Revised Summary of “4 Ways to Demolish a Building” and Reader Response draft 3

In the article “4 Ways to Demolish a Building”, Rodriguez (2018) stated that ways of demolishing a building depend on the land area, building materials, purpose of demolition and disposal of debris. The author also mentions the four methods of building demolition. The author implied that the implosion method is suitable for large scale buildings. Detailed studies of the buildings’ structural drawings are necessary to identify the main beams and placement of explosives. The author stated that high reach arm method, which involves the removal of inter-connected beams is suitable for buildings above 20 meters and it is a safer alternative compared to the wrecking ball demolition. Experts are required to operate the wrecking ball during demolition due to space constraint and equipment load. The author mentioned that this method emits dust, vibration and noise. He stated that selective demolition is a cost-saving method, suitable for reusing materials for future construction. High labor requirements and time are needed for selection of reuse materials. Based on the points elaborated, although the writer addressed the four ways to demolish a building, he should have mentioned the top-down demolition method, as it is the most commonly used demolition practice, its environmental advantages and the dis-advantages of the four demolition methods mentioned by the writer. 

Firstly, the top-down demolition method hoists the remote-controlled concrete breakers and crusher machines to the rooftop and demolish the building from a top-down manner, floor by floor. The top-down demolition begins with floor slabs, then the beams, columns and ends with the foundation. It introduces temporary supporting structures named “propping” to ensure safety. Haziq (2017) stated that after demolition the ground must be filled with soil to ensure grass grows, this is to prevent soil erosion. Clean concrete from demolition debris can recycled to build footpaths and roadside drains. Remote-controlled machines reduce the risks for the operator compared to conventional machines, as the operator can control the machines from a distance.

Secondly, top-down demolition method allows the building to be demolish via a clean and environmentally friendly way. Ferro (2013) stated that demolition method could be eco-friendly, as this method produce lesser harmful substances compared with other demolition methods. Wong (2018) stated that use of small machines for top-down method reduced the noise level emission, therefor this method is suitable for urban areas. Noise barriers could be also erected around the site to comply with the permissible noise levels. Dust emission could be reduced by using a mist machine and dust screens. Top-down demolition can reduce the percentage of harmful constituents released to the environment by reducing the dust emission. 

Lastly, top-down demolition is a preferred demolition method compared to the other four demolitions. The implosion, high reach arm and wrecking ball demolitions create lots of dust, vibration and noise. Haziq (2017) stated that implosion and wrecking balls demolition methods were not suitable for high and compact buildings. This point can be further supported in the news release “Demolition in Singapore is not what you think” (2018). Different types of demolished debris mixed and smashed in to small pieces renders it impossible to meet the local reuse and recycling of materials regulations. Pittman (2004) mentions that Ms Morello, manager of Penhall company, stated: “I haven't seen the 'headache ball' in a long time.". This statement indicted that the wrecking ball method decayed from the demolition practice in a long time. Loon (2012) stated that the selective demolition is labor intensive, which needs labor contractors to presort the demolished materials for recycling.

In conclusion, the top-down demolition is a safer demolition method as it involves remote-controlled machines and beam support structures, which reduces the workplace accidents. The environment protection measures allow the top-down demolition to emit less hazardous substances. The implosion, high reach arm, wrecking ball and selective demolition methods are not suitable for current demolition practices with the disadvantages mentioned.  

Reference

Demolition in Singapore is not what you think. (2018). Jinbiao single-post.

Retrieved from http://www.jinbiao.com.sg/single-post/2018/02/02/Demolition-in-Singapore-is-not-what-you-think

Ferro, S. (2013). Japanese eco-friendly building demolition method harvests

energy as it destroys. Popular science.

Retrieved from https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-01/demolition-goes-eco-friendly-japan

Haziq, M. (2017). No explosives or swinging balls: How high-rise demolitions go

down in Singapore. (2017). Channel NewsAsia.

Retrieved from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/no-explosives-or-swinging-balls-how-high-rise-demolitions-go-9425362

Loon, B. (2012). Conducting a selective demolition. The American Builders

Quarterly. Retrieved from https://americanbuildersquarterly.com/2012/09/26/conducting-a-selective-demolition

Pittman, J. (2004) Wrecking ball gives way to new method of structural

demolition. Bizjournals.

