Case Study a Mep

8/2/2019 Case Study a Mep

1/42

Fire Sprinkler Water ConservationDemonstration Program

ASSESSMENT REPORTCASE STUDY A

HIGH RISE OFFICE BUILDINGMelbourne Victoria

Prepared by:

Integrated Fire Services Pty LtdABN 66 719 809 688ACN 006 017 72328 Byron Street Ringwood Vic 3134

Tel. 9870 1317 Fax 8610 2007

Website: www.integratedfire.com.au

Email : [email protected]

Paul Verheijden EF 15977Fire Safety Engineer

Prepared for:

Plumbing Industry CommissionMelbourne Victoria

Project: 200741DIssue 36 August, 2008
http://www.integratedfire.com.au/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.integratedfire.com.au/


2/42

200741D F ire Sprinkler W ater Conservation D emonstration Program

Assessment Report - CASE STUDY Ai

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 11.1 OVERVIEW Page 11.2 MAINTENANCE TESTING WATER SAVING Page 11.3 DRAINDOWNS WATER SAVING Page 2

1.4 SUMMARY Page 3

2 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 42.1 BACKGROUND Page 42.2 OBJECTIVES Page 42.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 52.4 ABBREVIATIONS Page 52.5 GLOSSARY Page 52.6 BIBLIOGRAPHY Page 6

3 SITUATION ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7

3.1 CASE STUDY DETAILS Page 73.1.1 PRINCIPAL BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS Page 73.1.2 PRINCIPAL SPRINKLER SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS Page 7

3.2 MAINTENANCE PRACTICES & REQUIREMENTS Page 103.2.1 CURRENT PRACTICES Page 103.2.2 MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 12

3.3 RISK MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES & REGULATORY REQUIREMENTSPage 13

3.3.1 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS Page 133.3.2 SYSTEM ALTERATION MANAGEMENT Page 14

3.4 AS1851-2005 & MONTHLY TESTING Page 153.4.1 VALVE SUPERVISION Page 15

3.4.2 LOCKED INSTALLATION CONTROL VALVE ENCLOSURES Page 153.4.3 SYSTEM INTERFACE DIAGRAM AND PRESSURE SCHEDULE

Page 153.4.4 AUTO JACKING PUMP/RETARD CHAMBER Page 153.4.5 DUAL STARTING BATTERIES Page 153.4.6 PUMP STATUS ALARMS Page 15

3.5 WATER CONSUMPTION Page 163.5.1 SUMMARY Page 163.5.2 TESTING Page 163.5.3 SERVICING Page 223.5.4 SYSTEM ALTERATIONS Page 253.5.5 CONTINUOUS USAGE Page 25

4 RECOMMENDATIONS & COSTING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 264.1 WATER SAVING OPPORTUNITIES Page 26

4.1.1 TESTING Page 264.1.2 SERVICING Page 314.1.3 SYSTEM ALTERATIONS Page 324.1.4 CONTINUOUS USAGE Page 33

4.2 RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES Page 344.2.1 INSURANCE COMPANY Page 344.2.2 ADOPTION OF AS 1851-2005 Page 344.2.3 DRAIN DOWN PROCEDURES Page 344.2.4 IMPAIRMENT MANAGEMENT Page 354.2.5 MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATION Page 35

4.3 WATER SAVING & OTHER BENEFITS Page 354.3.1 WATER SAVING Page 36

Integrated Fire Services Pty Ltd Issue 3


3/42


Assessment Report - CASE STUDY Aii

4.3.2 ADOPTION OF MONTHLY TESTING BENEFITS Page 364.4 COST ESTIMATES Page 38

5 OVERVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 395.1 BENEFIT-COST COMPARISON Page 395.2 ACTION PLAN Page 39

REVISION HISTORY

Issue Date Details

1 12 May, 2008 Original issue

2 17 June, 2008 Issued for review by Knight Frank

3 6 August, 2008 Recommendations, conclusions, estimates

revisedFormat 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 methodology adopted for this assessment must 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.



4/42


Assessment Report - CASE STUDY APage 1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The owners of this building have agreed to participate in a case study which examines theamount of water consumed through periodic maintenance and alteration of fire sprinklersystems. The study also provides recommendations and costings to encourage owners andmanagement 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 anddraindowns 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 FireProtection Systems and Equipment (AS1851-2005), switches now-weekly testing to monthlytesting and establishes different procedures for managing draindowns.

The key benefits of adoption of AS1851-2005 is moving from weekly to monthly testing (subjectto satisfying certain criteria) and implementation of the new higher level testing requirementsand risk management. This will not only save water but will improve management of theowner's common law duty through a more rigorous maintenance regime for the fire sprinklersystem.

It is considered that the community has an expectation that responsible commercial propertyowners 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, orabout 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 andswitching current weekly tests to monthly. This change is expected to be easily accomplishedfor this building.

As a building constructed on formerly Commonwealth land it is unclear whether there is arequired essential safety measure maintenance standard or frequency from the availabledocumentation. 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 theBuilding Commission's Practice Note 2006-23. With confirmation of implementation of therequired precautions in AS1851-2005 this new standard can be adopted.

