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

Summary of “4 Ways to Demolish a Building” and Reader Response draft 1

In the article “4 Ways to Demolish a Building”, Rodriguez (2018) stated that ways of demolishing a building depends on the land area, building material, 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 for identify the main beams and placement of explosives. The author stated that high reach arm method involves the removal of inter-connected beams. Suitable for buildings above 20 meters and 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 and its environmental advantages. The dis-advantages of the four demolition methods mentioned by the writer.  

Firstly, top-down method hoisted the remote-controlled concrete breakers and crushers machines to the rooftop and demolished the building from a top-down manner, floor by floor. The top-down demolition began 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 that grass grows. Clean concrete from demolition debris were recycled to build footpaths and roadside drains. Remote-controlled machines reduced the risks for the operator compared to conventional machines, as the operator could control the machines from a distance.

Secondly, top-down demolition method allowed the building demolished via a clean and environmentally friendly way, floor by floor. Ferro (2013) stated that demolition method could be eco-friendly. Based on the news report “Rochor centre to be torn down floor by floor” (2018), a demolition specialist Mr Tay stated: “This is the conventional method of tearing down buildings,” and “The use of smaller-sized excavators, which would produce less noise.” 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 could 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. In the article “No explosives or swinging balls: How high-rise demolitions go down in Singapore” (2017), wrecking balls and explosives demolition 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. In the journal “Wrecking ball gives way to new method of structural demolition” (2004) 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. 

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

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

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