Statue of Liberty: A Risk Analysis - JENSEN HUGHES · o Crown access safer by modifying helical stair. o Passive fire protection, smoke control, ... Statue of Liberty construction

Statue of Liberty: A Risk AnalysisStatue of Liberty • New York , USA

The National Park Service (NPS) contracted a performance-based life-safety and emergency management assessment of the Statue of Liberty

Key questions:o Can you satisfy code requirements with

respect to the Crown? o Physical changes required to bring the

facility into code compliance?o How can the NPS minimize the life and

safety risks?o How many people could be safely

accommodated?o What operational procedures would need

to be in place?

www.jensenhughes.com

0P

2P3P

6P

Exits

Museum

NFPA 101, Life Safety Code (2006) ICC, International Building Code (2006) 2008 New York City Building Code

New & Existing Construction

New Construction New Construction


Pedestal Coreo 6-Story vertical opening

containing all egress stairs from upper levels

o Potentially meets intent of codes for shaft requirements

Does not comply with requirements for exit enclosures

Egress Components –Stairs, Doors, Rampso Most stairs – Noncompliant

o Several egress doors -Noncompliant

o Ramp at Sally Port exit –Noncompliant

o Unique issues: Stair/Door to Level 7P and double-helix stair to Crown


Structure does not comply with criteria

Replacing double-helix stair does not fully address code issues for Crown.

Levels 4P-6P are effectively served by only a single exit. The exterior walkways at Levels 3P and 2P-exit discharge onto

top of Fort Wood. Temporary wood stairs provide access to grade.

General Approacho Model the structure using the CFD model Fire

Dynamics Simulator (FDS)o Develop design fire scenarios o Evaluate fire environment as a function of critical

tenability criteria Temperature Toxicity (CO Concentration) Visibility


Included the Statue, Pedestal, Museum and Lobby Spaces


Trash Fire Storage Fires

o Sprinkler Controlledo Sprinkler Suppressed

Museum Displayso Sprinkler Controlledo Unsprinkled

Elevator Hydraulic Fluid Spill Gasoline Spill (Intentional)


Sprinkler controlled museum display fire


Sprinkler controlled museum display fire


General Approacho Establish emergency egress

performanceo Derive procedural/structural

recommendationso Receive feedbacko Determine consequences of

recommendations on non-emergency egress and access.

o Modify recommendations/ non-emergency operations if necessary


Model of the Monument constructed using buildingEXODUSo Developed by the University of Greenwich (UK)


Candidate fire safety designs were considered. Six design packages were developed

o Increasing in cost/complexity and level of code compliance.

o No designs were considered that were visible from the exterior of the structure.

Cost estimates were developed for individual design features and design packages

Meetings were conducted with stakeholders to assess/approve options


Major Structural Improvements, Administrative Controls, and Fire Protection System Improvements


A qualitative risk assessment was performed to assess the risk associated with a fire hazard/event.

A risk ranking approach was used to evaluate risk as a function of:o Frequencyo Consequence


Severe 9 5 2 1

High 13 8 4 3

Moderate 15 12 7 6

Low 16 14 11 10

Improbable Unlikely Possible Anticipated

Cons

eque

nce

Frequency

Ranking Index Suggested Risk Level

1-2 Extreme Risk3-5 High Risk6-9 Moderate Risk

10-16 Low Risk


Event tree matrices (decision trees) used to evaluate risk. o Crown usage and o Fire events / failure modes.

Failure modes considered both equipment and administrative failures:o Sprinklers Fail to Control Fireo Response Time Delayedo Combustible Controlso Open Doors (Indirect)o Open Doors (Direct)


Is there any way to satisfy code requirements with respect to access to the Crown? What physical changes to the structure would be required to bring the facility into code compliance?o Major structural improvements to Pedestal to provide two separate

means of egress.

o Crown access safer by modifying helical stair.

o Passive fire protection, smoke control, alarm/notification enhancements provided as part of design package.

If access to the Crown cannot be made code compliant, how can the NPS minimize the life and safety risks to staff, visitors, and emergency management personnel? How many people could be safely accommodated and under what conditions? What operational procedures would need to be in place to allow access?

o Improvements to physical features.

o Procedural issues initiated for guided tour access to Crown.

Statue of Liberty construction completed in 2010-2011


If access to the Crown cannot be made code compliant, how can the NPS minimize the life and safety risks to staff, visitors, and emergency management personnel? How many people could be safely accommodated and under what conditions? What operational procedures would need to be in place to allow access?o Improvements to physical features.

o Procedural issues initiated.


Heather Stickler, PMP, LEED APDirector of Marketing410-737-8677 x463

[email protected]

JENSEN HUGHES

For More Information Contact:


Documents

Statue of Liberty: A Risk Analysis - JENSEN HUGHES · o Crown access safer by modifying helical stair. o Passive fire protection, smoke control, ... Statue of Liberty construction