A building permit is only required where building works are required to implement theseprecautions. While the recommended changes have not yet been reviewed by the property'sinsurer, it is considered that the likelihood of an objection is low, given Insurance CouncilAustralia and other strong backing for AS1851-2005.

As part of its improved rigour, AS1851-2005 requires interface and pressure schedulediagrams 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 pressuremaintenance 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 changeof valve type is regarded as a necessary strengthening of risk management in the light of



5/42



having less frequent onsite visits by maintenance testers.

The report further anticipates a $2,000 professional fee to check and approve these twohardware installations and a $4,000 fee for tailoring a detailed set of AS1851-2005maintenance procedures. It is assumed both of these services would be performed by aspecialist fire services engineer.

Based on these recommendations and assumptions, the total, one-off, cost associated withadopting 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 ongoingcost of the fire services maintenance contract for the building is ultimately a matter ofcommercial negotiation between the property's owner and maintenance contractors, but currentindications are that these ongoing costs will remain about the same. The number of onsite testswill be cut but a comprehensive annual survey and other maintenance regime changes areintroduced in the new Standard. The annual survey is the main cost component, but itsintroduction is regarded as an important step forward in improving the rigour of themaintenance of sprinkler systems.

In summary, a 284,000 litres per year saving in maintenance testing water consumption - 7.1million litres over 25 years - and a major improvement in fire services risk management can beachieved by adopting AS1851-2005 with the associated increase to monthly testing. Takingthese steps entails an estimated hardware cost of $9,000 (for mandatory diagrams and arecommended values upgrade) and estimated engineering fees of $6,000 (for reviewing thehardware 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 ofcontractors who perform alterations and draindowns of sprinklers as part of fitout projects fortenants of the building. Faults in sprinkler systems as a result of building alterations are fairlycommon and a switch to monthly testing raises the possibility of these faults not being detectedfor up to four weeks. Assuming this site wishes to continue allowing tenants to choose theirown contractors to carry out work involving the building's sprinkler system, all contract staff whoare unfamiliar with the site and whose work may affect the sprinkler systems should berequired to have induction training providing key details about the features and operation of thesprinkler system.

The cost for this risk management upgrade is estimated to be $14,000, based on the cost of afire services engineer specifying appropriate procedures ($4,000) and production of a trainingDVD ($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 gainingauthorisation to work within the building.



6/42



1.4 SUMMARY

In short, this site will gain a water saving of 9.1 million litres and an important upgrade in its fireservices maintenance regime over its remaining 25 plus year life span for a one-off expense ofapproximately $29,000.

The table below summarises the recommendations for change and resulting water savings andestimated costs to bring about the change.

Change recommendations Life Cycle Water Saving (liters)

Cost $

Adoption of AS1851-2005 andmonthly testing

7,100,000 15,000

Changing drain down procedures 2,020,000 14,000

Total water savings 9,120,000 29,000



7/42



2 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, particularlythrough its role in developing Australian Standard 1851-2005 Maintenance of Fire ProtectionSystems and Equipment (AS1851-2005) and the consequent opportunity to reform sprinklermaintenance practices. The Victorian plumbing division of the Communication, Electrical andPlumbing Union has been key in gaining strong recognition of this issue, and leaders in theproperty and facility management industries have supported this important water-savinginitiative 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 showingmethods for cutting the amount of water consumed through periodic maintenance andalteration 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 andmajor 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 thesetypes of sites offer the best opportunity for reducing the estimated 500 million litres of waterconsumed annually for the purposes of fire sprinkler maintenance and system alteration. Mostof the case study sites do not have tanks or other methods for recirculating or re-using waterused in maintaining and altering their sprinkler systems, which is typical for these categories ofproperties 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, currentmaintenance practices, risk management practices, regulatory requirements and



8/42



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 recommendationsand estimates of implementation costs

Overview and next steps, including a benefit versus cost comparison and discussof implementation steps

2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project description is as follows:

Item Details

Name: Case Study A

Description: High Rise Office Building

Project: Fire Sprinkler Water Conservation Demonstration Program

Assessment Report

Client: Plumbing Industry Commission

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

2.5 GLOSSARY

The definitions of the following terms used in this report are provided below:

Life Cycle A buildings life cycle costing is applied over a 25 year period

Sprinkler installation A network of pipes that feed sprinklers within a building that iscontrol by a single set of installation control valves

Installation control valves Those valves that are used to control a single sprinklerinstallation and are used for testing and alarm indication.Also referred to as: Sprinkler installation valves Sprinkler valves Installation valves

System Alteration Where the sprinkler system is isolated and not able to operate

as design. Normally means the water is drained somodifications can be undertake to the pipework.



9/42



Site A property that is controlled by a water supply that feeds anumber of sprinkler installations.

