There is some vertical movement in the vids but it is minimal. Each flexible joint allows a degree of movement (0.5 to 1 degree per joint?). It doesn't matter if the movement at the joint is vertical or horizontal. Watch the vids again and see the amount of horizontal movement between the pipe and joint. In your mind (or turn your head sideways), turn that video 90 degrees and the horizontal movement would be the same for the vertical movement.
Tom On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 3:46 PM Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum < [email protected]> wrote: > Thank you Tom! Helpful in that these show the rotational capability of > the coupled ells, but the assembly doesn’t really jump up and down > vertically as I hoped it might because the tests appear to have been based > on applying only horizontal forces. > > SML > > From: Tom Wellen <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:21 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Steve Leyton <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Seismic joint detail > > 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]<mailto: > [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] > <mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of > AKS-Gmail-IMAP via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 12:02 PM > To: [email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]> > Cc: AKS-Gmail-IMAP <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto: > [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>< > 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]<mailto: > [email protected]> > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org<http://er.org> > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]> > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected]<mailto: > [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/> > > [ > https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1XiIfUFuqsIaS8hV1L5l0ILOBi77_zkXN&revid=0Bxj0TVkMtq_4d2VORjRBdnUvREZkZ0U1WmpyNTdHbUc5c1dZPQ > ]<http://fireeac.com/> > _______________________________________________ > 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
