By samsontam@me.com Building Technology 0 Comments

Visual Information Technology in Surveying and Engineering Industries – Part 1

Visual information is always the most direct way for human beings to understand and explore the world. In the past, human beings used drawings for recording history and details. All this visual information can help people nowadays to understand the information and imagine the visual world.

Image is one of the most important records in both surveying and engineering which used for monitoring the progress and review the findings throughout site inspection. More photo records which will help to indicate more details refer to the drawings. Therefore, a good practice of site inspection; photos taking is always a key factor which may affect the progress and follow up actions for all projects.

Importance of Visual Information

According to “YourStory”, humans are wired to respond to visuals more than just text. As visual content is easier to consume and digest.

  • Around 50-80 percent of the human brain is dedicated to visual processing such as vision, visual memory, colours, shapes, movement, patterns, spatial awareness, and image recollection. (Reports The Wiley Network)
  • Visuals with colour increase people’s willingness to read a piece of content by 80 percent. (Reports – Saurage Research)
  • If you hear a piece of information, you might remember only 10 percent of it. Adding a picture to that results in a rise of recall up to 65 percent. (Source – Brainrules.net)
  • Posts inclusive of images produce 650 percent higher engagement than text-only posts. (Source – Pinterest)
  • It takes only 150 milliseconds for us to a process and image, and then another 100 milliseconds for us to attach any meaning to it. (Reports – Canva)
  • People following directions with text and illustrations do 323 percent better than people following directions without illustrations. (Source – Pinterest)

Credit: https://yourstory.com/2018/04/scientific-reasons-visual-marketing?utm_pageloadtype=scroll

Credit: http://www.iscribblers.com/infographics/5-scientific-reasons-people-are-wired-to-respond-to-visual-marketing/

From Drawings to Photography

As visual information is so important for humans in learning process. Our ancient used drawings to record the history since stone age which helps us to understand the past.

Credit: https://vestnikkavkaza.net/upload2/2017-01-13/180b9ee15b8c4384cd6b36e2cd51c377.jpg

Panoramic drawings become more popular which gave people a great impression for easier understand the information that painter want to deliver. Famous panoramic drawings can be found worldwide, such as “Along The River During the Qingming Festival” (China), Barker’s London panorama of 1792, from the top of the Albion Mills (UK).

Credit: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Panorama_of_London_Barker.jpg

Credit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwMwDYEfMy0&feature=youtu.be

Drawing is a good source of visual information that can record the moment and reflect the details; however, drawings completion may lead a long time to complete and all details are from painters’ memory only.

Photo is another good source for recording and faster in the workflow. Photography technology and also computer software have been developed into a next-generation which help all stakeholders to study and learn deeply with site situation. Location, time, measurement information are also be able to capture by today’s technology.

In the past, film cameras are used for photo taking which will be limited due to cost and photography skills by the site staff. Most photos taking will be either whole shot and defects, not enough details can be shown in those photos.  Since photography technology has been improved a lot, the digital camera has taken the industry practice to the next generation. In the same situation with drawings, people always want to take more details in one shot in order to show more information and surrounding.

A panoramic view of the construction of the ESO Supernova Planetarium & Visitor Centre.

Credit: Architekten Bernhardt + Partner (www.bp-da.de)

With the aid of technology, split-screen panoramic photo comparison enables remote stakeholders to check and communicate with each other remotely in the same platform. Such technology can resolve conflicts and misunderstandings during the construction process. Those photo records can also be stored for facilities management to use for repair and maintenance purposes.

In the next chapter, we will go through more new technologies to show how the new cameras can help in site inspection and measurement.

 

 

By John Lam Asset Enhancement • Building Law • Design • Uncategorized 0 Comments

Make Use of Verandah in High Rise Buildings for Fire Safety Aspect

The impact of Fire Safety Code in Hong Kong

The fire safety code has experienced a few rounds of reform. The most influential reform we opined was the code published in 1996 and also the code in 2011. While there are many honorable peers have shared the view to both code applicable in Hong Kong, GBE found one interesting HK-unique escape staircase arrangement which have been prevailing in 2 decades ago. This the verandah space intercepting between the apartment units and the requirement staircase (usually scissor-type)

 

Verandah Space being merged 

This verandah space was a space designed in half-open to the external air. The space is connecting between the staircase and the apartment unit through the fire-rated doors. Driven by congested space in Hong Kong, some verandah, in this case, has been enclosed by the window and merged to the apartment units. This was deemed to be against the fire safety code or approved plan.

 

GBP for showing the Typical location of the verandah in a domestic unit

The Provision of HK CAP 502

In 2007, the HONG KONG CAP 572 Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance has been put into enforcement. The “Purpose Of Ordinance” is cited in clause 2 of Cap 572 and We copied here as follows.

This ordinance is aimed to provide protection from the risk of fire of occupants, users, and visitors to certain kinds of composite buildings and domestic buildings.

The law further explains the requirements including fire service installation and equipment and fire safety construction for different kinds of buildings in its Schedule 1 , 2, and 3 correspondingly. The governing requirements stated clearly is to apply the Code 1996 as the “standard” to satisfy the intention of this Ordinance. Thus, the said “Verandah” enclosure or modification is likely in this radar.

