host institutionfunded by 1 experimental seismic fragility of steel studded gypsum partition walls...
TRANSCRIPT
Host Institution Funded by
1
Experimental Seismic Fragility of Steel Studded Gypsum Partition Walls and
Fire Sprinkler Piping SubsystemsAndre Filiatrault, Gilberto Mosqueda, Rodrigo Retamales, Ryan Davies,
YuanTian, and Jessica FuchsDepartment of Civil Structural and Environmental Engineering
University at Buffalo
NSF Award CMMI 0721399NEESR-GC: Simulation of the Seismic Performance of Nonstructural Systems
PI Manos Maragakis, University at Nevada, Reno
Quake Summit 2010NEES& PEER Annual Meeting
San Francisco, Oct 8-9, 2010
Host Institution Funded by
2
Contents
1. Objectives of NEESR Nonstructural GC subsystem testing program at University at Buffalo
2. Experimental seismic fragility of steel-studded gypsum partition walls
3. Experimental seismic fragility of sprinkler piping systems
Host Institution Funded by
33
1. Objectives of NEESR Nonstructural GCSubsystem Experiments
• Carry out an extensive experimental program to evaluate the seismic response, failure mechanisms, and fragilities of – steel-stud gypsum partition
walls– sprinkler piping– ceiling systems
• Develop protective technologies and design details to enhance seismic performance of nonstructural systems
Host Institution Funded by
44
2. Experimental seismic fragility of steel-studded gypsum partitions walls
• Specimen details and parameters selected with advice from practice committee– Material– Connection details– Geometry– Static/dynamic testing
• Fifty specimens tested (22 configurations)
Host Institution Funded by
5
2'
12'-2"
Stud 350S125-18 (Typ) Spaced 24" o.c. (Typ) Track 350T125-18 (Typ)
Gypsum 58" in thickness (Typ)Cornerbead 1-1
4" (Typ)
• Typical 12 foot wall with returns and corner details
Self Drill Screw #6at 12" o.c. (boundaries and field)
5/8" Gypsum Board (Typ)
Steel Stud SSMA 350S125-18 (Typ)
Self Drill Screw #6at 8" o.c. on boundaries and 12" o.c. on field
Steel Stud SSMA 350S125-30 (Typ)
5/8" Gypsum Board (Typ)
Self Drill Screw #8 at 18" o.c.
Commercial Construction (ASTM, 2007) Institutional Construction (SSMA, 2001)
Partition Wall Configurations
2’-4’
Host Institution Funded by
6
Stud 350S125-18
Track 350T125-18
Stud Not Connected to Bottom Track
Gypsum Connected to Bottom Track
Shot Pins @24" o.c. (Typ)
Gypsum Connection to Stud
Track 350T125-18 No Bridging
Channel
Gypsum Not Connected to Top Track
1/2" Gap
Gap
Basic Connection (Slip Track)
Stud 350S125-18
Track 350T125-18
Stud Connected to Bottom Track
Gypsum Connected to Bottom Track
Shot Pins @24" o.c. (Typ)
Stud Connected to Top Track
Track 350T125-18 No Bridging
Channel
Gypsum Connected to Top Track
1/4-1/2" Gap
Gap
Full Connection
• Typical framing and sheathing connectivity details
Partition Wall Configurations
Basic Connection (slip track)
Full Connection
Host Institution Funded by
7
DE1
DLTTE
DLTSE DLTtTE
DVTSEDVTtSE
DVTTE
DLTTW
DLTSWDLTtTW
DVTSWDVTtSW
DVTTW
DLBTE
DLBSE DLBtTE
DVBSE
DVBtSEDVBTE
DLBTW
DLBSWDLBtTW
DVBSWDVBtSW
DVBTW
(DI1)
DE2(DI2)
RVDWE(RVDWI)
RVDEE(RVDEI)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5Quasi-Static Interstory Drift Protocol
Peak Number
Pea
k A
mpl
itude
(in)
Detailed damage inspection
Maximum drift imposed: Max=3.0%
Minimum drift imposed: Min=0.15%
