Talk:Joint (building)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 April 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents 1 Rewrite tag by Coccyx_Bloccyx 2 Citation/Reference/Quality Tags by Coccyx_Bloccyx 3 Perimeter slab edge 4 references

[edit] Rewrite tag by Coccyx_Bloccyx

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coccyx_Bloccyx#Joint_.28building.29 Achim (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Nomination --Achim (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation/Reference/Quality Tags by Coccyx_Bloccyx

Look, your deletion tag not only was discarded, but several of the contributors, none of whom voted along with you, indicated concern over your behaviour and commented that plenty of references were provided. There are inline references and other external references in the article. Also, the article was reviewed by administrator BorgQueen. I know from experience that when something is wrong, she will point it out and either fix it or ask others to do so. The article has had a large amount of peer review. I have no clue what your problem is here and you refuse to answer specifics, preferring instead to just delete the question, along with another one where another editor challenged you along the same lines as the activities you have displayed here. If there is something legitimately wrong with the article, I would suggest that you state specifically what it is, but also back it up because the blanket statements you have made so far don't hold water. For example, if you had perused a buidling code, you would know that "sprinklered" is a common code term and not something invented for the purpose of creating unsubstantiated prose on Wikipedia. If there is something legitimately wrong with the article and you can prove it, I will be the first to agree with you. --Achim (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note -- now that the article has been kept, please help to improve the article by providing in-line citations. Throw a bunch of external links at the bottom is insufficient. Thank you, Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There are inline citations right now. You are simply being disruptive because you refuse to answer specifics and your behaviour has been noted by others as being inappropriate. You have no point that you can back up. If you did, you would make it, wouldn't you? I have asked for assistance on the subject to counteract your behaviour. Perhaps you can explain yourself to others. --Achim (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your assumptions of bad faith here are inexcusable. That is all. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And you are the only one who thinks so. --Achim (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to mediate this discussion. Please work it out at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-26 Joint (building), not here, so I don't have to deal with it in multiple places. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perimeter slab edge

The mediation for sourcing this section is not moving along, and I have not commented on the mediation page as it seems this is between the two editors. However, as this article is on my Watch list, I am aware of the issues, and have looked into it.

The sources provided so far (http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_1stInterstateFire/050488_InterstateFire.htm) refer to the general nature of the fire, but do not address some of the conclusions made. For example, Ref. 2 doe not mention the curtain wall in any detail, and as such is not adequate as a source for the text. It does however contain links to other sources, the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FIRST INTERSTATE BANK BUILDING FIRE, LAFD REPORT, and the United States Fire Administration, Technical Report, which do provide more detail, and should be used as references. However, even these references do not support some of the conclusions made in the article text.

For example, none of the sources conclude the aluminum 'melted'. The curtain wall system failed, but it is likely the aluminum frame lost it's structural strength and collapsed prior to melting. The point is that either failure mode is possible, but neither should be cited in the article, as the sources do not support it.

However, the following conmclusion is specifically contradicted by the detailed resources:

Sprinklering of each floor has a profoundly positive effect on the fire safety of buildings with curtain walls. In the case of the aforementioned fire, it was specifically the activation of the newly installed sprinkler system, which halted the advance of the fire and allowed effective suppression. Had the sprinkler system not become operational at that point in time, the tower would have collapsed onto fire crews and into an adjacent building, while on fire.

This reference ^[1] and the reference cited above specifically refer to the sprinkler system being activated on the floors above the fire floors, but do not make the conclusion of that act as as contributing to stopping the fire. In fact, a decision was made to not activate the sprinklers on the fire floors. Instead, manual fire department action is the reason cited for stopping the fire. The sources refer to this event as an "Unsprinklered high-rise fire""^[2], but do make the conclusion that the combination of perimeter fire stopping and fire sprinklers is important overall in a layers of protection concept^[3].

I recommend the following.

