Valves - EF020151 "Length of connection" 1 vs EF020153 "Working length connection 1"

Last comment 06/08/2020 09:54 by Marc
· Mark as unread
Roberto Ortega 2 years ago created

For valves, for example EC010120 "Globe Valve", I was wondering what the difference is between EF020151 "Length of connection 1" and EF020153 "Working length connection 1".

Thanks very much,

Marc Habets 2 years ago created
When you install valves and fittings, the connecting pipe or fitting is partly 'inserted', depending on the connection type. For calculating the total length of a pipe system, if you just add the total lengths of all components used, the 'system length' will not be correct. The working length is what the products adds to a system length. Might sound a bit complicated, I hope you understand. For extra understanding I added a screenshot as 'sneak preview' from the ETIM MC guidelines that are in development.
Roberto Ortega 2 years ago created
Hello Marc,

Thanks for the explanation. In this example you attach, the female parts are the bend to the left and the tee to the right, correct? And the straight pipes are male. Just to make sure I'm looking correctly at the drawing.

In the bend, why does working length "Z2" end before getting all the way to left, stopping, half-way through the bend? I guess it has to do with "Z1", until one point the working length is "horizontal" and then it becomes "vertical"?

Going to the tee on the right, "Z1" for example could be "Working length of connection 1" while "Z3" could be be the "Working length of connection 2", right? (and "Working length of connection 3" (the top connection) would still have to be calculated). If the tee were longer in the central part (not the sleeves), "Z1" and "Z3" would proportionally increase, right?

Thanks very much!

in reply to @robertoortega:
Marc Habets Hi Roberto,
Indeed, the female connections are where the pipe goes into the fitting, the pipe in this case being the male part. Connection lengths (working- as well as total lengths) are apparently always calculated from the hearth/middle line, why is a question for the experts. That means if you calculate the total length of the pipe system as shown, you seem to miss half of the pipe diameter. I assume that 3D software calculates this itself, but again I am no expert in this area. To your last question, indeed Z1 and Z3 would increase if the ‘body’ of the fitting was longer (Z3 by the way is connection 3, the branch connection is Z2 in this case)

2 years ago


Nico Schmid 2 years ago created
Roberto, that's also how I understand it.

By the way, I raised an RFC to get the data type of Z / working length for fittings to be changed to r
range. Depending on the type of connection, the working length may be within an interval.
Haven't seen popping the RFC up already, it might still be with the local ETIM org.
What do you think about this?
in reply to @nicoschmid:
Marc Habets Hi Nico, I can see some open RFCs where working length is requested to be changed to a range. For class EC010323 - Cleaning piece the RFC was accepted already, for the classes fitting with 1 to 6 connections, the RFCs are still to be accepted, but the request was done. I will get to those as one of the 1472 RFCs still to check in the next weeks ?.  

Just looking at the fitting, I understand the request for a range. But looking at 3D modelling and calculating system lengths, I am not sure if that will work? Then the actual working length would depend on the installer, on how deep he pushes the pipe into the fitting, I don't think that can be taken into account. So a range might be confusing rather then helping?  

2 years ago


Nico Schmid Hi Marc, sorry for the late answer.
I believe if you want to realistically model  3d building drainage systems you'd have to work with ranges for working lengths. Example:

The ability to shorten the fitting is key for this product.

I personally find the use of ranges for working lengths a pragmatic solution. If we wanted to exaggerate, we could even give multiple ranges, depending on how you connect the pieces. ;)

2 years ago


show 1 other comment(s)
Marc Habets 2 years ago created
Hi Nico, as you mention yourself, for 3D modelling it might make sense to have working length as range. But this should be defined in ETIM MC and not in the basic model. For ETIM 8.0 we will dismiss the requests to change (in the EC classes) to a range, with the following argument: "Changing Working length to range feature is not admissible! I understand that has to do with the plastic welding process, but is not a specification for the ETIM basic model, if then for ETIM MC. Depends on the process, is not a feature here for the ‘off the shelf’ product."
Nico Schmid 2 years ago created
Hi Marc, Thanks for letting me know. We'll then just fill the max. working lengths. Do you agree with that? Thanks very much for giving us guidance!
Marc Habets 2 years ago created
Makes sense Nico ? 
Join the conversation
You have to be a registered user to join the conversation.
Topic started 03 June 2020 at 09:19