Environmentally Friendly Roofing Materials In Chiang Mai

2y ago
16 Views
2 Downloads
1.69 MB
78 Pages
Last View : 16d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Camden Erdman
Transcription

Authored By:Daniel SullivanCatherine BannishAlyssa FidanzaNathaniel PetersonPokpong RungthanaphatsophonTanit IntaranukulkitPiebprom JundeeEnvironmentally FriendlyRoofing Materials in Chiang Mai2012Worcester Polytechnic InstituteChulalongkorn UniversityThe Urban DevelopmentInstitute Foundation

AbstractABSTRACTChiang Mai has suffered from rapid population growth and inefficient waste management.The Urban Development Institute Foundation has tried to reduce the amount of airpollution by incorporating non-recycled waste into building materials. An attempt at usingTetra Pak for roofing is failing because ultra-violet rays, heat, and moisture aredeteriorating the tiles. We researched environmental construction materials, case studies,and local opinions, then constructed prototypes and made recommendations forecologically friendly roofing. Ultimately, we were able to recommend four different roofingsolutions for the UDIF to follow, as well as potential future research groups.i

Executive SummaryEXECUTIVE SUMMARYChiang Mai is a city currently struggling with rapid urbanization and population growth.The strong regional culture attracted many tourists, which contributed to the growth of thecity. Due to this, Chiang Mai is suffering from constantly increasing air pollution,particularly due to the inappropriate waste disposal methods in the region. The inability toaccommodate for the vast quantities of waste has caused much of the waste to be burned,and further contributed to Chiang Mai’s air pollution. This is concerning because mountainssurround Chiang Mai, trapping the pollution and thus compounding the air quality issue.The Urban Development Institute Foundation has brought attention to this problem bycreating a clay house built of materials that would otherwise be disposed of. Unfortunately,the Tetra Pak roof they created has proved to be defective, and a new design is needed. Ourgoal was to recommend durable roofing solutions that incorporated waste products inorder to reduce the pollution in Chiang Mai.METHODOLOGYWe began by researching sustainable roofing options from around the world as well as thematerials available to us in Chiang Mai. Interviews were conducted with specialists andcitizens to determine what materials would be best to use to create a successful roofingstructure. Through these interviews, we found that in order for the new roof to besuccessful, it needed to last over five years, be relatively simple to construct, not furthercontribute to air pollution, and use waste materials that would otherwise have beenburned. The roof would also need to be functional and aesthetically attractive to thecommunity. With these specifications in mind, we decided on five main materials toincorporate into our prototype: clay, cement, vinyl posters, Tetra Pak cartons, andStyrofoam. In order to improve the properties of these materials, we used additives such aswax, oil, and plaster. By using a method of experimentation and modification, we improvedupon the flaws found in each prototype, resulting in better designs.Through researching case studies, we were able to find other solutions that would beplausible for the Foundation’s needs. We researched fired clay, compressed earth, organicmatter, cement, and plastic bags in an attempt to find other options. Unfortunately, many ofthe designs we found required processing that released toxins into the air, either by use ofchemicals or burning. These designs typically required complex manufacturing, whichmade them unfit for our recommendation.Once we had developed a list of potential solutions, we distributed surveys in Chiang Mai todetermine public opinion regarding roofing characteristics and concern for theenvironment. The data acquired was used to determine which qualities were mostimportant for a roof, as well as gauge the potential reception of the recommendation.ii

