Renovating Newton Building - Essay Example

Renovating Newton Building Renovating Newton Building Introduction Newton Building is for the most part sound, however, suggesting deteriorations of some of its fabric. Fenestration details of the building require critical consideration. Water damage from infiltration through the roof framework and portions of the cladding can be seen to be damaged. Inside, offices are indicating wear and dust accumulation and do not meet certain occupancy standards. At the time of building, it had a vast open lobby just after the reception, an expansive free space area, and kitchen on the lower level. Over the years and through the different uses, many changes and overhauls were made to the building. Such include modifying the main lobby roof, supplanting the windows, some basement repairs, mechanical and electrical framework maintenance. Current Condition of the Building Approved Document J and Approved Document L Approved Document J provides an outline of how combustions systems and fuel storage should be utilized in a building while L seek to ensure that energy is used in the most efficient way. It requires that the heat sources and fuel storage be considered as a fire risk and thus positioned in a way that the risk is minimal. Warning signs for carbon monoxide release should provide to limit the danger. The building is presently heated with an oil-fired banner and an evaporator: 114,000 btu/hr with through-wall venting (concentric) (Howard, 2001). The evaporator is part of the building design construction. The Oil tank is a 550 gallon covered tank. The system supplies boiling water to a significant part of the building. The boiler is more than sufficient for a development of this size. A propane tank supply gas to the gas stove in the kitchen on the upper floor level. The current chimney was installed to suit the direct vent heater. The existing chimney has a stainless steel liner. The chimney is within tolerable condition and could be utilized for some more years. Energy sources and efficiency used in the building are not in conformity with the Approved Document L that provides the guideline for conservation of energy and power. It also disagrees with Approved Document J on heat production appliances. Approved Document H This paper formulates the procedure in handling drainage and wastage disposal. It requires that a building be equipped with adequate component to discharge wastewater. Such systems include septic tank and associated pipeline. Handling of overflowing rainwater is also captured in the document; it requires that rainwater and foul water be channeled differently. Buildings or developments over waste systems are expected not to cause any obstruction to flow of waste materials. Newton Building meets all these conditions with its sewerage and waste components capable to handle all the waste. Approved Document F The document gives an outline of rooms should be ventilated. Ventilation system includes simple structures like windows or other openings that allow air to flow freely into the room. It also includes complex systems like vents, ducts, fans and thermal components that aid in air circulation. Moisture problem is also covered in the document. The building seems not comfortable in the winter – excessively chilly - as an aftereffect of insufficient protection and air circulation as noted previously. The warming channels to the baseboards likewise are not protected from heat loss. Window ventilation systems serve the workplaces on all rooms adjacent to exterior walls. Windows are mostly new, twofold sheet units on both the upper and lower levels. No air sealing is visible around windows, entryways, or other openings. Approved Document P The regulation requires safety to be observed in the design of electrical systems and appliances used in a building. Adequate information should be provided in the form of signs or documents so that occupants or technicians should remain secure while using the system. The building has a 200-amp power supply, which is in all likelihood satisfactory for a construction of this size. The primary board is located in the lavatory on the upper level with a sub-board on the lower level of document room. Likewise, a manually operated generator board supply limited power to lighting and telephones. A 50 kW movable generator is located in the cellar and is joined to 20 (+/ -) corded hardwired consumers channel in the basement cellar. Some outdated wiring does exist in the building. However, the greater part of it has been upgraded. The power for this building is proper and sufficient to accommodate future uses. Lighting is fundamentally fluorescent attached to the acoustical roof tile. The building conforms to Approved Document P (Terrion, 2010). Approved Document M The paper gives an outline of how access to a building should be designed to allow for usage by both the disabled and people with other limitations. It requires that building should have special access-ways and facilities like elevators and washrooms for the handicapped. The building is open at the ground level from the west and the east end. The slope as it was observed does meet code, despite the fact that it has drifted out of design