MeyerFire
  • Blog
  • Forum
  • THE TOOLKIT
    • SUBMIT AN IDEA
    • BACKFLOW DATABASE*
    • CLEAN AGENT ESTIMATOR*
    • CLOUD CEILING CALCULATOR
    • DOMESTIC DEMAND*
    • FIRE FLOW CALCULATOR*
    • FIRE PUMP ANALYZER*
    • FIRE PUMP DATABASE*
    • FRICTION LOSS CALCULATOR
    • HANGER SPACER*
    • IBC TRANSLATOR*
    • K-FACTOR SELECTOR*
    • NFPA 13 EDITION TRANSLATOR ('19 ONLY)
    • NFPA 13 EDITION TRANSLATOR ('99-'22)*
    • LIQUIDS ANALYZER*
    • OBSTRUCTION CALCULATOR
    • OBSTRUCTIONS AGAINST WALL*
    • PLUMBING FIXTURE COUNTS
    • QUICK RESPONSE AREA REDUCTION
    • REMOTE AREA ANALYZER*
    • SPRINKLER DATABASE*
    • SPRINKLER FLOW*
    • SYSTEM ESTIMATOR*
    • TEST & DRAIN CALCULATOR
    • THRUST BLOCK CALCULATOR
    • TRAPEZE CALCULATOR
    • UNIT CONVERTER
    • VOLUME & COMPRESSOR CALCULATOR
    • WATER STORAGE*
    • WATER SUPPLY (US)
    • WATER SUPPLY (METRIC)
  • UNIVERSITY
    • About
    • Catalog
    • Content Library
  • PE Exam
    • PE Forum & Errata
    • PE Store
    • PE Tools
    • PE Prep Series
    • PE 100-Day Marathon
  • LOGIN
  • PRICING
    • SOFTWARE & TRAINING
    • STORE
  • THE CAUSE
    • ABOUT US
    • BECOME AN INSTRUCTOR
    • HELP/SUPPORT
Picture

Replace Recalled Sprinkler w/ Different K-Factor?

12/23/2020

8 Comments

 
I recently acquired a project where I'm replacing all sprinkler in a residential home. Apparently the original sprinkler heads were the OMEGA that were recalled some years ago on.

These specific heads had a K=factor of 3.9 and although I have found only one direct replacement with the 3.9 K=factor, they are not cheap!

My question is what would be an alternative replacement to these k-3.9 Omegas, and would replacements need to be the same k-factor?

​​​​​Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
8 Comments
James Phifer
12/23/2020 09:28:05 am

Found this in NFPA 13, 2016 edition. Hope it helps.

11.3.1.4.1 Where replacing residential sprinklers manufactured
prior to 2003 that are no longer available from the
manufacturer and that are installed using a design density less
than 0.05 gpm/ft2 (2.04 mm/min), a residential sprinkler
with an equivalent K-factor (± 5 percent) shall be permitted to
be used provided the currently listed coverage area for the
replacement sprinkler is not exceeded.

Reply
Kelsey
12/23/2020 10:33:00 am

Came here to say this as well. The 5% has been close enough for me in a few situations but not all, and then more investigation is needed. Good luck to you!

Reply
Dave L.
12/23/2020 10:39:00 am

I'm confident a current replacement can be found with similar or better performance characteristics (and maybe similar takeout), and they should be replaced. But respectfully, are you certain it is an Omega with 3.9K? I don't recall (no pun) a 3.9K recalled Omega sprinkler.

NK
12/23/2020 09:31:40 am

I've run into a similar situation. You either need to match the fire sprinkler characteristics or survey the existing system and run hydraulic calculations to make sure the calcs work with a different k-factor. It could definitely be worth some design time to save the cost of expensive sprinklers if you're replacing a large quantity of sprinklers.