UB-NCS Testing Protocols and InstrumentationQuasi-static protocol and instrumentation for in-plane testing
Host Institution Funded by
8
List of specimens and configurations
testedStud to Bottom Track
Stud to Top Track
Gypsum to Bottom Track
Gypsum to Top Track
Return Walls
Attached Mass
Ceiling Connected
1 1, 2 & 3 Basic (slip track) In Plane/Static 350S125-18 No No Yes No Yes No No2 4 Gypsum connected to top track In Plane/Static 350S125-18 No No Yes Yes Yes No No3 5, 6 & 10 No Return In Plane/Static 350S125-18 No No Yes Yes No No No4 7, 8 & 9 Full connection In Plane/Static 350S125-18 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No5 11, 12 & 13 Bookshelf In Plane/Dynamic 350S125-18 No No Yes No No Yes No6 14, 15, & 16 Equivalent Ceiling In Plane/Dynamic 350S125-18 Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes7 17, 18 & 19 Partial height braced wall In Plane/Static 350S125-18 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No8 20, 21 & 22 Institutional const./slip track In Plane/Static 350S125-30 Yes No Yes No Yes No No9 23, 24 & 26 Institutional const./Full Connection@24" In Plane/Static 350S125-30 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No10 25, 27 & 28 Institutional const./Full Connection@12" In Plane/static 350S125-30 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No11 29 & 30 No Return/Dynamic In Plane/Dynamic 350S125-18 No No Yes No No Yes No12 31 & 32 C-Shaped Walls In Plane/Static 350S125-18 Yes No Yes No Yes No No13 33 Solution to T corner damage/corner gaps In Plane/Static 350S125-18 Yes No Yes No Yes No No14 34 Solution to T corner damage/double slip track In Plane/Static 350S125-18 No No No No Yes No No15 35 Solution to L corner damage/corner gaps In Plane/Static 350S125-18 Yes No Yes No Yes No No16 36 Solution to T corner damage/slip track In Plane/Static 350S125-18 Yes No Yes No Yes No No17 37 Unloaded Wall w/ Returns Out of Plane/Dynamic 350S125-18 No No Yes No Yes No No18 38 Unloaded Wall w/o Returns Out of Plane/Dynamic 350S125-18 No No Yes No No No No19 39, 45 & 47 Bookshelf wall w/ returns Out of Plane/Dynamic 350S125-18 No No Yes No Yes Yes No20 40, 41 & 43 Bookshelf wall w/o returns Out of Plane/Dynamic 350S125-18 No No Yes No No Yes No21 42, 44 & 46 Equivalent Ceiling wall w/ returns Out of Plane/Dynamic 350S125-18 Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes22 48, 49 & 50 Partial height braced wall Out of Plane/Dynamic 350S125-18 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Config
Steel Frame and Sheathing Connectivity
Specimen ID Specimen DescriptionLoading
Direction/RateSteel Stud
Type
Partition Wall Configurations
Host Institution Funded by
9
• Specimens 1, 2 & 3 (Basic), & Specimen 4 (Gypsum connected to top track)–Top “slip track” acted as intended:
• Limited damage to in-plane wall• Damage concentrated in return walls
top tracks• Spec 4 performed similarly to specs 1 to
3 after failure of connection of gypsum to top track
• Crushing of gypsum in wall corners
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
Hysteresis Loop Specimen 2
Interstory Drift Ratio (%)
For
ce (
Kip
)
Partitions Subsystem In-Plane Experiments
Host Institution Funded by
10
• Specimens 20, 21 & 22 (Institutional/slip track)– Failure of bottom and top tracks of
transverse walls– Severe damage of sheathing in transverse
walls– Severe damage of studs at wall
intersection– Damage along vertical edges of
longitudinal walls
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3Hysteresis Loop Specimen 20
Interstory Drift Ratio (%)F
orce
(K
ip)
Partitions Subsystem In-Plane Experiments
Host Institution Funded by
11
• Specimens 23, 24 & 26 (Institutional/Full Connection@24”)
– Crushing of gypsum around screws connecting to top track and plastic hinge forming on studs due to bending (Specimen 23)
– Bottom tracks slip after fasteners passing thru tracks and damage along joints between gypsum boards (Specimen 24)
– Tears in all bottom track connections and global wall slip (Specimen 26)
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10Hysteresis Loop North Wall
Interstory Drift Ratio (%)
For
ce (
Kip
)
Specimen 23
Specimen 24
Specimen 24
Specimen 26
Partitions Subsystem In-Plane Experiments
Host Institution Funded by
12
Partitions Subsystem Out-of-Plane Experiments• Specimens 40, 41 & 43, and 39, 45 & 47
(Bookshelf/Walls without and with Returns)– Screws pulled out from gypsum to stud
connections & damage in bookshelf connectors
– Damage along horizontal joints between gypsum wallboards and along cornerbeads
– Collapse of Specimens 40, 43b & 47 (All of them, re-used walls)
Host Institution Funded by
13
Partition Wall Subsystems Out-of-Plane Experiments
• Specimens 48, 49 & 50 (Partial Height Braced Walls with Returns)– Screws pulled out from connection of braces to top track– Buckling of steel braces– Buckling of top track around brace connections
Host Institution Funded by
14
Fragility Assessment Partition Wall Subsystem
Definition of Damage States
Description of Damage Associated Repair ActionsDS1 Superficial damage
to the wallsCracks along cornerbeads, cracks along joint paper tape, screws pulled out from connections of gypsum boards to steel framing
Cosmetic repairs, including: replacement of cornerbeads, replacement of screws pulled out, replacement of joint paper tape, application of joint compound, sanding, and painting
DS2 Local damage of gypsum wallboards and/or steel frame components
Crushing of wall corners, out-of-plane bending and cracking of gypsum wallboards at wall intersections, damage of screws connecting wallboards to boundary studs, bending of boundary studs, buckling of diagonal braces (partial height partition walls), damage of gypsum wallboards around ceiling connectors or damage induced by ceiling impact
Local repairs, including: repair or replacement of gypsum wallboards, replacement of boundary studs, replacement of seismic braces, replacement of ceiling connectors
DS3 Severe damage to walls
Tears in steel tracks around connectors of track to concrete slab, track fasteners passing thru track webs, track flanges bent at wall intersections, hinges forming in studs, partition wall collapse
Replacement of partition wall (Steel framing and wallboards)
Damage State
Host Institution Funded by
15
Fragility Assessment Partition Wall SubsystemFragility Data for Group 0: All Specimens Tested In-plane
Peirce’s criterion verified
Mj
ii 1
1lnr
Mjmx e
2M 2
j j j 2i m u
i 1
1ln r x
M 1
r
j=1, 2 and 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 31 32 33 34 35 36 x m r
Cracks along longitudinal wall corner beads - - - - 0.20 0.40 - - - 0.20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.40 0.20 - 0.20 -
