6
NEWS
ROUND TABLE Who is responsible for safe riser design?
A recent industry round table brought together a multi-disciplinary group from the construction sector to look at the challenging topic of designing for safety around riser shafts, and ask whether responsibility for this critical area is ‘falling through the cracks.’
Manufacturer of riser safety solutions Ambar Kelly brought together an impressive panel consisting of Lucy Craig, operations director and design leader at Mace Group, Andrew Pratt, technical director at WSP, David Wright, head of building services at Lendlease, Oscar Cerecedo, project engineer at Keltbray, Daniel Skidmore, regional director at AECOM, and ex-fi refi ghter Andrew Furness, now managing director at Salvus Consulting. The round table was chaired by ADF managing editor James Parker. In staging the event, Ambar Kelly was attempting to gain more insight into
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
industry views on responsibility for riser design, current practice, and the risks posed by perceived ambiguity around who is responsible. The fi rm commented this was “in part a result of differing opinion as to the riser zone’s function, meaning that there is confusion as to which disciplines hold the keys to its design.”
Service risers are one of the most complex areas of any building project, with an estimated 16 subcontractor packages interfacing in the ‘riser zone,’ crossing a range of building typologies. However, despite its importance for both falls from height and fi re safety, Ambar Kelly’s director Nick Atkinson believes there is an absence of product package managers overseeing design of this critical area.
Ambar Kelly has attempted to raise awareness across the industry (including via a previous round table), with a particular
initial focus on Tier 1 contractors. Atkinson, introducing the recent round table, said “they have started to get it.” He however added that due to the lack of awareness of risks or other reasons, GRP alternatives to ‘belt and braces’ solutions (offering limited fi re protection) are commonly specifi ed as a temporary solution to deal with falls; “but these don’t get taken out.”
The round table saw debate around the issues resulting from CDM 2015 and the new Building Safety Act, such as how the roles of Principal Contractor and Principal Architect can contribute to overseeing riser specifi cation, as well as the importance of the Contractor’s Design Portion (CDP) in accountability for designs. This important round table, in the context of intense industry focus on design post-Building Safety Act, also heard a lively exchange of views about the suitability of GRP solutions versus other options.
ADF FEBRUARY 2023
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108
