-ve CO2: How to? by daniahalmounajim

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Purpose of research

Thornbury Green Site location Site images Masterplan Typologies Focus typologies

10 12 14 16 18 20

HOUSES

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION Existing condition summary Menu of components Structural solution Construction methedology Internal fit-out Drawings Plans Section/Elevation

34 36

Detail Drawings Foundation External wall Eave Internal structural wall Internal partition wall

38 40 42 44 46

Images Taylor Wimpey images

Embodied carbon calculation Cost analysis

50 51

Existing condition findings

3.0 CARBON COPY Alternative proposals summary Menu of components

58 60

Structural solutions Foundations Insulation types Stone rainscreen Timber windows Stone roof tiles Internal partitions Internal floor finishes

24 26 28 30 32

62 84 86 92 106 108 110 112

114 116

Detail Drawings Foundation External wall Eave Internal structural wall Internal partition wall

118 120 122 124 126

Images Carbon copy image comparisons

128

Embodied carbon calculation Cost analysis

134 133

Carbon copy comparitive findings

136

140

Internal stone External stone Timber piles

142 146 150

5.0 FINDINGS Final comparitive findings

6.0 CATALOGUE OF MATERIAL COMPONENTS Component Catalogue

HOUSES

4.0 WHAT IF? What if? summary

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

Drawings Plans Section/Elevation

156

158

6 HOUSES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

HOUSES

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH

Figure 1.1 Typical suburban house construction

We are in a climate emergency. The construction industry contributes an estimated 40% of total carbon emissions in the UK annually. The UK also has targets to build 300,000 new homes per year by 2025. With these two facts in mind, this research investigates the methods and envirionmental impact of the most commonly built housing typology in the UK: the suburban house. Through a detailed analysis of the existing condition, we propose alternative solutions that are both econimcally viable and radically better for the environment.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

SUBURBAN HOUSE TYPOLOGY

Taylor Wimpey is the UK’s largest house building company, expecting to complete 14,000 homes by the end of 2021. This project uses a typical Taylor Wimpey housing development in the village of Eynsham, Oxfordshire as a research site. Through this research, we have concluded that by changing materials and construction methedology it is possible to build a carbon copy development of that proposed by Taylor Wimpey that is faster. cheaper. greener. HOUSES

COST COMPARISON

150000 100000 50000 0

Existing Condition

Stone + Timber Frame

-50000

Stone + CLT

Existing Condition

Stone + CLT

Stone + Timber Frame

-100000

-20000

Large stone

-40000

kgCO2e/m3

20000

40000

Cost per house/£

200000

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

THORNBURY GREEN

TAYLOR WIMPEY Taylor Wimpey are the largest house builder in the UK, expecting to complete 14,000 homes in 2021. It is therefore pertinent to investigate how they are building these homes, how carbon intensive they are, how comfortable they are and if they can be built better. WHY THORNBURY GREEN

HOUSES

Thornbury Green is a typical Taylor Wimpey estate, in truth we could have picked any site anywhere in the country as the exact same houses are built from Penzance to Newcastle.

LOCATION Thornbury Green is located on a greenfield site in the village of Eynsham, five miles north west of Oxford. Eynsham is a commuter village for Oxford.

DATE OF CONSTRUCTION Thornbury Green is due for completion in 2021 with half of the homes already built.

CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL/METHODOLOGY

The houses all share a common logic no matter the typology. Perimeter concrete blockwork supports softwood timber joists and rafters that span between to make the floors and roof.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Figure 1.2 Thornbury Green housing development

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SITE LOCATION

EYNSHAM

HOUSES

The site is a greenfield site on the western edge of the village of Eynsham in Oxfordshire, five miles north west of Oxford. The village has a population of 4648.

Figure 1.3 Satellite image of Eynsham clearly marking the Thornbury Green on the western edge

Figure 1.4 OS Map

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

Eynsham

HOUSES

Oxford

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SITE IMAGES

THORNBURY GREEN

HOUSES

The site is a greenfield site on the western edge of the village of Eynsham in Oxfordshire, five miles north west of Oxford. The village has a population of 4648.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Figure 1.5 Thornbury Green housing development

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

MASTERPLAN

SITE INFORMATION Developer Taylor Wimpey Total Homes 160 80 (Phase 1)

HOUSES

Site Area 0.074km2

MASTERPLAN KEY 2 Bedroom: 10

3 Bedroom: 44

4 Bedroom: 86

5 Bedroom: 20

Total GIA 20 662.30m2 10 331.15m2 (Phase 1) Total NIA 16 872.94m2 8 436.47m2 (Phase 1)

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Figure 1.6 Thornbury Green masterplan

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

TYPOLOGIES 2 BED

Name: The Canford Total Units: 5 GIA: 64.01m2/Unit NIA: 48.26m2/Unit

320.05m2/Total 241.30m2/Total

HOUSES

3 BED

Name: The Gosford Total Units: 4 GIA: 80.45m2/Unit NIA: 61.77m2/Unit

321.80m2/Total 247.08m2/Total

Name: The Alton G Total Units: 10 GIA: 100.80m2/Unit NIA: 79.96m2/Unit

1008.00m2 799.60m2/T

869.60m2/Totall 634.00m2/Total

Name: The Marford Total Units: 28 GIA: 145.30m2/Unit NIA: 119.15m2/Unit

4068.40m2 3336.20m2

1206.31m2/Total 965.09m2/Total

Name: The Templeton Total Units: 3 GIA: 223.62m2/Unit 670.86m2/T 2 NIA: 172.32m /Unit 516.96m2/T

4 BED

Name: The Midford Total Units: 8 GIA: 108.70m2/Unit NIA: 79.25m2/Unit 5 BED

Name: The Wayford Total Units: 7 GIA: 172.33m2/Unit NIA: 137.87m2/Unit

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

/Total /Total

Name: The Manford Total Units: 7 GIA: 128.67m2/Unit NIA: 104.40m2/Unit

HOUSES

/Total Total

Name: The Charlbury Total Units: 8 GIA: 120.68m2/Unit 965.44m2/Total NIA: 90.47m2/Unit 723.26m2/Total

900.69m2/Total 730.80m2/Total

Total Total

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

FOCUS TYPOLOGIES

HOUSES

In order to focus the study, we have selected the two most frequent typologies in the development to analyse in further depth. These include a three bedroom semi-detached house and a four bedroom detached house.

Figure 1.7 The Alton G

3 BED: THE ALTON G

Total units 10

Bedrooms 3

GIA 100.80m2/Unit

Envelope Single skin brick/ Recon stone lintels/ Triple glazing

NIA 79.96m2/Unit

Glazed area 7.80m2/Unit

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Figure 1.8 The Marford

4 BED: THE MARFORD

Total units 28

Bedrooms 4

GIA 128.67m2/Unit

Envelope Stone veneer / Recon stone lintels/ Triple glazing

NIA 104.40m2/Unit

Glazed area 7.80m2/Unit 21

22 HOUSES

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

SUMMARY

SIMPLE BUILDINGS WITH STANDARD DETAILS Taylor Wimpey’s business model means they buy designs of houses much like you would buy a car or a jumper, they buy the rights and then they can build them wherever they like. What this means in practice is they have a set of standard details which are used all over the country that do not respond to local conditions and are completely devoid of any true character or ambition.

We have analysed the standard details to see what we can learn from how Taylow Wimpey build, where the most embodied carbon is and how we can do it better.

COST/HOUSE

Cost per house/£

20000 0

kgCO2e/m3

40000

100000

EMBODIED CARBON/HOUSE

Existing Condition

50000

HOUSES

Thornbury Green is a new build development on green build site that is a net carbon emitter so not only is the creation of these homes adding carbon to our atmosphere, they are reducing biodiversity. Secondly they are poorly insulated meaning that they are expensive to run and cost further carbon byway of heating and cooling them.

Existing Condition

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Figure 2.1 Thornbury Green housing development

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

MENU OF COMPONENTS

FOCUS ON WALL TYPE We have focussed our analysis primarily on wall type because in such simple buildings as these, this is where carbon can be reduced most effectively.

HOUSES

Figure 2.2 3 Bedroom semi-detached house

Foundation

Internal partition wall

Wall-floor connection

Internal structural wall

Eave/Dormer

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Figure 2.3 4 Bedroom detatched house

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

STRUCTURAL SOLUTION

SAME STRATEGY NO MATTER THE TYPOLOGY

HOUSES

All houses share a common structural strategy no matter the typology, this includes: poured reinforced concrete foundations, perimeter aircrete blockwork, concrete beam and block slab and internal softwood timber joists and rafters. The timber joists span perpendicular to the front elevation in the 3 bed house and parallel to it in the 4 bed house with an additional internal structural wall.

Figure 1.1 Thornbury Green housing development

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3 BED

HOUSES

4 BED

Softwood timber Concrete block/Reinforced concrete

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY

ON SITE LABOUR INTENSIVE None of the elements used are prefabricated off site. Footings, foundations, blockwork, the timber joists and roofing slates are all constructed on site by hand; this means that the time spent on site is long and busy. An average Taylor Wimpey site, such as Thornbury Green, has one hundred people working on it at a time.

FOOTINGS

HOUSES

Footings are 150mm reinforced concrete poured in situ.

FOUNDATIONS Foundations are constructed as a twin layer of aircrete blockwork with 100mm insulation in between.

SLAB

The slab is quickly constructed as a concrete beam and block floor. This sits on the foundation at 150mm above the ground with a void in between.

Structural walls are made with external aircrete blockwork.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

STRUCTURAL WALLS

RAINSCREEN

HOUSES

The rainscreens are either a single skin of self supporting brick or stone slates which are glued to a second layer of aircrete blockwork. The choice of rainscreen is typology dependant.

TIMBER JOISTS Softwood timber joists are cut and secured together with nail plates on site.

INSULATION Glass mineral wool is sprayed into the cavity after the walls are built. This method is quick but can result in an uneven result.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

INTERNAL FIT-OUT

FINISH HEAVY

HOUSES

The basic construction components mean that many layers of finish are required in order to make the homes comfortably habitable. This includes the use of plasterboard and paint, wallpaper or tiles on walls, plasterboard and paint on soffits and carpet or porcelain tiles on floors. All of these finishes are areas to target to reduce the overall embodied carbon of each house.

Ceramic tiling Carpet Paint Wallpaper Softwood radiator cover Softwood skirting

KITCHENS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HALLWAYS

Ceramic tiling Paint Chipboard/melamine surfaces Softwood skirtings Curtains

LIVING SPACES HOUSES

Carpet Paint Wallpaper Softwood skirting

BEDROOMS Carpet Paint Wallpaper Softwood skirting Curtains

BATHROOM Ceramic tiling Paint Plastic bathrub Porcelain loo and sink

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

PLAN

HOUSES

3 BED

4 BED

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

SECTION/ELEVATION

HOUSES

3 BED

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

FOUNDATION DETAIL 3 BED

HOUSES

5 4

VOID

Wall Brick 100mm glass mineral wool insulation Wall cavity tie Concrete blockwork DPM Wall finish 12mm plasterboard

Paint 12x100mm softwood skirting

Slab Concrete beam and block floor system

Floor finish Carpet Underlay 75mm concrete screed 75mm rigid insulation DPM

Foundation wall Concrete block 100mm EPS insulation

Footing 150mm reinforced concrete

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

4 BED

HOUSES

5 4

VOID

Wall Limestone veneer Concrete blockwork 100mm glass mineral wool insulation Wall cavity tie DPM Wall finish 12mm plasterboard

Paint 12x100mm softwood skirting

Slab Concrete beam and block floor system

Floor finish Carpet Underlay 75mm concrete screed 75mm rigid insulation DPM

Foundation wall Concrete block 100mm EPS insulation

Footing 150mm reinforced concrete

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

EXTERNAL WALL DETAIL 3 BED

HOUSES

Wall finish 12mm plasterboard Paint 12x100mm softwood skirting Floor finish Carpet Underlay 75mm concrete screed

75mm rigid insulation DPM 3

Slab Concrete beam and block floor system

Wall 100mm concrete block 100mm glass mineral

wool insulation Wall cavity ties 5

Footing 150mm reinforced concrete

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

4 BED

HOUSES

Wall finish 12mm plasterboard Paint 12x100mm softwood skirting Floor finish Carpet Underlay 75mm concrete screed

75mm rigid insulation DPM 3

Slab Concrete beam and block floor system

Wall 100mm concrete block 100mm glass mineral

wool insulation Wall cavity ties 5

Footing 150mm reinforced concrete

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

EAVE DETAIL 3 BED AND 4 BED

HOUSES

2 4

Roof build-up Cement fibre tiles Softwood timber batten Waterproof membrane Softwood timber rafters Mineral wool insulation Gutter Plastic gutter Underlay

Fascia Plastic fascia board Softwood timber batten

Wall 100mm concrete block 12mm plasterboard Paint

Soffit 100mm glass mineral wool insulation 12mm plasterboard Paint

Window uPVC triple glazed window Steel lintel angle

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

INTERNAL STRUCTURAL WALL DETAIL 3 BED (PARTY WALL)

HOUSES

VOID

3 4

Wall finish 12mm plasterboard Paint 12x100mm softwood skirting Floor finish Carpet Underlay 75mm concrete screed

75mm rigid insulation DPM 3

Slab Concrete beam and block floor system

Wall 100mm concrete block 100mm glass mineral

wool insulation Wall cavity ties 5

Footing 150mm reinforced concrete

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

4 BED

HOUSES

VOID

3 4

Wall finish 12mm plasterboard Paint 12x100mm softwood skirting Floor finish Carpet Underlay 75mm concrete screed

75mm rigid insulation DPM 3

Slab Concrete beam and block floor system

Wall 100mm concrete block 100mm glass mineral

wool insulation Wall cavity ties 5

Footing 150mm reinforced concrete

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

INTERNAL PARTITION WALL DETAIL 3 BED AND 4 BED

HOUSES

VOID

Wall 90mm metsec frame 12mm plasterboard Paint 12x100mm softwood skirting Floor finish Carpet Underlay

75mm rigid insulation DPM 3

Slab Concrete beam and block floor system

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

IMAGES

HOUSES

3 BED

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

4 BED

HOUSES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

EMBODIED CARBON

MATERIAL

ELEMENT

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

Concrete

Strip foundation

1597

Blockwork

Walls

12,799

Limestone

Veneer

1298

Softwood

Stud partitions

-1,139

Softwood

Floor joists

n/a

-351

Concrete

Beam and block floor

3119

Concrete

Screed

1832

Plywood

Floor

-622

Plasterboard

Internal lining

1567

Fibre cement

Roof tiles

949

Softwood

Roof trusses

-2291

Mineral wool

Insulation

698

Glass

Windows

380

Limestone

Sills and lintels

TOTAL/HOUSE

19,737

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

COST ANALYSIS

ELEMENT

QUANTITY M2

COST £

Concrete

Strip foundation

239

Blockwork

Walls

24,352

Limestone

Veneer

2061

Softwood

Stud partitions

2840

Softwood

Floor joists

176

1753

Concrete

Beam and block floor

8765

Concrete

Screed

509

Plywood

Floor

1525

Plasterboard

Internal lining

9194

Fibre cement

Roof tiles

216

Softwood

Roof trusses

1028

Mineral wool

Insulation

17,317

Glass

Windows

6750

Limestone

Sills and lintels

117

TOTAL/HOUSE

HOUSES

MATERIAL

76,665

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

FINDINGS

CARBON INTENSIVE SIMPLE BUILDINGS The analysis of the existing condition has showed us that while these are incredibly simple buildings they are very carbon intensive. The homes are cheap to build but expensive to run because their insulation is so poor. Finally they are not site specific and therefore do not take into account local geology meaning that the standard Taylor Wimpey details may not be sufficient - again putting the onus on repair and maitenance by the home owner over due dilligance and quality from the start.

COST/HOUSE

Cost per house/£

20000 0

kgCO2e/m3

Existing Condition

50000

100000

EMBODIED CARBON/HOUSE 40000

HOUSES

The foundations, structure and many layers of finish are the three principal components we must focus on to propose a carbon negative carbon copy.

Existing Condition

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

54 HOUSES

3.0 CARBON COPY

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

SUMMARY

GREENER, CHEAPER, FASTER In order to reduce the overall emboided carbon, we bagan by changing the most carbon intensive elements of the existing structural solution - the reinforced concrete and concrete blocks. Why use concrete when you can use the inherient strength of stone in a carbon negative and more efficient process?

HOUSES

Above the foundations, we have investigated two all timber options, one timber frame and one CLT to assess which method is the greenest, fastest and cheapest. Timber has been selected as the structural solution due to the truly renewable quality of trees. Within our assessment we have looked equally at material sourcing, processing, transportation, construction, cost and resultant occupant comfort for both options in order to come to a valid conclusion of which method is best: stone with a timber frame. Our investigations show that with extended thinking about material qualities, construction methods and flow chains that it is possible to build carbon copies of the Taylor Wimpey design that are both economically viable and provably better for the environment. COST COMPARISON

150000 -50000

Existing Condition

Stone + CLT

Stone + Timber Frame

-100000

-40000

100000 50000 0

Existing Condition

Large stone

-20000

kgCO2e/m3

20000

40000

Cost per house/£

200000

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

Stone + CLT

Stone + Timber Frame

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Figure 3.1 4 Bedroom carbon copy

168%

24%

EMBODIED CARBON

PROJECT COST

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

MENU OF COMPONENTS

CARBON COPY COMPONENTS All the components analysed in the existing condition have been redrawn according to our research to show how our carbon copy how that is cheaper, greener and faster can be built.

HOUSES

Figure 3.2 3 Bedroom carbon copy

Foundation

Internal partition wall

Wall-floor connection

Internal structural wall

Eave/Dormer

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

E Figure 3.3 4 Bedroom carbon copy

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

STRUCTURAL SOLUTION A - TIMBER FRAME

TIMBER I-JOISTS External timber I-joist frame. The internal plan is kept structurally free to allow for future flexibility. This method can be built by hand using similar construction methods as Taylor Wimpey’s current model. Time on site is longer than CLT but overall material quantity is far less. EMBODIED CARBON

HOUSES

-703kgCO2e/m3

Figure 3.4 Timber I-joist structural iso

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Figure 3.5 Timber I-joist construction

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

FABRICATION A - TIMBER FRAME

TIMBER I-JOISTS

HOUSES

Traditional timber framing uses simple softwood studs to form the structural frame. We are using the timber frame system used in passivhaus buildings where timber I-joists comprised of two small softwood timber sections connected and stiffened by a 12mm OSB sheet. This allows us to create a deep insulation cavity and achieve a low u-value with the most minimal amount of material possible. OSB must undergo a secondary process which of course increases its carbon footprint but it is still predominately carbon sequestering timber and makes use of waste material so is inherintly sustainable. The largest manufacturer of timber I-joists in Europe is located in Scotland. Joists are manufactured and cut to length in the factory therefore reducing waste and time spent on site.

Figure 3.6 Timber I-joist fabrication at James Jones in Scotland

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

FABRICATION PROCESS

HOUSES

COMPONENTS Softwood timber - 100% OSB - softwood timber strands 95% - resin and wax 5%

Figure 3.7 Timber I-joist

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

TRANSPORTATION A - TIMBER FRAME

EFFICIENT STACKING Transporting timber I beams is incredibly efficient; in each lorry, enough timber for three houses can fit in. This efficiency coupled with the short transport distance from Scotland means the embodied carbon on bringing it to site is very low - nearly seven times as less than CLT.

HOUSES

n.b. Embodied carbon has been calculated assuming lorries are fully loaded on delivery to site and empty upon return.

Figure 3.8 Timber I-joist transportation

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

600 KM

HOUSES

Figure 3,9 Option A transport route

3 BUILDINGS/LORRY

48 JOURNEYS 59.6 TONNES CO2E Figure 3.10 Option A transport analysis

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

CONSTRUCTION A - TIMBER FRAME

RELATIVELY LONG ON SITE COMPARED TO CLT Constructing a timber frame house is not dificult nor is it long in comparison to the masonry walls of the existing condition. Members come precut from the factory so there is no on site cutting required. Pieces are nail gunned together before being panelled and filled with insulation.

HOUSES

In comparison to CLT, this is a labour intensive and time consuming method.

Figure 3.11 Timber I-joist construction

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

FINISH A - TIMBER FRAME

TIMBER PANELLING REQUIRED

HOUSES

Timber panels must be fixed to the inside of the insulated timber frame to make the walls of the homes, this of course is an extra source of material and cost associated with this method. Instead of using the current system of plasterboard and paint or wallpaper however, veneered plywood panelling can be used with the higher cost compared to plasterboard offset by the lack of final finishes. Time on site and labour costs are reduced by not requiring extra decoration.

Figure 3.13 Veneered plywood wall panelling

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

Figure 3.14 Timber I-joist component iso

Limestone wall 75mm limestone Waterproof membrane 15mm Plywood 300mm insulation

Timber frame 300mm Timber I-joist 12mm veneered plywood panelling

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

STRUCTURAL SOLUTION B - CLT

PREFABRICATION External CLT frame. The internal plan is kept structurally free to allow for future flexibility. This method is prefabricated off-site and brought to site flat pack therefore minimising on-site time and transportation emissions. This is quick and simple to construct but overall the material quanitity is higher than a timber frame as is the required timber quality.

EMBODIED CARBON

HOUSES

-841kgCO2e/m3

Figure 3.15 CLT structural iso

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

Figure 3.16 CLT construction

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

FABRICATION B - CLT

FINISH READY IN THE FACTORY

HOUSES

CLT is comprised of timber lengths being glued together into panels. This process increases the strength of the timber and means that wall panels can be made to the exact dimensions required with all openings precut in the factory. Machine precision means that time reduces waste and time on site. The massive nature of CLT panels means that technically a lot of carbon is sequestered per house houwever the amount of material used is far greater than in timber frame. From an environmental and cost perspective therefore, CLT is less appropriate for this typology.

Figure 3.17 CLT fabrication in the factory

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

FABRICATION PROCESS

HOUSES

COMPONENTS CLT - Softwood timber >99% - Adhesive <1%

Figure 3.18 CLT

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

TRANSPORTATION B - CLT

FLAT PACK CLT panels are transported as individual flat pack panels to site for assembly. Transporting panels over completed homes saves carbon because the amount of wasted space on each truck is reduced dramatically so less lorry loads are required. Even so, each building (single detached house or two semi-detached houses) will require its own lorry to transport. Currently there are no CLT manufactures in the UK so all panels will have to come from Austria meaning transporting CLT uses nearly seven times as much carbon compared to timber frame.

HOUSES

n.b. Embodied carbon has been calculated assuming lorries are fully loaded on delivery to site and empty upon return.

