Bruce,
Your points are quite well taken. One of the concepts for which I gained a better understanding during the six-story building seismic testing in 2012 was the real value of flexible couplings in certain locations to protect the sprinkler system from damage during an earthquake. The goal for that protection along with the bracing and restraint is to have the sprinkler system still be functional after an earthquake. Some of the video from that testing also reinforced the requirement in 9.3.5.13 mandating that bracing shall not be attached to sections with differential movement. It was very surprising to see how much oppositional movement between adjacent structural members took place during the testing. Some of the videos are available on Youtube. An introductory look is here <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oJ-4Oq5YRA>. The overall report video is here <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LA3uLEE2jY>. Proud to say that I was a small (on the sub-atomic level) of this project.
*Ken Wagoner, SET
*Parsley Consulting***
*350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206
*Escondido, California 92025
*****Phone 760-745-6181*
Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> ***

On Sep 21, 2016 7:30 PM, "Bruce Verhei" <bver...@comcast.net <mailto:bver...@comcast.net>> wrote:

    I don't have 13 in front of me. But personal experience is that
    pipe that is attached to roof, and then down to columns, racks, or
    (tilt-up) walls is subject to breaking when the ground moves. This
    seemed worse when attachment to one surface is rigid, i.e.
    Unistrut-type channel and clip. Walls and racks seemed worse than
    columns.

    I was quite shocked at how effective flex couplings were at
    reducing failures.

    Many breaks I saw were in auxiliary drain and inspector's test
    drops. 1". While causing property damage flow would not have
    caused system to fail to control fire. Would larger hose stream
    supply pipes failures cause inadequate flow to remain in system?

    Hmm. I don't know that 13 identifies a goal. Sufficient
    post-earthquake integrity to control fire? Or very few failures
    causing property damage?

    See wikipedia, Nisqually earthquake. Silty, with some layers of
    muck, soils of the Kent valley.

    Best

    Bruce Verhei

    Sent from my iPhone


_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Reply via email to