Case Study A Mep

Fire Sprinkler Water Conservation Demonstration Program
ASSESSMENT REPORT CASE STUDY A HIGH RISE OFFICE BUILDING Melbourne Victoria
Prepared by:
Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd ABN 66 719 809 688 ACN 006 017 723
28 Byron Street Ringwood Vic 3134 Tel. 9870 1317 Fax 8610 2007 W ebsite: www.integratedfire.com.au Email : Principal@ integratedfire.com.au
Paul Verheijden EF 15977 Fire Safety Engineer
Prepared for:
Plumbing Industry Commission Melbourne Victoria
Project: 200741D Issue 3 6 August, 2008
200741D Fire Sprinkler W ater Conservation Dem onstration Program Assessm ent Report - CASE STUDY A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 OVERVIEW 1.2 MAINTENANCE TESTING WATER SAVING 1.3 DRAINDOWNS WATER SAVING 1.4 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 BACKGROUND 2.2 OBJECTIVES 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.4 ABBREVIATIONS 2.5 GLOSSARY 2.6 BIBLIOGRAPHY Page 1 Page 1 Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 4 Page 4 Page 5 Page 5 Page 5 Page 6
SITUATION ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7 3.1 CASE STUDY DETAILS Page 7 3.1.1 PRINCIPAL BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS Page 7 3.1.2 PRINCIPAL SPRINKLER SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS Page 7 3.2 MAINTENANCE PRACTICES & REQUIREMENTS Page 10 3.2.1 CURRENT PRACTICES Page 10 3.2.2 MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 12 3.3 RISK MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES & REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS Page 13 3.3.1 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Page 13 3.3.2 SYSTEM ALTERATION MANAGEMENT Page 14 3.4 AS1851-2005 & MONTHLY TESTING Page 15 3.4.1 VALVE SUPERVISION Page 15 3.4.2 LOCKED INSTALLATION CONTROL VALVE ENCLOSURES Page 15 3.4.3 SYSTEM INTERFACE DIAGRAM AND PRESSURE SCHEDULE Page 15 3.4.4 AUTO JACKING PUMP/RETARD CHAMBER Page 15 3.4.5 DUAL STARTING BATTERIES Page 15 3.4.6 PUMP STATUS ALARMS Page 15 3.5 WATER CONSUMPTION Page 16 3.5.1 SUMMARY Page 16 3.5.2 TESTING Page 16 3.5.3 SERVICING Page 22 3.5.4 SYSTEM ALTERATIONS Page 25 3.5.5 CONTINUOUS USAGE Page 25 RECOMMENDATIONS & COSTING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 WATER SAVING OPPORTUNITIES 4.1.1 TESTING 4.1.2 SERVICING 4.1.3 SYSTEM ALTERATIONS 4.1.4 CONTINUOUS USAGE 4.2 RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES 4.2.1 INSURANCE COMPANY 4.2.2 ADOPTION OF AS 1851-2005 4.2.3 DRAIN DOWN PROCEDURES 4.2.4 IMPAIRMENT MANAGEMENT 4.2.5 MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATION 4.3 WATER SAVING & OTHER BENEFITS 4.3.1 WATER SAVING Page 26 Page 26 Page 26 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 34 Page 34 Page 34 Page 35 Page 35 Page 35 Page 36
Issue 3
Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd
ii
Page 36 Page 38
4.3.2 ADOPTION OF MONTHLY TESTING BENEFITS 4.4 COST ESTIMATES 5
OVERVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 39 5.1 BENEFIT-COST COMPARISON Page 39 5.2 ACTION PLAN Page 39
REVISION HISTORY Issue 1 2 3 Date 12 May, 2008 17 June, 2008 6 August, 2008 Details Original issue Issued for review by Knight Frank Recommendations, conclusions, estimates revised Format and style revised
COPYRIGHT:
The work and m ethodology adopted in this report is confidential and the author wishes copyright and intellectual property rights be respected and the contents only be distributed to relevant parties concerned with the project. The conclusions or m ethodology adopted for this assessm ent m ust not be used or relied upon for any other situation and no responsibility can be taken for use by a third party outside the direct application.
Issue 3
Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owners of this building have agreed to participate in a case study which examines the amount of water consumed through periodic maintenance and alteration of fire sprinkler systems. The study also provides recommendations and costings to encourage owners and management to reduce water wastage. This executive summary provides the key findings of the study and includes the following: Overview Maintenance and testing water saving Drain downs and water savings Summary 1.1 OVERVIEW this site is consuming about 700,000 litres of water per year through periodic testing and draindowns of its fire sprinkler system. About half this consumption - an estimated 364,000 litres - can be cut if the property adopts Australian Standard 1851-2005 Maintenance of Fire Protection Systems and Equipment (AS1851-2005), switches now-weekly testing to monthly testing and establishes different procedures for managing draindowns. The key benefits of adoption of AS1851-2005 is moving from weekly to monthly testing (subject to satisfying certain criteria) and implementation of the new higher level testing requirements and risk management. This will not only save water but will improve management of the owner's common law duty through a more rigorous maintenance regime for the fire sprinkler system. It is considered that the community has an expectation that responsible commercial property owners will minimise their water use wherever feasible. This property has a further life span of at least another 25 years over which time the total water saving will be 9,120,000 litres, or about nine megalitres. 1.2 MAINTENANCE TESTING WATER SAVING About 75% of the water saving - 284,000 litres per year - will be driven by AS1851-2005 and switching current weekly tests to monthly. This change is expected to be easily accomplished for this building. As a building constructed on formerly Commonwealth land it is unclear whether there is a required essential safety measure maintenance standard or frequency from the available documentation. A maintenance standard and frequency of testing has been identified in this report based on the building's age of construction and interpretation and application of the Building Commission's Practice Note 2006-23. With confirmation of implementation of the required precautions in AS1851-2005 this new standard can be adopted. A building permit is only required where building works are required to implement these precautions. While the recommended changes have not yet been reviewed by the property's insurer, it is considered that the likelihood of an objection is low, given Insurance Council Australia and other strong backing for AS1851-2005. As part of its improved rigour, AS1851-2005 requires interface and pressure schedule diagrams for all control valves, entailing a one-off expense of around $4,000. This report also recommends replacement of non-indicating valves (in the basement, controlling pressure maintenance pumps) with handle ball valves locked in line with the pipework, at a cost of $5,000. While not required by AS1851-2005 or mandated by building regulations, this change of valve type is regarded as a necessary strengthening of risk management in the light of
Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd Issue 3
Page 2
