Thursday, October 31, 2019

Technical report #Draft 2



Background

This report responds to a call for proposal to recommend an engineering solution to a specific problem in the built environment sector.

Cement is inarguably the most used and crucial construction resource since civilizations came into existence and more buildings that are bigger and taller will inevitably be constructed in the future. Rodger (2018) states that most of our concrete in the world is being used to construct buildings and that the main ingredient of concrete is cement, whose production contributes to 8% of the world’s carbon emissions, which is equivalent to 2.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year.

According to Climate & Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), the process of producing bricks in kilns releases large amounts of pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and black carbon into the atmosphere. These effects are not easily reversed and will accumulate in the earth’s atmosphere much to the suffering of future generations.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mentioned in their special report that it is essential to maintain global temperature within 1.5 degree celsius . A one-degree increment of global temperature can result in a drastic increase of the atmospheric temperature.

Based on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the global temperature in September 2009 was 0.62 degree celsius. Currently, the global temperature is at 0.95 degree celsius. Despite it being under 1.5 degrees, there was a 0.32 degree increase of global temperature within a decade.

Dr Koh Poh Koon, Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry, mentioned that Singapore generated 52.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2017 which contributed 0.11% of global emissions, that equates to 8,000 tonnes of CO2 per capita in that year (Tan, 2019). According to Dr Muhammad Eeqmal Hassim, senior research scientist with the MSS Centre for Climate Research Singapore (as cited from Channel News Asia), with the rise of carbon emission, it will lead to an increase of Singapore’s daily temperature from 35 to 37 degrees celsius (Hassim, 2019).

The most direct way Bricknology can contribute to the reduction of climate change is through convincing BCA to adopt the idea of using mycelium bricks in Yio Chu Kang private housing estate as a pilot programme. By implementing the use of mycelium bricks as a pilot programme in Yio Chu Kang private housing estate, the team hopes that Singapore could set an example to the world that mycelium bricks can help in reducing the overall global greenhouse gas emissions problem.


1.1 Current practices for Yio Chu Kang private housing

The team had observed that the bricks used to build the internal structure of the house in Yio Chu Kang private housing were made up of clay and concrete.

1.2 Problem Statement

Building Construction Authority (BCA) to authorized the use of mycelium brick for all future construction. However, BCA is not implementing the use of mycelium bricks despite its potential.

1.3 Purpose Statement

The purpose of this report is to convince Building & Construction Authority to adopt the idea of using mycelium bricks and initiate a pilot project in Yio Chu Kang private housing estate.


2. Proposed Solution

The team has referenced online research done for sustainable bricks and have decided to propose a solution for BCA to consider:

2.1 Use mycelium bricks in place of conventional bricks

The team conducted interviews with the construction supervisors and workers in Yio Chu Kang private housing during a site visit. The team was told and observed that bricks used in Yio Chu Kang private estate houses to build internal walls were mainly by concrete and clay bricks.

The production of making these bricks involve heating the bricks to high temperatures which produces a high amount of CO2 as a by-product. It is also noteworthy that the production of concrete and clay bricks produces a ratio of 1 tonne of bricks to about 250kg of CO2 (Rathi, 2017).

Mycelium is an organ belonging to fungi that plays the role of digesting and absorbing nutrients for the fungi. The current technique for growing mycelium bricks incorporates a process of decomposition and drying.

Mycelium bricks reduces the carbon emission of producing the same number of concrete or clay bricks by a large margin.


3. Advantages of mycelium bricks

3.1 Good physical capabilities

Mycelium bricks is fifty six times per cubic meter lighter than your typical conventional bricks. It is capable to withstand a high amount of compression force. Mycelium bricks can be grown in a controlled environment where the mycelium is grown in such a way so as to produce desired physical capabilities. In one such experiment, the results are a mycelium brick that is 200,000 times more ductile than steel, 10,000 more rigid than brick while still able to support the weight of 50 cars (Abrams, ???). As proven from architectural structures, it is able to withstand external factors such as wind and rain.

3.2 Fire resistance

Although mycelium does take a shorter time to ignite in comparison with clay and concrete, the beauty about mycelium bricks is that the moment the outer layer is burnt, a layer of char forms on the surface of the mycelium which actually increases the flame resistance of the entire brick itself. This results in the bricks actually being able to last longer in prolonged fires, maintaining its structural integrity long enough so that the building does not collapse under its own weight., leaving room for people to escape.

3.3 Good thermal insulation

Mycelium insulation has way better R-value and EPS R- value as compared to conventional insulation boards.It does not absorb heat as fast as the conventional boards. It is also thinner and lighter which makes it easier for construction process.

