Seismic Analysis of Fire Sprinkler Systems

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011
Leuven, Belgium, 4-6 July 2011

G. De Roeck, G. Degrande, G. Lombaert, G. Muller (eds.)
ISBN 978-90-760-1931-4
411
Seismic Analysis of Fire Sprinkler Systems

1
Siavash Soroushian1, Arash E. Zaghi1, Joe Wieser1, E. Manos Maragakis1, Gokhan Pekcan1, Ahmad Itani1
Department of Civil and Environnemental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno MS258, 89557 Reno, USA
email: siyavashs@yahoo.com,esmailiz@unr.edu, wieser85@gmail.com, maragaki@unr.edu, pekcan@unr.edu, itani@unr.edu
ABSTRACT: Post-earthquake functionality of fire sprinkler systems is critical for uninterrupted operation of the building;
however, fire sprinklers have experienced extensive damage during past earthquakes. Comprehensive research is required to
increase the understanding of the system level seismic performance of fire sprinkler systems subjected to realistic floor motions.
In this study, a complete fire sprinkler system including risers, main distribution lines, and pipe branches, and sprinkler heads
was analytically modeled using OpenSees. The model was subjected to the tri-axial floor responses of a three-story moment
resisting frame obtained from a nonlinear incremental dynamic analysis. The seismic performance of the fire sprinkler system
was assessed by statistically evaluating the relative displacement of sprinkler heads and peak forces in the seismic braces as a
function of peak ground acceleration. The response of the fire sprinkler system was shown to be effected by the direction of
excitation and seismic bracing. In addition, inelastic response of the supporting structure was shown to reduce both sprinkler
head displacements as well as seismic brace and wire restraint forces.
KEY WORDS: Fire Sprinkler; Seismic Response; Nonstructural Component, Piping, Fragility Functions.
1
INTRODUCTION
A buildings ability to remain operational after a significant

seismic event is dependent not only on the performance of the
structural system but the functionality of several nonstructural
systems as well. One of these critical nonstructural systems is
the fire protection sprinkler piping system. Extensive damage
to fire sprinkler systems in several past earthquakes has
resulted in loss of functionality of many structures.
Fire sprinkler systems are susceptible to several forms of
earthquake damage. Inside the building, vertical pipes (risers)
can break under large inter-story drifts in the building.
Hangers supporting the weight of the pipe can unseat from
their attachment points. Fasteners connecting the hangers to
the building structure can pull out under seismic loading.
Sprinkler heads can break upon impact with adjacent
structural or nonstructural components, such as ceiling panels.
Couplings and pipe fittings can break or leak. Piping run
crossing separation joints that is not detailed for differential
movement can be ruptured, as can pipes that are
unintentionally restrained at locations where they pass through
walls [1]. Nearly all of these failure modes have been
observed in past earthquakes such as the 1964 Alaska
Earthquake; the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake; the 1989
Loma Prieta Earthquake; and the 1994 Northridge Earthquake
(Fig. 1). Damage to these systems may result in flooding,
leaking, loss of functionality, damage to neighboring
elements, and most importantly, loss of fire resistance.
Criteria for the protection of the sprinkler system first
appeared in NFPA 13 [2], Standard for the Installation of
Sprinkler Systems, in the 1940s. This guideline has gone
through several changes after the evaluation of facilities
following major earthquakes. The stringent expected seismic
performance of fire sprinklers necessitates special attention to
designing and detailing these systems. Comprehensive
research is yet required to increase the understanding of the

system level performance of fire sprinkler systems subjected
to realistic floor motions expected to occur in multistory
buildings during earthquakes.
Figure 1: Rupture of Sprinkler Pipe at the Elbow that in

