IABFM Articles

IABFM Articles > > Risk Management > The Dimensions of Risk Management - Risk : January

The Dimensions of Risk Management - Risk : January

By Michael Vincent

26 December, 2006

Last month in this column we discussed the career opportunities available in the area of risk management.   An attempt to define  Risk management was undertaken and educational opportunities were identified.  The article sought to overview risk management as a generic issue and to create an awareness of the scope of the discipline.

Over the next twelve months we will share with you different risk management projects that were completed by participants in the AIRM Graduate Certificate of Risk Management.    The variety of the projects and the areas defined as risk clearly illustrates the huge dimension covered under the banner of "risk management".   The topics will demonstrate the diversity of skills needed and different approaches taken by that group of professionals called "risk managers".

This month we present a synopsis of the project completed by Ken Bernie,  Ken is the primary consultant and owner of Bernie Consulting Services Pty Ltd, a dedicated risk management advisory company.   In addition he was the recipient of the 1995 ARIMA award for the best performance of a student undertaking the course.

His project is titled "Air-Handling Ductwork in Offices - The case for a systematic risk assessment approach to the design and construction of fire resistant ductwork."

This project set out to examine the suitability of the current Australian building code requirements for fire resistant air handling ductwork and smoke spill ductwork as they apply to office building construction.   Attention was given to the expected temperatures likely to be reached in these ducts, the appropriateness of the "insulation criteria" in specifying fire resistance requirements and the cost implications of alternative approaches to this very topical issue.

The aim was to examine the possibility of Australia adopting a systematic risk assessment approach to the design and construction of fire resistant ductwork;  this has the potential to reduce the construction cost of new buildings, whilst in no way compromising public safety.

The following areas were discussed and evaluated in the main body of the report:

1.  The function of ductwork in office buildings:

Ductwork was defined as "large conduits for the carriage of air."    Three major functions were identified as pertinent to the investigation;  

a.  Mechanical ventilation,

b.  Exhaust of smoke etc,  

c.  Pressurisation of escape routes.  

2.  The construction of fire resistant ductwork:

The report examined the different methods of constructing fire resistant ductwork, these are:

a.  Spraying a fire resistant coating to the external faces of standard ductwork,         

b.  Box the duct in an enclosure constructed with fire resistant boards and  

 c.  Construct the ducts with fire resistant boards.  

3.         The potential for fire to spread via air handling ductwork:

In a modern office building ductwork provides the means of carrying fresh cooled or heated air from the plant room to all parts of the building.

Everywhere that these ducts penetrate a fire wall or floor there is a potential for the spread of fire through these openings.    The problem can be managed by the installation of resistant coatings or the operation of dampers.

Other areas of interest were, an examination of the true temperatures of gasses in exhaust ductwork and comparing the results to the standard fire test.   This lead to a fundamental question.  Is the "standard fire test" the appropriate criteria for determining the fire resistance of ductwork?

After his examination of the area, Ken concluded that the current Australian Standards for fire resistant ductwork was prescriptive in nature and accordingly resulted in a higher level of safety and cost in office construction than was necessary based on tests of real office fires.

This conclusion is based on comparing and contrasting the Australian Standard  with the UK codes;  Ken found that the UK codes were non-prescriptive and accordingly supported the notion of a systematic risk assessment approach rather than a prescriptive approach to the design of fire resistant ductworks.  

He recommended that a modified fire test be developed for testing building elements in offices with a time temperature curve based more closely on the temperatures achieved in the BHP real fire tests.   Further that the code requirements should allow, as an alternative to following the current standard, flexibility for engineers and designers to use fire engineering principals in the determining the optimum level of fire resistance required for various sections of ductwork in office construction.

Ken concludes that the changes would not endanger the safety of the occupants or fire fighters in the event of a fire emergency.

The contribution of this work to the area of risk management is simple.   The correct application of  risk assessment  can lead to more effective management of building projects, a lowering of costs, whilst at the same time not lowering the safety of the general public.   Ken's work insists on a proactive approach rather than a reactive adherence to dogma.  

About the Authors

Senior Lecturer, Syme Department of Banking and Finance