3.4 Environmental effects

Mycelium are 100% biodegradable and they can be found in abundance on the planet. It does not release any volatile organic compounds. As it is made up of fungi, people will get the misconception that overtime it will turn rotten and start releasing foul smell and release harmful gases. Thus it will not release any external harmful effects.

3.5 Resources and production

The production of mycelium does not cost much as it uses bio-based materials and is biologically grown. Even pieces of agricultural waste materials and natural bio materials can be used to make mycelium bricks. It does not rely on factories for producing mycelium bricks unlike conventional bricks. Thus hugely reducing the use of artificial energy and the amount of CO2s to produce mycelium.


4. Disadvantages of mycelium bricks

4.1 Weak compressive strength

Mycelium bricks can only withstand 30 psi whereas a concrete block can withstand 4000 psi to 10,000 psi. Mycelium bricks can not support as much weight as compared to a normal concrete block.

4.2 Production

As mycelium takes time to grow, it might take a few days to weeks to be able to use it as a component to make the bricks. External factors such as temperature and moisture might delay the growth of the mycelium.

4.3 Long term

Mycelium bricks are still in the early stages in their line of production. As a result, the full capabilities of these bricks have yet to be known. Much of its credibility is theoretical as to how long it is able to last in residential and non residential buildings. It might be the solution to replacing all conventional bricks but because mycelium bricks have only been around for about 5 years, no concrete research is available for these bricks in a 50 year lifespan. No matter how much research and claims from experts that says it will last, it will only remain as projections. The only thing we are able to fully trust is to wait until it reaches its maximum brick lifespan.

Tuesday, October 29, 2019

Technical Report (Introduction) Draft #1



Background

This report respond to a call for proposal to recommend an engineering solution to a specific problem in the built environment case of focus. The team decided to convince Building & Construction Authority to adopt the idea of using mycelium bricks and initiate a pilot project in Yio Chu Kang private housing estate.

Cement is inarguably the most used and crucial construction resource since civilizations came into existence and more buildings that are bigger and taller will inevitably be constructed in the future. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) states that most of our concrete in the world is being used to construct buildings and that the main ingredient of concrete is cement, whose production contributes to 8% of the world’s carbon emissions, which is equivalent to 2.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year (BBC, 2018).

According to Climate & Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), the process of producing bricks in kilns releases large amounts of pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and black carbon into the atmosphere. These effects are not easily reversed and will accumulate in the earth’s atmosphere much to the suffering of future generations.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mentioned in their special report that it is essential to maintain global temperature within 1.5 degree celsius . A one-degree increment of global temperature can result in a drastic increase of the atmospheric temperature.

Based on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the global temperature in September 2009 was 0.62 degree celsius. Currently, the global temperature is at 0.95 degree celsius. Despite it being under 1.5 degrees, there was a 0.32 degree increase of global temperature within a decade.

Dr Koh Poh Koon, Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry, mentioned that Singapore generated 52.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2017 which contributed 0.11% of global emissions, that equates to 8,000 tonnes of CO2 per capita in that year (The Straits Times, 2019). With the rise of carbon emission, it will lead to an increase of Singapore’s daily temperature from 35 to 37 degrees celsius. (Dr Muhammad Eeqmal Hassim, senior research scientist with the MSS Centre for Climate Research Singapore).

The most direct way Bricknology can contribute to the reduction of climate change is through convincing BCA to adopt the idea of using mycelium bricks. One tonne of cement produces 1.2 tonnes of CO2 (BBC, 2018). As mentioned, Singapore contributed 0.11% of global emission hence by implementing the use of mycelium bricks in Singapore, it will help tackle the overall global problem of reducing the production of conventional bricks. Thus reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses.




1.1 Current practices for Yio Chu Kang private housing

The current bricks used to build the internal structure of the house in Yio Chu Kang private housing are made up of clay and concrete. Clay bricks are more commonly used in the construction industry in Singapore.


1.2 Problem Statement

Building Construction Authority (BCA) is not implementing the use of mycelium bricks despite it potential. Bricknology aims to convince BCA to pilot the use of mycelium bricks in Yio Chu Kang private housing estates.


1.3 Purpose Statement

The purpose of this report is to propose to convince BCA to implement the use of mycelium bricks in all newly constructed private houses located at Yio Chu Kang.

