Vic is not testing vertical displacement in these videos and they are also taking advantage of lots to space. It would be interesting to know if that setup was designed to Vic guidelines where you do not approach the maximum coupling deflection so that the pipe or fitting ends never butt each other. Having built the pvc model prior to the wager comment I would have reservations for your situation. You might win the bet on a technicality but it seemed to me one must see one of these in action to fully understand how it must be installed to get it to accommodate both lateral/vertical and inline movement. Everything inside the outer two fittings has to be able to move anywhere. So no hangers or guides. This thing will occupy a blob of space. Lateral and vertical displacement are the same thing, just the viewpoint is different. The assembly easily does that displacement but there is an inline displacement that happens. The assembly needs to do some not so obvious twisting to remove the inline displacement. Clamp one pipe end in a vise and makes sure all the fittings are well lubed when testing the pvc model. I am sure the Vic sales people would be happy to mock one up in small pipe. They do not need to have any elaborate machinery. You’re job sounds government, so they cannot be a flat spec, but I bet they would be interested since they would also have a shot at the mechanical piping systems.
> On 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
