Annotated Summary

Ahmedzade, P., & Sengoz, B. (2009). Evaluation of steel slag coarse aggregate in hot mix asphalt concrete. Journal of hazardous materials, 165(1-3), 300-305. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.09.105

This article focuses on the influences of the utilization of steel slag as a course aggregate on the properties of hot mix asphalt. Ahmedzade’s and Sengoz’s main aim of this article seems to be to convince readers of the great effects of substituting coarse and fine aggregates in asphalt mix with steel slag aggregates. Steel slag, a by-product of steel making has been utilized in a number of applications in the civil engineering industry. For paving mixes, steel slag should be limited to only replace either the fine or coarse aggregate fraction, but not both. Steel slag has an angular shape, and for this reason, hot mix asphalt containing 100% steel slag is susceptible to high void space and bulking problems and will also be prone to over-asphalting during production and subsequent flushing due to in-service traffic compaction. In this study, four different asphalt mixtures containing two types of asphalt cement (AC-5 & AC-10) and course aggregate (limestone & steel slag) were used to prepare Marshall specimens and to determine optimum bitumen content. The limestone aggregate was procured from quarries around Elazig while the steel slag was directly obtained from Erdemir Steel Manufacturing Factory. Different tests were conducted to evaluate the mechanical characteristics of all mixtures. Such tests were Marshall stability, flow and Marshall quotient, indirect tensile stiffness modulus, creep stiffness, indirect tensile strength and resistance to moisture damage. Electrical resistivity of the specimens was also measured on Marshall specimens by electrical resistivity testing apparatus and in accordance with ASTMD257-91. Scanning electron microscope was used to observe the surface texture of steel slag and limestone where it was seen that plenty of pores were on the surface steel slag which implies that steel slag is a kind of porous material. From the results obtained from the different tests conducted, it was observed that steel slag used as a course aggregate improved the mechanical properties of asphalt mixtures. The results indicated that steel slag mixtures have excellent engineering properties and good electrical conductivity. AC-10/SS asphalt mixture showed the best performance among the tested mixtures. Moreover, the volume resistivity values showed that steel slag electrical conductivity were better than that of limestone mixtures. 

Summary_Reader Response (Draft 3)

In the news release, “Eight failures that left people of Grenfell Tower at mercy of the inferno”, Knapton and Dixon (2017) reported the eight failures of the Grenfell Tower’s fire incident. Until 1986, all buildings in London adhered to the London building act which demanded that external walls have a minimum of at least 1 hour of fire resistance. However, during the Margaret Thatcher’s government, the law was changed which removed the critical time stipulations. Also, a coroner’s report in 2013 following a 2009 fire in South London was responded to by Community Secretary Eric Pickles who reassured that a government review on building regulations would be published in 2016/17. Till the publication of Knapton and Dixon’s article, there had been no updated regulation. The physical aspect of the Grenfell tower was also a vital cause to the fire incident. Firstly, the claddings were thought to be made from a flammable plastic core, and the position of the claddings also acted as wind tunnels to spread the fire upwards. Secondly, there was no central sprinkler system in the building, and some of the front doors were not fireproof doors. Also, the Grenfell Tower only had one staircase which made escaping and rescue difficult and lastly, no regular inspection was being conducted for the building.

All in all, the Knapton and Dixon (2017) news release provides information regarding the eight failures of the Grenfell Tower’s fire incident. However, it fails to mention the critical factor that leads to the other failures. From my perspective, if regular inspections had been conducted on the building, it could have prevented this terrific incident from occurring.

"No regular Inspection" was the most vital failure which leads to the other failures. Had regular inspection be conducted, the chances of other failures occurring would have been minimal. From the Knapton and Dixon’s article, the Grenfell Tower had many fire issues that had been brought up to the relevant authorities. However, nothing had been done to address those issues. This could be supported with another article, "Grenfell fire warnings issues months before blaze, documents show"(Busby, 2018) where it stated that in June 2016, there were warnings issued by the independent assessor and actions were recommended on more than 40 "high-risk" issues within two to three weeks. It is essential and important for planning any maintenance actions to improve the condition and functionality of a building. The main purpose of an inspection is to acquire useful information about the technical performance of a building which includes “structural, physical, and well-functioning building equipment”(Bortini & Forcada, 2018).

