FiRE-TECH/WG8finrep02 15/04/2005 FiRE-TECH · This report is the final report of Fire-Tech Working Group 8 (WG 8). In WG 8, eleven case studies have been performed, based on the methodology

FiRE-TECH/WG8finrep02_15/04/2005

FiRE-TECH

Fire Risk Evaluation To European Cultural Heritage

WG8 : Case studies FINAL REPORT

Prof. Dr. Ir. Paul Vandevelde , Prof. Ir. Arch. André De Naeyer, Ir. Emmy Streuve - UGent Ir. Leen Twilt, Arnoud Breunese M. Sc. , Ir. Maria Öhlin – TNO

FiRE-TECH

WG 8 Case Studies: Draft report

Confidential Created by project team WG 8: Laboratory for Heat Transfer and Fuel Technology, University Ghent © -

Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Building and Construction Research, Centre for Fire Research ©

Page 2/56

0 Contents 0 Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 4 2 Methodology..................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Step 1: Agree the objectives ..................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Step 2: Analysis of present situation......................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 Data collection ................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Assessment tools............................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Step 3: Review possible fire safety measures .......................................................................... 9 2.4 Step 4: Decision making ........................................................................................................... 9

2.4.1 Technique .......................................................................................................................... 9 2.4.2 Theory and Methodology of AHP..................................................................................... 10 2.4.3 Numerical Tools ............................................................................................................... 12 2.4.4 Effectiveness study.......................................................................................................... 12 2.4.5 OPTIMISATION of COST /EFFECTIVENESS ................................................................ 15

2.5 Step 5: Analysis of the improved situations ............................................................................ 16 2.6 Step 6: Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................... 16

3 Presentation of the object of the case study .................................................................................. 17 3.1 Justification of the choice/set-up of the case studies.............................................................. 17

3.1.1 Built heritage.................................................................................................................... 17 3.1.2 Categories........................................................................................................................ 17 3.1.3 Original use versus present use ...................................................................................... 17 3.1.4 Private versus public........................................................................................................ 19

3.2 Overview of the selected case studies.................................................................................... 20 3.2.1 Het Pand, Gent (Belgium)................................................................................................ 20 3.2.2 Tower of London – White tower, London (United Kingdom) ........................................... 20 3.2.3 Chiado – Grandella building, Lisbon (Portugal)............................................................... 21 3.2.4 De Nieuwe Kerk, Delft (The Netherlands) ....................................................................... 21 3.2.5 Virtual museum of modern art, (France).......................................................................... 21 3.2.6 Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel (Germany) ....................................................... 22 3.2.7 Casa Bianca, Thessaloniki (Greece) ............................................................................... 22 3.2.8 Hofburg - Redoutensäle, Vienna (Austria)....................................................................... 23 3.2.9 Gussoni Palace, Venice (Italy)......................................................................................... 23 3.2.10 Romanin Jacur silk factory, Salzano (Italy) ..................................................................... 24 3.2.11 St. Mary of Consolation Monastery, Este (Italy) .............................................................. 24

3.3 Categories of buildings ........................................................................................................... 25 4 Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 26

4.1 Analysis of the methodology steps ......................................................................................... 26 4.1.1 Agree the objectives ........................................................................................................ 26 4.1.2 Analyse the present situation........................................................................................... 26 4.1.3 Review the possible fire safety measures ....................................................................... 27 4.1.4 Optimise the possible fire safety measures..................................................................... 27 4.1.5 Analyse the improved situation........................................................................................ 28 4.1.6 Conclusions and recommendations given in the case study reports .............................. 28 4.1.7 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 28

4.2 Analysis of the results ............................................................................................................. 29 5 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 30

5.1 Recommendations to the working groups .............................................................................. 30 5.2 Recommendations to the end-users ....................................................................................... 31

6 Summary and conclusions ............................................................................................................. 32 7 Annex 1: Abstracts of the Case Studies......................................................................................... 34

7.1 Category A buildings............................................................................................................... 34 7.1.1 Gussoni Palace, Venice (Italy)......................................................................................... 34 7.1.2 Romanin Jacur silk factory, Salzano (Italy) ..................................................................... 36 7.1.3 St. Mary of Consolation Monastery, Este (Italy) .............................................................. 38

FiRE-TECH




Page 3/56

7.2 Category B Buildings............................................................................................................... 40 7.2.1 Chiado – Grandella building ............................................................................................ 40

7.3 Category C buildings............................................................................................................... 42 7.3.1 Virtual museum of modern art, France ............................................................................ 42

7.4 Category D buildings............................................................................................................... 43 7.4.1 Hofburg - Redoutensäle, Vienna (Austria)....................................................................... 43 7.4.2 Het Pand, Gent (Belgium) – version 1............................................................................. 45 7.4.3 Het Pand, Gent (Belgium) – version 2............................................................................. 47 7.4.4 Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel (Germany) ....................................................... 49 7.4.5 Casa Bianca, Thessaloniki (Greece) ............................................................................... 51 7.4.6 De Nieuwe Kerk, Delft (The Netherlands) ....................................................................... 52 7.4.7 Tower of London – White tower, London (UK) ................................................................ 54

8 Annex 2: Complete case studies.................................................................................................... 55 9 Annex 3 Overview of the followed methodology steps in the different case studies ..................... 56

FiRE-TECH




Page 4/56

1 Introduction This report is the final report of Fire-Tech Working Group 8 (WG 8). In WG 8, eleven case studies have been performed, based on the methodology that was proposed by WG 7. In each of the case studies, a close look is taken at the fire safety aspects of a cultural heritage building. An attempt has been made to study a wide variety of buildings. Buildings from different countries all over Europe have been analysed, and the original purpose and present use of the buildings also cover a wide range. Moreover, because of the wide range of experts that have carried out the assessments, an impression is obtained of the ways in which different individuals interpret the methodology. In this report, the general experiences and conclusions from the case studies are presented. The ob-jective of this report is twofold:

- First of all, the methodology is evaluated, and recommendations are made to WG 7. These recommendations can be incorporated in the guidelines that WG 7 will prepare.

- Secondly, the results from the case studies will be compared to see if the method gives credi-ble and consistent results.

A concise description of the methodology is given in chapter 2. Each of the steps of the assessment method is briefly explained, and for further details, references to the relevant work group reports are given. A short overview of all cases is given in chapter 3, and in the appendices more extensive abstracts of each case can be found. For the precise details the separate case study reports are referred to the summaries in Annex 1 and to the full reports (Annex 2). In chapter 4 the results of the case studies are analysed. The analysis contains the steps of the build-ing assessment methodology as well as an evaluation of the results that are obtained by using the methodology. The analyses result in recommendations. Chapter 5 describes the recommendations to the other WG’s of the Fire-Tech project as well as recommendations to users of the methodology with regard to the scores and calculation methods. In chapter 6 finally, general conclusions of WG 8 are summarised.

FiRE-TECH




Page 5/56

2 Methodology The methodology of the decision making process is showed in the following flowchart:

STEP 1: AGREE THEOBJECTIVES

STEP 2: ANALYSE THEPRESENT SITUATION

Does the presentsituation meetthe objectives

yes

STEP 3: LIST & REVIEWTHE FIRE SAFETY

MEASURES

STEP 4: OPTIMIZE THECHOICE OF FIRE SAFETY

MEASURES

Do the results meetthe objectives

yes

no

no

STEP 6:FORMULATECONCLUSIONS

DATA- building info- regulations-casuistry

- fire safetymeasures

ASSESSMENTTOOLS

- checklists- risk analysis-fire predictive

modelling

ALADIN

IST COST/EFFECTIVENESS

METHOD

STEP 5: ANALYSE THERESULTS CRITICALLY

OK

Figure 1:

FiRE-TECH Decision Making Procedure

FiRE-TECH




Page 6/56

This flowchart shows the complete process of decision making. But it shows also that the methodology is flexible enough to allow different levels of application in view of the available time, money, means/knowledge and information. The case studies have shown that a prescriptive analysis, a performance based analysis or a mixture of both are possible. In case of a performance based analysis a low – medium or high level of applica-tion of fire safety engineering techniques can be applied in function of the available time, money, means/knowledge and information.

2.1 Step 1: Agree the objectives The main goal is “Reduce fire risks” or “Optimise fire safety/protection”. The main goal is also called “Policy”. The main goal is specified by defining the objectives. These objectives represent the fire safety goals on the highest level. For the choice of the objectives a selection of the objectives has to be done:

1. OB1 - Protect the occupants 2. OB2 - Protect the firemen 3. OB3 - Protect the building 4. OB4 - Protect contents 5. OB5 - Safeguard continuity of activity 6. OB6 - Protect the environment

And for those objectives acceptance criteria need to be put forward.

E.g. • For the objective protect the building an acceptance criteria can be that there is only a

10% probability that a small part of the building is damaged. • For the objective protect the occupants an acceptance criteria that people have

enough time to evacuate … The available time, money, means/knowledge and information will determine the level of application to obtain the main policy.

2.2 Step 2: Analyse the present situation The proposed decision making process is flexible enough that different approaches are possible in re-lation to the time and budget available for the analysis. To make the assessment / analysis of the present situation following input is needed:

- Data o Regulations o Casuistry (information about fires occurred in that past in the same types of buildings) o Description of the building

- Assessment tools o Checklists o Risk Analysis o Fire Predictive Models

FiRE-TECH




Page 7/56

DATACollection of information

Regulations(WG1 info)

Casuistry(WG 2 info)

Description of the building,its fire protection measures

and fire behaviour of ancientmaterials (WG 3 & 4 info)

Assessment TOOLS

Check thecompliance to the

regulations

Carry outRisk analysis

Use Firepredictivemodelling

ASSESSMENT

Does the presentlevel of safety meets

the objectives?

STEP 2: ANALYSE THE PRESENT SITUATION

no

yes

STEP3: LIST REVIEW THE POSSIBLEFIRE SAFETY MEASURES

OK

Figure 2: the procedure to analyse the present situation.

2.2.1 Data collection The following data, if available, is essential to collect to make an assessment / analysis of the present situation of fire safety:

- Required regulations concerning the fire protection - Casuistry: data available on fires that have occurred in similar buildings - Guidelines on the fire behaviour of ancient/archaic materials

WG 1 has presented a global view on the European regulations dealing with Fire Safety in Cultural Heritage. An action of improvement to the fire safety level needs to be exposed to the authorities in order to check the compliance with the regulations or, if the action is "out of regulations", if it is accept-able to the authorities. WG 2 has collected data on fires that have occurred in cultural heritage buildings. The fires were grouped in four categories:

- Fires causing great damage to a historical building - Fires causing great damage to several historical buildings - Fires occurring in buildings with no historical meaning, but affecting items with great artisti-

cally/historical value - Fires causing great damage both to the building and to the contents with historical value

The knowledge of previous fires in a similar cultural heritage (if available) can be used to lead directly to solutions of protection or suggest scenarios (see case study of Hofburg - Redoutensäle, Vienna (Austria)) and possibly give statistical foundation of the figures used in risk analysis.

FiRE-TECH




Page 8/56

The knowledge gained on the characteristics of ancient materials can be applied to find frail parts in the cultural heritage, and bring ideas of protection at step 3. Also an estimation can be made of e.g. the fire resistance of ancient/archaic materials or assemblies. The work done in WG 3 can supply in-formation on this matter. Depending on the disposition and nature of the collected data we can select the assessment tool(s).

2.2.2 Assessment tools - Assessment of the compliance with the regulations. - Assessment via fire risk analysis. - Assessment via fire predictive modelling.

Assessment of the compliance to the regulations Here is checked whether the concept of the building is in compliance with the applicable regulations concerning fire safety. This can be done by using for example checklists. The compliance to existing regulations is very important. The proposed measures always need to meet the requirements of the existing regulations. So when there is only a low budget available, this assessment is proposed as only tool to deduce the required fire safety measures. The required fire safety measures can than be proposed on the basis of the analysis of the existing (European) regulations (Working Group 1) together with the analysis of previous fires in similar cultural heritage and the guidelines on fire safety of ancient/archaic materials if available. But even when there is a bigger budget and a Performance Based Study is carried out, it has to be executed within a regulatory frame.

Assessment via quantitative fire risk analysis: The WG 6 made a review of existing risk analysis methods. The advantages and disadvantages for using this methods in the area of cultural heritage are described. The WG 6 proposed to make a risk analysis based on the principles of the Event Tree. In this method a selection of possible fire scenarios has to be made (see forgoing item). Thereafter a selection of the events (or branches of the event tree) has to be made. Examples of possible events are : developing fire > fire location > time of day > fire detected > extinguished by staff > sprinkler con-trol the fire > fire brigade control the fire. A last item is the selection of the fire safety design. An event tree can be made with no additional measures in order to look at the present fire safety of the building. Thereafter additional measures can be added, (for the selection of the measures we refer to the WG 4 report). For further information on the event tree method of see report of WG 6. Also the report of WG 2 on the analysis of fires that have occurred in cultural heritage buildings can be of interest to carry out the risk analysis.

Assessment via fire safety engineering Assessment of fire safety using computer simulation models are for example:

- Fire development models for the calculation of temperature development, smoke spread, in-fluence of ventilation…

o Zone models o CFD models

- Models to calculate structural behaviour (via finite element modelling): o Finite element heat flow models, calculation of temperatures of the structural compo-

nents o Finite element mechanical models, calculation of structural behaviour during fire

- Evacuation models for the modelling of human behaviour during escape. - Probabilistic tools, a combination of other models and sensitivity study.

FiRE-TECH




Page 9/56

2.3 Step 3: List and review the fire safety measures For the list of possible fire safety actions the report of WG 4 is referred to. Technical actions (active and passive fire protection techniques) and non-technical actions (fire safety management) can be se-lected. Examples are:

- Fire Detection and alarm Systems; - Automatic Fire Suppression Systems:

o Gaseous Fire Suppression Systems; o Water Based Suppression Systems (automatic water sprinkling systems (wet and dry

systems, alternate systems, pre-action systems, residential/domestic automatic sprin-kler systems));

o Water Mist Systems. - First-aid Fire Fighting – Portable Fire Extinguishers, Hose reels & Fire Blankets; - Emergency Lighting; - Smoke Control:

o Pressurisation; o Smoke Ventilation;

- Fire Resisting Construction: o Fire Resistant Glazing; o Fire Resisting Shutters & Fire Curtains; o Inert Insulation Materials; o Intumescent Materials.

- Management, organisation, maintenance and information: o Fire response plans :emergency planning for evacuation, salvage and rescue opera-

tion; Clear and correct design of escape routes and efficient signs; o Smoking Ban; o Management: rules on works done in the building, Supervise works carried out; o Correct maintenance and housekeeping; o Check and maintain electrical installations; o Training and teaching personnel (alert, extinguish, salvation, evacuation …); o Information to firemen.

- Control fire load o Limit unnecessary combustible items, linings, coverings, carpets …; o Keep the building clean of waste and useless combustible; o Limit ignitability and specific rate of heat release of:

surface materials on façades, surface materials on walls and floors, other ma-terials.

- …

2.4 Step 4: Optimize the choice of fire safety measures A decision making process can be presented as a network or a tree constructed on alternatives and criteria at different levels. Hierarchy methods are based on these concepts. WG7 selected the Analyti-cal Hierarchy Process (AHP).

2.4.1 Technique The Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) is a practical technique for modelling and solving multi-criteria decision problems. In the Analytical Hierarchical Process a logical and structural framework is set up, which allows improving the performance of complex decisions by decomposing the problem in a particular hierarchical structure. The incorporation of all the decision criteria retained, allows the de-cision maker to determine the trade-off among objectives. The application of the Analytical Hierarchical Process method exploits two kinds of knowledge in the process of priority setting to conceive the “boxes” of the network as well as to fix the weight:

FiRE-TECH




Page 10/56

- information gained from the expertise of the participants (subjective judgements, the regula-tion texts, knowledge from previous fires)

- measured (from tests available) or calculated information (modelling = fire safety engineering) The Hierarchy approach was retained here for the purpose of FiRE-TECH as Decision Making tool be-cause it seemed consistent with the whole process of decision making and because it does not imply heavy calculation. The AHP- approach facilitates the development of logical hierarchical structures for complex decisions.