Tuesday, October 15, 2019

Summary_ReaderResponse of Smart Buildings: What 'smart' really means Draft #3

In the article “Smart Buildings: What 'smart' really means”, Lecomte (2019) states that having certification with standardized metrics is fundamental for smart buildings to wholly emerge in the 'built environment'. Lecomte mentions that the lack of unanimity from various stakeholders has delayed the drafting of standardized rubrics. Hence, private and public sectors design their own metrics to assess smart buildings but their rubrics vary from one another. However, current private and public metrics have been unsuccessful in tackling the complicated and expanding aspect that buildings will perform in ‘smart cities’. Lecomte believes that one crucial component to be included in the standardized rubrics would be cyber risk management as cyber threats ‘increase exponentially’ along with more advanced and integrated technology in smart buildings. Lecomte concludes that holistic and reliable 'smart building certifications and rubrics' will be the foundation of a 'functioning market for smart real estate'. However, as stakeholders come together, standardization should not be the main focus at this point of development but rather, the exchange of perspectives, to make room room for creativity and diversity.

Firstly, stakeholders meetings should monopolize the different perspectives from one another to reach relevant solutions for all parties. Lecomte claims that stakeholders come together to standardize the definition of 'smart buildings' and have seen no progression by the lack of mutual agreement. In reality, there already are examples of private and public sectors working together in various 'smart building' projects. Wendorf (2019) states that Amsterdam has over 170 smart city, some including 'smart buildings', projects underway and public, private and residential stakeholders are included in the developments. And as a result of this collaboration, some of Amsterdam's residential buildings are installed with energy meters which rewards people who reduce energy consumption. Though this implementation may not have been on a global or even on a country scale, yet it is reported here that not only private and public sectors but residents also are working together to achieve a 'smart building in a smart city' outcome. This is a prime example of how various stakeholders are coming together to work together on mutual terms to define 'smart buildings'.

Secondly, a diverse interpretation of 'smart buildings' is, at this present moment of time, more effective in meeting and solving the different demands and problems each community faces compared to standardization. Lecomte mentions that 'smart buildings' should promote the productivity and well-being of the community. Though cities have overlapping demands, some are more critical than others. For instance, if a city has a high generation of waste, 'smart building' designs will revolve around waste management. Vasquez (2019) points out that  stakeholders often rely on rigid templates for 'smart buildings' instead of having these designs revolve around the lifestyle and needs of the building's occupants. In this case, 'smart' is how the infrastructure can adapt and meet the needs of the community and their culture. Thus, in view of diverse cultures and backgrounds, 'smart' can hold differing values. Therefore, it is important for designers to have a versatile and strong grip on the various solutions to meet the demands of differing communities.

Lastly, clamping down on standardization leaves lesser room for creativity in experimenting with different technology and their integration with one another. Lecomte predicts that 'smart buildings' will have sophisticated and varied roles in smart cities. Mankind is constantly advancing in technology and in the area of 'smart buildings', new systems are being developed constantly. These new systems need to be constantly tested in applicable environments and diverse standards could actually prove accommodating to tackle specific and diverse issues alike. Viki (2016) states that analysts have traced the root of creativity in teams and individuals and that is due to the presence of multicultural and environmental exposure. With this fact established, a variation of standardization would prove beneficial for 'smart buildings' the long run. New ways of integration and break through in development can be cultivated from teams comprised of people of different culture and environment, enhancing the range of technology integration of 'smart buildings'. These teams will be able to lay a broad ground work to serve as foundations for future development and technological integration.

In conclusion, there are benefits of a more standardized rubrics to facilitate the integration of 'smart buildings' into 'smart cities' and even to beyond that in the future where cities interact with one another. However, while Lecomte's ambition is not in error in the least, the best interest of today's society would be the sufficiency of space required for different perspectives, diversity and creativity to mature, and in reward, ingenuity solutions.





References:


Baumgartner, J. (2010, November 24). Why diversity is the mother of creativity. Retrieved October 5, 2019, from https://innovationmanagement.se/imtool-articles/why-diversity-is-the-mother-of-creativity/

Kathleen O’Dell, A. N. (2019, August 28). Inclusive smart cities. Retrieved October 5, 2019, from https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/public-sector/inclusive-smart-cities.html

Lecomte, P. (2019, January 29). Smart buildings: what 'smart' really means. Retrieved October 5, 2019, from https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/opinion/smart-buildings-what-smart-really-means

Viki, T. (2016, December 6). Why diverse teams are more creative. Retrieved October 5, 2019, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/tendayiviki/2016/12/06/why-diverse-teams-are-more-creative/#5bb33de77262

Wendorf, M. (2019, July 29). Smart cities initiatives around the world are improving citizens' lives. Retrieved October 5, 2019, from https://interestingengineering.com/smart-cities-initiatives-around-the-world-are-improving-citizens-lives