Sylmar Hospital in 1994 Northridge Earthquake (Photo
courtesy of Robert Reitherman).
In this study, a complete hospital fire sprinkler system
including risers, main distribution lines, branches, sprinkler
heads, hangers, and braces was analytically modeled in
OpenSees [3] to investigate the influence of the type, quantity,
and distribution of seismic braces on the dynamic response of
fire sprinkler systems. The effect of nonlinear structural
response was included in the investigation as well through the
implementation of floor response excitations obtained from an
incremental dynamic analysis of a three-story hospital
building.
Fire sprinkler piping systems are sensitive to both
acceleration and deformation [4]. Thus, for a system installed
in a multistory building, horizontal pipe runs are necessary to
412
be modeled along with riser pipes that connect the horizontal

runs and span between floors. Such a model accounts for the
effects of differential floor motions of the building. For this
study, a full 3D model comprising all three floors of the fire
sprinkler system was investigated.
The analytical model was subjected to the tri-axial floor
responses of a three story moment resisting frame hospital
building that was obtained from a series of nonlinear
incremental dynamic analyses (IDA) [5]. The response of the
sprinkler system was obtained in terms of the maximum
relative displacement of sprinkler heads and forces in the
seismic braces and wire restraints. Accordingly, probability of
exceedance from certain demand levels were found at
different peak ground acceleration (PGA) levels.
2
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
To capture the influence of the dynamic response of the parent

building on the response of the installed fire sprinkler system,
a three story hospital building was analyzed. The IDA method
[5] was used to capture the seismic response of the hospital
building from elastic ranges up to imminence of failure (interstory drifts as large as 7%).
Afterwards, the floor motions obtained from the analysis
were introduced to the full model of fire sprinkler system as
multiple support excitations. The analytical model of the
sprinkler system comprised all the elements of the system
such as braces, hangers, main runs and branches, risers, and
sprinkler heads. Linear analyses were performed on the
sprinkler system under the same sequence of floor motions
that were obtained from the IDA analysis of the hospital
building.
By this means, the effects of linear and nonlinear response
of the parent building were realistically accounted for. In this
method, the dynamic interaction the building and sprinkler
systems is neglected that is not far from reality, since the mass
and stiffness of the subsystems is negligible compared to
those of a building.
3
3.1
is comprised of four 3-bay perimeter SMRFs, as shown with

bold lines in Fig. 2, with simple framing between them.
COMPUTATIONAL MODEL OF THREE-STORY

HOSPITAL BUILDING
Specifications of the Building
A special moment resisting frame (SMRF) hospital building

was analyzed. Hospital structures are unique because after a
seismic event, they are required to stay operational with
minimal interruption. Hospital buildings contain a large
number of nonstructural components most of which are
crucial for the functionality of the hospital.
The plan view and elevation of this three-story hospital is
presented in Fig. 2. This hospital building was designed as a
part of this research after SAC three-story office building.
SAC building had been designed as part of project performed
by SAC Steel Joint Venture [6]. SAC office building was
redesigned according to the 2006 International Building Code
[7] to satisfy the design requirements of the seismic design
category D. The plan dimensions mimic that of SAC building
while the elevation was adjusted to be more representative of
current hospital buildings. It has plan dimensions of 180 ft
[54.8 m] by 120 ft [36.6 m]. The story heights were adjusted
to 20 ft [6 m], 16 ft [4.9 m] and 16 ft [4.9 m] making the
building 52 ft [15.8 m] tall. The lateral load-resisting system
Figure 2: Geometry of the Hospital Building

3.2
OpenSees Model
The main goal for the analysis of the building was to assess
the bi-directional floor responses of yielding building
structures under all three components of seismic excitation by
accounting for the out-of-plane flexibility of floor decks. With
these objectives in mind, utilization of three-dimensional
models with explicitly modeled gravity framing system and
floor slabs was necessary. The floor decks were modeled
using two-dimensional area elements. The gravity framing
system was included for the same reason.
OpenSees nonlinear analysis software [3] was used for
including material and geometric nonlinearities (P-Delta
effects). The beams and columns were modeled using ForceBased Beam-Column frame elements and a Fiber Section
object was assigned to these elements. Each Fiber Section
object was composed of nine fibers (three on each flange and
three on the web). Steel02 uniaxial material was used with
yield stress of 50 ksi [345 MPa] and strain hardening of 2% of
the elastic stiffness. Centerline dimensions were used to
define the model. The fundamental period of the hospital
building was 1.0 sec. For time history analysis, Rayleigh
damping was applied and a 5% damping ratio was assigned to
0.8 and 2.0 times the fundamental period.
3.3
Input Motions
The ATC-63 project developed a set of 22 far-field ground