Periodic Maintenance Maintenance and testing activities that are undertaken on aweekly, monthly or three monthly basis

Light Hazard Describes the type of sprinkler system which has smalldiameter pipe sizes with typical 25 to 32 ranges and 65 to 100mm mains

Ordinary hazard Describes the type of sprinkler system which has medium sizediameter pipe sizes with typical 32 to 40 ranges and 80 to 150mm mains

High Hazard Describes the type of sprinkler system which has diameter pipesizes with typical 50 to 65 ranges and 150 to 200 mm mains

Engineer A professionally qualified engineer registered with the buildingcontrol commission and practising in fire services design.

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 EquipmentPART 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.



10/42



3 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 Characteristic

Number of levels 46 Low rise B3 to Level 13Medium Rise Levels 14 to 26High Rise Level 27 & above

Occupancy types OfficesRetailCar parkingPlant

Level 1 to 39GroundBasement levels 1 to 340 to 42

Height of the building Approximately 170 m

Height of each level 3.75 m - 4.4 m

Floor area B3 2,400 m2

B2 3,250 m2

B1 4,000m2

Ground 3,000m2

Levels 1-7 2,300m2

Levels 8 - 33 1,600 m2

Levels 34-38 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 theirrespective floors areas and occupancy classification.



11/42



Control ValveNumber

Level Floor area (m ) Occupancy 2

Classification

1 B3 2,400 m OH22

B2 3,250 m OH22

2 B1 4,000m OH22

Ground 3,000m OH32

3 1 2,300m OH12

2 2,300m OH12

4 3 2,300m OH12

4 2,300m OH12

5 5 2,300m OH12

6 2,300m OH12

7 2,300m OH12

8 1,600 m OH12

9 1,600 m OH12

10 1,600 m OH12

11 1,600 m OH12

6 12 1,600 m OH12

13 1,600 m OH12

14 1,600 m OH12

15 1,600 m OH12

7 16 1,600 m OH12

17 1,600 m OH12

18 1,600 m OH12

19 1,600 m OH12

8 20 1,600 m OH12

21 1,600 m OH12

22 1,600 m OH12

23 1,600 m OH12

9 24 1,600 m OH12

25 1,600 m OH12

26 1,600 m OH1

2

27 1,600 m OH12



12/42



10 28 1,600 m OH12

29 1,600 m OH12

30 1,600 m OH12

31 1,600 m OH12

11 32 1,600 m OH12

33 1,600 m OH12

34 1,100 m OH12

35 1,100 m OH12

12 36 1,100 m OH12

37 1,100 m OH12

38 1,100 m OH12

39 1,100 m OH12

40 200 m OH12

41 200 m OH12

42 200 m OH12

Totals 77552

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 testvalves.

3.1.2.3 WATER SUPPLY

The principal water supply characteristics consist of the following items

Item Characteristic Details

Town mainconnections

150 mm x 2 Lonsdale Street



13/42



Pumpdetails

DieselElectricDuties

Unknown powerUnknown power1800 L/min @667 kPa,1090 kPa & 1627 kPa

PressureReliefs

50 mm diesel15 mm electric

Over pressure (did not appear toopen)Circulation relief

Flow testbranch

100 mm Lost to drain - max flowrate 2,000L/min

Servicesused

SprinklersHydrantsHose reels

Sprinklers and hydrants used acombined pump but have separatereticulations

Method ofstarting

Pressure switches from the combined ring mains sensing aloss 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 hydrantsystem and divided into four stages as follows:

Stage Details Levels

1 Town main pressure only B3 to B1, Ground and Levels1 & 2

2 -Low Pump boosted town main

(first outlet)

Levels 3 to 15

3- Medium Pump boosted town main(second outlet)

Levels 16 to 27

4- High Pump boosted town main(third outlet)

Levels 28 to 42

3.2 MAINTENANCE PRACTICES & REQUIREMENTS

Fundamentally, maintenance practices at the site are based on the regulatory requirement tomaintain the sprinkler system in a functional state, along with any insurance company

contractual requirements. Australian Standards are used to determine the appropriate activitiesfor 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 accordancewith the following periodic routines:

Weekly routines (level 1)

Quarterly routines (level 2) Annual routines (level 3) 3 yearly (level 4)



14/42



Six yearly (level 5) Greater levels

Note: This is not an exhaustive list of the required maintenance and testing requiredin a sprinkler installation and only provides those routines that require water tobe used in the testing and or maintenance.

The following table provides a description of the routine and the period in which is to bepreformed:

Routine Level

1 2 3 4 5 Other

Alarm valve test M M M M

Flow Switch test M M M

Non return valve testM M M

Pressure reducing valve flowtest

M M M

Water supply flow test M M

Remote test valve test M M

Pressure switch test M M

Water tank drainage M

Alarm valve service M M

Drain valve service M

Non return valve service M

Special valve service M

Anti freeze system recharge M

Kitchen hood sprinklerreplacement

M

Sprinkler head sample testing

(every 24 years sample of 10and then every 6 yearsthereafter)

M

High temperature sprinklerreplacement

M

Sprinkler Pumpset routines in accordance with AS 1851.14 1996

Routine Level

1 2 3 4 5

Pump run (electric 3minutes)

M M M M



15/42



Pump run (diesel 10minutes)

M M M M


M M M

Pump run (electric 30minutes)M M

Pressure relief valvemaintenance

M

Maintenance of combined hydrant and sprinkler systems in accordance with AS 1851.4Servicing 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 safetymeasures are to be maintained in a functional state (Building Regulations 2006).