Monday, October 7, 2019

Summary_ReaderResponse of Smart Buildings: What 'smart' really means Draft #2

In the article “Smart Buildings: What 'smart' really means”, Lecomte (2019) states that having certification with standardized metrics is fundamental for smart buildings to wholly emerge in the 'built environment'. Lecomte mentions that the lack of unanimity from various stakeholders has delayed the drafting of standardized rubrics. Hence, private and public sectors design their own metrics to assess smart buildings but their rubrics vary from one another. However, current private and public metrics have been unsuccessful in tackling the complicated and expanding aspect that buildings will perform in ‘smart cities’. Lecomte believes that one crucial component to be included in the standardized rubrics would be cyber risk management as cyber threats ‘increase exponentially’ along with more advanced and integrated technology in smart buildings. Lecomte concludes that holistic and reliable 'smart building certifications and rubrics' will be the foundation of a 'functioning market for smart real estate'. However, creativity triumphs over standardization at this point of development as 'smart building' technology is still growing and in places with differing demands of society. Also, examples of stakeholders coming together to define 'smart buildings' already exists.

Firstly, Lecomte's article gives readers the impression that the standardization of 'smart buildings' are chaotic and no sustainable outcome is being achieved. Lecomte (2019) claims that efforts to standardize the definition of 'smart buildings' have been hindered by the lack of mutual agreement among various stakeholders. In reality, there already are mutual agreements between private and public sectors working together in various 'smart building' projects. Wendorf (2019) states that Amsterdam has over 170 smart city, some including 'smart buildings', projects underway and public, private and residential stakeholders are included in the developments. And as a result of this collaboration, some of Amsterdam's residential buildings are installed with energy meters which rewards people who reduce energy consumption. Though this implementation may not have been on a global or even on a country scale, yet it is reported here that not only private and public sectors but residents also are working together to achieve a 'smart building in a smart city' outcome. This is a prime example of how various stakeholders are coming together to work together on mutual terms to define 'smart buildings'.

Secondly, a diverse interpretation and essence of 'smart buildings' for different countries and even cities is, at this present moment of time, critical to meet the differing needs and problems each community faces. Lecomte (2019) mentions that 'smart buildings' should promote the productivity and well-being of the community. Though cities have overlapping demands, some are more critical than others. For instance, if a city has a high generation of waste, 'smart building' designs will revolve around waste management. Likewise if a city has a higher energy consumption rate. Vasquez (2019) points out that  stakeholders often rely on rigid templates for 'smart buildings' instead of having these designs revolve around the lifestyle and needs of the building's occupants. In this case, 'smart' is how the infrastructure can adapt and meet the needs of the community and their culture. Thus, in view of diverse cultures and backgrounds, 'smart' can hold differing values. Therefore, it is important for designers to have a versatile and strong grip on the various solutions to meet the demands of differing communities.

Lastly, clamping down on standardization leaves lesser room for experimentation with different technology and their integration with one another. Lecomte (2019) predicts that 'smart buildings' will have sophisticated and varied roles in smart cities. Mankind is constantly advancing in technology and in the area of 'smart buildings', new systems are being developed constantly. These new systems need to be constantly tested in applicable environments and diverse standards could actually prove accommodating to tackle specific and diverse issues alike. Viki (2016) states that analysts have traced the root of creativity in teams and individuals and that is due to the presence of multicultural and environmental exposure. With this fact established, a variation of standardization would prove beneficial for 'smart buildings' the long run. New ways of integration and break through in development can be cultivated from teams comprised of people of different culture and environment, enhancing the range of technology integration of 'smart buildings'. These teams will be able to lay a broad ground work to serve as foundations for future development and technological integration.

In conclusion, there are benefits of a more standardized rubrics to facilitate the integration of 'smart buildings' into 'smart cities' and even to beyond that in the future where cities interact with one another. However, this would limit potential innovation allowed with a more flexible choice of rubrics to adopt. While Lecomte's ambition is not in error in the least as discussed, the best interest of today's society would be the sufficiency of space required for creativity to mature and in reward, ingenuity solutions. 





References:



- Lecomte. (2019, January 29). Smart Buildings: What 'smart' really means. Retrieved from The Business Times: https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/opinion/smart-buildings-what-smart-really-means

- Wendorf, M. (2019, July 29). Smart Cities Initiatives around the World Are Improving Citizens' Lives. Retrieved from Interesting Engineering: https://interestingengineering.com/smart-cities-initiatives-around-the-world-are-improving-citizens-lives

- Kathleen O’Dell, A. N. (2019, August 28). Inclusive smart cities. Retrieved from Deloitte Insights: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/public-sector/inclusive-smart-cities.html

- Baumgartner, J. (2010, November 24). Why Diversity is the Mother of Creativity. Retrieved from Innovation Management: https://innovationmanagement.se/imtool-articles/why-diversity-is-the-mother-of-creativity/

- Viki, T. (2016, December 6). Why Diverse Teams Are More Creative. Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tendayiviki/2016/12/06/why-diverse-teams-are-more-creative/#5bb33de77262