motions from recorded seismic events taking place around the
world [8]. These motions were collected for the purpose of
performing incremental dynamic analysis to develop the
collapse margin ratio of a structure [8]. Though this
investigation is not interested in studying seismic capacity of
buildings, the set of motions has been deemed appropriate for
use with incremental dynamic analysis, and as such was
adopted for this investigation. Table 1 shows the names,years,
magnitudes, PGAs, and the name of the recording station.
413
Earthquake
Name
Recording Station
Year
Mag.
1994
1994
1999
1999
1979
1979
1995
1995
1999
1999
1992
1992
1989
1989
1990
1987
1992
1999
1999
1971
1976
6.7
6.7
7.1
7.1
6.5
6.5
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.3
6.9
6.9
7.4
6.5
7
7.6
7.6
6.6
6.5
1971
1999
-
6.5
7.6
7.0
Northridge
Northridge
Duzce, Turkey
Hector Mine
Imperial Valley
Imperial Valley
Kobe, Japan
Kobe, Japan
Kocaeli, Turkey
Kocaeli, Turkey
Landers
Landers
Loma Prieta
Loma Prieta
Manjil
Superstition Hills
Cape Mendocino
Chi-Chi, Taiwan
Chi-Chi, Taiwan
San Fernando
Friuli
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Name
Beverly Hills-Mul.
Canyon Country-WLC
Bolu
Hector
Delta
El Centro Array #11
Nishi-Akashi
Shin-Osaka
Duzce
Arcelik
Yermo Fire Station
Coolwater
Capitola
Gilroy Array #3
Abbar
El Centro Imp. Co.
Rio Dell Overpass
CHY101
TCU045
LA-Hollywood
Tolmezzo
-
PGA
(g)
0.517
0.482
0.822
0.337
0.351
0.380
0.509
0.243
0.358
0.219
0.245
0.417
0.529
0.555
0.515
0.358
0.549
0.440
0.512
0.210
0.351
applied ground motion oriented in the long-direction, the

minor component in the short-direction, and the vertical
component in the z-direction. This orientation was consistent
for all 21 events.
3.4
IDA Analysis Results
The scaling method developed by Vamvatsikos and Cornell

[5] was used after minor modification to find a data point
within the predetermined drift range. The drift window for
this study was set between 5% drift and 7% drift. Figure 4
shows the IDA curves that were obtained by fitting SP-Lines
on data points. Figure 4 shows the IDA curves for the
maximum inter-story drift and peak roof acceleration. The
smaller rate of increase in roof acceleration in larger motions
is a result of yielding of the structure.
5.0
4.0
PGA (g)
Table 1: Ground Motions
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.210
0.822
0.424
0.0
0.00
Major
2.0
4.0
1.0
0.0
3.0
Sa (g)
0.10
5.0
PGA (g)
Sa (g)
3.0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Maximum Interstory Drift [max]
3.0
Events
Minimum
16th %
Median
84th %
Maximum
2.0
1.0
Minor
0.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Peak Roof Acceleration [PFA R] (g)
5.0
Figure 4: IDA Results

0.0
3.0
Sa (g)
Vertical
Events
+
+2
2.0
4.1
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Period (sec)
Figure 3: Acceleration Spectra the Input Motions

The 5% damped elastic acceleration spectra of the major,
minor, and vertical components are presented in Fig. 3,
respectively. All three components of the ground motion were
used to excite the structure with the major component of the
COMPUTATIONAL MODEL OF FIRE SPRINKLER

PIPING SYSTEM
Specifications of Fire Sprinkler Piping System
The dimensions and layout of fire protection piping systems

are individualized for each building and vary based on the
architecture and occupancy of the parent building.
Consequently, selecting a generic fire piping system was
somewhat arbitrary. The fire piping system modeled in this
study is a portion of the fire sprinkler system in the UCSF
Medical Center Hospital Building. As part of the fire
protection sprinkler system of a 15-story hospital structure,
the selected piping layout is quite robust. It incorporates a
variety of commonly used components such as distribution
mains of various diameters, branch lines of various diameters,
hangers, seismic braces, wire restraints, tee joints, elbow
joints, pipe reduction joints, and sprinkler heads. It also
414
contains a sufficient quantity of each of these commonly used