2.4.2 Theory and Methodology of AHP The basis of the method lies on the choice of the weights of each parameter in relation to parameter in the level above. The method compares elements on the same level of the hierarchy – for their influ-ence on a box in a higher level – indicating which element is preferred and by what degree. A general question is addressed, the goal of the decision making, depending on several variables, and for which several alternative solutions can be imagined and have to be retained, ranked, or eliminated. The decision problem is decomposed in several “possible actions” at different depths of analysis, from global goals to precise solutions of partial aspects. At each level of “generality”, a judgement is made on the relative efficiency of each component of this level on each component of the levels above. Calculations are executed with linear models of indirect influences. The outputs are the relative influence of all the components are calculated so that the best solution(s) (the best alternative) can be identified and weighted, or a ranking be established. The levels (rows) of the hierarchy network:

Main goal or policy

Objectives

Strategies (or: tactics)

Measures (or: components, or: parameters)

(Grades, in some approaches)

1. Selection of the main goal – objectives –strategies and measures In this chapter first of all the structure of the decision method has to be decided on. What is the main goal1? What are the objectives, i.e. how can we attain the policy? What strategies do we need to ob-tain the objectives? Finally what measures/parameters are required to obtain the strategies. The main goal or policy is at the top level of the hierarchy. There is only one policy which is called: “Reduce fire risks” or “Optimise fire safety/protection”. These words are written in a single box at the first (upper) level. The levels below the top contain “actions” one can think of for the success of the policy. These actions are described more and more precisely the deeper the levels. Objectives are the actions directly connected to policy. They are mentioned at the second (lower) level in a few boxes. They are called, e.g.: “Protect the occupants”, “Protect the Protect the firemen”, “Pro-tect the building”, “Protect the content”, ”Safeguard continuity of activity”, “Protect the environment”. At the third level, several boxes contain the Strategies. Strategies are actions necessary to reach the objectives. E.g.: Reduce the probability of fire start», «Limit fire development”, “Facilitate egress”… Measures (or: parameters) are described at the fourth level in a certain number of boxes. Measures are “practical” solutions to serve the strategies. E.g.: “Means for fire detection”, “Means for fire sup-pression”, “Systems of smoke control”, “Emergency and alarm signs”…

1 Main goal is sometimes also called policy.

FiRE-TECH




Page 11/56

A list of measures applicable for the fire protection in cultural heritage buildings can be consulted in the report of WG 4.

2. Weighting the influences

The second step includes the weighting of the influences. The choice of weights of each parameter in one level in relation to each parameter in the level above needs to be made (Objectives on the main goal - the Strategies on the different Objectives - the Measures on the different Strategies). This is to be expressed in figures from 0 (no influence) to 9 (very strong influence) (see Table 1: Scale for AHP weights)

These figures are normalised to figures between 0 and 1 and out of that a graphical representation is made in which the order of importance of the measures will be visible. Expert judgement is recom-mended to make the choice of the weights. The weight a measure can receive is of course depending on the characteristics of the cultural heri-tage being studied and on the fire scenarios.

3. Grades of implementation of the fire safety measures The grades of implementation indicates how far the fire safety measures are implemented. In old buildings, the task of choosing some of these implementation grades is difficult as a conse-quence of the difficulty in making a proper characterization of relevant properties, such as the reaction to fire of ancient materials, or the fire resistance of building components and assemblies, for instance. Nevertheless, having components with an assumed unsatisfactory fire performance is not the same as not having them at all. This has to be translated into an implementation grade, no matter how difficult it may appear. Expert judgement is very useful and the Delphi method might be a way to achieve this purpose. Usually when a building is analysed, certain fire safety measures are already present. In other words they are already implemented to a certain degree. This implementation grade ranges from zero, when the class of fire safety measures is totally absent, to the value of one, when the class is fully and satis-factorily implemented. Sometimes, due to the constraints in historic buildings it may be only possible to upgrade some of the components of a given system. If this is the case, an evaluation of the effect of that improvement on the resulting implementation grade has to be made on a technical basis. There are often classes of fire safety measures that can not be applied or improved. Others give only small improvements. But the joint contribution of several of them can result in a lower fire risk. The choice of the implementation grades should be adapted to each study case and be based on the existing knowledge about the suitability, performance and reliability of the various components that play a role on a given fire safety measure class. In this task, the report of FiRE-TECH Working Group 4 may be a useful tool. Grades may be introduced at the lowest level in “index methods”, as guiding values to help to the choice of a measure. E.g., a list of fire resistant partitions can be given with values assessing their relative efficiency. Each grade is associated with one measure: using grades is a way to assess a measure within the global calculation. By giving the different measures a grade of implementation the effectiveness index can be calculated. (see next item)

4. Effectiveness index: The influence of the implemented fire safety measures on the policy also called Effectiveness index E(PO)) is the sum of the individual influence of each measure to the main goal (= improve of the over-all fire safety of the building).

FiRE-TECH




Page 12/56

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )∑∑∑= = =

⋅⋅⋅=6

1

5

1

19

1i j kkGkjMjiSTiOBPOE

This figure show how effective the fire safety measures are and is like the definition said very much related to the grades of implementations. Each measure already present in the building gives a certain contribution to the overall effectiveness index (EI) with its current grade of implementation. The increase of the grades of implementation and/or extra measures can be taken to improve the fire safety level of the building. This will produce a higher effectiveness index. Whenever the measures are fully implemented the effectiveness index is 100%.

5. Cost Effectiveness study The next step is to quantify for each measure in function of it cost-effectiveness. One need to investi-gate what the improvement is of the proposed fire safety measures in relation to the cost of such an improvement. By taking the ratio of the improvement in effectiveness through the cost one can get a list of most cost-effective measures.

2.4.3 Numerical Tools Two numerical tools have been developed by the WG 7 partners for application of a hierarchy method to decision-making in fire protection of cultural heritage:

- The ALADIN computer programme, - The IST COST/EFFICTIVENESS spreadsheet.

The basic concept of those two tools is AHP and both use a matrix to calculate the most cost-efficient fire protection measure. Both methods can introduce a cost-effectiveness study.

2.4.4 Effectiveness study

1. ALADIN ALADIN is a FORTRAN 90 computer programme that has been developed at CSTB. The goal was to offer a good ratio efficiency/complexity for a tool to be applied to Fire Safety in Cultural Heritage. For all the boxes at a given level, the weights for the influence on each box of the upper level have to be given. The scale proposed by SAATY (Table 1)

Numerical values

Equal preference 1

Weak preference 3

Preference 5

Very strong preference 7

Absolute preference 9

Intermediate values between the stated preferences 2, 4, 6, 8

Table 1: Scale for AHP weights proposed by SAATY2

2 Final Report of WG 7

FiRE-TECH




Page 13/56

In ALADIN the number of rows is limited to five and the number of boxes in a row is limited to six. This is in order to avoid too heavy work in entering input data, to lead the user to keep a limited number of really appropriate actions and to keep enough legibility to the outputs. Input data The programme asks concerning the structure of the network how many rows (levels) there are needed. One can use all the set of levels presented above (from policy to measures), or as well work on a simpler hierarchy corresponding to the actual problem. From the second row (the first row is the single top box, the policy) to the last (lowest) row, it is asked how many boxes there are needed? The programme asks for the input weights in each row (from the lowest level). For each box in each row, it is asked what the weight is of any box to each given box of upper level? The sums of the values for each row are normalised to 1 (100%). ALADIN uses no grades (or we can say that grades = 1 in ALADIN). Further weighting of the efficiency on alternatives can be realised with the outputs of ALADIN.

Output data A drawing of the network with numbers given to the boxes. For all boxes: all the given and calculated weights. The computation time is very short.

Using ALADIN for practical applications It is often necessary to weight the global influence of a set of components of a given fire safety sys-tem, rather than weighing each individual component separately. ALADIN can be used to calculate e.g. the combined weights on the policy and objectives of given strategies and measures, as well as to compare the combined weights of several alternatives (established by one person or by several ex-perts). ALADIN can follow the decomposition presented above on: “policy, objectives, strategies, measures”. ALADIN was not conceived to deal with many measures and/or many strategies, as the maximum number of boxes in a row is 6. ALADIN can be used for “zooming” on partial influences, e.g. in using it on a reduced “one given objective, strategies, measures” network. The results can be presented under the format of a decision matrix that can be exploited directly by user or can be studied with over ranking tools. A small cost effectiveness study can done. (see2.4.5 OPTIMISATION of COST /EFFECTIVENESS §1. ALADIN approach )

2. IST COST/EFFICTIVENESS spreadsheet The Excel sheet “Cost_Effectiveness.xls” was developed as a practical tool to improve the fire safety conditions in a historic building by considering several alternatives. These alternatives need to be compared in terms of the effectiveness of the whole set of fire safety measures in relation to the pre-defined Policy or in relation to each pre-defined Objective. Different fire safety alternatives have differ-ent costs. The relation between the improvement in effectiveness achieved by each alternative and the corresponding cost (effectiveness improvement per Euro) is a crucial parameter for the final decision. A hierarchical approach is used to compare different fire safety alternatives.

Input data: For a given study case, the following should be defined at first:

• Policy

• Objectives

• Strategies

• Fire safety measures

FiRE-TECH




Page 14/56

(For a further description of the policy, objectives, strategies and the proposed fire safety measures in

this model is referred to the WG 7 report)

Scores and weights The second and very important task will be the definition of the weights (importance) of the parameters in each level on the parameters in the level above. This can be more conveniently achieved by attrib-uting scores to each parameter representing their importance in relation to each of the parameters in the level above. The same scale as shown in Table 1: Scale for AHP weights proposed by SAATY is used. The spreadsheet then automatically transforms these scores into normalized weights. Grades of implementation of the fire safety measures The IST-spreadsheet is prepared to receive implementation grades for an initial situation and for two additional fire safety alternatives. Cost Costs associated to the implementation of each class of fire safety measures for the fire safety alterna-tives need to be given. Output

- the influence of each measures on the policy and each objective, assuming the full implemen-tation of all measures (implementation grades equal to one)

- the weighted influence (effectiveness) of each measures on the policy and on each objective for the initial situation

- the weighted influence (effectiveness) of each measures on the policy and on each objective for the fire safety alternative 1

- the weighted influence (effectiveness) of each measures on the policy and on each objective for the fire safety alternative 2

- the improvement in effectiveness (%) due to the implementation of the different fire safety al-ternatives

- the increase in effectiveness (%) per kEuro due to the implementation of the different fire safety alternatives

- for the initial situation, for the different fire safety alternatives, the influence of the implemented fire safety measures on the policy (Effectiveness index E(PO)), and the influence of the im-plemented fire safety measures on each objective (Effectiveness index E(OBi)), taking into ac-count the relative contribution of that objective to the policy.

- for the different fire safety alternatives, the global ratio Effectiveness/ Cost in relation to the policy (increase in effectiveness obtained by each fire safety alternative in relation to the policy per kEuro spent)

- for the different fire safety alternatives, the ratio Effectiveness/ Cost in relation to each objec-tive (increase in effectiveness obtained by each fire safety alternative in relation to each objec-tive per kEuro spent).

For a better visualization of the results, a graphical representation of the output data can be found in separate sheets. The worksheets are write-protected without password, so that the user can always adapt them to his/her personal needs.

FiRE-TECH




Page 15/56

2.4.5 OPTIMISATION of COST /EFFECTIVENESS

1. ALADIN approach A new calculation of effectiveness (

xME ) of the measures is done and also an evaluation of the reli-

ability (xMR ) of the measures (on the basis of the data of the WG 4 report) is given (in %). The mul-

tiplication of those two figures results in the global reliability of a measure x, or

xMMMg RERxx

⋅=, Then the cost of the measures ( n

xM 1= ) needs to be defined. Out of that the cost of each measure

(xMtcos ) in relation to the maximum cost ( max,cos

xMt ) is to be calculated, which gives us a Rela-

tive Cost Factor (xMRCF ):

10&cos

cos

max,≤≤=

xx

xMxM

M

M RCFRCFt

t

The result is a efficiency ratio taking into account the global reliability of the different measures (effec-tiveness * % of reliability) and a RCF of the different fire safety measures, which can permit to choose the best ratio efficiency/cost ( MMg RCFR

x, ) and as a result also the best measure in function of

cost efficiency.

The same can be done to evaluate more alternatives ( niA 1= ) on there cost efficiency. This means that

for a set of measures different implementations are proposed (from a rudimentary to a full implementa-tion). Again the weight of influences of the measures and their reliability needs to be defined but now in relation to their implementation. Now one needs to calculate the global reliability of an alternative

iAgR , which is:

∑=xMgiAg RR ,, or the sum of the different global reliabilities of the measures of one alternative.

And the Relative Cost Factor (xARCF ) for the different alternatives is:

10cos

cos

max,≤≤=

xxi

iAA

A

A RCFRCFt

t

The result is a efficiency ratio taking into account the global reliability of the different alternatives (ef-fectiveness * % of reliability) and a RCF of the different alternatives, can permit to choose the best ra-tio efficiency/cost ( AAg RCFR

i, ) and as a result also the best alternative in function of cost effi-

ciency.

2. TNO approach as basis for IST COST/EFFECTIVENESS spreadsheet In this approach each measure can be quantified in function of it cost-effectiveness. One needs to in-vestigate what improvement of the grade of implementation is feasible and what the cost of such an improvement would be. To increase the grade of implementation of a certain measure does not necessarily lead to a grade of implementation (G) of 1.0 for that measure; possibly a measure can relatively easily be improved to e.g. G=0.9, while obtaining G=1.0 would require large investments. Therefore, for each measure an estimation has to be made of a feasible grade of implementation.

FiRE-TECH




Page 16/56

The cost effectiveness of each separate measure is defined as the improvement of the overall fire safety level (effectiveness index EI), divided by the costs that have to be made to obtain this improve-ment. This can be calculated for each measure and a ranking of measures can be made. This ranking may lead to interesting new insights: measures that only give a small improvement of the overall fire safety may be attractive because the costs are low. If several of these small measures can be taken, the fire safety level can be greatly improved with limited costs. On the other hand, a single measure that is deemed to greatly improve the overall fire safety, may not be attractive if the costs are very high. If a certain budget is available for fire safety measures, the highest possible fire safety level will be achieved by selecting as many as possible of the top-ranked measures, up to the available budget. However, of course taking into account the eventual adverse effects one measure can have on an-other. If this approach is not used, the decision maker runs the risk that expensive measures are cho-sen because they contribute a lot to the fire safety level, while selecting a number of inexpensive measures would achieve the same level at much lower cost.

2.5 Step 5: Analyse the results critically In this step the results need to be reviewed critically. One needs to check whether the proposed fire safety measures meets the existing practice. This means one needs to examine whether the results of the decision making process seem logical. Also whether the proposed solution for the fire safety in the specific building is common practice. Also one needs to check whether the solutions meet the re-quired safety level in the existing regulations.

2.6 Step 6: Formulate conclusions When the proposed solution for the fire safety in the cultural heritage building has passed the critical review, the results of the decision making process needs to be written down.

FiRE-TECH




Page 17/56

3 Presentation of the object of the case study 3.1 Justification of the choice/set-up of the case studies A selection of 11 cases was made. As no new research was possible within this “Thematic Network”, partners had to proposes cases on which sufficient information was available without copyrights (as e.g. architectural measures drawings, technical material design details) or security prescriptions (e.g. accessibility to public buildings, inside organisation and responsibilities of management members). A number of elements influenced the choice. For example a wide average of the different construction types from the Middle Ages (11th century) up to the 19th & 20th century are present in the selection. But the following four items have in particular influenced the choice.

3.1.1 Built heritage First only built heritage or built environment was chosen. This means that buildings or clusters of build-ings were subject of the case studies. It was already decided in the WG 1 that this project would not take into consideration historical forests or gardens when referring to cultural heritage.

3.1.2 Categories Secondly the cases were selected according to different categories. In the built heritage we can distinguish 3 categories as is shown in following scheme.