Figure 3.19 CLT transportation

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

1520 KM

HOUSES

Figure 3.20 Option B transport route

1 BUILDING/LORRY

142 JOURNEYS 404.7 TONNES CO2E Figure 3.21 Option B transport analysis

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

CONSTRUCTION B - CLT

QUICK CONSTRUCTION

HOUSES

There are 42 pieces per house, all of which come precut and drilled so simply need to be craned into postion when they arrive on site. A house can be erected in more or less a day.

Figure 3.22 CLT construction

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

FINISH B - CLT

NO EXTRA FINISHES

HOUSES

CLT panels require not supplementary finishes such as paint or wallpaper because of the natural beauty of the timber. Not only is this better for the environment and cost but it is also better for occupant health with scientific studies proving the wellbeing benefits of living in timber homes.

Figure 3.24 Barrett’s Grove, Groupwork

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

Figure 3.25 CLT component iso

Limestone wall 75mm limestone Waterproof membrane 15mm Plywood 300mm insulation

CLT 100mm CLT fire coated panel

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

STRUCTURAL FINDINGS

OPTION A - TIMBER FRAME Timber frame is the best option for these houses. Technically they do not have such a high negative embodied carbon as CLT but this is because the material needed is so much less. The most sustainable thing is to leaves trees in the ground so following embodied carbon figures alone is misguided - timber frame is still negative. Secondly the cost of timber frame is dramatically cheaper as is the embodied carbon of transporting it to site. Time on site may be slightly longer than CLT but any costs associated with this are fully offset by the material price.

150000

Timber Frame

100000 75000 25000 0

Cost per house/£

-20000 -50000 -60000

-40000

-30000

kgCO2e/m3

-10000

125000

CLT

COST COMPARISON

50000

HOUSES

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

CLT

Timber Frame

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Figure 3.26 Timber I-joist construction iso

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

FOUNDATIONS

CLAY SOIL The site sits on clay soil. Clay is succeptible to heaving and settling, this is where the ground water content chanegs and the earth can increase by 150mm (heave) or decrease by 150mm (settle), both are detrimental to the structure of a building. In order to limit it’s effects, deep pads are more appropriate than the existing condition of shallow strip foundation. The void between the earth and the underside of the floor must also increase to 300mm to withstand the potential +/-150mm differential.

HOUSES

2m deep limestone pad foundation limit the potential damage from the soil and also drastically reduce embodied carbon. The large cost increase could be thought to be offset over the lifespan of each building as it is less likely to require maintenence.

EYNSHAM

Figure 3.27 Geology map showing the clay soils of the Cotswolds

Clay soil

COST COMPARISON

1200 400 0

Concrete strip

800

Cost per house/£

800 0

400

kgCO2e/m3

1200

1600

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

Limestone pads

Concrete strip

Limestone pads

150 750

312x35000x150mm reinforced concrete

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

EXISTING CONCRETE STRIP

PROPOSED STONE PADS HOUSES

2000

300

600x600x300mm limestone

2700

HEAVING

SETTLING

Increase in soil water level +150mm

Decrease in soil water level -150mm

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

INSULATION TYPES

SAME STRATEGY NO MATTER THE TYPOLOGY

HOUSES

The current Taylor Wimpey standard wall build-up achieves a u-value of 0.25W/m2K, using 100mm of blown glass mineral wool insulation. Not only does this mean the houses are not sufficiently warm on their own and therefore rely on expensive, usually carbon intensive heating but the embodied carbon on the material itself is incredibly high at +1.86kgCO2e/ kg. We have investigated several alternative insulation materials, assessing their thermal conductivity, embodied carbon and u-value achievement at different thicknesses using different wall build-ups. We are aiming to improve the u-value of these homes to passivhaus standard 0.15W/m2K while simulataneously reducing the environmental impact of constructing with our chosen insulation. Passivhaus standard has been chosen as a target because its performance can be quantifiably proved excellent and will not result in excessively thick walls. Hemp Batts provide a good thermal conductivity and are carbon negative. EXISTING

U-VALUE 0.25W/m2K

PROPOSED

TARGET U-VALUE 0.15W/m2K

Mineral

Image: Knauf Insulation

0.034 W/mK Embodied Carbon: Embodied Carbon: +1.12 kgCO2e/kg +0.63 kgCO2e/kg Embodied Carbon: Image: Rockwool Thermal Conductivity: GLASS MINERAL WOOL kgCO2e/kg Embodied carbon +1.86 Thermal Conductivity: +1.86kgCO e/kg Image: Knauf Insulation 0.035-0.038 W/mK Embodied Carbon: 0.038 W/mK Thermal conductivity Thermal Conductivity: +0.98 kgCO2e/kg 0.034W/m k Embodied Carbon: Carbon: 0.034 W/mK +0.63 kgCO2e/kg kgCO2e/kg +1.12 MINERAL WOOL Embodied carbon Thermal Conductivity: +1.12kgCO e/kg Thermal conductivity Image: Rockwool 0.037 W/mK Image: Architects Journal Conductivity: Thermal Conductivity:

al edWool Mineral paper

Wood al Wool led paper

0.035W/m2k

0.038 W/mK W/mK 0.035-0.038 Embodied Carbon: Image: Knauf Insulation Embodied Carbon: RIGID WOOD FIBRE Embodied carbon +0.98 kgCO2e/kg +0.98kgCO e/kg +0.01 kgCO2e/kg Embodied Carbon: Carbon: Thermal conductivity Image: STEICO Protect Dry Embodied 0.037W/m k +0.63 kgCO2e/kg kgCO2e/kg Thermal Conductivity: +1.12 Thermal Conductivity: Image: Image:Architects RockwoolJournal 0.037 W/mK Embodied 0.048 W/mKCarbon: INSULATED LIME PLASTER Conductivity: Embodied carbon Thermal Thermal Conductivity: +0.78 kgCO2e/kg +0.78kgCO e/kg Embodied Carbon: Embodied Carbon: 0.038 W/mK Thermal conductivity 0.035-0.038 W/mK +0.01 kgCO2e/kg kgCO2e/kg 0.018W/m k +0.98 Embodied Carbon: Thermal Conductivity: Image: STEICO Protect Dry +0.63 kgCO2e/kg 0.18 W/mK Thermal Conductivity: Image: Wynnes Thermal Conductivity: RECYCLED NEWSPAPER 0.048 W/mK W/mK Embodied carbon 0.037 Image: Architects Journal +0.63kgCO e/kg Embodied Carbon: Thermal Conductivity: Image: Rockwool Embodied Carbon: Thermal conductivity +0.78W/mK kgCO2e/kg 0.038W/m k 0.038 -1.28 kgCO2e/kg Embodied Carbon: Carbon: Embodied Image: Celtic Sustainables STRAW BALES Embodied carbon +0.01 kgCO2e/kg Thermal Conductivity: +0.98 kgCO2e/kg +0.01kgCO e/kg Image: Wynnes Thermal Conductivity: Image: STEICO Protect Dry Thermal conductivity 0.18 W/mK 0.048W/m k 0.039 W/mK Thermal Conductivity: Thermal Conductivity: Image: Architects Journal Embodied Carbon: Embodied Carbon: 0.048 W/mK 0.037 W/mK -1.28 kgCO2e/kg SHEEP’S WOOL+0.78 kgCO2e/kg Embodied carbon +0.07kgCO e/kg Embodied Carbon: Thermal conductivity Image: Celtic Sustainables Thermal Conductivity: +0.01 kgCO2e/kg 0.039W/m k Image: Black Mountain Thermal Conductivity: 0.039 W/mK 0.18 W/mK Image: Wynnes Thermal Conductivity: Image: STEICO Protect Dry HEMP BATTS Embodied Carbon: Embodied carbon -0.63kgCO e/kg 0.048 W/mK Unknown Thermal conductivity Embodied Carbon: Carbon: Embodied 0.039W/m k -1.28 kgCO2e/kg Image: Black Mountain +0.78 kgCO2e/kg Thermal Conductivity:

ps tedWool Lime Bales r

0.039 W/mK Thermal Conductivity: Conductivity: Embodied Carbon: Thermal 0.039W/mK W/mK Unknown 0.18

Image: Celtic Sustainables

Image: Wynnes

Batts ps tedWool Lime r Batts

HOUSES

Wood Bales led al Wool paper ted Lime Wood rBales ed paper ted Lime s Wool rBales Wood

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

n Types

+1.12 kgCO2e/kg Embodied Carbon: +1.86 kgCO2e/kg Thermal Conductivity: 0.035-0.038 W/mK Thermal Conductivity:

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

WALL THICKNESS STUDIES TARGET: 0.15W/M2K (PASSIVHAUS) Investigating how thick wall build-ups will be with specific insulation thicknesses and the u-values that can be achieved. Numbers in red are equal to or less than the required 0.15W/M2K Passivhaus standard. 312

312

MATERIAL

HOUSES

TW STANDARD

312

387

175MM 387

387

231

306

231

306

Glass mineral wool Recycled newspaper Mineral wool Wood fibre Sheep’s wool Hemp231 Straw bale

0.25 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.31

Glass mineral wool 0.16 Recycled newspaper 0.17 Mineral wool 0.16 Wood fibre 0.16 Sheep’s wool 0.17 306 Hemp 306 0.18 Straw bale 0.21

350

425

350

425

302

350

Glass mineral wool Recycled newspaper Mineral wool Wood fibre Sheep’s wool Hemp 302 Straw bale

0.29 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.38

425

Glass mineral wool Recycled newspaper Mineral wool Wood fibre Sheep’s wool Hemp 377 Straw bale

0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.20 377 0.20 0.24

302

377

302

377

Glass mineral wool Recycled newspaper Mineral wool Wood fibre Sheep’s wool Hemp Straw bale

0.20 0.22 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.26

Glass mineral wool Recycled newspaper Mineral wool Wood fibre Sheep’s wool Hemp Straw bale

387

231

350

STONE + TIMBER FRAME

INSULATION THICKNESS 100MM (TW STANDARD)

231

STONE + CLT

312

0.31 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.41

462

537

612

462

537

612

250MM 387

387

325MM

462

400MM

462

537

612

381

457

531

381

457

531

0.12 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.16

Glass mineral wool Recycled newspaper Mineral wool Wood fibre Sheep’s wool 381 381 Hemp Straw bale

0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 457 0.09 0.13

Glass mineral wool Recycled newspaper Mineral wool Wood fibre Sheep’s wool457 Hemp Straw bale

0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.09 457 0.09 0.11

531

500

575

650

500

575

650

425

452

425

452

377

500

Glass mineral wool Recycled newspaper Mineral wool Wood fibre Sheep’s wool 452 452 Hemp Straw bale

377

0.13 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.17

452

527

452

Glass mineral wool Recycled newspaper Mineral wool Wood fibre Sheep’s wool Hemp Straw bale

500

452

0.17 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.14 0.20

500

Glass mineral wool Recycled newspaper Mineral wool Wood fibre Sheep’s wool 527Hemp 527 Straw bale

527

452

Glass mineral wool Recycled newspaper Mineral wool Wood fibre Sheep’s wool Hemp Straw bale

575

0.10 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.11 527 0.11 0.14

Glass mineral wool Recycled newspaper Mineral wool Wood fibre Sheep’s wool 602 Hemp Straw bale

527

602

527

0.14 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.16

527

Glass mineral wool Recycled newspaper Mineral wool Wood fibre Sheep’s wool Hemp Straw bale

0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.11

575

527

612

HOUSES

306

Glass mineral wool Recycled newspaper Mineral wool Wood fibre Sheep’s wool 306 381 Hemp Straw bale

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

462

650

602

531

650

602

0.11 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.13

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

WALL THICKNESS NEIGHBOURHOOD STUDY

EXTEND BACKWARDS, NOT SIDEWAYS Our insulation studies have shown that we must increase the overall wall build-up to a minimum of 452mm. Using a timber frame reduces the overall build-up by 48mm compared to CLT for equivalent u-values.

HOUSES

Increasing wall build-up will of course impinge on NIA, therefore we have studied whether it is possible to expand out in all directions or if we must keep the same external width as is currently planned and increase the depth of the buildings. It has been concluded that house width cannot be increased with the existing masterplan (which we are keeping the same) but there is space to extend back into the large private garden of each house. Therefore we are elongating the plan of each house in order to accomdate the increase in wall build-up without reducing NIA.

Figure 3.28 Each house has a large private garden that can be utilised slightly to accept the improved thicker wallls

9450

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

EXISTING CONDITION

NIA 3B: 79.96m2 NIA 4B: 119.15m2

OFFSETTING EQUALLY OUT - TOO TIGHT FOR DRIVEWAYS

HOUSES

9750

NIA 3B: 79.96m2 NIA 4B: 119.15m2

EXTENDING BACK

100050

NIA 3B: 79.96m2 NIA 4B: 119.15m2

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

STONE RAINSCREEN

WHY STONE?

HOUSES

Oolitic limestone is vernacular to the Cotswolds region, it has been quarried and built with for centuries. Not only is limestone a contextual choice but also a clear environmental choice as stone has 35% of the carbon emissions of brick. Stone is quarried, minimally processed and brought to site. Concrete blocks or bricks must be quarried, crushed, mixed, fired and then only after all that brought to site. The following investigation outlines how we detail the stone and what effects this has on appearance and construction metheodology as well as carbon emissions.

Figure 3.29 Tyoical Cotswolds cottage

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

800

STONE QUARRYING

400 200

CONCRETE BLOCK MAKING

Stone

Brick

Concrete block

Figure 3.30 Comparitive embodied carbon of different rainscreen materials

HOUSES

kgCO2e/m3

600

BRICK FIRING

Figure 3.31 Geology map showing the band of oolitic limestone that runs through the Cotswolds

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

HAND LIFTABLE STONES

SAME CONSTRUCTION METHEDOLOGY AS EXISTING Currently Taylor Wimpey use bricks or stone slips constructed by hand to form their rainscreen facades in front of the structural concrete block walls which are also built by bricklayers. This test explores keeping the same construction methedology but replacing brick/concrete blocks with self supporting limetstone blocks. Limestone has a density of 2400kg/m3. We have used this to get the dimensions of a limestone block that weighs no more than 19kg and is 125mm deep.

HOUSES

EXISTING CONDITION

BRICK

CONCRETE BLOCK

112.5x215x65mm 2.75kg

440x215x100mm 19kg

LIMESTONE

LIMESTONE BLOCK

400x200x125mm 19.2kg

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

EMBODIED CARBON/HOUSE Stone thickness: 125mm Stone volume: 25.6m3 Carbon: 4663kg

HOUSES

Figure 3.32 Liftable stone facade

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

SAFE STONE BANDING

EXPRESSION WITHIN THE FACADE The Health and Safety England guidance on safe lifiting limits in the workplace shows the amount of weight a person can lift by hand at which height they can lift it. Using this, we can size stones accordingly in bands and express the mode of construction through the facade so the simple stone wall starts to tell a tale.

410

HOUSES

410 410

410

19.2kg

9.6kg

200x200x125mm

400x200x125mm

500x200x125mm

2090

410

9.6kg

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

EMBODIED CARBON/HOUSE Stone thickness: 125mm Stone volume: 25.6m3 Carbon: 4663kg

HOUSES

Figure 3.33 Liftable stone banding facade

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

LARGE STONES

40% LESS STONE REQUIRED If a crane is used, the stone facade be made of large sections that act as rainscreen and lintel all in one. Large stones retain the innate structural stability of the stone therefore the thickness of stones slim from 125mm to just 75mm, reducing the material quantity and cost by 40%. The speed of construction compared to a hand built facade will reduce time on site further reducing costs.

HOUSES

Large stones are sized at a maximum of 1000x2000mm so they are not too brittle in transit. This means that they can still be used efficiently to create window openings so extra lintels are not required - further reducing material, cost and carbon.

Figure 3.34 Lyon Housing, Gilles Perraudin

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

EMBODIED CARBON/HOUSE Stone thickness: 75mm Stone volume: 16m3 Carbon: 2914kg

HOUSES

Figure 3.34 Large stone facade

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

LARGE STONES INTEGRATED LINTELS + PORCH FASTER, GREENER The existing condition homes currently have small porch canopies built from painted timber, composite concrete roof tiles and lead. Additionally, reconstituted stone lintels sit above each window.

HOUSES

Using large stones enables us to integrate lintels and a porch canopy into the facade, minimising time on site, reducing material and reducing carbon.

Figure 1.1 Thornbury Green housing development

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

Figure 1.1 Thornbury Green housing development

HOUSES

Figure 3.35 Integrated lintels and porch stone

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

STONE SLIPS

MUCH MORE CARBON INTENSIVE

HOUSES

The exisitng methedology for Taylor Wimpey stone rainscreens is to use stone slips. Taylor Wimpey glue their slips to a layer of concrete blockwork behind but as we have estabalished that a timber frame building is far less carbon intensive, we must use a secondary structure of galvanised steel for slips to hang from. Such a system has nealy 4 times the embodied carbon as liftable self supporting stone and 6.5 times the embodied carbon of large self supporting stone.

100

Figure 1.1 Thornbury Green housing development

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

EMBODIED CARBON/HOUSE Stone slip volume: 10mm Stone slip volume: 6.5m3 Stone slip carbon: 1298kg Galvanised steel secondary structure volume: 1m3 Galvanised steel secondary structure carbon: 16882kg Total carbon: 18,180kg

HOUSES

Figure 3.36 Stone slip facade

101

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

STONE RAINSCREEN FINDINGS

LARGE STONES

Figure 3,37 Comparitive rainscreen embodied carbon per house

12,000 0

4000

8000

kgCO2e/m3

16,000

HOUSES

20,000

Our studies have shown that using large stones has nearly half the embodied carbon of liftable stones and nearly six times less than stone slips with a secondary steel structure. Additionally, this methedology removes the need for lintels and porches so will further save on embodied carbon. Finally the small number of pieces per house means that construction time will be quick so labour cost can be saved.

102

Liftable stone

Large stone

Stone slips + steel structure

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

Figure 3.38 4 bedroom carbon copy

103

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

STONE ROOF TILES

LIMESTONE OR SLATE? Taylor Wimpey use cement fibre tiles which only have a lifespan of 30 years. To make a cement fibre tile, stone must be quarried, crushed, fired, mixed and set. In contrast stone can be used for roofing which has a lifespan of 80100 years and the only processing required is quarrying and cutting to size. Immediately the environmental and carbon benefits of stone are clear.

HOUSES

Vernacular roofing in the Cotswolds typically uses ‘stone slates’, these are the local limestone handcut into tiles. They are naturally rough and thick therefore require a pitch of 50-55o to allow for adequate run-off. Welsh slate is another typical roofing material in the UK. Welsh slate is naturally very smooth and can be cut thinly so the pitch and overall material quantity can be much less than Cotswolds stone slates. We are proposing to use Welsh slate to minimise material, wasted loft space and maximise long lasting environmental benefits.

0.6 0

0.4

kgCO2e/m3

0.8

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

104

Cement tiles

Stone slates

Welsh slate

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

COTSWOLDS STONE SLATES

Figure 3.39 Cotswold stone slate requires a roof pitch of 50o

HOUSES

WELSH SLATE

Figure 3.40 Welsh slate can use the same pitch as the existing condition

105

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

TIMBER WINDOWS

VELFAC WINDOWS Plastic is one of the chief material issues plaguing our planet today. Windows can be made of recylced uPVC however, the process of dissasembling, melting and moulding them into new windows is extremely fuel intensive so far from ideal. Secondly, using plastic windows on houses designed to be environmentally friendly is antithetical to that ethos.

As a component, these windows are more expensive than the existing condition but they can be afforded through savings elsewhere. Velfac over uPVC windows also have a visual benefit that cannot be ignored.

COST COMPARISON

Cost per house/£

1 0

kgCO2e/kg

200

300

400

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

100

HOUSES

Timber windows undergo far fewer processes in becoming a window but must be externally treated (with oil, wax, paint or similar) to prevent decay. Velfac windows are a composite of external aluminium and internal timber which means that they do not require much maintenance and still sequester carbon.

-200

-100

uPVC

106

uPVC

Velfac

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

UPVC

Figure 3.41 uPVC windows

HOUSES

VELFAC

Figure 3.42 Timber velfac windows

107

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

TIMBER INTERNAL PARTITIONS

GREENER, CHEAPER

20000

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

10000 5000 -5000

kgCO2e/m3

15000

HOUSES

The existing methedology for internal partition walls is a metsec frame with plasterboard finished with either paint or wallpaper. Metsec frames are quick to construct because they come pre-cut and drilled however a simple stud wall of softwood timber is equally easy to build, greener and cheaper. 15mm pine veneered plywood lines the partitions instead of plasterboard and an ancillary finish; this is more expensive but offset by the cheaper studwork and lack of need for extra layers of finish which not only reduce material costs but labour costs as well.

108

Metsec

Softwood Timber

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

METSEC

HOUSES

Figure 3.43 Existing condition metsec partitions and internal fit out

SOFTWOOD TIMBER

Figure 3.44 Proposed softwood timber partitions and veneered ply lining

109

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

TIMBER AND STONE FLOOR FINISHES

CARBON SEQUESTERING FLOORS Currently Taylor Wimpey use carpet or porcelain tiles throughout their houses. Carpet cannot be easily recycled and is often the first thing new owners will look to change; it also requires underlay which is equally difficult to recycle fully. Porcelain tiles require quarrying clay, firing, glazing and firing again so while cheap are very carbon intensive to fabricate.

HOUSES

Hardwood timber floors are not often replaced by new owners so not only do they sequester carbon, they reduce material wastage over the lifespan of the building. Limestone simply requires quarrying and cutting before it can be laid. Limestone should be finished with a biodegradable wax layer to protect it from stains. We are proposing to use hardwood timber floors throughout with the exception of bathrooms where limestone will be laid.