having less frequent onsite visits by maintenance testers. The report further anticipates a $2,000 professional fee to check and approve these two hardware installations and a $4,000 fee for tailoring a detailed set of AS1851-2005 maintenance procedures. It is assumed both of these services would be performed by a specialist fire services engineer. Based on these recommendations and assumptions, the total, one-off, cost associated with adopting AS1851-2005 and switching to monthly testing is estimated to be $15,000. Whether adopting AS1851-2005 and monthly testing will have an impact on the future ongoing cost of the fire services maintenance contract for the building is ultimately a matter of commercial negotiation between the property's owner and maintenance contractors, but current indications are that these ongoing costs will remain about the same. The number of onsite tests will be cut but a comprehensive annual survey and other maintenance regime changes are introduced in the new Standard. The annual survey is the main cost component, but its introduction is regarded as an important step forward in improving the rigour of the maintenance of sprinkler systems. In summary, a 284,000 litres per year saving in maintenance testing water consumption - 7.1 million litres over 25 years - and a major improvement in fire services risk management can be achieved by adopting AS1851-2005 with the associated increase to monthly testing. Taking these steps entails an estimated hardware cost of $9,000 (for mandatory diagrams and a recommended values upgrade) and estimated engineering fees of $6,000 (for reviewing the hardware upgrades and specifying tailored sprinkler maintenance procedures). 1.3 DRAINDOWNS WATER SAVING The draindowns component of the water recommendations will save about 80,000 litres per year - two million litres over 25 years. The recommendations for change focus on upgrading the training and management of contractors who perform alterations and draindowns of sprinklers as part of fitout projects for tenants of the building. Faults in sprinkler systems as a result of building alterations are fairly common and a switch to monthly testing raises the possibility of these faults not being detected for up to four weeks. Assuming this site wishes to continue allowing tenants to choose their own contractors to carry out work involving the building's sprinkler system, all contract staff who are unfamiliar with the site and whose work may affect the sprinkler systems should be required to have induction training providing key details about the features and operation of the sprinkler system. The cost for this risk management upgrade is estimated to be $14,000, based on the cost of a fire services engineer specifying appropriate procedures ($4,000) and production of a training DVD ($10,000). Ongoing costs associated with this change are considered to be insignificant, because this induction practice will become part of the existing process for gaining authorisation to work within the building.
Issue 3
Page 3
1.4 SUMMARY In short, this site will gain a water saving of 9.1 million litres and an important upgrade in its fire services maintenance regime over its remaining 25 plus year life span for a one-off expense of approximately $29,000. The table below summarises the recommendations for change and resulting water savings and estimated costs to bring about the change. Change recommendations Adoption of AS1851-2005 and monthly testing Changing drain down procedures Total water savings Life Cycle Water Saving (liters) 7,100,000 2,020,000 9,120,000 Cost $ 15,000 14,000 29,000
Issue 3
Page 4
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides information on the following: Background Objectives Project Description Abbreviations Glossary Bibliography 2.1 BACKGROUND
The Plumbing Industry Commission is leading a fire sprinklers water conservation project, funded and supported by: City West Water South East Water Yarra Valley Water Department of Sustainability and Environment Building Commission. The fire protection services industry has been a major driver behind the project, particularly through its role in developing Australian Standard 1851-2005 Maintenance of Fire Protection Systems and Equipment (AS1851-2005) and the consequent opportunity to reform sprinkler maintenance practices. The Victorian plumbing division of the Communication, Electrical and Plumbing Union has been key in gaining strong recognition of this issue, and leaders in the property and facility management industries have supported this important water-saving initiative as a matter of corporate social responsibility. In addition to the funding organisations, the working group for the project includes representatives from: Fire Protection Association Australia National Fire Industry Association Communication, Electrical and Plumbing Union Australian Institute of Building Surveyors. The project includes a demonstration program, intended to consist of 15 case studies showing methods for cutting the amount of water consumed through periodic maintenance and alteration of fire sprinkler systems, along with the benefits and costs of these methods. Case study sites include properties such as high rise office buildings, shopping centres and major factories, spread across the three water retailer regions in Melbourne. Nearly all of the chosen sites have pump-boosted sprinkler systems with multiple control valves, because these types of sites offer the best opportunity for reducing the estimated 500 million litres of water consumed annually for the purposes of fire sprinkler maintenance and system alteration. Most of the case study sites do not have tanks or other methods for recirculating or re-using water used in maintaining and altering their sprinkler systems, which is typical for these categories of properties in Melbourne. This assessment report is the first Case study undertaken. 2.2 OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study were to provide the client with the following: Situation analysis, covering details about the case study property, current maintenance practices, risk management practices, regulatory requirements and
Issue 3
Page 5
water usage for the propertys fire sprinkler system. Recommendations and costings, identifying water saving opportunities, specific recommended initiatives, water-saving and other benefits of the recommendations and estimates of implementation costs Overview and next steps, including a benefit versus cost comparison and discuss of implementation steps
2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project description is as follows: Item Name: Description: Project: Client: 2.4 ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations have been used in the report: AS - Australian Standard CV - Sprinkler installation control valves OH1 - Ordinary Hazard Group 1 (sprinkler design category for retail shops) OH2 - Ordinary hazard Group 2 (sprinkler design category of car parks) OH3 - Ordinary Hazard Group 3 (sprinkler design category for offices) FIP - Fire indicator panel QA - Quality Assurance RBS - Relevant Building Surveyor Details Case Study A High Rise Office Building Fire Sprinkler Water Conservation Demonstration Program Assessment Report Plumbing Industry Commission
2.5 GLOSSARY The definitions of the following terms used in this report are provided below: Life Cycle Sprinkler installation Installation control valves A buildings life cycle costing is applied over a 25 year period A network of pipes that feed sprinklers within a building that is control by a single set of installation control valves Those valves that are used to control a single sprinkler installation and are used for testing and alarm indication. Also referred to as: Sprinkler installation valves Sprinkler valves Installation valves Where the sprinkler system is isolated and not able to operate as design. Normally means the water is drained so modifications can be undertake to the pipework.
System Alteration
Issue 3
Page 6
Site Periodic Maintenance Light Hazard
A property that is controlled by a water supply that feeds a number of sprinkler installations. Maintenance and testing activities that are undertaken on a weekly, monthly or three monthly basis Describes the type of sprinkler system which has small diameter pipe sizes with typical 25 to 32 ranges and 65 to 100 mm mains Describes the type of sprinkler system which has medium size diameter pipe sizes with typical 32 to 40 ranges and 80 to 150 mm mains Describes the type of sprinkler system which has diameter pipe sizes with typical 50 to 65 ranges and 150 to 200 mm mains A professionally qualified engineer registered with the building control commission and practising in fire services design.
Ordinary hazard
High Hazard Engineer
2.6 BIBLIOGRAPHY Australian Standards The following standards have been referenced in this document: AS 2118 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems (all years considered) AS 1851 Maintenance of Fire Protection Equipment PART 3: Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems (all years considered) AS 1851-2005 Maintenance of Fire Protection Systems and equipment Building Commission Practice Notes The following standards have been referenced in this document: 2002-23 Maintenance of Essential Services.