Cultural value

Building Content

YES NO

YES X X

Cul

tura

l val

ue

NO X /

⇒

1. Historical buildings with cultural his-torical/valuable content

2. Buildings without cultural histori-cal/valuable content

3. Buildings (modern buildings) with cultural historical/valuable content

A category giving a 3rd dimension was added. This category groups the buildings from which a fire can spread to several buildings such as clusters of buildings, e.g. parts of old cities. This results in four categories (see also WG 1 report, §6):

Category A: Historical buildings but with no specific historical content Category B: Buildings from which a fire can spread to several historical buildings

Category C: Buildings with no special historical mean but containing items with great artistic/ historic value.

Category D: Historical buildings and with specific historical content For each of these categories there is at least one case selected.

3.1.3 Original use versus present use The following item that influenced the choice of the case studies was the use of the building, as well the present as the original use.

FiRE-TECH




Page 18/56

Following uses were distinguished: Original uses: Present uses:

- Church - Department store - Dwelling

o I.E. castle, palace, private home

- Factory - Library - Monastery - Museum

- Church - Commercial centre - Conference / Event centre - Department store - Library - Museum / Exhibition centre - School - Tribunal

In the selected case studies a goal was to have a lot of differentiation in the evolution from the original use to the present use. Some of the buildings in the selections did not change over their lifetime. Examples are a church, a library, a department store and a museum. The buildings that did change over their lifetime were grouped into two series:

- the built heritage of a common feature (original use) with regard to cultural heritage but with different present use,

- built heritage with the same use but different feature to cultural heritage. Examples of the first series are:

- The Original Use “monastery” changed into 2 different present uses: o conference centre, o school.

- The Original Use “dwelling” even changed into 3 different present uses o A tribunal ; o A museum / exhibition centre ; o A conference centre.

Examples of the second series are: - The present use conference used to be

o A monastery o A dwelling (palace)

- The present use “museum” used to be o A dwelling (palace) o A museum

Most of the buildings of the selection had a change in use/function during their existence. One can no-tice directly that the new functions are not directly in compliance with the typology/architecture of the building. This can create extra problems to make the building fire safe. Not only is the building not de-signed to be fire safe according to today’s standard also the new function can impose extra rules for fire safety and certainly if the buildings turned from private property into buildings open to public. Evacuation, for example, can pose a problem in this case.

FiRE-TECH




Page 19/56

Figure 3: Change of use during lifetime of the building

3.1.4 Private versus public The change in use/function of some of the examples of buildings also meant that the some buildings which were originally private ownership now have become open to the public. This has also conse-quences for the overall fire safety of the building since this involves extra requirements/regulations. Here below examples are given: ORIGINAL PRIVATE USE PRESENT PUBLIC USE MONASTERY CONFERENCE CENTRE MONASTERY SCHOOL DWELLING CONFERENCE CENTRE DWELLING TRIBUNAL DWELLING MUSEUM DWELLING

⇒

MUSEUM Table 2: Private versus public use

ORIGINAL VS PRESENT USEDe Nieuwe Kerk

Casa Bianca

Hofburg –Redoutensäle

Virtual museum of modern art

Tower of London -White Tower

Gussoni Palace

Church

Museum/ Exhibition hall

Conference/Event Centre

Tribunal

School

Church

Museum/ Exhibition hall

Dwelling

Monastery

Grandella building, chiado

Romanin Jacursilk factory

Department store

Department store

Factory

Herzog August Bibliothek LibraryLibrary

St. Mary of Consolation

Het Pand

Commercial Centre

FiRE-TECH




Page 20/56

3.2 Overview of the selected case studies 3.2.1 Het Pand, Gent (Belgium)

UGent (Laboratory for Heat Transfer and Fuel Technology, University Ghent) selected ‘Het Pand’, one of the most important and oldest build-ing from their patrimony. The Department of Infra-structure and Facility Management of the UGent has already made the analysis of the present level of safety. This was summarized in the Master plan for the renovation of ‘Het Pand’. Several measures were proposed to make this building in compliance with the existing fire safety regulations. The Laboratory for Heat Transfer and Fuel Tech-nology, University Ghent has checked whether the priorities of the master plan were cost efficient. Therefore the ALADIN as well as the IST- model

were used to make a cost-effectiveness study. Het Pand” is a formal Domican monastery located in the heart of the city of Ghent (Belgium) on the banks of the river Leie. It is one of the few remaining monasteries after the French Revolution, since all monasteries were closed down by the French occupiers (the revolutionaries). Its architecture is also extremely determinate for the townscape and the banks of the river Leie. All those items had as a con-sequence that this building was put on the list of classified premises in 1956. The ground floor area is about 2250 m² and U-shaped. The building has a ground level and 3 upper levels and also intermediate levels and is characterised by very thick stone and masonry walls, wooden floors, some with tiles, slate roof on massive oak structure. There is no effective compartmen-tation because of 2 monumental stairs joining the different levels. The building is accessible on one side only, the other sides are adjoining buildings and at the back side the river Leie. Its present use is a conference centre containing a few rooms for conferences, receptions, exhibitions and adjacent services like office rooms and a restaurant. There is also a cultural historical content, i.e. a museum collection and a library with exceptional old books & manuscripts, in the building. The building is categorised in category D.

3.2.2 Tower of London – White tower, London (United Kingdom)

Warrington Fire Research selected the Tower of London, which is situated in London along the North banks of the river Thames, for its case study. The White Tower forms the centrepiece of the Tower of London. WFR has extracted some protection measures from the report of WG 4 of which they were convenor in order to check which of them is the most efficient for the fire prevention of the White Tower by using the IST-model. The Towers history can be traced back to William the Conqueror. The construction that was built then became known as the White Tower, and its purpose was that of a fortress. The Tower was built on old Roman fortifications. The White Tower would remain the main tower of the Tower of London complex, when fully built. Later on the Tower came to be used most regularly as a prison.

Major material is Caen stone. The Ogee roofs on turrets are later additions, as are most of the win-dows. It is ninety feet high and has very tick masonry walls. Four turrets rise above the battlements; three of them being square with the north-eastern turret being circular. The building hosts now the museum of the Royal Armoury, which holds 40 000 artefacts from armours to iron maidens. The building is categorised in category D.

FiRE-TECH




Page 21/56

3.2.3 Chiado – Grandella building, Lisbon (Portugal)

IST selected the Grandella building for its case study, since this building was already used to show the working of the risk analy-sis method of WG 6. It is one of the oldest malls in Lisbon. In 1988 the building was hit by fire and the fire spread over a large part of the ancient area of Lisbon (Chiado). The case study had the intention to compare the situation before the fire with two al-ternative fire prevention systems. For the decision making proc-ess the IST-model was used. A effectiveness analysis was per-formed. The building is characterised by a ground area of about 1400 m2 and L-shaped. The 2 wings were of different heights (the highest was 9 storeys high) and were interconnected by non enclosed stairs, escalators and elevators. There were practically no parti-tion walls. The floors were made of wood and supported by a steel structure. The ceilings and the structural steel elements had a plaster cladding. The very thick exterior walls were made of stone and masonry. The roof structure was made of steel. The façades of the wing had a large number of wide windows. The building is categorised in the category B.

3.2.4 De Nieuwe Kerk, Delft (The Netherlands)

TNO selected “De Nieuwe Kerk” for the case studies since this buildings is very suitable for a risk analysis approach identifying acceptable meas-ures in the building. On this building the risk analysis method as proposed by WG6 was already effectuated. The conclusion from this analysis was that a number of measures were necessary to ensure the safety of the people in the tower and to limit fire spread in the church. These measures were added to the possible actions. After the proposal of the possible measures (19 in total) an effectiveness study was effectuated, both ALADIN and IST model were used. For the cost-effectiveness study TNO developed an addendum to the effectiveness-study, which is incorporated in the IST-model.

The “Nieuwe Kerk” is situated on the Market Square of the town Delft. It is one of the most important churches in the Netherlands and it contains the tomb of the Dutch Royal family. The church and the tower are open to the public during daytime Monday to Saturday expect on special occasions. On Sundays the church is used for religious ceremonies. There is also a souvenir shop in the building. The shop is not of cultural heritage value, but contains flammable contents such as pa-per, desks, presents etc,… The fire load in the church consists of benches, decoration and the wood of the structure of the church itself. The total floor area of the ground floor is approximately 2025 m² and the church has a total length of 100m. The main construction of the church is of masonry and the roof in the church is made of wood. The tower is 109 m high and contains around 360 stair steps. The tower has one opening to the shop downstairs, and three openings to higher platforms. There are no external staircases from the higher platforms. The building is categorised in the category D.

3.2.5 Virtual museum of modern art, (France) For this case study CSTB assumed a large building on two levels with a ground-surface of about 100x35m². It was also assumed that this building hosts a museum or (modern) art. This building also stood example for the WG 6 risk analysis method.

FiRE-TECH




Page 22/56

In this analysis a single showroom at the ground floor in the museum is considered. The size of this compartment is 20 x 10m² with a height of 7m. There are 2 doors of 1.50 width and 2m height and through the doors the showroom communicates to two large corridors. Walls, ceiling and floor are made of concrete. They are not covered by a combustible lining. A cost-efficiency study is done with the ALADIN-method. The building is categorised in the category C.

3.2.6 Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel (Germany)

TUBS-iBMB selected the library “Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel” which is situated in the old part of the town Wolfenbüttel for the case study. It is one of the most important libraries in Germany. It is the intention to compare the pre-sent situation with a few proposed alternative protection system (i.e. by improvement of ge-ometry of egress paths and/or smoke control). Therefore the IST effectiveness study was used. The total floor area of the ground floor is ap-proximately 2322 m² with 54 m length and 45 m width.

The building has 6 levels, the ground floor of the top level is at 7,7 m height. The assembly hall, the book storage rooms and stock rooms are situated around two inner court yards. The rooms are not separated by corridors. The building is divided in fire compartments by walls, openings are closed by fire door (fire resistance 30 or 90 minutes). The building has three exits and two staircases (one does not fulfil the requirements for escape). The other one is protected by walls and fire doors with 30 min-utes fire resistance. The building is categorised in the category D.

3.2.7 Casa Bianca, Thessaloniki (Greece)

AUTH selected Casa Bianca for the case study which is situated in Queen Olgas Avenue of Thessaloniki. “Casa Bianca” dominates with the eclectic style of its morphologic elements and its Art-Nouveaux form. It develops on two main storeys, with an elevated basement and an attic. It has a characteristic asymmetric ground-plan. Each storey covers an area of about 310m² . It was built between 1911 and 1913 by the Ital-ian-Greek architect Pietro Arrigoni, well-known from his numerous works in Thessaloniki. To-day, it belongs to the Municipality of Thessalo-niki and its present use is mainly an exhibition centre.

The IST-model has been used to calculate an Effectiveness Index E corresponding to different sets of fire safety measures. This approach was also used to compare the influences of each fire safety alter-natives on each of the pre-defined objectives and strategies. The building is categorised in the category D.

FiRE-TECH




Page 23/56

3.2.8 Hofburg - Redoutensäle, Vienna (Austria) UIBK selected the Hofburg which is situated in Vienna’s city center for the case study. The Hofburg Palace complex was built between the 13th and 20th century. The different wings of the former impe-rial residence portray the architectural periods of Gothic, Renaissance, and Baroque up to Classicism. Until 1918 the Hofburg Palace was the seat of the Habsburg dynasty. Today conferences can be held in the Redoutensäle, which was built as an opera house in 1705 under Emperor Joseph I.

The rooms of the Redoutensäle were restored after the fire of 1992 partly in their original design, and partly combined with contemporary art and the Redouten-säle were opened again in 1997. It was mentioned that the reason for the disaster of this catastrophic fire was the wooden roof structure. The intention of this case study was to check if this sup-position is correct, but the outcome of this case study proved that this supposi-tion turned out to be wrong. The building is categorised in the category D.

3.2.9 Gussoni Palace, Venice (Italy)

IUAV effectuated 3 case studies. The first one is the Gussoni Palace which is a typical Renais-sance Palace belonging to a noble Venetian fam-ily. The building is one of the most prestigious dwellings in Venice and it faces to the “Canal Grande”, so it contributes to compose one of the most typical and suggestive look of this city on the water. The formal palace hosts now a tribunal. It’s ground floor area is rectangular and about 750m². The building is organised with a central space and side rooms and is three storeys high but contains also intermediate level (in total 6 ev-els).

Characteristic are its masonry walls, which in the basement are covered with stone blocks on the ex-ternal face. The building has a timber structure roof with iron rods which connect the different timber beams and wooden floors with typical Venetian paving. Part of the building has timber beam ceiling and some rooms have false ceiling hanging from the beams. On the western side the palace is con-nected to other constructions; on the eastern and southern side it confines with the canal. First a risk analysis is effectuated for this building in which the choices were based on the results of fire safety engineering methods (fire development model: CFAST & and a model to calculate the evacuation & velocity time). For the effectiveness study the IST-model was used. The building is categorised in the category A.

FiRE-TECH




Page 24/56

3.2.10 Romanin Jacur silk factory, Salzano (Italy)

The second case study of IUAV is the Romanin Jacur silk factory. The building is built in 1872. Af-ter the Second World War the factory stopped its activity and the whole complex was let to local families, who had lost their houses. In 1958 the western wing was destroyed by a fire possibly caused by lightning. In 1977 the municipality bought the complex to preserve it from the de-struction caused by it being abandoned. The silk factory of Salzano is an interesting exam-ple of industrial archaeology. It has three stories interconnected with eight interior stairs and five elevators and has a C shape. It has a ground floor area of about 1440 m².

The building contains different constructive techniques. The eastern & western wings are built up with the traditional building elements (masonry walls, wooden floors and a timber structure roof). The northern wing has also masonry walls and wooden floors but its covering structure is made of concrete trusses and steel rods realised produced according to a Nervi design. The building holds a lot of different activities of the municipality; like offices, library, restaurant, shops, congress rooms, hotel. The same strategy as in the Gussoni Palace was used for the decision making process. The building is categorised in the category A.

3.2.11 St. Mary of Consolation Monastery, Este (Italy)

The third case study of IUAV is the St.-Mary of Consolation Monastery. The year that establishes the official beginning of the complex is 1504. The building was first used as a monastery. Between 1719 and 1728 the cloister reached its current configuration. The complex became a hospital and remained that until 20th century. The monas-tery is now used as a school and is linked with the new present hospital. It is a an important cultural heritage building for the townscape of Este. It has a ground floor area of about 1560 m² and consists of two stories interconnected by three in-terior stairs. The load-bearing construction con-sists of masonry walls and the stone columns.

The ceilings are made in masonry vaults (here and there cross vaults) or timber beams. The covering structures (masonry vaults and wooden floors) has a collaborating reinforced concrete ceiling. The building has a timber roof structure. The building is accessible from the side of the church, and on the western side for the fire brigade be-cause it is directly connected to the street. The same strategy as in the Gussoni Palace was used for the decision making process. The building is categorised in the category A.

FiRE-TECH




Page 25/56

3.3 Categories of buildings Every category is presented by one or more cases: Category A Category B Category C Category D

- Gussoni Palace, Venice (Italy)

- Romanin Jacur silk factory, Salzano (Italy)

- St. Mary of Consolation Monastery, Este (Italy)

Chiado – Grandella building, Lisbon (Portugal)

Virtual museum of modern art, (France)

- Hofburg - Redoutensäle, Vienna (Austria)

- Het Pand, Gent (Belgium) - Herzog August Bibliothek,

Wolfenbüttel (Germany) - Casa Bianca, Thessalo-

niki (Greece) - De Nieuwe Kerk, Delft

(The Netherlands) - Tower of London – White

tower, London (UK)

FiRE-TECH




Page 26/56

4 Analysis In this chapter, the performed case studies are analysed. The analysis is twofold:

- The method itself is evaluated (par. 4.1), and - The results of the method are analysed (par. 4.2).

4.1 Analysis of the methodology steps The methodology steps, as presented in chapter 2, are analysed in consecutive order.