1 2

kgCO2e/kg

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

110

Carpet

Porcelain Tile

Hardwood Timber

Limestone

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

CARPET AND TILE

HOUSES

Figure 3.45 Existing condition is mostly carpet and large areas of tile

TIMBER AND STONE

Figure 3.46 Proposed timber floors thorugh except for bathrooms where limestone is used

111

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

PLAN

HOUSES

3 BED

4 BED

112

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

113

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

SECTION/ELEVATION

HOUSES

3 BED

4 BED

114

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

115

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

FOUNDATION DETAIL 3 BED AND 4 BED

HOUSES

VOID

116

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Wall 300mm timber I-joist frame 300mm hemp batt insulation 12mm veneered plywood 12x100mm softwood skirting

Floor 12mm Hardwood timber floor 22mm plywood 50x25mm Softwood timber battens Acoustic insulation Timber I-Joist Hemp batt insulation DPM

Foundation 2x75mm limestone block 150mm EPS insulation Vented opening 400x400x600 limestone plinth 600x600x300 limestone footing Reinforced concrete

117

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

EXTERNAL WALL DETAIL 3 BED AND 4 BED

HOUSES

118

Wall 75mm limestone 50mm air gap Waterproof membrane 300mm timber I-joist frame 300mm hemp batt insulation 12mm veneered plywood

12x100mm softwood skirting 2

Window Triple glazed velfac timber window Limestone sill Hardwood timber sill

Intermediate floor 12mm Hardwood timber floor 22mm plywood 50x25mm Softwood timber battens Acoustic insulation Timber I-Joist 12mm veneered plywood

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

119

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

EAVE DETAIL 3 BED 2

HOUSES

120

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

4 BED

HOUSES

Wall 75mm limestone 50mm air gap Waterproof membrane 300mm timber I-joist frame 300mm hemp batt insulation 12mm veneered plywood

12x100mm softwood skirting

Flat roof Sedum planting 200mm soil 100mm drainage board DPM 300mm timber I-joist Hemp batt insulation 12mm veneered plywood

Pitched roof Welsh slate tiles Softwood timber battens DPM 300mm timber I-joist Hemp batt insulation 12mm standard ply

121

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

INTERNAL STRUCTURAL WALL DETAIL 3 BED (PARTY WALL) AND 4 BED

122

HOUSES

VOID

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Wall 300mm timber I-joist frame 300mm hemp batt insulation 12mm veneered plywood 12x100mm softwood skirting

Floor 12mm Hardwood timber floor 22mm plywood 50x25mm Softwood timber battens Acoustic insulation Timber I-Joist Hemp batt insulation DPM

123

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

INTERNAL PARTITION WALL DETAIL 3 BED AND 4 BED

HOUSES

VOID

124

Wall 90mm softwood timber frame 90mm hemp batt insulation 12mm veneered plywood 12x100mm softwood skirting

Floor 12mm Hardwood timber floor 22mm plywood 50x25mm Softwood timber battens Acoustic insulation Timber I-Joist Hemp batt insulation DPM

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

125

126 HOUSES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

COMPARATIVE IMAGES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

127

128 HOUSES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

129

130 HOUSES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

131

HOUSES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

EMBODIED CARBON

MATERIAL

ELEMENT

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

Limestone

Pad foundation

756

Limestone

Wall

2914

Softwood I-beam

Wall and floor

-2030

Softwood

Wall and floor

-3888

Softwood

Stud partitions

-1139

Plywood

Linings/floors

-8079

Welsh slate

Roof tiles

408

Softwood

Roof trusses

n/a

-473

Hemp batt

Insulation

109

-2389

Glass

Windows

380

Limestone

Sills and lintels

132

TOTAL/HOUSE

-13489

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

COST ANALYSIS

ELEMENT

QUANTITY M2

COST £

Limestone

Pad foundation

4m3

1200

Limestone

Wall

16m3

4626

Softwood I-beam

Wall and floor

Unknown

Softwood

Wall and floor

507

5065

Softwood

Stud partitions

284

2840

Plywood

Linings/floors

1322

19,830

Welsh slate

Roof tiles

2m3

648

Softwood

Roof trusses

103

1028

Hemp batt

Insulation

109m3

15,025

Glass

Windows

6750

Limestone

Sills and lintels

<1m3

TOTAL/HOUSE

HOUSES

MATERIAL

57,270

133

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

3.0 CARBON COPY

FINDINGS

GREENER, CHEAPER, FASTER Our analysis has proved that it is possible to build a carbon copy scheme of that built by Taylor Wimpey that is carbon negative. Not only this, our scheme is comparatively cheaper to build per house due to the change and reduction of materials, desiging out supplementary finishes and faster construction techniques.

HOUSES

Our carbon copy scheme is more at home in the Cotswolds than that proposed by Taylor Wimpey and will be more comfortable for residents to live in. This analysis has been concluded in a vaccum however, and it would therefore be interesting to see how our design could be rolled out to other Taylor Wimpey sites and investigate how this may have positive effects. A second additional study that would be good to do is looking into how these homes are serviced - could a district ground source heat pump be viable for the whole development to share? Will this cheapen users’ bills and increase their fuel security?

COST COMPARISON

150000 -50000

Existing Condition

Stone + CLT

Stone + Timber Frame

-100000

-40000

134

100000 50000 0

Existing Condition

Large stone

-20000

kgCO2e/m3

20000

40000

Cost per house/£

200000

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

Stone + CLT

Stone + Timber Frame

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Figure 3.48 3 bedroom carbon copy

168%

24%

EMBODIED CARBON

PROJECT COST

135

136 HOUSES

4.0 WHAT IF?

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

137

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

4.0 WHAT IF?

SUMMARY

LOADBEARING STONE Traditionally the stone of vernacular houses in the Cotswolds is not just a rainscreen but also structure. If we were to go beyond the carbon copy and design further, this would be our principle approach. The following two options briefly explore how it can be articulated either as external stone or as internal stone.

138

HOUSES

Additionally we have explored the use of timber piles in lieu of limestone for foundations. This would mean that our foundations, which have one of the highest individual component embodided carbon figures, will be carbon negative for each house. The following have all been designed as ideas, ‘what if?’ scenarios and therefore require further investigation, especially into accurate cost and carbon calculations

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Figure 4.1 Typical Cotswolds cottage

139

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

4.0 WHAT IF?

INTERNAL STONE

INSULATED RENDER HIDING COSY VERNACULAR STONE INTERIOR Internal structural stone offers fantastic environmental and visual possibilities. Firstly, by making the stone loadbearing, we will eliminate the need for a timber frame and reduce wall build-up so reduce material quantites and cost. Secondly it frees the external elevations to, in essence, become anything it wants. One route we have explored is to use insulated render so each house becomes a black (or coloured) box where no lintels or roof tiles are required as it is all wrapped in a homogenous envelope.

HOUSES

Reducing the wall build-up, material quantites and improving the u-value can only be a good thing. These houses will externally appear out of place but in actual fact can be argued to be more ‘vernacular’ than our proposed carbon copy because their stone is loadbearing. The internal palette of exposed stone and timber panelled partitions will create a cosy, cottage atmosphere. The simple and cheap facade can mean more money is put into planting, which will create a richer environment for people to enjoy and biodiversity to thrive.

Figure 4.2 Ada Street, Groupwork

140

Figure 4.3 Didden Village, MVRDV

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Figure 4.4 Internal stone walls

Limestone wall Dryvit insulated render system 300mm rigid wood fibre insulation Waterproof membrane 125mm limestone

141

142 HOUSES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Figure 4.5 Prospect Cottage, Derek Jarmin

Figure 4.6 Serpentine Pavillion, Peter Zumthor

143

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

4.0 WHAT IF?

EXTERNAL STONE

CUTE DORMERS External stone means the houses will contextually appear at home which is of course something to be prized - the typical Cotswold cottage is cute and sought after for a reason. Wall build-up and material quantities will again be reduced by making the stone loadbearing. However to avoid thermal bridges and areas for condensation to creep into the building, a complex insulated hanging detail is required for the floor joists which could increase costs.

HOUSES

To mitigate any potential cost increases, we have explored dropping the ceiling on the 4 bedroom house and added cute little dormers typical of the area. This, coupled with the elimination of a timber frame, will reduce material quanitities and indeed cost.

144

Figure 4.8 Cute little dormers set into a Cotswolds cottage

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Figure 4.9 4 bedroom with low roof and dormers

145

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

NO NIA LOSS

1200

HOUSES

The roof pitch starts 1200mm above FFL and therefore there is no loss of NIA/net sellable area.

146

Floor joists can hang directly off the external loadbearing stone work with a nylon insulation strip to avoid cold bridges. As the wall panels only need to hold themselves up now, the timber frame can be removed so much less material is used and less work required per house. The stone must increase to a thickness of 125mm but there is no impct on overall build-up.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

INSULATED FLOOR JOIST HANGER

HOUSES

Limestone wall 125mm limestone 50 air gap Waterproof membrane Cavity ties 15mm plywood 300mm insulation 12mm veneered plywood 12mm timber skirting

Intermediate floor Nylon insulation strip Steel hanger 300mm timber I-joist Acoustic insulation Softood timber battens 22mm plywood 12mm hardwood floor

147

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

4.0 WHAT IF?

TIMBER PILE FOUNDATIONS

CARBON NEGATIVE FOUNDATIONS The foundations in our carbon copy are still very carbon intensive at +756kgCO2e/m3 and dramatically more expensive than the existing methedology of concrete block. We have therefore looked to use timber piles made of oak or coppice chestnut which would make our foundations carbon negative and increase the construction speed. Timber pile foundations will most likely be greener, cheaper and faster. Timber piles are used reguarly for fencing that lasts 60+ years in the post and rail fencing of southern England. Setting the pile 3m deep will mean they can withstand any heaving or settling forces. A galvanised steel flange must be inserted into the top of each pile to retain the strength in case the timber starts to rot at the top of ground level. HOUSES

The main design feature that this method would bring about is the need to leave 300mm of the timber above ground level to ensure the underside of the house can be adequately ventilated to avoid rot. We can take advantage of this however and introduce a ramp over linked swales on the front and back of each house. This will ensure equal access, increase biodiversity, help reduce flood risk and increase the beauty of the masterplan.

148

Figure 4.10 Chestnut post and rail fencing can last outdoors for 60 years

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

PROPOSED STONE PADS

2000

300

600x600x300mm limestone

2700

HOUSES

2700

300

PROPOSED TIMBER PILES

2700

2700 3000

2700

300x3000mm timber 600x220x10mm steel flange

149

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

VOID

HOUSES

150

Foundation 3000x300mmdia. chestnut or oak pile 800x220x10mm galvanised steel flange

Swale Water loving planting

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Figure 4.11 Ramp over swale entrance

Figure 4.12 Tasinge Plads, Copenhagen Planted swales with walkways over the top

151

152 HOUSES

5.0 FINDINGS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

153

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

5.0 FINDINGS

FINAL COMPARITIVE FINDINGS

GREENER, CHEAPER, FASTER This analysis has explored if it is possible to recreate a Taylor Wimpey housing development that is greener, cheaper and faster than the existing condition. Through our research we have concluded that it is indeed possible. Thoughtful questioning of, and, understanding material along with construction methods means that these houses can be built using a timber frame and large self supporting Cotswolds limestone facade.

154

HOUSES

This research is in essence only a beginning, it is a provocation of what is possible when we think and deeply analyse design decisions. Changing a material based on cost or colour alone does not look at the whole picture and doing so does an injustice to the future residents of these homes and our shared planet. This analysis has been done in the isolation of two typologies on a single site. The next steps to develop this research further would be to present it to Taylor Wimpey and work together to understand how this could work at an economy of scale. Secondly, this research has been more site specific than a Taylor Wimpey development in which the same house can be built in Southampton or Sunderland so developing a map of Britain and housing typologies accordingly that are all greener, cheaper and faster would be an incredibly interesting and pertinent exercise.

168%

24%

EMBODIED CARBON

PROJECT COST

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

COST COMPARISON

100000 0

50000

40000 20000 0

Existing Condition

Stone + CLT

Stone + Timber Frame

Existing Condition

Stone + CLT

Stone + Timber Frame

-100000

-50000

-20000

Large stone

-40000

kgCO2e/m3

HOUSES

Cost per house/£

150000

200000

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

155

156 HOUSES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

157

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES 158

6.0

CATALOGUE OF MATERIAL COMPONENTS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

159

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

6.0 CATALOGUE OF MATERIAL COMPONENTS

FOUNDATION DETAIL 3 BED AND 4 BED

HOUSES

VOID

160

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Wall 300mm timber I-joist frame 300mm hemp batt insulation 12mm veneered plywood 12x100mm softwood skirting

Floor 12mm Hardwood timber floor 22mm plywood 50x25mm Softwood timber battens Acoustic insulation Timber I-Joist Hemp batt insulation DPM

Foundation 2x75mm limestone block 150mm EPS insulation Vented opening 400x400x600 limestone plinth 600x600x300 limestone footing Reinforced concrete

161

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

6.0 CATALOGUE OF MATERIAL COMPONENTS

EXTERNAL WALL DETAIL 3 BED AND 4 BED

HOUSES

162

Wall 75mm limestone 50mm air gap Waterproof membrane 300mm timber I-joist frame 300mm hemp batt insulation 12mm veneered plywood

12x100mm softwood skirting 2

Window Triple glazed velfac timber window Limestone sill Hardwood timber sill

Intermediate floor 12mm Hardwood timber floor 22mm plywood 50x25mm Softwood timber battens Acoustic insulation Timber I-Joist 12mm veneered plywood

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

163

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

6.0 CATALOGUE OF MATERIAL COMPONENTS

EAVE DETAIL 3 BED 2

HOUSES

164

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

4 BED

HOUSES

Wall 75mm limestone 50mm air gap Waterproof membrane 300mm timber I-joist frame 300mm hemp batt insulation 12mm veneered plywood

12x100mm softwood skirting

Flat roof Sedum planting 200mm soil 100mm drainage board DPM 300mm timber I-joist Hemp batt insulation 12mm veneered plywood

Pitched roof Welsh slate tiles Softwood timber battens DPM 300mm timber I-joist Hemp batt insulation 12mm standard ply

165

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

6.0 CATALOGUE OF MATERIAL COMPONENTS

INTERNAL STRUCTURAL WALL DETAIL 3 BED (PARTY WALL) AND 4 BED

166

HOUSES

VOID

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5 HOUSES

Wall 300mm timber I-joist frame 300mm hemp batt insulation 12mm veneered plywood 12x100mm softwood skirting

Floor 12mm Hardwood timber floor 22mm plywood 50x25mm Softwood timber battens Acoustic insulation Timber I-Joist Hemp batt insulation DPM

167

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

6.0 CATALOGUE OF MATERIAL COMPONENTS

INTERNAL PARTITION WALL DETAIL 3 BED AND 4 BED

HOUSES

VOID

168

Wall 90mm softwood timber frame 90mm hemp batt insulation 12mm veneered plywood 12x100mm softwood skirting

Floor 12mm Hardwood timber floor 22mm plywood 50x25mm Softwood timber battens Acoustic insulation Timber I-Joist Hemp batt insulation DPM

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

169

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

EXTERNAL CONTRIBUTORS

WEBB YATES ENGINEERS 48-50 Scrutton Street London EC2A 4HH london@webbyates.com

EIGHT ASSSOCIATES

HOUSES

46 Loman Street London SE1 0EH info@eightassociates.co.uk

OLP COST CONSULTANTS Office 7 35-37 Ludgate Hill London EC4M 7JN info@olpcostconsultants.co.uk

IVO DESIGN +44 (0) 7954 09 81 31 +34 623 104 054 ivo@ivodisseny.com

NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT 3 More London Riverside London SE1 2AQ

170

+44 20 7283 6000

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS5

HOUSES

171

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Purpose of research Construction methodology Reference: stone tower research project Case studies 2.1 EXISTING CONDITION A (OFFICE) Site and location Key information Tower overview Construction methodology Existing structural plans Existing elevations and sections Existing close up section Existing exploded axonometric Existing detail drawings Embodied carbon calculation Cost analysis

TOWER

8 10 12 14

18 19 20 22 24 26 28 29 30 32 33

2.2 CARBON COPY A (OFFICE) Stone exoskeleton + Timber in-between + Stone core Construction methodolgy Stone frame options Beam variations Structural plans Elevation and Section Close up section Exploded axonometric Detail drawings External view comparison Embodied carbon calculation Cost analysis

36 28 40 42 44 46 48 49 50 52 54 55

2.3 WHAT IF? Office additional internal columns Embodied carbon calculation Cost analysis

58 60 61

3.1 EXISTING CONDITION B (RESIDENTIAL)

Site and location Key information Tower overview Construction methodology Existing structural plans Existing elevations and sections Existing close up section Existing exploded axonometric

64 65 66 68 70 72 74 75

76 78 79

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Existing detail drawings Embodied carbon calculation Cost analysis 3.2 CARBON COPY B (RESIDENTIAL)

82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100

ADS 5

Variation 1 & 2 Construction methodolgy Structural plans Close up sections Exploded axonometric Detail drawings Piles foundation comparison Internal finishes comparison Embodied carbon calculation Cost analysis 4.0 DATA COMPARISONS

104 108

5.0 FINDINGS Overall savings Conslusion to the tower typology

114 120

6.0 MENU OF COMPONENTS

122

TOWER

Office tower 22 Bishopsgate Residential tower One Park Drive

6 TOWER

1 INTRODUCTION

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 TOWER

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART TOWER

1.0 INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH

As the product of new technologies and response to spatial limitations, growing populations, zoning regulations, and business requirements, are towers logical extrusion of land values or irrational, anti-urban monster? In a world responding to the climate crisis, towering skyscrapers that use massive amounts of energy and materials to construct and operate may look increasingly out of place. This paper examines the current state of two tower types: office tower and residential tower. Focusing on the case studies of 22 Bishopsgate and One Park Drive, we selected these typical buildings in London that demonstrate the most up-to-date construction practices.

In light of the current climate context, the report will focus on how timber and stone could be used in the tower typology. By replacing building materials and reconstructing details, we intend to provide a new strategy for the tower’s sustainable innovation while conserving the structure’s original features to the maximum extent.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5 TOWER

22 Bishopsgate, City of London, PLP Architecture. Image CC credit: Matt Brown – flickr

One Park Drive, Canary Wharf, Herzog de Meuron. Photographed by Lee Mawdsley

TOWER

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Towers under construction, concrete / steel structures. Photographed by Lee Mawdsley

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5 TOWER

22 Bishopsgate and One Park Drive, under construction, Two typical tower structures.

CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY Both belonging to the tower typology, 22 Bishopsgate and One Park Drive are stacked and combined by the same basic elements: core frame, slab, and facade. Both rely heavily on reinforced concrete; the office tower’s fundamental structure is made up of a huge number of steel columns and beams, while the residential tower’s construction logic is flat slabs supported by reinforced concrete blade walls and columns. Wind lateral force is dealt with differently in the two buildings: 22 Bishopsgate employs a specific steel outrigger system in the middle of the building levels, whilst One Park Drive uses a lot of concrete shear walls to keep the structure stable.

TOWER

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Stone Tower Research Project. Groupwork, in collaboration with Jackson Coles, Eight Associates and Webb Yates

REFERENCE: STONE TOWER RESEARCH PROJECT Researching how far one can go using stone, Groupwork has imagined a 30-story basalt structure with a total Gross Internal Floor Area of 37,800 m² / 406,875 ft², part of the Stone Tower Research project.

The comparative study considering many structural solutions aims to “investigate whether large scale commercial buildings can be built with stone superstructures, stone and or timber floor plates to meet the same criteria of optimum office space and building height as steel and concrete structures and be the same or lower in construction cost and carbon footprint”.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

Stone Tower – Typical Plan (stone flooring cassettes shown)

TOWER

One Par Drive, Canary Wharf, Herzog de Meuron. Photographed by Lee Mawdsley

Stone Tower – Front Elevation

Stone Tower – Side Elevation

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

TOWER

Case study: 30 Finsbury Square, London, Eric Parry Architects , 2002. Source: https://www. ericparryarchitects.co.uk/ projects/30-finsbury-square/

Case study: Sara Cultural Centre, Skellefteå, White Arkitekter, 2021. Source: https:// whitearkitekter.com/project/ sara-cultural-centre/

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

CASE STUDIES

30 Finsbury Square, London, Eric Parry Architects , 2002

Sara Cultural Centre, Skellefteå, White Arkitekter, 2021

The project comprised a large office development of approximately 16,660 square meters of office floor space arranged over 7 stories.

The centre’s timber structure references the city’s historic wooden buildings, and is sheathed in a double layer of glass that reveals the crosslaminated and glue-laminated timber panels that form the spaces within.

This elevational study is nevertheless based upon the engineered distribution of weight bearing down through the piers. Parry had hoped to integrate an additional break in the tension of the visual grid by wrapping a small section of the stone frame composition in the sculpture of stainless steel balls by Richard Deacon RA, like an interweaving necklace.

The building, which makes use of locally and sustainably sourced and processed timber, has an aim to be carbon negative within 50 years.

TOWER

The use of stone under varying pressures, as if it were post-and-beam construction from the days of ancient Greece, working just like in a ‘hightech stone age’.

Structural engineers Florian Kosche developed two construction systems for the building that eliminate the use of concrete within the load-bearing structure. Prefabricated modules made from Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) were used to construct the high-rise hotel, while a combination of glue laminated timber with cores and walls in CLT was deployed for the cultural centre. In hand, an energy system created by Skellefteå Kraft and ABB was developed to reduce the building’s power consumption and includes roofmounted solar panels that produce renewable energy.

16 TOWER

2.1 EXISTING CONDITION A: OFFICE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 TOWER

ADS 5

2.1 EXISTING CONDITION A

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

22 BISHOPSGATE

22 Bishopsgate, also known as Twentytwo, is a commercial skyscraper in the City of London financial district.The project replaces an earlier plan a tower named The Pinnacle, on which construction was started in 2008 but suspended in 2012 following the Great Recession, with only the concrete core of the first seven storeys. The structure was later subjected to a re-design, out of which it became known by its postal address, 22 Bishopsgate.

OFFICE TOWER

The Pinnacle is the second-tallest building in both the United Kingdom and the European Union after The Shard. Shaped to respect townscape views, its twentythree-sided, faceted glass form makes a strong and serene backdrop to the surrounding articulated towers and to the historic fabric of the Bank of England Conservation Area.

22 Bishopsgate under construction, City of London, PLP Architecture. Image CC credit: It’s No Game – flickr.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

SITE AND LOCATION ADS 5 OFFICE TOWER

Existing site plan. Planning Application Documents.

KEY INFORMATION Completion: 2020 Height: 272.32m (AOD) Storeys: 62 Gross Internal Area (GIA): 196,982 m2 Net Internal Area (NIA): ~108,340 m2

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.1 EXISTING CONDITION A

TOWER OVERVIEW Extensive amenity spaces form a “vertical village” in 22 Bishopsgate, these spaces encourage social interaction, collaboration, inclusion, shared experiences, services and events. At its base, pedestrian access is unlocked through the cluster in the heart of the City, converting it into landscaped public open space. Four main entrances access the Lobby, with an evolving programme of curated art and sculpture displays.

OFFICE TOWER

The office building offers 1.275 million sq ft of high specification office space, arranged across four office zones. An innovative evacuation method is created by using passenger lifts rather than typical fire evacuation lifts. The four zones are separated by two-hour fire rating slabs, each has its own dedicated bank of lifts. The double-decker lifts, which run at a pace of 6-8 metres per second, provide a safe and quick escape route for the building’s occupants.

The vertical village: varied amenity spaces where people and ideas thrive. 22 Bishopsgate Brochure

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5 OFFICE TOWER

Four office entrance and four banks of lifts, for swift and direct journeys to the destination floor – with no stops.

Four office zones. Not to scale, for identification purposes only.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.1 EXISTING CONDITION A

OFFICE TOWER

Outrigger system. Located at levels 25 and 41.

Transfer structure. Linking the new structures into the existing foundation.

CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY OUTRIGGER SYSTEM Responding to the pushing forces of the strong winds affecting the higher levels, the engineers designed a series of trusses that play the role of outriggers located at levels 25 and 41. These steel structures span from floor to ceiling and tie back to the concrete core. Restrain the building and help it to stand still when the wind tries to bend it down. The structure also compresses and shrinks due to the effect of the increased weight.

TRANSFER STRUCTURE One of the biggest transfer structure in the design of 22 Bishopsgate, nicknamed by the design team as the “Rhino truss” for its geometry. It was required in order to transfer the loads from the south east corner columns of the building to the foundations that needed to be utilised from the old Pinnacle design.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

Top down construction. Temporary structural elements are built to support the core.

OFFICE TOWER

Double skin system. Facade under construction.

TOP DOWN CONSTRUCTION It consists in starting to build the core from an elevated level, in this case from the ground floor. This way, construction can progress simultaneously above and below ground. Temporary structural elements are built to support the core. These usually occupy less space than the final configuration of the core walls would thus freeing space underneath and facilitating the execution of the works required below ground. DOUBLE SKIN SYSTEM Along the west side, the huge loads from the peripheral columns had to be brought into the piles located much nearer to the central core. Engineers do this by sloping the columns inwards from level six to level three, returning to vertical for the entrance lobby down to ground level, and then sloping again from ground to basement. To resist the horizontal forces, the truss at the top helps take the tension and another at the bottom to resist compression.

24 OFFICE TOWER

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.1 EXISTING CONDITION A

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5 OFFICE TOWER

Existing structural plan of typical floors

EXISTING STRUCTURAL PLANS The three main parts of the building: core, slabs and facade progress in a stepped sequence over time. The floor slabs are composite with cellular steel beams, providing a diaphragmaction restraint to the perimeter columns. The concrete core’s footprint at the ground floor is roughly 60 x 15 meters - is formed by walls that reduce their thickness as they rise to the top floors, accommodating the reduced structural demands of the upper levels in comparison to those of the lower ones, also reduces as a result of the lesser number of lifts and services that reach the top floors.

ADS 5

2.1 EXISTING CONDITION A

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

EXISTING SECTIONS AND ELEVATIONS

Existing Section.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Existing Elevation.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.1 EXISTING CONDITION A

OFFICE TOWER

CLOSE UP SECTION

Existing Close-up Section. Floor composition: 50mm Finish 150mm Concrete slab 130mm Metal deck 762mm Cellular beam Ceiling

Wall composition: 25mm Outer glazing panel 125mm Air cavity 165mm Inner facade, with 100mm insulation and double glazing

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

EXISTING EXPLODED AXONOMETRIC

ADS 5

Steel Beam (b) Hot Rolled Structural Steel

Glass + Metal Outer Skin Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

Concrete Slab (b) Concrete 40 MPa

Galvanised Structural Steel

Glass + Metal Inner Skin Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

OFFICE TOWER

Metal Deck (b)

Steel Column Hot Rolled Structural Steel

Steel Beam (a) Hot Rolled Structural Steel

Concrete Core Reinforced Concrete

Concrete Slab (a) Concrete 40 MPa

Metal Deck (a) Galvanised Structural Steel

Exploded axonometric, Level 8-25, Column 800x700 / UB 762x267x197

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.1 EXISTING CONDITION A

OFFICE TOWER

EXISTING FACADE DETAIL

Existing facade detail. From planning application document.

A triple glazing system, 25mm Outer glazing panels 125mm Air cavity 100mm Inner facade

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5 OFFICE TOWER

Existing Facade detail, with louver inside. From planning application document. The louver units will be installed on the East Facade, in order to minimise their visual impact from the more distant views, replacing the already installed glazed facade panels.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

2.1 EXISTING CONDITION A

OFFICE TOWER

EMBODIED CARBON CALCULATIONS

MATERIAL

ELEMENT

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

Reinforced Concrete

Core

37,604

25,119,672

Light Concrete

Floor Slab

22,535

6,492,291

Zinc Coated Steel Sheet

Metal Deck

19,530

451,886,235

Beams and Hot Rolled Structural Steel Columns

14,447

155,765,857

Flat Glass

Glazing

29,658

70,445,455

Aluminium

Metal Frame

1,471

25,263,477

TOTAL

734,972,987

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

COST ANALYSIS

Total building area: 196,982 m2 Total building cost: £590,946,000 (£3,000/m2)

SUPERSTRUCTURE

OFFICE TOWER

CONCRETE + STEEL SUPERSTRUCTURE (EXISTING): ENVELOPE

£590,946,000 / 3 = £196,982,000 (concrete = £1,000/m2) (steel = £2,500/t) FIT-OUT

* Assumptions: 1. Total building cost is calculated with the assumption of £3,000/m2 (data online) 2. Superstructure, envelope and fit out are each a third of the total cost

34 TOWER

2.2 CARBON COPY A: OFFICE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 TOWER

ADS 5

2.2 CARBON COPY A

OFFICE TOWER

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

22 BISHOPSGATE

Precedent: 15 Clerkenwell Close, London, GROUPWORK + Amin Taha Architects Stone - Timber - Stone structure Source: https://www.archdaily. com/891018/15-clerkenwellclose-groupwork-plus-amintaha-architects

CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY

Taking 15 Clerkenwell Close as a reference, the alternative proposal will build a stone exoskeleton for 22 Bishopsgate. Simultaneously, the project will replace the original concrete core with stacked stone (using granite, basalt or marble). Timber structures such as CLT slabs and glulam beams will be placed in-between, connecting the stone elements and forming together a sustainable construction.

600,000,000 £

400,000,000 0

200,000,000

COST COMPARISON

750,000,000 500,000,000 250,000,000 0

kgCO2e

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Alternative

Existing

Alternative

-95.8%

-18.8%

IN EMBODIED CARBON

IN PROJECT COST

CORE

OFFICE TOWER

STONE EXOSKELETON + TIMBER IN-BETWEEN + STONE CORE

ADS 5

Existing

Stacked stone; Pre-tensioned limestone.

COLUMNS

Pre-tensioned limestone, cross-sectional area decreases from bottom to top,

LINTELS

Pre-tensioned stone, 600mm thickness all the time Limestone

BEAMS

Glulam beams + Partial cellular beams Softwood glulam + Hot rolled structural steel

FLOOR SLAB

CLT floor slabs Sustainably sourced CLT

INNER FACADE

Refer to the louver strategy, doubling the thermal layer Aluminium (bar abd rod) + Flat glass

OUTRIGGER

Use bracing on the exoskeleton instead Limestone

OFFICE TOWER

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.2 CARBON COPY A

Left: Limestones in the quarry. Right: A typical cast-in connection used for concrete. Image source: The design of cast-in plates report, ©J.R.Henderson, published in Berkshire, 2017

Stone Exoskeleton

Stone - Timber Connection

A stone exoskeleton is used for quicker erection on site and allowing a curtain wall to sit 150mm from it so that both weathering and thermal performance remains high without the need for window interfaces and thermal bridging points. In turn leaving the envelope as high performance and lower in cost.

There are two main connections between stone and wood involved in the alternative project: the glulam beams and the core, and its connection with the exoskeleton. Therefore, internal steel plates can be used as the mediator for load transmission. By pre-designing the connection nodes, the metal pieces are firmly embedded in the stone with the help of mortar, the glulam beam is stabilized by metal anchors which tie it back to the stone structure.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

Right: Exposed timber structures in the 53-m-high (18-storey) Brock Commons Tallwood House.

Large Span Glulam Beam

CLT Slabs

Glulam members are built with individual laminations of structural timber and give an effective material usage.

CLT is a highly engineered wood product that is excellent for all sorts of different structures. CLT’s composition and method of manufacture offer huge opportunities, since the panel can be glued and worked into almost any shape and size.

The laminations are finger jointed to produce great lengths and are industrially bonded with adhesive so as to create the required size. Thanks to the lay-up of glulam, very large structural elements can be produced out of timber from smaller trees.

OFFICE TOWER

Left: Long-span glued laminated timber beams, image source: https://www. structuremag.org/?p=16406

CLT has excellent strength and stiffness properties, which mean that CLT panels can compete with other more traditional structural materials in high-rise buildings.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

2.2 CARBON COPY A

STONE FRAME OPTIONS The size of the stone skeleton is closely related to the amount of material, which affects the final calculation of embodied carbon. Taking the maximum span of the CLT floor (6m) as a reference, three options were discussed at the beginning of the project: 3m column spacing + single-layer frame, 3m column spacing without lintel, and 6m column spacing + double-layer frame. When comparing the calculation results for the typical floor, the 6m + doublelayer frame option offers the highest performance in terms of sustainability.

3M SPACING COLUMNS WIT

OFFICE TOWER

3M SPACING COLUMNS + SINGLE-STORY FRAME

Volume m3

Embodied Carbon kgCO2e

LINTEL

158.4

188,592

COLUMN

368

438,140

TOTAL

626,732

Volume m3

408.6

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Frame diagrams in elevation

ADS 5

TH NO LINTEL

6M SPACING COLUMNS + DOUBLE-STORY FRAME

OFFICE TOWER

Exploded axonometric, Typical floor of level 8 - 25. Not to scale, for identification purposes only. Structural and sustainability comparison.

Embodied Carbon kgCO2e

Volume m3

Embodied Carbon kgCO2e

486,479

LINTEL

79.1

94,176

486,479

COLUMN

181.8

216,452

TOTAL

310,628

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.2 CARBON COPY A

BEAM VARIATIONS

OFFICE TOWER

VARIATION 1:STEEL CELLULAR BEAMS

Exploded axonometric, Typical fllor of Level 8 - 25. Not to scale, for identification purposes only. 200mm CLT slabs 762x267x197mm Universal beam

Volume m3

Embodied Carbon kgCO2e

CELLULAR BEAM

0.11

1,186

CLT SLABS

5.15

- 4,333

TOTAL

- 3,147

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

VARIATION 2:GLULAM BEAMS WITH SERVICE AREA

ADS 5 OFFICE TOWER

Beam to core diagram, Typical floor of Level 8 - 25. Not to scale, for identification purposes only. 200mm CLT slabs embedded in the beam; 300x800mm Glulam beam; 533x165x66mm Universal beam.

Volume m3

Embodied Carbon kgCO2e

GLULAM BEAM

0.96

- 982

CLT SLABS

5.08

- 4,274

CELLULAR BEAM

0.02

216

TOTAL

- 5,040

44 OFFICE TOWER

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.2 CARBON COPY A

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5 OFFICE TOWER

Existing structural plan of typical floors

STRUCTURAL PLANS The three main parts of the building: core, slabs and facade progress in a stepped sequence over time. The floor slabs are composite with cellular steel beams, providing a diaphragmaction restraint to the perimeter columns. The concrete core’s footprint at the ground floor is roughly 60 x 15 meters - is formed by walls that reduce their thickness as they rise to the top floors, accommodating the reduced structural demands of the upper levels in comparison to those of the lower ones, also reduces as a result of the lesser number of lifts and services that reach the top floors.

ADS 5

2.2 CARBON COPY A

OFFICE TOWER

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

SECTIONS AND ELEVATIONS

Alternative Section.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 OFFICE TOWER

Alternative Elevation.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.2 CARBON COPY A

OFFICE TOWER

CLOSE UP SECTION

Alternative Close-up Section. Floor composition: 200mm Raised floor 200mm CLT slab, embedded on the glulam beam 800mm Glulam beam Ceiling

Wall composition: 500mm Stone exoskeleton 150mm Air cavity 410mm Inner facade, with 210mm insulation and double glazing

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

EXPLODED AXONOMETRIC

ADS 5

Glulam Beam (b) Softwood Glulam

Cellular Beam in Service Area (b) Hot Rolled Structural Steel

Pretensioned Stone Lintel Limestone

Stone Column (b) Limestone

Sustainably Sourced CLT

Glass + Metal Inner Skin Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

OFFICE TOWER

CLT Slab (b)

Glulam Beam (a) Softwood Glulam

Cellular Beam in Service Area (a) Hot Rolled Structural Steel

Stone Bracing Limestone

Stone Core (a) Limestone

Stone Column (a) Limestone

CLT Slab (a) Sustainably Sourced CLT

Alternative axonometric, Level 8-25, Column 800x500 / Glulam beam 800x300 / UB 533x165x66 mm

FACADE DETAIL

ADS 5 OFFICE TOWER

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

2.2 CARBON COPY A

Alternative facade detail.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5 OFFICE TOWER

3D diagram of the facade detail. Knife plate connector helps to link the stone frame and glulam beam.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.2 CARBON COPY A

OFFICE TOWER

EXTERNAL VIEW COMPARISON

Existing architectural appearance.

source: https://www. buildington.co.uk/londonec2/22-24-bishopsgate/22bishopsgate/id/2171.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5 OFFICE TOWER

Alternative architectural appearance. Conceptual Collage.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

2.2 CARBON COPY A

EMBODIED CARBON CALCULATIONS

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

44,605

8,430,307

Cross Laminated Floor Slab Timber

30,046

- 25,278,392

Glulam

Beams

9,478

- 9,698,284

Flat Glass

Glazing

14,382

34,160,266

Aluminium

Metal Frame

1,141

19,601,477

308

3,322,930

MATERIAL

ELEMENT Core

Limestone

External Column

OFFICE TOWER

Stone Lintel

Hot Rolled Service Beams Structural Steel

TOTAL

30,538,305

95.8% SAVING

Total building area: 196,982 m2 Total building cost: £590,946,000 (£3,000/m2) SUPERSTRUCTURE

ENVELOPE

COST

108,793

32,637,900

Cross Laminated Floor Slab Timber

150,230

37,557,500

Glulam

31,593

7,898,250

2,461(t)

6,152,500

ELEMENT Core

Limestone

External Column Stone Lintel

Beams

Hot Rolled Service Beams Structural Steel

TOTAL

OFFICE TOWER

VOLUME M2/T

MATERIAL

ADS 5

FIT-OUT

CONCRETE + STEEL SUPERSTRUCTURE (EXISTING): £590,946,000 / 3 = £196,982,000 (concrete = £1,000/m2) (steel = £2,500/t)

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

COST ANALYSIS

84,246,150 + 196,982,000x2 = 478,210,150 18.8% SAVING

* Assumptions: 1. Total building cost is calculated with the assumption of £3,000/m2 2. Superstructure, envelope and fit out are each a third of the total cost 3. Building envelope and internal fit out stays the same 4. Stone = £300/m2, CLT = £250/m2, Glulam = £250/m2, Steel = £2,500/t

56 TOWER

2.3 WHAT IF?

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 TOWER

ADS 5

2.3 WHAT IF?

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

22 BISHOPSGATE

OFFICE TOWER

ADDTIONAL INTERNAL COLUMNS

Additional columns diagram.

The What If section provides another possibility for the office tower. If the client does not mind breaking the concept of no column working space and chooses to have additional internal glulam columns, the use of additional columns can help reduce the thickness of glulam beams, and there is no need to attach cellular beams to the side of the core to place the service area on the ceiling. The tower thus will have better sustainability performance.

200,000,000

400,000,000

600,000,000 Alternative

COST COMPARISON

750,000,000 500,000,000 0

250,000,000

kgCO2e

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Existing

Alternative

-20.3%

IN EMBODIED CARBON

IN PROJECT COST

ADS 5

-95.7%

OFFICE TOWER

Glulam column - CLT slab connection By using an additional flat connection between the column and slabs, the strategy can lead to better fire performance, and can also reduce the length of the span required by CLT slabs, therefore reducing costs and embodied carbon.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

2.3 WHAT IF?

EMBODIED CARBON CALCULATIONS

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

44,605

8,430,307

Cross Laminated Floor Slab Timber

30,046

- 25,278,392

Glulam

Beams and Columns

5,436

- 5,562,635

Flat Glass

Glazing

14,382

34,160,266

Aluminium

Metal Frame

1,141

19,601,477

MATERIAL

ELEMENT Core

OFFICE TOWER

Limestone

External Column Stone Lintel

TOTAL

31,351,023

95.7% SAVING

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

COST ANALYSIS

SUPERSTRUCTURE

ENVELOPE

FIT-OUT

CONCRETE + STEEL SUPERSTRUCTURE (EXISTING): £590,946,000 / 3 = £196,982,000 (concrete = £1,000/m2) (steel = £2,500/t)

COST

108,793

32,637,900

Cross Laminated Floor Slab Timber

150,230

37,557,500

Beams and columns

27,180

6,795,000

ELEMENT Core

Limestone

External Column

OFFICE TOWER

VOLUME M2

MATERIAL

ADS 5

Total building area: 196,982 m2 Total building cost: £590,946,000 (£3,000/m2)

Stone Lintel

Glulam

TOTAL

76,990,400 + 196,982,000x2 = 470,954,400 20.3% SAVING

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART TOWER 62

3.1

EXISTING CONDITION B: RESIDENTIAL

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 TOWER

ADS 5

3.1 EXISTING CONDITION B

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ONE PARK DRIVE

One Park Drive is a residential skyscraper situated in the south west corner of Wood Wharf, within the Canary Wharf development on the Isle of Dogs, London. The building was designed by Herzog & de Meuron, is cylindrical in shape, and with 58-storeys comprising 468 private residential apartments.

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

The skyscraper was designed to have the appearance of a cylindrical tower, but the majority of the apartments have regular straight edges. This creates an aesthetic appearance that differentiates the building from the oblong-shaped office towers, but does not impact the quality of the apartments.

Canary Wharf, London Herzog de Meuron Photo from CBRE Residential

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

SITE AND LOCATION ADS 5 RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Wood Wharf Masterplan Scheme Development Plot A1

KEY INFORMATION Completion: Q1 2021 Height: 204.93m Storeys: 58 Residential Units: 468 Gross Internal Area (GIA): 54,656m2 Net Internal Area (NIA): 40,992m2 (75% of GIA)

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.1 EXISTING CONDITION B

TOWER OVERVIEW One Park Drive is a single building made up of three distinct typologies. Each typology evolved from a re-examination of city living, has its own distinct characteristics while also working together as a harmonious whole.

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

One Park Drive celebrates its communal spaces, with the residents’ amenities being on the first two floors, where they are fully integrated into the life of the building. The library and residents’ lounge are on the ground floor level, with the pool and gym on the first floor above. These interior spaces, radiating out from the central core of the building, are enhanced by their seamless interaction with the surrounding gardens and water.

Three apartment typologies

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART RESIDENTIAL TOWER

The Cluster apartments form the heart of the building. Here the floorplates are mirrored and rotated to create a rhythmic visual complexity, while still maintaining the clarity of the internal spaces. The lower levels are connected with the parks and the water; the higher floors are connected with the sky.

ADS 5

The spiralling top of the building contains the Bay apartments. The orthogonal geometry of the apartments intersects the implicit curve of the building, creating the opportunity for double-height terraces which are recessed into the building. The design of the Bay apartments is focused on maximising light and the views across London.

The lower floors feature the Loft apartments – some of the largest apartments with high ceilings and wrap-around terraces. This location exploits their immediate connection to the surrounding green spaces and the waterfront.

Tower Overview

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.1 EXISTING CONDITION B

CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY The structural concept adopted for the tower superstructure typically consists of reinforced concrete flat slabs supported by reinforced concrete blade walls and columns. The core of the tower is located centrally within the internal layout and is partially enhanced by frame action of the surrounding tower.

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Levels 10 through to 32 uses post-tension slabs. Praeter and AKT II developed the design and the use of post-tensioning to limit the deflections in the cantilevered areas due to the span of the cantilevered areas making it impossible to design as traditional RC without increasing slab depths or adding downstand beams.

Tower under construction Photo from Praeter Engineering Ltd

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5 RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Tower under construction Photo from Praeter Engineering Ltd

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.1 EXISTING CONDITION B

EXISTING STRUCTURAL PLANS

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Bay

Cluster

Loft

20m

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

20m Key plan showing how 1/4 of each floorplate is repeated to form one floor

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

The geometry of One Park Drive is expressed in the profile of the external facade for each typology Additional complexity is created by the stacking, rotation and mirroring of individual floor plates. This gives varying aspects to each apartment type establishing individuality within a unified whole. The terraces are naturally formed between the apartments’ enclosing walls and the outer edges of each floor plate, making them an intrinsic element of the apartment planning.

20m

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.1 EXISTING CONDITION B

EXISTING ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS AOD 211.43

Level 56 Level 55

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Level 54

Level 32 Level 31

Level 10

Level 02 Level 01 Ground Level 6.50

North Elevation 1:1000 1 North Elevation

1 : 500

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

AOD 211.43

Level 56 Level 55

AOD 211.43

Level 56 Level 55 Level 54

Level 54

ADS 5 RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Level 32 Level 31

Level 10

Level 09

Level 02

Level 01

Ground Level 6.50

Ground L 6.50

Section NE-SW 1:1000 1 Section AA'

2 Section BB'

1 : 500

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.1 EXISTING CONDITION B

CLOSE UP SECTION

EXTERIOR

INTERIOR

EXTERIOR

INTERIOR

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Separating Wall composition: 25mm Finish 75mm Insulation 300mm Reinforced Concrete 75mm Insulation 25mm Finish

External Wall composition: 100mm Reconstituted Stone Cladding 200~500mm Reinforced Concrete 50mm Air Cavity 100mm Rigid Insulation 150mm Insulation 25mm Finish

Floor composition: 25mm Finish 150mm Insulation 230mm Reinforced Concrete 100 Shallow Decking 12.5mm Proprietary Metal Frame 12.5 mm Ceiling

Existing Close-up Section

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

EXISTING EXPLODED AXONOMETRIC Glazing +Frame Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

Cladding Reconstituted Stone (Light Concrete)

Separating Wall Plasterboard

ADS 5

Bay

Concrete Shear Wall Reinforced Concrete

Concrete Core Reinforced Concrete

Concrete Slab 250mm Reinforced Concrete

Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

Cladding Reconstituted Stone (Light Concrete)

Separating Wall Plasterboard

Cluster

Concrete Shear Wall Reinforced Concrete

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Glazing +Frame

Concrete Core Reinforced Concrete

Concrete Slab 250mm Reinforced Concrete

Glazing +Frame Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

Cladding Reconstituted Stone (Light Concrete)

Separating Wall Plasterboard

Loft

Concrete Shear Wall Reinforced Concrete

Concrete Core Reinforced Concrete

Concrete Slab 250mm Reinforced Concrete

Exploded axonometric: Loft, Cluster, Bay

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.1 EXISTING CONDITION B

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

EXISTING BALCONY DETAIL

Close-up detail of existing balcony

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

EXTERIOR

INTERIOR

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Close-up detail of existing balcony

Schock thermal breaks are used in the existing balcony system in order for the reinforced concrete floor slab to be continue onto the terraces.

