Download - 06 a-Esmaili Zaghi
Seismic Analysis of Fire ySprinkler Systems
P t d bPresented by:Arash E. Zaghi, Ph.D., P.E.
Research ScientistResearch Scientist University of Nevada, Reno
R h t t UNRResearch team at UNR:Manos Maragakis, PI of NEES-GC
Arash E. Zaghi, Research Associate
Quake Summit 2011, June 9-11, Buffalo, New York
Siavash Soroushian, PhD Student
Research Plan
• Making use of experimental data to develop and validate an analytical model for the suspended piping systemssuspended piping systems.
• Developing a full system model of a hospital sprinkle pipingsprinkle piping.
• Subjecting the piping model to the obtained floor motions to investigate the effects of thefloor motions to investigate the effects of the dynamic response of the building on piping system.y
• Development of fragility curves for the piping system. 2y 2
Experimental Model• System modeled after University of California, Davis
hospital piping system– Modified to accommodate dimensions and geometry restrictionsModified to accommodate dimensions and geometry restrictions
of testing facility• Subassembly included
100 ft of 3 in and 4 in diameter schedule 40 ASTM grade A 53– 100 ft. of 3 in. and 4 in. diameter schedule 40 ASTM grade A-53 black steel pipe
– Four typical valvesT t h t– Two water heaters
– One simulated heat exchanger• Heat exchanger and water heaters were anchored to g
the shake table• Pipes were braced and hung from a stationary frame
33
Experimental Model (Cont.)
Seismic Braces
Four systems were tested:1. Welded braced2. Welded unbraced3. Threaded braced4. Threaded unbraced
Bracing and Hanging Points
Bracing Detail
11 Hanging points 5 Unidirectional Braces 2 Bidirectional Braces
5
2 Bidirectional Braces
S b t bj t d t th ti ti th t
Shaking Table ExperimentSubsystem was subjected to a synthetic motion that was generated according to AC156 uni- and bi-directional.
6Threaded Braced Subassembly E-W Shake 6Threaded Braced Subassembly E W Shake
Analytical Model of the Test Assembly
Eff i S iff f BEffective Stiffness of Braces
Braced Unbraced
7
Effect of Multiple Floor Excitation
Braced Unbraced8
Seismic Simulation of a Hospital Sprinkler PipingHospital Sprinkler Piping
System
99
G l D l t f fl ti f lti t b ildi
Analytical Model of Hospital BuildingGoal: Development of floor motions of a multistory building
3D Model
A three-story Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) was designed
10
y p g ( ) g OpenSees was used for the analyses Model was subjected to all three components of the ground motion
Input MotionsTh i t ti d f th l f th b ildi
Seismic Design Number of
The input motions used for the analyses of the building are adopted from the SAC project.
GroupSeismic Design
CategorySuite of motions
Number of Motions
1 A, BBoston 2% in 50 yearsBoston 10% in 50 years
20Boston 10% in 50 years
2 CSeattle 10% in 50 years
Los Angeles 50% in 50 years20
Seattle 2% in 50 years3 D, E
Seattle 2% in 50 yearsLos Angeles 2% in 50 yearsLos Angeles 10% in 50 years
30
4 F Near Field motions 20
11
4 F Near‐Field motions 20
Goal: Introduce different levels of nonlinearity in the building 11
Analytical Model of the Sprinkler Piping Sprinkler piping plan was adopted from USF medical center modified sprinkler piping system
Piping System
12Sprinkler Piping Model
12
Analytical Model of the Sprinkler Piping
SSolid Braces
Wire Restraints
13
Wire Restraints
Modeling Assumptions
• Model was subjected to floor acceleration responses (multiple support excitation)responses (multiple support excitation)
• Piping system was modeled using elastic• Piping system was modeled using elastic members.
• The displacements of sprinkler heads and the forces in the brace members were recorded
NEES - UNR Test-bed14
forces in the brace members were recorded.
14
Fragility Analysis
• The maximum relative displacement of each 489 heads were obtained.
• The maximum displacements were sorted and the 85-percentile values were found. p
• The 85-percentile displacements were plotted vs PGA or the associated PFAvs. PGA or the associated PFA.
• Log-normal distribution was used to plot the fragility curves
15
fragility curves.
15
Sample Fragility Curves
1616
Conclusions
– Effective stiffness of the cable bracing system may be as low as 10% of the gross stiffnessmay be as low as 10% of the gross stiffness.
– In a heavily braced piping system, the dynamic i ll th ki tiresponse is smaller than kinematic response.
– Yielding of the parent structure significantly changes the demands on the piping system.
– Forces and displacement are lower in a yielding
17
p y gstructure due to smaller floor accelerations.
17
Acknowledgement
– The experiment was supported by MCEER through a grant from the Earthquakethrough a grant from the Earthquake Engineering Research Centers Program of the NSF under award number EEC-9701471.
– The analytical efforts were supported by the NEES-GR Nonstructural project under GrantNEES GR Nonstructural project under Grant No. 0721399.
1818
Thank You