Brad I'd rather spend my remaining time with my wife and I'm licking myself for saying anything. Btw who might be accepting this for the jurisdiction?
Sent from my iPhone On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:56 PM, "Brad Casterline" <bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com> wrote: > Thanks Matt and Ron. I appreciate ALL feedback. > I like posting numbers because there is no opinion, personal feelings, > hearsay, etc. I know a ton about D-W and H-W, and I do not need to repeat > the Velocity of Efflux experiments of the early 1600's to know I am correct > about K-Factors. Would it be too much to ask of you to simply work a few of > the numbers that back up the concepts I post, BEFORE I get your Criticisms > and Opinions? Either that or YOU show ME how it is done- adjusting K-Factors > I mean, from NFPA 13 referenced earlier? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Greenman [mailto:rongreen...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 2:03 PM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Subject: Re: adjusting the K-Factor with our bare hands > > can I say strongly enough how much I agree with what Matt said? can I say > it again? And third time being the charm, I agree with what Matt said--a > lot--and with George's earlier comments. > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Matt Grise <m...@afpsprink.com> wrote: > >> I would strongly caution against using this method for estimate >> calculations. (Without doing extensive testing to verify that it is >> accurate) >> >> The D-W and H-W calculation methods are simply approximations of how >> fluids interact with themselves and the pipe they are in. The H-W equation >> and the K-factor concept are two VERY specialized cases that are intended >> only to describe warm water in pipes coming out of a smooth hole. >> >> The k-factor only relates the ease with which water can escape a >> sprinkler. If you plug in a modified k-factor, you are still using H-W to >> describe how the fluid is moving through the pipes. The reason that you >> have to switch to the D-W equation is because H-W will give you the wrong >> answer. If you use a modified K factor with H-W (instead of D-W) the most >> likely outcome is a wrong answer - although maybe not the same wrong > answer >> as before. >> >> Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II >> Sales Engineer >> Alliance Fire Protection >> 130 w 9th Ave. >> North Kansas City, MO 64116 >> >> *Licensed in KS & MO >> >> 913.888.0647 ph >> 913.888.0618 f >> 913.927.0222 cell >> www. AFPsprink.com >> >> >> >> On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:52 AM, "Brad Casterline" <bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com> >> wrote: >> >>> From NFPA 13-2007, 22.4.4.5.1, we are required to, among other things, >>> adjust the K-Factor. >>> >>> Using the Hazen-Williams friction formula, 62.4 lb/ft3 / 144 in2 = .433 >>> lb/in2/ft(h). >>> >>> If we have an AF solution at 65.5 lb/ft3, / 144 = .455 lb/in2/ft(h). >>> >>> If K=5.6, and we assume P=7 PSI.: >>> >>> 7/.433=16.166 ft(h). 7/.455=15.385 ft(h).* >>> >>> 15.385/16.166=.952. sqrt(.952)=.976, x 5.6 = 5.46. >>> >>> There is a chart in 13 showing a 50% glycerin solution at about -10F >>> weighing about 15% more than 100% water: 62.4 x 1.15 = 71.76. >>> 71.76/144=.498. 7/.498=14.056 ft(h). 14.056/16.166=.869. >> sqrt(.869)=.932, x >>> 5.6 = 5.22. >>> >>> If I had to fab the pipe today and formalize the submittal tomorrow >> (after >>> googling centipoises for several hours) I would calc it like it was 'all >>> wet', using K=5.22. >>> >>> * converting PSI to feet of head(h) it is seen that the denser the >> solution, >>> the 'shorter' it is. Since v=sqrt(2gh), the shorter it is the slower it >> is. >>> Making the adjustment based on "h", we have to take the square root of >> the >>> ratio, i.e., (K=Q/sqrtP). If adjusted based on velocity we would use the >>> ratio itself (square feet=cubic feet per second divided by feet per >> second): >>> sqrt(2*32.2*16.166)=32.266 ft/sec. >>> >>> sqrt(2*32.2*15.385)=31.477 ft/sec. >>> >>> 31.477/32.266=.976. >>> >>> >>> >>> The above is simply the type of thing I enjoy doing and like to share, >>> hoping it will cause no harm, to be taken or left as one sees fit. >>> >>> >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> >>> >>> Brad Casterline, NICET IV >>> >>> Fire Protection Division >>> >>> >>> >>> FSC, Inc. >>> >>> P: 913-722-3473 >>> >>> bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com >>> >>> www.fsc-inc.com >>> >>> >>> >>> Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > (???????? ???? ????? 6 ??????) > Instructor > Fire Protection Engineering Technology > Bates Technical College > 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > Tacoma, WA 98405 > > rgreen...@bates.ctc.edu > > http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > > 253.680.7346 > 253.576.9700 (cell) > > Member: > ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC > > They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, > essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