Structural thermal breaks for concrete balcony construction contain components that are cast into the concrete floor slab on the interior side, and into the concrete balcony on the exterior side. The assembly is engineered to carry the same design load as a conventional reinforced concrete balcony.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

3.1 EXISTING CONDITION B

EMBODIED CARBON CALCULATIONS

MATERIAL

ELEMENT

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

22,131.3

14,783,708

Core Reinforced Concrete

Structural Wall

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Floor Slab Light Concrete

Cladding

3284.1

945,821

Flat Glass

Glazing

677.8

1,609,775

Aluminium

Metal Frame

299.4

5,141,596

Plasterboard

Separating Wall

3349.8

877,648

TOTAL

23,358,548

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

COST ANALYSIS

Total building area: 54,656m2

SUPERSTRUCTURE

ENVELOPE

£163,968,000 / 3 = £54,656,000 (concrete = £1,000/m2)

FIT-OUT

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

CONCRETE SUPERSTRUCTURE (EXISTING):

ADS 5

Total building cost: £163,968,000 (£3,000/m2)

* Assumptions: 1. Total building cost is calculated with the assumption of £3,000/m2 2. Superstructure, envelope and fit out are each a third of the total cost

80 TOWER

3.2 CARBON COPY B: RESIDENTIAL

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 TOWER

-20,000,000

Existing

Stone

Stone + Timber

10,000,000

50,000,000

20,000,000

100,000,000 150,000,000 200,000,000

COST COMPARISON

-10,000,000

kgCO2e

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.2 CARBON COPY B

ONE PARK DRIVE

VARIATION 1: STONE

VARIATION 2: TIMBER + STONE STRUCTURAL WALLS AND CORE

Existing

Stone

Stone + Timber

Two carbon copies have been proposed in order to test the best alternative for the tower in terms of embodied carbon, costs and aesthetics.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY

The first variation is to replace all reinforced concrete with post-tensioned stone. Stone is stronger than concrete, hence less amount of it is needed for the same structure.

VARIATION 1: STONE

ADS 5

The second variation also uses post-tensioned stone for the core and structural walls but floor slabs and separating walls are CLT, which lowers the overall weight, embodied carbon and costs of the tower.

VARIATION 2: TIMBER + STONE

-111%

IN EMBODIED CARBON

-23.3%

-24.5%

IN PROJECT COST

CORE

Post-tensioned stone

STRUCTURAL WALLS

Post-tensioned stone

SEPARATING WALLS

Plasterboard

CLT

FLOOR SLAB

Post-tensioned stone

CLT

BEAMS AND COLUMNS

Glulam

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

-50%

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.2 CARBON COPY B

Post-tensioned stone Photo from R. Pedreschi

Post-tensioned Stone In contemporary applications stone is attached to buildings in a variety of ways, connecting to the supporting structure using steel angles and brackets or by incorporating the stone in a pre-cast concrete panel. By post-tensioning the stone, prefabricated panels can be made which eliminate either the secondary steelwork and subsequent site operations or avoid the need for pre-cast concrete panels.

Replacing reinforced concrete with stone also means that less amount of the material is needed for the same weight and building structure. This further reduces emobided carbon and costs of construction.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5 RESIDENTIAL TOWER

CLT residential interior Photo from PATH Architecture

Timber interior + exposed beams and columns Mass timber such as CLT and Glulam is only used in the internal walls, floor slabs, beams and columns of the proposed carbon copies. This is due to the UK policy which prohibits the use of timber materials in the external walls of buildings over 18m tall. No extra wall or floor finishes are necessary as the timber can be left exposed for aesthetic pruposes. Using timber for the internal components has the benefit of reducing the overall weight of the building, hence less foundation piles are needed.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.2 CARBON COPY B

STRUCTURAL PLANS

Bay

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

20m

10 10

20m 20m

Cluster

Loft

VARIATION 1:

STONE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

20m

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

VARIATION 2:

10 10

20m 20m

TIMBER + STONE STRUCTURAL WALLS AND CORE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.2 CARBON COPY B

CLOSE UP SECTIONS

EXTERIOR

INTERIOR

EXTERIOR

INTERIOR

Balcony composition: 200mm Post-tensioned Stone Thermal break

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Separating Wall composition: 25mm Finish 75mm Insulation 250mm Post-tensioned Stone 75mm Insulation 25mm Finish

External Wall composition: 250mm Post-tensioned Stone 50mm Air Cavity 150mm Insulation 25mm Finish

Floor composition: 25mm Finish 150mm Insulation 200mm Post-tensioned Stone 12.5 mm Ceiling

VARIATION 1:

STONE

140x225mm Glulam Beams 100mm CLT wall

EXTERIOR

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Internal wall composition:

INTERIOR

200mm Post-tensioned Stone Thermal break

ADS 5

Balcony composition:

Separating Wall composition: INTERIOR

25mm Finish 75mm Insulation 250mm Post-tensioned Stone 75mm Insulation 25mm Finish

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

INTERIOR

External Wall composition: 250mm Post-tensioned Stone 50mm Air Cavity 150mm Insulation 25mm Finish

EXTERIOR

INTERIOR

Floor composition: 25mm Finish 150mm Insulation 250mm CLT Floor Slab

VARIATION 2:

TIMBER + STONE STRUCTURAL WALLS AND CORE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.2 CARBON COPY B

EXPLODED AXONOMETRIC

Glazing +Frame Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

Separating Wall Plasterboard

Stone Structural Wall Post-tensioned stone

Bay

Stone Core Post-tensioned stone

Stone Slab

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

200mm Post-tensioned stone slab

Glazing +Frame Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

Separating Wall Plasterboard

Stone Structural Wall Post-tensioned stone

Cluster

Stone Core Post-tensioned stone

Stone Slab 200mm Post-tensioned stone slab

Glazing +Frame Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

Separating Wall Plasterboard

Stone Structural Wall Post-tensioned stone

Stone Core Post-tensioned stone

Stone Slab 200mm Post-tensioned stone slab

VARIATION 1:

STONE

Loft

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Glazing +Frame Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

Beams and Columns Glulam

Separating Wall CLT

ADS 5

Bay

Timber Floor Slab CLT

Stone Structural Wall Post-tensioned stone

Stone Core Post-tensioned stone

Stone Balcony Slab 200mm Post-tensioned stone slab

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Glazing +Frame Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

Beams and Columns Glulam

Separating Wall CLT

Timber Floor Slab

Cluster

CLT

Stone Structural Wall Post-tensioned stone

Stone Core Post-tensioned stone

Stone Balcony Slab 200mm Post-tensioned stone slab

Glazing +Frame Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

Beams and Columns Glulam

Separating Wall CLT

Timber Floor Slab CLT

Loft Stone Structural Wall Post-tensioned stone

Stone Core Post-tensioned stone

Stone Balcony Slab 200mm Post-tensioned stone slab

VARIATION 2: TIMBER + STONE STRUCTURAL WALLS AND CORE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.2 CARBON COPY B

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

BALCONY DETAIL

Close-up detail of proposed balcony

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

EXTERIOR

INTERIOR

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Close-up detail of proposed balcony

1m x 1m post-tensioned stone slabs are used for the proposed balcony system. They are connected to the stone structural walls with a 50mm gap for thermal insulation. This system can be used for both the stone and stone + timber carbon copies.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.2_CARBON COPY BB 3.2 CARBON COPY

FOUNDATION PILES COMPARISON

EXISTING

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

635,385 KN

X127

Royal College of Art

24 m

1.8 m

* 5000 kN / pile assumption 94

CFA PILES

ADS 5 COLLEGE OF ART ROYAL

TONE

STONE + TIMBER

ADS 5

417,186 KN

X108

X83

CFA PILES

15% Emodied Carbon Savings

35% Emodied Carbon Savings

RESIDENTIALTOWER TOWER RESIDENTIAL

539,740 KN

Royal College of Art

95 95

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.2 CARBON COPY B

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

INTERNAL FINISHES COMPARISON

Existing bedroom interior

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5 RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Stone finishes bedroom interior

Timber finishes bedroom interior

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

3.2 CARBON COPY B

EMBODIED CARBON CALCULATIONS

VARIATION 1: STONE

MATERIAL

ELEMENT

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

21,589.6

3,756,590

Core Sandstone

Structural Wall

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Floor Slab

Flat Glass

Glazing

677.8

1,609,775

Aluminium

Metal Frame

299.4

5,141,596

Plasterboard

Separating Wall

4080

1,068,960

TOTAL

11,576,922

50% SAVING

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

VARIATION 2: TIMBER + STONE STRUCTURAL WALLS AND CORE

ELEMENT

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

13,925.7

2,423,072

13,808.6

-11,613,033

ADS 5

MATERIAL

Core Sandstone

Structural Wall Balcony Slab

Separating Wall Hardwood

Beams and Columns 144.4

-147,721

Flat Glass

Glazing

677.8

1,609,775

Aluminium

Metal Frame

299.4

5,141,596

TOTAL

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Floor Slab Cross Laminated Timber

-2,586,311 111% SAVING

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

3.2 CARBON COPY B

COST ANALYSIS

Total building area: 54,656m2 Total building cost: £163,968,000 (£3,000/m2)

CONCRETE SUPERSTRUCTURE (EXISTING):

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

SUPERSTRUCTURE

FIT-OUT

ENVELOPE

£163,968,000 / 3 = £54,656,000 (concrete = £1,000/m2)

STONE SUPERSTRUCTURE (VARIATION 1): £300/m2 x 54,656m2 = £16,396,800 (stone = £300/m2)

STONE + TIMBER SUPERSTRUCTURE (VARIATION 2): (£300/m2 x 16,396.8m2) + (£250/m2 x 38,259.2m2)= £14,483,840 (stone = £300/m2) (CLT = £250/m2)

100

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

VARIATION 1: STONE

MATERIAL

ELEMENT

COST

54,656

£16,396,800

Core Sandstone

Structural Wall

ADS 5

VOLUME M2

Balcony Slab £125,708,800 + 54,656,000x2 = £125,708,800

TOTAL

VARIATION 2: TIMBER + STONE STRUCTURAL WALLS AND CORE

MATERIAL

ELEMENT

VOLUME M2

COST

16,397

£4,919,040

38,259

£9,564,800

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

23.3% SAVING

Core Sandstone

Structural Wall Balcony Slab

Cross Laminated Timber

TOTAL

Floor Slab Separating Wall £14,483,840 + 54,656,000x2 = £123,795,840 24.5% SAVING

101

102 TOWER

4 DATA COMPARISONS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 TOWER

103

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

4.0 DATA COMPARISONS

22 BISHOPSGATE EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

VARIATI STONE

EXISTING

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

VOLUM M3

44,605

Cross Laminated Floor Slab Timber

30,046

Glulam

Beams and Columns

9,478

Flat Glass

Glazing

29,658

70,445,455

14,382

Aluminium

Metal Frame

1,471

25,263,477

1,141

Hot Rolled Structural Steel

Beams and Columns

14,447

155,765,857

308

Zinc Coated Steel Sheet

Metal Deck

19,530

451,886,235

Reinforced Concrete

Core

37,604

25,119,672

Light Concrete

Floor Slab

22,535

6,492,291

MATERIAL

ELEMENT Core

Limestone

External Column

OFFICE TOWER

Stone Lintel

104

TOTAL

734,972,987

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

8,430,307

44,605

8,430,307

- 25,278,392

30,046

- 25,278,392

- 9,698,284

5,436

- 5,562,635

34,160,266

14,382

34,160,266

19,601,477

1,141

19,601,477

3,322,930

30,538,305

31,351,023

95.8% SAVING

95.7% SAVING

OFFICE TOWER

ADS 5

VARIATION 2: STONE - TIMBER - STONE WITH ADDITIONAL COLUMNS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ION 1: - TIMBER - STONE

105

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

4.0 DATA COMPARISONS

22 BISHOPSGATE COST COMPARISON

EXISTING

COST £

MATERIAL

ELEMENT Core

Limestone

External Column

OFFICE TOWER

Stone Lintel

Superstructure

196,982,000

Cross Laminated Timber

Floor Slab

Glulam

Beams and Columns

Hot Rolled Structural Steel

Beams and Columns

Envelope

196,982,000

Fitout

196,982,000

TOTAL

590,946,000

106

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

QUANTITY M2/T

COST £

QUANTITY M2/T

COST £

108,793

32,637,900

108,793

32,637,900

150,230

37,557,500

150,230

37,557,500

31,593

7,898,250

27,876

6,795,000

2,461(t)

6,152,500

196,982,000

478,210,150

470,954,400

18.8% SAVING

20.3% SAVING

OFFICE TOWER

VARIATION 2: STONE - TIMBER - STONE WITH ADDITIONAL COLUMNS ADS 5

VARIATION 1: STONE - TIMBER - STONE

107

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

4.0 DATA COMPARISONS

ONE PARK DRIVE EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON EXISTING

MATERIAL

ELEMENT

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

VOLUM M3

22,131.3

14,783,708

3284.1

945,821

21,589.6

Core Reinforced Concrete

Structural Wall

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Floor Slab Light Concrete

Cladding Core Structural Wall

Sandstone Floor Slab Balcony Slab Floor Slab Cross Laminated Timber Separating Wall Hardwood

Beams and Columns

Flat Glass

Glazing

677.8

1,609,775

677.8

Aluminium

Metal Frame

299.4

5,141,596

299.4

Plasterboard

Separating Wall

3349.8

877,648

4080

108

TOTAL

23,358,548

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

3,756,590

13,925.7

2,423,072

13,808.6

-11,613,033

144.4

-147,721

1,609,775

677.8

1,609,775

5,141,596

299.4

5,141,596

1,068,960

11,576,922

-2,586,311

-50% SAVING

-111% SAVING

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

ADS 5

VARIATION 2: TIMBER + STONE STRUCTURAL WALLS AND CORE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

VARIATION 1: STONE

109

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

4.0 DATA COMPARISONS

ONE PARK DRIVE COST COMPARISON

EXISTING

COST £

MATERIAL

ELEMENT Core

Sandstone

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

Superstructure

Structural Wall

54,656,000

Balcony Slab Floor Slab

Cross Laminated Timber

Separating Wall

Envelope

54,656,000

Fitout

54,656,000

TOTAL

590,946,000

110

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

VARIATION 1: STONE

VARIATION 2: TIMBER + STONE STRUCTURAL WALLS AND CORE

QUANTITY M2/T

COST £

54,656

£16,396,800

16,397

£4,919,040

38,259

£9,564,800

54,656,000

£125,708,800

£123,795,840

23.3% SAVING

24.5% SAVING

RESIDENTIAL TOWER

COST £

ADS 5

QUANTITY M2/T

111

112 TOWER

5 FINDINGS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 TOWER

113

114

200,000,000

400,000,000

COST COMPARISON

600,000,000

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

250,000,000

500,000,000

kgCO2e 750,000,000

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

TOWER

ADS 5

5.0 FINDINGS

OVERALL SAVINGS

22 BISHOPSGATE (OFFICE TOWER)

Existing Alternative What If

Existing

Alternative

What If

50,000,000

100,000,000 150,000,000 200,000,000

£ -20,000,000

-10,000,000

kgCO2e 10,000,000

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

ADS 5

COST COMPARISON

20,000,000

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ONE PARK DRIVE (RESIDENTIAL TOWER)

Stone Stone + Timber

Existing

Stone

Stone + Timber TOWER

Existing

115

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

5.0 FINDINGS

22 BISHOPSGATE

-96%

-18.8%

IN EMBODIED CARBON

IN PROJECT COST

PROS

TOWER

Less amount of stone is needed for the same structural properties (around half the dimensions of concrete walls); CLT / glulam are carbon sequestering materials; Overall lighter weight of building so less foundation piles needed; Timber can be left exposed without extra finishes for aesthetic purposes.

CONS Requires more mature, clear, industrialized construction processes; Requires more skilled labour; Construction time may be longer; As an alternative to the original double skin system, the performance of the new stone-thermal envelope should be studied in more detail;

116

Requires stronger response to lateral force.

ONE PARK DRIVE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

5.0 FINDINGS

STONE

IN EMBODIED CARBON

-23.3% IN PROJECT COST

Less amount of stone is needed for the same structural properties (around half the dimensions of concrete walls); Thickness of stone floor slabs can also be less than concrete slabs; Overall reduction in embodied carbon and costs.

ADS 5

-50%

PROS

CONS Requires more skilled labour; Construction time may be longer.

TOWER

TIMBER + STRUCTURAL WALLS AND CORE

PROS

-111% IN EMBODIED CARBON

-24.5% IN PROJECT COST

Less amount of stone is needed for the same structural properties (around half the dimensions of concrete walls); Timber is a carbon sequestering material; Overall lighter weight of building so less foundation piles needed; Timber can be left exposed without extra finishes for aesthetic purposes; Carbon negative.

CONS Requires more skilled labour; Construction time may be longer; Slight increase in cost.

117

TOWER

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

5.0 FINDINGS

22 Bishopsgate, City of London, PLP Architecture. Image CC credit: Matt Brown – flickr

118

One Par Drive, Canary Wharf, Herzog de Meuron. Photographed by Lee Mawdsley

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

CONCLUSION TO THE TOWER TYPOLOGY

TOWER

Following the Stone Tower Research Project where Groupwork and other consultants have proposed a notional 30-storey commercial office tower in central London, we have taken their optimal scenario (stone exoskeleton + CLT floors) and tested it on the latest and second tallest office tower in the City of London 22 Bishopsgate. The combination of replacing traditional concrete and steel frame with stone exoskeleton and timber slabs and beams lead to an overall reduction in embodied carbon and cost, without comprising on office internal space or appearance. The facade of the tower differs slightly from the original as a result of the stone exoskeleton and bracing system, but overall shape and layout of building are kept the same. We also chose to look at One Park Drive in order to see if there are any limitations to our carbon copy proposals for a residential tower. Both the stone and stone + timber proposals led to a reduction in embodied carbon and cost, while keeping the dinstinctive circular shape of the floorplates and internal unit sizes.

119

120 TOWER

6 MENU OF COMPONENTS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 TOWER

121

ADS 5

22 BISHOPSGATE

TOWER

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

6.0 MENU OF COMPONENTS

Exploded axonometric, Typical fllor of Level 8 - 25. Not to scale, for identification purposes only.

122

200mm CLT slabs 762x267x197mm Universal beam

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5 TOWER

Beam to core diagram, Typical floor of Level 8 - 25. Not to scale, for identification purposes only. 200mm CLT slabs embedded in the beam; 300x800mm Glulam beam; 533x165x66mm Universal beam.

123

TOWER

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

6.0 MENU OF COMPONENTS

Alternative Close-up Section. Floor composition: 200mm Raised floor 200mm CLT slab, embedded on the glulam beam 800mm Glulam beam Ceiling

124

Wall composition: 500mm Stone exoskeleton 150mm Air cavity 410mm Inner facade, with 210mm insulation and double glazing

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

Glulam Beam (b) Softwood Glulam

Cellular Beam in Service Area (b) Hot Rolled Structural Steel

Pretensioned Stone Lintel Limestone

Stone Column (b) Limestone

CLT Slab (b) Sustainably Sourced CLT

Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

TOWER

Glass + Metal Inner Skin

Glulam Beam (a) Softwood Glulam

Cellular Beam in Service Area (a) Hot Rolled Structural Steel

Stone Bracing Limestone

Stone Core (a) Limestone

Stone Column (a) Limestone

CLT Slab (a) Sustainably Sourced CLT

Alternative axonometric, Level 8-25, Column 800x500 / Glulam beam 800x300 / UB 533x165x66 mm

125

ADS 5 TOWER

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

6.0 MENU OF COMPONENTS

126

Alternative facade detail.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5 TOWER

3D diagram of the facade detail. Knife plate connector helps to link the stone frame and glulam beam.

127

ADS 5

6.0 MENU OF COMPONENTS

TOWER

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ONE PARK DRIVE

128

Close-up detail of proposed balcony

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

EXTERIOR

INTERIOR

TOWER

Close-up detail of proposed balcony

129

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

6.0 MENU OF COMPONENTS

EXTERIOR

INTERIOR

EXTERIOR

INTERIOR

Balcony composition: 200mm Post-tensioned Stone Thermal break

TOWER

Separating Wall composition: 25mm Finish 75mm Insulation 250mm Post-tensioned Stone 75mm Insulation 25mm Finish

External Wall composition: 250mm Post-tensioned Stone 50mm Air Cavity 150mm Insulation 25mm Finish

Floor composition: 25mm Finish 150mm Insulation 200mm Post-tensioned Stone 12.5 mm Ceiling

VARIATION 1:

130

STONE

140x225mm Glulam Beams 100mm CLT wall

EXTERIOR

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Internal wall composition:

INTERIOR

200mm Post-tensioned Stone Thermal break

ADS 5

Balcony composition:

Separating Wall composition: INTERIOR

INTERIOR

TOWER

25mm Finish 75mm Insulation 250mm Post-tensioned Stone 75mm Insulation 25mm Finish

External Wall composition: 250mm Post-tensioned Stone 50mm Air Cavity 150mm Insulation 25mm Finish

EXTERIOR

INTERIOR

Floor composition: 25mm Finish 150mm Insulation 250mm CLT Floor Slab

VARIATION 2:

TIMBER + STONE STRUCTURAL WALLS AND CORE

131

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

6.0 MENU OF COMPONENTS

Glazing +Frame Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

Separating Wall Plasterboard

Stone Structural Wall Post-tensioned stone

Bay

Stone Core Post-tensioned stone

Stone Slab 200mm Post-tensioned stone slab

Glazing +Frame

TOWER

Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

Separating Wall Plasterboard

Stone Structural Wall Post-tensioned stone

Cluster

Stone Core Post-tensioned stone

Stone Slab 200mm Post-tensioned stone slab

Glazing +Frame Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

Separating Wall Plasterboard

Stone Structural Wall Post-tensioned stone

Stone Core Post-tensioned stone

Stone Slab 200mm Post-tensioned stone slab

VARIATION 1:

132

STONE

Loft

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Glazing +Frame Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

Beams and Columns Glulam

Separating Wall CLT

ADS 5

Bay

Timber Floor Slab CLT

Stone Structural Wall Post-tensioned stone

Stone Core Post-tensioned stone

Stone Balcony Slab 200mm Post-tensioned stone slab

Glazing +Frame Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

Beams and Columns

TOWER

Glulam

Separating Wall CLT

Timber Floor Slab

Cluster

CLT

Stone Structural Wall Post-tensioned stone

Stone Core Post-tensioned stone

Stone Balcony Slab 200mm Post-tensioned stone slab

Glazing +Frame Aluminium (bar and rod) Flat Glass

Beams and Columns Glulam

Separating Wall CLT

Timber Floor Slab CLT

Loft Stone Structural Wall Post-tensioned stone

Stone Core Post-tensioned stone

Stone Balcony Slab 200mm Post-tensioned stone slab

VARIATION 2: TIMBER + STONE STRUCTURAL WALLS AND CORE

133

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

CONTENTS Pg. n. 6 8 10

2. EXISTING CONDITION 2.1 Site and location 2.2 Design concept 2.3 Areas and volumes 2.4 Photographic survey 2.5 Graphic documentation 2.6 Structure 2.7 Construction methods 2.8 General scheme 2.9 Key detail 2.10 Materials origins 2.12 Transport requirements

14 16 18 20 30 50 52 62 64 66 68

3. CARBON COPY 3.1 Timber space frame 3.2 General scheme 3.3 Proposed detail 3.4 Performance result

74 76 78 80

4. WHAT IF 4.1 Form finding 4.2 Catenary arches 4.3 General scheme 4.4 Proposed detail

84 86 88 90

5. DIRECT DATA COMPARISON 5.1 Carbon copy 5.2 What if

96 102

6. Findings 6.1 Performance result

110

7. APPENDIX 7.1 Timber space frame 7.2 Sequential roof

114 116

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of research 1.2 Introduction to case study 1.3 Programme

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

INTRODUCTION

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

During Term 1 of 2021/22, the Royal College of Art’s Architectural Design Studio 5 (ADS5) concentrated on building elements, their origins, carbon sequestering materials, and how they can be joined, bound, and brought to completion. ADS5 investigated seven building typologies: - Houses - Bridges - Complex Shaped Cultural Buildings - Towers - Mid-rise Buildings - Airports - Hopsitals and Laboratories Alternative materials and construction methods were researched and evaluated in an attempt propose a greener, faster and cheaper design alternative for a chosen building within each building typology. The scope of the analysis prescribed that the doppelganger design retained the original programme and form.