Crack along boundary joint paper tape / pulled paper tape / crushing wall vertical edges 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.62 - - 0.20 0.40 0.20 - 1.00 1.16 2.66 0.20 0.40 1.00 0.40 0.62 0.40 0.62 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.62 0.20 1.00 - 0.40
Gypsumboard screw popout / rocking (top track) - - - 0.62 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 - - 0.62 - - - 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.62 0.40 - - - - - -
Gypsumboard screw popout / rocking (bottom track) 0.62 0.62 - 0.40 0.62 0.81 0.40 0.62 0.40 1.84 - - - - - - 0.62 1.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 - - - 1.16 - -
Minumum Drift Level Triggering DS1 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.40 0.20 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.81 0.81 0.62 0.20 0.40 0.62 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.40 0.20 1.00 0.20 0.40
Damage in gypsumboard transverse wall 0.62 0.62 0.62 1.16 - - 1.99 1.99 - - - - - 1.35 0.81 0.62 - 1.16 1.00 1.00 1.35 1.16 1.84 1.84 - 1.57 - 1.35
Crushing partition wall corners 2.82 3.00 0.62 0.62 0.40 0.62 0.62 2.32 0.40 1.00 - - - 1.16 - - 0.81 1.35 0.40 - 0.62 0.81 - - - - - -
Gypsum detached from boundary stud / boundary stud bending 0.62 0.62 1.00 1.16 1.00 1.00 1.99 1.00 0.81 1.84 - - - 2.15 1.00 2.15 1.35 2.15 1.99 2.15 1.00 1.35 1.99 1.99 - 1.99 - 1.00
Damage along gypsumboads edges - - - - - - - 2.32 - - - - - 1.35 - - 1.16 0.40 0.40 1.57 1.00 - 1.99 - - - - -
Buckling of seismic braces / bending of top track around brace connection (partial height walls) - - - - - - - - - - 0.81 0.81 1.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Failure of seismic braces connectors (partial height walls) - - - - - - - - - - 2.15 2.66 2.15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Failure of connectors of studs at walls intersection (institutional construction) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.00 1.16 - - 0.81 - - 1.35 1.99 - - - 1.35 - 1.99
Minumum Drift Level Triggering DS2 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.40 0.62 0.62 1.00 0.40 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.00 0.81 0.62 0.81 0.40 0.40 1.00 0.62 0.81 0.62 1.00 - 1.35 - 0.62
Damage in track fasteners of transverse wall / bending flanges in top track of transverse wall 0.62 1.00 0.62 1.16 - - 1.00 1.00 0.81 - - - 0.81 2.32 - 1.00 3.00 1.35 - 1.00 1.99 2.32 0.62 1.00 - 1.84 - 0.62
Longitudinal wall track fastening failure - - - - 2.32 2.66 1.84 - 0.62 0.81 1.99 - - - - 1.99 2.15 1.16 0.81 1.84 - - 1.00 - - - - -
Failure connection top tracks perpendicular walls (partial height walls) - - - - - - - - - - - 1.84 1.57 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gypsumboard field screw popout / rocking, associated (presummably) to hinge forming in field stud - - - - - - - 1.16 - - - - - - - - 1.00 1.35 0.62 - 0.81 0.81 - - - 1.99 - -
Minumum Drift Level Triggering DS3 0.62 1.00 0.62 1.16 2.32 2.66 1.00 1.00 0.62 0.81 1.99 1.84 0.81 2.32 - 1.00 1.00 1.16 0.62 1.00 0.81 0.81 0.62 1.00 - 1.84 - 0.62
Summary of Drift Levels (%) Triggering Damage States in Steel Framed Gypsum Partition Walls
0.69 0.30 0.39
1.04 0.49 0.55
Fragility Data
0.35 0.50 0.56
Specimen ID
Dam
age
Stat
e
DS 1
Dam
age
Obs
erva
tion
DS 2
Dam
age
Obs
erva
tion
DS 3
Dam
age
Obs
.
