Climate change


interlocked equipment are critical. All systems at some time may be called on to operate in an emergency situation, and may help in saving life and property. It is for this reason that knowledge that the system can operate to its full potential is so essential. However, are annual checks sufficient in


risky environments? What if the suppression systems installed in the turbines to protect life and infrastructure do not release on actuation? Gaseous extinguishing/suppression


systems are installed to protect against special hazards in critical infrastructure as their main objective. They deliver the infrastructural resilience that wind turbines require. If it is a known fact that there is a long response time to wind turbine fires, then it is unacceptable that the dynamic suppression systems are left unattended for 364 days a year.


Constant monitoring


A dynamic system needs monitoring. The reality is that gaseous systems are checked for contents annually because they are pressurised and anything that is dynamic offers risk of loss of contents, but this fails to deal with the probability of discharge or leakage for the 364 days per annum in the interim between certification checks. If the hazard is special and the infrastructure critical, then this is the case for the constant monitoring of the suppression systems that aim to deliver their protection. Inspection should include an evaluation that the extinguishing system installed continues to provide adequate protection for the risk. Coupled to this is a complete lack of room


integrity testing after the gaseous system has been installed. As buildings age or their internal use is changed, leak sites develop. If the gas cannot be ‘held’ in the room on discharge during a fire event, the probability of its suppression diminishes in direct proportion to the size of the leak sites. Room integrity tests are imperative for the determination of both the hold time and the peak pressure needed for successful fire suppression. The level of leakage is carefully monitored


to ensure the correct agent concentration is achieved: room integrity must be ‘tight’ enough to ensure sufficient retention time according to NFPA Standards or ISO 14520, yet remain ‘loose’ enough to prevent enclosure damage at discharge. The presence of undesired and unregulated leak sites reduces room integrity and will hence dramatically impact the hold time and peak pressure, placing room contents and potentially wall structures at risk.


It is accepted that in wind turbines, vibration can loosen connections, while dirt, dust, and temperature extremes are known to cause unwarranted discharge. Additionally, openings in the turbine housing significantly inhibit achieving the designated agent concentration. Devising a solution to overcome these challenges can add significantly to the weight in the turbine. For regular inspection, there are solutions


such as the Portalevel MAX, a handheld ultrasonic liquid level indicator which can service a cylinder in 30 seconds (in contrast to 15 minutes by traditional manual weighing) with accuracy of up to 1.5mm off the true liquid level. Smart solutions enable wind turbine owners


and operators to improve their fire safety management, reduce the risks to human life, ensure business continuity caused by any downtime and minimise risk to reputation by delivering a safe site


Carl Hunter is managing director at Coltraco Ultrasonics, and Scott Starr is marketing director at Firetrace International. For more information, view page 5


References 1. Report by Imperial College London, University of Edinburgh and SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden in Fire Safety Science, 2014.


2. Renewable Energy Loss Adjusters. 3. Bloomberg New Energy Finance.


www.frmjournal.com SEPTEMBER 2018 23


FOCUS


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60