Thanks for sharing those video links Ken.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Parsley Consulting <
parsleyconsult...@cox.net> wrote:

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

Reply via email to