buildings, structural requires an expansion joint to allow 2” movement. Based on an expansion joint product, we need to have a 3” gap between the two buildings. Typical firewall detail will have the aluminum clip (the aluminum burn clip from your website) attached to the one side of building to support the firewall. Due to this expansion joint, I need an aluminum clip can span longer to overcome the 3” gap, also the clip or a clip combination needs to allow 2” movement to the left or to the right. Anybody knows any products can make this?

Thank you,

 
You can not just use any aluminum clip, the clip and all the components for the fire wall system have to be list for use in that specific manufactures assembly, installed in accordance with the assembly and that assemble has to designed , tested and listed for the movement you are trying to allow for.
 
You can't find a 2-inch expansion control joint? There must be dozens of them out there for interior and exterior--it is probably the most common expansion joint width.
 
TheCommish said:
You can not just use any aluminum clip, the clip and all the components for the fire wall system have to be list for use in that specific manufactures assembly, installed in accordance with the assembly and that assemble has to designed , tested and listed for the movement you are trying to allow for.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know this part. I just am not sure if any those tested aluminum clip can allow movement, also span longer than usual.
 
RLGA said:
You can't find a 2-inch expansion control joint? There must be dozens of them out there for interior and exterior--it is probably the most common expansion joint width.
Click to expand...
I probably can, but I still need an aluminum clip longer and can tolerate movement
 
Looking at your detail, I don't think the design will be approved (I least I wouldn't approve it). Is that a door at the bottom?

If the building on the right collapses, what is there to protect the building on the left? A fire wall must remain in place should the building on either side collapse (IBC definition for fire wall).
 
RLGA said:
Looking at your detail, I don't think the design will be approved (I least I wouldn't approve it). Is that a door at the bottom?

If the building on the right collapses, what is there to protect the building on the left? A fire wall must remain in place should the building on either side collapse (IBC definition for fire wall).
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't finish the detail. Please see below. Each wall on each side of the firewall will support the firewall by the clips.
For this option, I am not convinced if an aluminum clip tested can achieve the movement also can extend over 2" to support the firewall.


25ary42.jpg
 
This is my situation. Another solution I feel more comfortable is to have a firewall at each building. The "alcove" portion between two firewalls will be part of the building on the right side. When the building on the right side collapses, the portion will collapse at the same time, but the building on the left will stay.


2py17i8.jpg
 
Still, when the steel and concrete building collapse, there will be gaps in the fire wall (See attached image). The fire wall must be continuous from the foundation through or to the roof deck.

Edit: For the life of me, I don't know why the file uploaded twice.
 

Attachments

  • Fire Wall.jpg
    Fire Wall.jpg
    139.4 KB · Views: 11
  • Fire Wall.jpg
    Fire Wall.jpg
    139.4 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
tuzi said:
This is my situation. Another solution I feel more comfortable is to have a firewall at each building. The "alcove" portion between two firewalls will be part of the building on the right side. When the building on the right side collapses, the portion will collapse at the same time, but the building on the left will stay.


2py17i8.jpg
Click to expand...
This makes more sense, but the doors in a series will need to comply with ADA and ANSI A117.1 standards--they appear to be too close together.
 
Wait, there is a problem with your design. Since the fire wall must make a complete separation of the two buildings, the "alcove" is actually inside the building on the right. Therefore, the floor/ceiling and roof/ceiling assemblies inside the alcove must be independent from either building--the floors and roof of the building on the right cannot be continuous over the "alcove."
 
RLGA said:
Wait, there is a problem with your design. Since the fire wall must make a complete separation of the two buildings, the "alcove" is actually inside the building on the right. Therefore, the floor/ceiling and roof/ceiling assemblies inside the alcove must be independent from either building--the floors and roof of the building on the right cannot be continuous over the "alcove."
Click to expand...

I thought about that, but think theoretically it works. The "alcove" is not occupied at least. Other than this option, I can only think to use Won-door which costs more $$.
 
tuzi said:
I thought about that, but think theoretically it works. The "alcove" is not occupied at least. Other than this option, I can only think to use Won-door which costs more $$.
Click to expand...
Another option is to create a structurally independent door frame that covers the total depth of the two fire walls. The door frame has its own foundation and is not mechanically anchored to either wall. This way you'll have only one door opening and the two fire walls can be parallel the full length and height and independent of each other (no clips required). I used this successfully when building an addition to an existing building. The existing building with the added area exceeded the allowable area, thus requiring us to use a fire wall. The existing wall (which consisted of 8-inch masonry) could not be made structurally independent, so we constructed a parallel fire wall using a shaft wall assembly.
 
Wait, I'm confused - - why put in a series of two doors? Are you concerned that if you only provide doors on one wall, and that wall which contains doors has a collapse, the other remaining wall will have an unprotected opening?
If so, I can understand that concern, but IBC 706.2 seems to limits itself to "structural stability", not "opening protection stability"

"Fire walls shall be designed and constructed to allow collapse of the structure on either side without collapse of the wall under fire conditions."
 
Yikes said:
Wait, I'm confused - - why put in a series of two doors? Are you concerned that if you only provide doors on one wall, and that wall which contains doors has a collapse, the other remaining wall will have an unprotected opening?
If so, I can understand that concern, but IBC 706.2 seems to limits itself to "structural stability", not "opening protection stability"

"Fire walls shall be designed and constructed to allow collapse of the structure on either side without collapse of the wall under fire conditions."
Click to expand...



If the opening is part of the fire wall,,

Seems like the opening protection would have to be in place, to maintain the rating???
 
Yikes said:
Wait, I'm confused - - why put in a series of two doors? Are you concerned that if you only provide doors on one wall, and that wall which contains doors has a collapse, the other remaining wall will have an unprotected opening?
If so, I can understand that concern, but IBC 706.2 seems to limits itself to "structural stability", not "opening protection stability"

"Fire walls shall be designed and constructed to allow collapse of the structure on either side without collapse of the wall under fire conditions."
Click to expand...
A fire wall is an assembly, which means all the openings must be protected. What the OP is proposing is a double fire wall condition with each building having its own fire wall rather than having a single, structurally independent fire wall between the two. Therefore, if one fire wall collapses with its associated building, the other fire wall will remain intact and protect the other building; thus, the openings in that fire wall must also be protected.
 
Does it mean no matter what which side of building collapses, the structurally independent door frame stands?

RLGA said:
Another option is to create a structurally independent door frame that covers the total depth of the two fire walls. The door frame has its own foundation and is not mechanically anchored to either wall. This way you'll have only one door opening and the two fire walls can be parallel the full length and height and independent of each other (no clips required). I used this successfully when building an addition to an existing building. The existing building with the added area exceeded the allowable area, thus requiring us to use a fire wall. The existing wall (which consisted of 8-inch masonry) could not be made structurally independent, so we constructed a parallel fire wall using a shaft wall assembly.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top