Mec E 460 - FPInnovations Wildfire Operations Research

Mec E 460 – Phase II – Conceptual Design 

3/12/12 

Jesse Moore 

Alberta Genuine Designers 

University of Alberta 

Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3 

1-780-909-6162 

Jmoore1@ualberta.ca 

March 12, 2012 

Roy Campbell 

FP Innovations, FERIC Division` 

Roy.Campbell@fpinnovations.ca 

Dear Mr. Campbell, 

Subject: Wild Fire Sprinkler System 

Alberta Genuine Designers have completed the conceptual design report, the second design stage. The attached report 

outlines several different concept designs, analysis of these designs, and calculations to support each of them. 

At the current stage of engineering, the estimated man hour cost is $22,965, with a final project design cost of $38,925. 

Several concepts have been outlined at an estimated one time manufacturing cost of $510, $310, and $380 respectively. 

Of these concepts, the recommended design by Alberta Genuine Designers is Concept 1 at $510 . It is recommended 

that this design be carried into full development with stage 3. 

Please review the attached report and provide approval to continue on with the recommended design. With your 

approval, the final stage of the design process will be submitted, along with a prototype, by April 5, 2012. Please contact 

myself by phone or email should you have any questions regarding the design report. 

Best Regards, 

Jesse Moore, on behalf of Alberta Genuine Designers 

CC: 

Yongsheng Ma, U of A 

Charles Weir, AGD 

Alexander Dufour, AGD 

Chris Languedoc, AGD 

Evrhetton Gold, AGD

1 Mec E 460 – Phase II – Design Specifications 3/12/2012 

Mec E 460 - Phase II 

Conceptual Design 

FP Innovations 

Wildland Fire Fighting Sprinkler System 

Jesse Moore 

Charles Weir 

Evrhetton Gold 

Chris Languedoc 

Alexander Dufour 

3/12/2012 

Alberta Genuine Design

2 Mec E 460 – Phase II – Conceptual Design 3/12/2012 

List of Tables and Figures ............................................................................................................................................. 3 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 

Project Requirements .................................................................................................................................................... 5 

Height and Velocity Requirement ........................................................................................................................................... 5 

Setup and Adjustability ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 

Design Specification ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 

Design Concepts ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 

Concept I ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 

Concept II ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 

Concept III ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 

Sprinkler Support Design ......................................................................................................................................................... 13 

Preliminary product and manufacturing cost analysis ................................................................................... 14 

Concept Recommendation ......................................................................................................................................... 16 

Heat Reduction ............................................................................................................................................................................. 17 

Project Management .................................................................................................................................................... 22 

Future Work .................................................................................................................................................................... 23 

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................... 23 

Appendix A – Sample Calculations .......................................................................................................................... 24 

Required Outlet Velocity .......................................................................................................................................................... 25 

Concept I ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 

Concept II ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 

Concept III ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 

Nozzle Force .................................................................................................................................................................................. 33 

Appendix B – FloXpress Analysis Reports ............................................................................................................ 35 

SolidWorks FloXpress Report – Concept I .......................................................................................................................... 36 

SolidWorks FloXpress Report – Concept II ........................................................................................................................ 39 

SolidWorks FloXpress Report – Concept III ....................................................................................................................... 41 

Appendix C – Assembly, Setup and Operation .................................................................................................... 43 

Assembly ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 44 

Setup ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 44 

Operation ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 44 

Appendix D-Design Specification with comments for Phase 2...................................................................... 45 

Appendix E- Phase 2 Recorded Hours .................................................................................................................... 50 

Appendix F-Phase One Report .................................................................................................................................. 52 

References ....................................................................................................................................................................... 53


List of Tables and Figures 

Figure 1: Angle optimization for sprinkler head orientation ........................................................................................... 6 

Figure 2: Solid model of Concept 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 7 

Figure 3: Dimensioned Model of Concept 1 ............................................................................................................................ 8 

Figure 4: FloXpress Simulation Output of Concept 1 .......................................................................................................... 8 

Figure 5: Solid model of concept 2 ............................................................................................................................................. 9 

Figure 6: Dimensions for concept 2 ........................................................................................................................................... 9 

Figure 7: FloXpress results for concept 2 .............................................................................................................................. 10 

Figure 8: Solid model for concept 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 11 

Figure 9: Dimensions for concept 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 11 

Figure 10: FloXpress results for concept 3 ............................................................................................................................ 12 

Figure 11: Solid model for Sprinkler Support ...................................................................................................................... 13 

Figure 12: Dimensions of Support ............................................................................................................................................ 14 

Figure 13: Graphical Concept Cost Breakdown for Prototype ...................................................................................... 14 

Table 1: Cost Comparison of Concept Prototypes ............................................................................................................. 15 

Table 2: Decision Matrix ............................................................................................................................................................... 18 

Figure 14: Graphical summary of project engineering hours ........................................................................................ 22 

Table 3: Engineering Cost Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 23 

Figure 15: FloXpress Analysis of Concept 1 .......................................................................................................................... 28 

Figure 16: Solid Works Flow analysis for Concept 1 at 100 Psi .................................................................................... 37 

Figure 17: Solid Works Flow analysis for Concept 1 nozzle at 100 Psi ...................................................................... 37 

Figure 18: Solid Works Flow analysis for Concept 1 nozzle at 75 Psi ........................................................................ 38 

Figure 19: Solid Works Flow analysis for Concept 2 at 75 Psi....................................................................................... 40 


Figure 21: Solid Works Flow analysis for Concept 3 at 75 Psi....................................................................................... 42 


Table 4: Updated Design Specifications With Phase 2 Concept Notes ....................................................................... 46 

Figure 23: Phase 2 Logged Hours ............................................................................................................................................. 51 

Word Count: 2562


Executive Summary 

The intent of this design project is to design and engineer a wild fire sprinkler that outperforms those 

existing in the field today. By incorporating engineering best practices, and utilizing the experience of the 

AGD engineering team, the client’s specifications will be met or exceeded. Through discussion with the 

client the important the follow specifications were outlined: 

Vertical height is to be maximized; a minimum throw of 7 meters is requested, up to a maximum of 

21 meters. 

Variability of throw height is required; the system must be able to be easily manipulated in the 

field for different horizontal and vertical throw distances. 

Robustness, the chosen design must be able to withstand the considerable forces that it will be 

exposed to when used in firefighting. 

Mounting, a mounting apparatus must be designed that allows easy mounting to many different 

surfaces. 

Alberta Genuine Designers recommend design Concept 1, this design is easily manufactured, allows for 

great maneuverability in throw height and distance, and incorporates all the design specifications 

outlined by the client. The mounting apparatus designed for the project allows easy mounting to many 

surfaces, the stake of the mount allows the sprinkler to be driven into any dirt surface for use, and the 

end cap allows the sprinkler to be easily mounted on any 2x4 dimensioned piece of wood. Additional 

drilled holes will allow the sprinkler to be mounted in a multitude of different objects. 

When design approval is provided by FP Innovations, AGD will proceed to the detailed design stage. This 

will involve detailed calculations involving fluid dynamics, stress analysis, and design for manufacture. 

At this stage a concept will be developed at the University of Alberta using the funds supplied by FP 

Innovations for testing. The final estimate for the cost of the project is $38,920, and the estimated cost of 

the prototype is $510.


Introduction 

Alberta Genuine Design has been tasked with the design of an innovative sprinkler head to assist in forest 

fire fighting efforts. Sprinkler systems are used in practice to help control the movement of the blaze for 

both wildfires and prescribed burns. Current equipment is limited in capability, because of this FP 

Innovations is looking for a better design. Three concepts have been designed and a recommendation 

has been made for one of these designs to see further development. 

Project Requirements 

Height and Velocity Requirement 

The System is to be designed to have a maximum throw height of 21 meters, which was set by FP 

Innovations. There are two forces acting on a mass of water as it moves through the air. The first force is 

gravity, pulling down on the droplet as it moves through the air, and the second is drag force. Drag force 

for a water droplet is calculated from: 

C v 2 d 

A 

Fd 

 

2 

(1) 

Where: 

Cd is the coefficient of drag 

ρ is density [kg/m 3 ] 

υ is velocity [m/s 2 ] 

A is cross sectional area of the mass [m 2 ] 

Note that the drag force is related to the square of the droplet velocity, so it has the largest influence on 

the total drag. To solve this problem, the Euler implicit method was used, which uses previously solved 

values to determine the next set of values in the problem set. By putting this differential equation into an 

Excel file and solving for all the velocities and acceleration values with a step of 0.1 seconds, it is possible 

to determine the resulting vertical and horizontal flow for a given throw angle. Figure1 below shows the 

resulting plot.


Figure 1: Angle optimization for sprinkler head orientation 

These calculations were based on a single water droplet. However, a pure droplet model may not be 

entirely accurate as it will initially be a stream and break up into droplets later. The above analysis, 

however, helped determine an ideal throw angle of about 80°. With the goal of hitting the clients target it 

is assumed that the stream will remain intact for 80% of the arc height. Therefore to ensure the client’s 

goal was reached the calculations were carried out with a height of 25.2 meters. To achieve this height, 

the required velocity is around 22.579 m/s. From here, the outlet nozzle size to acquire this initial 

velocity can be determined. Refer to Appendix A for the above calculations. 

