Conejos, S; Ubando, A and Lin Chew, M Y (2022) Design for maintainability tool for nano-façade coating applications on high-rise façades in the tropics. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 12(1), pp. 70-95. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
The self-cleaning properties of nanostructured titanium dioxide façade coatings are useful in Singapore's tropical climate. However, its potential maintenance issues need to be determined right at the design stage. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the development of the design for maintainability tool which is a multicriteria design decision score sheet that evaluates the maintainability potential of nano-façade coating applications on high-rise façades with concrete and stonemasonry finishes and curtain walls. Quantitative methods (expert and practitioner surveys) are conducted in this research study. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and sensitivity analysis were used to develop a robust Design for Maintainability tool. Safety measures indicator received the highest weighted score by experts, while the maximizing performance, minimizing risk, minimizing negative environmental impact and minimizing consumption of matter and energy were the top ranking main criteria by both experts and practitioners. The top ranked design for maintainability sub-criteria identified by practitioners and experts were risk management, maintenance considerations, climatic conditions, safety measures, lifecycle cost and maintenance access, sun's path, rainfall intensity, biological growth measures and building age profile. Most researches on the maintainability of nano-façade coatings uses experimentation to test the durability of nano-façade coatings, while this study focuses on design based empirical data such as establishing and ranking the list of design for maintainability criteria or indicators to minimize future defects and maintenance issues. The design for maintainability tool contributes to the maintainability of nano-façade coatings leading to maximizing its performance while minimizing cost, risks, resource consumption and negative environmental impact.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design for maintainability; sustainability; analytic hierarchy process; Singapore; risk management; cost control; curtain walls; green buildings; life cycle analysis; experimentation; design defects |
| Index terms: | resource consumption, consumption, titanium dioxide, design decision, curtain wall, robust design, cleaning, cost control, practitioner, finishes, risk management, design stage, quantitative method, environmental impact, lifecycle, green building, durability, design for maintainability, design defect, life cycle analysis, building age, survey, experiment, coating, Singapore, rainfall, maintainability, climatic condition, sensitivity analysis, safety measures, sun |
| Subjects: | asset management, environmental hazards, maintenance engineering, specialized materials and systems, design practice, building systems, Geography, health safety and environment, building materials, environmental resource management, material degradation and durability, project delivery, financial and cost management, data analysis and analytics, energy systems, professional practice, risk assessment, data collection methods, practitioner, design methods, climate science, consumer economics, environmental impact |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Construction Materials, Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here