4.1.1 Agree the objectives The first step is to define the policy or main goal of the analysis of a building, and to set the scope in terms of time and resources available. The choice of the objective seems straightforward, but it still is an important step to define whether the goal is to protect people, the building structure and/or the con-tents of a building. Only when this choice has been made, it is possible to judge the performance of the building for this specific goal. Such a definition of goals can be found in the case study of Gussoni Palace where the objective is stated as “minimize any damage to persons and to the building in case of fire.” Another example is the case study of De Nieuwe Kerk, where the objective is the same but additionally it is stated that “any damage to contents will be neglected here since most of the contents inside the building are of a non-moveable sort and could not be evacuated during a fire.” Due to this additional remark the analysis is focused clearly on only the building and the people inside it. The level of the analysis can be adjusted to fit the limitations in time and resources, from estimations based on rules of thumb to advanced fire safety engineering analyses, or anything in between. The analysis also has to take into account the time and money available for the reparation /renovation of the building, e.g. sprinklers may be unacceptable from the start because of financial issues.

4.1.2 Analyse the present situation Different aspects of the present fire safety level of the building can be assessed. An important start is made by stating the relevant regulations. The building can be assessed based on its performance with regard to each of the regulations. This assessment can be a very simple expert judgement of e.g. fire and smoke spread, structural stability, fire spread to other buildings, evacuation routes and accessibil-ity for the fire brigade. Additionally it is possible to enhance the reliability of the judgement by using fire safety engineering methods, such as seen in the final report of WG 6 (dd. October 2004). An example of these methods is the case study of De Nieuwe Kerk, where the smoke temperature was simulated using the Halfill programme. Another good example of this are the case studies of Gussoni Palace, S. Maria delle Consolazioni Academy of artistic craft and The silk factory of Romanin Jacur, where different scenarios for fire de-velopment and fire spread have been calculated using the CFAST computer programme, resulting in expected temperatures and smoke layer heights, and these findings have been compared to evacua-tion scenarios. In the case study of the Virtual Museum of Modern Art, advanced CFD calculations were carried out to evaluate the fire development. Other possible fire safety engineering methods include calculations of the behaviour of the building structure during fire, external fire spread models and evacuation models. On the other hand, for a first estimation or when FSE methods are out of the scope of the study, engi-neering judgement may suffice to determine the present fire safety level. Insight in the probability of the foreseen scenarios can be gained by carrying out a quantitative risk analysis. Examples of this can be found in the case study of Chiado, where an “Event Tree” method is

FiRE-TECH




Page 27/56

set up to describe the possible scenarios in the present situation and in the case study of “Het Pand” where a ranking method (Fire Risk Assessment Method for Engineering) was used.

4.1.3 Review the possible fire safety measures Based on the present situation, possible actions to improve the fire safety level can be defined. A number of possible actions have been summarised in 19 groups of measures (in the IST sheet): M1 Reaction to fire M2 Fire resistance of structure M3 Fire resistance of partitions M4 Size of fire compartments M5 Characteristics and location of openings on the facades M6 Distance between buildings M7 Geometry of egress paths M8 Access for the firemen M9 Means for fire detection M10 Means for fire suppression M11 Smoke control M12 Emergency and alarm signs M13 On site firemen M14 Fire brigade M15 Maintenance of fire safety systems M16 Education for fire safety M17 Emergency planning + training M18 Salvage operation management M19 Periodic inspection of the building Of course each building has specific features and thus the measures can vary from building to build-ing. These groups also serve as the basis for the decision making model presented in the next paragraph. In the present situation it is likely that some of the measures are already (partly) in place. Therefore, possible improvements of the fire safety can only be realised by taking new measures or improving existing ones. Of course it is often possible to limit the possible actions based on common sense; e.g. for an existing building it will usually be impossible to change the distance to other buildings even if fire spread to or from other buildings is a serious risk. To judge the effectiveness of a specific measure, it is possible to carry out a quantitative risk analysis as was shown in the previous paragraph, and extend the present situation with alternative improve-ment solutions. Another way of judging the effectiveness of a specific measure is by applying fire safety engineering techniques.

4.1.4 Optimise the possible fire safety measures The possible actions that have been defined previously, must now be weighted against each other to be able to make choices based on effectiveness and on costs. This is done using an AHP (analytical hierarchy process) model. For this purpose two computer models have been proposed in this project: the ALADIN programme by CSTB and the cost-effectiveness spreadsheet produced by IST. Both models follow the same principle. This principle is that the user specifies the influence of each of the 19 possible measures on a smaller number of objectives, then specifies the influence of each ob-jective on a smaller number of strategies, and finally specifies the influence of each strategy on the fi-nal objective “fire safety”. With these relative influence dependencies, the programme calculates the theoretically possible contribution of each measure to the overall fire safety. This enables the user to get a ranking of measures by effectiveness.

FiRE-TECH




Page 28/56

Simultaneously, the user can specify the presence of each measure in the present situation. The pos-sible effectiveness and the level of presence of each measure are then combined, and result in an overall effectiveness index for that situation3. Finally, the costs of each measure can be taken into account. Using the effectiveness and the cost of each measure, a ranking by cost effectiveness can be made, e.g. see the case studies of “Het Pand” or “De Nieuwe Kerk”. For determination of the values that are input as relative influence figures, insight is needed in the working and effectiveness of each measure. To obtain figures it is possible to rely on expert judge-ment, to use a prescribed checklist of grades4 or to use fire safety engineering techniques5. In this manner, the level of analysis can be adjusted to the time and money available.

4.1.5 Analyse the improved situation In most case studies, the study ends with the decision making model as final outcome. However it is strongly recommended that the outcome of the decision making model be compared with the deci-sions that would be made in existing practice. Even to do again the assessment via one of the assessment tools. Depending on the followed strategy one need to use checklist to verify whether the improved situation complies with the regulations or risk analysis to verify whether the risk is substantially decreased.

It is expected that when the method is applied in real cases to decide on safety measures, this feed-back will be done automatically because of the familiarity of the decision maker with existing practice.

4.1.6 Conclusions and recommendations given in the case study reports Since in most case studies, the decision making is the final step, it is implicitly assumed that the out-come of the model is the best solution. On the other hand, many authors note that it is difficult to judge whether the calculated effectiveness index is acceptable or not.

4.1.7 Conclusions Many of the authors of the case study reports have slightly varied on the approach that was proposed by WG 76. Especially the analysis of the present level of fire safety is only briefly addressed, and is usually combined with the analysis of possible fire safety actions. The calculation method for decision making has been followed quite closely by most authors. The choice of strategies, objectives and measures varies in the different reports. This is no problem as long as the list is complete for a specific situation, and no measures that could be effective are missed. It is important to summarise all possible measures in a number of measure groups. In some case stud-ies it was chosen to define 19 (groups of) measures. This seems a workable number. Less groups means easy calculation but little possibility to adjust the possible alternatives. More groups may be confusing, because if there are many measures and the relative contribution of each measure is very small, the user loses the oversight. Many authors note that after they have calculated an effectiveness index, it is difficult to judge if this value is acceptable or not. It is impossible to set a specific value as an acceptable level, because the value varies heavily with the (type of) building that is analysed. On the other hand, the calculated ef-fectiveness index enables a clear comparison of different alternatives for improvement of a building. It is always important to document the choices that are made, to create a transparent decision process.

3 see case study of IST: Chiado, Lisbon (Portugal) 4 See case study of UGent : “HET PAND”, Gent, (Belgium) 5 See case studies of IUAV: Gussoni Palace, Venice (Italy);

- Romanin Jacur silk factory, Salzano (Italy) - St. Mary of Consolation Monastery, Este (Italy)

6 For the overview of the followed methodology steps see Annex 3.

FiRE-TECH




Page 29/56

4.2 Analysis of the results In this paragraph, the results from the case studies have been compared to see if the method gives credible and consistent results. Many authors note that the calculated effectiveness index is strongly dependent on expert judgement while entering all weights and grades. This can lead to subjective interpretation and inconsistencies between different individuals filling out the weights and grades. To enhance the uniformity of how the method is used by different experts, it is recommended to use the results of WG 4, who have collected information on existing technologies, their acceptability, reliability and cost. On the other hand it appeared that even though the outcome of the method is fully dependent on the input by the user, still the ranking of measures by contribution to the overall fire safety level seems rather insensitive for changes in the weights of the measures. In one case study7 it was noted that even if the policy was either to protect only people and not the building, or the other way round only the building and not the people, this had hardly any effect on the ranking of the measures. A clear advantage of the AHP method is that it allows the user to oversee a large number of measures and to investigate the sensitivity of the overall fire safety level (represented by the effectiveness index) to specific measures. It is also easily possible to add or remove measures, so that a relevant compari-son is obtained. By adapting the choice of measures and by choosing the grades the user is enabled to optimise the choice of measures that will be taken. Often it is possible to rule out certain fire safety measures in advance, due to the characteristics of the considered building. On the other hand, in specific cases it may be desirable to add extra measures to the list that is compared in the AHP model. Especially the spreadsheet model produced by IST is flexi-ble in the number of measures that have to be considered. It is noted that for simple cases sometimes the number of optional fire safety measures is limited, and in those cases it would be possible to obtain a similar result by direct expert judgement. However even in those cases, the method provides a structured and well-documented way to make the choices. The results of the case studies show that often there are many simple measures that strongly improve the fire safety. Examples of these measures are contact with fire services, guidelines during renova-tion to avoid ignition, a limitation of unnecessary flammable items and training of personnel. An addi-tional cost effectiveness calculation, as has been added to the spreadsheet AHP-model during the project, can clearly point out which measures per spent Euro contribute most to the overall fire safety level. In general the case study results showed that the ranking of measures by contribution to the overall fire safety gives credible results. Especially the reduction of the probability of a fire starting seems an important strategy in many cases, because it will have a positive effect on any fire safety policy, whether the policy is to save people, to safeguard the building or to safeguard its contents.

7 Case study of TNO: “De Nieuwe Kerk”, Delft (The Netherlands)

FiRE-TECH




Page 30/56

5 Recommendations 5.1 Recommendations to the working groups The ALADIN programme can be used for comparison of up to six measures. If more measures need to be compared, ALADIN needs to be run a number of times and those results have to checked against each other in order to decide on the importance between all measures. Alternatively the IST model can be used for direct comparison of up to 19 measures. In principle the ALADIN programme is easier to use, but it is recommended to extend the number of measures that can be compared. In the IST model the user can add extra measures, but this requires familiarity with matrix calculation in excel. Therefore it is recommended that also the IST model has room for more measures. If superfluous, cells can be left open. It is strongly recommended to prepare guidance for users of the decision model. This could make the tools more user-friendly. This users guide should contain information on how to perform the decision making. More specifically the users guide should contain:

o Explanation of the methodology, o Definitions of what is seen under the different objectives, strategies & measures which

is based on the proposal made in the case studies of IST and TUBS-iBMB o Guidance for the selection of the weights in the AHP matrices o Guidance for the calculation of the grades of implementation of measures (as used in

the case study by UGent) The basis of the method is the choice of the weights of each parameter in relation to parameter in the level above. This choice is not easy but it has a big influence on the results. Although the quantifica-tion of risk with methods such as event tree analysis and other risk analysis methods can give an indi-cation for the selection of the weights for the decision making, it must not be ignored that expert judgement is needed for grading and weighting the various parameters. Some of the partners reported that selection of the weights (between 1 and 9) had been done by mul-tiple experts. Although these experts are familiar both with fire safety problematic and the cultural heri-tage field some of the answers for grading the objectives, strategies and measures where sometimes different. Other partners remarked that in their opinion the list of measures seems to overlap in some cases. Therefore it could be useful to receive approximate guidelines of how to give weights and refer to the work already done by WG4. In these guidelines it should be kept in mind that the choice should be adapted to each case in study and be based on the existing knowledge about the suitability, performance and reliability of the various components that play a role on a given fire safety measure class. In this task, the report of FiRE-TECH Working Group 4 is a useful tool. In the IST model, it is possible to calculate the cost-effectiveness of each measure. In this way, not only a technical optimisation of measures can be made, but also an economical optimum can be reached. In the ALADIN programme, calculation of cost-effectiveness is not available as an option. Therefore, using ALADIN this would require extensive additional calculation by the user because in virtually all cases cost-effectiveness will be an important issue. Therefore it is recommended to add the option of calculating the cost-effectiveness of measures to the ALADIN programme

FiRE-TECH




Page 31/56

5.2 Recommendations to the end-users The ALADIN programme is in fact very suitable easy in use. But it can only be used for comparing six measures. The recommendation would be not to use the ALADIN programme for more than 6 meas-ures. This is caused by the limited amount of measures that can be compared at the same time in the ALADIN programme. The determination of the most cost efficient fire safety measures and or alternative of is not incorpo-rated in the computer programme but must be done afterwards by using some formulas. More measures can be compared with ALADIN, however then the AHP will have to be run a number of times in order to decide on the importance between all measures. Also if for example there are six strategies and all measures are grouped so that only 6 measures have to be checked it is possible that the measures will very much be linked each to one strategy and then the result of the AHP does not become as useful as it would be with more measures. It can be suggested to have at least twice as many measures as strategies if a full comparison of a number of measures is necessary. However of course if only two measures are to be compared, this is not valid. The IST method is an excel-sheet and can be used to compare a larger amount of measures. Nor-mally it is designed for 19 measures. It can be adapted for the comparison of less or even more measure on the condition that one is familiar with the excel programme. It is also easy in use and the excel-sheet gives the opportunity to make not only an effectiveness study but also a cost-effectiveness study. The basis of the method lies on the choice of the weights of each parameter in relation to parameter in the level above. Although the quantification of risk with methods (event tree analysis or other risk analysis methods) should give indication for the selection of the weights expert judgement is needed to make the choice since this choice is not easy and it obviously influences the results.

FiRE-TECH




Page 32/56

6 Summary and conclusions Eleven case studies have been carried out within WG 8, based on the methodology that was put for-ward by WG 7. In each of the case studies, a close look is taken at the fire safety aspects of a cultural heritage building. A wide variety of buildings have been studied. The selection of buildings that have been analysed in-cludes historical buildings with and without historical contents as well as modern buildings with histori-cal contents, and even a group of historical buildings was studied. Some of the buildings are open to the public, others are in private ownership. The original function of the building when it was con-structed and the present use are often not the same. A wide variety of original uses (church, factory, private home, etc.) and present uses (commercial centre, museum, conference centre, etc.) are repre-sented in the cases. The methodology that was applied in the case studies consisted of four steps:

1. preliminary steps: definition of the fire safety objectives and the available time and budget. 2. survey of the present fire safety situation: which measures are present in the building? 3. survey of possible fire safety measures: which additional measures could be taken? 4. decision making: functional/technical and/or economical optimisation of the choice of meas-

ures to be taken. The optimisation is aided by computer models. The definition of the available time and budget (step 1) will be determining the thoroughness of the analyses. The decision making method (step 4) is flexible and will always produce results, but the more attention has been paid to the effectiveness of fire safety measures in the present (step 2) and future (step 3) situations, e.g. using fire safety engineering methods, the more reliable the results of step 4 will be. Many of the authors of the case study reports have slightly varied on the methodology. Especially the analysis of the present level of fire safety is only briefly addressed, and is usually combined with the analysis of possible fire safety actions. The reason for this probably is that the same method is used to evaluate the present situation as well as the possible alternatives. In principle this is no problem, be-cause double work is avoided by analysing the present situation and improvement alternatives simul-taneously, and a direct comparison of all alternatives with the present situation is obtained. The calculation method for decision making has been followed quite closely by most authors. The choice of strategies, objectives and measures varies in the different reports. This is no problem as long as the list is complete for a specific situation, and no measures that could be effective are missed. For comparing six measures, the ALADIN programme is most useful. It is user friendly but extending to more than six measures is not possible in a direct way. If more measures need to be compared, the Excel model developed by IST is the most useful. It has been programmed for 19 measures, but a skil-ful excel user can easily adjust it. A guideline for judging the calculated effectiveness index would be useful. For comparing the alterna-tive measures it is a useful figure, but in absolute terms it has little meaning. Therefore until now there is no set value of the effectiveness index that is deemed satisfactory for all cases. However it is impor-tant that the decisions are well documented by applying this method, and a transparent decision proc-ess is created. In some case studies the selection of the weights has been done by multiple experts. Although these experts are familiar both with fire safety problematic and the cultural heritage field some of the an-swers for grading the objectives, strategies and measures where sometimes different. It is noted that the calculated effectiveness index is strongly dependent on expert judgement while entering all weights and grades. This can lead to subjective interpretation and inconsistencies between different individuals filling out the weights and grades.