The pressure drop within the sprinkler head can be found using Bernoulli’s equation. The inlet pressure 

into the sprinkler head is marked by the designed operating pressure as outlined in Phase I with a value 

of 100 psi. The Wajax Mark 3 pump that is most commonly used in the field at an operating pressure of 

100 psi produces 77 gpm. With a kit size using 8 separate sprinkler heads, this allows for 9.625 gpm per 

head, or roughly 36 l/min. This flow rate will be used during the analysis of each concept. As the setup is 

likely to change at each firefighting location, a total pressure loss of around 25% will be assumed in order 

to compensate for any potential pressure losses due to varying setups. 

Setup and Adjustability 

The client specified that the system must have a minimum of setup steps in order to reduce setup time 

and complexity. It was also specified that the sprinkler head must be adjustable for changing 

environmental conditions such as tree height. The sprinkler will also be mounted in a variety of locations, 

so the support must be versatile and mountable on dimensional lumber. The full system assembly, setup, 

and operation can be seen in Appendix C.


Design Specification 

The updated design specification matric can be seen in appendix E with phase two concept comments on 

the right hand side. The only elimination form the table was section 5.1.1 because no relief valve is 

required on an open system. 

Design Concepts 

Concept I 

The goal for this design was to reach the goals of the client in a cost effective way. The highlights for this 

design are the number of bought parts, the ease of machining for the made parts and minimizing head 

losses as much as possible. Throughout the design the use of easily accessible bought parts was high 

priority as seen in Figure 2 and the dimensioned drawing Figure 3. The parts highlighted in blue are 

bought parts. This makes the system easy to assemble and allows for interchangeability between 

sprinkler heads in case of damage and reduction in cost. Through the groups experience in machining, 

the parts needing to be machined were designed with the goal of being easy and quick to manufacture. 

This will keep costs to a minimum. In mass production, these parts will most likely be cast, not machined, 

and will further reducing the costs. If this design is carried forward further considerations will be made 

in reducing the cost of manufacturing, such as looking at different methods of manufacturing. As a 

highlight of the system, by using a flexible hose instead of an adjustable elbow the pressure drop through 

the arc is much lower. This allows for more pressure to be carried through allowing this design to attain 

the design goals of the client. 

Figure 2: Solid model of Concept 1


Figure 3: Dimensioned Model of Concept 1 

To verify the performance of this concept, both hand calculations and using SolidWorks FloXpress were 

used. The results of each determined the output velocity of this system was approximately 38 m/s at 100 

psi operating conditions. This exceeds the minimum requirement. Figure 4 shows the FloXpress output. 

Figure 4: FloXpress Simulation Output of Concept 1 

The system was also run with an operating pressure of 75 psi to account for losses upstream of the 

sprinkler heads. With this assumption the output becomes 30 m/s, still exceeding the client’s 

requirement. Weight of the sprinkler head was also taken into consideration during analysis. Using 

SolidWorks, it was estimated that the weight of Concept 1 was 3.8 lbs.


Concept II 

This concept is based on the firefighting nozzles that would be currently seen on a fire truck or fire 

fighting boat. The design had to have vertical adjustment, so a horizontal pivot was integrated into the 

concept to allow for angling of the nozzle. Another focus was to try and reduce the head losses 

throughout the sprinkler head so that the largest nozzle tip velocity could be achieved. The requirement 

of rotation in this concept is met by utilizing a vertical swivel joint in conjunction with a nozzle that is off 

centered to provide a rotational moment. The vertical rotating joint also incorporates a rotational 

damper to limit the rotational speed of the head. The concept design and its dimensions can be seen in 

Figures 5 and 6 below. 

Figure 5: Solid model of concept 2 

Figure 6: Dimensions for concept 2


Both FloXpress and hand calculations were done on this concept as well. The resulting FloXpress output 

at 75 psi can be viewed below in Figure 7. 

Figure 7: FloXpress results for concept 2 

The FloXpress velocity output was found to be 34.004 m/s. By hand, the outlet velocity was found to be 

32.19 m/s. These values are extremely close to each other. Using the data from SolidWorks, the 

approximate weight of this model is 4.5 lbs.


Concept III 

This concept is relatively similar to concept 1, but the rotation and vertical adjustment mechanisms are 

slightly different. The rotation mechanism involves diverging some of the flow through a mini nozzle. 

Rotation is provided due to the angular momentum of the flow through the other outlet. The top nozzle 

and lower nozzle are linked through a swivel joint. Vertical adjustment is allowed by loosening a nut that 

is screwed onto the side of the adjusting chamber, adjusting the nozzle to the appropriate angle, and 

tightening the nut. Each of the pieces is connected with standard NPT threads, so assembly will be easy. 

The required materials will need to be purchased and machined to meet the required specifications. 

Figure 8 below shows a solid model of this concept, and Figure 9 below illustrates the approximate 

dimensions of this concept (dimensions in millimeters). 

Figure 8: Solid model for concept 3 

Figure 9: Dimensions for concept 3


SolidWorks’ FloXpress and hand calculations were also used on this concept to verify that the velocity at 

the nozzle outlet meets the required velocity. This simulation was also done at 75 psi to compensate for 

any pressure losses. The resulting output can be viewed below in Figure 10. 

Figure 10: FloXpress results for concept 3 

FloXpress determined an outlet velocity of 33.694 m/s, and exceeds the required velocity. Using hand 

calculations, the outlet velocity was found to be 31.292 m/s, and is very close to the results obtained from 

FloXpress. Further analysis found that the total pressure loss for this head is around 4.13 kPa. Finally, 

SolidWorks states that the approximate weight of this concept is 1.1 lbs. Refer to Appendix A for the 

hand calculations done for each concept, and Appendix B for the respective FloXpress reports.


Sprinkler Support Design 

Redesigning the current support system is another task the team is currently undertaking. The design of 

the sprinkler support is one of simplicity and ruggedness. The main body of the support is made from 

angle iron. One sharpened end allows it to be staked firmly into the ground. Holes in the body allow for it 

to be mounted to the side of a tree. In addition, a holder made of simple rectangular steel tubing, is 

attached at the side of the main body which allows for placement on top of a 2”x 4” piece of vertical 

lumber. The holder dimensions could easily be swapped for alternate ones during final fabrication. The 

numerous holes in the holder and body allow for many mounting scenarios on various surfaces. The 

holder is capped in order for the support to be stomped or driven with a hammer into the ground. In 

addition, the top of the main body is also capped and various sprinkler mounting designs can be applied. 

Overall the design will prove strong, durable and versatile. Figure 11 below shows the proposed 

sprinkler support and Figure 12 shows the dimensions. 

Figure 11: Solid model for Sprinkler Support


Figure 12: Dimensions of Support 

Preliminary product and manufacturing cost analysis 

For each design concept developed, a preliminary product and manufacturing cost analysis has been 

performed. Each design was created in order to best utilize pre-manufactured parts available on the 

market and reduce the need for manufacturing parts. Material selection was based on machining, 

corrosion resistance, heat resistance, weight, and strength. The sprinkler support will cost approximately 

$ 140 and will be added to the total cost of the selected sprinkler concept. A summary of the concept 

costs is presented in Figure 13 to effectively show differences in the breakdown of material and 

fabrication costs. 

Figure 13: Graphical Concept Cost Breakdown for Prototype


All concepts have similar material costs, and the differences in total costs are a direct result of machining 

of new parts and assembly through welding. Machining time and cost estimated was determined by 

consulting with the machinists in the University of Alberta MecE machine shop. A total breakdown of all 

cost components for each concept and the sprinkler support can be found in Table 1. 

The costs are significantly higher than the target $ 175 cost to manufacture, but the estimates made to 

date are for a one-off prototype design. Once the top design is refined, the next logical step is to mass 

produce the part using other means of manufacturing which would greatly reduce overall cost. 

It can be seen that Concept 1 is the most expensive design, 65% more costly than Concept 3 due to more 

fabrication needed for custom parts. Concept 2 was found to be the cheapest and the overall cost 

variation between these concepts spans a maximum of $ 200. 