Tihs report is for Complex Shaped Cultural Buildings. It takes the design of the Heydar Aliyev Centre as a case study to understand if complex geometry could be realized using alternative materials and construction methods.

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

INTRODUCTION

CASE STUDY

Title: Heidar Alyev Centre Typology: Cultural centre Location: Baku, Azerbaijan Client: The Republic of Azerbaijan COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Architects: Zaha Hadid Architects Area: 101801 m2 Year: 2012 Main contractor: DIA Holding Consultants: Tuncel Engineering, AKT, GMD Project, HB Engineering, Werner Sobek Engineering & Design, Etik Fire Consultancy, Mezzo Studio, ENAR Consultants, Sigal, MBLD, Subcontractors and manufacturers MERO, Bilim Makina, Arabian Profile, Lindner AG, Sanset İkoor, Quinette, Baswa, Astas, Kone Elevators, Ikmam, MM Mühendisler Mermer, HRN Dizayn, x, Remak Makina, Tema, MIM Mühendislik, Elekon Enerji Sistemleri, NIS Epoksi Kaplama Sistemleri, Light Projects, Limit Insaat, Doka, Zumtobel, Solarlux, Bolidt Project team: Zaha Hadid, Patrik Schumacher, Saffet Kaya Bekiroglu, Sara Sheikh Akbari, Shiqi Li, Phil Soo Kim, Marc Boles, Yelda Gin, Liat Muller, Deniz Manisali, Lillie Liu, Jose Lemos, Simone Fuchs, Jose Ramon Tramoyeres, Yu Du, Tahmina Parvin, Erhan Patat, Fadi Mansour, Jaime Bartolome, Josef Glas, Michael Grau, Deepti Zachariah, Ceyhun Baskin, Daniel Widrig, Murat Mutlu, Charles Walker

INTRODUCTION

HEYDAR ALIYEV CENTRE

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Figure. 1 Aerial view of the site Source: Google images

INTRODUCTION

PROGRAMME

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

As part of the former Soviet Union, the urbanism and architecture of Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, was heavily influenced by the planning of that era. Since its independence in 1991, Azerbaijan has invested heavily in modernising and developing Baku’s infrastructure and architecture, departing from its legacy of normative Soviet Modernism. Zaha Hadid Architects was appointed to design the Centre following a competition in 2007. Built on the site of a Soviet munitions factory, the Centre is the primary building for the nation’s cultural programs. It is named after Heydar Aliyev, the first secretary of Soviet Azerbaijan from 1969 to 1982, and president of the Azerbaijan Republic from 1993 to 2003. It aspires to express the sensibilities of Azeri culture and the optimism of a nation that looks to the future. The Heydar Aliyev Centre is a 57,500 m² (619,000 sq ft) building complex. Not a single straight line was used in the design. All of its functions, together with entrances, are represented by folds in a single continuous surface. This fluid form creates an opportunity to connect the various cultural spaces, while at the same time, providing each element of the Centre with its own identity and privacy.

First floor:

Second floor

Third floor:

Fourth floor:

Fifth floor:

Sixth floor:

Seventh floor:

Eighth floor:

Library

Exhibition space

Auditorium

Multipurpose

Restaurant/Bar

Commercial

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Groundfloor:

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

2 EXISTING CONDITION

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

EXISTING CONDITION

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

SITE AND LOCATION

LOCATION

1 Heydar Aliyev Ave, Baku 1033, Azerbaijan

GEOGRAPHICAL AREA

Western coast of the Caspian Sea

CO-ORDINATES

40.3959° N, 49.8678° E

POPULATION

2181800 (2014)

AREA

2140 km2

HEIGHT

28m below sea level

CLIMATE

Temperate and semi-arid climate

TEMPERATURE RANGE

4 to 26.4 °°C

AVARAGE TEMPERATURE

14.6 °°C

PRECIPITATION

around 210 mm/yr

WINDS

Strong winds all year

SNOW

Occasional winter snow storms up to 144 km/hr

EARTHQUAKE RISK

Moderate

GEOGRAPHICAL FEATURES

In the vicinity of volcanoes and salt lakes

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Figure. 2 Aerial view of the location Source: Google maps

Figure. 3 Aerial view of the site Source: Google maps

EXISTING CONDITION

DESIGN CONCEPT

CONTINUOUS FLUID SURFACE:

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

The design of the Heydar Aliyev Centre establishes a continuous, fluid relationship between its surrounding plaza and the building’s interior. The plaza, as the ground surface; accessible to all as part of Baku’s urban fabric, rises to envelop an equally public interior space and define a sequence of event spaces dedicated to the collective celebration of contemporary and traditional Azeri culture. Elaborate formations such as undulations, bifurcations, folds, and inflections modify this plaza surface into an architectural landscape that performs a multitude of functions: welcoming, embracing, and directing visitors through different levels of the interior. One of the critical, yet challenging, elements of the project was the architectural development of the building’s skin. To achieve a continuous surface that appears homogenous, meant a broad range of different functions, construction logics and technical systems were brought together and integrated into the building’s envelope. Advanced computing allowed for the continuous control and communication of these complexities among the numerous project participants. The Heydar Aliyev Centre principally consists of two collaborating systems: a concrete structure combined with a space frame system. To attain large-scale column-free spaces which enables the visitor to experience the fluidity of the interior, vertical structural elements were absorbed by the envelope and curtain wall system.

48100 sqm of continuous fluid surface

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Vertical supporting structure

Axonometric views

EXISTING CONDITION

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

AREAS AND VOLUMES

GROSS INTERNAL AREA (G.I.A):

57000 m2

NETT INTERNAL AREA (N.I.A):

10670 m2 - 18.7%

TOTAL SITE AREA:

111300 m2

ESITIMATED VOLUME:

285000 m3

LEVEL

G.I.A.

N.I.A.

RATIO

Groundfloor plan

15800 m2

2750 m2

17.4%

First floot plan

1000 m2

1950 m2

17.7%

Second floor plan

10000 m2

1950 m2

19.5%

Third floor plan

9000 m2

1950 m2

21.6%

Fourth floor plan

5200 m2

1200 m2

23.0%

Fifth floor plan

2500 m2

450 m2

18.0%

Sixth floor plan

1700 m2

200 m2

11.8%

Seventh floor plan

950 m2

200 m2

21.0%

Eighth floor plan

850 m2

200 m2

23.0%

Canopy

39100 m2

First floor: 11000 m2 1950 m2 - 17.7%

Second floor 10000 m2 1950 m2 - 19.5%

Third floor: 9000 m2 1950 m2 - 21,6%

Fourth floor: 5200 m2 1200 m2 - 23%

Fifth floor: 2500 m2 450 m2 - 18%

Sixth floor: 1700 m2 200 m2 - 11,8%

Seventh floor: 950 m2 200 m2 - 21%

Eighth floor: 850 m2 200 m2 - 23%

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Groundfloor: 15800 m2 2750 m2 - 17.4%

EXISTING CONDITION

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY

NUMBER

SUBJECT

LOCATION

PHASE

Site aerial picture

outside

completed

S-W facade

outside

completed

S-E facade

outside

completed

S-E facade detail

outside

completed

N-W facade detail

outside

completed

South-East facade

outside

completed

Main hall groundfloor

inside

completed

Main hall first floor

inside

completed

Tower corridor

inside

completed

Auditorium

inside

completed

Auditorium

inside

completed

Auditorium

inside

construction

Canopy space frame

outside

construction

Space frame

outside

construction

Concrete core

inside

construction

Steel structure

outside

construction

Outher skin detail

outside

construction

Outher skin detail

outside

construction

Outher skin detail

outside

construction

Canopy detail

outside

construction

Canopy detail

outside

construction

Canopy detail

outside

construction

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

28 18

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

EXISTING CONDITION

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

DRAWINGS

TITLE

SCALE

CUT HEIGHT

Site plan

1:3000

Ground floor plan

1:1000

+ 0.00 m

First floot plan

1:1000

+ 7.00 m

Second floor plan

1:1000

+ 12.00 m

Third floor plan

1:1000

+ 17.00 m

Fourth floor plan

1:1000

+ 22.00 m

Fifth floor plan

1:1000

+ 27.00 m

Seventh floor plan

1:1000

+ 32.00 m

Eighth floor plan

1:1000

+ 37.00 m

Ninth floor plan

1:1000

+ 41.50 m

Canopy plan

1:1000

+ 47.00 m

South-West elevation

1:1000

South-East elevation

1:1000

North-West elevation

1:1000

North-East elevation

1:1000

Longitudinal section A-A

1:1000

Trasversal section B-B

1:1000

Longitudinal section C-C

1:1000

Trasversal section D-D

1:1000

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

120

150

300

Site plan

31 GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Ground floor plan +0.00 m

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

100

First floor plan +7.00 m

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Second floor plan +12.00 m

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

100

Third floor plan +7.00 m

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Fourth floor plan +22.00 m

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

100

Fifth floor plan +27.00 m

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Sixth floor plan +32.00 m

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

100

Seventh floor plan +37.00 m

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Eight floor plan +41.50 m

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

100

Canopy plan +47 m

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

South-West elevation

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

100

South-East elevation

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Norht-West elevation

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

100

North-East elevation

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Section A-A

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

100

Section B-B

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Section C-C

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

100

Section D-D

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

EXISTING CONDITION

STRUCTURE

The building composes three different structural systems, each realised with different materials and techniques. CONCRETE CORES:

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

The concrete cores were constructed first and is the vertical supporting structure. Mainly made from a series of casted on site reinforced concrete, the system provides three main areas responsible for resisting most of the vertical and horizontal loads of the building. COMPOSITE SLABS: Second are horizontal slab floors consisting of longspan steel beams with reinforced concrete slabs casted on top of a metal deck. The floors are mainly supported by the concrete cores, spanning the gaps that divide them. In some areas they are also partially supported by the steel frame of the canopy (see below). STEEL SPACE FRAME: The canopy has a double-curved free-form geometry and is built up in several layers with different functions. Its main supporting structure composes a MERO double-curved space frame made of solid steel ball nodes and CHS members. It spans between the three concrete cores but also directly connects to the ground. The space frame’s ability to transmit loads to the ground from and to different directions allowed the free-form design of the Centre.

Concrete cores

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Composite slabs

Steel space frame

Systems combined

EXISTING CONDITION

CONSTRUCTION METHODS

EXTERNAL SKIN:

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

The exterior skin comprises an openjoint rain-screen system (cladding the building’s roof and exterior walls and extending into some of the interior ceiling as well), and the plaza, with a steady and invisible transition between the two. The latter, the plaza, is made from glass fiber reinforced concrete (GFRC) panels, whereas the rain-screen cladding is made from glass fiber reinforced polyester (GFRP) panels with a gelcoat layer to colour match the ground condition of the GFRC panels. Each GFRP panel has a 120mm perpendicular return on all edges (to give the illusion of solid stone) with 50 mm wide primary joints between panels, allowing access to fixings, and 15 mm wide transverse joints. All panels are uniquely shaped and sized. The precise design required considerable specialist engineering and 3D modelling. The total surface area is about 39100 m2 for the cladding and another 9000 m2 for the plaza. Both cladding and plaza panels are defined by architectural joint lines, which depend on the limits imposed by their production and transportation. The joint lines create a unique and free-flowing pattern, enveloping the entire building and the plaza.

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Figure. 6 Solid skin panels Source: Google images

EXISTING CONDITION

CONSTRUCTION METHODS

SUBSTRATE TO THE SOLID SKIN:

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

The external surface - an open-joint rain-screen cladding system (see below) - required a secondary steel substructure to fix it to the space frame. The secondary steel structure is attached to the nodes of the space frame by means of rods. The secondary steel layer interfaces the space frame chord nodes’ geometry and that of the double-curved cladding system. The cladding system is connected to the secondary steel layer with metal fixings. The substructure covers about 39 000 m2 of roof area and consists of more than 12 500 elements, all of which are individual.

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Figure. 5 Substrate to solid skin Source: Google images

EXISTING CONDITION

CONSTRUCTION METHODS

COMPOSITE INSULATION PANELS

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

The first layer is a prefabricated weatherproofing tray system which rests on the top chord nodes of the primary roof structure space frame. The trays consist of two U-section purlins, a trapezoidal metal deck in between, a self-adhesive vapour barrier, two layers of rigid, non-flammable rockwool insulation and a weatherproofing membrane on top. The trays are connected via overlapping metal flaps covering the gaps between adjacent trays. Due to the free-form shape of the space frame, all four corner bays covered by any given tray are not in one common plane, but twisted. Therefore, maximum acceptable warping criteria for the cold-bending of the four corner trays during installation were defined. Trays exceeding these criteria were produced with a triangular form, with two triangles and an additional U-section purlin in the middle. The support on the space frame stools and the fixing of the trays were achieved with spherical washers in order to accommodate the varying support angles. All weatherproofing trays were preassembled off-site, according to their actual dimensions, and lifted up to the roof as complete units. This allowed most of the work to be done before facing the very windy working conditions several metres above ground.

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Figure. 4 Substrate to outher skin Source: Google images

EXISTING CONDITION

CONSTRUCTION METHODS

SPACE FRAME

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

The canopy has a double-curved freeform geometry and is built up in several layers with different functions. Its main supporting structure composes a MERO double-curved space frame made of solid steel ball nodes and CHS members. This structural system makes no differentiations and does not introduce variations for the supporting structure in any part of the building. This, no matter what the geometry of the canopy is or the predominant forces acting in particular locations. Such a system needs to rely on the stiffness and redundancy of the structural elements in order to distribute and resist different loads. This approach resulted in the use of large amounts of materials, in an effort to both support a nonspecific structure and resolve geometry weakness. The design and geometry of the building was not pragmatic and ignored environmental and sustainable solutions.

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Figure. 8 Space frame Source: Google images

EXISTING CONDITION

CONSTRUCTION METHODS

INTERNAL SKIN

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

The internal skin of the building has the same geometrical complexity as the exterior skin. In addition, the architectural intention was also to divide the interior skin visually into “bands” in the crossbuilding direction, again emphasizing the theme of the plaza wrapping around the building. The system consists of a layer of purlins holding curved substructure tubes at a 50 cm spacing. The tubes have thin steel plate fixings attached to them on a 50 × 50 cm grid. The tubes and their fixings were designed to match the 3D curvature of the interior skin. The interior cladding, consisting of fibrereinforced flexible boards, was attached to the fixings by site-drilled screws. After installing a larger area of boards, the architectural joints and the curved slots for lighting, spotlights, loudspeakers, and other mechanical and electrical systems were cut out on site and filled with seam profiles. Skimming and painting provided the final touches.

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Figure. 7 Inner skin Source: Google images

EXISTING CONDITION

GENERAL SCHEME STRUCTURE MODULE A portion of 4x4 meters has been taken as example for the calculations and the comparison among the existing and the proposals. To find the values referring to all the 30000 m2 of the canopy, the results must be multiplied 1875 times.

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

4m 4m

LAYER

MATERIAL

KgC02e

COST £

External skin

GFR polyester

0.608

8539

3200

Substrate str.

Steel profiles

0.057

615

1118

Composite panels

Whaterproofing

0.048

320

Rigid insulation

1.920

800

Vapour barrier

0.016

0.02

Steel decking

0.093

1003

1280

Steel purlins

0.031

334

607

Space frame

Steel profiles

0.165

1780

3238

Substrate str.

Steel profiles

0.053

571

1040

Internal skin

GFR gypsum boards

0.48

125

1600

18779

13283

45,891,181

32,460,331

TOTAL TOTAL FOR THE BUILDING

Solid skin Substrate to the solid skin Composite panels

Space frame

Substrate to the internal skin

Plan view of a typical portion of the space frame

4x4 meters portion used as a mean of comparison between the different options

120

160

200

400

General scheme

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Internal skin

EXISTING CONDITION

KEY DETAIL

Fibrorinforced plastic panels

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Substrate to the solid skin

Composite panel

Corrugated steel decking

MIRO Spacea frame

Substrate to the internal skin

Internal skin

2 cm

Fibroreinforced plastic panels

Ø 12 cm

Tubular steel profiles

0.2 cm 12 cm 0.2 cm 0.4 cm 0.6 cm

Whaterproofing Rigid insulation Vapour barrier Steel decking Steel profiles

Ø 15 cm

Tubular steel profiles

Ø 15 cm

Tubular steel profiles

Ø 12 cm

Tubular steel profiles

3 cm

Fibroreinforced gypsum boards

Ø 15 cm

Ø 6.5 cm

Ø 10 cm

Ø 6.5 cm

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Ø 10 cm

Ø 15 cm

100

Detail

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

EXISTING CONDITION

MATERIALS ORIGIN MANIFACTURER

Mero-TSK Prichsenstadtd GmbH & CO.KG Blim Makina Mero-TSK International GmbH & CO.KG Mimi Engineering Construction Steel End Norm Cement Norm MMC Arabain Profile Lindner Grouo

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Lindner GFT GmbH HUECK HUECK Estrusion GMBH & CO. KG Safi YApi SIstemleri Hueck Doka Kalip-Iskele Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. Ikoor HQ Ikoor Manufacturing BASWA acoustic AG Astas Gayrimenkul Bolidt Synthetic Products B.V.

PORTS

Trieste Port, Italy Venice Port, Italy Izmir Port, Turkey Haydarpasa Port, Turkey Samsun Port, Turkey Porti Port, Georgia Jabel Ali Port, UAE Busher Port, Iran Anzali Port, Iran Baku Port, Azerbaijan Norfolk Port, USA Bibraltar Port, Botswana

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

EXISTING CONDITION

SUPPLIER MATERIAL

SUPPLIER

LOCATION

Steel Space Frame

Mero-TSK

Germany

Bilim Makina

Turkey

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

(received for installation)

Structural Steel

Cement

(assumed supplier as largest producer in region and second closet factory to site)

GRFC, GFRP External

MIM Mühendislik

Turkey

Norm Cement

Azerbaijan

Arabian Profile

Cladding, Plaza

Internal Skin Cladding

United

Arab

Emirates

Lindner

Germany

EXISTING CONDITION

TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS ROUTE AND MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION

DISTANCE/KM

Prichsenstadt, Germany to Trieste Port, Italy

Truck

732

Trieste Port, Italy to Izmir Port, Turkey

Ship

2000

Izmir Port, Turkey to Bursa, Turkey

Ship

331

Bursa, Turkey to Haydarpaşa Port, Turkey

Ship

147

Haydarpaşa Port, Turkey to Poti Port, Georgia

Ship

1100

Poti Port, Georgia to Baku, Azerbaijan (site)

Truck

902

TOTAL DISTANCE

1816 Truck

454

Samsun Port Turkey to Poti Port, Georgia

Ship

460

Poti Port, Georgia to Baku, Azerbaijan (site)

Truck

902 1816

TOTAL DISTANCE Baku, Azerbaijan to Baku, Azerbaijan (site)

Truck

TOTAL DISTANCE

54 54

Sharjah, UAE to Jebel Ali Port. UAE

Truck

Jebel Ali Port, UAE to Bushehr Port, Iran

Ship

650

Bushehr Port, Iran to Anzali Port, Iran

Ship

1280

Anzali Port, Iran to Baku Port, Azerbaijan

Ship

280

Baku Port, Azerbaijan to Baku Azerbaijan (site)

Truck

TOTAL DISTANCE

2342

Dettelbach, Germany to Trieste Port, Italy

Truck

759

Trieste Port, Italy to Izmir Port, Turkey

Ship

2000

Izmir Port, Turkey to Haydarpaşa Port, Turkey

Ship

470

Haydarpaşa Port, Turkey to Poti Port, Georgia

Ship

1100

Poti Port, Georgia to Baku, Azerbaijan (site)

Truck

902

TOTAL DISTANCE

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Ankara, Turkey to Samsun Port, Turkey

5231

EXISTING CONDITION

SUPPLIER MATERIAL

Glass Curtain Façade

SUPPLIER

LOCATION

Hueck

Germany

Safi Yapı Sistemleri

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

(glass manufacturer)

Formwork

Doka

Turkey

A. Wooden Cladding

Ikoor

Virginia

(American White Oak)

(received for fabbrication)

U.S.A

(assumed American White Oak sourced from Virginia, one of the two American States which produce the largest amount of the tree)

Turkey

Acoustic Ceilings

BASWA

Switzerland

Polyurethane Floors

Bolidt

Netherlands

EXISTING CONDITION

TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS ROUTE AND MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION

DISTANCE/KM

Lüdenscheid, Germany to Trieste Port, Italy

Truck

1064

Trieste Port, Italy to Izmir Port, Turkey

Ship

2000

Izmir Port, Turkey to Istanbul, Turkey

Ship

459

Istanbul, Turkey to Haydarpaşa Port, Turkey

Ship

Haydarpaşa Port, Turkey to Poti Port, Georgia

Ship

1100

Poti Port, Georgia to Baku, Azerbaijan (site)

Truck

902

TOTAL DISTANCE

5547 Truck

Haydarpaşa Port, Turkey to Poti Port, Georgia

Ship

1100

Poti Port, Georgia to Baku, Azerbaijan (site)

Truck

902

TOTAL DISTANCE

2049

Norfolk Port, USA to Gilbraltar Port, BoT

Truck

6460

Gilbraltar Port, BoT to Izmir Port, Turkey

Ship

3200

Izmir Port, Turkey to Ankara, Turkey

Truck

618

Ankara, Turkey to Samsun Port, Turkey

Truck

454

Samsun Port Turkey to Poti Port, Georgia

Ship

460

Poti Port, Georgia to Baku, Azerbaijan (site)

Truck

902

TOTAL DISTANCE

12094

Baldegg, Switzerland to Venice Port, Italy

Truck

519

Venice Port, Italy to Izmir Port, Turkey

Ship

2060

Izmir Port, Turkey to Haydarpaşa Port, Turkey

Ship

470

Haydarpaşa Port, Turkey to Poti Port, Georgia

Ship

1100

Poti Port, Georgia to Baku, Azerbaijan (site)

Truck

902

TOTAL DISTANCE

5051

Hendrik-Ido-Ambacht, Netherlands to Trieste Port, Italy

Truck

1311

Trieste Port, Italy to Izmir Port, Turkey

Ship

2000

Izmir Port, Turkey to Haydarpaşa Port, Turkey

Ship

470

Haydarpaşa Port, Turkey to Poti Port, Georgia

Ship

1100

Poti Port, Georgia to Baku, Azerbaijan (site)

Truck

902

TOTAL DISTANCE

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Gebze, Turkey to Haydarpaşa Port, Turkey

5783 71

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

CARBON COPY

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

CARBON COPY

TIMBER SPACE FRAME

HYBRID TIMBER-STEEL SPACE FRAME WITH RECONSTITUTED STONE SANDWICH PANELS

In an attempt to replicate the form of the design, this appoach retains the use of the original structural model but with more sustainable materials.