FiRE-TECH




Page 33/56

To enhance the uniformity of how the method is used by different experts, it is recommended to use the results of WG 4, who have collected information on existing technologies, their acceptability, reli-ability and cost. On the other hand it appeared that even though the outcome of the method is fully dependent on the input by the user, still the ranking of measures by contribution to the overall fire safety level seems rather insensitive for changes in the weights of the measures A clear advantage of the AHP method is that it allows the user to oversee a large number of measures and to investigate the sensitivity to specific measures of the overall fire safety level (represented by the effectiveness index). The results of the cases studies show that often there are many simple measures that strongly im-prove the fire safety. Examples of these measures are contact with fire services, guidelines during renovation to avoid ignition, a limitation of unnecessary flammable items and training of personnel. An additional cost effectiveness calculation, as has been added to the spreadsheet AHP-model during the project, can clearly point out which measures per spent Euro contribute most to the overall fire safety level. In general the case study results showed that the ranking of measures by contribution to the overall fire safety gives credible results. Especially the reduction of the probability of a fire starting seems an important strategy in many cases, because it will have a positive effect on any fire safety policy, whether the policy is to save people, to safeguard the building or to safeguard its contents.

WG 8 DRAFT REPORT - ANNEXES

Confidential Created by project team WG 8: Laboratory for Heat Transfer and Fuel Technology, University Ghent © - Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Building and Construction Research, Centre for Fire Research © Page

34/56

7 Annex 1: Abstracts of the Case Studies 7.1 Category A buildings

7.1.1 Gussoni Palace, Venice (Italy) Case carried out by

Instituto Universitario di Architettura Venezia, DCA Department of Architecture

Location building Venice, Italy

Original Use Dwelling Present Use Tribunal since Byzantine period (present look dates from the Renaissance) since 2000

Building specifications Category Category A: Historical buildings with no specific historical contents Construction & Accessibility

The ground floor area is about 750 m² and other three floors with approximately the same extension and other two mezza-nine floors which are 500 m2 of extension. It has 6 stories interconnected with 3 interior staircases compartmented from the adjacent parts of the building with REI doors and walls except the eastern which is open to the corridor. It has a rectan-gular shape: it is organised with a central space and side rooms. The load-bearing construction consists of masonry walls and wooden floors covered with typical Venetian paving. The roof construction is made of timber whit iron rods connecting the different timber beams. Part of the building has timber beam ceiling and some room has false ceiling. On the eastern and southern side, the building is accessible for the fire brigade because it is directly connected to the ca-nal.

Fire safety equipment

Passive measures: The structure is subdivided into seven compartments. In the whole building there is not a compartment which extension is bigger than 180 m². Also the timber-structure is protected with fire retardant materials Active measures: The provided fire detection & alarm systems are smoke and heat detectors & alarm buttons. The present fire extinguishing systems are hose reels, manual fire extinguishers and sprinklers activated by smoke.

Content: No specific content Occupancy: The building is open only during the daytime until five p.m., and a presence of about 140-170 (employers, personnel and

public) could be supposed. Methodology/ strategy followed IST-model

1. Quantitative risk analysis 1.1. Fire Safety engineering assessment

Two fire scenario where selected: - scenario 1: fire in the archive - scenario 2: fire in the office 1.2. Objectives acceptance criteria

In case of fire, the most important objective is the life safety of people and in terms of acceptance not more than 0 persons slightly injured. The objective for the property is that in case of fire the building should have the minimum damage, and overall not irreversible. This means in terms of acceptance that the probability of having irreversible damage to more than the complete area of the room in which the fire start should be less than 10%.

1.3. Risk analysis Following events were selected for the risk analysis via event tree: developing fire > fire location > time of day > fire detected > extinguished by staff > sprinkler control the fire > fire brigade control the fire. The risk of two situations was analysed via an event tree, namely in case there are no extra measures added and in case there is additional training of the personnel.

1.4. Escape velocities and time An calculation of the escape time from the an office at the first floor and from the files at the ground floor is made.

1.5. Quantification of fire development With the programme CFAST the damage to the building and people is defined in terms of the development of temperature and heat release and smoke. And this for the scenario fire in the office and fire in archive.

1.6. Assessment of damage Damage in case there are no measures added and if there is training of personnel

1.7. Risk Evaluation Control if the results meet the performance criteria

2. Decision making 2.1. Structure of decision methodology Main goal Objectives Strategies Fire Safety Measures P1- fire safety of cultural heri-tage building

O1- protection of people; O2- protec-tion of building

S1-reduce the probability of fire start; S2- facilitate fire brigade to action; S3- allow escape

M1-control of installations; M2-facilitate the accessibility; M3-free evacuation routes; M4-evacuation plan; M5-training of personnel; M6-compartmentation;M7-contact with fire services

2.2. Weighting of the influences 2.3. Classification of importance of measures for the objectives and for the main goal.

Results Classification of importance of measures O1-For the protection of people: O2-For the protection of the building

1. Control of installation 2. Free evacuation routes 3. Contact with fire services 4. Training of personnel 5. Facilitate the accessibility

1. Facilitate the accessibility 2. Free evacuation routes 3. Training of personnel 4. Evacuation plan 5. Compartmentation



35/56

For the protection of the silk factory Romanin Jacur (main goal) 1. Free evacuation routes 2. Training of personnel 3. Evacuation plan 4. Control of installation 5. Facilitate the accessibility

Conclusions - Remarks This method could be used as an instrument to help the technical decision taken in the restructuring project of one cultural heritage building. In this way an evaluation of costs/benefits could be done, as a guideline in the estimate of budget. From the development of the case studies IUAV approach at the conclusion that only considering the complete analysis, fire safety engineering + decision method ( AHP or ALADIN), we can know the fire behaviour of building and the efficiency of the fire security measures.



36/56

7.1.2 Romanin Jacur silk factory, Salzano (Italy) Case carried out by Instituto Universitario di Architettura

Venezia, DCA Department of Architecture Location building

Salzano, Italy

Original Use Factory Present Use

Commercial centre with: offices of the Municipality & Police, library, restaurant, shops, congress rooms, hotel.

since 1872 since 1977 Building specifications Category Category A: Historical buildings with no specific historical contents Construction & Accessibility

The ground floor area is about 1440 m2 . The building is C-shaped and has three stories which are interconnected with eight interior staircases and five elevators. The building is characterised with different constructive techniques. The main construction elements are of masonry and also concrete and the wooden floors are connected with collaborating concrete floors which results in a good resistance to fire (walls). The building is easily accessible for the fire brigade because it is directly linked with the street (no adjacent buildings).


Passive measures: Only 4 compartments in the building, because there are open stairs and open corridors. The bigger compartment measures about 450 m². Active measures: Different types of detection systems are available in the building (optical and acoustic beam detectors are used in the library and in the offices, smoke detectors in the restaurant and in the hotel). Alarm by manual fire alarm but-ton. The present fire extinguishing systems not adequate all over the building. There are portable manual fire extinguishers in the restaurant, in the kitchen and in the hotel but no automatic fire suppression system. The library and the offices have a automatic sprinkler system and manual fire extinguishers.

Content: No specific content Occupancy Usually the building is occupied with a different number of persons and the occupancy depends the activity and the time of

the day. A lot of these activities imply the presence of people also at night. Methodology/ strategy followed IST-model


Two fire scenario where selected: - scenario 1: fire in the kitchen of the restaurant - scenario 2: fire in a room of the hotel 1.2. Performance criteria: objectives and acceptance criteria

In case of fire, the most important objective is the life safety of people and in terms of acceptance not more than 0 persons slightly injured. The objective for the property is that in case of fire the building should have the minimum damage, and overall not irreversible. This means in terms of acceptance that the probability of having irreversible damage to more than the complete area of the kitchen for the first analyse, the room for the second case – which are the areas of the room in which the fire start - should be less than 10% in the case of fire.

1.3. Risk analysis Following events were selected for the risk analysis via event tree: developing fire > fire location > time of day > fire detected > extinguished by staff > sprinkler control the fire > fire brigade control the fire The risk of two situations was analysed via an event tree, namely in case there are no extra measures added and in case there is additional sprinklers.

1.4. Escape velocities and time An calculation of the escape time from the restaurant (ground floor) and hotel (first and second floor) is made.

1.5. Quantification of fire development With the programme CFAST the damage to the building and people is defined in terms of the development of temperature and heat release and smoke. And this for the scenario fire in the kitchen and fire in the hotel room.

1.6. Assessment of damage Damage in case there are no measures added and with sprinklers.



O1- protection of people; O2- protection of building

S1-reduce the probability of fire start; S2- facilitate fire brigade to action; S3- allow escape S4-stability to fire of the struc-ture

M1-resisting glazing; M2-fire resisting doors; M3- fire-proof protection for the rods of the concrete truss; M4-automatic fire detection; M5-smoke control; M6-sprinklers;M7-visual signals and evacuation plan; M8-periodical control of oven and gas ring; M9-training of personnel; M10-procedures for evacuation of people; M11-contact with fire services

2.2. Weighting of the influences 2.3. Classification of importance of measures for the objectives and for the main goal.

Results Classification of importance of measures O1-For the protection of people: O2-For the protection of the building

6. Periodical control of oven and gas ring 7. Contact with fire services 8. Sprinklers 9. Fire resisting glazing 10. Fire resisting doors

6. Contact with fire services suppression system 7. Sprinklers 8. Fire resisting glazing 9. Fire resisting doors 10. Automatic fire detection

For the protection of the silk factory Romanin Jacur (main goal)



37/56

1. Periodical control of oven and gas ring 2. Contact with fire services 3. Sprinklers 4. Fire resisting glazing & fire resisting doors 5. Automatic detection

Conclusions - Remarks See Gussoni Palace, Venice (Italy)



38/56

7.1.3 St. Mary of Consolation Monastery, Este (Italy) Case carried out by

Instituto Universitario di Architettura Venezia, DCA Department of Architecture

Location building Este, Italy

Original Use Monastery Present Use School (with laboratories, all sort of classrooms, meeting rooms, office rooms…)

since 18th century (Between 1719 and 1728) since 2002 Building specifications Category Category A: Historical buildings with no specific historical contents Construction & Accessibility

The ground floor area is about 1560 m2 and the first floor has approximately the same dimensions. The load-bearing con-struction consists of masonry walls and the stone columns. The ceilings are made in masonry vaults (here and there cross vaults) or timber beams. The covering structures (masonry vaults and wooden floors) has a collaborating reinforced con-crete ceiling. The building has a timber roof structure. Adjacent buildings are a church and a hospital but they are separated from the each other by REI walls. The building is ac-cessible from the side of the church, and on the western side for the fire brigade because it is directly connected to the street.


Passive measures: The structure is well subdivided into compartments (all compartments < 600 m²). There are a lot of safe exits (compartmented from the rest of the rooms), and the connections between the floors (stairs and elevators) are ade-quately protected by REI. Active measures: Throughout the whole school different types of detection systems are available (optical and acoustic beam detectors, gas detectors, automatic fire detection and alarm systems, infra-red detection and beam detection sys-tem). Alerting is to be done by manual fire alarm buttons in the corridors.

Content: No specific content Occupancy Usually the building is occupied by 150 – 180 persons and only during the daytime. Methodology/ strategy followed IST-model


Two fire scenario where selected: - scenario 1: fire in the laboratories - scenario 2: fire in the computer rooms 1.2. Objectives acceptance criteria

In case of fire, the most important objective is the life safety of people and in terms of acceptance not more than 0 persons slightly injured. The objective for the property is that in case of fire the building should have the minimum damage, and overall not irreversible. This means in terms of acceptance that the probability of having irreversible damage to more than the complete area of the laboratory for the first ana-lyse, the computer room for the second case – which are the areas of the room in which the fire start - should be less than 10% in the case of fire.

1.3. Risk analysis Following events were selected for the risk analysis via event tree: developing fire > fire location > time of day > fire detected > extinguished by staff > sprinkler control the fire > fire brigade control the fire The risk of two situations was analysed via an event tree, namely in case there are no extra measures added.

1.4. Escape velocities and time An calculation of the escape time from the laboratories (ground floor) and computer room (first floor) is made.

1.5. Quantification of fire development With the programme CFAST the damage to the building and people is defined in terms of the development of temperature and heat re-lease and smoke. And this for the scenario fire in the laboratories and fire in the computer room.

1.6. Assessment of damage Damage in case there are no measures added



O1- protection of people; O2-protection of fire-men; O3- protection of building

S1-reduce the probability of fire start; S2- limit of fire develop-ment; S3-confine fire by con-struction, S4-facilitate egress

M1-reaction of fire; M2- suppression systems; M3- fire service; M4-compartmentation; M5-structure-separating; M6-doors; M7-windows; M8-façade; M9-adjacent buildings; M10-smoke control system; M11-detection system; M12-signal systems; M13-escape routes; M14-structure load-bearing; M15-maintenance and infor-mation;M16-ventilation system; M17-emergency planning + train-ing; M18-salvage operation management

2.2. Weighting of the influences 2.3. Classification of importance of measures for the objectives and for the main goal. 2.4. Effectiveness index is calculated

Results Classification of importance of measures O1-Protection of people O2-Protection of firemen O3-Protection of building

1. reaction of fire 2. detection system 3. emergency planning + training 4. suppression systems

1. detection system 2. emergency planning + training 3. suppression systems 4. reaction of fire

1. reaction of fire 2. suppression system 3. detection system 4. compartmentation



39/56

5. signal system 5. compartmentation 6. structure- separating

5. structure separating

For the protection of the St. Mary of Consolation Monastery (main goal) 1. Reaction of fire 2. Detection system 3. Emergency planning + training 4. Suppression systems 5. Compartmentation 6. Structure-separating

Effectiveness index is 79% Conclusions - Remarks See Gussoni Palace, Venice (Italy)



40/56

7.2 Category B Buildings

7.2.1 Chiado – Grandella building Case carried out by Instituto Superior Técnico Location building Lisbon, Portugal Original Use Commercial (Grandella Stores) Present Use Department store (Grandella stores)

since First decade of the 20th Century since The rebuilding after 1988 Building specifications Category Category B: Several historical buildings (the fire propagated to 18 buildings) Construction & Accessibility

Ground area of about 1400 m2, L-shaped. The 2 wings were of different heights and the highest was 9 storeys high. The storeys were interconnected by non enclosed stairs, escalators and elevators. There were practically no partition walls. The floors were made of wood and supported by a steel structure. The ceilings and the structural steel elements had a plaster cladding. The very thick exterior walls were made of stone and masonry. The roof structure was made of steel. The façades had a large number of wide windows.


Before the fire there was no automatic detection system, no automatic suppression system, no first attack fire equipment, and no portable extinguishers. There was one night watcher who failed to detect the fire in due time. Horizontal and verti-cal fire compartmentation was totally absent. The floors were connected by unprotected wooden stairs, escalators and non enclosed elevators.

Content: The basement was used to store old furniture and clothing and to pack tableware (with straw). There were also offices and areas for the electrical installations. On the ground floor there were camping and beach articles. On the upper floors there were also storage and technical rooms and an increased fire load due to the merchandise (ware of tissues, paper, plastic, linings, wood, mattresses…).