Issue 3
Page 7
SITUATION ANALYSIS
This chapter provides information on the following: Case study details Maintenance practices Risk management procedures & regulatory requirements Water consumption 3.1 CASE STUDY DETAILS This section provides the case study details and covers the following: Principal building characteristics Principal sprinkler system characteristics 3.1.1 PRINCIPAL BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS
The principal building characteristics are summarised as follows: Item Number of levels Characteristic 46 Low rise B3 to Level 13 Medium Rise Levels 14 to 26 High Rise Level 27 & above Level 1 to 39 Ground Basement levels 1 to 3 40 to 42
Occupancy types
Offices Retail Car parking Plant Approximately 170 m 3.75 m - 4.4 m B3 B2 B1 Ground Levels 1-7 Levels 8 - 33 Levels 34-38
Height of the building Height of each level Floor area
2,400 m2 3,250 m2 4,000m2 3,000m2 2,300m2 1,600 m2 1,100 m2
3.1.2
PRINCIPAL SPRINKLER SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
The principal sprinkler system characteristics are provided in following sections Summary of sprinkler control valves Summary of flow switches Water supply characteristics 3.1.2.1 SUMMARY OF SPRINKLER CONTROL VALVES
The following table provides a summary of the sprinkler control valves and their respective floors areas and occupancy classification.
Issue 3
Page 8
Control Valve Number 1
Level B3 B2
Floor area (m2 ) 2,400 m2 3,250 m2 4,000m2 3,000m2 2,300m2 2,300m2 2,300m2 2,300m2 2,300m2 2,300m2 2,300m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2
Occupancy Classification OH2 OH2 OH2 OH3 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1
B1 Ground
1 2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27
Issue 3
Page 9
10
28 29 30 31
1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,600 m2 1,100 m2 1,100 m2 1,100 m2 1,100 m2 1,100 m2 1,100 m2 200 m2 200 m2 200 m2 77552
OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1 OH1
11
32 33 34 35
12
36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Totals
Each sprinkler control valve set consists of the following: Alarm pressure switch (rising pressure) Installation pressure switch (falling pressure) Automatic jacking pump (uses an 8 mm restricting orifice in the downstream ball valve) 50 mm drain valve 100 mm alarm and main stop valve 15 mm test valve In addition to the control valves the following is also provided: Flow switch on each floor which can be operated remotely from the FIP A 50 mm isolation valve on each level to the sprinklers to that level 15 mm drain valve downstream of the 50 mm isolation valve (for the flow switch testing) 3.1.2.2 FLOW SWITCHES
The building contains 41 flow switches which are tested regularly using 15 mm test valves. 3.1.2.3 WATER SUPPLY
The principal water supply characteristics consist of the following items Item Town main connections
Characteristic 150 mm x 2
Details Lonsdale Street
Issue 3
Page 10
Pump details
Diesel Electric Duties
Unknown power Unknown power 1800 L/min @667 kPa, 1090 kPa & 1627 kPa Over pressure (did not appear to open) Circulation relief Lost to drain - max flowrate 2,000 L/min Sprinklers and hydrants used a combined pump but have separate reticulations
Pressure Reliefs Flow test branch Services used Method of starting
50 mm diesel 15 mm electric 100 mm Sprinklers Hydrants Hose reels
Pressure switches from the combined ring mains sensing a loss in pressure or each ring main stage. Single pressure maintenance pump for each stage.
The water supply for the system is considered a combined sprinkler and hydrant system and divided into four stages as follows: Stage 1 2 -Low 3- Medium 4- High Details Town main pressure only Pump boosted town main (first outlet) Pump boosted town main (second outlet) Pump boosted town main (third outlet) Levels B3 to B1, Ground and Levels 1&2 Levels 3 to 15 Levels 16 to 27 Levels 28 to 42
3.2 MAINTENANCE PRACTICES & REQUIREMENTS Fundamentally, maintenance practices at the site are based on the regulatory requirement to maintain the sprinkler system in a functional state, along with any insurance company contractual requirements. Australian Standards are used to determine the appropriate activities for maintenance. This section provides information on the following: Current practices Maintenance requirements 3.2.1 CURRENT PRACTICES
Sprinkler system testing in accordance with AS 1851.3 1985 is undertaken in accordance with the following periodic routines: Weekly routines (level 1) Quarterly routines (level 2) Annual routines (level 3) 3 yearly (level 4)
Page 11
Note:
Six yearly (level 5) Greater levels This is not an exhaustive list of the required maintenance and testing required in a sprinkler installation and only provides those routines that require water to be used in the testing and or maintenance.
The following table provides a description of the routine and the period in which is to be preformed: Routine 1 Alarm valve test Flow Switch test Non return valve test Pressure reducing valve flow test Water supply flow test Remote test valve test Pressure switch test Water tank drainage Alarm valve service Drain valve service Non return valve service Special valve service Anti freeze system recharge Kitchen hood sprinkler replacement Sprinkler head sample testing (every 24 years sample of 10 and then every 6 years thereafter) High temperature sprinkler replacement Sprinkler Pumpset routines in accordance with AS 1851.14 1996 Routine 1 Pump run (electric 3 minutes) M 2 M Level 3 M 4 M 5 M M M 2 M M M M 3 M M M M M M M Level 4 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 5 Other
Issue 3
Page 12
Pump run (diesel 10 minutes) Pump run (diesel 30 minutes) Pump run (electric 30 minutes) Pressure relief valve maintenance
M M
M M M
M M M M
Maintenance of combined hydrant and sprinkler systems in accordance with AS 1851.4 Servicing of equipment on a less regular basis in accordance with AS 1851.3-1985 3.2.2 MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
The subsection covers the following details: Pre 1994 requirements Building Permit requirements Special requirements 3.2.2.1 PRE 1994 REQUIREMENTS
The Building Regulations stipulate that the maintenance of essential safety measures are to be maintained in a functional state (Building Regulations 2006). The requirement to provide maintenance for essential services was not well defined and the practise has been to apply the requirements of the Australian Standard closest to the date of installing the equipment (Refer Practise Note 2002-23). As the building was completed circa 1990 we expect the following relevant standards apply: Sprinklers: AS 1851.3 - 1985 Fire Pumps: AS 1851.14 - 1996 Combined hydrant and sprinkler systems: AS 1851.4-1992 Fire indicator panels: AS 1851.8-1987 3.2.2.2 BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
Building works carried out under the Building Act 1993 on or after 1st July 1994 have the maintenance provisions determined by the Relevant Building Surveyor (RBS). The RBS is to nominate under the occupancy permit a condition which: Lists all the essential services referred to under Regulation 11.2 Specifies the level of performance for each of the essential services The following occupancy permits have been issued and provide the following relevant maintenance requirements. An application to the Melbourne City Council has revealed that approximately 55 building permit applications since 2003 Note: It was beyond the scope of this report to read and identify the sprinkler maintenance requirements for each of the final certificates associated with the Building Permit. Of the few permits we did review they did not provide any specific information on the maintenance of fire sprinklers.
Issue 3
Page 13
3.2.2.3