Retrieved from https://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2004/08/02/focus2

Rodriguez, J. (2018) 4 Ways to demolish a building. The balance small business.

Retrieved from https://www.thebalancesmb.com/ways-to-demolish-buildings-844420

Wong, D. (2018) Rochor Centre to be torn down floor by floor. The Straits Times. 

Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/housing/rochor-centre-to-be-torn-down-floor-by-floor

Revised self-introduction

Subject: Revised self-introduction

Dear Prof Blackstone, 

My name is Wendy Sun Yiwen, and I am writing to introduce myself. I graduated from Singapore Polytechnic with a diploma in Environment Management and Water Technology. After graduation, I worked in the build environment sector for one year and eventually made the decision to further my studies in sustainable infrastructure engineering (building services) program.

Outgoing is my forte, I have no difficulties starting a conversation with anyone. I met many people from around the world through different international camps. It is much harder to communicate with a person that does not have much English exposure. I overcame those obstacles by using sign language and online language translator. After hours of lessons and self-study, I learned to communicate fluently in Korean and write in Hangul.

My weakness in communication is my lack of exposure to English language. I come from a Chinese speaking background, I have trouble speaking fluent English. During conversations I struggled to find the right words to express my intention. Feeling of frustration builds up in me whenever I need to check online dictionary for the right words to utilize. I worked at my weakness by exposing myself to English-speaking shows, reading more English books as well as speaking more English language.

Report writing, and presentation are crucial skills that I need to sharpen in this module. I aim to arrange my sentences structure to be clear and concise. I want to enrich my vocabulary to improve in report writing. I am doing the English quest and increase daily time for reading to improve my English language.

Effective communication is an essential skill to prepare us for the working environment. I look forward to achieving more in your class.

Yours sincerely,

Wendy Sun 
SIE2018 Seminar Group 6

Vodcast

Critical Reflection

Fig 1：Students and Prof of Group 6

Critical Reflection 1.1

At the start of this module, I wrote that I want to refine public speaking and technical report writing skills. Through the technical report assignment, I was able to improve both skills.

It was a joy attending professor Blackstone’s classes as he conducted the classes with passion and student interaction. I vividly remember professor told us that he was not a “grammar nerd” when he was young, he encouraged us that via daily practices we can become “grammar nerd” as well. Since young, I had been discriminated by people commented that I come from Chinese speaking family background my English is poor, and I can never improve on that. I am thankful for professor’s wise words and the constant support from my classmates, who corrected my mistakes in grammar and sentence structures, has boost my confidence in writing and speaking English language.

This module has reminded me that learning to improve English grammar and vocabulary is a lifelong journey, and I am certain that this effective communications module has benefited me along this journey. I will keep in mind the skills I have learnt and practice it in daily life.

Critical Reflection 1.2

One difficulty my group faced is that my group’s slides were not consistent in style, leading to a group presentation that looked like four individuals presenting separately. This made me realized that mutual agreement and coordination within the group ensures consistency, which leads to a good presentation.

Another difficulty my group faced is we are unable to retrieve the data information we need from the facility management team. We need to present some information based on observation and the survey results. Feedback we received from the presentation showcase was that some of the solutions are not economically practical. However, our group feel that the climate change is a looming thread, and money is important, but it is unable to sustain the blue sea, green forest and clear air that supports life on earth.

I am grateful to be part of this group, everyone in this group are helpful and supportive. With all the feedback back given to me I will continue to improve. Thank you.  

Blogs I have commented on: 
Guyvan, Hafizah and Shien Hui

Technical report draft #1

Problem statement

The ideal electricity usage in institutes of higher learning would be only what is needed, as it would reduce electricity usage and contribute less to climate change. The Building and Construction Authority’s (BCA) Green Mark rating criteria on building energy performance could be used as a guide for ways to reduce electricity usage in institutes of higher learning.

Electricity is wasted in Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) due to inefficient electrical equipment, and air-conditioning and lighting systems in classrooms that are switched on even when they are empty.

Automating electrical supply to rooms and changing to best in class energy efficient equipment could be a way for SIT to reduce its electricity usage.

Proposal statement

The purpose of this proposal is to give suggestions to the estates division in SIT@Dover to reduce the electricity usage in SIT@Dover.