Occupancy Staff and public (during working hours) Methodology/ strategy followed IST-model

1. In a first step a selection of the Main Goal (Policy); Objectives; Strategies & Fire Safety Measures was done and a description of what is meant under each of them was given. Following selection was made:

Main goal Objectives Strategies Fire Safety Measures Reduce fire risk

O1-Protect the oc-cupants; O2-Pro-tect the firemen; O3-Protect the building; O5-Safe-guard continuity of activity; O6-Protect the environment

S1-Reduce the probabil-ity of the fire start; S2-Limit fire development/ propagation; S3-Facilitate egress; S4-Facilitate fire fighting and rescue operations; S5-Limit effects of fire

M1-Reaction to fire; M2-Fire resistance of the structure; M3-Fire resistance of partitions; M4-Size of fire compartments; M5-Characteristics and location of the openings on the facades; M6-Distance between buildings; M7-Geometry of egress paths; M8-Access for the firemen; M9-Means for fire detection; M10-Means for fire suppression; M11-Smoke control; M12-Emergency and alarm signs; M13-On site firemen; M14-Fire Brigade; M15-Maintenance of fire safety systems; M16-Education for fire safety; M17-Emergency planning + training; M18-Salvage operation management; M19-Periodic inspection of the building

2. The second step includes the weighting of the influences: The choice of weights of each parameter in one level in relation to each parameter in the level above is made (Objectives on the main goal - the Strategies on the different Objectives - the Measures on the different Strategies). This is expressed in figures from 0 (no in-fluence) to 9 (very strong influence) and with motivation why. This figures are normalised to figures between 0 and 1 and out of that a graphical representation of this weights. 3. For 3 alternatives the grades of implementation of the fire safety measures is given. 3.1. The fire safety alternative 0 is the situation before the fire. A motivated choice of the grades of implementation of the different fire

safety measures is given in this situation. Out of that the Effectiveness Index of the original situation (before the fire) is given in relation to the main goal and to each objective.

3.2. The fire safety alternative 1 has the intention to decrease the fire risk. A proposal is given for the improvement of each class of fire safety measures where possible and feasible. The new grades of implementation according to this new situation where de-fined and motivated. Out of that the Effectiveness Index is given in relation to the main goal and to each objectives.

3.3. The fire safety alternative 2 is the same as the fire safety alternative 1 with one extra improvement, namely the installation of a full coverage automatic water sprinkler system with alarm and alert transmission to the watcher room and the fire brigade. Out of that the Effectiveness Index is given in relation to the main goal and to each objective.

4. A comparison of the 3 alternatives is made in view of the contribution of each objective to the main goal and the contribution of each fire safety measure to the main goal and the objectives.

5. In the last step, the results are compared with the results given by the Gretener Method (Swiss SIA 81 risk assessment method. Results

1. The calculated Effectiveness index of the original situation in relation to the predefined policy amounts to 0,21.

2. The calculated Effectiveness index of the alternative 1 (whit the intention to decrease the fire risk) in relation to the prede-fined policy amounts to 0,61, a substantial increase when compared to the initial value of 0,21.

3. The calculated Effectiveness index of the alternative 2 (alter-native 1 + sprinkler) in relation to the predefined policy amounts to 0,66.

4. Contribution of each fire safety measure class to the policy – comparison between the tree alternatives: (see figure)

M19 M18 M17 M16 M15 M14 M13 M12 M11 M10 M9 M8 M7 M6 M5 M4 M3 M2 M1

Conclusions This example has shown that there are often classes of fire safety measures that cannot be applied or improved. Others give only small



41/56

improvements. But the joint contribution of several of them can result in an acceptable fire risk level (see figure). The present analysis was intended as an example of a first approach aiming at giving general support to the decision makers on what measures are the most effective for each of the pre-defined fire safety objectives. On a second step, the fire safety measures to be imple-mented should be further detailed and the analysis repeated after refining the quantification of the influence weights and the grades of im-plementation of the fire safety measures. At last, some fire safety alternatives could be quantified in terms of costs. Their corresponding risk profiles and average fire risks could be calculated. Remarks The basis of the method lies on the choice of the weights of each parameter in relation to parameter in the level above. Expert judgement is needed to make the choice since this choice is not easy and it obviously influences the results. The choice should be adapted to each case in study and be based on the existing knowledge about the suitability, performance and reli-ability of the various components that play a role on a given fire safety measure class. In this task, the report of FiRE-TECH WG 4 is a useful tool.



42/56

7.3 Category C buildings

7.3.1 Virtual museum of modern art, France Case carried out by Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiments Location building Large city in France Original Use Museum & restaurant Present Use Museum & restaurant

since a few decades ago since idem Building specifications Category Category C: Buildings with no special historical mean but containing items with great artistical/historical value. Construction & Accessi-bility

It is a large building on two levels & surface on ground of about 100x35m². In this analysis a single showroom at the ground floor in the museum is considered. Sizes of this compartment are 20 x 10m² & H=7m. There are 2 doors of 1.50 width and 2m height and through the doors the showroom communicates to two large corridors. Walls, ceiling and floor are made of concrete. They are not covered by a combustible lining.

Fire safety equipment Ordinary sprinklers and detectors close to the ceiling. Content: The showrooms contain several kinds of modern art works: ancient paintings & statues, and modern artworks

some of them with important fuel load. The museum houses also a restaurant Occupancy The number of the persons present in the showroom must be <40 due to the evacuation capacity of the doors. Methodology/ strategy followed ALADIN

1. On the basis of the risk analysis, the best 6 measures form technical point of view were selected from the WG 4 list to increase the level of safety of the showroom in the museum. Following measures to achieve the objectives were considered:

Main goal Objectives Fire Safety Measures Fire safety O1-Protection of contents; O2-Pro-

tection of people; O3- Protection of building

M1-Analogue addressable fire detection system, M2-automatic sprinkler system, M3-automatic water mist system,M4-fire resistant shutters, M5-smoke detectors, M6-staff education/formation

2. 3 different experts gave weights to each parameter in relation to parameter in the level above. 3. On the basis of ALADIN the influence of the measures to the main goal fire safety was calculated and ranked. 4. In relation with the cost the best solution was proposed.

Results 3 slightly different results of the 3 experts analogue addressable

fire detection system automatic sprinkler

system automatic water

mist system fire resistant shut-

ters smoke detectors staff educa-

tion/formation Expert 1 0,34 0,34 no no 0,21 0,12 Expert 2 0,25 No 0,25 0,25 0,1 0,14 Expert 3 0,31 No 0,26 no 0,17 0,22

Defining the best solution

To high:Must be < 300 k€

Solution 1 196,15€



CSTB-Case study _ 18 06 07v2 28

Measures : acceptability, reliability, cost(cf. WG4 S. Cooper’s report)

⇒

The BESTAcceptability + reliability

Better than solution 1

Conclusions - The technical values of the 3 solutions are equivalent from the technical point of view (when systems works) - Acceptability and reliabilities are not the same - At this step cost is an influent factor

Remarks -



43/56

7.4 Category D buildings

7.4.1 Hofburg - Redoutensäle, Vienna (Austria) Case carried out by

University of Innsbruck, Institute of Steel, Timber and Mixed Constructions

Location building

Vienna, Austria

Original Use Imperial Castle Present Use Conference centre since Hofburg dated from 13th century

Redoutensäle was build as an opera house in 1705 since 1958 - reopening in 1997 after the res-

toration works due to the fire in 1992 Building specifications Category Category D: Historical buildings with specific historical contents Construction & Accessibility

L= 40m, W= 17m, H= 16m (Floor space ≈ 680m²). 1 main evacuation staircase. And several double exit doors.


Before the fire: operational alarm system, smoke detection (ionisations detectors); operational first attack fire fighting equipment and portable extinguishers, safe evacuation paths. The building had no fixed suppression system and no smoke extraction system and was not compartmented. After the fire: the existing alarm systems has been improved, better compartmentation was constructed, fire walls and structure – separating elements were provided, adjacent buildings are separated by more effective fire walls , training of the security – staff has been increased.

Content: The rooms were restored after the fire of 1992 partly in their original design partly combined with contemporary art. Fur-nished with the most modern conference equipment. The fire load was considered normally ignitable with a medium den-sity

Occupancy Theater style: 700 Pax ; Classroom style: 320 Pax ; Banquet: 400 Pax Methodology/ strategy followed IST-modelA Description of the Hofburg Fire (1992) is given with the characterization of f ire scenario, the consequence of the fire and the relevant aspects that influenced the fire.

1. In a first step the Main Goal (Policy); Objectives; Strategies & Parameters (=Measures) is given and a description of what is meant under each of them was given. Following selection was made

Main goal Objectives Strategies Fire Safety Measures Reduce fire risk

O1-Protection of the building; O2- Protec-tion of the content; O3-Protection of people

S1-Avoid ignition; S2-Improve fire sup-pression; S3-evacuation; S4- Compartmentation; S5-Stability

P1-Materials;P2-Suppression system; P3-Fire service; P4-Compartmentation; P5-Structure-separating; P6-Doors; P7-Windows; P8-Façade; P9-Attic; P10-Adjacent buildings; P11-Smoke control system; P12-Detection systems; P13-Signal sys-tem; P14-Escape routes; P15-Structure – load-bearing; P16-Maintenance and information; P17-Ventilation system; P18-Emergency planning; P19-Salvage op-eration.

2. The choice of weights of each parameter in one level in relation to each parameter in the level above is made (Objectives on the main goal - the Strategies on the different Objectives the Measures on the different Strategies)

3. The grades of implementation: the examined situation is the one before the Hofburg-fire in 1992. 4. Since after the fire is was (maybe wrongly) supposed that the fire turned out to a disaster because of the wooden roof structure.

Therefore P15- the load-bearing capacity of the structure is improved and it is checked which influence this change implicated on the effectiveness index.

Results - The effectiveness index is 0,3157 of the original situation - The effectiveness index of the improved situation (improved load-bearing capacity of the wooden structure) is 0,3402. The

achieved improvement is 2,45%. Conclusions As one can see on the results achieved the timber roof structure with one of an incombustible material seems to have neither avoided sig-nificantly the fire spread nor solved any other connected problem. If one examines and analyses which parameters have the highest weights, then P15 (Fire resistance of the structure) stands in fact on one of the first positions, but because of the calculation of the parameter grade (0.74 × load-bearing capacity + 0.26 × combustibility) the value can’t be upgraded very much. The reason for this is that the load-bearing capacity, which will not change in case of any structure, has an influence of 74% on the resulting grade, while only 26% is the weight of the combustibility. Therefore the minimum and maximum grades are 0,592 and 0,852 which doesn’t vary much on the final effectiveness index. It would be maybe better to focus on those parameters that have a high weight and that either have a low grade or have the prospect of upgrading significantly. The following table shows some examples.

parameter weights in [%] grades G w × G

P2 - Suppression system 5,02% 0,2 0,01

P4 - Compartmentation (area of fire compartment) 10,58% 0 0

P5 - Fire resistance of building elements with a separating function 9,37% 0 0

P10 - Distance to other buildings 7,90% 0 0

P12 - Detection system 4,37% 0 0 So in accordance with the values entered in the grading schemes the following measures can be recommended:



44/56

• Install a sprinkler system • Provide a better compartmentation • Provide fire walls and other structure-separating assemblies • Ensure that adjacent buildings are divided with effective fire walls • Improve the detection system by affixing detectors in every apartment

Remarks -



45/56

7.4.2 Het Pand, Gent (Belgium) – version 1 Case carried out by University Ghent, Laboratory for Heat

Transfer and Fuel Technology Location building

Ghent, Belgium

Original Use Monastery (until French Revolution) Present Use

Conference centre (with rooms for conferences, recep-tions, exhibitions, offices & restaurant). A Museum with the university archaeological & ethnographic collection and a Library with exceptional old books & manuscripts.

since 13th century since 1991 (after a renovation of 20 years) Building specifications Category Category D: Historical buildings with specific historical contents Construction & Accessibil-ity

2250 m² in a U-shape, 3 levels, very thick stone and masonry walls, wooden floors, some with tiles, slate roof on massive oak structure. No effective compartmentation because of 2 monumental stairs joining the 3 levels. The building is accessi-ble on one side only, the other sides are adjacent buildings and a river.


The city water supply is only a 3” pipe. The building is equipped with portable fire extinguishers, hose reels, a fire alarm system and fire detection in a part of the building. Notification to the fire brigade has to be done by the staff.

Content: The fire load of the content is low, except for the library (North wing) and the kitchen. This library has a wooden floor and a decorated wooden ceiling fixed to the floor of the meeting room at the upper level. In the central wing, there is a small res-taurant and a kitchen.

Occupancy Due to the capacity of the exits, the maximum (permitted) occupancy of the building is limited to 500 persons for meet-ings/conferences. The library can receive about 150 persons (2 independent exits).

Methodology/ strategy followed IST-model & ALADIN1. Decision making: technical optimisation (part 1) 1.1. Structure of decision methodology The selection of the objectives, strategies and fire safety measures was based on the masterplan. The different items of the master-plan are grouped into general measures. Main goal Objectives Strategies Fire Safety Measures P1- fire safety of cultural heri-tage building ‘Het Pand’

O1- Protect People in the building; O2-Protect building; O3- Protect content of the building

S1-Avoid ignition; S2- Improve fire suppression; S3-Evacuation; S4-Compartmentation; S5-Stability to fire of the existing structure.

M1-Reducing fire load; M2-Reduce compartment size; M3-Improve fire resisting of loading and separating structure; M4-Fire resisting doors, glazing & shutters; M5-Alarm system; M6-Smoke control; M7-Automatic fire detection; M8-Manual fire fighting installation; M9-The emergency lighting; M10-Escape route design & safety signalisation

1.2. Applying the decision method in computer programme: 1.2.1. ALADIN

In order to be able to use the computer programme ALADIN the 10 measures were grouped into 6 groups of measures > Reducing fire load, Reducing compartment size; Fire resisting materials, Alarm systems &; Detection; Manual fire fighting installa-tion; Escape route design (Emergency lighting and signalisation & smoke control system)

Weighting of the influences The choice of weights of each parameter in one level in relation to each parameter in the level above is made (Objectives on the main goal - the Strategies on the different Objectives - the Measures on the different Strategies). This is expressed in figures from 0 (no influence) to 9 (very strong influence). This figures are normalised to figures between 0 and 1.The choice of the weights is based on the judgement of 2 expert (average is taken)

1.2.2. IST-model with modification of UGent to make it suitable for the proposed objectives, strategies and fire safety measures With this model it was the intention to make a full optimisation of the proposed 10 measures. A new weighting of the influences of the 10 measures on the strategies was done and the computer programme made the

rest of the calculations in order to achieve the influence of the 10 measures on the main goal and on the 3 objectives. 2. Decision making: technical optimisation (part 2) 2.1. Structure of decision methodology The selection of the objectives, strategies and fire safety measures was based on the model first IST model: optimisation.xls. The intention of using this model was to look independent from already proposed measures what would be the best measure. Following measures where considered: M1-Reaction to fire of materials inside the building; M2- Suppression system; F3-Fire service; M4-Compartmentation; M5- Fire resistance of building element with a separating function, M6-Fire resistance of doors; M7-Fire resistance of windows + vertical distance; M8-Reaction to fire of surface ma-terials on facades; M9-Prevention of fire spread to and in attic; M10-Distance to other buildings; M11-Smoke control system; M12-Detection system; M13-Signal system; M14-Escape routes; M15-Fire resistance of the structure;M16-Maintenance of information;M17-Ventilation system; M18-Emergency planning + training; M19-Salvage operation management 2.2. The grades of implementation were calculated by using the Fire Risk Index method with modifications by UGent to make if suit-

able for the purpose. Results PART1

1. Results of using the ALADIN-programme



46/56

Figure 4: influence of the group of measures on the main goal and objectives

2. IST-model

Figure 5: influence of all the measures on the main goal and objectives

PART2: The Effectiveness index is 46% & Influence of the measures on the main goal and objectives:

Figure 6: influence of different fire safety measures



47/56

Conclusions The first optimisation done with the ALADIN programme. The measures where grouped in order to have 6 measures. The conclusion is that the reduction of compartment size and the fire resisting materials are the most important. But when using the IST-model where all 10 measures can be compared a different result is obtained (second optimisation). In a first per-ception it seems that the importance of the reduction of fire load gains in influence in comparison with the fire resisting of materials. But since 2 measures consider fire resisting (M3-Improve fire resisting of loading and separating structure; M4-Fire resisting doors, glazing & shutters) this is a false impression. The conclusion is that measures working as individual measures can be of a less importance than when considered as working together. A third optimisation had the intention to look independent from the measures of the proposed masterplan which measures give the most optimised protection. The solution is that M15-Fire resistance of the structure, M19-Salvage operation management, M4-Compartmentation; M5- Fire resistance of building element with a separating function are the most effective. Again the same measures concerning reducing compartment size and fire resisting. Those were also put forward as very important by the masterplan, in which the measures where included to comply with the regulations. Out of that it can be concluded that what the model results in the same priorities as imposed by the fire safety regulations. Remarks * The weights (between 1 and 9) that have been filled in are the results of 2 expert judgements. Although these experts are familiar both with fire safety problematic and the cultural heritage field some of the answers for grading the objectives, strategies and measures where completely different. Therefore it could be useful to receive approximate guidelines of how to fill in the grades and refer to the work already done by WG4. To make the IST excel sheet suitable for the method it requires quite extensive changing in the formulas when adding extra objectives and strategies. This is not evident since you need to have a notice of matrix-calculation. Also the file is not self-explaining. * The ALADIN programme is in fact most suitable, easy in use. You don’t need to change. But it can only be used for comparing six meas-ures. However more measures can be compared, however then the AHP will have to be run a number of times and those results have to normalized against each other in order to decide on the importance between all measures. If this excel sheet could be made larger from the beginning this would minimise the work for the user. The boxes that are not appropriate for the case can than be left open.

