Critical Reflection 1.1

During the past 9 weeks, I had the opportunity to work closely with my classmates in various activities and assignments. Every individual played his or her role and took initiative on their different responsibilities. In the different stages of group work, there were certain instances where my peers and I had different standpoints that had to be synchronized within the team. During this period, I learned how to clearly come across and share ideas with minimal miscommunication and in order to achieve this, I understood that listening to others was a key point. Working together helped me to learn more about communication skills from my peers, as we all came from various backgrounds and every one of us has different strengths and weaknesses.

I have enjoyed learning effective communication and it has added value to my life, not only as a module in university but also as something I’d carry throughout my life wherever I go, be it engineering or in my everyday life. I thank Prof Blackstone for making this module fun, memorable and knowledgeable.

Critical Reflection 1.2

Together with a few of my peers, I had the opportunity to organize the Effective Communication presentation showcase 2018. During this period, we faced a few challenges and among them, time was the most crucial factor we had to manage. With final exams coming around the corner, we had to balance our studies and also make sure that everything went smoothly for the showcase. Hand in hand with the committee, we identified our members’ strengths and weaknesses and allocated our relevant roles accordingly.

We had to coordinate with caterers while managing the budget allocated for this event. Communication skills were vital as we had to cooperate with different departments including technical division and the judges. The event turned out to be a success, owing to the help of everyone involved as we all had carried out our duties and responsibilities well. I enjoyed the time spent being part of the committee as I gained a lot of experience in working as a team to organize an event. These experiences gained will help me in the upcoming years of university and in my future career.

Technical Report: Draft 1

Background Information
In recent advances, HVAC systems have been focused on exploring better refrigerants, introducing energy saving variable components, deploying advanced control algorithms and improving local fault diagnostics capabilities. The cloud computing system that we plan to introduce carries benefits such as its supremacy and continuous diagnostic capabilities. In this modern era, it is not a surprise where there are so many smart building capabilities implemented right at our convenience. And in the direction we are heading towards, we are going to bring the efficient use of HVAC systems with big data, which is a cloud-based computing system, to detect condensation issues in buildings. 

Problem Statement

An ideal air conditioning system would be a system where users receive prompt notifications about faults on condensation, allowing early diagnosis before it becomes a major issue. However, we believe such an approach in the new SIT @ Punggol campus is not planned yet. Should the planning committee of SIT @ Punggol campus adopt this cloud-based fault detection system into the new campus, the campus will be able to maintain thermal comfort and improve energy savings. This will allow prolonging of the HVAC systems, improving the productivity of students and staff as a result.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this proposal is to convince the planning committee of SIT @ Punggol to implement an air conditioning system that detects.By implementing such a system, this will reduce air conditioning faults, maintaining the thermal condition in the building.

Reader's Response Draft 2: The Concrete Advantage

The article “The Concrete Advantage”, Green Rooftop website(n.d), claims that hydrophobic technology removes hazardous factors used in traditional rooftops and assures monetary returns for users. 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 membranes which are the greatest disadvantage of green roofs and is found most speculative by users. In addition, the article mentioned that the builders' 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 but it fails to provide validation and disregards Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau(FLL) test which could validate the information, which, for my beliefs, makes this article less than satisfactory to promote hydrophobic technology within rooftops. Varieties of tests can be done find out more about to the technological features and functions of this new hydrophobic technology and among these tests, I believe that FLL, flood test, and spray test can help to increase the credibility of this article.

Green Rooftop mentioned that no FLL test has been done to substantiate the benefit of eliminating a root barrier. In my opinion, I believe that the author should provide the reader with some background information on what an FLL test is and why this test is carried out. To justify their claims, Green Rooftops should have provided sample test details of an FLL test report from the Center for Innovation and Technology Transfer (CRITT) Horticole and the Scientific and Technical Center for Building, a European notified body for construction products. The FLL testing techniques provide an output which can be compared with pre-set theoretical reference values and this will provide more valid justification to why hydrophobic technology is better compared to the traditional roofing system as the user can identify a clear and comparable data set from this test.

Flood testing provides an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the structural systems of the building and their safe load carrying capacity to show a clear comparison between the new system and the traditional roofing system. Flood testing is found to be the simplest of testing methods available, yet one of the most effective as it helps to analyze the durability of the hydrophobic technology (“Integrity Testing For Roofing and Waterproofing Membranes, ”2017).

Finally, the author could briefly mention the spray test which could be done to the roof to simulate normal to severe weather condition, this helps to identify leak sources in a roof. This test helps to ‘compare the permeability with different effects of a range of concrete’ and the performance of these different admixtures(“Structural Concrete Banner”,2018)

In closing, article "The Concrete Advantage" is less cogent due to lack of validation. Supporting data comparisons of tests mentioned previously must be presented in order to justify clearly the advantages of substituting traditional rooftop with 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, fromhttp://www.greenrooftops.org/advantage.html

Updated on 29/11/2018

Reader's Response Draft 1: The Concrete Advantage

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

Draft 3: The Concrete Advantage

In the article “The Concrete Advantage” 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 does not degrade over time. The article states that the use of waterproof concrete has helped to defeat the greatest disadvantage of green roofs by removing the element found most speculative by handlers. Builders’s job is made easier since there is no use of membranes, eliminating the detriments in the build-up. The task can be accomplished quicker 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 explains the positive effects and monetary value of using hydrophobic technology in green rooftops. However, the lack of a Forschungsgesellschaft Landschaftsentwicklung Landschaftsbau(FLL) test to validate the information from the article makes the article less than satisfactory to promote hydrophobic technology within rooftops.

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 a 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 CRITT Horticole and the CSTB is a partnership program formed to perform root resistance tests on waterproofing membranes according to the EN 13948 norm (Determination of resistance to root penetration). 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. With this improvement done to the article, I feel that users of green rooftops would be convinced to upgrade their current rooftops to the use of hydrophobic technology.

References

-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

-Root resistance test EN 13948 - FLL. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.critt-horticole.com/activite/root-resistance-test-en-13948-fll/

Draft 2: The Concrete Advantage

In the article “The Concrete Advantage” 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 defeat the greatest disadvantage of green roofs by removing the element found most speculative by handlers. Builder's job is made easier since there is no use of membranes, eliminating the detriments in the build-up. The task can be accomplished quicker 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 growth of roots are 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.

Base on the points elaborated by the author, I support the use of concrete green roofs as they are more reliable compared to the traditional roofing system. Usage of concrete green roofs not only allows the user to overcome the disadvantages of a traditional system, but it also helps in the preservation of the ecosystem.