Table 1: Cost Comparison of Concept Prototypes 

Sprinkler Support 

Item Description Unit Price Units Total 

1 A36 L-Shape Steel Angle (1"x1"x1/8") $ 1.25/ft 1.0 $ 1.25 

2 A500 Steel Rectangular Tubing (4"x2"x1/4") $ 14.31/ft 1.0 $ 14.31 

3 1/4" A36 Steel Plate $ 13.78/sqft 1.0 $ 13.78 

4 Machining $ 55.00/hr 1.0 $ 55.00 

5 Welding $ 55.00/hr 1.0 $ 55.00 

Total Estimate: $ 140.00 

Concept 1 


1 Swagelok 1/2" Brass Elbow (Part ID: S-8-E)* $19.89 1.0 $19.89 

2 Swagelok 1/2" Brass Street Tee (Part ID: B-8-ST) $27.78 1.0 $27.78 

3 Swagelok 1/2" x 1/4" Brass Reducer (Part ID: B-8-HRN-4) $7.79 1.0 $7.79 

4 Swagelok Brass Pipe Coupling (Part ID: B-8-HCG) $10.35 1.0 $10.35 

5 MEG 1/4" Stainless Steel Spray Nozzle (Part ID: Be-85-200) $6.95 1.0 $6.95 

6 1/2" Stainless Steel Braid Flexible Hose $67.11 1.0 $67.11 

7 1/2" LD Nozzle $6.95 1.0 $6.95 

8 Brass Swivel Joint $20.00 1.0 $20.00 

9 Carbon Steel $10.00 1.0 $10.00 

10 Machining** $55.00/hr 5.0 $275.00 

11 Welding $55.00/hr 1.0 $55.00 

Total Estimate: $510.00 

*Values in final design will change as bulk parts will be bought at a much reduced value, Swagelok parts tend to be 5 times more 

expensive then a similar part but are available in single quantity so ideal for prototype. Once a final design is chosen, different 

manufacturing techniques will be researched including casting instead of machining, to reduce the cost of design down to the goal 

of $175. 

** Further brainstorming has resulted in a few alterations that will drastically reduce cost and number of parts needed. If this is 

the chosen design these will be carried through into the third phase.


Concept 2 


1 1" - 90° Elbow $15.00 3.0 $45.00 

2 1" - 45° Elbow $15.00 2.0 $30.00 

3 1" Swivel Joint $15.00 2.0 $30.00 

4 Rotational Damper $12.50 1.0 $12.50 

5 1" x 1 1/2" Aluminum Billet $20.00 1.0 $20.00 

6 Machining $ 55.00/hr 2.0 $110.00 

7 Welding $ 55.00/hr 1.0 $55.00 


Concept 3 


1 Brass Tubing OD=0.75" ID=0.029" [3] $15.36/ft 1.0 $15.36 

2 Cold Finish Aluminum Round 6061 T651 D= 1.75 " [3] $24.37/ft 1.0 $24.37 

3 Cold Finish Aluminum Round 6061 T651 D= 1.375 " [3] $16.84/ft 1.0 $16.84 

4 ¾ ‘’ Eaton Swivel Joint [4] $100.00 1.0 $100.00 

5 Stainless Steel 316 Cast Pipe Fitting, Tee, Class 150, 3/4" NPT (F) $1.03 1.0 $1.03 

6 Machining $ 55.00/hr 4.0 $220.00 


Concept Recommendation 

The decision matrix was broken down into sub categories to allow for different sections to be weighted 

differently based on importance. The sub-categories were broken down into must haves, design criteria, 

and manufacturing and materials. The first sub-category, must haves, is the most important; the concept 

must meet each of these criteria to be considered for selection. The second sub-category, design criteria, 

this category compares the concepts based on how they will achieve the design requirements. This 

category is weighted a 10, on a scale from 1-10, meaning that this sub category is the most important. The 

third sub-category, manufacturing and materials, rates the concepts based on the materials that are 

utilized and required machining and welding time. This category is weighted a 5, on a scale from 1-10, 

meaning that this sub category is the least important. Table 2 shows the decision matrix. This decision 

matrix indicates that Concept 1 is recommended to be carried into the detailed design phase.


Heat Reduction 

The addition of water during firefighting efforts not only adds moisture to the foliage and ground cover 

reducing their chance of ignition but also reduces the heat in the immediate area [1]. This reduction of 

the heat slows the progress of the fire and allows crews to remain in the area longer. Performed by the 

vaporization of the water, which displaces the oxygen reducing the fuel for the fire, and by cooling the 

surroundings by absorbing the heat [2]. All three concepts are designed around the same pump, the 

Wajax Mark 3, running at a specified operating pressure. At 100 psi the Wajax 3 pump provides 77 gpm 

of volumetric flow into the system. Based on this an analysis of the system was undertaken to see in 

different situations, how much heat was absorbed by the fluid that was added into the environment. 

Focus will be set on the radiation absorbed by the water in the area from the fire at set distances. The 

analysis changes greatly as the flow begins to come in direct contact with the flame and is not in the 

scope of this section. 

Heat reduction and absorption by the water was attempted to be solved for in this phase. However, the 

calculations became too complicated, with too many unknowns. This will be looked at again in phase 3 

when a more in depth analysis can be performed and when more data is known about the setup.


Table 2: Decision Matrix 

Item # Concept Description 

1.00 Must Haves 

1.01 Operating Pressure 

1.02 Sprinkler Vertical Throw 

1.03 Sprinkler Horizontal Range 

1.04 Sprinkler Flow Rate 

1.05 Sprinkler Weight 

1.06 Sprinkler Vertical Adjustment 

2.00 Design Criteria 

2.01 Sprinkler Cost 

Design Specification/ 

Requirements 

The sprinkler head must 

be able to withstand an 

operating pressure of 

100Psi with a design 

safety factor of 3 making 

maximum up to 300Psi 

The sprinkler must have a 

minimum vertical throw 

of 7m 

Minimum sprinkler 

horizontal throw of 6m 

The sprinkler head flow 

rate is to be a minimum of 

15l/mim 

No component of the 

sprinkler system can 

exceed 50lbs (excluding 

pump) 

The vertical throw of the 

sprinkler must be 

adjustable 

Sprinkler cost to not 

exceed 175$ for full-scale 

production, prototype can 

Safety Factor 

Design 

Importance 

(1-5) 

Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 

Score (1-10) Weighted Score Score (1-10) Weighted Score Score (1-10) Weighted Score 

3.00 Must Have Have N/A Have N/A Have N/A 

- Must Have Have N/A Have N/A Have N/A 





- 5 3 15 5 25 4 20



2.02 Sprinkler Size 

2.03 Sprinkler Weight 

2.04 Sprinkler Vertical Range 

2.05 Sprinkler Horizontal Range 

2.06 Sprinkler Setup 

2.07 Sprinkler Flow Rate 


Requirements 

exceed this. 

Sprinkler size must be 

kept to a minimum for 

ease of pack ability; the 

grading system compares 

sprinklers to each other. 

Entire sprinkler package 

to be under 79 lbs 

arrying; the systems were 

compared with each 

other to finalize score 

Sprinkler minimum 

height to be 7m but goal 

of 21m to reach tree tops; 

score of 10 if goal reached 

Minimum sprinkler throw 

of 6m; score of 10 if 

exceeded 

The sprinkler system 

must be easy to setup to 

allow for fast setup 

The sprinkler head flow 

rate is to be a minimum of 

15l/mim but to be 

maximized for 

effectiveness; each 

sprinkler head designed 

to 36 l/min 

Safety Factor 

- 3 

Design 

Importance 

(1-5) 



10 

30 7 21 9 27 

- 4 8 32 7 28 8 32 

- 5 10 50 10 50 10 50 

- 5 10 50 10 50 10 50 

- 4 8 32 8 32 8 32 

- 4 9 36 9 36 9 36




Requirements 

Safety Factor 

Design 

Importance 

(1-5) 



2.00 Sub Total 221 217 218 

3.00 Manufacture and Materials 

3.01 Part Machining Time 

Minimum amount of 

required machinist time 

- 4 8 32 8 32 6 24 

3.02 Welding Time 

Minimum amount of 

required welder time 

- 4 7 28 6 24 7 28 

3.03 Time for Sprinkler Assembly 

Minimum required time 

for assembly of sprinkler 

head during manufacture 

- 3 7 21 8 24 7 21 

3.04 Number of Parts 

3.05 Number of Purchasable Parts 

Minimum to reduce time 

of assembly 

Maximum to reduce 

manufacturing time and 

cost 

- 5 6 30 7 35 6 30 

- 5 10 50 7 35 8 40 

3.06 Availability of Purchasable Parts 

Easy to purchase parts for 

ease of repair 

- 3 9 27 7 21 8 24 

3.07 Cost of Purchased Parts 

Kept to a minimum to 

reduce overall cost. Also 

consider reduction of cost - 4 7 28 6 24 7 28 

when large quantities 

ordered 

3.08 Reduction in Cost at High Numbers 

Will the cost be reduced if 

a large number of - 3 10 30 10 30 10 30 

sprinklers required 

3.00 Sub Total 246 225 225 

Subtotal Score Subtotal Score Subtotal Score




Requirements 

Safety Factor 

Design 

Importance 

(1-5) 



1.00 Must Haves Total 

All required for concept 

to be considered 

- Yes/No Yes Accepted Yes Accepted Yes Accepted 

2.00 Design Criteria Total 

Multiplied by a factor of 

10 for importance 

- 10 221 2210 217 2170 218 2180 

3.00 Manufacturing and Materials Total 

Multiplied by a factor of 5 

for importance 

- 5 246 1230 225 1125 225 1125 

Total 3440 3295 3305


Project Management 

The project schedule has been updated and can be found in Appendix E. Phase 2 work was undertaken 

efficiency and actual time to complete was 19 hours under estimation. As a result of this significant 

time efficiency, Phase 3 scheduling shall remain the same, as well as poster preparation time. A 

graphical outlook at estimated, actual and revised estimated hours for each phase can be seen in 

Figure 14. 