7.4.3 Het Pand, Gent (Belgium) – version 2 Methodology/ strategy followed IST-model updated with TNO cost-effectiveness model

1. Decision making: technical optimisation (part 1) 1.1. Structure of decision methodology The structure was based on the updated version of the effectiveness index method of IST. The objectives and strategies are the same, but the measures followed literally the priorities of the masterplan. M1 is what is first planned, M2 second … Main goal Objectives Strategies Fire Safety Measures P1- fire safety of cultural heri-tage building ‘Het Pand’

O1-Protect the occupants; O2-Pro-tect the fire-men; O3-Protect the building; O5-Safe-guard conti-nuity of activity; O6-Protect the environment

S1-Reduce the probability of the fire start; S2-Limit fire development/ propa-gation; S3-Facilitate egress; S4-Facilitate fire fighting and rescue opera-tions; S5-Limit effects of fire

M1-Alarm & Fire detection; M2-Replacement of the lighting fittings in the ‘dormito-rium’-corridor; M3-Adjustment of the kitchen; M4-New location house keepers apartment; M5-Evacuations stairs north wings; M6-Adjustment fire place ground level north wing; M7-Storage rooms ground level; M8-Compartmentation of the staircases.; M9-Adjustment doors; M10-Fire resisting separation between compart-ments; M11-Compartmentation of the lift shafts; M12-Better prevention of fire spread via the facades; M13-Safety lighting in the evacuation routes; M14-Signalisation; M15-Adjustment of fire extinguishing installation; M16-Treatment of the tension rods with fire resisting/retarding paint; M17-Protection of the load-bearing wooden floor construction.

1.2. Applying the decision method in computer programme: 1.2.1. ALADIN

(see foregoing version) 1.2.2. updated IST-model with modification of UGent to make it suitable for the proposed objectives, strategies and fire safety

measures A weighting of the influences of the 17 measures on the strategies and a motivation for the chosen weights was given. With

this technical optimisation a new priority/classification for the measures was proposed. The grades of implementation of the current situation are defined. The grades of implementation of the improved situation (when the current situation of fire safety measures is improved as

proposed) are defined

2. Cost-Effectiveness study 2.1. The cost of the implementation is defined. This is the budgeted cost for the improvement of the fire safety measures. 2.2. The optimum EI dependent in available budget set out in a graph 2.3. EI dependent on available budget without cost effectiveness assessment is also put in a graph

Results 1. Technical optimisation & financial: new classification of priorities ranking for influence G=1

(ideal situation) ranking for

increase in G ranking for cost effectiveness

measure

7 7 9 M1-Alarm & fire detection 12 11 1 M2-Replacement of the lighting fittings in the "Dormitorium"-corridor 1 2 12 M3-Adjustment kitchen

16 17 17 M4-New location house keepers apartment 10 3 3 M5-Evacuation stairs North wing 2 6 10 M6-Adjustment fire place ground level North wing 5 1 11 M7-Storage rooms ground level North wing



48/56

4 8 15 M8-Compartimentation of the staircases 14 14 16 M9-Adjustment doors 6 10 14 M10-Fire resisting separation between compartments

11 4 5 M11-Compartmentation of the lift shafts 9 13 8 M12-Better prevention of fire spread via the facades

13 12 7 M13-Safety lighting in the evacuation routes 15 16 6 M14-Signalisation 3 9 13 M15-Adjustment of fire extinguishing installation

17 15 4 M16-Treatment of the tension rods with fire resisting/retarding paint 8 5 2 M17-Protection of the load bearing wooden floor constructions

2. Financial optimisation

Figure 7: EI dependent on available budget without cost effectiveness assessment

Figure 8: Optimum EI dependent in available budget

Conclusions First column gives the priority in the ideal situation, when the measures are fully implanted. In view of the foreseen improvement of the measures the yellow column gives the priorities. This ranking can be followed when the cost doesn’t matters. But when the cost is a determining factor the pink column gives the priorities. But the figure 15 shows that when prioritis-ing following the yellow column the cost is not optimised. What appeared to be the best measure is also very expensive. When prioritising following the pink column You can achieve the 50% of the possible improvement protection of effect with only 700k€ This can be achieved with the following measures:

1. M2-Replacement of the lighting fittings in the "Dormito-rium"-corridor

2. M17-Protection of the loadbearing wooden floorcon-structions

3. M5-Evacuation stairs North wing 4. M16-Treatment of the tension rods with fire resist-

ing/retarding paint 5. M11-Compartmentation of the lift shafts

6. M14-Signalisation 7. M13-Safety lighting in the evacuation routes 8. M12-Better prevention of fire spread via the fa-

cades 9. M1-Alarm & fire detection 10. M6-Adjustment fire place ground level North wing

For the other 50% of the possible improvement of the protection >3000k€ is needed. Remarks -



49/56

7.4.4 Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel (Germany) Case carried out by

Braunschweig University of Technology, Institut fuer Baustoffe, Massivbau und Brandschutz

Location building

Wolfenbüttel, Germany

Original Use Library Present Use Library & museum & offices, the entrance hall & connected main hall are used as assembly hall for events

since 1884-1887 since 1968 date of last renovation Building specifications Category Category D: Historical buildings with specific historical contents Construction & Accessibility

Construction of thick stone and masonry walls, massive floors and ceilings with special construction (“Kappen” end plate). The total floor area of the ground floor is approximately 2322 m2 with 54 m length and 45 m width. The building has 6 lev-els, the ground of the top level is in 7,7 m height. The assembly hall, the book magazines and stock rooms are situated around two inner court yards. Rooms are not sepa-rated by corridors. The building is divided in fire compartments by walls, openings are closed by fire door (fire resistance 30 or 90 minutes). The building has three exits and two staircases (one does not fulfil the requirements for escape). The other one is protected by walls and fire doors with 30 minutes fire resistance. Rooms are connected directly to each other, no corridors are in the building.


Passive measures: The building is divided in fire compartments by walls & fire door (fire resistance 30 or 90 minutes). Active measures: No fire mains for water but inside portable extinguisher (because of content). Smoke detectors are in each level and room. The building has an emergency power supply for emergency lights. Management: A manual for a fire safety management is in practice including an emergency plan, training of staff and sal-vage operation management. No on site fireman but the staff is trained fighting local fires. A maintenance contract for controlling fire safety systems is in use and there is a periodic inspection of the building.

Content: Basically books, which are stocked in the assembly hall, in magazines and stock rooms, which are all situated around two inner court yards. The fire load is high and exist from books and wooden bookshelf.

Occupancy: The maximum occupancy of the building is 200 persons (staff and visitors) and in the main hall 250 persons will be in maximum for special meetings.

Methodology/ strategy followed IST-model1. In a first step a selection of the Main Goal (Policy); Objectives; Strategies & Fire Safety Measures was done and a description of

what is meant under each of them was given. Following selection was made: Main goal Objectives Strategies Fire Safety Measures Reduce fire risk

O1-Protect the oc-cupants; O2-Pro-tect the firemen; O3-Protect the building; O4- protection of the content O5-Safe-guard continu-ity of activity; O6-Protect the envi-ronment

S1-Reduce the probabil-ity of the fire start; S2-Limit fire development/ propagation; S3-Facilitate egress; S4-Facilitate fire fighting and rescue operations; S5-Limit effects of fire

M1-Reaction to fire; M2-Fire resistance of the structure; M3-Fire resistance of partitions; M4-Size of fire compartments; M5-Characteristics and location of the openings on the facades; M6-Distance between buildings; M7-Geometry of egress paths; M8-Access for the firemen; M9-Means for fire detection; M10-Means for fire suppression; M11-Smoke control; M12-Emergency and alarm signs; M13-On site firemen; M14-Fire Brigade; M15-Maintenance of fire safety systems; M16-Education for fire safety; M17-Emergency planning + training; M18-Salvage operation management; M19-Periodic inspection of the building

2. The second step includes the weighting of the influences: The choice of weights of each parameter in one level in relation to each parameter in the level above is made (Objectives on the main goal - the Strategies on the different Objectives - the Measures on the different Strategies). This is expressed in figures from 0 (no in-fluence) to 9 (very strong influence). This figures are normalised to figures between 0 and 1 and out of that a graphical representation of this weights. 3. The grades of implementation of the fire safety measures is given for the present situation and 3 alternatives. The first proposal

to decrease the fire risk (alternative 1) is to protect the staircase. This extra measure includes a increased grade of implementa-tion of “M7-geometry of egress paths” and out of that the new effectiveness index is calculated. The second proposal to de-crease the fire risk (alternative 2) is a mechanical smoke vent system. This extra measure includes a increased grade of imple-mentation of “M11-smoke control” and out of that the new effectiveness index is calculated. The last alternative is the alternative 1 & 2 together which gives also an new effectives index.

4. A comparison of the 3 alternatives is made in view of the contribution of each objective to the main goal and the contribution of each fire safety measure to the main goal and the objectives.

Results 1. The calculated Effectiveness index of the original situation in relation to the predefined policy amounts to 0,58, alternative 1

amounts also to 0,58; alternative amounts to 0,62 and alternative 1 & 2 together amount to 0,62. 2. The five most important fire safety measures classes:

O1-Protect the occupants

O2-Protect the firemen

O3-Protect the building

O4- protection of the content

O5-Safe-guard continuity of activity

O6-Protect the environment

1 M16-Education for fire safety

M9-Means for fire detection

M16-Education for fire safety




2 M9-Means for fire detection

M17-Emergency planning + training





3 M17-Emergency planning + training








50/56

4 M3-Fire resistance of partitions

M15-Maintenance of fire safety systems



M3-Fire resistance of partitions

M15-Maintenance of fire safety sys-

tems 5 M11-Smoke control M11-Smoke control M11-Smoke control M11-Smoke control M11-Smoke control M3-Fire resistance

of partitions Conclusions As this example has shown, there are often classes of fire safety measures that cannot be applied or improved. Others give only small im-provements. But the joint contribution of several of them can result in an acceptable fire risk level. The contribution of each component has to be evaluated and taken into account. The fire safety level is the result of the summation of these partial contributions. The present analysis is seen as an example of a first approach giving general support to the decision makers what is the status of safety of the building and which measures are the most effective for each of the pre-defined fire safety objectives. The owner/user of the building can discuss at last fire safety alternatives quantified in terms of costs. As conclusion the library has with an Effectiveness Index E of 0,58 a high safety level. Only an improvement of an mechanical smoke vent system will enlarge the safety level, because general structural changes in the building are out of discussion. Remarks The Effectiveness Index.xls sheet is a useful tool calculating the weights of different measures against objectives and strategies. The list of parameters seems to overlap in some cases, therefore it could be useful having guidelines how to fill in the scores and grades. Work of WG 4 should be included. It should be discussed make the excel sheet larger, because the end user is not able to make changes in the formulas. Further on the end user needs information what an acceptable Effectiveness Index value is.



51/56

7.4.5 Casa Bianca, Thessaloniki (Greece) Case carried out by Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Location building Thessaloniki, Greece Original Use Dwelling Present Use Offices, museum (exhibition cen-

tre) since 1911-1913 since 2000

Building specifications Category Category D: Historical buildings with specific historical contents Construction & Accessibility

“Casa Bianca” is built in Art-Nouveaux style, has two main storeys, with a characteristic asymmetric ground-plan. Each storey covers an area of about 310m² . The communication with the other floors is realized by two internal staircases. Openings with wooden frame and large glazing are among the main characteristics of the building. It is built of riddled masonry walls (wide 38cm & 85cm). The floors are wooden, with the exception of hallways, kitchens and bathrooms which are covered by mosaic. The floorings of the basement and attic are also mosaic. The roof is wooden covered by ceramic tiles. The building is could accessible from all sides.


No passive measures for the prevention of fire spread (no compartmentation) since the Greek legislation does not re-quires any for that kind of buildings. Detection and alarm system are provided but need an upgrade, the same goes for fire suppression systems. Fire safety management (training of staff, fire drills, emergency planning…) is not provided.

Content: Artefacts depending on the kind of exhibition Occupancy 20-200 persons Methodology/ strategy followed IST-model

1. First step is the determine the Fire Safety/Protection Policy (main goal), the Fire Safety/Protection Objectives and the Fire Safety/Protection Strategies was made.

Main goal Objectives Strategies Fire Safety Measures Fire safety of Casa Bianca.

O1-Protection of the people; O2-Protection of the building fabric; O3-Protection of the cultural contents; O4-Protection of the envi-ronment

S1-Restriction and control of igni-tion sources; S2-Limitation of fire spread inside the compartment; S3-Limitaion of fire spread out-side the compartment; S4-Facilitate fire escape; S5-Facilitate fire fighting and rescue operations

M1-Compartmention; M2- Fire resistance of structural elements; M3-Contol of fire load; M4-Materials (reaction to fire); M5-Control of fire spread outside the building; M6 Design of means of es-cape; M7-Signs and safety lighting.; M8-Access of the Fire Bri-gade; M9-Detection and alarm; M10-Suppression and extinguish-ing; M11-Smoke control systems; M12-Training of the personnel; M13-Fire drills-emergency planning; M14-Management of fire safety; M15-Maintenance of fire safety; M16-Salvage operation

2. The second step is the determination of the effect that each of the items listed (above) at one level has on the items in the level immediately above. This is expressed in figures from 0 (no influence) to 4 (very high) and than normalised to a figure between 0 and 1. The measures are pre strategy classified from most important measures > important measures > no influence.

3. The third step is the determination of the degree of implementation. All measures are implemented to a certain extent and out of that an Effectiveness index can be calculated.

4. A fire safety alternative - in which as many measures as possible are improved - is proposed to reduce the risk. Out of that a new effectiveness index is calculated.

5. A comparison of the present situation and the alternative is made in view of the contribution of each objective to the main goal and the contribution of each fire safety measure to the main goal and the objectives.

Results 1. The calculated Effectiveness index of the original situation in relation to the predefined policy amounts to 0,49; the alternative fire

prevention amounts to 0,76. 2. The five most important fire safety measures classes:

O1-Protection of the people O2-Protection of the building fabric

O3-Protection of the cultural con-tents

O4-Protection of the environ-ment

1 M3-Contol of fire load M3-Contol of fire load M10-Suppression and extin-guishing

M5-Control of fire spread outside the building

2 M10-Suppression and extin-guishing

M10-Suppression and extin-guishing

M9-Detection and alarm M3-Contol of fire load

3 M9-Detection and alarm M5-Control of fire spread outside the building

M3-Contol of fire load M8-Access of the Fire Brigade

4 M4-Materials (reaction to fire) M9-Detection and alarm M4-Materials (reaction to fire) M1-Compartmention 5 M1-Compartmention M8-Access of the Fire Brigade M1-Compartmention M10-Suppression and extin-

guishing Conclusions It looks from the above analysis that the three most important measures for this building seems to be the control of fire load, the means of fire suppression and the detection and alarm systems (M3, M10, M9). Also important are the measures M5 (protection of spread of fire outside the building), M8 (effective access of the Fire Brigade), M4 (control of combustible materials), M1 (compartmentation). Remarks Although the quantification of risk with methods like that which we have used in this case study is always a useful tool for the decision making and facilitates the fire design, it must not be ignored that the important role to this procedure has the grading and weighting of the various fire parameters. This role is played always by the fire expert or the group of experts especially for complex cases. In more simple buildings like the case study of Casa Bianca, perhaps an expert judgement could have the same results.



