NOT YOUR AVERAGE K-FACTOR: A NOVEL SPRINKLER COMPARISON TOOL Stephen J. Jordan Fire Protection Consultant Fire & Risk Alliance, LLC Rockville, MD, USA sjordan@fireriskalliance.com
OVERVIEW Motivation Current Spray Details Spray Measurements General overview Notable improvements Spray Tools Developed Sprinkler comparison tool Spray dispersion simulator Example Comparisons Conventional sprinklers ECOH sprinklers ESFR sprinklers Implications Future Work
MOTIVATION Sprinklers with same listings generate physically different spray characteristics: Different sprinkler construction = different spray characteristics
MOTIVATION Unknown levels of equivalent performance Pass identical testing Only establishes a minimum level of equivalence Residential sprinkler acceptance testing All bins shall have a minimum quantity of water Only a limited number can have less than a secondary threshold Test results are Pass / Fail Pass / Fail Criteria Pass / Unlisted
CURRENT LEVEL OF SPRAY DETAIL Listing, pressure, spacing Manufacturer provided ceiling heights General spray angles Spray patterns? No Bucket tests, simulations, etc. Modeling parameters? No FDS, BIM, etc.
Instrumentation (flow properties; spray properties; optical configuration) SPRAY MEASUREMENTS 1 Primary Subsystems: (1) Flow Control & Sprinkler Rotation (2) Mechanical Sphere Patternation (3) Optical Sphere Patternation (4) Integral Line Patternation Supported by: Automation & Synchronization Instrumentation Recent measurement upgrades Enhanced flow capacity Extended measurement dynamic range Complete characterization of the discharged spray characteristics. 1250 GB of data per characterization After data reduction approaches: < 1 MB Automation & Synchronization (measurement location; flow control; measurement time) 2 Data Acquisition (measurement location; raw spray measurements) Analysis (measurement location; probe details; raw measurements) + - 1 X 2 3 19 20 Z 3 Z 21 X 4
SPRINKLER COMPARISON TOOL
SPRINKLER COMPARISON TOOL
SPRINKLER COMPARISON TOOL
DISPERSION SIMULATION TOOL
EXAMPLE 1: Sprinkler Type: Conventional k-factor: 5.6 Pressure: 25 psi
SPRAY MEASUREMENTS Sprinkler A Sprinkler B
SPRINKLER COMPARISONS Sprinkler A Sprinkler B
DISPERSION COMPARISONS Sprinkler A Sprinkler B z = -3 m
EXAMPLE 2: Sprinkler Type: ECOH k-factor: 11.2 Pressure: 30 psi
MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS Sprinkler C Sprinkler D Max Spacing Ordinary Hazard Group 1 Ordinary Hazard Group 2 (ft x ft) Flow (GPM) Pressure (psi) Flow (GPM) Pressure (psi) 12 x 12 30 7.2 39 12.1 14 x 14 30 7.2 39 12.1 16 x 16 39 12.1 51 20.7 18 x 18 49 19.1 65 33.7 20 x 20 60 28.7 80 51.0 Max Spacing Ordinary Hazard Group 1 Ordinary Hazard Group 2 (ft x ft) Flow (GPM) Pressure (psi) Flow (GPM) Pressure (psi) 12 x 12 - - - - 14 x 14 30 7 39 12 16 x 16 39 12 51 21 18 x 18 49 19 65 34 20 x 20 60 29 80 51
SPRAY MEASUREMENTS Sprinkler C Sprinkler D
SPRINKLER COMPARISONS Sprinkler C Sprinkler D
DISPERSION COMPARISONS Sprinkler C Sprinkler D z = -3 m
EXAMPLE 3: Sprinkler Type: ESFR k-factor: 16.8 Pressure: 35 psi
MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS Sprinkler E Sprinkler F Maximum Coverage Area: 100 ft² Minimum Coverage Area: 64 ft² 12 ft for H < 30 ft Maximum Spacing: 10 ft for H < 30 ft Minimum Spacing: 8 ft Minimum Clearance: 36 in Maximum Coverage Area: 100 ft² Minimum Coverage Area: 64 ft² 12 ft for H < 30 ft Maximum Spacing: 10 ft for H < 30 ft Minimum Spacing: 8 ft Minimum Clearance: 36 in
SPRAY MEASUREMENTS Sprinkler E Sprinkler F
SPRINKLER COMPARISONS Sprinkler E Sprinkler F
DISPERSION COMPARISONS Sprinkler E Sprinkler F z = -5 m
IMPLICATIONS THE REAL DIFFERENCE ( ) ( 6 6 5 5 4 4 GPM/ft2 9.00 7.00 7.00 2.50 5.00 3 3.50 Y (ft) 3.50 Y (ft) GPM/ft2 9.00 5.00 3 ) 2.50 1.75 2 1.25 0-1 -1 1.25 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.25 1 1.75 2 0.25 1 0 0 1 2 X (ft) 3 4-1 -1 0 1 2 X (ft) 3 4
FUTURE WORK SPRINKLER COMPARISONS Manufacturer: A k-factor: 16.8 Pressure: 35 psi Manufacturer: B k-factor: 16.8 Pressure: 35 psi Manufacturer: C k-factor: 16.8 Pressure: 35 psi
FUTURE WORK BIM INTEGRATION
SUMMARY A final case study: Chris Morgen and Dan SanFelice are both track and field athletes Participate in the high jump Both cleared the preliminary qualifying jump Both have comparable heights, weights and years of experience. YOU have to place a bet on one of the two athletes Who do you pick? How do you pick? Athlete Qualified? Chris Morgen Yes Dan SanFelice Yes
SUMMARY More information about Chris and Dan: It took Chris one attempt to make the qualifying jump Dan took three attempts Dan touched the grazed the bar on his last attempt Chris cleared the bar with inches to spare The more information you have, the easier it becomes to make an educated choice. The spray measurement, comparison, and visualization tools under development are just a first step in providing much needed information to make an educated engineering judgement.
Thank you for your time! Questions?
Additional Information Stephen J. Jordan Fire Protection Consultant Fire & Risk Alliance, LLC Rockville, MD, USA sjordan@fireriskalliance.com www.fireriskalliance.com
THE REAL DIFFERENCE ( ) ( 6 6 5 5 4 ) 4 GPM/ft2 GPM/ft2 9.00 9.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 Y (ft) 3.50 2.50 5.00 3 3.50 Y (ft) 3 2.50 1.75 2 1.25 0-1 -1 1.25 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.25 1 1.75 2 0.25 1 0 0 1 2 X (ft) 3 4-1 -1 0 1 2 X (ft) 3 4