Executive SummaryFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONWhile analyzing each potential solution in terms of our objectives, we determined thatsimply one recommendation was not enough to satisfy the overall goal. The scientific andsocial aspects of each potential solution varied, and as a result, multiple recommendationswere developed to cover multiple contingencies. These recommendations were designed tofit the needs of different types of populations, so that depending on an individual’sresources, they may still have a roof that satisfies the environmental goals of this project.Our main recommendation was a biological garden roof as it most accurately satisfied thegoals of the project. This solution not only uses waste materials in its design, but it alsoreduces the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Plastic bags can create the roof’swaterproofing layer, while Tetra Pak as well as other waste can be mixed into the soil,aiding in the growth of the roof’s vegetation. Though we did not test this solution and thelifespan is unknown, we believe it will be a successful and accepted recommendation.However, this solution would not be the best option for the whole community as it isdifficult to construct and requires a sturdy structure to build upon. We thereforerecommended less difficult roofing options as well.Our second recommendation is a roofing tile made of Tetra Pak, cement, and sand. TheTetra Pak cartons are shredded and added into the cement mixture to act as a fibrousskeleton. Tiles are then formed in a mold and arranged in a traditional tiling pattern foundon other buildings in the area. From the surveys and our site assessment, we found thattiling is a widely used roofing solution, demonstrating that the new tiles could be easilyincorporated into the city. This hybrid tile would also help to address the air pollution as itwould be using Tetra Pak cartons that would otherwise be incinerated or sit in a landfill.The solution is very durable with an expected life span of about 50 years and can becreated either by local residents or a small business. Unfortunately, these tiles utilizecement, which is created in a process that releases a lot of carbon dioxide and are moreexpensive than other options.In order to utilize the most waste, we recommend two further solutions. The first is acorrugated sheet made almost entirely of Tetra Pak, created by the GreenRoof Company.Despite the process releasing pollution into the air, the product is durable, fireproof, lightweight, and easy to install. This would be a viable option in the Chiang Mai region as manypeople are currently using corrugated metal for their roofs, so this adjustment would besimple to make. We recommend that the Foundation look more into this company andperhaps help to design a more environmentally friendly manufacturing process.Our other low cost recommendation is our hybrid corrugated roof made of Tetra Pak andvinyl advertisement strips. The Tetra Pak is layered in a corrugated design with strips ofvinyl covering the crests to prevent water leaking and protect the staples from rusting. Thissolution is inexpensive since it is almost entirely made of waste materials. Moreover, thematerial is lightweight and can be constructed by the community with relative ease. Theproblem with this option is that the Tetra Pak’s polyethylene layer will still peel due to theUV rays, so we recommend the Foundation continue to look for a solution. In addition, itiii

Executive Summarymay not last the five years requested by our sponsor, but we believe that it is the bestsolution if using mostly Tetra Pak and an environmentally-friendly construction method isdesired. We further recommend the Foundation observe and analyze our prototype to seehow well it lasts compared to their current Tetra Pak roof.Once we had recommended these four solutions, it became clear to us that environmentallyfriendly roofing alone was not enough to reduce the pollution in Chiang Mai. Our groupdetermined that it would be in the best interest of the UDIF to recruit two research teams,each to help accomplish future goals of the Foundation. One team would focus mainly onpublicizing the Foundation itself, as well as developing ways to educate the citizens ofChiang Mai about the pollution problem. The second group would aim to assess exactlywhat was producing the majority of the pollution in Chiang Mai so the UDIF could targetthe exact sources of the pollution. We believe that much more work is needed in order tofulfill all the goals of the Foundation, but are hopeful that our recommendations have paveda path toward sustainable urban development in Chiang Mai.FIGURE 1: FOUR PRIMARY ROOFING RECOMMENDATIONSiv

AcknowledgementsACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to thank the Urban Development Institute Foundation of Chiang Mai forsponsoring this project. Special thanks go to the Foundation’s staff, Niwath Sermma,Chonticha Kawiyok, and Dr. Duongchan Charoenmuang.We would also like to thank Chulalongkorn University for providing many of the resourcesnecessary to complete this project.In addition, we would like to thank Samarn Chantakaluk for sharing his expertise with us,and assisting in the creation of the cement prototypes.It is also important to note that this project incorporates the views and opinions of manypeople from Chiang Mai, Chulalongkorn University, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, andvarious areas of Thailand. This includes the ideas of many professionals. Without the helpof these people, it would have been impossible to complete the project.Finally, we want to thank our advisers: Drs. Bland Addison, Rojrit Rojanathanes, and IngridShockey.v

Table of ContentsTABLE OF CONTENTSAbstract . iExecutive Summary. iiMethodology . iiFindings and Recommendation . iiiAcknowledgements . vTable of Contents . viTable of Figures . ixChapter 1: Introduction . 1Chapter 2: Literature Review . 3Chiang Mai Environment: History, Geography and pollution . 3Urban Development Institute Foundation . 5Weather and Climate . 6Materials . 7Clay. 7Cement . 9Tetra Pak. 9Construction . 10Case Studies of Sustainable roofing . 12Tests . 15Conclusion . 16Chapter 3: Methodology . 17Site Assessment . 17In-Depth Interview . 17vi

Table of ContentsPhysical Analysis . 18Identifying UnrecycledMaterials . 18Developing Roofing Designs . 18Testing and Evaluating Feasibility . 19Effects on Environment . 20Testing . 20Local and Expert Opinions . 21Recommending a Solution . 21Timeline. 22Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis . 234.1 Findings . 23Evaluation of Non-Recycled Waste Materials . 26Findings Concerning Waste Materials . 27Clay. 28Cartons . 30Vinyl . 32Hybrid . 32Findings from Case Study Solutions . 33Findings from Feasibility Surveys and Interviews . 364.2: Analysis of Findings . 42Chapter 5: Recommendations and Conclusions. 48Roofing Recommendations . 48Additional Recommendations . 51Conclusion . 52Bibliography. 55vii

