Dan Cohen AUTHOR In a pilot project conducted at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., the Army found that deconstructing, rather than demolishing, three buildings allowed it to increase the percentage of material that could be diverted from a landfill.In a standard demolition, a building is quickly torn down using mechanical equipment, with the primary goals being cost reduction and reducing the amount of materials sent to a landfill, reported the Army Corp of Engineers’ Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville. The Corps’ goal is to divert 60 percent of the materials following a demolition; the salvaged materials are either reuse or recycled.During a deconstruction, a contractor removes the greatest amount of materials that are intact and suitable to reuse or recycle. Not all buildings are good candidates for deconstruction, however. Engineers must consider the type of construction, contents and condition and their suitability for reuse, as well as the project itself, project schedule, and markets and industry capabilities, according to the story.The Fort Leonard Wood pilot involved three buildings — a chapel, laundry and warehouse. The contractor reused or recycled more than 250 tons of material from the chapel, for an 85 percent diversion rate; nearly 700 tons of material was reused or recycled from the laundry, for a 73 percent diversion rate.During the contractor’s deconstruction of the warehouse, though, the building became unstable due to excessive rotting of the wooden structure. As a result, the deconstruction effort was stopped and the Army decided to demolish the building. Despite the snag, the contractor was able to reuse or recycle 297 tons of material, diverting more than 63 percent from a landfill.Overall, the contractor reused or recycled 1,246 of the three buildings’ 1,717 tons of material, making the project a success, according to the Corps.“Deconstruction is one of those valuable nuances in the demolition arena that may allow us to increase our diversion percentages without significant cost in time or dollars,” said Dave Shockley, chief of the Corps’ facilities division branch.
© 2018 Phys.org This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only. Earlier this summer, the International Commission on Stratigraphy announced that a new geological time category had been approved. The Meghalayan Age covers the time span from 2200 BCE up till the present. Prior to this summer, it had been generally referred to as the late Holocene period. The group chose the starting point of the age as approximately 4200 years ago because prior evidence has shown that was the beginning of a mega-drought. Middleton does not dispute this claim, but focuses on other statements made by members of the group that proposed the change. In their presentation, they noted that the mega-drought resulted in the collapse of a number of civilizations—in Greece, Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, the Yangtze River Valley and the Indus Valley. This last one was particularly significant because the new age was named for a state in what is now India—Meghalaya. Middleton claims that there is no real evidence of mass civilizations collapsing. He suggests that at most, there was restructuring of several societies due to the drought. He further suggests that because of this inaccuracy, it is inappropriate to use the date chosen as a meaningful threshold for a new geologic age. He adds that he believes that such errors crop up due to a lack of communication between archaeologists and historians—a problem that could be solved with more interdisciplinary collaborations.Such statements have angered some of the people who proposed the labeling of the new age, according to Robinson Meyer, in a column for The Atlantic. He claims a squabble has arisen due to the piece Middleton published. He writes that some of the Meghalayan group have even gone so far as to question Middleton’s credentials, calling him a “failed archeology Ph.D.” Others have suggested that the claims by Middleton were poorly researched and are misleading. Citation: Historian angers group who proposed labeling late Holocene as Meghalayan Age (2018, September 21) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-09-historian-angers-group-late-holocene.html Credit: CC0 Public Domain Guy Middleton, a historian at the Czech Institute of Egyptology at Charles University in Prague, has angered members of the group who successfully pushed for the creation of a new unit of geological time called the Meghalayan Age. In his Perspective piece published in the journal Science, he claims that evidence of widespread collapse of civilizations following the onset of a mega-drought in 2200 BCE, is lacking.