Here are some Victaulic video links of the shake, rattle and roll. https://youtu.be/tPaRcqt4qPI https://youtu.be/xsG8_Nz-ym4 https://youtu.be/5ro8SnECHQU
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 2:54 PM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum < [email protected]> wrote: > I appreciate the overview and wagering strategy but the SEOR is a friendly > on this one and there's nothing conventional about this application. It's > a tunnel, 40' below the street that communicates from one building to > another across two public streets and an intervening block in DT San > Diego. And crosses a fault, so a high likelihood of short waveform > movement if there's ever an event. So we have the fault zone, the two > building basement crossings and some other flexure points that we're trying > to resolve. On top of all that, it's highly secure and there's limited > space above detention-grade ceilings, so the required clearances for > movement apparently can't be fully realized. The contractor has expressed > a preference for the multiple 90s on this one because of space constraints > and since this is a very sensitive project and everyone is earnestly > working to get it right, I've been tasked with establishing what range of > vertical movement the detail in the NFPA figure is capable of. Also trying > to verify if it's been field tested (it has, apparently) and whether it's > been lab tested or whether there is any particular requirement for vertical > movement specifically. The language of 9.3.3.2 is confusing, with > reference made to open and closing of the joint and also to, "...movement > relative to the separation in the other two dimensions..." What "other > two dimensions", time and space? > > SML > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> On > Behalf Of AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 12:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: AKS-Gmail-IMAP <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Seismic joint detail > > If we are referring to the six flexible coupling seismic separation > assembly that every contractor finds an alternative, make a sizable wager > with the structural engineer that the assembly provides vertical movement. > Make sure the winnings cover the cost of six ½” pvc fittings and a four > foot stick of ½” pvc pipe. Make the thing up and fool with it for some time > before you present your case so that you can move it around to show it off > like you know what you are doing, because at first it might look awkward > enough that the engineer will cry foul. By the way, the details for this > six coupling assembly show vertical accommodation in the elevation detail. > You might obfuscate the demonstration by asking how much differential > seismic movement this engineer is really expecting. Differential seismic > lateral motion is due to how easy it is for one structural building section > to be different in lateral flexibility than the next building section, i.e. > across the seismic separation joint. Each building section will wiggle > differently than the next. The difference shows up at the joint. Vertical > differential flexibility, in other words “pogoing” differently than the > next structural section is not happening very much, if any. Buildings are > relatively much more vertically stiff than they are horizontally stiff. I > might bet the structural engineer has not tried to calculate this. What > might be the case, like this building is in Houston Texas which I believe > has more seismic faults going on than any other US city, is that the > structural engineer knows the building project has to span a known fault > and so the structure is actually anticipating differential vertical > movement at the joint. > Allan Seidel > St. Louis, MO > > > On Oct 19, 2021, at 11:45 AM, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > A question was raised by a project structural engineer about the NFPA 13 > seismic joint detail shown in Fig. A.9.3.3(a), 2016 edition for reference. > Does anyone know if this configuration has ever been tested/measured? > Has it been verified as an acceptable OMNI-DIRECTIONAL solution? The > engineer in question is looking at the detail and in his judgement, it's > only a 2D solution. There are lateral and longitudinal movements shown, > but not a vertical one. If there are installation or hanger/bracing > committee people who can chime in, I'm wondering if this figure has been > vetted and that's why it's still in the standard. Bottom line: Is Fig. > A.9.3.3(a) equivalent to a listed seismic loop? > > > > > > Steve Leyton, President > > Protection Design and Consulting > > T | 619.255.8964 x 102 | > > www.protectiondesign.com<http://www.protectiondesign.com/> > > 2851 Camino Del Rio South | Suite 210 | San Diego, CA 92108 Fire > > Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > -- Tom Wellen - May '91 Senior Fire Protection Consultant Fire Engineering & Consulting, LLC (972) 355-2159 fireeac.com <http://fireeac.com/> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