components to statistically evaluate the seismic performance
of each type of component in the system.
[10 mm] threaded rods as required for pipes of 4 in. [100 mm]
in diameter or less per the NFPA 13 [2]. Lateral restraint at
the ends of branch lines was provided by a set of 1/8 in [3
mm] wire restraints Fig. 6. Each of the four wires used in the
restraint are made of aircraft grade steel with minimum break
strength of 1700 lb [7.5 kN].
4.2
OpenSees Model
The objective of the fire piping system model was to identify

the relative displacement demands on sprinkler heads and
force demands in seismic braces and wire restraints of an
elastic fire sprinkler system under realistic tri-axial differential
floor motions. This required an elastic model of the three floor
fire piping system shown in Fig. 7.
(1)
(2)
Figure 5: Plan View of Fire Piping System
Figure 6: Pipe Bracing: 1) Seismic Brace, 2) Wire Restraint
A plan view of the modeled portion of the sprinkler system

is shown in Fig. 5. The plan layouts are consistent between
floors and are connected to a 6 in. [150 mm] riser located at
the top end in Fig. 5. A penolum height (the height between
the supporting floor and the ceiling system) of 4 ft [1.2 m]
was assumed for each floor. The pipe system was suspended
2.5 ft [762 mm] below the supporting floor and the sprinkler
drops 1.5 ft [458 mm] to the ceiling height. The 82 ft [25 m]
main distribution line varies in diameter from 4 in [100 mm]
at the connection to the riser to 2 in [50 mm]. at the end of the
main. The main distribution line feeds 16 branch lines ranging
in diameter from 1-1/2 in. [38 mm] to 1 in. [25 mm]. The
main and branch lines supply 47 sprinkler heads. The
sprinkler pipe system is connected to the supporting floor with
a combination of 12 seismic strut braces, 54 vertical hangers,
and 80 wire restraints. The seismic braces consist of a 1 in.
[25 mm] diameter strut oriented in a 45 degree angle from the
supporting floor such to provide lateral bracing in one
direction to the pipe Fig. 6. The vertical hangers are 3/8 in.
Developed in OpenSees [3], the model consists of two types

of elements. All of the pipes (riser, mains, and branches) are
modeled using Force-Based Beam-Column elements with
elastic sections. The seismic braces, hangers, and wire
restraints were modeled with elastic truss elements. All of the
elements are made of steel with a modulus of elasticity of
29,000 ksi [200 GPa]. The mass of the piping system was
determined using the wet weight of the pipes, assuming a
sprinkler head weight of lb. [0.25 kg]. Both the mass and
weight were evenly distributed along the length of each pipe
element and the mass of the sprinkler heads was concentrated
at the nodal locations of the sprinkler heads. Centerline
dimensions of the piping system were used to define the
elements. All pipe to pipe connections were assumed to be
continuous while the braces, hangers, and wires were assumed
to be pin-ended truss members. The connection of the riser to
the ground level was such that no moment demand was
imposed on the base of the riser pipe. No special connection
details were used in this basic elastic model of the sprinkler
piping system. The stiffness of the pipe elements was
415
Input Motions
Once the fire sprinkler model was defined, multiple support

excitation was used to induce the inertial forces. The input
motions for each floor level of the piping model coincided with
the response motion of the previously modeled inelastic threestory hospital building. All three orthogonal axes of building
response were used to excite the piping model. The major
component of the ground motion and long direction of the
building were aligned with the axis perpendicular to the main
distribution lines of the piping system. The vertical floor
excitation corresponds to the vertical response of a point along
a gravity load carrying beam in each floor of the three-story
hospital building.
In total, 320 time history analyses of the piping system were
performed, 21 events each scaled to at least 11 different
intensities. In this manner, a variety of structural responses of
the hospital building, ranging from elastic to near collapse, were
introduced to the piping system.
Figure 7: Three Dimensional View of Fire Piping Model