alignment. The entryway needs a few repairs to bring it back to full agreeability with other passages. The basement is readily available on the east side of the building. The restrooms on both levels do meet accessibility prerequisites (for access by persons with wheelchairs). On the inside, there is a conveying stairway from the upper level to the lower level. This stair does meet code for exit purposes. There are elevators linking all the floors. The system does meet code, yet significant redesigns to the building could increase their authentic value. The design fails to meet some of the Approved Document M fundamentals but qualify for most of the requirements (Herrold, 2008). Approved Document B The regulations require that all buildings must have adequate means of escape in the case of fire outbreak. The escape should be sufficient to allow the occupants to flee to safety of their own. The document also demands that the building be designed to limit chances of fire spread to outside to outside structures, internally and to allow easy access in a fire scenario. The building is outfitted with flame sensing mechanism (two battery-fuelled, smoke sensors - one on every carpet). They are not hard-wired or interconnected. There is a fire alarm, pull boxes and the third party warning signs. There are fire dousers in the building. There is no overhead sprinkler framework. Fire exits need to be increased, according to the Approved Document B that requires not less than 6ft. wide door for an inhabitancy of 49 or more persons (Tallien, 2001). Approved Document E The regulation requires that houses be built in such a way that sound is handled and reduce noise disturbances. The rooms should be designed with materials that limit the spread of sound from one room to the other especially separating walls. The inside structure of the room should be able to absorb sound and reduce reverberation. Newton Building meets all this standards. The room acoustics stipulated to the school situation is captured in its design. Approved Document G The regulations cover hygiene systems in a building. It stipulates that all dwelling places must have adequate sanitary conveniences, bathrooms and way of providing hot or cold water. The water storage systems can be designed as per the architects choice but must be able to handle extremes of temperatures and pressure. Newton building has a good heating system that supply enough hot water; washrooms are placed far from the kitchen to aid its cleanliness. Approved Document 7 It requires that all buildings to be built with appropriate materials to ensure safety and lifespan of the structure. Material selection and use are therefore regulated by this document. Newton Building foundation is a brickwork, stone, and rubble. The mortar gives an impression of being in genuinely excellent condition on the outside. The outside walls have a thickness of 10 inches with a +/ - 3" cover, which seems unique to the building. The plaster is in better condition, yet in need of cladding. The succeeding walls, while showing almost no compromise (cracks), is ridged metal encased in concrete susceptible to erosion. The main corridors are 2 meters wide running longitudinally. Newton Building was built for large occupancy. The walls are painted Cellotex. A for the wooded parts like frames, wainscot is used. All are in genuinely excellent condition. The roofs are 2-0" x 4-0" tile. The floor covering is swollen, and doors rub against them. The gypsum divider boards are in usable condition, and the inner side of roof tile is hinting wear in a couple of areas. The storage space and vault are entirely sealed, which appears to be in fair condition. The vaults are built from cement and a cement-like-ceiling roof, held into position by longitudinally running steel beams. In the storage zone, the foundation walls are uncovered or otherwise less covered in some section, and there is no ceiling in some parts and rooms. The roof has nearly 8" of fiberglass batt protection set on top of it. The batt is sound and uniform, yet damaged in a few spots. There is no sure confirmation of bird occupancy on the roof. There is some proof of water harm at the stack and overhang, the top is by all accounts sound and is keeping the inside structure and space dry. Top events seem to have been included for the upper room ventilation. The current outside wall on the top floor level does not have any radiation protection. Rather than gypsum divider board (sheetrock) on the inside, the dividers are clad with "protecting timber," Cellotex. On the lower level, the dividers are protected with fiberglass batt. Without an infrared examination of the section, it is difficult to determine its current state, however, no doubt the batts have dropped between the studs. There is little dampproofing, waterproofing and protection on the basement walls. There is clear indication of water harm and deterioration at the base and uncovered footings or wharfs. The whole envelope of this part needs to be updated for protection, air fixing, ventilation, and water resistance. These conditions mean that the building does not meet Approved Document H stipulations. Notably, it will not be hard to enhance the versatility