# Water Wall in lieu of Fire Rated Door



## liarchitect (Jun 4, 2010)

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


----------



## Coug Dad (Jun 4, 2010)

Tyco has a sprinkler head that is UL listed for two hours against tempered glass.  Below is the link to the ICC ES research report.  There are some specific criteria that needs to be met.  It is not listed for glass doors.

http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files/ICC-ES/ESR-2397.pdf


----------



## Examiner (Jun 4, 2010)

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.


----------



## Dr. J (Jun 4, 2010)

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.


----------



## AegisFPE (Jun 4, 2010)

The atrium provisions in the 1997 UBC explicitly permit sprinkler-protected door openings, though this specific language does not appear to be present in the IBC.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 4, 2010)

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.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Jun 4, 2010)

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.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 4, 2010)

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.


----------



## liarchitect (Jun 4, 2010)

thank you for the exception responses

i will keep looking

the building is an existing fully sprinklered building


----------



## mark handler (Jun 4, 2010)

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/


----------



## Coug Dad (Jun 4, 2010)

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.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 4, 2010)

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


----------



## Gene Boecker (Jun 4, 2010)

mark handler said:
			
		

> What was described is not an Atrium. . . .


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.


----------



## cda (Jun 4, 2010)

liarchitect

The answer to your question is NO   as far as a water wall


----------



## mark handler (Jun 4, 2010)

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.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 4, 2010)

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


----------



## north star (Jun 4, 2010)

** * **

*Playing the devil's advocate here for a moment... * 

*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. *

** * **


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 4, 2010)

> *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" ], *


Yes it is all available

http://www.fireglass.com/glass/pyrostop/


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 4, 2010)

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.


----------



## LGreene (Jun 4, 2010)

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?


----------



## north star (Jun 7, 2010)

** * **

*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?*

** * **


----------



## Gene Boecker (Jun 7, 2010)

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.


----------



## north star (Jun 7, 2010)

** * **

*Gene & liarchitect,*

*Sooooooo, ...are we approaching a workable design solution?    * 

** * **


----------



## cda (Jun 7, 2010)

water wall will not work

I know this is just a little bias but::

http://www.fireglass.com/press-room/articles/sprinklers.aspx

but then here you go::

http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files/ICC-ES/ESR-2397.pdf      ""read under 3.1 wet entire surface"""

http://www.tyco-fire.com/index.php?P=showDWG&E=&B=&id=TFP620_07_2005&BK=tdsect&SB=S6

http://www.tyco-fire.com/TD_TFP/TFP/TFP620_07_2005.pdf


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 7, 2010)

Agree with cda

http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_fi...S/ESR-2397.pdf "5.6 use of the assembly with penetrations or opening protectives is outside the scope of this report"


----------



## LGreene (Jun 9, 2010)

> LGreene, Because the wall assembly is rated, wouldn't this necessitate the positive latching requirement to maintain the fire rating?


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.


----------



## north star (Jun 10, 2010)

** * **

*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... * 

*liarchitect,*

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

*application?*

** * **


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Jun 10, 2010)

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 (Jun 10, 2010)

> 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
> 
> ...


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


----------



## liarchitect (Jun 10, 2010)

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


----------



## cda (Jun 10, 2010)

sounds like it should work

is this on an upper floor that is required two exits??


----------



## Gene Boecker (Jun 10, 2010)

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.


----------



## cda (Jun 10, 2010)

Gene Boecker

building is sprinklered


----------



## Gene Boecker (Jun 10, 2010)

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.)


----------



## north star (Jun 11, 2010)

** * **

*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! * 

** * **


----------



## Mule (Jun 11, 2010)

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?


----------



## Frank (Jun 11, 2010)

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.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Jun 11, 2010)

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.!)


----------



## mark handler (Jun 11, 2010)

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


----------



## Gene Boecker (Jun 11, 2010)

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.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 11, 2010)

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


----------



## Gene Boecker (Jun 11, 2010)

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.


----------



## Examiner (Jun 14, 2010)

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.


----------



## LGreene (Jun 14, 2010)

> 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.


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.


----------



## Examiner (Jun 21, 2010)

Thanks for info on the different electric strikes.  Always learning new things.


----------



## Builder Bob (Jun 21, 2010)

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.


----------



## north star (Jun 21, 2010)

** * ** 

*liarchitect,*

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

*inquiring minds wanna know!  * 

** * **


----------



## liarchitect (Jun 22, 2010)

no decision as of yet, looks like we either have to go with a rated glass or no glass wall


----------



## LGreene (Jun 22, 2010)

> Thanks for info on the different electric strikes. Always learning new things.