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Where an alternative solution is used the essential services list may be expanded in consultation with the designers to ensure safety of the occupants and the building in the event of a fire. The following alternative solutions were provided and the associated special requirements: None identified The building owner ISPT had engaged the Hendry Group to undertake an investigation on the essential safety measures that exist within the building and to list the typical level of maintenance required for building constructed prior to July 2004. Their investigation did not reveal any special requirements that may have resulted from any of the following processes: Certificates of final inspection Building Appeals Board determinations Building notices and orders Building permits An application was made to the Building Appeals Board to establish if any appeals Board Determinations have been issued and their implications or additional requirements are yet to be determined at the time of writing of this report. 3.3 RISK MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES & REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS This section provides information for the following: Design requirements System Alteration management 3.3.1 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Design of the fire sprinkler system was subject to the Building Code and associated Australian standards of the day (crica 1989). The following additional requirements also need to be considered as part of the design of the sprinklers: Fire brigade reports Alternative solutions Building Determinations Other statutory requirements Insurance Company requirements 3.3.1.1 FIRE BRIGADE REPORTS
We were unable to find any fire brigade reports for the building that were relevant to the maintenance of the fire sprinkler installation. 3.3.1.2 ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
We were unable to find any alternative solution reports for the building that were relevant to the maintenance of the fire sprinkler installation. 3.3.1.3 BUILDING DETERMINATIONS
We did not have a copy of the building determinations to review to determine the effect on the maintenance of fire sprinkler maintenance and inspection.
Page 14
3.3.1.4
OTHER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
We were not aware of any other requirements. 3.3.1.5 INSURANCE COMPANY REQUIREMENTS
We have not had any feed back at this time from the insurance company or under writers. 3.3.2 SYSTEM ALTERATION MANAGEMENT
During an alteration to the sprinkler system the water supply is required to be isolated to enable works to be undertaken on dry (un-pressurised pipework). The following risks are involved with alterations: On reinstatement water supply valves may not be reinstated to their correct operating position. On reinstatement equipment may not be reinstated to their correct operating positions During a system alteration more of the building is isolated than required WATER SUPPLY VALVES
3.3.2.1
Most water supply valves are monitored in this building and any operation will provide an alarm at the FIP. The risk of isolating the circuit and the valve is low and can be picked up by contractors or managers of the building provided a system alteration process is properly undertaken. The only valves that are not supervised are the street sluice valves. These will not be operated very often and should be checked for their correct orientation. 3.3.2.2 EQUIPMENT
We have identified that the following equipment can be easily over looked and not returned to the normal operating position (by contractors not familiar with the system operation and design) and this will not be identified until the next regular inspection: 8 mm orifice valve may be left in line (by passed) and hence risk a non fire call in the event of a sprinkler head operating A jacking pump may be left in the off position risking a false alarm and an unnecessary fire brigade attendance incurring unwanted costs The pressure maintenance pump isolated switch left off and hence operating the pumps unnecessarily with the unwanted attendance and costs of the maintenance contractor The pressure maintenance pump (basement control valves) non-indicating valves may be incorrectly left and cause the pumps to start when not required or not start at all. SYSTEM ALTERATION SCOPE
3.3.2.3
The alteration of the sprinkler installations is possible to be undertaken on a floor by floor basis as isolating valves have been provided. There is however no practical way of draining the floor water downstream of this isolation valve except through the 15 mm flow switch drain.
Issue 3
Page 15
The consequence of this is that the water will be drained via the sprinkler control valve drain and impair up to 4 floors even though only one floor is required to be drained. This compromises more than the works area and uses up to 4 times the water a single floor drain would waste. 3.4 AS1851-2005 & MONTHLY TESTING For a sprinkler system to comply with the movement to AS1851-2005 and monthly testing regime the following control measures are required: Main stop valve and subsidiary valve monitoring Locked installation control valve enclosures System Interface diagram and pressure schedule Automatic jacking pump or retard chamber Diesel pumps to comply with AS 2941-2002 or dual starting batteries Pump status alarm to provide: Low battery voltage alarm Low fuel alarm 3.4.1 VALVE SUPERVISION
The building is provided with valve monitoring devices on all sprinkler main stop valves and water supply valves. 3.4.2 LOCKED INSTALLATION CONTROL VALVE ENCLOSURES
All installation control valves are locked in enclosures and only available with keyed access. 3.4.3 SYSTEM INTERFACE DIAGRAM AND PRESSURE SCHEDULE
The building did not have a system interface diagram provided at any of the installation control valves nor did it have any pressure schedules. These will need to be provided as part of the movement from AS1851.3 to AS 1851-2005. 3.4.4 AUTO JACKING PUMP/RETARD CHAMBER
Jacking pumps are provided to all installation control valves. 3.4.5 DUAL STARTING BATTERIES
This item has been provided. 3.4.6 PUMP STATUS ALARMS
This items has been provided.
Issue 3
Page 16
3.5 WATER CONSUMPTION This chapter provides information on the water consumption in the fire sprinkler system and covers the following areas: Summary Testing Servicing System alterations Continuous usage 3.5.1 SUMMARY
This site has installed water meters on its fire services supply, as part of a new smart metering upgrade for the building. This initiative reflect the owners commitment to measuring and improving the environmental sustainability of the property. As recorded by these meters, the fire services water consumption was 600,000 litres over a seven month period. Discussion with the facility managers however revealed that this seven month period had an unusually high number of tenancy changes and consequent draindowns of the sprinkler systems. Drawing on this actual consumption data and prior report provided a model for estimating water consumption by fire sprinklers1 , the estimated current water consumption for purposes of fire sprinklers maintenance and alteration in a typical year at this site is to be about 700,000 litres per year, as detailed below. Item Maintenance testing Equipment servicing Building alterations resulting in sprinkler draindowns Leaks or other continuous usage Annual water usage: Water usage (kL) 561.3 6.1 127.1 0.0 694.5
This report does not consider the discharge of water through a sprinkler installation due to a fire or accidental damage; which will cause loss of water from the system for a given time and then the system would be repaired and recharged. Water usage estimates are based on experience of the author and other estimates undertaken by associates. In some cases we have undertaken hydraulic modelling to determine typical figures. We are aware that the estimates may be questioned without having measured water loss in these installations or similar installations. The analysis attempts to quantify the absolute water usage for the site using current information available throughout the industry. 3.5.2 TESTING
The subsection covers the following details: Alarm valve test Flow switch test
Water usage in sprinkler installation Issue 3, Integrated Fire Services, 2007.

