Andre Filiatrault, Gilberto Mosqueda, Rodrigo Retamales, Ryan Davies, YuanTian, and Jessica Fuchs

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

http://www.psu.edu/

http://www.curee.org/


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

http://www.psu.edu/



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

http://www.psu.edu/



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)

http://www.psu.edu/



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’

http://www.psu.edu/



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 detailsPartition Wall Configurations

Basic Connection (slip track)

Full Connection

http://www.psu.edu/



7

DE1

DLTTEDLTSE DLTtTE

DVTSEDVTtSE

DVTTE

DLTTWDLTSW

DLTtTW

DVTSWDVTtSW

DVTTW

DLBTEDLBSE DLBtTE

DVBSEDVBtSE

DVBTEDLBTW

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

http://www.psu.edu/



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 Description Loading Direction/Rate

Steel Stud Type

Partition Wall Configurations

http://www.psu.edu/



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 (%)

Forc

e (K

ip)

Partitions Subsystem In-Plane Experiments

http://www.psu.edu/



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 (%)Fo

rce

(Kip

)


http://www.psu.edu/



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 (%)

Forc

e (K

ip)

Specimen 23

Specimen 24

Specimen 24

Specimen 26


http://www.psu.edu/



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)

http://www.psu.edu/



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

http://www.psu.edu/



14

Fragility Assessment Partition Wall SubsystemDefinition 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

http://www.psu.edu/



15

Fragility Assessment Partition Wall SubsystemFragility Data for Group 0: All Specimens Tested In-plane

Peirce’s criterion verifiedM

ji

i 1

1 lnrMj

mx e

2M 2

j j j 2i m u

i 1

1 ln r xM 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 - 0.40Gypsumboard 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 0.40Damage 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 - 1.35Crushing 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 - 1.00Damage 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 - 1.99Minumum 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 - 0.62Damage 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 - 0.62Longitudinal 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 (%)

Prob

ablil

ity o

f Exc

eeda

nce

DS1DS2DS3

(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

http://www.psu.edu/



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


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


Prob

ablil

ity o

f Exc

eeda

nce

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


Prob

ablil

ity o

f Exc

eeda

nce

DS1DS2DS3

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


Prob

ablil

ity o

f Exc

eeda

nce

DS1DS2DS3

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


Prob

ablil

ity o

f Exc

eeda

nce

DS1DS2DS3

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


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


Prob

ablil

ity o

f Exc

eeda

nce

DS1DS2DS3

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


Prob

ablil

ity o

f Exc

eeda

nce

DS1DS2

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


Prob

ablil

ity o

f Exc

eeda

nce

DS1DS2DS3

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


Prob

ablil

ity o

f Exc

eeda

nce

DS1DS2DS3

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

http://www.psu.edu/



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

http://www.psu.edu/



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

http://www.psu.edu/



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

)

http://www.psu.edu/



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) 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

http://www.psu.edu/



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

http://www.psu.edu/



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)

Forc

e (k

ips)

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)

http://www.psu.edu/



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)

Forc

e (k

ips)

-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)

http://www.psu.edu/



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

http://www.psu.edu/



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.

http://www.psu.edu/



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)

http://www.psu.edu/



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

http://www.psu.edu/



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

http://www.psu.edu/



29

QUESTIONS/DISCUSSIONS

http://www.psu.edu/


Andre Filiatrault, Gilberto Mosqueda, Rodrigo Retamales, Ryan Davies, YuanTian, and Jessica Fuchs

Documents

Transcript of Andre Filiatrault, Gilberto Mosqueda, Rodrigo Retamales, Ryan Davies, YuanTian, and Jessica Fuchs