Bob,
The language below is from the handbook, and might help in deciphering
the requirements:
The seismic separation assembly shown in Figure A.9.3.3(a) or Figure
A.9.3.3(b) is
intended to provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate the
substantial relative motion
that can be expected at building seismic separation joints. In many
cases, providing
each building section with its own riser can be more economical.
The seismic separation assembly is not required on piping located
below ground level.
Other aspects of earthquake protection, such as bracing and
restraint, are, nevertheless, required
below ground level.
The seismic separation assembly is required for all piping that
crosses seismic joints at
ground level and above, including branch lines, without regard for
pipe size.
Several listed flexible piping assemblies are now available that can
be used as seismic
separation assemblies where they provide the intended flexibility.
The provision of intended
flexibility means that the assemblies must be designed to allow full
closure of the seismic separation,
opening of the seismic separation to twice its original width, and
offsets in both the
vertical and horizontal planes equal to the width of the seismic
separation.
There is no requirement that a listed device be used for this
purpose, but the piping
configuration to be used as a seismic separation assembly must be
approved by the
authority having jurisdiction
Hope that gives you some clarification of the intent. Insert NFPA
committee disclaimer here.
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>e-mail
www.ParsleyConsulting.com <http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com>website
On 10/20/2011 5:20 PM, Ron Greenman wrote:
Bob,
I'd go to my Lubrizol rep for this. The language seems a little too limp to
hang a hat on.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Bob<[email protected]> wrote:
I'll try to answer my own question in part. 13, 9.3.3.2 states, "shall
consist of flexible fittings or flexible piping". Under the Advantages
heading Blazemaster states " Flexibility in the piping for greater ease of
installation" and "Greater resistance to seismic activity than copper or
steel systems". Based on this it seems to me that the expansion loop would
suffice. Can anyone back this up or demonstrate why it's incorrect?
Thanks,
Bob Knight, CET III
208-318-3057
www.firebyknight.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:09 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Seismic Separation Assembly
In regard to seismic separation assemblies, are they required for CPVC
piping? If they are, does the expansion loop that blazemaster requires
satisfy the requirement?
Thanks,
Bob Knight, CET III
208-318-3057
www.firebyknight.com
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