The requirement to provide maintenance for essential services was not well definedand the practise has been to apply the requirements of the Australian Standardclosest to the date of installing the equipment (Refer Practise Note 2002-23).

As the building was completed circa 1990 we expect the following relevant standardsapply:

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 1 July 1994 havest

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 followingrelevant maintenance requirements.

An application to the Melbourne City Council has revealed thatapproximately 55 building permit applications since 2003

Note: It was beyond the scope of this report to read and identify the sprinklermaintenance requirements for each of the final certificates associated with

the Building Permit. Of the few permits we did review they did not provideany specific information on the maintenance of fire sprinklers.



16/42



3.2.2.3 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Where an alternative solution is used the essential services list may be expanded inconsultation with the designers to ensure safety of the occupants and the building inthe event of a fire.

The following alternative solutions were provided and the associated specialrequirements:

None identified

The building owner ISPT had engaged the Hendry Group to undertake aninvestigation on the essential safety measures that exist within the building and to listthe typical level of maintenance required for building constructed prior to July 2004.

Their investigation did not reveal any special requirements that may have resultedfrom 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 appealsBoard Determinations have been issued and their implications or additionalrequirements 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 associatedAustralian standards of the day (crica 1989). The following additional requirements alsoneed 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 tothe 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 wererelevant 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 theeffect on the maintenance of fire sprinkler maintenance and inspection.



17/42



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 underwriters.

3.3.2 SYSTEM ALTERATION MANAGEMENT

During an alteration to the sprinkler system the water supply is required to be isolated toenable works to be undertaken on dry (un-pressurised pipework). The following risks areinvolved with alterations:

On reinstatement water supply valves may not be reinstated to their correctoperating position.

On reinstatement equipment may not be reinstated to their correct operatingpositions

During a system alteration more of the building is isolated than required

3.3.2.1 WATER SUPPLY VALVES

Most water supply valves are monitored in this building and any operation will providean alarm at the FIP. The risk of isolating the circuit and the valve is low and can bepicked up by contractors or managers of the building provided a system alterationprocess is properly undertaken.

The only valves that are not supervised are the street sluice valves. These will notbe 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 notreturned to the normal operating position (by contractors not familiar with the systemoperation 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 firecall 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 andcosts of the maintenance contractor

The pressure maintenance pump (basement control valves) non-indicatingvalves may be incorrectly left and cause the pumps to start when notrequired or not start at all.

3.3.2.3 SYSTEM ALTERATION SCOPE

The alteration of the sprinkler installations is possible to be undertaken on a floor byfloor 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 the15 mm flow switch drain.



18/42



The consequence of this is that the water will be drained via the sprinkler controlvalve drain and impair up to 4 floors even though only one floor is required to bedrained. This compromises more than the works area and uses up to 4 times thewater 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 testingregime 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 valvesand water supply valves.

3.4.2 LOCKED INSTALLATION CONTROL VALVE ENCLOSURES

All installation control valves are locked in enclosures and only available with keyedaccess.

3.4.3 SYSTEM INTERFACE DIAGRAM AND PRESSURE SCHEDULE

The building did not have a system interface diagram provided at any of the installationcontrol valves nor did it have any pressure schedules. These will need to be provided aspart 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.



19/42



3.5 WATER CONSUMPTION

This chapter provides information on the water consumption in the fire sprinkler system andcovers 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 smartmetering upgrade for the building. This initiative reflect the owners commitment tomeasuring and improving the environmental sustainability of the property. As recorded bythese meters, the fire services water consumption was 600,000 litres over a seven monthperiod. Discussion with the facility managers however revealed that this seven monthperiod 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 estimatingwater consumption by fire sprinklers , the estimated current water consumption for1

purposes of fire sprinklers maintenance and alteration in a typical year at this site is to beabout 700,000 litres per year, as detailed below.

Item Water usage(kL)

Maintenance testing 561.3

Equipment servicing 6.1

Building alterations resulting in sprinkler draindowns 127.1

Leaks or other continuous usage 0.0

Annual water usage: 694.5

This report does not consider the discharge of water through a sprinkler installation due toa fire or accidental damage; which will cause loss of water from the system for a giventime and then the system would be repaired and recharged.

Water usage estimates are based on experience of the author and other estimatesundertaken by associates. In some cases we have undertaken hydraulic modelling todetermine typical figures. We are aware that the estimates may be questioned withouthaving measured water loss in these installations or similar installations. The analysisattempts to quantify the absolute water usage for the site using current informationavailable 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, 2007.1



20/42



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 thefollowing subsections below:


Alarm valve test 156.0

Flow switch test 41.0

Running of fire pumps weekly 104.0

Running of fire pumps 3 monthly 168.0

Pressure switch testing 10.0

Special valve testing 4.3

Water supply drain test 0.0

Water supply flow testing 78.0

Remote test valve testing 0.0


3.5.2.1 ALARM VALVE TEST

The operation of the alarm valve to activate the automatic fire brigade alarm andlocal 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 thisitem:

Size(DN)

Flowrate(kL/min)

Duration(min)

Number tests Waterusage

(kL)

15 0.500 0.5 12.0 3.0

20 1.000 0.0 12.0 0.0

25 1.200 0.0 12.0 0.0

Usage per test 3.0

Tests per year 52.0


3.5.2.2 FLOW SWITCH TEST



21/42



The testing of a flow switch requires water to be drained downstream of the devicefor a period until an alarm is generated.


Size(DN)

Flowrate(kL/min)

Duration(min)

Number tests Waterusage(kL)

15 0.500 0.5 41.0 10.3

20 1.000 0.0 12.0 0.0

25 1.200 0.0 12.0 0.0

Usage per test 10.3

Tests per year 4.0


3.5.2.3 RUNNING OF THE FIRE PUMPS

The running of fire pumps will consume water when tested or operated due toautomatic operation. The following tables provides information on the water usageand considers the following testing:

Weekly testing Three monthly testing

WEEKLY TESTING

The following table provides a summary of water usage:

Item Flow rate (kL/min) Duration of test(min)

Water Usage(kL)

Electric pump circulationrelief

0.000 90 0.0

Electric Pump PressureRelief Valve

0.000 0 0.0

Diesel Pump coolingwater

0.200 10 2.0

Pressure Relief Valve 0.000 10 0.0

Usage per test 2.0

Tests per year 52.0

Annual Usage 104.0



22/42



THREE MONTHLY TESTING


Item Flow rate (kL/min) Duration of test(min)

Water Usage(kL)

Electric pump circulationrelief

0.000 3 0.0

Electric Pump PressureRelief Valve

0.000 0 0.0

Diesel Pump 60% load

test

1.200 30 36.0

Diesel Pump coolingwater

0.200 30 6.0


Usage per test 42.0

Tests per year 4.0

Annual Usage 168.0

3.5.2.4 PRESSURE SWITCH TESTING

Testing of pressure switch operation requires that the installation pressure bereduced 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 switchsetting will however require the system to be drained to simulate operation.

Size(DN)

Flowrate(kL/min)

Duration(min)

Numbertests

Water usage(kL)

15 0.500 1.0 20.0 10.0

20 1.000 0.0 12.0 0.0

25 1.200 0.0 12.0 0.0

Usage per test 10.0

Tests per year 1.0




23/42



3.5.2.5 SPECIAL VALVE TESTING

The testing of special valves shall be undertaken on a less frequent period andinclude the following items:

Non return valve test Pressure reducing valve test

Pressure relief valve testing


Non return valve test 1.3

Pressure reducing valve test 0.0

Pressure relief valve testing 3.0


3.5.2.5.1 NON RETURN VALVE TEST

Non return valves are testing by isolating the supply to upstream of the valveand drain the chamber between the isolation valve and non return valve. Nonreturn 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 ofthis item:

Size(DN)

Flowrate(kL/min)

Duration(min)

Numberitems

Testsper

annum

Waterusage(kL)

15 0.5 0.1 2 1 0.1

15 0.5 0.1 6 4 1.2

15 0.5 0.1 0 0 0.0


3.5.2.5.2 PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE TESTING

Not supplied to this installation



24/42



3.5.2.5.3 PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE TESTING

Testing of the pressure relief valves require the pumps to run and the settingtested 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)

Flowrate(kL/min)

Duration(min)

Water usage(kL)

50 1.0 1.0 1.0

50 1.0 1.0 1.0

50 1.0 1.0 1.0

Usage per test 3.0

Tests per year 1.0


3.5.2.6 WATER SUPPLY FLOW TESTING

Flow testing is undertaken to provide a characteristic of pressure at a number of flowpoints 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 Quantity

The maximum flow rate to be test: 2,500 L/min

Duration of a flow test: 10 minutes

Water used per flow test 13.0 kL

Number of flow test pa 6

Annual usage 78.0 kL



25/42



3.5.2.7 REMOTE TEST VALVE TESTING

Testing using the remote test valve requires the operation of the alarm valve toactivate the automatic fire brigade alarm and local water motor gong .

Annual water usage is based on the following:

Size(DN)

Flowrate(kL/min)

Duration(min)

Numberitems

Tests perannum

Water usage(kL)

15 0.5 0.5 0 1 0.0

15 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.0

15 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.0


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


Alarm valve servicing 0.0

Non return valve servicing 0.0

Special valve servicing 0.0

Water tank drainage 0.0

Sprinkler replacements 6.1


3.5.3.1 ALARM VALVE SERVICING

Servicing of the alarm valves is required every three years under AS 1851.3 1985and 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 consideredin 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 threeyears and will require isolation upstream and downstream of the valve.



26/42



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 inisolating 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. Waterusage is given as follows:

Item Quantity Volume of water stored 0 kL

Frequency of drainage NA

Annual usage 0 kL

3.5.3.5 ANTI FREEZE SYSTEM SERVICING

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 6years 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 todetermine 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



27/42



Alterationsper annum

Estimatedstored

volumekl/m2

Number ofinstallations

Averageaream2

EstimatedVolume

consumedper

annum kl

1.36 0.0010 1.0 4,500.0 6.1

0 0.0010 4.0 4,600.0 0.0

0 0.0010 4.0 4,500.0 0.0

Total 6.1

Note: We are assuming that 10 sprinkler heads per installation are tested andwe are looking at the building life cycle over 100 years to get the averagenumber of Alterations per annum.

3.5.3.6.2 FAST RESPONSE SPRINKLER HEADS

Under AS 1851-2005 a representative quantity (14 throughout the building) offast response heads are required to be inspected at 12, 12, 6, 6 yearlyintervals.

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 accordancewith 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) offast heads are required to be inspected at 12 yearly intervals.


3.5.3.6.5 MJC SPRINKLERS

Under AS 1851-2005 a representative quantity (14 throughout the building) offast heads are required to be inspected at 30 years and then every 12 yearsthereafter.




28/42



3.5.4 SYSTEM ALTERATIONS

Each time a sprinkler installation is modified the volume stored is required to be reinstatedand the original volume lost to drain. Based on the above volumes and expectedalterations the following table provides an estimate of the water usage for modifications:

Site Type Alterationsper annum

Estimatedstored

volumel/m2

Average aream2

EstimatedVolume

consumedper annum kl

OrdinaryHazardBasement

1 0.0012 4,500 5.4

OrdinaryHazardPodium

2 0.0010 4,600 9.2

OrdinaryHazardOffice

25 0.0010 4,500 112.5

Total 127.1

Note: The estimate on the number of drain downs undertaken is not easilydetermined as the contractors do not log this event. The above estimates arerepresentative of a typical building of this size and actual usage may vary fromyear to year based on the amount of activity in tenancy alterations and otherneeds to drain the sprinkler installation.

3.5.5 CONTINUOUS USAGE

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 overallfigure and is not considered in this report.



29/42



4 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 AS1851-2005. This subsection provides information on the following:

Changing the testing and maintenance to the current standard AS 1851-2005 provides forthe following routines:

Note: This is not an exhaustive list of the required maintenance and testing requiredin a sprinkler installation and only provides those routines that require water tobe 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 Level

Weekly Monthly 6 Monthly Yearly 3 Yearly

Alarm valve test (see note) M M M M

Flow Switch test M M M

Non return valve test M M

Pressure reducing valve

flow test

M M

Water supply drain test M M M

Water supply flow test M M

Remote test valve test M M

Pressure switch test M M

Water tank drainage M M

Alarm valve service M

Alarm interface functionaltesting

M M



30/42



Sprinkler Pumpset routines in accordance with AS 1851.14 1996

Routine Level


Pump run (electric 3minutes)

M M M M


M M M M

Pump run (diesel 30 +minutes)

M M

Pump run (electric 10 +minutes)

M M

Pressure relief & isolatingvalve maintenance

M

Note: Weekly testing may be omitted if the system meets certain monitoringconditions.

WATER SAVINGS

The following table is an summary that estimates the water savings that could result fromchanging to the current AS 1851-2005 and adopting the following testing regimes.

Routine Water usage (kL per annum)

Current Potential Saving

Alarm valve test (Weekly /Monthly)

156.0 12.0 144.0

Flow Switch test (Quarterly / 6monthly)

41.0 20.5 20.5

Pressure switch test 10.0 10.0 0.0

Special valve testing 4.3 4.3 0.0

Water supply drain test (nil / 6monthly)

0.0 40.0 -40.0

Pump run (weekly / monthly) 104.0 24.0 80.0

Pump run (3 monthly/ yearly) 168.0 86.0 82.0

Water supply flow test 78.0 78.0 0.0

Remote test valve test 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 561.3 274.8 286.5

Figure 4.1 demonstrates a comparison between water usage in testing for the currentusage and the potential usage under the AS 1851-2005.



31/42



4.1.1.1 ALARM VALVE TEST

The operation of the alarm valve to activate the automatic fire brigade alarm andlocal water motor gong will consume water on an installation by installation basis.


Size(DN)

Flowrate(kL/min)

Duration(min)

Numbertests

Water usage(kL)

15 0.500 0.5 4.0 1.0

20 1.000 0.0 12.0 0.0

25 1.200 0.0 12.0 0.0

Usage per test 1.0

Tests per year 12.0


Note: As1851-2005 allows to cycle sprinkler alarm valve tests every 3 months

4.1.1.2 FLOW SWITCH TEST

The testing of a flow switch requires water to be drained downstream of the devicefor a period until an alarm is generated.