Reply
Casey Milhorn
12/23/2020 09:43:11 am

Of course the correct thing to do if you using a different K factor is to recalculate the system. The issue will be the possible can of worms you are about to open by doing that. You don't know what it was originally designed to at the time (or maybe you do) and water supply could have deteriorated over time. You might be left with a system that doesn't work even with the original K factor heads. The K3.9s were during a time when some of the manufacturers were in a race to have a K factor for every different spacing and scenario. NFPA reigned them all in with standardized K factors thankfully. Even with the same K factor head, there is still a chance that the design parameters have changed for that particular head. All that being said, if the AHJ is reasonable, there should be no reason to use a little common sense and throw a 4.2K in there as a cost effective replacement. It should throw just as far, if not farther with almost the same pressure as the 3.9K. That's my two cents.

Reply
Franck
12/23/2020 09:55:38 am

I can’t answer from a regulation’s standpoint (not living in the US), but the answer from NK is technically correct.
If you replace with same k-factor (+/- 5% as indicated by James), you have the advantage that you don’t need to prove the efficiency of the system as it is the same design.
If you change the k-factor, you need to make new hydraulic calculations to proves that it works with your existing water supply. Normally, with greater k-factor you end up with a larger flow demand. The final pressure demand is then dependent on the pipe layout and should normally be lower when friction losses are limited, but could also be higher...
The advantages of having a different k-factor, in addition to the price in your case, is also to limit possible clogging of the orifice. The smaller the orifice and the older the pipes (if steel made) the more chances of obstructions.
For storage facilities (and larger design), the other advantage of larger orifices is to produce larger droplets that can better penetrate the heat plume. Thus the recommended practice from NFPA 13 to have larger orifices for higher densities with storage occupancies (8.0 or 11.2 rather than 5.6).

Reply
Franck
12/23/2020 10:01:07 am

Information from Casey are also good technical advices.
Of course, if you have the initial design parameters with the hydraulic demand at that time, it does make sense to ensure that your current water supply is still sufficient.
But this should apply in all cases, not only because you make a renovation.
If your water supply is not strong enough anymore, you would certainly have an issue.

Reply
Mark Fessenden
1/5/2021 12:26:04 pm

The Central R-1M was a 3.9 K residential pendent sprinkler. It's listed flow ratings ranged from 9 gpm at 12'x12' & 14'x14', 14 gpm at 16'x16' & 18'x18', and 16 gpm at 20'x20'. The face of fitting to finished ceiling distance was 1-1/16" Max to 7/16" min. Current 3.0 K res pendents have a reduced water demand at spacings 16'x16' or less. I am not aware of a currently listed residential sprinkler with a 3.0 K that is listed for 18'x18' or 20'x20'. If your original R-1M's are spaced at 18'x18' or 20'x20', you would need to reevaluate your calculations. If your spacing is 16'x16' or less, you can simply drop in the current 3.0 K. You will likely need an extension piece to make up the difference in take out.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    Why Sponsor?

    ALL-ACCESS

    Picture
    GET ALL OUR TOOLS

    SUBSCRIBE

    Subscribe and learn something new each day:
    I'm Interested In:

    COMMUNITY

    Top ​May '22 Contributors
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    SEE LEADERBOARD

    YOUR POST

    SUBMIT A QUESTION

    PE EXAM

    Get 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
    SIGN ME UP!

    FILTERS

    All
    A117.1
    ABA
    ADA
    ASCE 7
    ASME A17.1
    Daily Discussion
    Design Documents
    EN 12845
    Explosion Protection & Prevention
    Fire Detection And Alarm Systems
    Fire Dynamics
    Flammable & Combustible LIquids
    FM Global
    Human Behavior
    IBC
    ICC-500
    IFC
    IMC
    IPC
    IRC
    ISO
    Means Of Egress
    NFPA 1
    NFPA 10
    NFPA 101
    NFPA 11
    NFPA 110
    NFPA 1142
    NFPA 1221
    NFPA 13
    NFPA 13D
    NFPA 13R
    NFPA 14
    NFPA 15
    NFPA 17A
    NFPA 20
    NFPA 2001
    NFPA 214
    NFPA 22
    NFPA 220
    NFPA 24
    NFPA 241
    NFPA 25
    NFPA 291
    NFPA 30
    NFPA 33
    NFPA 400
    NFPA 409
    NFPA 415
    NFPA 497
    NFPA 5000
    NFPA 502
    NFPA 54
    NFPA 55
    NFPA 654
    NFPA 68
    NFPA 70
    NFPA 72
    NFPA 75
    NFPA 90A
    NFPA 92
    NICET
    Passive Building Systems
    PE Prep Guide
    PE Prep Series
    PE Sample Problems
    Poll
    Smoke Management
    Special Hazard Systems
    UFC 3 600 01
    UFC 3-600-01
    UFC 4-021-01
    Updates
    Water Based Fire Suppression
    Weekly Exams


