Because Vince asked is the only 'why' I needed, but then I fully understand he is not everyone's first mentor. He said he was doing the calcs by hand--- might be some kind of supply type analysis.
Brad On Feb 20, 2017 4:48 PM, "Travis Mack, SET" <[email protected]> wrote: > The question still remains as to "why" something like this would be > needed. If it just to plug into a computer to make it run calcs, then use > Q = k*sqrt(P). > > Travis Mack, SET > MFP Design, LLC > 2508 E Lodgepole Drive > Gilbert, AZ 85298480-505-9271 <(480)%20505-9271> > fax: 866-430-6107 <(866)%20430-6107>email:[email protected] > http://www.mfpdesign.comhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 > Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack > > On 2/20/2017 3:37 PM, Brad Casterline wrote: > > Nice Allan! > > And Steve, if you want 1139 at 100 out the valve you are going to need 143 > at the standpipe, to get through the nipple and tee. It's like a sprinkler > on a sprig calc, only the sprinkler is great big and the sprig is short and > fat. > > Brad > On Feb 19, 2017 6:01 PM, "AKS-Gmail-IMAP" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Lets look at what FM Global has to say. According to FM Global’s minimum >> approval standards for these valves, "*Approval Standard for **Angle and >> Straightaway Hose Valves, **Class Number 1521/1522 , December 2014”* >> >> "4.11 >> >> Friction Loss Test – Traditional Hose Valves Only >> >> 1. >> >> 4.11.1 Requirement >> >> The valve shall be designed so that the obstruction in the waterway >> is minimal. For valves found to be non- compliant with Sections 3.2.3 >> and/or 3.2.4, friction loss testing is necessary. The valve will be tested >> in the full open position, and the friction loss through the valve will be >> measured at a flow rate that produces a fluid velocity of 20 ft/sec (6.1 >> m/sec) in Schedule 40 steel pipe of the same nominal diameter as the >> valve. >> The measured friction loss shall be less than 10 psi (69 kPa)." >> >> The “sections 3.2.3 and/or 3.2.4” in the text refers to physical seat >> lift dimensions in the valve. So FM does not took at pressure loss if the >> valve guts meet their internal dimension numbers. The standard does not >> refer to angle versus straight in regard to pressure loss. Both patterns >> must meet the same standard. I believe that 20 ft/sec in 2.5” schd. 40 pipe >> comes to 298 GPM at 10 psi drop, which comes to a K near 94. Figuring FM >> approval is “better than your average bear.”, you might not want to use a K >> larger than 94. That 94 K would lose about 7 psi at 250 gpm. >> >> Allan Seidel >> St. Louis, MO >> >> >> On Feb 19, 2017, at 12:44 PM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Of course! >> I know this is unorthodox thinking, especially for an NFPA 14 maestro. >> But I figured out quite a few years ago how to get not only K, but the Q >> and P that goes with it for a flowing outlet with only two pieces of >> information; the nominal diameter and the coefficient of discharge. >> And after the twists and turns and showing off and stepping in it this >> weekend I wanted to take my best shot at being the anybody with a decent K >> for a 2.5 inch hose valve, as Vince asked. >> So "In the same way as a nominal 1/2" sprinkler..." >> K=113.85, if the C of D is .61, >> final answer. >> >> Thanks for hollering back, I was getting lonely out here, >> >> Brad >> On Feb 19, 2017 11:13 AM, "Steve Leyton" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Of course, that should have been GPM and not PSI. >>> >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Steve Leyton <[email protected]> >>> Date: 2/19/17 8:44 AM (GMT-08:00) >>> To: [email protected], Vince Sabolik < >>> [email protected]> >>> Subject: RE: K for a Hose Valve >>> >>> Awesome. So the "nominal" flow at 100 PSI will be 1,138.5 PSI? >>> >>> Maybe we need to change the hydraulic design method in the standard. >>> >>> Steve L. >>> >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Brad Casterline <[email protected]> >>> Date: 2/19/17 2:09 AM (GMT-08:00) >>> To: Vince Sabolik <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>> kler.org >>> Subject: Re: K for a 2½" Hose Valve >>> >>> K=113.85 >>> >>> In the same way that a nominal 1/2" sprinkler with a Coefficient of >>> Discharge of .75 has a K=5.6, a nominal 2.5" hose valve with a Coefficient >>> of Discharge of .61 has a K=113.85. >>> >>> Brad >>> On Feb 17, 2017 8:28 AM, "Vince Sabolik" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Good morning, everyone... >>>> >>>> Does anybody have a decent K Factor for a 2½" hose valve? >>>> >>>> Thanks! Vince >>>> <20914 x WTFP Logo NEW1.jpg> >>>> >>>> 11351 Pearl Road / Suite 101 >>>> Strongsville, Ohio 44136 >>>> Phone 440 238-4800 <%28440%29%20238-4800> Fax 440 238-4876 >>>> <%28440%29%20238-4876> Cell 440 724-7601 <%28440%29%20724-7601> >>>> >>>> >>>> * Vince Sabolik * >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-f >>>> iresprinkler.org >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-f >>> iresprinkler.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum- >> firesprinkler.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum- >> firesprinkler.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing > [email protected]http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler. > org > >
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