Fragility Curves for Group 0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Interstory Drift (%)
Pro
bab
lilit
y o
f E
xcee
dan
ce
DS1
DS2
DS3
(All Specimens)
Lilliefors’ goodness-of-fit test (5% significance level)
analyzed
Experimental fragility curves obtained following criteria in document “Developing Fragility Functions for Building Components for ATC-58” by K. Porter, R. Kennedy and B. Bachman (Method A)
u 0.25
Host Institution Funded by
16
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Fragility Curves for Group 4
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Interstory Drift (%)
Pro
bab
lilit
y o
f E
xcee
dan
ce
DS1
Fragility Curves for Group 1a
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Interstory Drift (%)
Pro
bab
lilit
y o
f E
xcee
dan
ce
DS1
DS2
DS3
Fragility Curves for Group 1b
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Interstory Drift (%)
Pro
bab
lilit
y o
f E
xcee
dan
ce
DS1
DS2
DS3
Fragility Curves for Group 1c
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Interstory Drift (%)
Pro
bab
lilit
y o
f E
xcee
dan
ce
DS1
DS2
DS3
No damage observed for DS2 and DS3
Longitudinal wall induce failure of
transverse wall track fasteners
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Fragility Curves for Group 3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Interstory Drift (%)
Pro
bab
lilit
y o
f E
xcee
dan
ce
DS1
DS2
DS3
Damage in tape (DS1) happening at the
same time of brace buckling (DS2)
Fragility Curves for Group 2a
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Interstory Drift (%)
Pro
bab
lilit
y o
f E
xcee
dan
ce
DS1
DS2
Fragility Curves for Group 2b
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Interstory Drift (%)
Pro
bab
lilit
y o
f E
xcee
dan
ce
DS1
DS2
DS3
Fragility Curves for Group 2c
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Interstory Drift (%)
Pro
bab
lilit
y o
f E
xcee
dan
ce
DS1
DS2
DS3
x m x m x m 0 0.35 0.56 0.69 0.39 1.04 0.55
0.26 0.45 0.68 0.35 0.75 0.360.27 0.44 0.61 0.41 1.18 0.590.27 0.43 0.64 0.38 0.96 0.610.36 0.55 0.79 0.34 - -0.40 0.25 0.63 0.43 0.88 0.330.42 0.31 0.69 0.40 0.98 0.52
3 0.74 0.29 0.81 0.25 1.43 0.474 0.34 0.77 - - - -
Full-height specimens. Institutional construction practice and partial/full connectionsFull-height specimens. Institutional construction practice (slip tracks and full connection)
Specimens including improved corner detailsPartial-height specimens3
4
DS1 DS2 DS3DescriptionSub GroupGroup
1c2a2b2c
01a1b1
2
All specimen dataFull-height specimens. Commercial construction practice and slip tracksFull-height specimens. Commercial construction practice and partial/full connectionsFull-height specimens. Commercial construction practice (slip tracks and full connection)Full-height specimens. Institutional construction practice and slip tracks
Commercial Const. Slip Track
Commercial Const. Full Connection
Commercial Const. All
Specimens
Partial Height
Institutional Const. Slip Track
Institutional Const. Full Connection
Institutional Const. All
Specimens
Improved Corner Details
Host Institution Funded by
1717
3. Experimental seismic fragility of sprinkler piping components
• Specimen details and parameters selected with advice from practice committee– Material– Connection type– Pipe diameter
• 48 T-joint specimens tested under cycle loading
• Dynamic subassembly test currently under construction
Host Institution Funded by
18
Test Setup
• The ends of pipes are sealed with caps and slid into couplers welded to the support.
• Couplers allow small rotations to simulate pin connections at the end of the pipes.
• All pipes are filled with water under city pressure (40 psi measured pressure) to detect leakage.
• Typical test specimen layout and instrumentation
Host Institution Funded by
19
Testing Protocols
• Testing protocols for monotonic tests– Constant velocity: 0.01 in/sec
• Quasi-static protocols for cyclic tests
0 200 400 600 800 1000-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
time (sec)
Am
plitu
de (
in)
0 200 400 600 800 1000-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
time (sec)
Vel
ocity
(in
/sec
)
Host Institution Funded by
2020
Test MatrixPipe / Fitting Material Pipe / Fitting Size
(inches)Number of
Monotonic Tests Number of Cyclic Tests Testing Status
Black Iron (Threaded) 6 1 3 Completed
Black Iron (Threaded) 4 1 3 Completed
Black Iron (Threaded) 2 1 3 Completed
Black Iron (Threaded) 1 1 3 Completed
Black Iron (Threaded) 3/4 1 3 Completed
CPVC (Cement Joint) 2 1 3 Completed
CPVC (Cement Joint) 1 1 3 Completed
CPVC (Cement Joint) 3/4 1 3 Completed
Steel (Groove Fit Connection Schedule 40) 4 1 3 Completed
Steel (Groove Fit Connection Schedule 40) 2 1 3 Completed
Steel (Groove Fit Connection Schedule 10) 4 1 3
Steel (Groove Fit Connection Schedule 10) 2 1 3
Total Test: 48
Host Institution Funded by
2121
Piping Tests Phase 1• Identify moment and rotation at joints at which
damage state occur The 1st damage state --- first leakage The 2nd damage state --- complete fracture at tee joint
Host Institution Funded by
22
Test ResultsSpecimen BIT 2-1 (Monotonic test)
– Force-displacement relation at the tee joint (right)
– Moment-rotation relation at the left end of the tee joint--Potentiometer 3 and 4 (bottom left)
– Moment-rotation relation at the right end of the tee joint--Potentiometer 5 and 6 (bottom right)
* The vertical red lines on these plots indicate the occurrence of the first leakage
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Displacement (in)
For
ce (
kips
)
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.120
5
10
15
20
25
Rotation (rad)
Mom
ent
(kip
-in)
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
5
10
15
20
25
Rotation (rad)
Mom
ent
(kip
-in)
Host Institution Funded by
23
Test ResultsSpecimen BIT 2-3 (Cyclic test)
– Force-displacement relation at the tee joint (right)
– Moment-rotation relation at the left end of the tee joint--Potentiometer 3 and 4 (bottom left)
– Moment-rotation relation at the right end of the tee joint--Potentiometer 5 and 6 (bottom right)
Peak value on cycle used for rotation fragility calculationPeak value on cycle used for moment fragility calculationIndicates instantaneous occurrence of first leak
* The red cycles on these plots indicate the cycle during which occurrence of the first leakage happened
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Displacement (in)
For
ce (
kips
)
-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Rotation (rad)
Mom
ent
(kip
-in)
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Rotation (rad)
Mom
ent
(kip
-in)
Host Institution Funded by
2424
Summary of Damage Observations
Pipe threads erode due to slippage and Teflon tape degrades Pipe threads fracture at the edge of
tee joint Glue slips and pipe pulls out from tee joint Pipe peels off the inner surface of tee
joint
Coupling ruptures Damage on the groove of pipe Damage on the groove of tee joint Pipe fractures at the edge of tee joint
Host Institution Funded by
2525
Piping Test Result Summary for Phase 1• Summary of fragility curves
-- Same color indicates pipes of same size;
-- Same line style indicates pipes of same material.
Host Institution Funded by
Dynamic Test Proposal of Sprinkler Piping System
26
Component Quantity
Sprinkler head 11
Transverse sway brace 3
Wire restraint 2
Ceiling box 6
Vertical hanger 8
Piping System:• Riser (4 in)• Main line (4 in)• Branch line (2 in & 1 in)
Host Institution Funded by
Dynamic Test Proposal of Sprinkler Piping System
27
• Long Branch Line Test
• Main Line and Riser Test Legend Note
4-way seismic brace
Sprinkle pipe
Sprinkler head
Vertical hanger
Lateral bracing
Wire restraint
Mass block
Host Institution Funded by
28
Test matrix
MAINLINE & RISER MATERIAL BRANCH LINE MATERIAL NUMBER OF TEST
Schedule 10 Steel Groove Fit Connection
Schedule 40 Black Iron Threaded 1
CPVC (cement joint) 1
Schedule 40 (Dynaflo) 1
Schedule 40 Steel Groove Fit Connection Schedule 40 Black Iron Threaded 1
Total: 4
Host Institution Funded by
29
QUESTIONS/DISCUSSIONS