5
5.1
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Data Analysis Methodology
Post-processing the data from 141 sprinkler heads, 36 seismic

braces, and 240 wire restraints required a well defined statistical
approach. First, all of the peak sprinkler head displacements,
peak seismic braces, and peak wire restraint forces from each
analysis were plotted in scatter form and determined to have a
log-normal distribution. A sample scatter plot is presented in
Fig.8. Then, using a log-normal distribution cumulative
probability function the probability of exceeding predetermined
10
254
25.4
0.1
2.54
0.01
0.254
0.001
0.0254
0.0001
Sprinkler Head Displacement (mm)
4.3
levels of response were calculated and plotted against the peak

ground acceleration.
The results presented explore the influences of excitation
directivity and inelastic response of the supporting structure on
the fragility of components of the fire sprinkler system. In order
to highlight the effect of nonlinear response of the supporting
structure analysis results from low intensity motions (elastic
response) were scaled up to higher intensities and compared
with the results which include inelastic response of the
structure.
Sprinkler Head Displacement (in)
determined from their respective cross section and does not

account for the influence of the internal pressurized water.
The stiffness of the seismic braces and vertical hangers were
also based on the cross sectional properties, but the stiffness
of the wire restraints was modified to 10% of their full
stiffness to compensate for initial slack. This reduction in
stiffness was based on the recommendation of Zaghi et al. [9].
A Rayleigh damping matrix was used in the piping model and
3% damping was assigned to the first and third modes. The
fundamental period of the piping system was 0.8 seconds and
the shape of its fundamental mode had a peak amplitude in the
middle of the second branch from the top on the left side of
Fig.5.
0.00254
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
PGA (g)
4.0
5.0
Figure 8: Dispersion of Sprinkler Head Displacement along

Short Axis
5.2
Relative Displacement of Sprinkler Heads
The geometry of typical fire sprinkler heads is such that the

center of the sprinkler head is located in the center of a 2 in.
diameter ring in the ceiling [10]. If the ceiling is assumed to
move rigidly with the supporting floor slab, the relative
displacement of the sprinkler head is limited to 1 in. before it
makes contact with the ceiling and has the potential of
breaking. This study investigates the characteristics of the
relative displacement of sprinkler heads during both elastic and
inelastic building response and quantifies the potential of
sprinkler head failure due to contact with the ceiling system.
The time history relative displacement response of similar
sprinkler heads located on each of the three floors is compared
in Fig. 9. The response of the sprinkler heads under low
intensity ground excitation (PGA = 0.055 g) was considerably
different compared to the same event at a higher intensity (PGA
= 1.805 g).
Under the low intensity motion the building responds
elastically therefore there is a linear correlation between the
responses of each floor which carries through to the response of
the elastic piping system. This observation is clear in Fig. 9a, in
which the responses of similar sprinkler heads at each level
were in phase with one another and increase in amplitude with
increasing floor level. The elastic response of the hospital
building was dominated by the first mode of vibration, thus
explaining the increasing amplitude in sprinkler head
displacement due to increased acceleration response of the
parent building throughout the height.
When the intensity of the ground excitation exceeded the
elastic capacity of the hospital building, the linear correlation
between floor responses was lost. As a result, the floor
416
0.15
failure of sprinkler heads attached to these unbraced branches

as they contact the ceiling or other surrounding systems.
100%
Probability of Exceedance (%)
excitations imposed on the piping system no longer were in

phase with one another due to changing modal response
characteristics as the building yields. This is observed clearly in
the sprinkler head response shown in Fig. 9b. Contrary to the
elastic response, the peak relative displacement of the
sprinkler head located on the first floor is greater than that on
the third floor. This is due to the deamplification of the
ground motion throughout the height of the building as a
result of yielding.
3.81
2.54
0.05
1.27
0.00
-0.05
-1.27
-0.10
-2.54
-0.15
-3.81
1.50
38.1
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
(a)
0.10
25.4
0.50
12.7
0.00
-0.50
-12.7
-1.00
-25.4
-1.50
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (in)
(b)
1.00
-38.1
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
EL 1 (Long)
1.0
2.0
3.0
PGA (g)
EL 2 (Long)
EL 1 (Short)
4.0
5.0
EL 2 (Short)
Figure 10: Influence of Directivity on Probability of Sprinkler