of this building. Approved Document K The document is concerned with safety while using stairs, ramps, and guards. It regulates the design of stairs so that users may not be exposed to any risk while using the accessories. The design of stairs should allow for guard against tripping or sliding. Handrails and balustrades are used for this purpose. The document also prohibits the design of buildings that would lead to the collision with ventilation system, door traps and careering for multi-storeys car parks. Newton Building qualifies in all relevant stipulations contained in this document; the stairs and elevators are designed in a way that limit all risk that may result from their usage. Approved Document N Regulations in this section control how transparent components should be used in the design of a building. These include glass at the window, doors, walls and other similar features. It requires that the components be installed in a way that users do not phase any risk while using them; consideration is given to loads, impact and cracking of the components. Newton Building is properly glazed; windows and doors have glass firmly attached. The type of glazing used is designed to avoid shutter in case of failure. Proposed Changes From the time of construction, it has been imperative that a perfect veneer ought to be reflected in the proposed cladding framework. This proposition now mirrors this without replicating the first outline. The Eternit Equitone cladding board has been chosen for the visible surface, matt colors and compounds. The two particular materials utilized are Tectiva Pebble and Tectiva Calico. Tectiva Pebble when boards applied as the core material for the front and back heights, running evenly between the fenestration details and the blend of the striations incorporated with the surface composition, will give the best display. The flank heights will be clad in Tectiva Calico boards, with the focal recessed lightweight clad in the Tectiva Pebble, to accentuate the verticals. The Tectiva Calico boards will be utilized as a covering gadget for the primary walls when set against the darker Pebble boards. The cladding will offer profundity to the veneers. The proposed design ensure agreement with the surrounding, the central rises and framing major window while providing shadow lines. The rainscreen cladding is essential in attaining an agreeable appearance. Wherever conceivable, cladding boards will be used. The gas risers can be encased with punctured cladding boards yet these must be easily removable. In this, way boards covering gas vents will be surface sealed with screw fixings, powder covered to match the shading of the cladding. This will be imperceptible to the eye. The proposition for the new cladding framework does not affect critical parts of the building and there is no proposition at present to change either the doorway entryways or the fenestration frameworks, despite the fact that window cills will be restored. The maintenance of the current block work at ground floor level does not require bringing down the general configuration structure. The mix of the precisely chose materials, chosen color, and their application to the building is in line with the designer plan of the distinctive colour positions, to guarantee verticality, harmony and profundity to the veneer and will bring about a decently outlined set of verticals that agrees with the original design. Energy efficiency and the advantages of the new cladding framework to the environment and the inhabitants is far greater. The proposed outside protection to Newton Building are ways of reducing costs on fuel, giving protection and decreasing carbon discharge from the building. The undertaking will enhance operation affordability by decreasing heating bills and the occupant comfort by decreasing structural waste accumulations. Utilizing extensive solid boards implied that the outside sandwich boards that make up the outer walls have poor heat protection properties, and the slender sheets of protection that were attached to outside walls are deficient for the building of the size thus needs an upgrade. In expansion, the framework has a few uninsulated intersections, which reduces the buildings heat retention abilities. The proposed rainscreen cladding is a manifestation of twofold wall development that utilizes an external layer to keep the downpour out and an inward layer to give heat protection, avert exorbitant air and bring fresh air. The structural edge of the building is kept scorched, as water never gets into contact with it. The protection will insulate the heat from going through the outer divider. In winter, this will imply that the temperature inside the building will not scatter through the wall to the (colder) outside air (Megel, 2006). In the summer, the inverse of the process will favor the building: heat from the sun will less efficiently pass through the protection and outer wall into the residence and in this way lessening occurrences of overheating (Havy, 2009). An expected 5282 kWh yearly energy saving would be made. It is projected that the undertaking will spare nearly £245 every year from every heating unit. The framework requires little intervention and can