Figure 14: Graphical summary of project engineering hours 

Engineering cost estimates are currently lower than the estimates presented in Phase 1. The original 

estimates of 436.5 hours of junior engineer time at $90/hr and 9 hours of intermediate engineer time 

at $150/hr have been revised to 417.5 hours and 9 hours respectively. Total engineering costs can be 

found in Table 3 below.


Table 3: Engineering Cost Analysis 

Project 

Component 

Estimated 

hours 

Junior Engineer/Industrial Designer costs 

Initial Actual Actual Revised 

Estimated hours cost Estimated 

cost 

hours 

Revised 

Estimated 

cost 

(hrs) ($) (hrs) ($) (hrs) ($) 

Phase 1 92.5 $8,325 92.5 $8,325 n/a n/a 

Phase 2 170 $15,300 151 $13,590 n/a n/a 

Phase 3 156 $14,040 n/a n/a 156 $14,040 

Poster 18 $1,620 n/a n/a 18 $1,620 

TOTAL 436.5 $39,285 243.5 $21,915 417.5 $37,575 

Project 

Component 

Estimated 

hours 

Intermediate Engineer costs 

Initial Actual Actual 

Estimated hours cost 

cost 

Revised 

Estimatd hours 

Revised 

Estimated 

cost 

(hrs) ($) (hrs) ($) (hrs) ($) 

Phase 1 4 $600 4 $600 n/a n/a 

Phase 2 3 $450 3 $450 n/a n/a 

Phase 3 2 $300 n/a n/a 2 $300 

Poster n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

TOTAL 9 $1,350 $1,050 9 $1,350 

Total Project Costs 

Total Costs to date $22,965 

Total Projected 

Costs 

$38,925 

Future Work 

Further work has to be carried out on the selected concept involving a more in-depth CFD flow 

analysis. ANSYS CFX will likely be used as it is likely more accurate than the results obtained from 

SolidWorks FloXpress. The chosen concept will also have the cost further reduced by researching 

alternative manufacturing methods and parts. As previously mentioned, more analysis will be 

performed regarding the heat reduction and absorption. 

Conclusion 

A preliminary analysis found that each of the three concepts can easily meet the design specifications. 

Through detailed review of the three different concepts, the decision matrix method was used to 

determine a final chosen design. Through this analysis, the first concept design was chosen and is 

recommended to the client. Moving on to stage 3, the complete detailed engineering analysis will be 

completed for this design if approved by the client. This will include full detailed drawings for 

manufacture, creation of a prototype for testing, and optimization of all aspects of the chosen design 

concept and mounting apparatus.


Appendix A – Sample Calculations


Required Outlet Velocity 

Objective 

To determine the required velocity to achieve a maximum vertical throw of 25.2 meters. 

Solution Method 

Treat the stream as a projectile, and use the basic kinematic equations to determine the required 

velocity. 

Known 

Maximum vertical throw – 25.2 m 

Ideal throw angle – 80° 

Assumptions 

Drag force is negligible 

Sketch 

Not required 

Analysis 

At the maximum point of trajectory, the y-component of velocity is zero. The required water speed to 

achieve the maximum height is simply: 

y max 

= v 2 o 

sin 2 

2g 

v o 

= 

2gy max 

sin 2 

(1) [1] 

Where: g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s 2 ) 

θ is the throw angle 

Ymax is the maximum vertical height 

v o 

= 

2(9.81m / s2 )(25.2m) 

= 22.579m / s 

sin 2 (80 o ) 

Conclusion 

An outlet velocity of 22.579 m/s is required to achieve the required vertical throw. Since this 

calculation was done assuming that the stream will break up for 80% of the arc height, so this is a 

more conservative estimate to the required outlet velocity. As long as each of the concepts can 

achieve this outlet velocity, then the required vertical throw can easily be achieved.


Concept I 

Using Bernoulli’s equation in terms of heads: 

P 1 

g + V 2 1 

1 

2g + z + h = P 2 

1 pump,u 

g + V 2 2 

2 

2g + z + h 2 L 

With assumptions based on concepts design this reduces to: 

(2) [2] 

P 1 

g + V 2 1 

1 

2g = V 2 2 

2 

2g + z + h (3) 

2 L 

Where it is assumed that: 

P1 is the output pressure of the pump 689.47 KPa 

is the density of water at 20 o C = 998 kg/m 3 

are the kinetic energy correction factors approximately 1.05 for real 

systems 

V1 is the inlet velocity into the sprinkler head based on volumetric flow 

rate from pump 36 l/min 

z2 is the height of the sprinkler head above the inlet approximately 12” 

V2 is the outlet velocity of the system 

hL is the head loss through the sprinkler head 

The inlet velocity is based on the volumetric flow rate into the sprinkler size by: 

V = AV V = V (4) 

A = V 

4 D2 

Where D is the diameter of the inlet which is ½” or 0.0127m 

1m 3 

0.6l / s 

V 1 

= 1000l / s = 4.74m / s 

(5) 

4 (0.0127m)2 

The head loss through the sprinkler head is calculated based on the loss coefficients of the parts in the 

design and the loss due to friction through the flexible hose. The head loss in this system is governed 

by two equations: 

2 

V 

h L 

= K 1 

L 

(6) 

2g 

For the fittings. 

h L 

= f L 2 

V avg 

(7) 

D 2g 

For the flexible hose where: f - is the friction factor through the hose 

L – is the length of the hose = 6 ½” 

D – is the diameter of the hose = ½” 

The loss coefficients for each of the parts are as follows: 

Threaded Elbow: KL = 0.9 

Threaded Swivel Union: KL = 0.08 

Threaded Tee (In-Line Flow): KL = 0.9


From this: 

h L 

= K L 

V 1 

2 

2g 

(4.74m / s)2 

= (0.9 + 0.08+ 0.9) = 2.15m (8) 

2(9.81m / s 2 ) 

For the flexible hose in determining the friction factor the Colebrook equation is used for this some 

quantities must be determined. The Reynolds Number of the flow (Re) and the roughness of the hose, 

the hose internal is smooth plastic so the roughness () is zero. 

Re = 

V avgD (998kg / m 3 )(4.74m / s)(0.0127m) 

= = 5.98x10 7 (9) 

(1.004x10 6 kg / ms) 

Where is the viscosity of water at 20 o C. 

1f 

= 1.8log 

6.9 

Re + 

D ÷ 

3.7 ÷ 

With the assumptions in the system (10) becomes: 

1f = 1.8log 6.9 

5.98x10 + 0 

1.11 

7 3.7 ÷ 

1.11 

(10) 

f = 0.00641 (11) 

From this: 

h L 

= f L 2 

V avg 

(0.1651m) (4.74m / s) 2 

= (0.00641) = 0.38m (12) 

D 2g (0.0127m) 2(9.81m / s 2 ) 

The total head loss through the system becomes 2.53m. 

Revisiting equation (3) to determine the output velocity through the system: 

P 1 

g + V 2 1 

1 

2g = V 2 2 

2 

2g + z 2 

+ h L 

2 

(689.475KPa) 

(4.74m / s)2 

+ (1.05) 

(998kg / m 3 )(9.81m / s 2 ) 2(9.81m / s 2 ) =1.05 V 2 

+ 0.3048m + 2.53m 

2(9.81m / s 2 ) 

V 2 

= 36.7m / s 

(13) 

This is above the desired output velocity of 22.579m/s to attain the clients goal. Based on this, this 

system theoretically will work to reach the desired goal of 21 m. 

One other reason in calculating the velocity through the system is that the precise output nozzle size 

can be calculated. This is based on: 

A = V V 2 

4 D2 = V V 2 

= 

(0.6l / min 1m3 

1000l ) 

36.7m / s 

D = 0.00456m = 0.18" 3 /16" (14) 

With the hand calculations done, as a double check Solid Works was utilized to test each concept using 

its FloXpress tool. Assuming other losses in the system it was run at 75 psi. This 25% reduction is an 

estimate of losses through the piping to all of the sprinkler heads. As the system configuration is not 

constant it is hard to find an exact loss, therefore a 25% loss was assumed which should be higher 

than the actual. The output from SolidWorks determined the outlet velocity to be 30m/s and is shown 

in the FloXpress report seen in Appendix B. This is obviously a different pressure than the hand 

calculations as a double check FloXpress was run at the 100 psi that the hand calculations were based 

on from this it was found that the output velocity was 38 m/s a 3.5 % difference from the hand


calculations. Which is within a reasonable amount to allowing the output velocity of the concept to be 

based on the FloXpress turnout of 30 m/s. Again reassuring that the system should work. Figure 2 

shows the output velocity at the outlet nozzle of Concept 1. 

Figure 15: FloXpress Analysis of Concept 1 

The results from the FloXpress analysis compliment those of the hand calculations performed. This 

double check further shows that this design will meet the design requirements set out at the 

beginning of this process.