Head Displacements Exceeding 1/2 in [12.5 mm] (EL 1) and 1
in [25 mm] (EL 2)
Similar plots were developed to assess the influence of
inelastic response of the supporting structure. Figure 11 plots
the potential of exceeding 1 in. of relative displacement in the
major direction for both an elastic and inelastic supporting
structure. The potential of exceeding a predetermined
displacement limit was reduced when the supporting structure
is allowed to yield. The increased level of yielding in the
supporting structure damps the acceleration response of its
floors thus reducing the input to the sprinkler piping system.
100%
Third Floor
Second Floor
80%
0.0
Time (sec)
First Floor
90%
Figure 9: Sprinkler Head Displacement History along Short

Axis (a) Elastic Building Response (b) Inelastic Building
Response
In order to quantify the potential of sprinkler head failure
due to contact with the ceiling, the probability of exceeding
in. and 1 in. of relative displacement in each horizontal
direction was plotted against the peak ground acceleration of
each direction, as shown in Fig. 10.
There is clearly a directivity influence on the potential of
making contact with the ceiling. This particular fire sprinkler
system was more vulnerable to acceleration along its short
axis then along its long axis. Due to the well braced nature of
the piping system along its short axis and limited bracing
perpendicular to several branches, the probability of
experiencing large sprinkler head displacements along the
long axis was greater than along the short axis. Several
sprinkler heads were observed to experience relative
displacements in the long direction of up to 5 times that of the
short direction. The location of these peak displacements was
at sprinkler heads of unbraced branches, the same branches
that had large amplitudes in the fundamental mode shape.
These branches that were thought to be susceptible to large
displacements have been proven to in fact experience
extremely high displacement demands which may lead to
Elastic
90%
Inelastic
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
PGA (g)
4.0
5.0
Figure 11: Influence of Structural Inelasticity on Probability

of Short Axis Sprinkler Head Displacements Exceeding 1 in
[25 mm]
5.3
Wire Restraint Forces
Performing a similar analysis of the wire restraints required

the determination of sample limit states of the wire restraints.
The breaking force of the wire restraints was specified as
1700 lb. thus 60% of the breaking force was used to define the
design force for the wire restraints. Limit states of 15%, 50%,
and 100% of the design force were set.
417
excitations. This means that there comes a point where the

structure has become so ductile that the acceleration demand
on the fire sprinkler piping system is less than the ground
acceleration.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
5.4
50%
The last components examined in this investigation were the

forces in the seismic braces. For these components the design
force was determined from the critical buckling capacity of
the 1 in pipe section used as the seismic braces. The design
force of 6.3 kips was calculated and similar to the wire
restraint limit states 15%, 50%, and 100% of the design force
were defined as the force demands of interest.
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1.0
2.0
3.0
PGA (g)
4.0
5.0
100%
EL 1 (Long)
EL 2 (Long)
EL 3 (Long)
EL 1 (Short)
EL 2 (Short)
EL 3 (Short)

of Wire Restraint Forces Exceeding 15% (EL 1), 50% (EL 2),
and 100% (EL 3) of Their Design Force
The likelihood of exceeding each of these limit states is
plotted against the peak ground acceleration for each direction
in Fig. 12. The wire restraint forces, similar to the sprinkler
head displacement, show a profound influence of directivity.
The difference, however, is that while the sprinkler head
displacements in the major direction were significantly less
than those in the minor direction the opposite is true for the
wire restraint forces, and vice versa in the alternate direction.
This shows that while providing seismic restraint limits the
displacements it increases the force demands on the restraints.
100%
90%
Elastic
80%
Inelastic
0.0
Seismic Brace Forces
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
PGA (g)
4.0
EL 1 (Long)
EL 2 (Long)
EL 3 (Long)
EL 1 (Short)
EL 2 (Short)
EL 3 (Short)
5.0

of Seismic Brace Forces Exceeding 15% (EL 1), 50% (EL 2),
and 100% (EL 3) of Their Design Force
70%
Figure 14 illustrates the influence of directivity on the

potential of exceeding each of the force limits. Similar trends
to the wire restraint forces were identified. However, the data
for the seismic brace forces show slightly more scatter due to
the relatively small number of seismic braces in the fire
sprinkler plan.
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
100%
0%
90%
Elastic
80%
Inelastic
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
PGA (g)
4.0
5.0