be operative for not less not 50 years. Potential midyear is overheating happens, as the pads will be picking up heat from the sun across the concrete walls (Colman, 2000). These temperature changes are realized in the higher sections, which encounter more exposure to daylight and whose walls are profoundly retentive of sun radiation. This heat gathered is then channeled to the interior parts. The surface of outside protection ought to decrease summer heating effect through two methods. Firstly, the new surfaces of the weatherproof rainscreen will absorb significantly less radiation than the current walls do. In addition, the protecting layer will decrease the entry of heat from the weatherproof rain screen through the concrete walls and into the building (Tonnel, 2007). Consequently, the outer protection frameworks can make an enormous improvement to lessening summer overheating of the building. Bottom and top windows allowances will aid in heat loss during hot seasons. The particular renovation framework proposed, the Equitone framework, is versatile, and self-cleaning. This low maintenance structure is appropriate to tall building overcladding design. The modification does not involve systems that will make discharges through direct power use, so no appraisal of discharges or offsets is needed, in this case. For the purpose of the renovation, examination of the properties utilizing either the BREEAM or Code for Sustainable Homes systems are necessary (Bein, 2013). The proposed work is considered to agree with the Approved Document H, which deals with environmental changes. It is also in harmony with Approved Document J, Approved Document M and Approved Document L, which are guidelines for maintainable building configuration, energy efficiency principles and heating systems and sufficient temperature modifications in the construction in all seasons (Bein, 2013) (Kellen & Coddy, 2000). New Additional Designs and Features Alterations to the Basement fenestration and entryways at the east veneer: Creating another window opening to the south, enlarging the size and extending a second entrance on the northern side. Doors, window plan, and other fenestration properties will be given more consideration to enhance safety and movement. Alteration to the east hall lower porch: Opening the partitioning walls of the eastern court to enlarge the size of open space at the Basement level, including moving the southern stair run marginally further south. The base will be marble-clad to realize a uniformity throughout the basement, whatever remains of the straight will be clad in regular red copper – to paginate over the long run, with subtle elements demonstrated on the current design. New windows will be introduced along the edges of the extended stairs. A window will be necessary for the current oriel. Conclusion. The proposition comes up with many ways of improving the condition of Newton Building, the building condition shows elements of poor maintenance and some features of the building outdated. The important issues emerging from the customized evaluation are the appearance of the building after the protection measures. Other aspects include the viability of the measures to withstand various questions that affect the construction at the present condition, precisely, moist, condensation and absence of protection in winter, overheating during spring and energy inefficiency. The new cladding framework has been selected to guarantee that its appearance upgrades the building, gives visual comfort, trustworthiness, quality, and conceals various past unattractive repairs and links. The framework is intended to guarantee that the building will continue to serve its purposes, but in a better condition. The new cladding framework will bring cost-related advantages by ensuring energy efficiency, a healthier interior environment with a decrease in mash and mould formations. The room will be hotter in winter and a cooler room environment in summer. The outline, material and composition of the proposed cladding framework will guarantee that the respectability and character of the original exterior is held whilst giving a cutting edge, stately and appealing appearance that will upgrade the building to modern design. It is suggested that the application is endorsed subject to the condition that the end results will be an improved structure. Works Cited Bein, D. (2013). Building codes and standards. London: Paper Ink Press. Colman, V. (2000). Choice of building materials and use. Ney York: Yok publishers. Havy, G. (2009). Designing for quality. London: Delly and Sons publishers. Herrold, M. (2008). Approved building standards for public buildings. Texas: Academic.nk press. Howard, J. (2001). Rating boiler capacities. London: Ink Works Press. Kellen, J., & Coddy, T. (2000). Building codes and standards: United Kingdom. London: Science Publications. Megel, J. (2006). Heat transfer and currents. London: Inkpress. Tallien, D. (2001). British building standards. London: Star Works Press. Terrion, J. (2010). Quality assuarnce in public buildings. Chicago: Jack Stone and Sons publishers. Tonnel, J. (2007). Materials and heat capacity: Masonry structures. London: Inkbird publishers. Read More