 

What did Code in 1996 talk about the “Verandah”

In our view, there was no direct elaboration to the “veranda” being designed for the intercepting lobby between the required staircase and the unit. From the MOE code 1996 and FRC 1996, there was a few relevant paragraphs which came up eventually the “veranda” application as a protected lobby. Since the author was not the Code writer nor in an authoritative position to comment, this blog of write-up serves to trigger some interesting discussion.

 

The provision of the “Protection” lobby was written in clause 13.5 in MOE 1996 and the design of “Protection lobby” was explained in 11.3 FRC 1996. Nevertheless, the enclosing wall of the Protected lobby was further explained in clause 11.7. Honestly, it was a complex integration of different clauses at different code and could easily lead to various explanation outcomes. This undesirable situation such complex set of codes has been improved in lately 2011 code.

The interpretations of Protected Lobby stated in MOE 1996 Code

The design of “Required staircase and protected lobby” was explained in Clause 11.3 at FRC 1996 Code

The Clause 13.5 in MOE 1996 Code

Indeed, the old 1996 code has remarked very clearly in clause 13.5 MOE 1996 code that “such lobby shall be designed as a common area and an integral part of the staircase so that it could not be readily incorporated as part of any adjacent unit(s) of accommodation” The 1996 code did aware the issue of merging the protection lobby to the private unit. Nevertheless, the complex nature of the set of codes 1996 which led to different explanations may undermine the intention in clause 13.5.

Plan for demonstrating the Verandah between the required staircase and the apartment

Above is another example where the “Veranda” was inserted between the escape staircase and the apartment. Interestingly, the kitchen doors also opened to the verandah. It was believed that this layout configuration is hardly survivable in today’s Code.

By John Lam Asset Enhancement • Building Law • Building Technology • • 0 Comments

“Common Staircase” shared by adjoining lot in Hong Kong

The leftover structure coming from rapid Urban redevelopment in Hong Kong

In the urban development , the land was delineated by “Block” and was subsequently craved or partitioned in a different section and eventually further craved into different sub-section. It resulted a lot of common boundary to each piece of lands adjoining to each other.

 

The common boundary bought in the typical implication of “party wall” and “common staircase”. There was a blog written by GBE about “party wall”. The reader is welcome to comment. “Common staircase” is what this article goes deep.

 

The main staircase of the building became as “common” because it was commonly shared between two pieces of land. The common staircase was jointly owned for the enjoyment of the entire building. Since it was common to two adjoining pieces of land, it naturally positioned at the boundary line. It was not a must but naturally came up in the middle between two lots.

Redevelopment and remaining common staircase

With the re-development took place in one piece of land, the adjoining land where the original main building sitting on was necessitated to maintain the common staircase for access. This came up the situation alike to the “Party wall” where the common staircase needs to be retained and still occupy land and space on the land going to be redeveloped.

 

The first and immediate concern is obviously the common staircase is an enclosed space and fall into the definition of GFA. Nevertheless, this common staircase is nothing helpful and undesirable to new development. To cope with this, the above-extracted part plan has illustrated the example of how the PNAP ADM -2 resolves the GFA problem. In short , the entire footprint of the common staircase be deductible from the GFA calculation. According to PNAP ADM-2 from the Buildings Department, the existing common staircase for an old building can be excluded from site coverage and plot ratio calculation.

 

Case Study in two adjoining Urban buildings

Building “A” was redeveloped in 1992. The landlord was obligated to leave the common staircase un-touched and exempted its footprint from accountable GFA. Building “B” was subsequently redeveloped in 2008, but the redevelopment of Building B has demolished partly the “common staircase” sitting on the respective piece of land.

Ground Floor Plan of Building A (showing the Location of Common staircase with Building B)

 

 

GFA Calculation of Building A

 

Ground Floor Plan of Building B (showing the Location of Common staircase with Building A)

 

 

Site Area Calculation in Building B

Another example showing the common staircase issue

Building “C” was redeveloped in 2004, while Building D was redeveloped in 1994. Building “C” and Building “D” retained the common staircase after both redevelopments.

Ground Floor Plan of “Building C”

Ground Floor Plan of “Building D”

Funny interesting maintenance issue

The interesting things come up is that building A which developed earlier than Building B was containing the old “common staircase” . This old left-over common staircase in Building “A” was not GFA counted by the time of redevelopment. The owner of Building A is caught in dilemma. The site where building A sitting on has fully exploited its GFA potential by the time of its redevelopment in 1992. It is now found no surplus GFA be able to assign to this leftover physical ” common staircase” space in the hope to light up again the space utilisation, particularly valuable in highly urbanised city area. The landlord of building A is naturally no incentive to maintain nor convert this common staircase to other proper usage. The only value is the external wall of the left-over common staircase which was being poised for signage in Building “A” (as shown on the photo below. Obviously, the author is wondering the maintenance liability to the grandfather jointly owned structure , i.e Common staircase