Concept II 

As seen from concept one compared to the large amount of pressure being run through the system the 

head loss through the sprinkler is negligible in comparison. Through this design it will be neglected. 

Assume a pressure drop though the piping system of proximately 25% down from pump pressure of 

100Psi. 

Bernoulli’s Equation to calculate velocity 

75Psi = 517,106Pa 

 

 

+ 

 

 

= 

 

 

Assume that the inlet velocity is approximately zero due to the large opening relative to outlet size. 

Also there was the assumption made that there is minimal head loss though the sprinkler head due to 

the large diameter of material used. 

(1) 

 

v = (,) 

 

 

= . 

 

This value is also backed by a flow analysis done in solid works that have a nozzle tip velocity of 

34m/s only about 6% difference. 

From the velocity the nozzle was sized to get the desired flow rate of 36l/min multiple nozzles will be 

sized for each head to allow for the two different pumps to be used. 

(2) 

 

d = 2 ̇ 

 

 

. 

 

 

 

= 2 . 

= 4.87mm (3)


Concept III 

Objective 

To determine the total head loss, the total pressure loss, the outlet velocity at the nozzle for concept 3, 

and the required outlet diameter. 


The total head loss within the system can be done by summing the frictional losses and minor losses 

within the system. The pressure loss can easily be determined knowing the total head loss. Knowing 

the head loss, the maximum outlet velocity can be determined by using Bernoulli’s equation at a given 

operating pressure. 

Known 

Operating Pressure – 75 psi (517107 Pa) 

Operating Flow Rate – 36 litre/minute (0.000600 m 3 /s) 

Inner Diameter of pipe – 0.692’ (17.5768 mm) 

Roughness Height for Brass – 0.0015 mm 

Assumptions 

Water is at ambient conditions (20°c and 101.325 kPa). 

Flow is steady and incompressible. 

Flow is fully developed at sprinkler head entrance. 

About half of the flow is diverged through the swivel joint, so the top nozzle receives half of the 

total flow rate. 

Sketch 

Not necessary 

Analysis 

The inlet velocity at both junctions can easily be determined from the definition of the flow rate: 

V = Q A = 4Q 

πD 

Where Q is the flow rate, and D is the diameter. With these values known, the resulting velocity is: 

V = 4(0.0006 m 

2 s ) 

π(0.0175768m) = 1.236 m s 

Next, the Reynolds number can be determined. Knowing the Reynolds number can determine the 

flow regime as well as help determine the friction factor for this flow. The Reynolds number is 

defined as: 

Re = ρVD 

μ 

Where ρ is the fluid density and μ is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid. At ambient conditions (20°c 

and 101.325 kPa), the density and dynamic viscosity of water are 998 kg/m 3 and 1.002e-3 kg/ms 

respectively. Thus, the Reynolds number is: 

(1) 

(2)


Re = 

(998 kg 

m )(1.236 m s 

)(0.0175768 m) 

= 21645 

(1.002 ∙ 10 kg 

ms ) 

So the flow within the sprinkler head is turbulent. With the Reynolds number known and the 

roughness height known, the friction factor can be determined from: 

1 

ε . 

= −1.8log (6.9 

f Re + D 

3.7 ) 

Where ε is the roughness height of the sprinkler head material. Rearranging, the friction factor is: 

1 

6.9 

0.0000015m 

= −1.8log ( 

f 21645 + 0.0175768 m 

 

3.7 

f = 

1 

6.27643 = 0.025385 

. 

) = 6.27643 

Note that the friction factor and Reynolds number would be the same for the junction to the top 

nozzle and through to the mini nozzle as they are a function of the flow speed and flow diameter. 

The minor losses from the inlet and to the top nozzle are found from summing each of the 

minor loss coefficients in the system. The losses in this section involve three threaded unions (K = 

0.08), a threaded tee with line flow (K = 0.9), and a sharp exit (K = 1.05) and sharp entrance (K = 0.5) 

within the vertical adjusting chamber. The total minor losses are then simply: 

K = 4K + K + K + K = 3 ∙ 0.08 + 0.9 + 1.05 + 0.5 = 2.69 

With the friction factor and total minor losses known, then the total head loss in this junction can be 

found from: 

h = f L D 

+ K 

V 

2g 

Where g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s 2 ) and L is the length of the flow, and is 

approximately 0.25 m (roughly the vertical height of the sprinkler head). Thus, the total head loss 

from the swivel joint and system is found to be: 

0.25m 

h = 0.025385 

0.0175768m + 2.69 (1.236 m s ) 

2(9.81 m = 0.248m 

s) The total pressure loss can be found directly from the total head loss from: 

∆P = ρgh = 998 kg 

m 9.81 m s (0.248m) = 2428.61 Pa = 2.43 kPa 

The minor losses through the mini nozzle junction involve just a threaded tee with branch flow 

(K = 2.0). So the total minor loss is simply 2.0. In a similar matter to before, the total head loss in this 

junction is simply: 

The pressure drop in this junction is: 

0.165m 

h = 0.025385 

0.0175768m + 2.00 (1.236 m s ) 

2(9.81 m = 0.174m 

s) (3) 

(4)


∆P = ρgh = 998 kg 

m 9.81 m s (0.174m) = 1703.53 Pa = 1.70 kPa 

Therefore, the total head loss and pressure loss within the system is: 

h , = 0.248m + 0.174 m = 0. 422 m 

∆P , = 2.43 kPa + 1.70 kPa = 4. 13 kPa 

Since the operating gauge pressure is known to be 75 psi, or 517107 Pa, and the inlet velocity to be 

1.263 m/s, the outlet velocity can be determined using Bernoulli’s equation. It is defined as: 

P 

ρg + α V 

2g + z = P 

ρg + α V 

2g + z + h 

Where z is the vertical distance from the datum (the inlet), α is a correction factor for fully developed 

turbulent flow (1.05), subscript 1 denotes the inlet point, and the subscript 2 is the outlet point. Since 

the outlet is open to atmospheric pressure, then the Pressure difference P1 and P2 is simply the gauge 

pressure within the sprinkler head. The head loss in this case is the head loss found in the junction 

from the swivel outlet to the top nozzle, and not the total head loss. Rearranging, the outlet velocity is: 

V = 2g α (P 

ρg + α V 

2g − z − h ) 

2 9.81 m 

= 

s 

 

517107 Pa 

( 

1.05 

998 kg 

m 9.81 m + 1.05 (1.236 m s ) 

 

s 2 9.81 m − 0.25m − 0.248m) 

s 

= 31. 292 m s 

(5) 

Rearranging Equation (1) above, the outlet diameter of the nozzle is: 

m 

4(0.0003 

D = s 

π 31.292 m s = 3.494 mm ≅ 1 8 inch 

Conclusion 

The outlet velocity of this concept is estimated to be around 31.292 m/s, and is relatively close to the 

value of 33.691 m/s at the same operating pressure, so the results obtained for this appear to be quite 

reliable. The required outlet nozzle diameter is roughly 3.474 mm, or around 1/8’ in terms of 

standard sizes. Furthermore, the head loss and pressure loss values of 0.422 m and 4.13 kPa are 

reasonably low. At high operating pressures such as 75 psi, the total pressure drop will be almost 

negligible. 

Note again that the above calculations were done assuming that the flow is split in half at each of the 

swivel joint outlets. Although this is not likely going to be the actual flow distribution since more of 

the flow is likely to go to the vertical joint rather than the horizontal joint, this assumption provides a 

more conservative estimate as to what the maximum velocity at the outlet will be.

̇ 


Nozzle Force 

Objective 

To determine the total clamping force that is required to keep the nozzle fixed for concept 3. 


Create a control volume within the nozzle, and use Newton’s second law to derive the force as a 

function of the nozzle angle. 

Known 

Operating Pressure – 75 psi (517107 Pa) 

Inlet Velocity – 1.263 m/s 

Outlet Velocity – 31.292 m/s 

Inner Nozzle Diameter – 0.692’ (17.5768 mm) 

Outlet Nozzle Diameter – 0.125’ (3.175 mm) 

Assumptions 

Water is at ambient conditions (20°c and 101.325 kPa). 

Flow is steady and incompressible. 

Flow is fully developed. 

Frictional forces are negligible. 

Body forces are negligible. 