Any time!


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 22, 2010)

> maybe if you added food coloring to the water wall, it would cut down on the energy transfer.


BB,

NFPA 15 Annex A has some good information on heat vaporization with water for exposure protection.


----------



## Builder Bob (Jun 22, 2010)

FM --- I would assume that it is still based upon water actually hitting the exposure to provide the cooling off effect and still would allow heat transfer thru the water acting as the water wall?


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 22, 2010)

Yep, and I may have to do some testing with purple FC to see if it has an effect  

BTW....I like that you called it what it is "curtain"


----------



## Builder Bob (Jun 23, 2010)

Thanks FM.... So in summary, a water curtain wall must have a surface to hit in order to act as a barrier........ sprinkler heads with a case opening are almost worthless.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 23, 2010)

That's the way I've always looked at it. If used they are required to be deisgned with specific heads on both sides of the "glass" or object and they can't just spray water in the opening area. They have to empinge at a certain application rate and coverage area on the glass or object being protected and as permitted.


----------



## north star (Jul 6, 2010)

** * **

*FMWB ( and others ),*

*Is there a section in the IBC or IFC that I can review for the "water*

*curtain wall" requirements? I have a project where the contractor*

*is proposing to use sprinkler heads on both sides of a non-rated*

*sheet of glass, **in a rated Exit Passgeway. Section 1021.3*

*[ in **the `06 IBC ] requires a min. of 1 hr. fire resistance*

*rating of the walls, ceiling & floors.*

*At this early stage **of Plans Review **...they are only ' PROPOSING*

*TO USE IT '. **I am seeking to **find out if it is allowable,*

*...more details, etc. **Thanks! * 

** * **


----------



## Dr. J (Jul 6, 2010)

See the first couple of responses to this thread regarding the Tyco WS sprinkler.    http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files/ICC-ES/ESR-2397.pdf This is the only way to create a fire resistance rated wall with non-rated glass.

I really wish people would stop calling for a "water curtain" in this application.  "Water curtain" implies a series of open sprinklers controlled through a deluge valve.  The Tyco WS sprinkler is simply a QR sprinkler with a special deflector to evenly coat the protected glass.  It is still is a closed sprinkler with a fusible element, only one goes off at a time - just like any other sprinkler.  MacGyver can't use a match to set them all off.


----------



## Examiner (Jul 6, 2010)

I think it was already established that you cannot use the so called "water curtain".  It is only allowed in an Atrium condition.  It is not an alternate to the protected EXIT Passageway protection.  That item is a part of your "EXIT", either before or after the EXIT.  It has to have the same rating and requirements as the "EXIT".  In my opinion the Water Curtain is not allowed and has issues with glazing horizontal bars that hinder water flow down the glazing.


----------



## Coug Dad (Jul 6, 2010)

The Tyco UL Listed and ES Report documented sprinkler and glass assembly would be acceptable in that condition.


----------



## Christian Huls (May 29, 2020)

What you are asking about is NOT in the IBC, but it IS found in NFPA 13. It's referred to as a water curtain (see NFPA 2016, section 11.3.3).

It allows you to install sprinklers 6 feet apart along a rated wall (on both sides) where there are unrated openings such as unrated glass or doors.


----------



## cda (May 29, 2020)

Christian Huls said:


> What you are asking about is NOT in the IBC, but it IS found in NFPA 13. It's referred to as a water curtain (see NFPA 2016, section 11.3.3).
> 
> It allows you to install sprinklers 6 feet apart along a rated wall (on both sides) where there are unrated openings such as unrated glass or doors.




Finally professional Fire sprinkler help!!
Welcome


----------



## cda (May 29, 2020)

Christian Huls said:


> What you are asking about is NOT in the IBC, but it IS found in NFPA 13. It's referred to as a water curtain (see NFPA 2016, section 11.3.3).
> 
> It allows you to install sprinklers 6 feet apart along a rated wall (on both sides) where there are unrated openings such as unrated glass or doors.



Maybe You can answer a question:::


The question is a backwards question


*Exterior projection 8.15.7 2016*

If you are presented with drawings showing a combustible walk canopy connected to the building and over four feet.

If asked and they were willing to take out a section so it is not directly connected to the building,, how big of gap would you be comfortable with??

one inch, one foot, three feet or other gap?? to basically call in "separated"


For example this picture, the canopy is attached to the building and is combustible:::



https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2...


What separation would you be comfortable with?


----------