From my standpoint, if regular inspections had been conducted for the Grenfell Tower, a fire pumping system would had been installed which Grenfell Tower failed to do as stated in the article. The presence of a fire pumping system is very important when an undesirable fire event occur. They would emit fire containment substances like foam in addition to water. In the article “Availability of fire pumping systems under periodic inspection” (Sobral & Ferreira, 2016), it stated that whenever a fire occurs, and something goes wrong, the operability of the fire pumping system is one of the first issues to be analysed by insurance companies. This demonstrates how imperative the presence of a fire pump system in a building is. It could have saved more lives in the tragic event of Grenfell Tower Inferno.

In conclusion, these failures could have been avoided with regular reviews. Regular inspections are essential to a building’s general maintenance and it should have been carried out for Grenfell Tower. Knowing the existing and potential issues is crucial to ensuring the safety, aesthetics and value of a building. If the potential failures of Grenfell Tower had been predicted with regular building inspections, corrective measures or actions could have been implemented, preventing other failures from occurring. It is also crucial to have mentioned the importance or severity of each failure to allow future engineers or designers to delve into and learn from them, preventing such incident from happening again in the future.

Reference:

Knapton, R. & Dixon, H. (2017, June 16). Eight failures that left people of Grenfell Tower at mercy of the inferno. Retrieved January 22,2019, fromhttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/15/eight-failures-left-people-grenfell-tower-mercy-inferno/

Busby, M. (2018, August 08). Grenfell fire warnings issued months before blaze, documents show. Retrieved February 10, 2019, fromhttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/aug/08/grenfell-fire-warnings-issued-months-before-blaze-show-documents

Bortini, R. & Forcada, N. (2018, October 05). Building Inspection System for Evaluating the Technical Performance of Existing buildings. Retrieved February 03, 2019, fromhttps://ascelibrary-org.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/doi/full/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001220

Sobral, J.  & Ferreira, L.A. (2016, December). Availability of fire pumping systems under periodic inspection. Retrieved February 3, 2019, fromhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710216301693

Summary_Readers Response (Draft 2)

In the news release, “Eight failures that left people of Grenfell Tower at mercy of the inferno”, Knapton and Dixon (2017) reported the eight failures of the Grenfell Tower’s fire incident. Until 1986, all buildings in London adhered to the London building act which demanded that external walls have a minimum of at least 1 hour of fire resistance. However, during the Margaret Thatcher’s government, the law was changed which removed the critical time stipulations. Also, a coroner’s report in 2013 following a 2009 fire in South London was responded by Community Secretary Eric Pickles who reassured that a government review on building regulations would be published in 2016/17. Till today, there is still no updated regulation. The physical aspect of the Grenfell tower was also a vital cause to the fire incident. Firstly, the claddings were thought to be made out of a flammable plastic core, and the position of the claddings also acted as wind tunnels to spread the fire upwards. Secondly, there was no central sprinkler system in the building, and some of the front doors were not fireproof doors. Also, the Grenfell Tower only had one staircase which made escaping and rescue difficult and lastly, no regular inspection was being conducted for the building.

All in all, the Knapton and Dixon (2017) news release provides information regarding the eight failures of the Grenfell Tower’s fire incident, however it fails to mention the critical factor that leads to the other failures. From my perspective, if regular inspection was conducted on the building, it could have prevented this terrific incident from occurring.

"No regular Inspection" was the most vital failure which leads to the other failures. Should regular inspection be conducted, the chances of other failures occurring are minimal. From the article, the Grenfell Tower had many fire issues that were brought up to the relevant authorities, however nothing was done to address those issues. This could be supported with another article, "Grenfell fire warnings issues months before blaze, documents show" (Busby, 2018) where it stated that in June 2016, there were warnings issued by the independent assessor and actions were recommended on more than 40 "high-risk" issues within two to three weeks. It is essential and important for planning any maintenance actions to improve the condition and functionality of a building. The main purpose of an inspection is to acquire useful information about the technical performance of a building which includes “structural, physical, and well-functioning building equipment”(Bortolini, Forcada, 2018).

From my standpoint, if regular inspection was conducted for the Grenfell Tower, it would have been known to install a fire pumping system in the building which Grenfell Tower failed to do as stated in the article. The presence of a fire pumping system is very important when an undesirable fire event occur. They would emit fire containment substances like foam, in addition to water. In the article “Availability of fire pumping systems under periodic inspection” (Sobral, Ferreira, 2016), it stated that whenever a fire occurs, and something goes wrong, the operability of the fire pumping system is one of the first issues to be analysed by insurance companies. This proves how imperative the presence of a fire pump system in a building is. It could have saved more lives in the tragic event of Grenfell Tower Inferno.