Table of ContentsAppendices . 61Appendix A: Detailed Testing Procedures . 61Appendix B: Testing Results . 62Appendix C: Interview Questions . 63Appendix D: Survey . 65Appendix E: Summary of All Findings . 67Appendix F: Material Life Cycles. 68viii

Table of FiguresTABLE OF FIGURESFigure 1: Four Primary Roofing Recommendations. ivFigure 2: Chiang Mai Province in Thailand . 4Figure 3: Map of Chiang Mai Province . 5Figure 4: Average Monthly Temperature and Rainfall in Chiang Mai . 7Figure 5: Methods for Stabilizing Clay . 8Figure 6: Single Layer Roof Example . 11Figure 7: Simple Triangular Frame . 12Figure 8: Green Roof Hut Design . 13Figure 9: Transverse Rupture Test . 16Figure 10: Project Timeline. 22Figure 11: Peeling Polyethylene on Original Tetra Pak Roof . 24Figure 12: Display of Mold Under Original Tetra Pak Roof . 25Figure 13: Hidden Edges Solution made of Tetra Pak . 30Figure 14: Corrugated Tetra Pak Solution .

deteriorating the tiles. We researched environmental construction materials, case studies, and local opinions, then constructed prototypes and made recommendations for ecologically friendly roofing. Ultimately, we were able to recommend four different roofing solutions for the UDI

Related Documents:

1. Roofing system 1 2. Requirement of roofing material 1 3. Metal roofing 1 4. Classification of metal roofing 2 5. Merits of self supported roofing system 3 6. Material and technology 3 7. Specification of galvalume sheet 4 8. Primary sheeting material 4 9. Present systems of self supported roofing 5 10.

Skyline Roofing Installation Guide April 2019 5 ROOF PREPARATION ASC Building Product's Skyline Roofing can be used in both new construction and retrofit roofing applications .Resistance: Skyline Roofing must be installed over

NOA No. 21-0315.03 Expiration Date: 10/05/26 Approval Date: 05/06/21 Page 2 of 11 ROOFING ASSEMBLY APPROVAL Category: Roofing Sub Category: Roofing Tiles Material: Concrete 1. SCOPE: This approves a new roofing system using "Low Profile Concrete Tile" as manufactured by Eagle Roofing Products LLC in Sumterville, FL and described in Section 2 of this Notice of Acceptance.

NOA No. 21-0315.02 Expiration Date: 10/05/26 Approval Date: 05/06/21 Page 2 of 9 ROOFING ASSEMBLY APPROVAL Category: Roofing Sub Category: Roofing Tiles Material: Concrete 1. SCOPE: This approves a new roofing system using High Profile Concrete Tile as manufactured by Eagle Roofing Products LLC in Sumterville, FL and described in Section 2 of this Notice of Acceptance.

NOA No. 21-0315.04 Expiration Date: 10/05/26 Approval Date: 05/06/21 Page 2 of 10 ROOFING ASSEMBLY APPROVAL Category: Roofing Sub Category: Roofing Tiles Material: Concrete 1. SCOPE: This approves a system using Eagle Roofing Products Medium Profile Concrete Tile, as manufactured by Eagle Roofing Products LLC in Sumterville, FL and described in Section 2 of this Notice of

ROOFING LASHING N HIMNEYS INTRODUCTION 1.0 Roofing SLOPED AND FLAT There are two main categories of roofing systems: sloped roofs and flat roofs. Roofing profes-sionals call these steep roofs and low sloped roofs. Sloped roofing systems are not watertight; they shed water with overlapping shingles or tiles. Flat roofs, on the other hand, are water-

ROOFING COMPANY TO THE NEXT LEVEL? Schedule A Free 1-on-1 Roofing Blueprint Session Want to get a custom blueprint on how to easily generate leads and grow your roofing company? Click the button below and SCHEDULE A FREE 1- on-1 ROOFING BLUEPRINT with Matt Jacob, the owner of the top-notc

Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory provides a completely fresh and original introduction to literary studies. Bennett and Royle approach their subject by way of literary works themselves (a poem by Emily Dickinson, a passage from Shakespeare, a novel by Salman Rushdie), rather than by way of abstract theoretical ideas and isms. In 32 short chapters they focus on a range of .