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 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:[email protected]
http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Of course, that should have been GPM and not PSI.
Steve
-------- Original message --------
From: Steve Leyton <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: 2/19/17 8:44 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>, Vince
Sabolik <[email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: 2/19/17 2:09 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Vince Sabolik <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
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]
<mailto:[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 <tel:%28440%29%20238-4800> Fax 440
238-4876 <tel:%28440%29%20238-4876>Cell 440 724-7601
<tel:%28440%29%20724-7601>
/
Vince Sabolik /
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
<http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org>
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
<http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org>
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
<http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org>
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
<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
