Summary Reader Response + Thesis Statement Draft 2
In the article “Use of
cladding in buildings here have grown in recent times: Experts” from Faris
Mokhtar, states that although there are benefits of cladding on a building,
cladding is still are fire hazard.
Mokhtar (2017) states
that the usage of cladding has shown to provide many benefits for the building.
According to Assistant Professor Fadeyi (2017), cladding has shown to benefit
in the reduction of energy consumption and increases the sustainability of the
building. According to Assistant Professor Budig (2017), he mentions that
Singapore practices another style of cladding which enhances the shade of the
building.
However, usage of
cladding has been contributing in the rapid spreading of fire as it endangers
the fire safety in the building as the oxygenation could escalate the fire
(Budig, 2017). According to Mokhtar (2017), cladding may have contributed to
the fire that struck the Grenfell Tower, which led to multiple fatalities.
Although under a safe environment, cladding has its many advantages, more attention should be directed on the material to ensure that fire safety regulations are not breached.
To further elaborate, SCDF conducted an audit check on the other buildings and found out 36 other buildings does not meet the requirements as its containing combustible material used for existing cladding. These buildings found with claddings that does not meet the requirement are on the list to have had it removed or pending for removal. Another check was conducted to ensure the building is safe for occupancy with the available fire protection in the building. Overall, SCDF could have controlled the possible hazards with stricter regulations enforced on the application and approval process for material used for cladding.
Secondly, the Singapore distributor that mixed up with the combustible and non-combustible material for cladding in the 36 affected buildings tells me that the professionalism in the process of supplier. As according to the Grenfell Tower in Kensington, the cladding was mixed with combustible material as to be cost effective. But it also cost at least 80 lives for them to realise the importance of non-combustible material used in cladding even though it is the on the façade.
Therefore, I think that it is feasible to replace all combustible material used in existing buildings to class ‘0’ non-combustible material as there are alternative and approved fire coded cladding material available in the market. But stricter enforcement should be made for cladding supplying companies to get certified by SCDF. Through the certified SCDF approved companies, the practice of cladding in Singapore will have safe class ‘0’ material adoption for buildings.
Lastly, SCDF conducts fire safety exercise that enforces regulations in Fire Certificate (FC) for building owner to ensure safety measures practiced in the building. Such as fire protection, equipment and fire drills conducted for the occupants to stimulate the nearest escape routes. In conclusion, I think that SCDF had made many strict regulations on the fire safety, misused of cladding or material used by the building should impose a strict punishment and fine.
Reference
Stocks of both Alubond models FRB1 and FRB2 were mixed together at the warehouse of the local distributor. (2017) www.scdf.gov.sg. Retrieved, 24th August 2017From https://www.scdf.gov.sg/general/news/news-releases/2017/scdf-takes-immediate-actions-ensure-fire-safety-buidlings
I think that you could have phrase the sentence in an more appropriate method. E.g. Firstly, I feel that the material use in cladding should have more thorough checks by SCDF before approving for implementation of construction process.
ReplyDeleteCan rephrase to :
First of all, in my opinion, SCDF should have conducted more thorough checks on the material used in cladding before approving it for implementation.