Valves - EF020151 "Length of connection" 1 vs EF020153 "Working length connection 1"
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,
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!
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
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?
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
I believe if you want to realistically model 3d building drainage systems you'd have to work with ranges for working lengths. Example: https://catalog.geberit.de/de-DE/Geberit-Silent-db20-Bogen/PRO_101430.html
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)
Join the conversation
|Topic started||03 June 2020 at 09:19|
Share topic via: