FIRE AND RESCUE NSW FIRE HYDRANT TESTING 2017

8 NSW GOVERNMENT Manly Hydraulics Laboratory

〔图〕FIRE & RESCUE NSWRESCUEfire.nsw.gov.3www\n

FIRE AND RESCUE NSW FIRE HYDRANT TESTING 2017

Report MHL2534February 2018

Prepared for:Fire and Rescue NSW

〔图〕63TM HLNOS M3NFIRE AND RESCUE00\n Cover Photograph: Fire truck during testing

Fire and Rescue NSW Fire Hydrant Testing

Report MHL2534 February 2018

Andrew Judge

Project Officer

110b King Street

Manly Vale NSW 2093

T: 02 9949 0200

E: email address

W: www.mhl.nsw.gov.au

Document Control

© Crown in right of NSW through the Department of Finance, Services and Innovation 2017

This publication is copyright and may incorporate moral rights of an individual. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act, no part of it may, in any form or by any means, be reproduced, altered, manipulated, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written consent of the copyright owner or owner of moral rights. Any inquiries relating to consents and use of this publication, including by NSW Government agencies must be addressed to the Director, Manly Hydraulics Laboratory.

While this report has been formulated with all due care, the State of New South Wales does not warrant or represent that the report is free from errors or omissions, or that it is exhaustive. The State of NSW disclaims, to the extent permitted by law, all warranties, representations or endorsements, express or implied, with regard to the report including but not limited to, all implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. The State of NSW further does not warrant or accept any liability in relation to the quality or accuracy of the report and no responsibility is accepted by the State of NSW for the accuracy, currency, reliability and correctness of any information in the report provided by the client or third parties.

Report No. MHL2534

First published in February 2018

© Crown 2017

MHL2534 – i

Foreword

NSW government’s professional specialist advisor, Manly Hydraulics Laboratory (MHL) was commissioned by Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) to test the capacity of fire hydrant

delivery of flows, at varying water pressures and combinations of fire truck booster pumping and firehoses.

The work is to inform FRNSW how to improve fire brigade access to fire-fighting water from reticulated water mains systems. In addition, the test scope was revised to include testing with 64 mm hoses as used by other fire-fighting agencies in Australia.

© Crown 2017

MHL2534 – ii

Executive summary

Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) commissioned Manly Hydraulics Laboratory (MHL) to

undertake testing of several configurations of hydrants, standpipes, and fire hoses to gain a greater understanding of the head-losses associated with this equipment, and to assess the minimum residual pressures required at the feed fire hydrant for a flow of 10 litres per second (l/s) being supplied to FRNSW fire-fighting pumping appliances.

Australian Standard 2419.1-2005 Fire Hydrant Installations nominates the minimum

unassisted residual pressure required at the feed fire hydrant. In NSW, this is currently

150kPa for each fire hydrant required to flow at not less than 10 l/s. In all other states and

territories this value is 200 kPa.

To investigate the aforementioned items, three types of tests were undertaken as follows:

1. Type A tests - hydrant supply to fire-fighting pumping appliances, where water

supplied directly from the mains flows through hydrants and standpipes to fire

appliance via fire hose, then pressurised by the fire pump via fire hose(s) with or

without branch nozzles attached to the hose outlets.

1. Type B tests - open-ended hose testing, where water supplied directly from the mains flowed through hydrants and standpipes via open-ended fire hose(s).

1. Type C tests - head-loss testing of components, including the pressure drop from the water mains to the outlet of the feed hydrants.

Testing was undertaken with and without a 1 to 2 breeching piece and with single and twin

Ø70 mm canvas hoses as used by FRNSW. For completeness, Ø64 mm lay-flat canvas

hose (without breeching piece), as used by most other fire-fighting agencies in Australia, was also assessed.

As part of this testing, other interested groups and fire-fighting agencies from across

Australia were invited to witness the testing on a demonstration day.

The following photographs illustrate the fire-fighting water stream at 10l/s.

〔图〕插图

Photograph: 10 l/s water stream issuing from an FRNSW Ø65mm Akron branch via a single Ø64mm x 30m of lay-flat canvas hose

〔图〕插图

Photograph: 10 l/s water stream issuing from 2 x FRNSW Ø38mm Akron branches via twin lines Ø38mm x 30m of lay-flat canvas hoses

For the various laboratory test rig arrangements adopted, it was observed that to provide 10 l/s through a FRNSW pumping appliance, between 40 kPa and 80 kPa is required at the feed hydrant to maintain a positive pressure at the pump's collector gauge. Please note however, the actual required residual pressure (on-site measured gauge pressure) will vary according to the in-field conditions and is impacted by factors such as relative elevation between the feed hydrant and the pumping appliance, as well as fittings and hose arrangements.

Open ended hose testing showed that a 150 mm main with a ball valve hydrant and standpipe, and a standpipe gauge pressure of 150kPa, can unassisted, deliver 18.4 l/s through a single 70 mm hose, and 17.9 l/s through a single Ø64 mm hose, with hose outlets 1.53m below the standpipe gauge.

Key laboratory test result assumptions including pressure gauge elevations are documented for all tests. The test results will assist FRNSW assess minimum feed hydrant residual pressure requirements, considering factors such as site elevations, pump cavitation, hose collapse and maintaining positive pressures.

Testing of firefighting components showed approximate flow based headloss (hl) estimates in kilopascals (kPa), for flowrates (Q) in litres per second (l/s), as follows:

Further test results including standard headloss resistance coefficients (k) are documented in the report.

Hydrant testing was performed under laboratory conditions. Real application situations will include variation in fire-fighting equipment and water supply arrangements. These can include the physical condition of pumps, valves, pipes and hoses; the relative elevation of supply infrastructure, hydrants and pumping appliances; and, water reticulation supply/pressure variability.

To support the development of firefighting standards, it is recommended that equipment lifecycle hydraulic performance variability is considered in line with testing, inspection, maintenance and replacement programs.

In-field testing equipment can be used to confirm headloss characteristics of individual property firefighting supply arrangements.

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION 7

1. 1 Background 7

1. 2 Test scope 7

1. METHODOLOGY 8

1. 1 Test rig description 8

1. 2 Test equipment 11

1. 3 Test plan 11

1. 4 Test descriptions 14

1. 4.1 Proof of concept 14

1. 4.2 Tests A1-A6: Hydrant supply to fire-fighting pumping appliances 14

1. 4.3 Tests B1 – B4: Open-ended hose testing 15

1. 4.4 Tests C1-C5: headloss testing of components and hoses 16

1. 5 Hydraulic terminology and headloss calculations 17

1. RESULTS 19

1. 1 Hydrant supply to fire-fighting pumping appliances tests 21

1. 1.1 Test A1 and A2 21

1. 1.2 Test A3 21

1. 1.3 Test A4 21

1. 1.4 Test A5 22

1. 1.5 Test A6 23

1. 2 Non-boosted flow tests 23

1. 2.1 Test B1 and B2 23

1. 2.2 Test B3 23

1. 2.3 Test B4 24

1. 3 Headloss testing 24

1. 3.1 Test C1 24

1. 3.2 Test C2 26

1. 3.3 Test C3 27

1. 3.4 Test C4 27

1. 3.5 Test C5 29

1. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 30

1. REFERENCES 31

APPENDIX A – TEST EQUIPMENT A1

APPENDIX B – OTHER TEST INFORMATION B1

TABLES

Table 2-1: Instruments and relevant reduced levels 10

Table 2-2: Equipment being tested 11

Table 2-1: Test plan 12

Table 3-1: Key test assumptions 19

Table 3-3: Test A3 results 21

Table 3-4: Test A4 results 22

Table 3-5: Test A5 results 22

Table 3-6: Test A6 results 23

Table 3-9: Test B3 results 23

Table 3-10: Test B4 results 24

Table 3-11: Test C1 results (spring valve hydrant and standpipe) 25

Table 3-12: Test C2 results (breeching piece) 26

Table 3-13: Test C3 results (70mm hose) 27

Table 3-14: Test C4 results (64 mm hose) 28

Table 3-15: Test C5 results (screw valve hydrant) 29

FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Test rig schematic 8

Figure 2-2: Pressure measurement section 9

Figure 2-3: Hydrant supply to fire-fighting pumping appliance

Figure 2-4: Open ended hose test (kinked) 9

Figure 2-5: Headloss testing 10

Figure 2-6: Proof of concept test rig 14

Figure 2-7: General drawing for hydrant supply to fire-fighting pumping appliance testing 15

Figure 2-8: General drawing for open-ended hose testing

Figure 2-9: Test C1 and Test C5 set-up 16

Figure 2-10: Test C2 set-up 17

Figure 2-11: Test C3 and Test C4 set-up 17

Figure 3-1: 10 l/s water stream- FRNSW Ø64mm Akron branch - single Ø64mm x 30m of lay-flat canvas hose 20

Figure 3-2: 10 l/s water stream - 2 x FRNSW Ø38mm Akron branches - twin lines Ø38mm x 30m of lay-flat canvas hoses 20

© Crown 2017

MHL2534 – 7

1. Introduction

1. 1 Background

Currently, Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) are working to improve fire brigade access to

firefighting water from the reticulated water mains system.

Discussions have raised questions with regards to Table 2.2 of AS 2419.1-2005 Fire Hydrant Installations, where in NSW the minimum unassisted residual pressure at the feed hydrant is currently 150kPa for each hydrant to flow simultaneously at 10 l/s.

It is noted in Table 2.2 of AS 2419.1-2005, that in “all other states and territories” the

corresponding minimum unassisted required residual pressure is 200 kPa at the feed hydrant for each hydrant required to flow simultaneously at 10 l/s.

The historical reasoning behind the residual pressure figures nominated at the feed hydrant is not altogether clear.

FRNSW requested MHL to test and report on this residual pressure, to assist FRNSW in

determining the appropriate minimum residual pressure at the feed hydrant to meet its

operational requirements. The testing aims to assist both firefighting and water utility

organisations develop informed firefighting water requirements.

1. 2 Test scope

MHL’s test scope presented in this report is as follows:

1. Develop a hydrant flow test rig and demonstrate its suitability.

1. Laboratory testing to investigate minimum residual pressures at the feed hydrant

required to meet the operational needs of FRNSW. Various combinations of

hydrants, standpipes, breach arrangements, hoses (straight and kinked, open ended, or feeding fire-fighting pump appliances) are tested.

1. Headloss determined in various components of the fire-fighting delivery system,

including estimations of hydraulic resistance coefficients.

1. Reporting of results.

FRNSW described tests and confirmed test plans to meet its operational needs. FRNSW

witnessed tests to ensure firefighting operational needs were met. FRNSW also provided

firefighting equipment for the tests (fire truck/s, hoses and fittings).

MHL’s Know the Flow testing facilities adapted for the fire hydrant testing are used for NATA tests, however, the tests presented in this report are non-NATA accredited tests due to the modification of the testing facilities and the adopted test methodology.

2. Methodology

This section presents a description of the equipment under test, a description of the test rig and the testing methodology used. Test rig schematics presented in this section are provided by FRNSW.

2.1 Test rig description

The hydrant test rig was built in MHL's Know the Flow facility utilising a 150mm tee from the facility's pumped 750mm supply line. The variable speed pump and valve arrangement, enabled test rig flowrates to be less than approximately 10% of the 750mm supply main flowrates.

The hydrant test section itself, consisted of a 150 mm flanged pipe line incorporating an electromagnetic flow meter for flow measurement, tappings for pressure measurements a 150 mm “T” piece to fit either a spring valve hydrant, or screw valve hydrant. Figure 2-1 outlines the test rig arrangement.

〔图〕FlangedoutletPumpPond(variable speed(static water)0150mm pipeMainsTransducerpressure(flow readout)Valves to vary(Pm)flow

Figure 2-1: Test rig schematic

Sections of the test rig where fitted with a Ø65 mm Storz connector (supplied by FRNSW) placed between the standpipe and hoses to minimise hydraulic disturbances for pressure measurement (refer to Figure 2-2).

〔图〕插图

Figure 2-2: Pressure measurement section

A pressure gauge upstream of the 150 mm magnetic flow meter was used to define the supply main's water pressure. Two additional pressure gauges were used, one at the standpipe and one as the hose connected to the fire truck. Figure 2-3 to Figure 2-5 illustrate various test arrangements.

〔图〕插图 〔图〕插图

Figure 2-3: Hydrant supply to fire-fighting pumping appliance

〔图〕插图

Figure 2-4: Open ended hose test (kinked)

〔图〕插图 〔图〕插图

Figure 2-5: Headloss testing

Pressure gauges were levelled in (elevation) against a local datum (top of ponds wall at RL 0.00m). All MHL instruments were in calibration at the time of testing. Table 2-1 lists instruments used in testing. Instrument reduced levels are provided with the test results, where relevant.

Table 2-1: Instruments and relevant reduced levels

1. Non-calibrated gauge.

2.2 Test equipment

The equipment tested was supplied by FRNSW, NSW Rural Fire Services and Sydney Water Corporation (SWC). Table 2-2 lists the equipment tested, and identifies the owner of the equipment.

Table 2-2: Equipment being tested

During testing both the standpipe and the double delivery were fully open and then turned back ¼ of a turn.

Appendix A provides images of the test equipment.

2.3 Test plan

Three basic types of tests were undertaken:

1. Type A tests - hydrant supply to fire-fighting pumping appliances, where water supplied directly from the mains flows through hydrants and stand pipes to fire appliance via fire hose, then pressurised by the fire pump via fire hose(s) with or without branch nozzles attached to the hose outlets.

1. Type B tests - open-ended hose testing, where water supplied directly from the mains flowed through hydrants and stand pipes via open-ended fire hose(s).

1. Type C tests - head-loss testing of components, including the pressure drop from the water mains to the outlet of the feed hydrants.

The test plan was modified as the tests proceeded, according to FRNSW's test needs. Table 2-3 describes the tests, including the test number adopted in this report and the equivalent test number from FRNSW proposed test plans dated 10 and 31 March 2017. Testing was undertaken as follows:

· Test rig proof of concept: 24 February 2017.

● Test Day 1 was held on 22 March 2017 using the older Commander fire appliance. The data collected corresponding with FRNSW's document titled, Formal Recommended Tests report dated 10 March 2017. Observed by FRNSW and SWC representatives.

● Test Day 2 (rehearsal day) was held on 3 April 2017 using a Scania fire appliance. The data collected corresponding with FRNSW's document titled, Formal Recommended Tests report (Ver 01) dated 31 March 2017. Observed by FRNSW and SWC representatives.

● Test Day 3 (demonstration day) was held on 5 April 2017, again using the Scania fire appliance, but with a new compound gauge fitted. Observed by multiple interested parties.

● Test Day 4 head loss testing on 6 April 2017 through a double delivery and screw valve hydrants.

Table 2-3: Test plan

The demonstration day on 5 April 2017 was provided for interested parties. This included representatives from:

· Fire and Rescue NSW

· Sydney Water Corporation

Country Fire Association

· ACT Fire and Rescue

· Queensland Fire and Rescue Services

· Queensland Urban Utilities

· Melbourne Fire Brigade (Victoria)

· Association of Hydraulic Engineers

· Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council

· Rural Fire Services (NSW).

2.4 Test descriptions

2.4.1 Proof of concept

Twin 70 mm hose through a breeching piece run straight to the ponds to demonstrate proof of concept of the test rig. Figure 2-6 shows the set-up for the proof of concept for the test rig.

〔图〕070mmx30m canvas hosesStandpipePumpPond(variable speed(static water)Spring valvehydrant0150mm pipeTransducerPressure(flo

Figure 2-6: Proof of concept test rig

2.4.2 Tests A1-A6: Hydrant supply to fire-fighting pumping appliances

Set the test rig up as shown in Figure 2-1, with and without the 1 into 2 breeching, and with and without the branches on the end of the delivery hose(s).

These tests enable combinations of stepped fire truck boosting, whilst maintaining a positive standpipe gauge pressure (Ps), as well as testing to pump cavitation and/or hose collapse.

For each step in pump operation, flowrates, pressures at the standpipe gauge and compound gauge “Pcg”, and fire truck pump RPM are measured. Refer to Figure 2-7 for the test set-up.

〔图〕FIRE &SORESCUE NSWCollectorpressure(P)Standpipepressurecanvas(P)hosesFirefightingCanvas hosesStandpipeNozzles(variable)S

Figure 2-7: General drawing for hydrant supply to fire-fighting pumping appliance testing

2.4.3 Tests B1 – B4: Open-ended hose testing

Set the test rig up as shown in Figure 2-9, with and without the 1 into 2 breeching, and with and without the branches on the end of the delivery hose(s).

These tests enable unassisted direct hydrant flows and pressures to be measured. Refer to Figure 2-8 for the test set-up.

〔图〕Standpipepressure(P)070mmx30m。canvas hosesStandpipeSpring valvehydrantPumpPond(variable speed)(static water)0150mm pipeM

Figure 2-8: General drawing for open-ended hose testing

2.4.4 Tests C1-C5: headloss testing of components and hoses

Various test rig arrangements were established to enable measurement of headloss and flow across equipment. Resistance coefficients are determined from these measurements.

Spring valve hydrant/FRNSW standpipe and screw valve hydrant testing

With water flowing in the rig as shown in Figure 2-9, adjust the flow from zero up to 30 I/s in steps of 2.5 I/s whilst recording the corresponding differential pressure between pressure gauges (Pm) & (Ps) for each step in flow.

〔图〕Standpipepressure(P)070mmx30m0canvas hosesStandpipeSpring valvehydrantDifferentialpressurePumpPond(variable speed(static

Figure 2-9: Test C1 and Test C5 set-up

Breeching headloss testing

Figure 2-10 shows the test setup to determination the flow resistance constant “k” across a FRNSW 1 into 2 breeching. With water flowing via both outlets of the 1 into 2 breeching, adjust the flow from zero up to 30 l/s in steps of 2.5 l/s, whilst recording the differential pressure measured from the standpipe (Ps) to the outlet of the breeching (Pb) for each step in flow, and include these values in the table provided. Repeat with one breeching closed.

〔图〕StandpipepreGSUrecanvasBreechhosespressures(P。StandpipeSpring valvehydrant0150mm pipeDifferentialTransducerpressure(flow

Figure 2-10: Test C2 set-up

Hose headloss testing

With water flowing through 5 lengths of straight hose (in series) of FRNSW Ø70mm x 30m (for Test C3) or Ø64mm x 30m (for Test C4) and canvas lay-flat hose, adjust the flow from zero up to 20 l/s in steps of 2.5 l/s whilst recording the corresponding pressure at pressure gauge “P1” for each step in flow (see Figure 2-11). Note: the outlet of the last hose is open to atmosphere, with no additional flow restriction attached.

〔图〕FIRE &RESCUE NSW0.75m00.43m\n

Figure 2-11: Test C3 and Test C4 set-up

Double delivery headloss testing

Install the screw valve hydrant and double delivery system, use two NSWFR Ø70mm x 30m hose. With water flowing in the rig as shown in Figure 2-9, adjust the flow from zero up to 30 l/s in steps of 2.5 l/s whilst recording the corresponding differential pressure between pressure gauges (Pm) & (Ps) for each step in flow.

2.5 Hydraulic terminology and headloss calculations

In this report the following hydraulic definitions, based mainly on Internal Flow Systems (Miller, 1990) are used:

· Hydraulic head (pressure head or piezometric head) – The head above a datum to which fluid rises in a tube connected to a tapping in a pipe or passage, or the water level in a reservoir. It can be represented graphically as the hydraulic grade line (HGL).

· Velocity head – given by $V^2/2g$, where $V$ is the average velocity of flow in a pipe and $g$ is the acceleration due to gravity.

· Total head – the sum of the hydraulic head and velocity head. It can be represented graphically as the energy line (EL).

· Headloss – The difference in total head between two points related to a common datum.

· Gauge pressure – the pressure above or below local atmospheric pressure.

Residual pressure is the water pressure measured in a point within a system at a particular flow rate (AS 2419).

Pressure test results are reported in kilopascals (kPa), head test results in meters of water head (mH₂O), and flowrate in litres per second (l/s). Estimated flow headloss coefficients are also provided where relevant.

To simplify the inclusion of hydraulic devices into larger systems, headloss is sometimes presented as a coefficient of velocity head, a resistance coefficient known as the k-value.

From:

$$ \underbrace{z_1 + \frac{p_1}{\rho g} + \frac{v_1^2}{2g}}_{\text{EnergyLost}} = \underbrace{z_2 + \frac{p_2}{\rho g} + \frac{v_2^2}{2g}}_{\text{EnergyOut}} + \underbrace{hl}_{\text{EnergyLost}} $$

$$ hl = \text{Energy}_{\text{In}} - \text{Energy}_{\text{Out}} = k \frac{v^2}{2g} $$

where:

$z_1$ and $z_2$ is the elevation of gauge above a datum in metres at point 1 and point 2 respectively

$p_1$ and $p_2$ is the pressure at point 1 and 2 respectively (kPa).

$\rho$ is the density of the water

$g$ is the acceleration due to gravity

$v_1$ and $v_2$ is the velocity at point 1 and 2 respectively.

$h$ is the headloss (energy lost in the system).

To assist firefighters, FRNSW requested an approximate flowrate based headloss coefficient identified as “$k_Q$” in this report:

$$ hl = k_Q \times Q^2 $$

where:

Q is flow rate (I/s)

h/ is the headloss in kPa.

$k_Q$ a flow headloss coefficient constant for the particular component.

3. Results

This section presents results of the testing. Refer to Table 2-3 and section 2.4 for the detailed description of each test.

Table 3-1 summarises key assumptions common to each test.

Table 3-1: Key test assumptions

Proof of concept test results are provided in Appendix B for information.

Note: Initial Day 1 testing (22/3/17) was found to have been compromised by a damaged hose coupling (crushed internal lining tongue) on one of the FRNSW Ø70mm x 30m canvas lay-flat hoses. In the pumping appliance tests it was also observed that there was more pressure in one line than the other, suggesting issues with the pump valves. Tests A1, A2, B1 and B2 are impacted. These test results are provided in Appendix B for completeness and information only.

Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2 illustrate the fire-fighting water stream at 10 l/s.

〔图〕插图

Figure 3-1: 10 l/s water stream- FRNSW Ø64mm Akron branch - single Ø64mm x 30m of lay-flat canvas hose

〔图〕插图

Figure 3-2: 10 l/s water stream - 2 x FRNSW Ø38mm Akron branches - twin lines Ø38mm x 30m of lay-flat canvas hoses

3.1 Hydrant supply to fire-fighting pumping appliances tests

3.1.1 Test A1 and A2

Damaged test equipment. Refer to Appendix B for information.

3.1.2 Test A3

To measure maximum flowrates achievable to a pumper with residual pressure at the standpipe held at 150kPa. Single line and length of FRNSW Ø70mm x 30m canvas lay-flat, hose between the standpipe and the collector of the fire pump. Truck BG 30 RB (Scania), Results are presented in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2: Test A3 results

The test was stopped when the pump collector gauge reached 30 kPa due to the on-set of cavitation in the pump of the firefighting appliance.

3.1.3 Test A4

To measure maximum flowrates achievable to a pumper with residual pressure at the standpipe held at 150kPa. Single line and length of RFS Ø64mm x 30m canvas lay-flat hose between the standpipe and the collector of the fire pump. Truck BG 30 RB (Scania). Results are presented in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3: Test A4 results

The test was stopped when the pump collector gauge reached 20 kPa due to the on-set of cavitation in the pump of the fire-fighting appliance.

3.1.4 Test A5

To measure minimum workable residual pressure required at the standpipe to achieve a flow of 10 l/s through a fire pump. Single line and length of RFS Ø64mm x 30m canvas lay-flat hose between the standpipe and the collector of the fire pump. Truck BG 30 RB (Scania). Results are presented in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4: Test A5 results

Note: the standpipe gauge was lowered to approximately the feed hydrant level.

3.1.5 Test A6

To measure minimum workable residual pressure required at the standpipe to achieve a flow of 10 l/s through a fire pump. Single line of FRNSW Ø70mm x 30m canvas lay-flat hose between the standpipe and the collector of the fire pump. Fire truck BG 30 RB (Scania). Results are presented in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5: Test A6 results

Note: the standpipe gauge was lowered to approximately the feed hydrant level.

3.2 Non-boosted flow tests

3.2.1 Test B1 and B2

Damaged test equipment. Refer to Appendix B for information.

3.2.2 Test B3

To measure maximum flow available with residual pressure at the standpipe held at 150kPa via open ended hoses back to pond for:

· a single length of FRNSW Ø70mm x 30m canvas lay-flat hose

· a single length of RFS Ø64mm x 30m canvas lay-flat hose.

Results are presented in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6: Test B3 results

• Driving pressure between the standpipe and end of hose, corrected for elevation

3.2.3 Test B4

To measure minimum residual pressure required at the standpipe to cause flow of 10 l/s via open ended hoses back to pond for:

● a single length of FRNSW Ø70mm x 30m canvas lay-flat hose

● a single length of RFS Ø64mm x 30m canvas lay-flat hose

● a single length of RFS Ø64mm x 30m canvas lay-flat hose (kinked & valves not from previous test)

● a single length of RFS Ø64mm x 30m canvas lay-flat hose (kinked with valves adjust back to 10 L/s).

Results are presented in Table 3-7.

Table 3-7: Test B4 results

• Driving pressure between the standpipe and end of hose, corrected for elevation.

3.3 Headloss testing

Resistance coefficients (k) are based on the component's smaller internal diameter and noted with each results table (to enable headloss estimate calculations and avoid confusion when comparing component k values).

3.3.1 Test C1

To determine the flow resistance constant "k" from the connection point in the main, through the spring valve hydrant, and to the outlet of a FRNSW standpipe.

Results are presented in Table 3-8.

Table 3-8: Test C1 results (spring valve hydrant and standpipe)

Note: k estimate based on 65 mm ID.

3.3.2 Test C2

Determine the flow resistance constant “k” across a FRNSW 1 into 2 breeching for

● both outlets of breeching open, and

· single outlet of breeching open.

Results are presented in Table 3-9.

Table 3-9: Test C2 results (breeching piece)

• k estimate based on breeching inlet – single 65mm ID, k and kq are variable depending on flowrates and are tabled. Flowrate should be considered when selecting the k/kq value.

3.3.3 Test C3

To determine the flow resistance constant “k” along a single length of FRNSW Ø70mm x 30m canvas lay-flat hose.

Results are presented in Table 3-10. Figure 2-11 shows relative elevations of the truck gauge and hose outlet.

Table 3-10: Test C3 results (70mm hose)

Note: k estimate based on 70mm ID hose. $k_Q$ based on truck gauge pressure reading. Flowrate should be considered when selecting the k value.

3.3.4 Test C4

To determine the flow resistance constant “k” along a single length of RFS Ø64mm x 30m canvas lay-flat hose. Figure 2-11 shows relative elevations of the truck gauge and hose outlet.

Results are presented in Table 3-11.

Table 3-11: Test C4 results (64 mm hose)

Note: k estimate based on 64 mm ID hose. $k_Q$ based truck gauge pressure reading. Flowrate should be considered when selecting the k/kq value.

3.3.5 Test C5

To determine the flow resistance constant “k” from the connection point in the main, through the screw valve hydrant, through to the outlet of the FRNSW double delivery.

Results are presented in Table 3-12.

Table 3-12: Test C5 results (screw valve hydrant)

Note: k estimate based on 64 mm ID. Double delivery valve was leaking. Flowrate should be considered when selecting the k/kq value.

© Crown 2017

MHL2534 – 30

1. Conclusions and recommendations

The laboratory testing documented in this report provides information to assist FRNSW with an improved understanding of hydrant water pressure requirements to provide effective

firefighting flows. Testing of the 64 mm hoses can assist other fire-fighting agencies in

understanding their required water pressures at the feed fire hydrant to achieve effective firefighting flows.

Key laboratory test result assumptions including pressure gauge elevations are documented for all tests. The test results will assist FRNSW assess minimum feed hydrant residual

pressure requirements, considering factors such as site elevations, pump cavitation, hose

collapse and maintaining positive pressures.

Further test results including standard headloss resistance coefficients (k) are documented in the report.

Hydrant testing was performed under laboratory conditions. Real application situations will

include variation in fire-fighting equipment and water supply arrangements. These can

include the physical condition of pumps, valves, pipes and hoses; the relative elevation of

supply infrastructure, hydrants and pumping appliances; and, water reticulation

supply/pressure variability.

To support the development of firefighting standards, it is recommended that equipment

lifecycle hydraulic performance variability is considered in line with testing, inspection,

maintenance and replacement programs.

In-field testing equipment can be used to confirm headloss characteristics of individual

property firefighting supply arrangements.

© Crown 2017

MHL2534 – 31

1. References

AS 2200-2006: Design charts for water supply and sewerage

AS 24191.1-2005: Fire Hydrant Installations – System Design, Installation and

Commissioning

Miller, DS, 1990, Internal Flow Systems, Second Edition, BHRA (Information Services), The Fluid Engineering Centre, Cranfield, UK.

© Crown 2017

MHL2534 – A1

Appendix A – Test equipment

〔图〕DELTAFIRE3A17BB 35 JX\n 〔图〕DELTAKnoWThe FlowES-J0P-16\n

Figure A-1: Fire Truck BB 35 JX (Commander)

〔图〕FIRRESCUEBG 30 RB\n 〔图〕FIRE &RESCUERESCUEBG 30 RB\n

Figure A-2: Fire Truck BG 30 RB (Scania)

〔图〕插图

Figure A-3: Ball valve hydrant

〔图〕插图

Figure A-4: Screw valve hydrant

〔图〕插图

Figure A-5: Standpipe

〔图〕20\n

Figure A-6: 1 to 2 breeching piece

〔图〕插图

Figure A-7: Double delivery with Storz outlets

© Crown 2017

MHL2534 – B1

Appendix B – Other test information

Proof of concept

Initial testing of the hydrant test arrangement, confirmed the stability of the test rig and its suitability for further hydrant based testing as presented in Table B-1 and Figure B-1.

Table B-1: Proof of concept test results

〔图〕插图

Figure B-1: Proof of concept test results

Day 1 testing (22/3/17)

Tests A1, A2, B1 and B2 results are compromised as it was later found one of FRNSW Ø70mm x 30m canvas lay-flat hoses was damaged coupling, with the tongue being crushed (see Figure B-2). It was also observed for pumping appliance tests that there was more pressure in one line than the other, suggesting issues with the pump valves. Test results are provided here for completeness and information only.

〔图〕插图

Figure B-2: Damaged hose coupling

Test A1 Results

To measure maximum flowrates achievable to a pumper with residual pressure at the standpipe held at 150kPa. Single line and length of FRNSW Ø70mm x 30m canvas lay-flat hose between the standpipe and the collector of the fire pump. FRNSW 1 into 2 breeching fitted in line with single hose. Truck BB 35 JX (Commander), results are presented in Table B-2.

Table B-2: Test A1 results

Test A2 Results

To measure maximum flowrates achievable to a pumper with residual pressure at the standpipe held at 150kPa. Twin lines of single length of FRNSW Ø70mm x 30m canvas lay-

flat hose between the standpipe and the collector of the fire pump. FRNSW 1 into 2 breeching fitted in line with twin hoses. Truck BB 35 JX (Commander). Results are presented in Table B-3.

Table B-3: Test A2 results

Test B1 Results

To measure maximum flow available with residual pressure at the standpipe held at 150kPa via open ended hoses back to pond for:

● a single line of FRNSW Ø70mm x 30m canvas lay-flat hose, with FRNSW 1 into 2 breeching included

● twin lines of FRNSW Ø70mm x 30m canvas lay-flat hose.

Test results are presented in Table B-4.

Table B-4: Test B1 results

*

Test B2 Results

To measure minimum residual pressure required at the standpipe to cause the nominated flow via open ended hoses back to pond for:

· 10 l/s via a single length of FRNSW Ø70mm x 30m canvas lay-flat hose,

· 20 l/s via twin lines of FRNSW Ø70mm x 30m canvas lay-flat hose.

Results are presented in Table B-5.

Table B-5: Test B2 results