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Sustainably sourced hardwood is one of the leading carbon sequestering materials used in the construction industry. The proposal replaces the CHS members of the Mero space frame with timber elements, while still keeping the bespoke steel nodes for structural stability. Structural steel has very high embodied carbon and reducing its use should drastically reduce the overall carbon footprint of the Centre. Although Azerbaijan has issues with deforestation and imports more timber than they produce, this material is easily, and cheaply, available from neighbouring Turkey and other countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia, compared to importing the steel CHS members for the space frame from Germany. In addition, the GFRP (another material with very high embodied carbon) will be replaced with resconstituted stone panels sandwiching carbon sequestering thermacork insulation. This will also negate the need for superfluous secondary steel structures. The stone-cork panels will be flat and tringulated to reduce energy use during production and enable ease of installation.

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Figure. 8 Ateliers Romeo structural sandwich panels consiting waste marble bonded over closed cell insulation with basalt cement in preparation for exhibition at the 2021 Seoul Biennale of Architecture and Urbanism. Source: Groupwork, @ Groupwork_arch. (23 August 2021). <https://twitter.com/Groupwork_arch/ status/1429845673650884611> [accessed 4 December 2021]

Figure. 9 Test for a multi-bolt cast iron connecting forks for glulam birch members for a space frame. Source: M. Dickson and D. Parker, Sustainable Timber Design (Oxon: Routledge, 2015), p. 195.

CARBON COPY

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

4m 4m

LAYER

Composite panels

Space frame

MATERIAL

KgC02e

COST £

Reconstituted stone

0.365

302

3200

Whaterproofing

0.080

1120

Thermacork

2.240

-192

520

Hardwood members

8.832

-9038

4500

Steel connection

0.145

1563

2850

Plywood

0.080

-41

-7383

12,200

-18,042,206

29,813,750

Internal skin TOTAL TOTAL FOR THE BUILDING

Stone-Thermacork panels

Timber-Steel space frame

Flexible plywood

4x4 meters portion used as a mean of comparison between the different options

120

160

200

400

General scheme

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Plan view of a typical portion of the space frame

CARBON COPY N.1

PROPOSED DETAIL

Reconstituted stone

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Thermacork insulation

Reconstituted stone

Weatherproofing

Steel node, cone, sleeve, shear plane, connetion

Timber member

Flexible plywood

DIRECT COMPARISON

PROPOSED KEY DETAIL

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Stone-Insulation Panel 01. reconstituted stone 02. thermacork insulation 03. weathering membrane Steel-Timber space-frame 04. steel node 05. steel sleeve 06. steel cone 07. steel shear plane 08. steel bolt connector 09. hardwood member

10. connection rod 11. connection steel plate 12. flexible plywood 13. silicone sealant 14. metal connection plate Tensioned Stone 15. sandstone block 16. steel anchorage 17. anchor head 18. steel tendon

CARBON COPY

PERFORMANCE RESULT

The cost of the canopy proposal is slightly less than the original design with a cost cut by about 8 percent. This is mainly due to the volume of hardwood needed.

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

However, the environmental impact wil be extremely high with a reduction in embodied carbon by about 140% due to the high sequestering ability of the timber. Stone is another great carbon sequestering material used in the construction industry. Stone, including sandstone, is readily available in Azerbaijan and Icherisheher (the Old City of Baku) is both abundant with and resplendent in the material. There are several stone quarries locally. The proposal also replaces the concrete cores and concrete slab floors with tensioned stone cores and CLT floors respectively. Some structural steel will still be used but this will be drastically reduced. Both stone cores and CLT floors have the advantage of being prefabricated which will reduce construction time on site. Although the timber members for the hybrid space frame will also be prefabricated, it will require machinery for installation but the energy used is anticipated to be less overall as three layers requiring such machinery will be reduced to two.

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

140% IN EMBODIED CARBON

from 45,891,181 kg to 18,042,206 kg

GSPublisherVersion 0.16.100.100

IN PROJECT COST from 32,460,331 £ to 29,813,750 £

GSPublisherVersion 0.16.100.100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

WHAT IF?

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

WHAT IF?

FORM FINDING

PROPOSED APPROACH:

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

In its current particular conformation, the structural space frame requires the use of a massive amounth of material to be able to stand the heavy loads and the large span that the project involves. What if we modify the conformation of the envelope in shapes better suitable for distributing the loads they are subjected to? The proposed approach aims to achieve cheaper, more sustainable, and more lightweight structures through the adaptation of the shape of the outer envelope to the forces it has to sustain. The main cretaria of such operation is the individuation of specific areas within the supporting structure of the building that are mainly subjected to compression, tension or mixed forces. The geometry of the envelope and the disposition of the vertical structure helped us defining how the canopy could be divided into different areas, each of which might be suitable to be substituted with a different structural system.

COMPRESSION ONLY STR: Compression-only structures take the familiar form of walls, arches, shells and grid shells. Unlike tension-only structures that deflect to balance the loads, compression-only structures do not have this luxury, as any movement increases the risk of buckling. This is a major risk for masonry structures, as they have little or no bending capacity other than that provided by the compression thrust. Masonry can behave differently from other engineering materials, such as steel and concrete. It is both orthotropic and nonlinear with little tensile capacity, and therefore it must be employed with care.

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Figure. 9 EXAMPLE OF COMPRESSION ONLY STRUCTURE Armadillo vault - ETH Zurich Block Research Group

TENSION ONLY STRUCTURES: Evolutionary structural optimization method is a simple but effective means for form finding for complex structures. It has been extended to structural topological optimization with different design interest, such as tension-only or compressiononly structures. When a tensile structure is to be designed, the compression-dominant elements are improper for the design condition, and therefore are first removed. The elements under tension but at low stress levels are considered as inefficient, and should be gradually deleted as well.

Figure. 9 EXAMPLE OF TENSION ONLY STRUCTURE EXPO ‘98 Portuguese National Pavillionm - Alvaro Siza

WHAT IF?

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

CATENARY ARCHES

6 Catenary arches obtained through the use of GeoGebra - https://www.geogebra.org/m/SPA65Fqk

A catenary arch is a type of architectural arch that follows an inverted catenary curve. Catenary arches are strong because they redirect the vertical force of gravity into compression forces pressing along the arch’s curve. In a uniformly loaded catenary arch, the line of thrust runs through its center. Through the use of GeoGebra the shapes featured in the existing building have been approximated into catenary arches. Such a slight change in the geometry guarantees shapes able to better distribute the loads, significantly reducing the amounth of material required for construction.

2 5

Section A-A

4 50

100

1:1000

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Proposed possible scheme of the structure Composite cross-laminated stone canopy and CLT cores Section A-A 1

100

1:1000

100

0.100

Comparative section

100

Comparative sections

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

WHAT IF?

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

LAYER

MATERIAL

KgC02e

COST £

Outher skin

Stone panel

0.40

680

200

Composite stone layer

0.20

500

300

Stone panel

0.40

680

200

Whaterproofing

0.048

800

Rigid insulation

10.00

5000

1280

Vapour barier

0.016

0.02

Stone panel

0.80

1360

450

Composite stone layer

0.40

1000

500

Stone panel

0.80

1360

450

Steel cables and plates

0.4

431

1000

11025

5260

20,671,875

9,862,600

Composite panel

Inner skin

TOTAL TOTAL FOR THE BUILDING

GSPublisherVersion 0.14

4.100.100

Lower part of one of the vaults resting on top of a stone arch

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

4.100.100

Upper part of one of the vaults with the section of the panels progressively reducing

Cross-lamianted stone panels kept together by means of post-tensioned cables. 80X80 cm avarage size

4x4 meters portion used as a mean of comparison between the different options

120

160

200

400

General scheme

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

WHAT IF?

PROPOSED DETAIL

Silicon sealing

Stone panel Composite stone layer

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Stone panel

Whaterproofing membrane

Rigid insulation

Vapour barrier

Stone panel Composite stone layer Stone panel

External skin

16 cm

0.2 cm 12/16 cm 0.2 cm 6 cm

Cross-laminated stone panel Whaterproofing Rigid insulation Vapour barrier Cross-laminated stone panel

Ø 2 cm

Post-tension steel cable

4 cm

Cross-laminated stone panel Whaterproofing Rigid insulation Vapour barrier Cross-laminated stone panel

52 cm

0.2 cm 60/52 cm 0.2 cm 16 cm Ø 2 cm

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

100

4 cm 12 cm

Post-tension steel cable

60 cm

100

Detail

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

WHAT IF?

PERFORMANCE RESULT

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

While the existing structures employ a large amount of material to resist the loads it is subjected to, a load-based approach could allow the non-linear and long-spanning structures featured in the project to be realized using less materials and in a more efficient way. Difficulties related to the particularity of the shapes involved would still require a high degree of precision and custom fabrication for the project, certainly going to affect the final costs and construction times. The possibility of making such shapes with this type of material, although plausible in small dimensions and scales, remains however to be demonstrated in projects of such large dimensions and complexity. Lastly, the system, although it would seem to help cut costs and emissions, proves not very functional for the integration of all the other systems that a building needs in order to properly function.

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

54%

IN EMBODIED CARBON from 45,891,181 kg to 20,671,875 kg

GSPublisherVersion 0.16.100.100

69%

IN PROJECT COST from 32,460,331 £ to 9,862,600 £

GSPublisherVersion 0.16.100.100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

DIRECT COMPARISON

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

DIRECT DATA COMPARISON

EXISTING KEY DETAIL 01

12 02

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

01. GFRP with gelcoat layer - 50mm primary joints - 15mm transverse joints - 120mm edge returns 02. CHS

4.535m

Insulation panel 03. weathering membrane 04. rigid rockwool 05. self-adhesive vapour barrier 06. trapezoidal metal deck 07. u-section purlin

MERO KK space-frame primary structure 08. steel node - Ø 110-350mm 09. steel sleeve 10. steel cone 11. CHS member - Ø 60.3-273mm - length up to 4.5m - galvanised - coated ISO 12944

18 14

16 19

12. connection rods 13. metal connection joints 14. calendared tubular steel 15. connection steel plates 16. flexboard 17. silicone sealant 18. metal connection plate 19. in-situ concrete 20. rebar reinforcement

15 16

ADS 5

DIRECT COMPARISON

PROPOSED KEY DETAIL

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Royal College of Art

DIRECT DATA COMPARISON

EXISTING MODULE

Fibrorinforced plastic panels

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Substrate to the solid skin

Composite panel

Corrugated steel decking

MIRO Spacea frame

Substrate to the internal skin

Internal skin

DIRECT COMPARISON

PROPOSED MODULE

Reconstituted stone

Thermacork insulation

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Reconstituted stone

Weatherproofing

Steel node, cone, sleeve, shear plane, connetion

Timber member

Flexible plywood

DIRECT DATA COMPARISON

EXISTING CONDITION STRUCTURE MODULE A portion of 4x4 meters has been taken as example for the calculations and the comparison among the existing and the proposals. To find the values referring to all the 30000 m2 of the canopy, the results must be multiplied 1875 times.

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

4m 4m

LAYER

MATERIAL

KgC02e

COST £

External skin

GFR polyester

0.608

8539

3200

Substrate str.

Steel profiles

0.057

615

1118

Composite panels

Whaterproofing

0.048

320

Rigid insulation

1.920

800

Vapour barrier

0.016

0.02

Steel decking

0.093

1003

1280

Steel purlins

0.031

334

607

Space frame

Steel profiles

0.165

1780

3238

Substrate str.

Steel profiles

0.053

571

1040

Internal skin

GFR gypsum boards

0.48

125

1600

18779

13283

45,891,181

32,460,331

TOTAL TOTAL FOR THE BUILDING

100

DIRECT COMPARISON

PROPOSED CONDITION STRUCTURE MODULE A portion of 4x4 meters has been taken as example for the calculations and the comparison among the existing and the proposals. To find the values referring to all the 30000 m2 of the canopy, the results must be multiplied 1875 times.

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

4m 4m

LAYER

Composite panels

Space frame

MATERIAL

KgC02e

COST £

Reconstituted stone

0.365

302

3200

Whaterproofing

0.080

1120

Thermacork

2.240

-192

520

Hardwood members

8.832

-9038

4500

Steel connection

0.145

1563

2850

Plywood

0.080

-41

-7383

12,200

-18,042,206

29,813,750

Internal skin TOTAL TOTAL FOR THE BUILDING

140%

IN EMBODIED CARBON

IN PROJECT COST

from 45,891,181 kg to 18,042,206 kg

from 32,460,331 £ to 29,813,750 £

GSPublisherVersion 0.16.100.100 GSPublisherVersion 0.16.100.100

101

ion 0.1.100.100

DIRECT DATA COMPARISON

EXISTING KEY DETAIL 2 cm

Fibroreinforced plastic panels

Ø 12 cm

Tubular steel profiles

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

0.2 cm 12 cm 0.2 cm 0.4 cm 0.6 cm

Whaterproofing Rigid insulation Vapour barrier Steel decking Steel profiles

Ø 15 cm

Tubular steel profiles

Ø 15 cm

Tubular steel profiles

Ø 12 cm

Tubular steel profiles

3 cm

Fibroreinforced gypsum boards

Ø 15 cm

Ø 10 cm

Ø 6.5 cm

Ø 10 cm

Ø 6.5 cm

Ø 15 cm

Detail

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

102

100

PROPOSED KEY DETAIL 4 cm 12 cm

16 cm

0.2 cm 12/16 cm 0.2 cm 6 cm

Cross-laminated stone panel Whaterproofing Rigid insulation Vapour barrier Cross-laminated stone panel

Ø 2 cm

Post-tension steel cable

4 cm

Cross-laminated stone panel Whaterproofing Rigid insulation Vapour barrier Cross-laminated stone panel

52 cm

0.2 cm 60/52 cm 0.2 cm 16 cm Ø 2 cm

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

100

DIRECT COMPARISON

Post-tension steel cable

60 cm

100

Detail

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

103

DIRECT DATA COMPARISON

EXISTING MODULE

Fibrorinforced plastic panels

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Substrate to the solid skin

Composite panel

Corrugated steel decking

MIRO Spacea frame

Substrate to the internal skin

Internal skin

104

DIRECT COMPARISON

PROPOSED MODULE

Silicon sealing

Stone panel Composite stone layer Stone panel

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Whaterproofing membrane

Rigid insulation

Vapour barrier

Stone panel Composite stone layer Stone panel

External skin

105

DIRECT DATA COMPARISON

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

4m 4m

LAYER

MATERIAL

KgC02e

COST £

External skin

GFR polyester

0.608

8539

3200

Substrate str.

Steel profiles

0.057

615

1118

Composite panels

Whaterproofing

0.048

320

Rigid insulation

1.920

800

Vapour barrier

0.016

0.02

Steel decking

0.093

1003

1280

Steel purlins

0.031

334

607

Space frame

Steel profiles

0.165

1780

3238

Substrate str.

Steel profiles

0.053

571

1040

Internal skin

GFR gypsum boards

0.48

125

1600

18779

13283

45,891,181

32,460,331

TOTAL TOTAL FOR THE BUILDING

106

DIRECT COMPARISON

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

4m 4m

LAYER

MATERIAL

KgC02e

COST £

Outher skin

Stone panel

0.40

680

200

Composite stone layer

0.20

500

300

Stone panel

0.40

680

200

Whaterproofing

0.048

800

Rigid insulation

10.00

5000

1280

Vapour barier

0.016

0.02

Stone panel

0.80

1360

450

Composite stone layer

0.40

1000

500

Stone panel

0.80

1360

450

Steel cables and plates

0.4

431

1000

11025

5260

20,671,875

9,862,600

Composite panel

Inner skin

TOTAL TOTAL FOR THE BUILDING

54%

69%

IN EMBODIED CARBON

IN PROJECT COST

from 45,891,181 kg to 20,671,875 kg

from 32,460,331 £ to 9,862,600 £

107

GSPublisherVersion 0.16.100.100 GSPublisherVersion 0.16.100.100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

108

FINDINGS

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

109

CONCLUSION

FINDINGS

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

It conclusion, it is possible to redesign the canopy of the Heyday Aliyev Centre to build it cheaper and greener. Both proposals, one for replacing an all steel space frame with a hypbrid timber-steel space frame, and the other of using catenary arches, suggest favourable results. The former is far more sustainable with a reduction by 140% in embodied carbon while the latter could be far cheaper with a reduction by about 69% in cost. It is also suggested that the time for construction will be reduced since more materials (like the stone and timber) could be sourced locally or from closer countries.

110

.16.100.100

WHAT IF

140%

54%

IN EMBODIED CARBON

from 45,891,181 kg to 18,042,206 kg

from 45,891,181 kg to 20,671,875 kg

GSPublisherVersion 0.16.100.100

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

.16.100.100

CARBON COPY

69%

IN PROJECT COST

from 32,460,331 £ to 29,813,750 £

from 32,460,331 £ to 9,862,600 £

GSPublisherVersion 0.16.100.100

111

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

4 5

112

APPENDIX

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

113

APPENDIX

2 m avarage

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

TIMBER SPACE FRAME

2 m avarage

Outher skin composition

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

114

120

160

200

400

Crosslaminated stone panels Whaterproofing Rigid insulation Timber truss

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

Timber truss

0 GSPublisherVersion 0.1.100.100

100

Outher skin composition

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

115

APPENDIX

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

SEQUENTIAL ROOF

Outher skin composition

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

116

120

160

200

400

Crosslaminated stone panels

15 15

Whaterproofing Rigid insulation Timber truss

COMPLEX SHAPE CULTURAL BUILDING

15 15

Timber truss

100

Outher skin composition GSPublisherVersion GSPublisherVersion 0.1.100.100 0.1.100.100

GSPublisherVersion 0.2.100.100

117

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

4 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

CONTENTS

Purpose of Research Kings Cross R5 Development

8 10

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

1. INTRODUCTION

2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 14 15 20 30 42 56

3. CARBON COPY PROPOSALS Introduction Material Studies: Timber and Stone Carbon Copies: Structure, Embodied Carbon, and Cost Carbon Copy 1: Self Standing Stone and CLT Carbon Copy 2: Stone Veneer and CLT Carbon Copy 3: Structural Stone Operational Carbon

64 66 84 84 102 120 140

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Background Design Summary Drawings Material Studies: Brick and Concrete Analysis: Structure, Embodied Carbon, and Cost Operational Carbon

4. FINDINGS Comparisons Overall Savings Embodied Carbon Analysis Cost Analysis Carbon Copy 1 Carbon Copy 2 Carbon Copy 3 Conclusions

150 152 154 155 156 158 160 162

5. FURTHER APPLICATIONS FOR TYPOLOGIES

164

6. CATALOGUE OF MATERIAL COMPONENTS

172

6 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

1 INTRODUCTION

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH

MID-RISE TYPOLOGY This paper looks at alternative materials and methods of construction that can aid in decreasing the embodied carbon in the construction industry. It particularly looks at the Mid-Rise Urban Block typology The case study chosen is the Kings Cross R5 Urban Block Development by Maccreanor Lavington Architects and Porphyrios Architects. It is a mid-rise commercial and residential development. It is 15 storeys high, with a total GIA of 13,750 m2, across the three blocks of the development. To study the significance of urban housing blocks and predominant ways of building in concrete while also examining possibilities in a mass revolution that in conglomeration will hugely reduce the number of carbon at a city scale. This is done by exploring alternative construction materials and design techniques at the chosen typology. The structural and environmental capacity of timber, stone and brick superstuctures will be examined against cost analysis. Many communities and policymakers in cities around the world do not like the growing number of residential towers, but they also realise that houses are not a sustainable urban solution. Between these two extremes, there is a missing middle of mid-rise buildings that relate to the street and are within the height of trees.

A mid-rise building is a structure that has between five and 10 storeys and is equipped with a lift. More specifically, the National Fire Chiefs Council classifies medium-rise buildings as ‘structures whose uppermost habitable floor is less than 30m and greater than 18m above ground level measured from the lowest side of the building’. This definition is based on the knowledge that standard firefighting turntables have not historically been able to access buildings that are more than 18m high. Mid-use buildings often offer a mix of residential uses as well as commercial ones. They have various economic, environmental and social benefits, such as building as a scale which supports vibrant and walkable urban realms, hugher property values and more tax revenues.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

8000000 7000000

EMBODIED CARBON / KGCO2E

6000000 5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 -1000000 -2000000 CARBON COPY 1

CARBON COPY 2

CARBON COPY 3

EXISTING

CARBON COPY 1

CARBON COPY 2

CARBON COPY 3

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

EXISTING

4000000 40000000 3500000 35000000

COST / GBP

3000000 30000000 2500000 25000000 2000000 20000000 1500000 15000000 1000000 10000000 500000 5000000 00

REGULATIONS FOR MID-RISE BUILDINGS As mid-rise buildings tend to rise higher than 18 metres, Building Regulations have set additional requirements for the materials and façades used for this typology to guarantee fire safety. 1. Applications for tall or large buildings should include an urban design analysis. 2. Applications for tall buildings should generally be limited to sites in central zones 3. Relate well to the form, proportion, composition, scale and character of surrounding. 4. Only be considered in areas whose character would not be affected adversely by the scale 5. Incorporate sustainable design and construction practices 6. Have ground floor activities that provide a positive relationship to the surroundings 7. Incorporate publicly accessible areas on the upper floors, where appropriate 9

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

1.0 INTRODUCTION

EXISTING CONDITION

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

KINGS CROSS R5 DEVELOPMENT When the building was designed in 2008, it was done so in the contect of an empty site location ready for development. Prior to its development, urban aspirations of the site had been developed by The Camden City Council, Argent Consultants and Allies and Morrison. Thus, when developing this site, the architects seeked inspiration from buildings which could have been on the site and those that will be added following the completion of the masterplans developed. The London Development Plan aims to ensure development proposals achieve the highest possible intensity of use compatible with local context, good design principles and with public transport capacity. King’s Cross is identified as part of the Central Activities Zone where developments are expected to maximise plot ratios. The Plan sets minimum targets for growth and states that these should be, where possible, exceeded. The councils main objective will be to create firm links between the development and the local area so that it is a relevant and positive addition to, and well integrated with, this part of London. This integration includes: Physical connections – The opportunities for better east-west and north-south movement across the site Economic connections – New jobs should be widely available, offering more opportunities for those who find it difficult to work for many reasons Social links – The Councils are keen to see and create a balanced and successful development that recognises cultural diversity Completing the picture – A large development like King’s Cross Central will take place in stages. Each major phase of the comprehensive development should contain an appropriate mix of different uses, including housing Working with the community – In King’s Cross, the focus is on community involvement, better access to jobs and training, improving local people’s qualifications through education, safer streets and an attractive environment; and

Achieving sustainable development.