Nozzle is surrounded by atmospheric pressure, so subtracting 

Sketch 

Analysis 

Both the inlet speed and outlet speed are known, so we can go straight to Newton’s second law. Since 

the nozzle is at an angle, Newton’s second law will have to be applied in the vertical and horizontal 

direction. Newton’s second law is generally defined as: 

F = d dt ρVdV 

 

+ (βmV) ̇ 

− (βmV) 

Where F denotes the sum of the external forces acting on the control volume, the integral denotes the 

transient change of linear momentum in the control volume, and the out an in subscripts denote the 

momentum flux out an in of the control volume respectively. The term ṁ denotes the mass flow rate,


and is simply defined by the product of the fluid density, velocity, and cross sectional area. β is called 

the momentum flux factor, and is used to compensate for any non-uniform velocity profiles. To obtain 

a conservative estimate, it is assumed to be 1.03. Since the flow is steady, the integral term in the 

equation above disappears. Applying this expression in the vertical and horizontal direction will 

allow an expression of the reaction force as a function of the nozzle angle is possible. In the x- 

direction: 

F = (βṁ V ) − (βṁ V ) = βρA V Cos(θ) − βρA V Cos(θ) = PA Cos(θ) − R 

Rearranging, the horizontal reaction force is: 

R = PACos(θ) − βρA V Cos(θ) + βρA V Cos(θ) = PA − π 4 βρD V + π 4 βρD V Cos(θ) 

Similarly, the vertical reaction force is found to be: 

F = (βṁ V ) − (βṁ V ) = βρA V Sin(θ) − βρA V Sin(θ) = PA Sin(θ) − R 

R = PASin(θ) − βρA V Sin(θ) + βρA V Sin(θ) = PA − π 4 βρD V + π 4 βρD V Sin(θ) 

Using vector summation, the total reaction force is found to be: 

R = R + R 

 

= PA − π 4 βρD V + π 4 βρD V 

Cos (θ) + PA − π 4 βρD V + π 4 βρD V 

Sin (θ) 


(Cos (θ) + Sin (θ)) 


∙ 1 


 

This result is interesting as it indicates that the total reaction force is not related at all to the nozzle 

angle. Only the individual reaction force components are related to the angle. All of the above values 

are known, so the total force required to keep the nozzle fixed at any angle orientation is: 

R = π 4 (517107Pa)(0.0175768m) − π kg 

(1.03) 998 

4 m 31.292 m 

s ∙ 0.003175m 

+ π kg 

(1.03) 998 

4 m 1.263 m 

s ∙ 0.0175768m = 117. 9 N 

Conclusion 

The total force required to anchor the nozzle is 117.9 N, or 26.5 lbf. This is not a large force, so it 

should be fairly easy to keep the nozzle fixed. As seen in this analysis, the total reaction force does not 

depend on the orientation of the nozzle. Furthermore, it should also be noted that the reaction force 

is largely due to the pressure force within the nozzle, and not the momentum flux of the fluid. This is 

especially true at higher operating pressures. Although this result is only valid if the body forces are 

neglected, the results will likely not change that much since the resulting pressure force is much 

higher in comparison. A similar procedure can be followed on the other two concepts.


Appendix B – FloXpress Analysis Reports


SolidWorks FloXpress Report – Concept I 

SolidWorks FloXpress is a first pass qualitative flow analysis tool which gives insight into water or air 

flow inside your SolidWorks model. To get more quantitative results like pressure drop, flow rate etc 

you will have to use Flow Simulation. Please visit www.solidworks.com to learn more about the 

capabilities of Flow Simulation. 

Model 

Model Name: C:\Users\MEC33-W18\Desktop\c1\Assem1.SLDASM 

Fluid 

Water 

Environment Pressure 1 

Type 

Faces 

Value 

Environment Pressure 

 

Environment Pressure: 100.00000 lbf/in^2 

Temperature: 68.09 °F 


Type 

Faces 

Value 


 



Results 

Name Unit Value 

Maximum Velocity in/s 1497.20


Figure 16: Solid Works Flow analysis for Concept 1 at 100 Psi 

Figure 17: Solid Works Flow analysis for Concept 1 nozzle at 100 Psi


Model 

Model Name: C:\Users\MEC33-W18\Desktop\c1\Assem1.SLDASM 

Fluid 

Water 


Type 

Faces 

Value 


 




Type 

Faces 

Value 


 



Results 


Maximum Velocity in/s 1295.63 



SolidWorks FloXpress Report – Concept II 





Model 

Model Name: C:\Users\Charles Weir\Documents\mece 460\concept 1\spronkler assembly.SLDASM 

Fluid 

Water 


Type 

Faces 

Value 


 

Environment Pressure: 617000.00 Pa 

Temperature: 293.20 K 


Type 

Faces 

Value 


 



Results 


Maximum Velocity m/s 34.004





SolidWorks FloXpress Report – Concept III 





Model 

Model Name: C:\Users\MEC33-W18\Desktop\c3\Sprinkler Assembly.SLDASM 

Fluid 

Water 


Type 

Faces 

Value 


 




Type 

Faces 

Value 


 



Results 


Maximum Velocity m/s 33.694





Appendix C – Assembly, Setup and Operation


Assembly 

The sprinkler assembly is done in the manufacturing phase. The assembly of the sprinkler requires 

the assembly of all manufactured and purchased parts. These steps were included in the cost under 

machining time. The machinist will complete the assembly of the sprinkler before mass production 

begins. 

Setup 

The setup of the sprinkler, and the supply lines of the sprinkler system, was designed to have the least 

amount of steps and all the steps were to be simple. The setup of the system requires a main trunk 

line to be laid out in a loop with both ends coming back the pump. Along the trunk line there are 8 

takeoff tees that are installed during the setup of the trunk line. From each of these takeoff tees a 

smaller line will be run to each sprinkler head. The setup steps required for the sprinkler head very 

depending on the location: 

 

 

 

If the sprinkler is setup on the forest floor the main steak can be pounded directly into the 

ground and the small supply line attached to the sprinkler. 

If the sprinkler is to be attached to the side of a building or large fence post the spike has holes 

in the side where screws or nails can fasten the support to the structure. Then the supply line 

can be attached of the sprinkler 

If the sprinkler requires a more complex mounting system, a simple support can be quickly be 

made out of dimensional lumber and the mount on the sprinkler is designed to fit a 2X4. Then 

the sprinkler supply line can be attached. 

Once the setup of all the sprinkler heads has been done the system can be turned on and an operator 

can go around to each of the heads and adjust them to the correct height of the treetops. 

Operation 

The system has been designed to be run without operator intervention after startup. The system only 

requires an operator to be present to startup of the system. This allows the operator to setup and start 

the system and then leave the system running while they retreat to a safer location.


Appendix D-Design Specification with comments for Phase 2


Table 4: Updated Design Specifications With Phase 2 Concept Notes 

Item # 

Component/ System 

Description 

1 Performance 

1.1 Target Flow Distances 

1.1.1 Vertical 

1.1.2 Horizontal 

1.1.3 Rotational 

Design Specification / 

Requirement 

Throw Water specified 

Distances for safe distance 

Vertical throw is to be a minimum 

of 7m with possible adjustability 

of varying conditions with max 

goal of 21m. 

Horizontal throw variable with 

height- maximize for spacing of 

sprinkler 

180 Deg. minimum with 

adjustability for varying 

conditions 

1.2 Target Flow Rate Required Flow Per Head 

1.2.1 Volumetric Flow Rate 

minimum of 40 l/min, the flow 

rate will be determined by the 

pump size 

1.3 Pressure Operating Pressure Range 

1.3.1 Operating Pressure 

Will operate at a maximum 

operating pressure of 100 psi 

2 Sprinkler Features 

2.1 Water Source Water Pump Source 

Safety 

Factor 

Design 

Authority 

Design 

Importance 

(1-5) 

- FP-Innovations 5 



- AGD 4 

3 AGD 5 

2.1.1 Water Pump Wajax Mark 3 or Wajax BB4 [7] - FP-Innovations 5 

2.2 Sprinkler Dimensions Size of the sprinkler 

Phase 2 Concept 

Comments 

The Goal of 21 m was 

achieved by all 3 concepts 

The Goal of a minimum of 6 

m was achieved by all 

concepts 

All concept achieve a full 

360 Deg. Rotation 

The concepts were sized to 

the Wjax Mark 3 with a 

flow rate of 36 l/min 

Operating pressure 

achieved 

Sprinklers sized to these 

specifications


Item # 


Description 

2.2.1 Height 

2.2.2 Width 


Requirement 

To be kept to a minimum for ease 

of pack ability 



Safety 

Factor 

Design 

Authority 

Design 

Importance 

(1-5) 

- AGD 2 

- AGD 2 

2.2.3 Weight Less than 79 lbs. - AGD 3 

2.2.4 Distance between heads 

A distance for allowance of 

crossover of approximately 20% 

2.3 Life Expectancy Life Expectancy of the sprinkler 

To be designed for an operational 

2.3.1 Life Expectancy life of 10 years with minimal 

maintenance 

2.3.2 Reliability 

Interchangeable parts for easy of 

repair in field 

2.4 Cost The cost to manufacture 

- AGD 4 

- AGD 4 

- AGD 4 

2.4.1 One off, Prototype $500 for prototype - FP-Innovations 2 

2.4.2 Mass Production 

Approximately $150 for 

manufacturing plus engineering 

cost estimate 

2.5 Material Material for sprinkler heard 

2.5.1 Prototype material 

Aluminum for ease of machining 

for prototype production 

2.5.2 Production material 

Chosen to reduce cost and reduce 

corrosion 


- AGD 4 

- AGD 3 Phase 3 


Comments 

All concepts kept to a 

minimum size for pack 

ability 

All concept systems are 

under 79 lbs 

Depends on vertical 

settings of sprinkler heads 

Use of non corrosive 

materials to maximize life 

expectancy 

Parts kept to a minimum 

and simple to improve 

reliability 

Prototype to be build 

during phase 3 

Further analysis to be done 

during phase 3 

aluminum and stainless 

steel purchased fittings


Item # 


Description 


Requirement 

Safety 

Factor 

Design 

Authority 

Design 

Importance 

(1-5) 