Issue 3
Page 17
Running of fire pumps Pressure switch testing Special valve testing Water supply drain test Water supply flow testing Remote test valve testing
A summary of the above water usage is provided in the following table with details in the following subsections below: Item Alarm valve test Flow switch test Running of fire pumps weekly Running of fire pumps 3 monthly Pressure switch testing Special valve testing Water supply drain test Water supply flow testing Remote test valve testing Annual water usage: 3.5.2.1 ALARM VALVE TEST Water usage (kL) 156.0 41.0 104.0 168.0 10.0 4.3 0.0 78.0 0.0 561.3
The operation of the alarm valve to activate the automatic fire brigade alarm and local water motor gong will consume water on an installation by installation basis. The following table provides information on the water usage for the testing of this item: Size (DN) 15 20 25 Usage per test Tests per year Annual water usage: 3.5.2.2 FLOW SWITCH TEST Flowrate (kL/min) 0.500 1.000 1.200 Duration (min) 0.5 0.0 0.0 Number tests Water usage (kL) 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 52.0 156.0
12.0 12.0 12.0
Issue 3
Page 18
The testing of a flow switch requires water to be drained downstream of the device for a period until an alarm is generated. The following table provides information on the water usage for the testing of this item: Size (DN) 15 20 25 Usage per test Tests per year Annual water usage: 3.5.2.3 RUNNING OF THE FIRE PUMPS Flowrate (kL/min) 0.500 1.000 1.200 Duration (min) 0.5 0.0 0.0 Number tests Water usage (kL) 10.3 0.0 0.0 10.3 4.0 41.0
41.0 12.0 12.0
The running of fire pumps will consume water when tested or operated due to automatic operation. The following tables provides information on the water usage and considers the following testing: Weekly testing Three monthly testing WEEKLY TESTING The following table provides a summary of water usage: Item Electric pump circulation relief Electric Pump Pressure Relief Valve Diesel Pump cooling water Pressure Relief Valve Usage per test Tests per year Annual Usage Flow rate (kL/min) 0.000 0.000 0.200 0.000 Duration of test (min) 90 0 10 10 Water Usage (kL) 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 52.0 104.0
Issue 3
Page 19
THREE MONTHLY TESTING The following table provides a summary of water usage: Item Electric pump circulation relief Electric Pump Pressure Relief Valve Diesel Pump 60% load test Diesel Pump cooling water Pressure Relief Valve Usage per test Tests per year Annual Usage 3.5.2.4 PRESSURE SWITCH TESTING Flow rate (kL/min) 0.000 0.000 1.200 0.200 0.000 Duration of test (min) 3 0 30 30 30 Water Usage (kL) 0.0 0.0 36.0 6.0 0.0 42.0 4.0 168.0
Testing of pressure switch operation requires that the installation pressure be reduced to the set point of the pressure switch. This may require the installation to drain if a hydraulic circuit has not been provided. Verification of the pressure switch setting will however require the system to be drained to simulate operation. Size (DN) 15 20 25 Flowrate (kL/min) 0.500 1.000 1.200 Duration (min) 1.0 0.0 0.0 Number tests 20.0 12.0 12.0 Water usage (kL) 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 1.0 10.0
Usage per test Tests per year Annual water usage:
Issue 3
Page 20
3.5.2.5
SPECIAL VALVE TESTING
The testing of special valves shall be undertaken on a less frequent period and include the following items: Non return valve test Pressure reducing valve test Pressure relief valve testing Item Non return valve test Pressure reducing valve test Pressure relief valve testing Annual water usage: 3.5.2.5.1 NON RETURN VALVE TEST Non return valves are testing by isolating the supply to upstream of the valve and drain the chamber between the isolation valve and non return valve. Non return valves are provided on this site for the following items: Town main supplies x 2 (annual testing) Pump outlet x 6 (3 monthly testing) The following table provides information on the water usage for the testing of this item: Size (DN) 15 15 15 Flowrate (kL/min) 0.5 0.5 0.5 Duration (min) 0.1 0.1 0.1 Number items 2 6 0 Tests per annum 1 4 0 Water usage (kL) 0.1 1.2 0.0 1.3 Water usage (kL) 1.3 0.0 3.0 4.3
Annual water usage: 3.5.2.5.2 PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE TESTING Not supplied to this installation
Issue 3
Page 21
3.5.2.5.3 PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE TESTING Testing of the pressure relief valves require the pumps to run and the setting tested and set if necessary. Testing to be undertaken annually The following table provides information on the water usage for the testing of this item: Size (DN) 50 50 50 Flowrate (kL/min) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Duration (min) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Water usage (kL) 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0
Usage per test Tests per year Annual water usage: 3.5.2.6 WATER SUPPLY FLOW TESTING
Flow testing is undertaken to provide a characteristic of pressure at a number of flow points for each source of water supply. Testing is undertaken annually. The sources of water supply are: Town main 1 plus pump 1 (low, medium and high rise) Town main 1 plus pump 2 (low, medium and high rise) Town main 2 plus pump 1 (low, medium and high rise) Town main 2 plus pump 2 (low, medium and high rise) Town main 1 Town main 2 Item The maximum flow rate to be test: Duration of a flow test: Water used per flow test Number of flow test pa Annual usage Quantity 2,500 L/min 10 minutes 13.0 kL 6 78.0 kL
Issue 3
Page 22
3.5.2.7
REMOTE TEST VALVE TESTING
Testing using the remote test valve requires the operation of the alarm valve to activate the automatic fire brigade alarm and local water motor gong . Annual water usage is based on the following: Size (DN) 15 15 15 Flowrate (kL/min) 0.5 0.5 0.5 Duration (min) 0.5 0.5 0.5 Number items 0 0 0 Tests per annum 1 0 0 Water usage (kL) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Annual water usage: Water usage per remote test: Nil (there is no such facility provided) 3.5.3 SERVICING
Servicing of the fire sprinkler installation shall include the following water usage activities: Alarm valve servicing Non return valve servicing Special valve servicing Water tank drainage Sprinkler replacements Item Alarm valve servicing Non return valve servicing Special valve servicing Water tank drainage Sprinkler replacements Annual water usage: 3.5.3.1 ALARM VALVE SERVICING Water usage (kL) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 6.1
Servicing of the alarm valves is required every three years under AS 1851.3 1985 and requires the draining of the water from upstream of the installation. As each floor has an isolation valve the volume of water is small and not considered in the water usage estimation. 3.5.3.2 NON RETURN VALVE SERVICING
Non return valves are required to be checked and serviced (if required) every three years and will require isolation upstream and downstream of the valve.
Issue 3
Page 23
Water usage is regarded as small and not considered in the water usage estimation. 3.5.3.3 SPECIAL VALVE SERVICING
Special valves that require servicing include the following: Pressure relief valves ( every three years) Pressure reducing valves (every three years) Tail end dry pipe valves (every three years) Water usage is regarded as small (due to the small amount of water losses in isolating these items) and not considered in the water usage estimation. 3.5.3.4 WATER TANK DRAINAGE
Drainage of water tank are required for cleaning and inspection purposes. Water usage is given as follows: Item Volume of water stored Frequency of drainage Annual usage 3.5.3.5 ANTI FREEZE SYSTEM SERVICING Quantity 0 kL NA 0 kL
Anti- freeze systems are required to be drained and refreshed every three years. The building does not have any anti freeze systems. 3.5.3.6 SPRINKLER REPLACEMENTS
The following system servicing activities will use water in the sprinkler system: Sprinkler head sample testing Fast response sprinkler heads Kitchen hood heads Dry Pendent sprinklers Anti freeze systems High temperature heads
3.5.3.6.1 SPRINKLER HEAD SAMPLE TESTING Sprinkler head testing is required after 24 years in service and then every 6 years after that. A representative of 10 sprinklers shall be removed and tested. If they fail then a further 10 heads shall be removed from the area of failure to determine if all heads are to be removed and replaced. Water usage is based on the following assumptions and table No failures Sample taken from separate installations (x10) Water usage averaged over 100 years
Issue 3
Page 24
Alterations per annum
Estimated stored volume kl/m2 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010
Number of installations
Average area m2
Estimated Volume consumed per annum kl 6.1 0.0 0.0 6.1
1.36 0 0 Total
1.0 4.0 4.0
4,500.0 4,600.0 4,500.0
Note: We are assuming that 10 sprinkler heads per installation are tested and we are looking at the building life cycle over 100 years to get the average number of Alterations per annum. 3.5.3.6.2 FAST RESPONSE SPRINKLER HEADS Under AS 1851-2005 a representative quantity (14 throughout the building) of fast response heads are required to be inspected at 12, 12, 6, 6 yearly intervals. This building does not appear to have such sprinklers. 3.5.3.6.3 KITCHEN HOOD HEADS Kitchen hood sprinklers are require to be replaced every 5 years in accordance with Australian Standards. The building does not appear to have such sprinklers. 3.5.3.6.4 DRY PENDENT SPRINKLERS Under AS 1851-2005 a representative quantity (14 throughout the building) of fast heads are required to be inspected at 12 yearly intervals. This building does not appear to have such sprinklers. 3.5.3.6.5 MJC SPRINKLERS Under AS 1851-2005 a representative quantity (14 throughout the building) of fast heads are required to be inspected at 30 years and then every 12 years thereafter. This building does not appear to have such sprinklers.
Issue 3
Page 25
3.5.4
SYSTEM ALTERATIONS