    ARCHIVES

    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016


    PE PREP SERIES

    Fire Protection PE Exam Prep
    SEE LEADERBOARD

    RSS Feed

Picture
​Home
Our Cause
The Blog
The Forum
PE Exam Prep
The Toolkit

MeyerFire University
​Pricing
Login
​Support
Contact Us
Picture

MeyerFire.com is a startup community built to help fire protection professionals shine.
Our goal is to improve fire protection practices worldwide. We promote the industry by creating helpful tools and resources, and by bringing together industry professionals to share their expertise.

​MeyerFire, LLC is an International Code Council Preferred Education Provider.

All text, images, and media ​Copyright © 2022 MeyerFire, LLC

We respect your privacy and personal data. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. 
The views, opinions, and information found on this site represent solely the author and do not represent the opinions of any other party, nor does the presented material assume responsibility for its use. Fire protection and life safety systems constitute a critical component for public health and safety and you should consult with a licensed professional for proper design and code adherence.

Discussions are solely for the purpose of peer review and the exchange of ideas. All comments are reviewed. Comments which do not contribute, are not relevant, are spam, or are disrespectful in nature may be removed. Information presented and opinions expressed should not be relied upon as a replacement for consulting services. Some (not all) outbound links on this website, such as Amazon links, are affiliate-based where we receive a small commission for orders placed elsewhere.

  • Blog
  • Forum
  • THE TOOLKIT
    • SUBMIT AN IDEA
    • BACKFLOW DATABASE*
    • CLEAN AGENT ESTIMATOR*
    • CLOUD CEILING CALCULATOR
    • DOMESTIC DEMAND*
    • FIRE FLOW CALCULATOR*
    • FIRE PUMP ANALYZER*
    • FIRE PUMP DATABASE*
    • FRICTION LOSS CALCULATOR
    • HANGER SPACER*
    • IBC TRANSLATOR*
    • K-FACTOR SELECTOR*
    • NFPA 13 EDITION TRANSLATOR ('19 ONLY)
    • NFPA 13 EDITION TRANSLATOR ('99-'22)*
    • LIQUIDS ANALYZER*
    • OBSTRUCTION CALCULATOR
    • OBSTRUCTIONS AGAINST WALL*
    • PLUMBING FIXTURE COUNTS
    • QUICK RESPONSE AREA REDUCTION
    • REMOTE AREA ANALYZER*
    • SPRINKLER DATABASE*
    • SPRINKLER FLOW*
    • SYSTEM ESTIMATOR*
    • TEST & DRAIN CALCULATOR
    • THRUST BLOCK CALCULATOR
    • TRAPEZE CALCULATOR
    • UNIT CONVERTER
    • VOLUME & COMPRESSOR CALCULATOR
    • WATER STORAGE*
    • WATER SUPPLY (US)
    • WATER SUPPLY (METRIC)
  • UNIVERSITY
    • About
    • Catalog
    • Content Library
  • PE Exam
    • PE Forum & Errata
    • PE Store
    • PE Tools
    • PE Prep Series
    • PE 100-Day Marathon
  • LOGIN
  • PRICING
    • SOFTWARE & TRAINING
    • STORE
  • THE CAUSE
    • ABOUT US
    • BECOME AN INSTRUCTOR
    • HELP/SUPPORT