52/56

7.4.6 De Nieuwe Kerk, Delft (The Netherlands) Case carried out by

Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Building and Construction Research, Centre for Fire

Location build-ing

Delft, The Netherlands

Original Use It is one of the most important churches in the Netherlands and it contains the tomb of the Dutch Royal family.

Present Use IDEM as original use

since (…) since Building specifications Category Category A: Historical buildings with no historical contents Construction & Accessibility

The total floor area of the ground floor is approximately 2025 m². The total length of the church is 100m and it also has an over 100m high tower. On the ground floor two rooms are assumed, one 5 * 5 m large shop and the main church that is 80 * 25 m. The main construction of the church is made of masonry and the roof in the church is made of wood. The tower is 109 m high (around 2m wide) and contains around 360 stair steps. The tower has one opening to the shop downstairs, and three openings to higher platforms. There are no external staircases from the higher platforms. The church is not the owner of the tower but it belongs to the local government.


Sprinklers are situated under the roof in the church (to be opened manually by the fire services and vary in age from 70 years old to new). There is no detection available in the church, except through the sprinklers inside the roof that will de-tect the fire when a sprinkler head will be activated (but the activation temperature is only reached after twenty minutes of the fire). No detection or sprinklers are available in the shop. During the day it is assumed that a fire will be noticed by staff. There is a burglary alarm in the shop. There is a CCTV (closed circuit television system, a surveillance camera) in the first part of the staircase, however there are no installations to communicate with people in the tower. It is not allowed to smoke in the church or in the tower.

Content: In the shop the flammable contents are paper, desks, presents etc. The shop is not of cultural heritage value. The fire load in the church consists of benches etc. and the wood of the structure of the church itself.

Occupancy The church and the tower are open to the public during daytime all days except Sundays or on special occasions. On Sundays the church is used for mass.

Methodology/ strategy followed IST-model & ALADIN1. Decision making: technical optimisation 1.1. Structure of decision methodology Main goal Objectives Strategies Fire Safety Measures P1- fire safety of cultural heritage building

O1- Protect Building; O2- Protect People in the building

S1-Avoid ignition; S2- Limit fire spread inside compartment; S3-Limit fire spread outside compartment; S4-Allow escape; S5-Allow fire service to act.

M1-Sprinkles; M2-First-aid fire fighting equipment; M3-Automatic fire detection; M4-Alarm systems; M5-Visual signals and evacuation plans; M6-Smoke control; M7-Fire resistant glazing; M8-Inert insulation materials; M9-Intumescent materials; M10-CCTV; M11-Training of personnel; M12-Procedures for evacuation of people; M13-Fire guards during large events; M14-Guides accompanying visitors to tower; M15-Control of installa-tions;M16-Guidelines during renovation; M17-Burglary alarm; M18-Limit unnecessary flammable items; M19-Contact with fire services.

1.2. Weighting of the influences: The choice of weights of each parameter in one level in relation to each parameter in the level above is made (Objectives on the main goal - the Strategies on the different Objectives - the Measures on the different Strategies). This is expressed in figures from 0 (no in-fluence) to 9 (very strong influence) and for some of them the motivation is given. This figures are normalised to figures between 0 and 1 and out of that a graphical representation of this weights. 1.3. Applying the decision method in computer programme: IST-xls-sheet with modifications TNO (to be in accordance with the objec-

tives/strategies and parameters/measures) In the first trial the protection of the persons and building are equally important and via the model there was calculated what the most important strategies and measures are for obtaining the overall goal and a classification. From these results a classification of impor-tance of measures is obtained. In the second trial it is assumed that the top goal is protection of people and also for this top goal a classification of measures is made. In the third trial it is assumed that the top goal is protection of building and also for this top goal a classification of measures is made. 1.4. Applying the decision method in computer programme: ALADIN A first trial was made not grouping the measures in any logical way but following the list of measures above. Only six measures could be checked at a time. 2. Cost-Effectiveness study 2.1. The grades of implementation of the current situation are defined. 2.2. The grades of implementation of the improved situation are defined 2.3. The cost of the implementation is defined 2.4. The optimum EI dependent in available budget set out in a graph 2.5. EI dependent on available budget without cost effectiveness assessment is also put in a graph

Results 1. Classification of measures in view of the technical optimisation The protection of building = the protec-

tion of persons Top goal is the protection of persons Top goal is the protection of building

1 M19-Contact with fire services M19-Contact with fire services M19-Contact with fire services 2 M1-Sprinkles M1-Sprinkles M1-Sprinkles 3 M16-Guidelines during renovation M16-Guidelines during renovation M16-Guidelines during renovation 4 M18-Limit unnecessary flammable items M11-Training of personnel M18-Limit unnecessary flammable items 5 M11-Training of personnel M18-Limit unnecessary flammable items M11-Training of personnel 6 M6-Smoke control M6-Smoke control M6-Smoke control 7 M15-Control of installations M3-Automatic fire detection M15-Control of installations



53/56

8 M3-Automatic fire detection M15-Control of installations M8-Inert insulation materials 9 M13-Fire guards during large events M13-Fire guards during large events M3-Automatic fire detection 10 M2-First-aid fire fighting equipment M14-Guides accompanying visitors to tower M2-First-aid fire fighting equipment 11 M14-Guides accompanying visitors to tower M2-First-aid fire fighting equipment M9-Intumescent materials 12 M8-Inert insulation materials M12-Procedures for evacuation of people M13-Fire guards during large events 13 M9-Intumescent materials M8-Inert insulation materials M7-Fire resistant glazing 14 M7-Fire resistant glazing M4-Alarm systems M14-Guides accompanying visitors to tower 15 M17-Burglary alarm M9-Intumescent materials M17-Burglary alarm 16 M10-CCTV M10-CCTV M10-CCTV 17 M12-Procedures for evacuation of people M17-Burglary alarm M12-Procedures for evacuation of people 18 M4-Alarm systems M7-Fire resistant glazing M4-Alarm systems 19 M5-Visual signals and evacuation plans M5-Visual signals and evacuation plans M5-Visual signals and evacuation plans 2. Cost –effectiveness study

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

costs (kEUR)

Effe

ctiv

enes

s In

dex

none

P13

P13 + P15P13 + P15 + P2

P13 + P15 + P2 + P3

P13 + P15 + P2 + P3 + P5

… + P4 … + P14

… + P8… + P9 … + P10

… + P1

Figure 9: optimum EI dependent in available budget

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

costs (kEUR)

Effe

ctiv

enes

s In

dex

Figure 10:EI dependent on available budget without cost effectiveness assessment

Conclusions Technical optimisation: The measures that are considered important for the safety of people come last on the list. In a real analysis there-fore it could be appropriate to split up the decision model in 3 parts, one identifying measures that are important for the building, one iden-tifying measures that are important for the people in the building and one combined decision model. This can be done very easily by changing the value of the objectives on the top goal. However when this was done for the Nieuwe Kerk the results showed that the top 6 measures stayed the same, even though the order of two measures was reversed in one case. Technical and financial optimisation: A close comparison of figures 8 & 9 shows that there are substantial benefits to be gained by a cost effectiveness assessment. If the aim is an EI of 0,8 the required investment can be lowered from 300 kEuro to 200 kEuro. If the aim is an EI of 0,85 the amount goes down from 575 kEuro to 425 kEuro. Remarks The recommendation would be not to use the ALADIN programme for more than 6 measures. This is caused by the limited amount of measures that can be compared at the same time in the ALADIN programme. More measures can be compared with ALADIN, however then the AHP will have to be run a number of times in order to decide on the importance between all measures. Also if for example we have six strategies and all measures are grouped so that only 6 measures have to be checked it is possible that we will have measures very much linked each to one strategy and then the result of the AHP does not become as useful as it would be with more measures. It can be suggested to have at least twice as many measures as strategies if a full comparison of a number of measures is necessary. However of course if only two measures are to be compared, this is not valid. The IST excel sheet requires quite extensive changing in the formulas when adding extra objectives and strategies. If this excel sheet could be made larger from the beginning this would minimise the work for the user. This has also been suggested by IST. The weights that have been filled in have been filled in using engineering judgement stating the motivation behind this at a number of ar-eas. It could be useful to receive approximate guidelines of how to fill in the grades and refer to the work already done by WG4. The added value of this approach with regards to the risk analysis is twofold. First of all in a risk analysis to compare a large number of measures such as has been done here will be very time consuming, in the AHP checking an extra measure is very easy. Second of all, in the risk analysis approach we did not take into account the probability of a fire starting because of limited statistical information, but it was shown in the AHP that these measures are equally or more important that mitigating measures.



54/56

7.4.7 Tower of London – White tower, London (UK) Case carried out by Warrington Fire Research Centre Limited Location building London, UK Original Use Castle Present Use Museum since 1066-1100 since After second world war Building specifications Category Category D: Historical buildings with specific historical contents Construc-tion & Ac-cessibility

Major material is Caen stone. Ogee roofs on turrets are later additions, as are most of the windows. It is ninety feet high and has masonry walls that vary in thickness from 15 feet at the base to 11 feet in the upper parts. Four turrets rise above the battlements; three of them being square with the north-eastern turret being circular. The original single entrance to the tower was on the south side and was reached by an external stone staircase; there being no doors at ground level. The walls at the upper floors had been provided with narrow slits positioned in wide splays. These provided a safe means of allowing archers to defend the tower. In the late 17th century, these slits were replaced with windows by Sir Chris-topher Wren and only four pairs of the narrow slits remain.

Fire safety equip-ment

Active measures: automatic fire detection and suppression, portable fire extinguishers, smoke control system, CCTV systems. Passive measures: fire resisting materials (glass, boards), intumescent coatings, escape capacity, access/facilities for fire ser-vices, compartmentation, fire action notices/signs Management: fire wardens/staff, staff awareness and training, control of materials/finishes, control of ignition sources, man-agement of contractors, contingency planning, routine inspection of systems

Content: Royal Armoury, which holds 40 000 artefacts from armours to iron maidens. Crown Jewels, including The Star of Africa, which at 530 carats is the largest diamond in the world

Occu-pancy

Access is controlled and there is a number of trained staff available throughout the whole of the area at all times that the pub-lic are present. The Tower of London has a professional fire safety manager and the standard of fire safety and fire protection throughout the estate is of a very high standard.

Methodology/ strategy followed IST-model1. First step is the determine the Fire Safety/Protection Policy (main goal), the Fire Safety/Protection Objectives and the Fire

Safety/Protection Strategies was made. Main goal Objectives Strategies Fire Safety Measures Fire safety of persons in the build-ing and the protection of cultural heritage.

O1-Protect the building fabric; O2-Protect the artefacts; O3-Protect the visitors; O4-Mission continuity (the ability of the building to continue to function as a museum; O5-Environmental protection; O6-Protection of fire crews.

S1-Avoid/prevent ignition; S2-Limit fire development; S3-Enable escape; S4-Limit spread of fire development; S5-Facilitate fire service op-erations.

M1-Automatic fire detection; M2- Automatic fire suppression; M3-Portable fire extinguishers; M4-Smoke control systems; M5-Fire resistant glazing; M6 Fire resistant boards; M7-CCTV sys-tems.; M8-Fire wardens/staff; M9-Staff awareness and training; M10-Control of materials/finishes.; M11-Access/facilities for fire service; M12-Contingency planning; M13-Compartmentation; M14-Management of contractors; M15-Fire action notices/signs; M16-Routine inspection of systems; M17-Escape capacity; M18-Control of ignition sources; M19-Intumescent coatings

2. The second step is the determination of the effect that each of the items listed (above) at one level has on the items in the level immediately above. This is expressed in figures from 0 (no influence) to 9 (very strong influence) and than normalised to a figure between 0 and 1.

3. The third step is the determination of the degree of implementation. Here is not only to the original specification of the system considered but also to the degree of coverage, evidence of routine maintenance and testing etc. The values used in this case study are intended to be representative only and should not be construed as an accurate reflection of the current state of the fire safety measures in the White Tower.

Results This case study showed that following fire safety meas-ures seems to be the most effective for the White Tower:

- M18 Control of ignition sources - M10 Control over materials/finishes - M9 Staff awareness and training - M14 Management of contractors - M8 Fire wardens/staff - M11 Access/facilities for fire service - M1-Automatic fire detection - M6 Fire resistant boards

This case study has arrived at an Effectiveness Index of 0.69 for the White Tower.

Conclusions The method optimisation models developed by WG 7 are a means by which the effects of different fire safety and fire protection measures and systems can be evaluated against stated fire safety objectives and policies. The model used in this case study is based on a simple spreadsheet and is straightforward to use. The inputs required from the user in-clude a subjective analysis of the effects of the measures on the stated strategies, the strategies of the objectives and the objectives on the fire safety policy. This hierarchical process allows the effects of the lower level measures on the overall policy to be assessed.



55/56

This case study has arrived at an Effectiveness Index of 0.69 for the White Tower. This is not to be regarded as a definitive outcome but rather as an indicative assessment of the fire safety regime at the time of the assessment. The most effective fire safety and protection strategy has been shown in the histograms to be, not surprisingly, to prevent ignition and to limit fire development. It is clear from the histograms that control of ignition sources, control over materials and finishes and staff awareness are the most influen-tial fire safety and protection measures that can be applied. These are closely matched in their effectiveness by control of contractors. Each of these measures are relatively low-cost options and have been demonstrated to be effective ways in which fires can be prevented, or at least limited in their development. Remarks The determination of the effect that each of the items listed (above) at one level has on the items in the level immediately above is the most subjective part of the method and care is needed to ensure that the exercise remains worthwhile. In some circumstances, it may be necessary to obtain expert guidance when determining the appropriate weights.

8 Annex 2: Complete case studies See compilation CD-ROM of WG 8


Confidential Created by project team WG 8: Laboratory for Heat Transfer and Fuel Technology, University Ghent © - Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, Building and Construction Research, Centre for Fire Research ©

Page 56/56

9 Annex 3 Overview of the followed methodology steps in the different case studies

STEP 2: ANALYSE THE PRESENT

SITUATION

STEP 4: OPTIMISE THE POSSIBLE FIRE SAFETY

MEASURES Data collection Assessment tools Effectiveness

study Cost/

effectiveness study

STEP 5: ANALYSE

THE IMPROVED SITUATION

STEP 1: AGREE THE OBJECTIVES

Reg

ulat

ions

Cas

uist

ry

Bui

ldin

g in

form

atio

n

Fire

Saf

ety

mea

sure

s

Che

ck c

ompl

ianc

e w

ith

regu

latio

ns

Ris

k A

naly

sis

Fire

pre

dict

ive

mod

ellin

g

STEP 3: REVIEW

THE POSSIBLE

FIRE SAFETY MEASURES

ALA

DIN

IST

EFF

EC

TIV

EN

ES

S

SH

EE

T

ALA

DIN

+ C

OS

T E

FFE

CTI

NE

SS

RA

TIO

IST

CO

ST/

E

FFE

CTI

VE

NE

SS

SH

EE

T

Che

ck w

ith e

xist

ing

prac

-tic

es

Che

ck th

e co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith

regu

latio

ns

Che

ck w

ith ri

sk a

naly

sis

STEP 6: CON-

CLUSIONS

Het Pand, Gent (B) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Tower of London – White tower, London (UK) Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y N N N N N Y Chiado – Grandella building, Lisbon (P) Y N N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y De Nieuwe Kerk, Delft (NL) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Virtual museum of modern art, (FR) Y N N Y N N Y N Y Y N Y N N N Y N Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel (GER) Y N N Y Y N N N Y N Y N N N N N Y Casa Bianca, Thessaloniki (GR) Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y N N N N N Y Hofburg - Redoutensäle, Vienna (AU) Y N Y Y N N N N Y N Y N N N N N Y Gussoni Palace, Venice (I) Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y N Romanin Jacur silk factory, Salzano (I) Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y N St. Mary of Consolation Monastery, Este (I) Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y N

Documents

FiRE-TECH/WG8finrep02 15/04/2005 FiRE-TECH · This report is the final report of Fire-Tech Working Group 8 (WG 8). In WG 8, eleven case studies have been performed, based on the methodology