In conclusion, these failures could have been avoided with regular reviews and better-fireproofing standards. Regular inspections are essential to a building’s general maintenance and it should have been carried out for Grenfell Tower. Knowing the existing and potential issues is crucial to ensuring the safety, aesthetics and value of a building. If the potential failures of Grenfell Tower were predicted with regular building inspections, corrective measures or actions could have been implemented, preventing other failures from occurring. It is also crucial to have mentioned the importance or severity of each failure to allow future engineers or designers to delve into and learn from them, preventing such incident from happening again in the future.



References

M. Busby. (2018, August 08). Grenfell fire warnings issued months before blaze, documents show. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/aug/08/grenfell-fire-warnings-issued-months-before-blaze-show-documents

Rafaela. Bortini., & Nuria. Forcada. (2018, October 05). Building Inspection System for Evaluating the Technical Performance of Existing buildings. Retrieved February 03, 2019, from https://ascelibrary-org.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/doi/full/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001220

J. Sobral  & L.A Ferreira (2016, December). Availability of fire pumping systems under periodic inspection. Retrieved February 3, 2019, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710216301693

Summary_Readers Response (Draft 1)

In the news release, “Eight failures that left people of Grenfell Tower at mercy of the inferno”, Knapton and Dixon (2017) reported the eight failures of the Grenfell Tower’s fire incident. Until 1986, all buildings in London adhered to the London building act which demanded that external walls have a minimum of at least 1 hour of fire resistance. However, during the Margaret Thatcher’s government, the law was changed which removed the critical time stipulations. Also, a coroner’s report in 2013 following a 2009 fire in South London was responded by Community Secretary Eric Pickles who reassured that a government review on building regulations would be published in 2016/17. Till today, there is still no updated regulation. The physical aspect of the Grenfell tower was also a vital cause to the fire incident. Firstly, the claddings were thought to be made out of a flammable plastic core, and the position of the claddings also acted as wind tunnels to spread the fire upwards. Secondly, there was no central sprinkler system in the building, and some of the front doors were not fireproof doors. Also, the Grenfell Tower only had one staircase which made escaping and rescue difficult and lastly, no regular inspection was being conducted for the building.

All in all, the Knapton and Dixon (2017) news release provides information regarding the eight failures of the Grenfell Tower’s fire incident, however it fails to mention the severity or importance of the failures or the critical factor that could have possibly been the reason to the other failures.

"No regular Inspection" was the most vital failure which leads to the other failures. Should regular inspection be conducted, the chances of other failures occurring are minimal. From the article “Building Inspection System for Evaluating the Technical Performance of Existing buildings” (Bortolini, Forcada, 2018), it stated the importance of building inspection and how it is essential for planning any maintenance actions to improve the condition and functionality of a building. It also stated that the main purpose of an inspection is to acquire useful information about the technical performance of a building which includes “structural, physical, and well-functioning building equipment”.

Therefore, regular inspections are essential to a building’s general maintenance and it should have been carried out for Grenfell Tower. Knowing the existing and potential issues is crucial to ensuring the safety, aesthetics and value of a building. If the potential failures of Grenfell Tower were predicted with regular building inspections, corrective measures or actions could have been implemented, preventing other failures from occurring.

Another critical failure is that the Grenfell Tower failed to install a fire pumping system in the building. The presence of a fire pumping system is very important when an undesirable fire event occur. They would emit fire containment substances like foam, in addition to water. In the article “Availability of fire pumping systems under periodic inspection” (Sobral, 2016), it stated that whenever a fire occurs, and something goes wrong, the operability of the fire pumping system is one of the first issues to be analysed by insurance companies. This proves how imperative the presence of a fire pump system in a building is. It could have saved more lives in the tragic event of Grenfell Tower Inferno.

In conclusion, these failures could have been avoided with regular reviews and better-fireproofing standards. It is also crucial to have mentioned the importance or severity of each failure to allow future engineers or designers to delve into and learn from them, preventing such incident from happening again in the future.



References

R. B., & N. F. (2018, October 05). Building Inspection System for Evaluating the Technical Performance of Existing buildings. Retrieved February 03, 2019, from https://ascelibrary-org.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/doi/full/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001220

S. J. (2016, December). Availability of fire pumping systems under periodic inspection. Retrieved February 3, 2019, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710216301693