Each time a sprinkler installation is modified the volume stored is required to be reinstated and the original volume lost to drain. Based on the above volumes and expected alterations the following table provides an estimate of the water usage for modifications: Site Type Alterations per annum Estimated stored volume l/m2 0.0012 Average area m2 Estimated Volume consumed per annum kl 5.4
Ordinary Hazard Basement Ordinary Hazard Podium Ordinary Hazard Office Total Note:
4,500
0.0010
4,600
9.2
25
0.0010
4,500
112.5
127.1
The estimate on the number of drain downs undertaken is not easily determined as the contractors do not log this event. The above estimates are representative of a typical building of this size and actual usage may vary from year to year based on the amount of activity in tenancy alterations and other needs to drain the sprinkler installation. CONTINUOUS USAGE
3.5.5
Sprinkler systems will use water continuously in the following areas: Pump glands (packed glands) Leaking pipework and or fittings Over pressure relief The continuous use of water in sprinkler system is regarded as being small as an overall figure and is not considered in this report.
Issue 3
Page 26
RECOMMENDATIONS & COSTING
This chapter provides information on the following: Water saving opportunities Recommended initiatives Water saving & other benefits Cost estimates 4.1 WATER SAVING OPPORTUNITIES This section provides information on the following: Testing Servicing Alterations Continuous usage 4.1.1 TESTING
Water usage can be reduced by the providing a testing schedule in accordance with AS 1851-2005. This subsection provides information on the following: Changing the testing and maintenance to the current standard AS 1851-2005 provides for the following routines: Note: This is not an exhaustive list of the required maintenance and testing required in a sprinkler installation and only provides those routines that require water to be used in the testing and or maintenance.
The following table provides a description of the routine and the period in which this could be preformed: Routine Weekly Alarm valve test (see note) Flow Switch test Non return valve test Pressure reducing valve flow test Water supply drain test Water supply flow test Remote test valve test Pressure switch test Water tank drainage Alarm valve service Alarm interface functional testing M M Monthly M Level 6 Monthly M M Yearly M M M M M M M M M 3 Yearly M M M M M M M M M M M
Issue 3
Page 27
Sprinkler Pumpset routines in accordance with AS 1851.14 1996 Routine Weekly Pump run (electric 3 minutes) Pump run (diesel 10 minutes) Pump run (diesel 30 + minutes) Pump run (electric 10 + minutes) Pressure relief & isolating valve maintenance Note: Weekly testing may be omitted if the system meets certain monitoring conditions. Monthly M Level 6 Monthly M Yearly M 5 Yearly M
M M M
M M M M
WATER SAVINGS The following table is an summary that estimates the water savings that could result from changing to the current AS 1851-2005 and adopting the following testing regimes. Routine Current Alarm valve test (Weekly / Monthly) Flow Switch test (Quarterly / 6 monthly) Pressure switch test Special valve testing Water supply drain test (nil / 6 monthly) Pump run (weekly / monthly) Pump run (3 monthly/ yearly) Water supply flow test Remote test valve test Total 156.0 41.0 10.0 4.3 0.0 104.0 168.0 78.0 0.0 561.3 Water usage (kL per annum) Potential 12.0 20.5 10.0 4.3 40.0 24.0 86.0 78.0 0.0 274.8 Saving 144.0 20.5 0.0 0.0 -40.0 80.0 82.0 0.0 0.0 286.5
Figure 4.1 demonstrates a comparison between water usage in testing for the current usage and the potential usage under the AS 1851-2005.
Issue 3
Page 28
Figure 4.1 4.1.1.1 ALARM VALVE TEST
The operation of the alarm valve to activate the automatic fire brigade alarm and local water motor gong will consume water on an installation by installation basis. The following table provides information on the water usage for the testing of this item: Size (DN) 15 20 25 Flowrate (kL/min) 0.500 1.000 1.200 Duration (min) 0.5 0.0 0.0 Number tests 4.0 12.0 12.0 Water usage (kL) 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 12.0 12.0
Usage per test Tests per year Annual water usage: Note: 4.1.1.2
As1851-2005 allows to cycle sprinkler alarm valve tests every 3 months FLOW SWITCH TEST
The testing of a flow switch requires water to be drained downstream of the device for a period until an alarm is generated.
Issue 3
Page 29
The following table provides information on the water usage for the testing of this item: Size (DN) 15 20 25 Flowrate (kL/min) 0.500 1.000 1.200 Duration (min) 0.5 0.0 0.0 Number tests 41.0 12.0 12.0 Water usage (kL) 10.3 0.0 0.0 10.3 2.0 20.5
Usage per test Tests per year Annual water usage: 4.1.1.3 RUNNING OF THE FIRE PUMPS
The running of fire pumps will consume water when tested or operated due to automatic operation. The following tables provides information on the water usage and considers the following testing: Monthly testing Yearly testing MONTHLY TESTING The following table provides a summary of water usage: Item Electric pump circulation relief Electric Pump Pressure Relief Valve Diesel Pump cooling water Pressure Relief Valve Usage per test Tests per year Annual Usage Flow rate (kL/min) 0.000 0.000 0.200 0.000 Duration of test (min) 45 45 10 10 Water Usage (kL) 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 12.0 24.0
Issue 3
Page 30
YEARLY TESTING The following table provides a summary of water usage: Item Electric pump circulation relief Electric pump full flow Electric Pump Pressure Relief Valve Diesel pump full flow Diesel Pump cooling water Pressure Relief Valve Usage per test Tests per year Annual Usage 4.1.1.4 WATER SUPPLY DRAIN TEST Flow rate (kL/min) 0.000 2.000 0.000 2.000 0.200 0.000 Duration of test (min) 10 10 0 30 30 30 Water Usage (kL) 0.0 20.0 0.0 60.0 6.0 0.0 86.0 1.0 86.0
The water supply drain test is undertaken to determine the water supply pressure to the alarm valve is in accordance with the pressure gauge schedule. This test has been introduced into the AS 1851-2005 schedule. This test is to be undertaken on each group of control valves. The following table provides information on the water usage for the testing of this item: Size (DN) 50 15 15 Flowrate (kL/min) 2.0 1.0 1.0 Duration (min) 1.0 0.1 0.1 Number items 10 0 0 Tests per annum 2 4 0 Water usage (kL) 40.0 0.0 0.0 40.0
Annual water usage:
Issue 3
Page 31
4.1.2
SERVICING
Water usage can be reduced by providing a testing schedule in accordance with AS 18512005. This subsection provides information on the following: Changing the testing and maintenance to the current standard AS 1851-2005 provides for the following routines: Routine Weekly Water tank drainage Alarm valve service Non return valve service Special valve service Anti freeze system recharge Kitchen hood sprinkler replacement Sprinkler head sample testing High temperature sprinkler replacement 4.1.2.1 SPRINKLER HEAD SAMPLE TESTING Monthly Level 6 Monthly Yearly M 3 Yearly M M M M M M At 24 years and then every 6 yearly cycle - special heads at 12 years
Sprinkler head testing is required after 24 years and then every 6 years after that. A representative of 14 sprinklers shall be removed and tested. If they fail then a further 14 heads shall be removed from the area of failure to determine if all heads are to be removed and replaced. Water usage is based on the following assumptions and table No failures Sample taken from separate (installations x 14 or maximum CVs) Water usage averaged over next 100 years Alterations per annum 1.904 0 0 Total Normal Usage Water savings Estimated stored volume kl/m2 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 Average area m2 4,500.0 4,600.0 4,500.0 Estimated Volume consumed per annum kl 8.6 0.0 0.0 8.6 6.1 (-2.5)
Issue 3
Page 32
Figure 4.2 demonstrates a comparison between the current servicing water usage and the potential usage under the AS 1851-2005
Figure 4.2
4.1.3
SYSTEM ALTERATIONS Each time a sprinkler installation is modified the volume stored is required to be reinstated and the original volume lost to drain. If each floor was drained individually instead of the three floors at a time the following water usage would be provided: Site Type Alterations per annum Estimated stored volume kL/m2 0.0012 Average Area m2 Estimated Volume consumed per annum kL 4.2
Ordinary Hazard Basement Ordinary Hazard Podium Ordinary hazard Office Total Normal usage Water savings
3,500
0.0010
2,300
4.6
25
0.0010
1,500
37.5
46.3 127.1 80.8
Issue 3
Page 33
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.3 demonstrates a comparison between water usage under alterations for the current usage and the potential usage the AS 1851-2005. 4.1.4 CONTINUOUS USAGE
Continuous usage is expected to be such a low water user the we have not identified any cost effective method of saving water in this area.
Issue 3
Page 34
4.2 RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Based on the review of the water usage and possible savings the following initiatives are recommended for consideration by the owners and managers. This report be provided to the insurance company for their comments. That the sprinkler maintenance schedule be based on that of AS 1851-2005 with monthly testing in lieu of weekly Drain down procedures should include the isolation of floors not requiring alterations by using the existing isolation valve for those floors. That any change of design, maintenance procedures or management process be managed by a suitably qualified engineer to document and inspect the works for compliance to these recommendations. That maintenance contractors are provided with a clear specification on their role and requirements to undertake the required testing. These recommendations are considered to represent a responsible and managed approach using cost effective water saving initiatives. Whilst we recognise that additional initiatives could be employed to further reduce water usage we do not believe them to be cost effective and have not provided these. INSURANCE COMPANY
Note:
4.2.1