Figure 4.1



32/42




Size(DN)

Flowrate(kL/min)

Duration(min)

Numbertests

Water usage(kL)

15 0.500 0.5 41.0 10.3

20 1.000 0.0 12.0 0.0

25 1.200 0.0 12.0 0.0

Usage per test 10.3

Tests per year 2.0


4.1.1.3 RUNNING OF THE FIRE PUMPS

The running of fire pumps will consume water when tested or operated due toautomatic operation. The following tables provides information on the water usageand considers the following testing:

Monthly testing Yearly testing

MONTHLY TESTING


Item Flow rate(kL/min)

Duration of test(min)

Water Usage(kL)

Electric pump circulation relief 0.000 45 0.0

Electric Pump Pressure Relief Valve 0.000 45 0.0

Diesel Pump cooling water 0.200 10 2.0


Usage per test 2.0

Tests per year 12.0Annual Usage 24.0



33/42



YEARLY TESTING


Item Flow rate(kL/min)

Duration of test(min)

Water Usage(kL)

Electric pump circulation relief 0.000 10 0.0

Electric pump full flow 2.000 10 20.0

Electric Pump Pressure Relief Valve 0.000 0 0.0

Diesel pump full flow 2.000 30 60.0

Diesel Pump cooling water 0.200 30 6.0


Usage per test 86.0

Tests per year 1.0

Annual Usage 86.0

4.1.1.4 WATER SUPPLY DRAIN TEST

The water supply drain test is undertaken to determine the water supply pressure tothe alarm valve is in accordance with the pressure gauge schedule. This test hasbeen introduced into the AS 1851-2005 schedule. This test is to be undertaken oneach group of control valves.


Size(DN)

Flowrate(kL/min)

Duration(min)

Numberitems

Tests perannum

Water usage(kL)

50 2.0 1.0 10 2 40.0

15 1.0 0.1 0 4 0.0

15 1.0 0.1 0 0 0.0




34/42



4.1.2 SERVICING

Water usage can be reduced by 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 forthe following routines:

Routine Level


Water tank drainage M M

Alarm valve service M

Non return valve service M

Special valve service M

Anti freeze systemrecharge

M

Kitchen hood sprinklerreplacement

M

Sprinkler head sampletesting

At 24 years and then every 6 yearly cycle - specialheads at 12 years

High temperature sprinklerreplacement

4.1.2.1 SPRINKLER HEAD SAMPLE TESTING

Sprinkler head testing is required after 24 years and then every 6 years after that. Arepresentative of 14 sprinklers shall be removed and tested. If they fail then afurther 14 heads shall be removed from the area of failure to determine if all headsare 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

Alterationsper annum

Estimatedstored volume

kl/m2

Averageaream2

Estimated Volumeconsumed per

annum kl

1.904 0.0010 4,500.0 8.6

0 0.0010 4,600.0 0.0

0 0.0010 4,500.0 0.0

Total 8.6

Normal Usage 6.1

Water savings (-2.5)



35/42



Figure 4.2 demonstrates a comparison between the current servicing water usage and thepotential usage under the AS 1851-2005

4.1.3 SYSTEM ALTERATIONS

Each time a sprinkler installation is modified the volume stored is required to be reinstatedand the original volume lost to drain. If each floor was drained individually instead of thethree floors at a time the following water usage would be provided:

Site Type Alterationsper annum

EstimatedstoredvolumekL/m2

Average Aream2

EstimatedVolume

consumedper annum kL

OrdinaryHazard

Basement

1 0.0012 3,500 4.2

OrdinaryHazardPodium

2 0.0010 2,300 4.6

OrdinaryhazardOffice

25 0.0010 1,500 37.5

Total 46.3

Normal usage 127.1

Water savings 80.8

Figure 4.2



36/42



Figure 4.3 demonstrates a comparison between water usage under alterations for thecurrent 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 anycost effective method of saving water in this area.

Figure 4.3



37/42



4.2 RECOMMENDED INITIATIVES

Based on the review of the water usage and possible savings the following initiatives arerecommended 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 withmonthly testing in lieu of weekly

Drain down procedures should include the isolation of floors not requiring alterationsby using the existing isolation valve for those floors.

That any change of design, maintenance procedures or management process bemanaged by a suitably qualified engineer to document and inspect the works forcompliance to these recommendations.

That maintenance contractors are provided with a clear specification on their roleand requirements to undertake the required testing.

Note: These recommendations are considered to represent a responsible and managedapproach using cost effective water saving initiatives. Whilst we recognise that

additional initiatives could be employed to further reduce water usage we do notbelieve them to be cost effective and have not provided these.

4.2.1 INSURANCE COMPANY

The insurance company is a stakeholder in having the fire sprinkler installation maintainedin a satisfactory manner. Many companies are proactive in this area and would want to beasked for their opinion on such an important system change.

It is unlikely that the insurance company would have any objection to implementing thenew 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 thisbuilding 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 wouldadd the following to provide a greater level of risk management in the basement pumphouse:

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 theredoes not appear to be any reason not to adopt the monthly testing given therecommendations 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 thatcontractors 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 forcontractors to undertake drain down because the time to drain four floor compared to one



38/42



floor will be reduced and the time to go to each floor can be undertaken by the secondfitter engaged to undertake the work (we assume most companies would send at leasttwo fitters to undertake any alternation work).