3 Sprinkler Setup and Operation 

3.1 Time 

Time for Sprinkler setup / 

Operation 

3.1.1 Sprinkler setup time Under 10 mins/sprinkler head - AGD 3 

3.1.2 Sprinkler run time 

Continuous operation without 

human intervention 


3.2 Setup Sprinkler setup requirements 

3.2.1 Number of setup steps A minimum to reduce setup time - AGD 3 

3.2.2 Number of startup steps A minimum to reduce startup time - AGD 3 

4 Environmental Conditions 

4.1 Operating Conditions Environment to be operated in 

4.1.1 Temperature Range Above freezing - FP-Innovations 3 

4.1.2 Protection 

Materials should be chosen to 

prevent corrosion 

- AGD 3 

4.2 Mounting Conditions Required mounting locations 

4.2.1 Ground mounting 

4.2.2 Tree mounting 

4.2.3 Building mounting 

5 Safety 

The base has to have the ability to 

be staked into the ground 


be nailed to a tree or mounted to 

dimensional lumber 


be nailed or fastened to a building 





Comments 

Designed to be continuous 

with no intervention 

Kept to a minimum for all 

concepts 

Kept to a minimum for all 

concepts 

Materials were chosen to 

resist corrosion 

A mounting system has 

been designed to fit all 

mounting situations


Item # 


Description 

5.1 Safety constraints 

5.1.1 

Pressure relief valve 

(rv) 

5.1.2 Noise Levels 


Requirement 

Safety components / 

requirements 

Safety 

Factor 

Design 

Authority 

Design 

Importance 

(1-5) 

no rv required, open system - AGD 3 Not required 

Sprinkler heads cannot exceed 85 

dB 

- AGD 3 

5.1.3 System weight Goal of system weight below 51lbs - NIOSH 4 

6 Maintenance 

6.1 Parts Replacement parts 

6.1.1 Interchangeable parts 

Parts are to be interchangeable 

between sprinkler heads to 

reduce downtime 

6.2 Maintenance Maintenance requirements 

6.2.1 

Maintenance 

requirements 

6.2.2 Tools 

Required maintenance to be kept 

to a minimum to reduce operating 

costs 

All tools to perform maintenance 

and replace parts to be standard 

imperial sizes 

- AGD 3 

- AGD 2 

- AGD 4 


Comments 

Further analysis to be done 

for phase 3 

System concepts total less 

then system requirements 

All concepts are made of 

mostly interchangeable 

parts 

No foreseeable required 

maintenance 

All concepts only require 

simple tools for assembly 

and repair


Appendix E- Phase 2 Recorded Hours


Figure 23: Phase 2 Logged Hours


Appendix F-Phase One Report


References 

Main Report 

[1] http://www.gov.ns.ca/natr/forestprotection/wildfire/bffsc/lessons/lesson4/backtank.asp 

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighting 

[3] http://www.onlinemetals.com/ 

[4] http://www.sustainablesupply.com/Eaton-Aeroquip-FS65003-1212-01-Swivel-Joint-3-4-Ip/w184073.htm 

[5] http://www.angletonsalvage.com/AngleIron.htm 

[6] http://www.metalsdepot.com/ 

Appendices 

[1] Walker, James. Physics Third Edition. 

[2] Cengel, Yunus. Cimbala, John. Fluid Mechanics, Fundamentals and Applications, Second Edition.

22 Mec E 460 – Phase I – Design Specifications 2/3/12 

February 3, 2012 

Roy Campbell 

FP Innovations, FERIC Division 

Dear Mr. Campbell, 

Alberta Genuine Designers would like to submit the following transmittal as the design specification 

report for the requested design of a wildland firefighting sprinkler system. The report contents are as 

follows: 

- Scope of work 

- Project Definition and Regulations 

- Design Schedule 

- Cost Breakdown 

The estimated budget for the design work involved in the wildland firefighting sprinkler is 407 hours, with an available 

$500 available to manufacture a prototype of the completed design. The completion date for the project is estimated to be 

April 5, 2012. 

Please feel free to contact Alberta Genuine Designers should you have any questions or concerns. Direct any 

inquiries to myself at jmoore1@ualberta.ca, or by phone at 780-909-6162. 

Best Regards, 

Evrhetton Gold Alexander Dufour Charles Weir Jesse Moore Chris Languedoc

Mec E 460 - Phase I 

Design Specifications 

FP Innovations 

Wildland Fire Fighting Sprinkler System 

Jesse Moore 

Charles Weir 

Evrhetton Gold 

Chris Languedoc 

Alexander Dufour 

Alberta Genuine Design 

2/3/2012


Table of Contents 

Project Statement ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 

Background ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3 

Client .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 

Project Requirements.................................................................................................................................................................. 3 

Current Fire Sprinkler in Use ................................................................................................................................................... 4 

Scope of Work ................................................................................................................................................................... 4 

Project Definition .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 

Design Regulations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5 

Design Codes and Standards ....................................................................................................................................... 7 

Cost Estimations .............................................................................................................................................................. 8 

Project Management ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 

Appendix A – References ............................................................................................................................................ 10 

Appendix B – Phase Schedule.................................................................................................................................... 11 

Phase I ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 

Phase 2 ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 

Phase 3 ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 13 

Appendix C – Patents .................................................................................................................................................... 14 

List of Figures 

Figure 1 Fire Suppression Sprinklers in use [2] ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3 

Figure 2 Patent for Horizontal Action Impact Drive Sprinkler (U.S. Patent 1,997,901) ......................................................................................... 4 

List of Tables 

Table 1: Rating System for Design Importance........................................................................................................................................................................ 5 

Table 2: Design Specification Matrix ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 

Table 3: Client Approval .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 

Table 4: Design Codes and Regulations ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 

Table 5: Engineering Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 

Word Count – 1003


Project Statement 

To design a sprinkler system to be utilized in keeping foliage and ground cover damp to assist in forest 

fighting and prescribed burns efforts. 

Background 

Client 

FP innovations is a design company that works in 

forest fire research within Canada [3]. Current 

sprinkler systems that are commonly used in 

wildland firefighting, and prescribed burns are 

generally the common variety that can be found 

through manufacturers in the area. Due to the 

restrictions in the design of the sprinklers, and 

water pressure restrictions, the height and 

throwing distance of these sprinklers are quite 

limited. By improving the design of these 

sprinkler systems, the spread of wildland fires, 

and more commonly prescribed burns can better 

be managed. Most importantly by increasing 

vertical spray, the fuels for the fire can be wetted 

decreasing the chance of the fire spreading 

through the tree canopy. 

Figure 1 Fire Suppression Sprinklers in use [1] 

Project Requirements 

The requirement of this project is to develop a sprinkler head that will achieve a minimum vertical 

spray of 7 m with adjustability to allow an increase to a maximum goal of 21 m [4][5]. Along with this a 

horizontal throw is required that allows for adequate distance between sprinkler heads. The purpose of 

the spray is to reach as high into the tree canopy as possible to wet fuels, and to prevent the spread of 

fire. Other considerations are as follows; there will be 8 sprinkler heads in a system, and the system will 

be run off of a Wajax Mark 3 or Wajax BB4 pump [6]. Both pumps have a large pump curve allowing for 

flexibility in system design.


Current Fire Sprinkle in Use 

Sprinkler systems have long been used to fight 

forest fires and to help control prescribed burns in 

many areas of the world. Thus, there are many 

sprinklers available that can be used for 

firefighting applications. Rain Bird is a current 

leader when it comes to sprinkler designs and 

currently owns the first patent for a horizontal 

action impact drive sprinkler (U.S. Patent 

1,997,901) [2]. Rain Bird 70 CWH sprinkler is an 

example of a sprinkler that is currently employed. 

However, this model lacks the desired versatility 

such as vertical and horizontal adjustment that is 

required by the client. A recently published patent 

(U.S. Patent 0,284,658) exhibits full rotation and 

oscillating vertical spray that is similar to what the 

client needs and can be seen in Appendix C. 

However, fixing the vertical spray in contrast to 

oscillating vertical spray is preferable since 

oscillating spray will potentially limit the full 

delivery of water to highly elevated tree canopies. 

Consequently, no patent infringement is expected 

to occur, as the features of this design are different 

from previous designs. 

Figure 2 Patent for Horizontal Action Impact 

Drive Sprinkler (U.S. Patent 1,997,901) 

Scope of Work 

Project Definition 

Fire fighters have been looking for a sprinkler system to better protect cut lines, and to control 

prescribed burns. In the past they have looked to the irrigation industry for a sprinkler to deliver water 

to wet the potential fuels, these sprinklers have not met the requirements because of their shallow 

vertical throw. A sprinkler with a much higher vertical throw, that can be adjusted to better wet the 

trees and stop fires is required, this sprinkler must be both versatile as well as durable.