Introduction

Climate change is not a looming threat, it is already happening.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), recently released a special report summarising the steps that need to be taken to limit global warming to 1.5°C, and the consequences of going beyond that. However, the world is on track to go beyond the 3°C of warming (United Nations Environment Programme, 2016), a disaster that would adversely affect millions around the world, including the 5.6 million that are currently in Singapore (NCCS, 2018).

The world has warmed by one degree Celsius (IPCC, 2018), and Singapore is already feeling the effects of climate change in the form of changing weather patterns, droughts and floods, and higher annual mean temperatures(NCCS, 2018). The effects will only worsen as the world warms further (IPCC, 2018), and Singapore needs to take action to mitigate climate change.

According to the National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) (2018), Singapore contributes to 0.11% of global carbon emissions, which seems like a negligible amount. However, Singapore’s per capita carbon emission is at least twice that of the global average (NCCS, 2018), which means that we are emitting far more than we should – at the expense of our future.

As youths, we will bear the brunt of the effects of climate change in the coming years, and the burden of limiting the devastation that will be caused by climate change falls to us.

2018 was designated the year of climate action by the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources (MEWR), to galvanise ground-up actions to mitigate climate change (MEWR, 2018). As an autonomous university that aims to nurture graduates that are grounded in the community and catalysts for transformation (SIT, 2018), SIT has the potential and responsibility to reduce its carbon emissions.

The most direct way SIT can contribute to climate action is through reducing its electricity use. Universities in Singapore each consumed an average of 358 kilowatt hours per metre square (kWh/m2.yr) in 2017 (BCA, 2018), emitting 150kg of carbon per metre square every year (Energy Market Authority, 2018).

Air conditioners typically contribute to 60% of a building’s electricity use, with lights contributing 15% and fans contributing 10% (NCCS, 2013). Combined, they consume 85% of electricity in a building, and there are huge potential savings to be had in these three areas.

The current system in SIT@Dover is not well managed. Lecture rooms and classrooms have electrical systems like lights and air conditioners switched on all day, and turned off only at midnight, with no way for users to turn air conditioners off in the USC block. Open air areas also have lights and fans that are left on after users have left the area.

Retrofitting SIT@Dover to replace inefficient electrical equipment, and automating the air conditioning and mechanical ventilation systems in SIT@Dover would reduce SIT’s use of electricity, leading to lower carbon emissions.
 

 Reference

Building and Construction Authority. (2018). BCA building energy benchmarking report. Retrieved from https://www.bca.gov.sg/GreenMark/others/BCA_BEBR_Abridged_FA_2018.pdf

Energy Market Authority. (2018). Singapore energy statistics. Retrieved from
https://www.ema.gov.sg/cmsmedia/Publications_and_Statistics/Publications/SES18/Publication_Singapore_Energy_Statistics_2018.pdf

Europa.eu. (2016). The emissions gap report 2016: a UNEP synthesis report. Retrieved from
https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/unep/document/emissions-gap-report-2016-unep-synthesis-report

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2018). Technical summary coordinating lead authors. Retrieved from http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_ts.pdf

Ministry of the environment and water resources. (2018). Climate action. Retrieved from https://www.mewr.gov.sg/about-climate-action-sg

National Climate Change Secretariat. (2013). Building energy efficiency R&D roadmap.
Retrieved from
https://www.nccs.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/building-energy-efficiency-r-and-d-roadmap.pdf

National Climate Change Secretariat. (2018). Impact of climate change on Singapore.
Retrieved from https://www.nccs.gov.sg/climate-change-and-singapore/national-circumstances/impact-of-climate-change-on-singapore

National Climate Change Secretariat. (2018). Singapore’s emissions profile.
Retrieved from https://www.nccs.gov.sg/climate-change-and-singapore/national-circumstances/singapore’s-emissions-profile

Singapore Institute of Technology. (2018). The SIT-DNA. Retrieved from https://www.singaporetech.edu.sg/about/sit-dna

 

 
 

 

Summary of “4 Ways to Demolish a Building” and Reader Response draft 3

In the article “4 Ways to Demolish a Building”, Rodriguez (2018) stated that ways of demolishing a building depend on the land area, building materials, purpose of demolition and disposal of debris. The author also mentions the four methods of building demolition. The author implied that the implosion method is suitable for large scale buildings. Detailed studies of the buildings’ structural drawings are necessary to identify the main beams and placement of explosives. The author stated that high reach arm method, which involves the removal of inter-connected beams is suitable for buildings above 20 meters and it is a safer alternative compared to the wrecking ball demolition. Experts are required to operate the wrecking ball during demolition due to space constraint and equipment load. The author mentioned that this method emits dust, vibration and noise. He stated that selective demolition is a cost-saving method, suitable for reusing materials for future construction. High labor requirements and time are needed for selection of reuse materials. Based on the points elaborated, although the writer addressed the four ways to demolish a building, he should have mentioned the top-down demolition method, as it is the most commonly used demolition practice, its environmental advantages and the dis-advantages of the four demolition methods mentioned by the writer. 