of Wire Restraint Forces along the Short Axis Exceeding
100% of Their Design Force
Similar to the sprinkler head displacements the influence of
inelastic response of the supporting structure reduce the
demands of fire sprinkler system. Figure 13 presents the
comparison of the probability of exceeding the design force of
the wire restraints in the minor direction under elastic and
inelastic response of the supporting structure. Interestingly,
the data seems to follow a linear trend for the elastic building
response, as expected, but for the inelastic building response
the data shows a decreasing trend for very strong ground
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
PGA (g)
4.0
5.0

of Seismic Brace Forces along the Long Axis Exceeding
100% of Their Design Force
The reduction of force demands due to inelasticity in the

supporting structure was shown again for the seismic brace
forces in Fig. 15. A more significant influence of the building
inelasticity was observed in the likelihood of exceeding the
seismic brace design force than that shown in the wire
restraints.
6
CONCLUSIONS
This investigation examined the performance of an elastic

hospital fire sprinkler system under realist tri-axial multisupport excitation. Using an uncoupled analysis approach in
which a three-story hospital building was analyzed using
nonlinear IDA for a set of 21 far-field ground motions and the
ensuing floor responses were used to excite three levels of a
fire sprinkler system, the displacement demands on the
sprinkler heads along with the force demands in the seismic
braces and wire restraints were assessed. Significant influence
of geometry were identified, most critically the effect of
limited bracing on pipe branches may decrease force demands
while greatly increasing sprinkler head displacement
demands. The effect of yielding in the supporting structure
was assessed. It was concluded that increased levels of
yielding in the supporting structure reduces both sprinkler
head displacement demands as well as seismic brace and wire
restraint forces. Also, the effect of unbraced branches was
shown to significantly increase the peak sprinkler head
displacements. In total this investigation has laid the ground
work for more comprehensive investigations of the seismic
performance of fire sprinkler systems.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This material is based upon work supported by the National
Science Foundation under Grant No. 0721399. Any opinions,
findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
document are those of the investigators and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the NSF. The input provided by the
Practice Committee of the NEES Nonstructural Project,
composed of W. Holmes (Chair), D. Allen, D. Alvarez, and R.
Fleming; by the Advisory Board, composed of R. Bachman
(Chair), S. Eder, R. Kirchner, E. Miranda, W. Petak, S. Rose
and C. Tokas; and by the other members of the Experimental
Group, A, Filiatrault, G. Mosqueda, A. Reinhorn, and J. T.
Hutchinson, has been crucial for the completion of this
research. The authors are especially grateful to Abhinav Gupta
for providing the piping plan.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
SEAOC Seismology Committee. SEAOC Blue Book: Seismic Design

Recommendations. Sacramento, CA, 2006.
NFPA 13 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, National
Fire Protection Association, 2010 edition, Quincy, MA, 2011.
OpenSees Ver. 2.2.2f Open System for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation, http://opensees.berkeley.edu/, Berkeley, CA, 2010.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Reducing the Risks of
Nonstructural Earthquake Damage, FEMA E-74, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Washington, DC, 2010.
Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, C. Applied Incremental Dynamic
Analysis. Earthquake Spectra , 20 (2), 2004.
Gupta, A., Krawinkler, H., Seismic Demands for Performance
Evaluation of Steel Moment Resisting Frame Structures, John A.
Blume Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report No. 132,
Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, 1999.
418
ICC. International Building Code. International Code Council, Falls

Church, VA, 2006.
[8] FEMA P695 Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C., 2009.
[9] Zaghi, A., Maragakis, E., Itani, A., & Goodwin, E. Experimental and
Analytical Studies of Hospital Piping Assemblies Subjected to Seismic
Loading. Earthquake Spectra, In Press, 2011.
[10] E 580/E 580M-09a Standard Practice for Installation of Ceiling
Suspension Systems for Acoustical Tile and Lay-in Panels in Areas
Subject to Earthquake Ground Motions. West Conshohocken, PA,
2009.
[7]

Seismic Analysis of Fire Sprinkler Systems

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Seismic Analysis of Fire Sprinkler Systems

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2011

Leuven, Belgium, 4-6 July 2011