Such procedures would need to be documented and managed so that contractors do nottake 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 undertakemodifications to the sprinkler system on their floor it is important that a consistentapproach to undertaken that minimises the risk. As noted in 3.3.2 there are a number ofconcerns that valves and equipment may not be returned to their requirement automaticstatus.

Documentation and procedures are recommended to be used to communicate the in-house 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 thecorrect communication and fills out certain forms to inform insurance company and or thefacility manager of the proposed impairment.

We have recommended that a DVD be provided for all contractors to review which alsoprovides a comprehension test to determine if they fully understand their requirements.This would be similar to the induction DVD provided to new contractors attendingpetrochemical sites.

4.2.5 MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATION

Providing a clear specification to contractors on the requirements of the maintenanceroutines required for the building is very important. The contractor needs to know thefollowing information to be able to complete their work satisfactorily:

The number and location of plant and equipment that is to be tested andmaintained

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 havea thorough understanding of the design and maintenance requirements of the servicesbeing tested, maintained and inspected. Whilst some contracting companies may be ableto provided this service we recommend engaging a professional consulting company thatwill be able to provide an independent focus and will also be able to review the processesundertaken 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



39/42



4.3.1 WATER SAVING

The following table provides a summary of the water saving opportunities identified for thesite.

Item Water savings(kL/annum)

Testing: adopting 1851-2005 and Monthly Testing 286.5

Servicing: Adopting 1851-2005 -2.5

Alteration to the sprinkler installations: Sprinklerinstallation zoning

80.8

Continuous Usage 0.0

Annual Water saving: 364.8

Figure 4.4 demonstrates a clear comparison between the water usage estimates for thecurrent usage and the potential usage under the AS 1851-2005.

4.3.2 ADOPTION OF MONTHLY TESTING BENEFITS

The new standard AS 1851-2005 was changed from earlier versions of the AS 1851 suiteof standards in order to:

Provide a consistent approach for maintenance of fire safety and protectionsystems

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

Figure 4.4



40/42



Move to monthly testing of sprinkler installation if certain risk processes weremanaged

Lowers the level of compliancy due to familiarisation from contractors attendingthe 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 maintenanceproviders

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 futureplanning

Greater confidence in the system operating to specification in the unlikely eventof a fire

Greater transparency of processes using better recording and documentationprocesses

Provide a QA check on maintenance that can fit straight into a corporate QAplan.

Reduce the amount of water being used in the testing of alarm valves andrunning of booster pumps



41/42



4.4 COST ESTIMATES

The costing details of various recommend initiatives are provided in the following table. Thetable considers two part which include:

Initiatives in testing Initiatives in system alterations

ItemNo

Item Details Cost ($)

1 MAINTENANCE TESTING REQUIREMENTS

1.1 Control valveinformation

The cost to implement interface and pressureschedule diagrams to all control valves

$4,000

1.2 Basementcontrol valvereplacement

Small diameter valves located in the basementthat control the function of the pressuremaintenance pumps are of the non-indicating

type. Our estimate is to change these to ahandle ball valve locked in line with thepipework.

$5,000

1.3 ProfessionalFees - Testing

To engage an engineer to provide a detailedspecification of the required maintenanceprocedures

$4,000

Engage an engineer to review the upgradeworks (Hardware Requirements)

$2,000

Sub Total Testing $15,000

2 SYSTEM ALTERATION REQUIREMENT

2.1 ProfessionalFees - SystemAlterations

Engage a suitably qualified professional toprovide alteration procedures and controlprocedures for contractors working on draindowns and other building fire servicesalterations

$4,000

2.2 Contractor Training

Provide a process to train contractors thatprovide drain downs and alteration to the fireservices. Cost would include an audio visualDVD for contractors to play on the site and

provide instructions to approved contractorsbefore starting work on any of the fire systems

$10,000

Sub Total Alteration $14,000

TOTAL $29,000

Note: These costs are only an estimate and reflect to the total investment which mayinvolve in house personnel or professional consultants. They represent a completeand professional service that would be expected to be provided by suitably qualifiedand experienced practitioners (ie Engineers).



42/42



5 OVERVIEW

This chapter provides an overview of the project findings and recommendations with thefollowing sections:

Benefit-cost comparison Action plan

5.1 BENEFIT-COST COMPARISON

The benefits of adopting the recommendations as noted above are compared with theexpected capital costs:

The changing from the current maintenance practices to AS 1851-2005 and monthlytesting option of the fire sprinkler system and fire pumps is estimated to save over284 kL per annum.

Adopting AS 1851-2005 has an approximate one off setup cost of $15,000 with noexpected 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 approximatecosts $14,000 (See Recommendations 2.2 and 2.3).

A total saving of 9120 kL over the buildings life cycle can be saved with anapproximate 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 adoptingmonthly testing.

Train contractors for drain downs and alteration to the sprinkler system processes.

Documents

Case Study a Mep