The insurance company is a stakeholder in having the fire sprinkler installation maintained in a satisfactory manner. Many companies are proactive in this area and would want to be asked for their opinion on such an important system change. It is unlikely that the insurance company would have any objection to implementing the new standard as their has been strong backing by the Insurance Council, FM Global and other insurance companies. 4.2.2 ADOPTION OF AS 1851-2005
The adoption of AS 1851-2005 and monthly testing would be easily achieved for this building with the provision of the following items being satisfactorily provided: Interface diagram at each set of control valves Pressure schedule at each control valve set The other requirements noted in 3.4 have been attended to satisfactorily we also would add the following to provide a greater level of risk management in the basement pump house: Provide normal operation position labels on all control valves Provide ball valves in stead of the handle type valves so that it is clear to the operator that the valve is open or shut and if it is in the correct position. Based on a review of the risk management procedures and regulatory requirements there does not appear to be any reason not to adopt the monthly testing given the recommendations in this report are adopted. 4.2.3 DRAIN DOWN PROCEDURES
To limit the amount of water loss in drain downs due to alterations we recommend that contractors are required to use the existing isolation valves to trap the water on the floors that will not be drained. We do not believe this will require any additional time for contractors to undertake drain down because the time to drain four floor compared to one
Issue 3
Page 35
floor will be reduced and the time to go to each floor can be undertaken by the second fitter engaged to undertake the work (we assume most companies would send at least two fitters to undertake any alternation work). Such procedures would need to be documented and managed so that contractors do not take the easily solution and drain all four floors for each control valve installation. 4.2.4 IMPAIRMENT MANAGEMENT
Each time a sprinkler system is impaired the building is under an increased level of risk. As it is the practise to allow tenants to use their own contractors to undertake modifications to the sprinkler system on their floor it is important that a consistent approach to undertaken that minimises the risk. As noted in 3.3.2 there are a number of concerns that valves and equipment may not be returned to their requirement automatic status. Documentation and procedures are recommended to be used to communicate the inhouse requirements specific to the building. These will explain the processes involved achieving a satisfactory impairment and provide the steps the contractors must follow. This would include a reporting and management system where the contractor provides the correct communication and fills out certain forms to inform insurance company and or the facility manager of the proposed impairment. We have recommended that a DVD be provided for all contractors to review which also provides a comprehension test to determine if they fully understand their requirements. This would be similar to the induction DVD provided to new contractors attending petrochemical sites. 4.2.5 MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATION
Providing a clear specification to contractors on the requirements of the maintenance routines required for the building is very important. The contractor needs to know the following information to be able to complete their work satisfactorily: The number and location of plant and equipment that is to be tested and maintained The frequency of testing the plant and equipment The expected performance of the plant and equipment Records that provide evidence of the testing, maintenance and inspection undertaken Who and how the information should be provided so that accurate records are kept We recommend this specification be provided by suitably qualified professional who have a thorough understanding of the design and maintenance requirements of the services being tested, maintained and inspected. Whilst some contracting companies may be able to provided this service we recommend engaging a professional consulting company that will be able to provide an independent focus and will also be able to review the processes undertaken by an appointed contractor. 4.3 WATER SAVING & OTHER BENEFITS This section provides information on the following areas: Water saving summary Benefits of adoption of monthly testing
Issue 3
Page 36
4.3.1
WATER SAVING
The following table provides a summary of the water saving opportunities identified for the site. Item Testing: adopting 1851-2005 and Monthly Testing Servicing: Adopting 1851-2005 Alteration to the sprinkler installations: Sprinkler installation zoning Continuous Usage Annual Water saving: Water savings (kL/annum) 286.5 -2.5 80.8 0.0 364.8
Figure 4.4 demonstrates a clear comparison between the water usage estimates for the current usage and the potential usage under the AS 1851-2005.
Figure 4.4 4.3.2 ADOPTION OF MONTHLY TESTING BENEFITS
The new standard AS 1851-2005 was changed from earlier versions of the AS 1851 suite of standards in order to: Provide a consistent approach for maintenance of fire safety and protection systems Adopt a more quality assurance approach through better documentation Ensure better systems reliability Eliminate any scope of corner cutting by maintenance practitioners Provide more comprehensive functionality and performance testing
Issue 3
Page 37
Move to monthly testing of sprinkler installation if certain risk processes were managed Lowers the level of compliancy due to familiarisation from contractors attending the site weekly and attending to their duties in a myopic manner
The new standard will bring the following benefits: Greater clarity of maintenance requirements and accountability by maintenance providers Possibility of reducing life cycle costs by proactive maintenance Annual statements of system conditions which provides clear and useful information for risk management, corporate governance, insurance and future planning Greater confidence in the system operating to specification in the unlikely event of a fire Greater transparency of processes using better recording and documentation processes Provide a QA check on maintenance that can fit straight into a corporate QA plan. Reduce the amount of water being used in the testing of alarm valves and running of booster pumps
Issue 3
Page 38
4.4 COST ESTIMATES The costing details of various recommend initiatives are provided in the following table. The table considers two part which include: Initiatives in testing Initiatives in system alterations Item No 1 1.1 1.2 Item Details Cost ($)
MAINTENANCE TESTING REQUIREMENTS Control valve information Basement control valve replacement The cost to implement interface and pressure schedule diagrams to all control valves Small diameter valves located in the basement that control the function of the pressure maintenance pumps are of the non-indicating type. Our estimate is to change these to a handle ball valve locked in line with the pipework. To engage an engineer to provide a detailed specification of the required maintenance procedures Engage an engineer to review the upgrade works (Hardware Requirements) Sub Total Testing $4,000 $5,000
1.3
Professional Fees - Testing
$4,000
$2,000 $15,000
2 2.1
SYSTEM ALTERATION REQUIREMENT Professional Fees - System Alterations Engage a suitably qualified professional to provide alteration procedures and control procedures for contractors working on drain downs and other building fire services alterations Provide a process to train contractors that provide drain downs and alteration to the fire services. Cost would include an audio visual DVD for contractors to play on the site and provide instructions to approved contractors before starting work on any of the fire systems $4,000
2.2
Contractor Training
$10,000
Sub Total Alteration TOTAL Note:
$14,000 $29,000
These costs are only an estimate and reflect to the total investment which may involve in house personnel or professional consultants. They represent a complete and professional service that would be expected to be provided by suitably qualified and experienced practitioners (ie Engineers).
Issue 3
Page 39
OVERVIEW
This chapter provides an overview of the project findings and recommendations with the following sections: Benefit-cost comparison Action plan 5.1 BENEFIT-COST COMPARISON The benefits of adopting the recommendations as noted above are compared with the expected capital costs: The changing from the current maintenance practices to AS 1851-2005 and monthly testing option of the fire sprinkler system and fire pumps is estimated to save over 284 kL per annum. Adopting AS 1851-2005 has an approximate one off setup cost of $15,000 with no expected increase in cost to the annual contract (See Recommendations 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3). Additional 80.8 kL/ annum can be saved by changing the drain down procedures. Adopting monthly control valve testing imposes an additional risk to the site and additional management processes are required to be established for approximate costs $14,000 (See Recommendations 2.2 and 2.3). A total saving of 9120 kL over the buildings life cycle can be saved with an approximate cost of $29,000 dollars.
5.2 ACTION PLAN The following action plan is recommended as a result of the findings of this case study. This report to be provided to the building owner through the Facilities Manager This report to be provided to the insurance company for their recommendations The sprinkler maintenance schedule to be based on that of AS 1851-2005 and monthly testing Engage a professional engineer to provide instructions and documentation to complete the work satisfactorily and reduce the risk associated with adopting monthly testing. Train contractors for drain downs and alteration to the sprinkler system processes.
Issue 3