Firestopping at the "perimeter slab edge", which is gaps between the floors and the backpan of the curtain wall or precast concrete panels, slow the passage of fire and combustion gases between floors. The firestop at the perimeter slab edge is considered a continuation of the fire-resistance rating of the floor slab. The curtain wall itself, however, is not ordinarily required to have a rating. Fire compartmentalization is based upon compartments enclosed on all sides to avoid fire and smoke migration beyond each engaged compartment. A non-fire rated curtain wall prevents the complete compartment (or envelope) from being fire rated. The provision of fire stopping at the joint of the floor slab and curtain wall can still add to the overall fire safety of the building by slowing the advance of the fire in the building interior from floor to floor. The use of fire sprinklers has been shown to mitigate the spread of fire by keeping the fire from growing to a size large enough to cause structural damage and break the exterior glass. If the building is not equipped with sprinklers, the fire can travel up the outside of the curtain wall if the glass on the floor of fire origin is shattered due to radiant heat, causing flames to lick up the outside of the building, resulting in the glass in floors above to break. Falling glass can endanger pedestrians, firefighters and firehoses below. An example of mode of fire pread is the First Interstate Bank Fire in Los Angeles, California^[4]. This building is now the Aon Center.

The fire leapfrogged up the tower by shattering the glass. The exterior curtain wall aluminium skeleton holding the glass failed. Exceptionally sound cementitious spray fireproofing also helped to delay and ultimately to avoid the possible collapse of the building^[5], by preventing the steel building structure from reaching the critical temperature at which steel weakens and can no longer hold its intended load^[6]. This fire proved the positive collective effect of both active fire protection (sprinklers) to control fire size in its incipient stages^[7], and passive fire protection (fireproofing) if the fire sprinklers are not effective^[8].

• I don't object to the changes and citations suggested by Fireproeng. On the topic of the melting of the aluminium, the pictures and news coverage immediately after the fire, on TV, showed the facade completely gone on the engaged floors. In fire tests I have run, the aluminium components are usually on the bottom of the furnace in a puddle, afterwards, which is explained by the melting temperature of that element and common fire temperatures. But if you need that basic fact backed up in other ways, I won't argue. As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and make the changes you proposed and then get rid of the tags. It will be interesting to see though, if the guy will put the tags back up, which is what he has done so far. Let's see if he disagrees with you too and then tags it again. --Achim (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Achim, I beleive you that the aluminum curtain wall framing tends to melt in tests. Whether the structure peeled away from the building structure in this particular fire before it had a chance to melt would need a source before it could be added to the article. Let's see if Coccyx_Bloccyx wants to wade in with an opinion before I change the article, just so I don't waste my time. Cheers. Fireproeng (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. It all disappeared. I remember the news on TV when you could see the bare floors with the whole facade gone on the engaged floors. We know the melting temperature of aluminium and the E119 curve. The rest is academic. Whether the frame fell off because it just softened enought around the fasteners or the framing melted first, really is immaterial. It's not rated. It can't be rated unles you build it to last in a fire and get a listing that supports it. It all went to seed and fell in sharp bits and pieces to the ground below, shredding hoses, endangering pedestrians, until they let the sprinkler guy in to turn on his system after the bulbs in the heads were melted glass on the floor with the liquid long vapourised. The firestop there only buys a few minutes, but the fact is that it's there and it's there to extend the rating of the slab right to the unrated facade and it buys a bit of time and the code calls for it and you've got a lot of time and money going into products and labour to make that happen on construction sites all over the place. You seal the joint, you sprinkler the floor, you do it in an approved manner and there is no argument between you and I on that score that I can see. Coccyx_Bloccyx keeps tagging though, no matter what and he has refused all attempts by you, me, Elkman and Steve to come up with anything specific that warrants his continued tagging. He is on a mission of deletions and he selectively edits his talk page when people take him on and he does not have any answers. At least you go into the specifics. I went a long way to find back-up on all the stuff you tagged in what I wrote and then you did not question those things anymore. We haven't argued specifics in quite some time but at least we could argue specifics. The last one was UL's permission for my design of the firestop mortar listing. I got a specific statement from UL on it. Case closed. Not so with this guy. This is just one of many articles that he has targeted. Even when you commented on his page, he twisted it before he removed it entirely. When that guy was thanking him for something, below which you commented, the line above was about something entirely different. I clarified it by responding to you and he removed that pretty much right away. We'll see if he responds to you. So far, he has not responded specifically to anyone else on here. The reason for this is that he cannot. --Achim (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] references

The Curtain wall article also contains repeats of this info, and should be deleted and referenced to this article.

Fireproeng (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd have liked to know about this, instead of having to find it on my watchlist. Anyway, I did suggest something, here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The proposal here solves the issue of multiple citations ot th same refernce, but does not address the logical disconnections between the sources and the article. The style you cite is a better one than I've used, certainly. Fireproeng (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)