• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Water Wall in lieu of Fire Rated Door

L

liarchitect

Bronze Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
61
Location
Long Island, ny
Is there any were in the IBC that allows for a opening protective of just sprinkler heads in a rated corridor?

I have a client in an existing office building that wants to place a non rated glass door into their tenant space.

I remember in the old NY state code prior to IBC there was a provision for this as long as there was sprinkler heads on either side of the opening

thank you in advance
 
What he is thinking of is Exception 1 in Section 404.5 (2006 IBC) but it is used in Atriums. What peoople do not realize is the water from the sprinklers is to cascade down the glass. However, when there are horizontal framing members of the glazing system the water cannot cascade down the glass. I have read discussions regarding the interruption of the water due to the horizontal members. I have seen what he wants in a corridor but it was obtained through a waiver/variance in a fully sprinklered building. There are fire rated glazing systems that could possible be used just as well but they are costly and most always in a framing system. I did not see anything in Section 715 that would allow what your client wants other than Sub Section 715.3 Item #4 may be something you could look into.
 
You say that sprinklers are being considered. Is this because the building is already sprinklered? If so, perhaps the life safety plan could be re-evaluated to determine if the corridors need to be rated at all. In a new fully sprinklered B occupancy, the corridors would not be rated. Of course, many other things need to fall into place to be able to say your building meets current IBC.

The Tyco WS sprinkler is a good option, but as CD said, fixed glazing only, and it has a lot of specific installation criteria (distance from glass, distance below head of framing, no horizontal mullions, etc). Perhaps a design option would be to create a large fixed glazed opening protected by the Tyco WS sprinkler, with a standard rated door. This might still give your client the sense of openness they were looking for.
 
The use of quick-response fire sprinkler heads and barriers (water impinged wall, WIW) in lieu of onehour rated construction shall be allowed only when an "Alternate Materials or Methods of Construction and/or Design Request" has been submitted and approved.
 
FYI: the ICC just approved a code change top allow the glass doors in atriums along with the glass wall. there was always an issue before about having water on the glass but then needing a solid, rated door (weird aesthetics!). I'd suggest that the info be a part of any submittal on the topic since the discussion is good stuff.
 
What was described is not an Atrium

ATRIUM. An opening connecting two or more stories other than enclosed stairways, elevators, hoistways, escalators, plumbing, electrical, air-conditioning or other equipment, which is closed at the top and not defined as a mall. Stories, as used in this definition, do not include balconies

within assembly groups or mezzanines that comply with Section 505.
 
Sprinklers & Non-Fire-Rated Glass

But what about non fire-rated glass? If sprinklers are installed nearby, isn’t that adequate fire protection?

The answer may be a resounding "no." True, some tests indicate that non-fire-rated glass will remain intact if a fire does not originate near the surface of the glass, if the sprinklers and supporting systems are operational and function early in the fire, and if they completely and continuously bathe the surface of the glass.

However, other tests indicate that fires occurring near the surface of the glass cause heat stress in the glass, which may then break and fall from the framing system even if the sprinkler operates properly. Since it is nearly impossible to predict where a fire will begin, it is unrealistic and even dangerous to assume that it will occur far from the glass surface

http://www.glassonweb.com/articles/article/505/
 
Mark Handler,

That article seems to pop up every now and then. It is trying to create a case to use the very expensive ceramic type glass that is fire resistive rated.

The bottom line is that the Tyco system is UL listed and accepted by ICC under the ES Research Report that referenced in a previous post. Whether to use the Tyco system or the ceramic glass is like arguing if a masonry 2 hour wall is better than a dry wall 2 hour wall. The reality is that both are allowed under the code.
 
If you read the original post, and what I posted both are about "non-fire-rated glass" . The Tyco system and ceramic glass systems are not what the OP was talking about.

But thank you for sharing
 
mark handler said:
What was described is not an Atrium. . . .
Click to expand...
I wasn't implying that it was an atrium. I said that there was a code change on something similar and that the discussion has some good information in it about this type of scenario.

The article on Glass on Web is an interesting one but clearly one sided (no pun intended - well maybe a little). The article also states that the specialty sprinklers meet not only the US IBC code but also the Canadian code. One of the issues that keeps being brought back into the discussing in the article is that it is not known where the fire may originate and that the fire in contact with the glass will cause it to fail prior to activation of the sprinklers. While this is certainly true, the situation posed (at least as far as I can remember) is for a glass door. One can only hope that there is noting in the area immediately next to the door to cause the glass to fail prior to sprinkler activation. If it's a door then the area must be kept clear for circulation and to eliminate obstructions to the means of egress.

In a wall, the use must be carefully reviewed to make sure that there are no obstructions to sprinkler flow, that the water from the sprinkler will fully wet the glass surface, and that the potential origin of the fire is not right up against the glass. For a door, two out of three are already taken care of by the nature of the door.
 
The use of quick-response fire sprinkler heads and barriers (water impinged wall, WIW) in lieu of onehour rated construction shall be allowed only when an "Alternate Materials or Methods of Construction and/or Design Request" has been submitted and approved.
 
The OP is not asking for a substitution to one hour rated construction he is asking for help with a 45 minute opening protection requirement. Since the building is already sprinklered I think Dr J had the best response about re-evaluating the life safety aspects of the building. He could use Section 3410 and perhaps the corridor can be re-classified as un-rated. Problem solved. JMHO
 
* * *

Playing the devil's advocate here for a moment... :D

Suppose the corridor can't be re-classified as ' non-rated ',

now what? ...a rated glass door, ...a rated fixed window

[ to possibly obtain that "openess effect" ], ...allowing the

quick response heads, ...other? FWIW, this is a

great topic & discussion. :-)

* * *
 
Regarding Quick Response Sprinklers……………since quick response sprinklers QR in “Light Hazard” are permitted, anyone considering using QR as an alternative method would need to keep in mind that the entire compartment would have to be QR not just the opening protection:



8.3.3.2 Where quick-response sprinklers are installed, all sprinklers within a compartment shall be quick-response unless otherwise permitted in 8.3.3.3.



8.3.3.3 Where there are no listed quick-response sprinklers in the temperature range required, standard-response sprinklers shall be permitted to be used.

8.3.3.4 When existing light hazard systems are converted to use quick-response or residential sprinklers, all sprinklers in a compartmented space shall be changed.
 
The tricky part of using sprinklers and glass doors to achieve the equivalent of a rated opening is providing self-latching hardware for the glass doors. I have had this situation on 4 projects (all atriums) and in all 4 cases the code consultants said that the doors had to be positive-latching. If the glass doors are latched (for example, with Blumcraft tubular panic hardware), there isn't an egress problem from the push side, but there's no way to open the doors from the pull side. Glass door panics are designed to be dogged when the door needs to be unlocked, and if they're dogged, they're not positive-latching. I don't know of any glass door panics with active trim like a lever handle. We used electric strikes at the frame head, but it's not a nice application.

Any opinions on whether these doors would need to have positive-latching hardware?
 
* * *

FM Burns,

Could the QR heads be installed on the tenant side of the glass door ONLY, and in

the other areas of their tenant space to satify the coverage requirements?

LGreene,

Because the wall assembly is rated, wouldn't this necessitate the positive

latching requirement to maintain the fire rating?

* * *
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd say that the doors need positive latching and that the sprinklers must be on both sides of the wall. Although the intent is to protect from a fire on the side opposite the corridor, the sprinklers on the other side would act as "back-up" if the heat reached critical levels on the corridor side for some reason.
 
* * *

Gene & liarchitect,

Sooooooo, ...are we approaching a workable design solution? :D

* * *
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top