In the article “The Concrete Advantage(n.d)” from Green Rooftop website, Green Rooftops claims that hydrophobic technology removes hazardous factors for users while assuring monetary returns. Concrete green roofs are sturdy and do not degrade over time. The article states that the use of waterproof concrete has helped to overcome the greatest disadvantage of green roofs by removing the element found most speculative by users. In addition, the article mentioned that the builder's jobs are made easier since there is no use of membranes, eliminating the detriments in the build-up. The task can be accomplished more quickly as there is no concrete-cure waiting time before inclusion of the membrane, resulting in cost-effectiveness for the user. Root barriers are unnecessary as the growth of roots is eradicated with the use of waterproof concrete. The article also mentions that in the case where maintenance is needed on the green roof, a simple inoculation of polyurethane grout can be induced at the bottom, minimizing any harm towards the ecosystem.
The article underlines the positive effects and monetary value of using hydrophobic technology in green rooftops. The article does not provide solid proof and omits Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau(FLL) test which could validate the information, this makes the article less than satisfactory to promote hydrophobic technology within rooftops.
First of all, Green Rooftops should have done a Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau (FLL) test before publishing this article. The article mentioned that no test has been done to substantiate the benefit of eliminating a root barrier. In my opinion, I believe that the FLL test should have been done prior to the publishing of the article “The Concrete Advantage”. To justify their claims, Green Rooftops should have obtained an FLL test report from the Center for Innovation and Technology Transfer (CRITT) Horticole and the Scientific and Technical Center for Building, European notified body for construction products(CSTB). The FLL testing techniques provide an output which can be compared with preset reference values and this will provide more valid justification to why hydrophobic technology is better compared to the traditional roofing system.
Secondly, a flood testing could be done in order to provide an in-depth knowledge and understanding on the structural systems and their safe load carrying capacity to show a clear comparison between the new system and the traditional roofing system. According to the article “Integrity Testing For Roofing and Waterproofing Membranes(2017)”, flood testing is found to be the simplest of testing methods available, yet one of the most effective.
Lastly, a spray test could be done to the roof to simulates normal to severe weather conditions, this helps to identify leak sources in a roof. Green Roof can then include the results of these testing with relevant reference data as shown in the article “Structural Concrete Banner(2018)”.
With these improvements done to the article, the readers will be provided with more valid proof to why they should change to hydrophobic technology and I feel that users of green rooftops would be convinced to upgrade their current rooftops to the use of hydrophobic technology.
References
Al‐Kheetan, M. J., Rahman, M. M., & Chamberlain, D. A. (2018, March 23). Development of hydrophobic concrete by adding dual‐crystalline admixture at mixing stage. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/suco.201700254
Evidence of Greenroof successes from across the country and around the world. (n.d).Retrieved from greenrooftops.org.
Green Rooftops: Concrete Green Roofs for Value and Durability. (n.d.). Retrieved fromhttp://www.greenrooftops.org/
Integrity Testing for Roofing and WaterproofingMembranes. (2017, July 06). Retrieved from https://www.wbdg.org/resources/integrity-testing-roofing-and-waterproofing-membranes
Philippi, P.M. (2002). Introduction to the German FLL-Guidelines for the Planning, Execution, and Upkeep of Green-Roof Sites. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/IntroductiontotheGermanFLL2.pdf
The Concrete Advantage. Retrieved on October 4, 2018, from http://www.greenrooftops.org/advantage.html
The article underlines the positive effects and monetary value of using hydrophobic technology in green rooftops. The article does not provide solid proof and omits Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau(FLL) test which could validate the information, this makes the article less than satisfactory to promote hydrophobic technology within rooftops.
First of all, Green Rooftops should have done a Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau (FLL) test before publishing this article. The article mentioned that no test has been done to substantiate the benefit of eliminating a root barrier. In my opinion, I believe that the FLL test should have been done prior to the publishing of the article “The Concrete Advantage”. To justify their claims, Green Rooftops should have obtained an FLL test report from the Center for Innovation and Technology Transfer (CRITT) Horticole and the Scientific and Technical Center for Building, European notified body for construction products(CSTB). The FLL testing techniques provide an output which can be compared with preset reference values and this will provide more valid justification to why hydrophobic technology is better compared to the traditional roofing system.
Secondly, a flood testing could be done in order to provide an in-depth knowledge and understanding on the structural systems and their safe load carrying capacity to show a clear comparison between the new system and the traditional roofing system. According to the article “Integrity Testing For Roofing and Waterproofing Membranes(2017)”, flood testing is found to be the simplest of testing methods available, yet one of the most effective.
Lastly, a spray test could be done to the roof to simulates normal to severe weather conditions, this helps to identify leak sources in a roof. Green Roof can then include the results of these testing with relevant reference data as shown in the article “Structural Concrete Banner(2018)”.
With these improvements done to the article, the readers will be provided with more valid proof to why they should change to hydrophobic technology and I feel that users of green rooftops would be convinced to upgrade their current rooftops to the use of hydrophobic technology.
References
Al‐Kheetan, M. J., Rahman, M. M., & Chamberlain, D. A. (2018, March 23). Development of hydrophobic concrete by adding dual‐crystalline admixture at mixing stage. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/suco.201700254
Evidence of Greenroof successes from across the country and around the world. (n.d).Retrieved from greenrooftops.org.
Green Rooftops: Concrete Green Roofs for Value and Durability. (n.d.). Retrieved fromhttp://www.greenrooftops.org/
Integrity Testing for Roofing and WaterproofingMembranes. (2017, July 06). Retrieved from https://www.wbdg.org/resources/integrity-testing-roofing-and-waterproofing-membranes
Philippi, P.M. (2002). Introduction to the German FLL-Guidelines for the Planning, Execution, and Upkeep of Green-Roof Sites. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/IntroductiontotheGermanFLL2.pdf
The Concrete Advantage. Retrieved on October 4, 2018, from http://www.greenrooftops.org/advantage.html
No comments:
Post a Comment