Firstly, the top-down demolition method hoists the remote-controlled concrete breakers and crushers machines to the rooftop and demolish the building from a top-down manner, floor by floor. The top-down demolition begins with floor slabs, then the beams, columns and ends with the foundation. It introduces temporary supporting structures named “propping” to ensure safety. Haziq (2017) stated that after demolition the ground must be filled with soil to ensure grass grows. Clean concrete from demolition debris are recycled to build footpaths and roadside drains. Remote-controlled machines reduce the risks for the operator compared to conventional machines, as the operator could control the machines from a distance.

Secondly, top-down demolition method allows the building to be demolish via a clean and environmentally friendly way. Ferro (2013) stated that demolition method could be eco-friendly and Wong (2018) stated that used of small machines for top-down method reduced the noise level emission. Noise barriers could be also erected around the site to comply with the permissible noise levels. Dust emission could be reduced by using a mist machine and dust screens. Top-down demolition can reduce the percentage of harmful constituents released to the environment by reducing the dust emission.

Lastly, top-down demolition is a preferred demolition method compared to the other four demolitions. The implosion, high reach arm and wrecking ball demolitions create lots of dust, vibration and noise. Haziq (2017) stated that implosion and wrecking balls demolition methods were not suitable for high and compact buildings. This point can be further supported in the news release “Demolition in Singapore is not what you think” (2018). Different types of demolished debris mixed and smashed in to small pieces, renders it impossible to meet the local reuse and recycling of materials regulations. Pittman (2004) mentions that Ms Morello, manager of Penhall company stated: “I haven't seen the 'headache ball' in a long time.". Through this statement, the wrecking ball method decayed from the demolition practice in a long time. Loon (2012) stated that the selective demolition is labor intensive, which needs labor contractors to presort the demolished materials for recycling.

In conclusion, the top-down demolition is a safer demolition method as it involves remote-controlled machines and beam support structures, which reduces the workplace accidents. The environment protection measures allow the top-down demolition emits less hazardous substances. The implosion, high reach arm, wrecking ball and selective demolition methods are not suitable for current demolition practices with its disadvantages mentioned. 

Reference

Demolition in Singapore is not what you think. (2018). Jinbiao single-post.

Retrieved from http://www.jinbiao.com.sg/single-post/2018/02/02/Demolition-in-Singapore-is-not-what-you-think

Ferro, S. (2013). Japanese eco-friendly building demolition method harvests

energy as it destroys. Popular science.

Retrieved from https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-01/demolition-goes-eco-friendly-japan

Haziq, M. (2017). No explosives or swinging balls: How high-rise demolitions go

down in Singapore. (2017). Channel NewsAsia.

Retrieved from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/no-explosives-or-swinging-balls-how-high-rise-demolitions-go-9425362

Loon, B. (2012). Conducting a selective demolition. The American Builders

Quarterly. Retrieved from https://americanbuildersquarterly.com/2012/09/26/conducting-a-selective-demolition

Pittman, J. (2004) Wrecking ball gives way to new method of structural

demolition. Bizjournals.

Retrieved from https://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2004/08/02/focus2

Rodriguez, J. (2018) 4 Ways to demolish a building. The balance small business.

Retrieved from https://www.thebalancesmb.com/ways-to-demolish-buildings-844420

Wong, D. (2018) Rochor Centre to be torn down floor by floor. The Straits Times. 

Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/housing/rochor-centre-to-be-torn-down-floor-by-floor

Summary of “4 Ways to Demolish a Building” and Reader Response draft 2

In the article “4 Ways to Demolish a Building”, Rodriguez (2018) stated that ways of demolishing a building depend on the land area, building materials, purpose of demolition and disposal of debris. The author also mentions the four methods of building demolition. The author implied that the implosion method is suitable for large scale buildings. Detailed studies of the buildings’ structural drawings are necessary to identify the main beams and placement of explosives. The author stated that high reach arm method, which involves the removal of inter-connected beams is suitable for buildings above 20 meters and it is a safer alternative compared to the wrecking ball demolition. Experts are required to operate the wrecking ball during demolition due to space constraint and equipment load. The author mentioned that this method emits dust, vibration and noise. He stated that selective demolition is a cost-saving method, suitable for reusing materials for future construction. High labor requirements and time are needed for selection of reuse materials. Based on the points elaborated, although the writer addressed the four ways to demolish a building, he should have mentioned the top-down demolition method, as it is the most commonly used demolition practice, its environmental advantages and the dis-advantages of the four demolition methods mentioned by the writer. 

Firstly, the top-down demolition method hoists the remote-controlled concrete breakers and crushers machines to the rooftop and demolish the building from a top-down manner, floor by floor. The top-down demolition begins with floor slabs, then the beams, columns and ends with the foundation. It introduces temporary supporting structures named “propping” to ensure safety. Haziq (2017) stated that after demolition the ground must be filled with soil to ensure grass grows. Clean concrete from demolition debris are recycled to build footpaths and roadside drains. Remote-controlled machines reduce the risks for the operator compared to conventional machines, as the operator could control the machines from a distance.

Secondly, top-down demolition method allows the building to be demolish via a clean and environmentally friendly way. Ferro (2013) stated that demolition method could be eco-friendly and Wong (2018) stated that used of small machines for top-down method reduced the noise level emission. Noise barriers could be also erected around the site to comply with the permissible noise levels. Dust emission could be reduced by using a mist machine and dust screens. Top-down demolition can reduce the percentage of harmful constituents released to the environment by reducing the dust emission. 

Lastly, top-down demolition is a preferred demolition method compared to the other four demolitions. The implosion, high reach arm and wrecking ball demolitions create lots of dust, vibration and noise. Haziq (2017) stated that implosion and wrecking balls demolition methods were not suitable for high and compact buildings. This point can be further supported in the news release “Demolition in Singapore is not what you think” (2018). Different types of demolished debris mixed and smashed in to small pieces, renders it impossible to meet the local reuse and recycling of materials regulations. Pittman (2004) mentions that Ms Morello, manager of Penhall company stated: “I haven't seen the 'headache ball' in a long time.". Through this statement, the wrecking ball method decayed from the demolition practice in a long time. Loon (2012) stated that the selective demolition is labor intensive, which needs labor contractors to presort the demolished materials for recycling. 

In conclusion, the top-down demolition is a safer demolition method as it involves remote-controlled machines and beam support structures, which reduces the workplace accidents. The environment prevention measures allow the top-down demolition emits less hazardous substances. The implosion, high reach arm, wrecking ball and selective demolition methods are not suitable for current demolition practices with its disadvantages mentioned above.  

Reference

Demolition in Singapore is not what you think. (2018). Jinbiao single-post. 

       Retrieved from http://www.jinbiao.com.sg/single-post/2018/02/02/Demolition-in Singapore-is-not-what-you-think 

Ferro, S. (2013). Japanese eco-friendly building demolition method harvests

energy as it destroys. Popular science.

Retrieved from https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-01/demolition-goes-eco-friendly-japan

Haziq, M. (2017). No explosives or swinging balls: How high-rise demolitions go

down in Singapore. (2017). Channel NewsAsia.

Retrieved from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/no-explosives-or-swinging-balls-how-high-rise-demolitions-go-9425362

Loon, B. (2012). Conducting a selective demolition. The American Builders

Quarterly. Retrieved from https://americanbuildersquarterly.com/2012/09/26/conducting-a-selective-demolition

Pittman, J. (2004) Wrecking ball gives way to new method of structural

demolition. Bizjournals.

Retrieved from https://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2004/08/02/focus2

Rodriguez, J. (2018) 4 Ways to demolish a building. The balance small business.

Retrieved from https://www.thebalancesmb.com/ways-to-demolish-buildings-844420

Wong, D. (2018) Rochor Centre to be torn down floor by floor. The Straits Times. 

Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/housing/rochor-centre-to-be-torn-down-floor-by-floor