Technical Report: Final Draft

1.0           Proposed Solution

Our team proposes that EMA adopt Anacle smart management solution to Singapore’s public hospital. The proposed solution will modify the current traditional implementation of meter reading, where extracting the individual readings of the gas, water and electricity data are collated physically on the premises. Instead, output data from the utility meters are routed to the smart meter. Readings from these utilities can be seen through the capacitive screen from the smart meter. Leveraging on the Internet of things (IoT), the readings from the Tesseract is stored in the system and building owners are able to see this information through the web browser on their computer. (refer to Appendix B and Appendix C)

5.1               Technical specification

The Tesseract has four digital Input/output and four analogue input along with an ethernet and a USB 2.0 port. The output from the gas, water and electrical meters will route to the analogue input of the system.

Tesseract uses the Modbus RTU RS-485 protocol, an IoT protocol compliance for communication. This means that the system is able to support up to 31 nodes across 1200 meters but has to be arranged in a daisy chain (refer to Figure 1). It is compatible with a comprehensive number of communication networks which includes Starlight communicator (refer to Appendix D) which is used in complement with Tesseract. An ethernet port is connected to the router and routed to a secured service provider.

Figure 1.           Arrangement in daisy chain (http://jamod.sourceforge.net/, 2010)

5.2               Existing example of proposed concept implemented

In the United Kingdom(UK), the Moorfields Eye Hospital adopted a smart metering system and has only been reaping benefits since. Harding (2017), director of estates and facilities,  claims that the system has given him the appropriate data he needs through the integration of various systems into one platform. Through this, Harding shares spending lesser man-hours to maintain the system. Thus, overall operating costs to maintain the building have gone down and productivity rises.

5.3               Benefits of proposed solution (numeric the different benefit)

Tesseract would be an asset to the Singapore’s public hospitals as it can increase the productivity of the facility management staff. By having one platform to view the overall building’s energy management, lesser manpower is required. Accuracy is also attained through the periodically recorded information of gas, water and electricity utilized.

5.3.1 Data extraction

Stored information from the smart meter can be assessed by data analysts to view and study patterns. This data extracted will be used in the BMS for better flow in the day to day operations through the building automation programming.

5.3.2 Operating System

Running on the Android operating system, Tesseract is able to install energy management applications. Further developing on these applications makes the smart metering system future proof.

5.4               Limitations of proposed solution

In terms of limitations, a very old system may not be suitable to implement the latest smart metering technology. Should building owners plan to use smart metering systems for existing buildings, they may need to conduct an assessment to determine whether the current system is compatible.

This means that the building owners need to plan an overhaul or upgrade their existing metering systems.

Reader's Response: Final draft

In the article, “Use of cladding buildings here have grown in recent times: Experts,” Faris Mokhtar (2017) reports the opinions of experts regarding the usage of cladding in the midst of the Grenfell Tower fire incident, which took the lives of many. “Engineering experts” claim that cladding reinforces the aesthetics and durability of the building. However, cladding potentially extends as a fire hazard. Different climates require different cladding methods and different countries have different regulations.* Here in Singapore, the cladding procedure has standards to ensure fire safety set by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF).  Although Faris used the Grenfell tower incident as an example that cladding is more detrimental than beneficial, he could have further investigated if the building had passed the standards of cladding to make fair judgement overall.

Firstly, Faris should have investigated in more detail what really happened as well as the history of Grenfell tower's implementation on cladding. Grenfell tower has a history of close to 50 years with regular upgrades and refurbishment in recent years. This included new exterior cladding of the building, which was done last May 2016. However, from the article "London fire: What happened at Grenfell Tower? (2017)," it was reported that the cause of the fire was narrowed down to the cladding of the building. Specialists spoke up to say that the standard for the materials used could have been more fire-resistant. It was also later investigated [BFB6] that both the cladding and insulation of the building did not pass the preliminary tests conducted by the police, concluding that insulation specimens burnt even more quickly than the cladding tiles. Harrabin (2017), an environment analyst, commented that even though cladding can be used for better insulation and other benefits, it should be used with caution and implemented correctly. The building owners for Grenfell towers, however, did not adhere to the regulations. *

Secondly, Faris could have also further investigated about the rationale behind the choice of materials used in cladding. Building owners are encouraged to make their building more sustainable and this was the case for the Grenfell tower. Their motive to upgrade their building was to make things greener. However, along with the upgrade comes the cost. Trying their best to shrink down the overall cost, they failed to adhere to the standards of the cladding. From the article "Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed to cheaper version'(2017)," reports indicate that the originally proposed material substituted was a less fire-resistant class, which saved them thousands of pounds. The material used was revealed to have never passed the standards in the United States. This raises some questions about the standards that were put in place by government officials in the UK.

Lastly, the writer can also look into other possibilities such as the policies on cladding that were currently put into place. Regulations in the British standards of cladding have been scrutinised. It was reported that the government officials had been warned by various engineers and fire safety experts in the country regarding the cladding regulations. Efforts were futile as the constant reminders only fell on deaf ears. Glanz (2017) recounts a Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order- a law that dropped the necessity for official inspectors to approve that buildings had met certain standards. Instead, they adopted "self-policing". The Grenfell Towers incident could have been avoided had the authorities cared more for their people. Implementing stricter regulations and conducting regular tests in cladding of the buildings could go a long way.

After studying the case of the Grenfell Tower incident, I was able to better comprehend what really happened. Faris' report was true to some extent that the cause of the fire that broke out was due to the cladding. However, this was only because of the weak policy implemented by the British standards. The cause of the downfall of Grenfell Tower was the accumulation of failed supervision by the building owners and the lenient policy by the government on cladding. *

References 

Faris, M. (2017, June 17). Use of cladding in buildings have grown in recent times: Experts. TODAY. Retrieved September 18, 2017, from http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/use-cladding-buildings-here-have-grown-recent-times-experts

Kirkpatrick, D. D. & Hakim, D. & Glanz, J. (2017, June 24). Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before Safety. The New York Times. Retrieved September 21, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/world/europe/grenfell-tower-london-fire.html?mcubz=3

London fire: Six questions for the investigation. (2017, July 19). BBC News. Retrieved September 21,

2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40279944

London fire: What happened at Grenfell Tower? (2017, July 19). BBC News. Retrieved September 21,

2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40272168

Symonds, T. & De Simone, D. (2017, June 30). Grenfell Tower: Cladding 'changed to cheaper version'. BBC News. Retrieved September 21,2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40453054

Critical Reflection: Effective Communications

Effective Communications is a class where my peers and I get to exchange ideas and thoughts, giving a different classroom atmosphere from the usual engineering modules we are taking. In the beginning of the trimester, we were tasked to come out with expectations regarding communications. It was there I shared my strength in public speaking and weakness in report writing. Reflecting back on the 13 weeks, I feel that I have achieved what I had targeted for myself.

The reader's response assignment, where we had to learn how to summarise and paraphrase articles, taught me to think more critically and put things into perspective. From this assignment, I had the opportunity to think out of the box and critique on the article we were assigned. Aside from that, doing cross-referencing from other articles to justify my claims and writing it out in APA style deepened my understanding with citations, paraphrasing as well as the formatting.

Preparations for the presentation also provided me with the confidence to pitch ideas to people. Adapting Garr Reynolds' 3 pillars to give a presentation (prepare, design and deliver) better fostered my understanding to give a proper presentation. Of course, the small group sharing sessions during class aided to put what we have learnt to the test.

Overall, I find the module to be fruitful and fulfilling. The group sharing sessions and blog entries have organised my thoughts better, albeit the minor mistake during the final presentation. Skills garnered here will definitely be used in the future.

Critical Reflection: Final presentation

Presentations have never been a strength of mine and that is why I admire presenters who are eloquent and have control of their thoughts while presenting. One of the components of this module was to present an engineering problem to our peers. My team, The Solution, had a good topic at hand; to implement smart meters in Singapore hospitals.

A week prior to the actual presentation we had the chance to put our skills to the test through a mock presentation. I will be honest, not much preparation was put into this mock presentation. The slides were done a day before the mock and were just extracted straight out from the proposal. It was only on the day itself my team realised we were not prepared for the actual presentation. The allocation for the duration time presenting was not evenly distributed and it was obvious that my head wasn't wrapped around the topic. Feedback from my peers was also evident that my performance was not good.

Later that evening my team went back to the drawing board, mainly focusing on the slides and evenly distributing our parts for the presentation. That meeting was the most productive of all the meetings we had for the entire project. Do not get me wrong, all 3 of us have been doing our part for the project but all the previous collaborations were done online either through "WhatsApp" or "google drive" (I have proof!). Ultimately, the real job gets done the old fashion way. We even scheduled to have our own mock presentation 2 days before the actual presentation.

Finally came the day we had to present. Personally, I felt that I did not perform as well as I expected to. My head was all over the place and I even made a mistake in the sequence of the slides. Fortunately, I was able to recover from the awkward mistake. The question and answer portion of the presentation, however, gave me confidence that I was able to present the topic and highlight the key features of my team's proposal.

Given the opportunity to change anything during the process, I would put in more time rehearsing for the presentation. I feel that my grasp on the topic was not good enough. My points were not in sequence and probably caused confusion to the audience. It did not give the justice to the topic my team and I presented. By having more time allocated to rehearse the presentation, all the mistakes done during the actual presentation could have been alleviated. Overall, I will take this whole experience as a learning process and make sure I don't repeat these mistakes in the future presentations.