Case Study A Mep

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Study A Mep

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Study A Mep

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fire Sprinkler Water Conservation Demonstration Program

Paul Verheijden EF 15977 Fire Safety Engineer

Plumbing Industry Commission Melbourne Victoria

Project: 200741D Issue 3 6 August, 2008

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

4.3.2 ADOPTION OF MONTHLY TESTING BENEFITS 4.4 COST ESTIMATES 5

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Site Periodic Maintenance Light Hazard

High Hazard Engineer

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Height of the building Height of each level Floor area

2,400 m2 3,250 m2 4,000m2 3,000m2 2,300m2 1,600 m2 1,100 m2

PRINCIPAL SPRINKLER SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Control Valve Number 1

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Details Lonsdale Street

Diesel Electric Duties

Pressure Reliefs Flow test branch Services used Method of starting

50 mm diesel 15 mm electric 100 mm Sprinklers Hydrants Hose reels

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

OTHER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

This item has been provided. 3.4.6 PUMP STATUS ALARMS

This items has been provided.

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Water usage in sprinkler installation Issue 3, Integrated Fire Services, 2007.

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

12.0 12.0 12.0

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

41.0 12.0 12.0

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Usage per test Tests per year Annual water usage:

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

SPECIAL VALVE TESTING

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

REMOTE TEST VALVE TESTING

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Alterations per annum

Estimated stored volume kl/m2 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010

Estimated Volume consumed per annum kl 6.1 0.0 0.0 6.1

1.0 4.0 4.0

4,500.0 4,600.0 4,500.0

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

RECOMMENDATIONS & COSTING

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Figure 4.1 4.1.1.1 ALARM VALVE TEST

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd

Annual water usage: