• 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

LGreene, Because the wall assembly is rated, wouldn't this necessitate the positive latching requirement to maintain the fire rating?
Click to expand...
From my experience, yes, but normally doors that latch have a means of unlatching them from the non-egress side - usually by turning a lever. Glass doors usually have tubular panic hardware, and tubular panic hardware doesn't have the option of a lever, so it's really difficult to make a glass door functional if it has to be positive latching.
 
* * *

LGreene,

I agree with you on the level of difficulty necessary in making a glass door work.

In " mtlogcabin' " link, there is photo of a glass door [ in a metal frame, in a

NYC firehouse ], that has a metal storefront type casing. There is a lever on

the non-egress side of this door. I'm not sure if " liarchitect " has limited

his particular application to a door, fully of glass only, or will a storefront

type casing application work. The one in " mtlogcabin' " link is not too

hideous in appearance and it looks like it has all of the required code compliant

features installed on it... :D

liarchitect,

Will a store front type of casing around a fire rated glass door work in your

application?

* * *
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This discussion has happened many times over many years. Testing has not proven the viability of using a water curtain on doors to meet a rating.
 
LGreene,I agree with you on the level of difficulty necessary in making a glass door work.

In " mtlogcabin' " link, there is photo of a glass door [ in a metal frame, in a

NYC firehouse ], that has a metal storefront type casing. There is a lever on

the non-egress side of this door. I'm not sure if " liarchitect " has limited

his particular application to a door, fully of glass only, or will a storefront

type casing application work. The one in " mtlogcabin' " link is not too

hideous in appearance and it looks like it has all of the required code compliant

features installed on it...
Click to expand...
The door in the fire station photo is an aluminum storefront door, which offers MANY more hardware options than an all-glass door (http://www.ihatehardware.com/2009/06/bottom-rail-deadlock/). Unfortunately, we've been seeing a lot of all-glass doors on projects, which have no vertical stiles and sometimes no horizontal rails. Here's a glass door on one of my projects that was part of an atrium separation: http://www.ihatehardware.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/img_4246.jpg
 
thank you for all your help, it appears that it will not work, just to throw a possibility into the mix, what if the floor in the office building was a single tenant, the space meets all travel distances to the fire stairs itself, would i even need a separation between the existing corridor and tenant space. i would make the corridor part of the tenant space

thank you again this board is a great resource for us architects
 
The only reason for separating the two corridors is either if one is rated and one is not; or, if there needs to be a door for security control. If you don't need security control, then there is only one corridor system - all rated.
 
sorry. . .

I thought I recalled an earlier conversation about the building being small enough that there were no sprinklers provided.

never mind - unrated corridors - no separations

(you can take the doors of the openings if you want - oh, wait! That's a cube farm with high partitions.)
 
* * *

liarchitect,

This forum IS a great place, for all! Please forward your appreciation to

our generous benefactor, Mr. Jeff Remas. Also, Jeff is an Armed Forces

veteran, so please take a moment to extend thanks to him for his service.

Please tell all of your colleagues about this forum. We are trying to grow

it as much as we can. As you are already aware, there is a wealth of

information and experience on here. There are some very, very talented

people on here! Please come back often! ;)

* * *
 
To throw something out there for future discussion....

There is a proposal before the ICC to require that all assemblies be tested without water. Say...if a door was tested as an assembly in todays standards and passed as long as the water was being applied....the door would not pass under the new proposal.

Did I explain this where you could understand what I meant?? I'm going off memory of a meeting 3 or 4 months ago! So don't ask me which one cause I don't know. Anybody else here of this one?
 
The biggest problem with using water washed glass or water curtains in the place of fire resistance rated construction is --

If the sprinklers work you dont need the rated walls.

If the sprinklers dont work neither will the water wash or water curtain as the water supply is either impaired or overwhelmed.
 
And the biggest problem with trusting in the passive protection is that it's almost always compromised by communications wiring, exterminators, or obstructions (like those door stops on rated doors to hold them open that get installed after the inspection - or door wedges).

Agreed, if the sprinkler system works, the corridor and many other elements don't need ratings. If the entire system is compromised but some action then it is a symptom of the degree of maintenance afforded or magnitude of the event and likely means that the passive systems will be compromised as well.

(Hi, Frank C.!)
 
And the biggest problem with trusting in the Active protection is Failures, such as an earthquake or a Collapse of system elements or structure, or faulty equipment such as heads

In earthquake areas we should have both Active and passive
 
1. If you have an earthquake, all the passive systems will be compromised as well. The research from the Loma Prida earthquake showed that the passive systems were compromised well in advance of the active systems. If power and water were available, they would have functioned in some buildings where structural damage compromised complementation.

2. The recent studies and field tests by UL and the NFPA have shown that even dry sprinklers without the o-rings have a successful capability for at least ten years. In sprinklers with o-rings, tested after ten years almost half had abnormal performance. For those with less than ten years service, sprinklers with abnormal function were around 18 percent. Without o-rings, the dry sprinklers with more than ten years of service had only one percent that were abnormal and none (yes NONE as in zero, zip, nadda) performed abnormally; meaning they were all functioning withing guidelines.

Sprinkler reliability is far greater than what is being thrown around.
 
You are wrong, NOT all the passive systems will be compromised. I have been dealing with CA earthquakes professionally for thirty years.

Not all walls are compromised just as not all water mains are ruptured, but they both compliment each other.

There is no protection that can help in some natural disasters.

“ …passive systems were compromised well in advance of the active systems….”

Not true the water mains ruptured in the street in both the Loma Prida and Northridge Quakes, prior to the "fires".

San Francisco has fireboats that feed portable hydrants, they used during the Loma Quake

Both are needed
 
The report I was referring to was dealing with the compromised systems within the building not the infrastructure.

If there are no fires, it makes no difference which systems are operational. The indications were that cracks and joints opened in rated assemblies while the sprinkler system was intact. IN building not greatly affected, both were operational, where buildings were greatly affected both failed. It was those in-between structures where the passive systems failed while the sprinkler system was intact.

Granted, if the infrastructure is such that it's not functioning after the earthquake, then the only protection is what passive systems in the building are still intact.

But, let's not turn the entire world on its ear just for those parts which have the ground move. There are vast areas where this is not a problem. If it is specifically related to earthquake areas, let the codes stipulate that. Otherwise we're still living in between codes - codes as they are written and codes as they are being interpreted and applied by locals who know better than what's written. We're getting there slowly.
 
I Greene

Electric strikes cannot be used in a door that is required to have a fire rating. The electric strikes unlatch upon activation of the fire alarm. There goes your postive latching in a hose stream test. Maybe you mean electric locks. The electic locks can release upon activation of the fire alarm but the strike plate and door bolt do not release.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Electric strikes cannot be used in a door that is required to have a fire rating. The electric strikes unlatch upon activation of the fire alarm. There goes your postive latching in a hose stream test. Maybe you mean electric locks. The electic locks can release upon activation of the fire alarm but the strike plate and door bolt do not release.
Click to expand...
Fail secure electric strikes can be used on fire rated doors (in accordance with their listings). On a fail secure strike the strike keeper is secure on power failure or fire alarm so it holds the latch within the strike. Fail safe electric strikes can't be used on fire rated doors because the keeper is free on power failure or fire alarm so no positive latching. Electric locks would be even better but glass doors don't really accommodate electric locks.
 
Thanks for info on the different electric strikes. Always learning new things.
 
Old fire guys (people) may remember once upon a time a device called a water curtain was used to protect exposures....... It was discovered that the water curtains were ineffective because the heat energy could still travel thru the water curtain.........not much different than sunshine thru a plate glass window.........maybe if you added food coloring to the water wall, it would cut down on the energy transfer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
* * *

liarchitect,

Soooooooooooo... what is / was the finished design of this conundrum? Us

inquiring minds wanna know! :D

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