Design Regulations 

The design regulations can be seen in Table 2 – The Design Specification Matrix. Table 1 shows the 

rating system for design importance. Table 3 highlights client approval. 

Table 1: Rating System for Design Importance 

Design Importance 

Description 

5 Critical design aspect – focus point one 

4 High design priority 

3 Important consideration for operability 

2 Non-Critical to function ability 

1 Optional components design 

Table 2: Design Specification Matrix 

Component/ 


Item # System 

Requirement 

Description 

1 Performance 

1.1 

Target Flow 

Distances 

1.1.1 Vertical 

1.1.2 Horizontal 

1.1.3 Rotational 

1.2 

1.2.1 

Target Flow 

Rate 

Volumetric Flow 

Rate 

Throw Water specified 

Distances for safe distance 

Vertical throw is to be a 

minimum of 7m with possible 

adjustability of varying 

conditions with max goal of 21m. 

Horizontal throw variable with 

height- maximize for spacing of 

sprinkler 

180 Deg. minimum with 

adjustability for varying 

conditions 

Required Flow Per Head 

minimum of 40 l/min, the flow 

rate will be determined by the 

pump size 

Safety 

Factor 

Design 

Authority 

Design 

Importance 

(1-5) 




- AGD 4 

1.3 Pressure Operating Pressure Range 

1.3.1 

Operating Will operate at a maximum 

Pressure operating pressure of 100 psi 

3.0 AGD 5 

2 Sprinkler Features 

2.1 Water Source Water Pump Source 

2.1.1 Water Pump Wajax Mark 3 or Wajax BB4 [7] - FP-Innovations 5 

2.2 

Sprinkler 

Dimensions 

Size of the sprinkler


2.2.1 Height 



- AGD 2 

2.2.2 Width 



- AGD 2 

2.2.3 Weight Less than 79 lbs. - AGD 3 

2.2.4 

Distance A distance for allowance of 

between heads crossover of approximately 20% 

- AGD 4 

2.3 Life Expectancy 

Life Expectancy of the 

sprinkler 

2.3.1 Life Expectancy 

To be designed for an operational 

life of 10 years with minimal - AGD 4 

maintenance 

2.3.2 Reliability 

Interchangeable parts for easy of 

repair in field 

- AGD 4 

2.4 Cost The cost to manufacture 

2.4.1 

One off, 

Prototype 

$500 for prototype - FP-Innovations 2 

2.4.2 Mass Production 

Approximately $150 for 

manufacturing plus engineering - FP-Innovations 3 

cost estimate 

2.5 Material Material for sprinkler heard 

2.5.1 

Prototype Aluminum for ease of machining 

material for prototype production 

- AGD 4 

2.5.2 

Production Chosen to reduce cost and reduce 

material corrosion 

- AGD 3 

3 Sprinkler Setup and Operation 

3.1 Time 

Time for Sprinkler setup / 

Operation 

3.1.1 

Sprinkler setup 

time 

Under 10 mins/sprinkler head - AGD 3 

3.1.2 

Sprinkler run Continuous operation without 

time human intervention 


3.2 Setup Sprinkler setup requirements 

3.2.1 

Number of setup 

steps 

A minimum to reduce setup time - AGD 3 

3.2.2 

Number of A minimum to reduce startup 

startup steps time 

- AGD 3 

4 Environmental Conditions 

4.1 

Operating 

Conditions 

Environment to be operated in 

4.1.1 

Temperature 

Range 

Above freezing - FP-Innovations 3 

4.1.2 Protection 

Materials should be chosen to 

prevent corrosion 

- AGD 3


4.2 

Mounting 

Conditions 

Required mounting locations 

4.2.1 

Ground The base has to have the ability 

mounting to be staked into the ground 


The base has to have the ability 

4.2.2 Tree mounting to be nailed to a tree or mounted - FP-Innovations 5 

to dimensional lumber 

4.2.3 

The base has to have the ability 

Building 

to be nailed or fastened to a 

mounting 

building 


5 Safety 

5.1 

Safety Safety components / 

constraints requirements 

5.1.1 

Pressure relief 

valve (rv) 

no rv required, open system - AGD 3 

5.1.2 Noise Levels 

Sprinkler heads cannot exceed 85 

dB 

- AGD 3 

5.1.3 System weight 

Goal of system weight below 

51lbs 

- NIOSH 4 

6 Maintenance 

6.1 Parts Replacement parts 

6.1.1 

Parts are to be interchangeable 

Interchangeable 

between sprinkler heads to 

parts 

reduce downtime 

- AGD 3 

6.2 Maintenance Maintenance requirements 

6.2.1 

Required maintenance to be kept 

Maintenance 

to a minimum to reduce 

requirements 

operating costs 

- AGD 2 

All tools to perform maintenance 

6.2.2 Tools and replace parts to be standard 

imperial sizes 

- AGD 4 

Table 3: Client Approval 

Rev Description Client Approval Date 

0 Design Matrix Changes needed as per client request 2/2/12 

1 Design Matrix Changes made and approved 2/2/12 

Design Codes and Standards 

As this is an open system, ANSI and ASME standards regarding pressure regulations will likely not be of 

concern. Similarly, the majority of fire fighting codes will not apply since they deal with indoor systems. 

The majority of ISO standards regarding quick release couples deal with hydraulic hoses and pressure 

levels much higher than the design pressure. Despite this, there are some potentially applicable 

standards that would influence the design. They are summarized below in Table 4.


Table 4: Design Codes and Regulations 

Standard Standard 

Description 

Name No. 

NIOSH N/A Recommends a maximum weight limit for one person is 51 pounds. 

ISO 4642:2009 Specifies the requirements and test methods for hoses used on vehicles 

ASTM G101-04 

Specified a standard to estimate atmospheric corrosion resistance for low-alloy 

steels. 

Since current sprinkler kits can weigh up to 79 pounds, complying with NIOSH’s standard lbs is one that 

this design should comply with. Although ISO’s standard does not deal with the sprinkler head directly, 

this code may come into effect if finding improvements to both the hose and hosing connection is 

explored. Finally, the ASTM standard can likely help minimize the corrosion of the sprinkler head, 

although complying with this will depend on the final material selection. 

Cost Estimations 

Client consultations lead to the decision that the final product is to be a new innovative design rather than an 

improvement on existing designs. In addition, multiple units will be used in real world applications; therefore 

a design that can be mass-produced will be a primary focus. A realistic production cost cannot be determined 

until material selection, manufacturing processes and additional assembly requirements have been decided 

upon, a realistic production cost cannot be determined. However, a $500 budget has been given to create a 

prototype, which will implement the use of materials of lower cost and easy machining, with the purpose to 

demonstrate the design function. After initial project scheduling, the breakdown of engineering costs can be 

seen in Table 5. 

Table 5: Engineering Cost Estimates 

Engineer Type Standard Rate Projected Hours Total Cost 

Junior Engineer/Industrial Designer $ 90/hour 407 hours $ 36,630 

Intermediate Engineer $ 150/hour 9 hours $ 1,350 

416 hours $37,980 

Project Management 

The design schedule was constructed by listing out all the required tasks to complete the design in 

Liquid Planner and assigning approximate hours to each task, these tasks were prioritized based on 

importance. Within Liquid Planner each group member allocated availability and once a person is 

assigned to each task, Liquid Planner generates the schedule seen in Appendix B. Along with this, a 

design specification matrix and scope of work encompass the deliverables of phase 1. The following 

phase 2 deliverables will include design concepts, analysis and decision matrix. The last phase will 

produce a final chosen design, in depth calculations, solid models, drawings and possible prototype. 

Regular group meetings will be held to adjust time allocations and resolve any disputes in following 

stages of the project. Client meetings will be scheduled later as required and a commitment to the 

workload by each member has been made to date.


Conclusion 

The primary goal of this sprinkler design is to achieve the maximum height possible from the water 

ejection of the nozzle. As trees can reach a height of 21 meters, and the canopy of these trees act as fuel 

to spread wildland fires, a greater vertical throw from the designed sprinkler is to be maximized. As 

pressure will be constrained by the systems in the field, primarily Wajax Mark 3 and Wajax BB4 pumps, 

the maximum height will need to be optimized purely through sprinkler design.


Appendix A – References 

[1] http://wildfiretoday.com/tag/sprinklers/ 

[2] http://www.rainbird.com/corporate/index.htm 

[3] http://www.fpinnovations.ca/ 

[4] http://wildfire.fpinnovations.ca/index.asp 

[5] http://wildfire.fpinnovations.ca/Research/ProjectPage.aspProjectNo=10 

[6] http://www.westerntruckexchange.com/Wajax%20Mark3.htm 

[7] http://www.westerntruckexchange .com/BB4.htm


Appendix B – Phase Schedule 

Phase I

Phase 2 

12 Mec E 460 – Phase I – Design Specifications 2/3/12

Phase 3 



Appendix C – Patents 

U.S. Patent 1,997,901

Mec E 460 - FPInnovations Wildfire Operations Research

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?