1.1.11. Looking to the future, there are a number of projects at different stages, that have major implications for King's Cross: 1.1.11. Looking to the future, there are a number of projects at different stages, > major Theimplications St Pancras that have forInternational King's Cross: and Domestic Station, CTRL

infrastructure, site restoration and landscaping will be completed

Junction Copenhagen

Copenhagen 7

106

104

112

102

104

112

uct Viad

uct

38 to 51

Conveyor

38 to 5

38 to

52 71

5 52 71

Conveyor

61 63

57 59

115 to 138

13 15

11 9

7 5 3 1

2 to 58

16e 15e 16a 15a

12 13 10

1 to 25

83 81

YORK WAY

55 51

RO AD

N DO NIA

17a 19

35 17

LE CA

N 41

DO NIA

1 3

CA LE

TCBs

BM 17.16m

19 13

374

372

311

1 3 5

374

372

309 307

305

297

115 to 81

295

287

311

307

305

58a

297

295

11 to

16 18

150

116

19 1 to

287

8 24

80 to 71

to 60 59 to 40 6

1 to

201

FOR SEA

118

11 to

1 to

to 132 106

105

RO AD

to 35

18.3m

13 5

58a 58

36 38

1 to

103

EET

N STR ISO HARR

41 46

to 67

80 to

to 60

115 to 81

59 to 40

150

116

19 1 to

1 to

123

121

119

117

109

181

107

to 160

159 to 136

38 to

31 3 to

8 36

106 85

1 to

1 12

47 to 132

118

St Pete

Gly

135

112

A TH

111

Hou

22.4m

107 105

103

12 13 10

1 to 25

20.1m

55 47 37

5 TCBs

BM 17.16m

gs ldin

Bui y

nle

Pas

Cla

nce

31 3 to

123

121

119

117

109 159 to 136

135

209 to 240

7 8

200

202

204

206

208

210

212

15a

Tanks

ge sa 11

Pas

nle

10 1

Sta

ER S ELL

(a)

SOMERS TOWN

83 to 114

24 12

20 8

53 55 49 51

33 35

29 31

2 3 4

5 6

25 27

29 37 45

45 47

14 2

38 46

32 40 48

36 44

41 43

26 34 42

37 39

7 15 23

2 to 58

16e 15e 16a

Tunnel

20.1m

Tanks

YORK WAY 18.3m

17a 19

RS EL LE

e18.73m

RT 1

U CO

Cla

e nc

112

309

BM 24.87m

Tanks

ss Pa

gs 1

Bui

ldin

Sta nl

nley Sta

(a)

117 to

35 to 33

553

17 19

83 to 114

31 39 47

25 33 41

27 35 43

20 12

5 13 21

115 to 138

1 9 17

3 11 19

17 9 13 5

11 9 5

Tunnel

200

202

204

206

208

210

212

Tunnel

119

113

36 1 to 55

71 6

1 to

21 23

57 59

209 to 240

1 9

BM 24.87m DW

1 to 4

117

113

43 37

111

149 to 119

41 39

SOMERS TOWN

41 39

35 to 33

40 41 42

to 55

181

1 to

101 45 43 37

17 1 to

7 40 41 42

121

113 109 111 107 105 101 103

109 111

61 63

24 12

20 8

53 55 49 51

45 47

14 2

38 46

32 40 48

41 43

36 44

26 34 42

33 35 29 31

2 3

25 27

21 23

7 8

17 19

13 15

311

17 9

37 39

31 39 47

29 37 45 27 35 43

25 33 41

7 15 23

5 13 21

20 12

13 5

103 101

72 to 37

26 17 1 to

37 38

36 37 38

119

149

to 13

103

4 to

121

102

Viad

OSE CL

RS PE

RE A

4 to

1 to

127

125

123

Tunnel

OSE CL

RS PE

CAMDEN TOWN

28 27

18 15

CAMDEN TOWN

1 to

24 to 13

5 24

85c

WAY

2 12

WAY

ROSSENDALE

109 85b 85

85b

1 to

143

135

123

106

31 to 1t

39 to 54 7 to 18

27 28

Junction

244 204 to 104 to 170

55 to 70 19 to 30

244 204 to 104 to 170

39 40

102

31 to 1t

70 a

102

110 a

102 a

56 to 154

94 a

78 a

70 a

11 11 12

78 a 11

94 a

102 a

56 to 154

ja Poo 1

Co Poo ja

12 1 to

19 to 63

119

1917

1 to

4 1 to 14 9 to

109

REA

99 15

117

1 to

1917

85c

135 141

117

141

127

20 21

113 109 125 111 107

137 139

1 to

123 105

135

30 31

101

146

103

148

18.73m

RACE

160

148

146

30 31

52 6

181

8 to

19 to 63

1 to

1 to36

1 to

1 to36

76 48

1 to

TERR ACE

1 to

well

1 to

Northi

RE ST

22.62

1 to

161

Chads

Croft

(Univ

1 to

Policy EN55, Appendix EN3

The references above are for guidance and are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all policies relevant to a particular location. The majority of policies in the UDP apply throughout the whole of the Borough.

LCSP, Exel and their development partner Argent St George will be developing the major part of the railway lands remaining after the CTRL works have been completed, including the Triangle. currently to as ‘King's Cross Central’ >The development LCSP, Exelisand their referred development partner Argent St George will and it isbelikely to take place over the period 2007-2018. Initial remaining after developing the major part of the railway lands applications are expected in early 2004; the CTRL works have been completed, including the Triangle. h Hou dwic 75 San to

y Hall Parr Lond hes y of Hug ersit

net Tha

Court

sfield

Great

eld

Hollisfi

ST.

EET

Mullet

21.55m

19 to

FLA XM AN

160

133

TER

1 to

181

Pep

TON

Surgery House

21.2m 1 to

1 to

Bond

79 16

1 to

161

160

Court

26 26

1 to

1 to 58

FLA XM AN

The references above are for guidance and are not intended to be an of Speciallocation. The majority exhaustive list of all policies relevant Site to a particular of policies in the UDP apply throughout the whole of the Borough. Scientific Interest

eld

1 to

Loxham House

rton s Tanke House 20

LOXH

House

23.04m

ings

REET

Edward

1 to

54 41

31 26

31 133

1 to

531

1 to

Rail Safeguarding Chapter 17

Metropolitan Open Land Policy EN46, Appendix EN3

eld

Kellet

Build

1 to

DD JU

EET NE STR

1 to

House

1 80

Posts

30 to 38 to

Scientific Interest Policy EN55, Appendix EN3

20.7m

75 48 to61

Transport Proposal Site Chapter 17

Sandfi

Bedefi

Club

ER TANK

borne

1 to

House

1 to

30 to

109 111

T14

Gatesd

1 to

Whid

pe House

ST HOPE

IDBOR

Midho

ood Charlw

MID

11 to

Heather

1 to

15 38 to

1 to

St Pete

Hou

White

ER STR

22.1m

House

1 to

8 to 1 to 39

48 to61 47

1 to

FOR

Fleetfield

144

20 21

1 to 39 9

345

337

1 5 57

339

335

333

321

1 to

321

1 to

319

Manston

291

345

337

297

285

339

335

333

331

291

17 13

297

285

283

11 2

17 13

281

277

319 14

Dep

ens

SEA

ds House

1 to

283

331

277

281

Hous

und

Gard

Playgro

are

Squ

Jess

CROM

Moatlan

Fleetway

1 to

RE UA

Croft

ET STRE

18 1

Open Space and Conservation Site of Nature Special 10

ARGYLE SQUARE

Argyle Walk

Cross Holy Church

352

E YL

HEA

Great

ARG

Gly

Bdy Ward CR

100

eer Pion

1 to

Metropolitan Open Land Policy EN46, Appendix EN3

Argy

RID

108

Cromer

Riverfleet

Land Use Proposal Site Chapter 17

Pep

field

ARG

Hollisfie

Mullets

ool Sch

yle

ary

Arg

TONB

1 to

Northia

ell

Prim

112

102

108

RO INN

Riverside

ARG

Posts

Cross age Holy Vicar

Chadsw

114

106

350

ET 24

HAM

EET

116

348

Gatesd

1 to

20.7m

EET

STR

HAR

364

1 to

LOX

ST.

’S AY GR

TCB

358

HEA

RISON 45

362

ld Sandfie

21.55m

1 to

Ferris House

356

Bedefie

Club

Lucas House

’S AD

Posts

1 to

TCBs

UA E SQ

Willin

360

1 to

e House

Houses

STR HOPE

TON KER

Houses

1 to

Loxham House

Kellet

11 to

ton Tanker s House 20

ood Charlw

MID

TAN

’S

366

se Hou

Playground

ridge Tonb es Hous

YL ARG

ET RE

ARGYLE SQUARE

k Ban

21.2m

ss Cro sion ’s Mis King ist

Met

hire

Der

Surgery House

Bond

A CH ST g House

TCBs

16.2m

RE ST

Rail Safeguarding Chapter 17

King’s Cross Thameslink Station

370

Fleetfield hod

use Ho

Ban

IELD

ve gro Bel

UAR

118

A TH

120

59 58

295

343

TF ET ES RE CR

Transport Proposal Site Strategic View - Background T14 Chapter 17 Consultation Area Policies EN43, 45

275

289

287

10 8

Hous

275

E ROAD

26a

352

Pione

and

und

ens

350

INN

berl thum el Hot

Gard

UAR

Playgro

GYL

re Squa

376

15.4m

Nor

Subw

Argy

1 to 32

25 22

144

41 to

20 21

57 to 63

41 to

57 to 63

5 to

47 to 51

25 to

5 to

120

110

39 to 43

120

74 to 68 to 83 77

22 16

49 to 55

47 to 51

1 to

124

1 to

124

110

348

GYL

Crossge Holy Vicara

ST PANCRAS

1 to

364

378

380

264

266 to 270

Dep

AD S RO

TCBs

114

116

Bank 272 to 276

PENTONVILL

16.2m

368

Fleetway

358

King’s Cross

1 to

18 bys

120

362

ay Subw

22.62

rough e BidboHous

N STO

Club

356

EET

erso And rett ital Gar Hosp

Tonbridge

22.1m

Riverfleet

1 to

Edward

Tonbridge Houses

100

360

NC PA

23.04m

Hous

ses

Open Space and Nature Conservation

278

280

284 282

288 286

292 290

294 to 300

304 302

16.2m

Riverside

TCBs

ting

TCBs

E STR

ET se RE n Hou ST Norther DD Great JU

beth

rge

(PH) 14

8 to

Geo

Eliza

s Hou

Willin

16.1m

BM 16.59m

Police Office

15.9m

201

Has

24.5m

IELD

Midhop

ngs

1 to

wich

Hou

(Univ

Sand

y Hall Parr Lond hes of Hug ersity

105

A CH

Primary Retail Frontage Policy SH7

Proposals

Policies EN43, 45

OMEGA PLACE

5 70

Buildi

1 to

orne Whidb

Bdy Ward CR

House

22 20

IDBORN

et Than

19 to

49 to 55

39 to 43

27 37

84 to 87

13 67

27 19

37 29

53 65

27 to

2 to 8

203

(odd)

(odd) 101 to 105

101 to 105

BALFE STREET

Hou

Heather

16.5m

’S AY

ay 37

ool Sch

yle

ary

Arg

Prim

White

Works

and

Subw

E GYL

Jess

108

Roy

TCB

366

berl hum l Hote

112

ST PANCRAS

1 to

106

289

287

Nort

114

Hou

ST PANCRAS EET STR

22.1m

lair

Sinc

343

EET

116

MER CRO

ds House Moatlan

17.8

295

STR

18 to

Cross Holy dra Church

Argyle Walk

Rai

El Sub Sta

und

TCB

lwa

gro

xan Ale ons nsi een Ma

17.4

CALEDONIA STREET

ST g House

TCBs

1 to

Neighbourhood Shopping and Service Centre Policies SH3, SH9

Primary Retail Frontage Policy SH7

Strategic View - Background Strategic View - Wider Land Use Proposal Site Consultation Area Chapter 17 Setting Consultation Area Policies EN43, 45

17.2m

han

GS IN

16.2m

’S

KING’S CROSS

24 to 1 16.7m

UAR SQ

17.2m

der

House

Exc

eph

Tel

264

15.4m

King’s Cross Thameslink Station

(Terminus)

way Sub Vent

Ancient Monument Appendix EN2

Proposals

32 FB

Bank

King’s Cross Station Posts

Pipe

Cromer

ST HA

(a)

D Fn

District Shopping and Service Centre Policies SH3, SH6, SH8

Policies SH3, SH9

Strategic View - Wider Strategic View Setting Consultation Area Viewing Corridor Policies EN43, 45 Policies EN43, 44

2 FB

Archaeological PriorityNeighbourhood Area Shopping Policy EN41 and Service Centre

163

222 to 249 57 to 81

34b

26a

35 29

34 30

22 16

11 13

129 to 135 137 to 151

7 8

57 to 81

11 13 15

47 49 51

53 55 57

50 129 to 135 137 to 151

29 45

11 13 15

47 49 51

53 55 57

107 109 111

132 to 137

139 to 153

132 to 137

139 to 153

12 10

1 to 55 (odd)

1 to 10

29 60

KL EY

249 to 261

222 to 249

1 to 10

249 to 261

2 to 6a

211 to 247

1 to 4

e Garde

1 14

y Squar

1 to 4

110 a

156

186 188

Broadstone

200 202

1 to 32

CAMLEY STREET

158 160

172 174

Manston

CAMLEY STREET

156

6 14 22

121

12 5 13 21

39 to 54 7 to 18

4 12 20

19 3 11 19

2 to 6a

121

27 28

18 10 2

1 to 4 1 to 4

39 40

17 9 1

109

55 to 70 19 to 30

186 188

158 160

Broadstone

200 202

109

172 174

6 14 22

5 13 21

143

4 12 20

135

3 11 19

123

18 10 2

17 9 1

7 15

Oakle

74 to 68 to 83 77

211 to 247

CRINAN STREET

12 10

Battlebridge Basin

e Garde

Bollards

36 to 40

22 20

266 to 270

Major Shopping and Service Centre Policies SH3, SH4, SH5, SH8

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Community Centre

1 El Sub Sta

ALBION YARD

100

102

108

Posts

Gardens

Bank

106

TCB

370

ST PANCRAS

TCBs

Ferris House

Tiber Gardens

Tiber

60 to 108

54 to

57 59

27.2m

53 55

6 to

27 to

45 47

Brydon Walk

Met

’S

Lucas House

20.0m

Strategic View Viewing Corridor Policies EN43, 44

36 to 26

42 to 50

2 to 8

64 to

41 43

23 to

Walk

BALFE STREET

1 2227 to 5 to to 26 30

170

4 5

37 39

Campbell

54 to

170

33 35

S Gantry

1 to

114

H UG

ton mil Ha House

s Cros ion ’s Miss King ist hod

se Hou

n Hal Tow

TCBs

116

22.4m

RAILWAY STREET

17.8

203

28.5m

29 31

Station

8 16 24

(disused)

Road

163

13 to 24

43 6 14 22

70 to 78

York

34b

4 12 20

36 to 40

16.3m

se Hou

ers

RID

Chamb

idge s Tonbr House

120

one

Hot

Great Northern Hotel

DBO

Mabledon Court

ve gro Bel

Bank

TONB

ROAD

E RE

Figure 1.1 Extract from Camden Adopted UDP Proposals Map

Flaxman House

10 18

42 to 50

St Pancras

Club

22.2m

n Hou

erto Som

82 to 96

Subw

MIDLAND

118

Tonbridge

22.1m

21.4m

ergr Und

25 27

Battlebridge Basin

Subw

120

ses

h Hou

Nor

the

18.2m

BI Clifton House

124

22.4m

bor

ON ST EU

Tonbridge Houses

100

Clif

TCBs

376

AD S RO

n Hou

ther

rough BidboHouse

1 to 30

se Hou

378

380

16.85

t Nor Grea

106

19.5m

Bid

160

Gre

TCBs

Playground

ings

24.5m

15.9m

Hast

The British Library TCB

20.7m

PCs

ay Railw

ay Subw

ton

118

17.2m

Chambe

ur House Seymo

Y CHWA D

nd grou Play

RE UA SQ

122

ound

156

21 23

Posts

Bollards

ST PANCRAS

St Pancras

ROAD MIDLAND

ALT

Hou

GS IN

oug

130 132

126

Community Centre

Station

(disused)

Road

70 to 78

York

D D ROA

use

ULS

239

OSS

ita

1 to

Lev

Hou

King’s Cross

Ancient Monument Appendix EN2

District Shopping and Service Centre Policies SH3, SH6, SH8

Gatt’s Yd

WHARFDALE ROAD

Posts

BM 21.8m

105

32 to 24 to 31

8 to 15

LB BM

272 to 276

Green Chain Missing Link EN47

134

Gardens

CRINAN STREET

m 16.85

MIDLAN

Box

lair

100

BM 19.65m

ROAD PENTONVILLE16.9m

16.2m

Club

16.7m

ST PANCRAS

ST HA

Sinc

STREET

142 Tiber Gardens

Tiber

60 to 108

Signal

1 to 30

Exc

one

eph

Tel

Post

Plac

278

19.8m

eir’s

16 to 23

1 to

Battlebridge Court

368

dra xan ns Ale nsio en Ma Que

20.0m

TCB

Gatti’s Wharf

OMEGA PLACE

278 280

284 282

288 286

292 290

294 to 300

304 302

16.2m

TCBs

King’s Cross Station

lwa

Rai

han

Hou

Mabledon Court

ET RE ST

London Canal Museum

16.5m

King’s Cross Station

16.1m

BM 16.59m

(Terminus)

rou

CHUR

URG

EL M

Figure 1.1 Extract from Camden Adopted UDP Proposals Map

n Hal Tow

The British Library

ORO

Works

(Terminus)

ay SubwVent Pipe

m 17.49

St Pancras Station

Policy EN41

Pontoon

Bollards

Police Office

El Sub Sta

se Hou

KING’S CROSS CALEDONIA STREET

Car Park

16.2m

(a)

Fire Station

82 to 96

House

TCBs

STR

ris

GRA

Playground

(PH)

The Depot

KING’S CROSS

ULS

k Hou

22.9m

ter

74 to 64 28

Winsh

erso And ett ital Garr Hosp

OLT SH

Flaxman House

Shel

Derb

n ilto se HamHou

22.2m

Ch 1 to

TCBs

Air Shaft

40 48

144

126

Tunnel

ST PANCRAS

stoc

239

beth

El Sub Sta

DELHI STREET

57 59

130 132

38 to 48

OSS

Had

Eliza

s age

erto

Som

on Graft bers Cham

24.0m

Statue

Hot

Great Northern Hotel

erg

Playground

Und

orou

ria Victo (PH)

n Hou

27.2m

53 55

134

Cott

ER EV

ille

Nev

8 to

1 to

RE 21

CLO

D ROA

1 to 30

l Geor (PH)

Edit

Roya

Hou

lesl Wel

ther

BM 21.8m

Bidb

21.4m

1 to

se Hou

Waterside Inn

Warehouse

19.3m

Nor

5m 19.9

Lion b Lam and (PH)

Clifton House

PCs

122 124

ay Railw

ALBION YARD

16.9m

CH EN

(Terminus)

The British Library 19.5m

Clift

30 38 46

142

.25

Box

MIDLAN

Signal

s La

20.7m

28 36 44

144

90 92

1 to 30

118

17 19

Vibart Walk

45 47

Brydon Walk

41 43

DELHI STREET

88 86

t Cour

1 to

rch

26 34 42

Walk

37 39

WAY

Campbell

nix Phoe

Hou

RE ST

Chu

Tan

2 FB

(Terminus)

yshi

TCBs

1 El Sub Sta

King’s Cross Station

The British Library

18.7m

100

Brydon Walk

33 35

ET STRE

ita

1 to

Lev

NCI

S Gantry

rt Cou

ET 88

r House

RCH

Seymou

22.4m

S Gantry

22.2m

TCBs

36 to 26

The Depot

(Terminus)

Works

Unde

AD RO

160

ings

17.2m

eir’s

Hous (PH)

St Pancras Station

Towne

Posts

Post

Build

oss

Warehouse

Gatt’s Yd

S Bridge

RAILWAY STREET

250 to 278

Ice Wharf

Culr

Posts

Plac

se Hou

Bank

Post

37 to 40

rgrou to

Gre

18.2m

278

13 15

YORK

Tunnel

38 to 48

HE RE

ols’ to 90 48 92 Scho ment re 56Cent Treat 94

House

1 to 30

Euston Station

ris

Flat

156

ton Eus

Playground

1 to

IDGE

Major Shopping and Service Centre Policies SH3, SH4, SH5, SH8

Conservation Area Archaeological PriorityPolicy Area EN31 - 37

201 to 220

32 to 24 to 31

8 to 15

Club

18.7m

rs Some e Coffe

way

Sta

12a

d roun Playg

ent Reg se Hou to 8

(PH)

ur Arth

STR

SOMERS TOWN

N GTO

DIN

er Shelt

Sub

Bolla

se Hou 35 lton 1 to

TCBs

6 El

Canal KING’S CROSS Regent’s Canal

WHARFDALE ROAD

Posts

16.7 2m

Cha

Prin

CHU

1 to

D Fn

19.8m

HAVELOCK

39 43 47 40 44 48

29 31

28.5m

Clyd

TO 12

k Hou 100

ria Victo (PH)

Posts

Car Park

(Terminus)

El Sub Sta

Works

Fire Station

16.3m

1 to

EAnne’s ACSt

St Pancras Station

Sta

16 to 23

1 to

Green Chain Missing Link EN47

EN47

Local Services

Heritage

Conservation Area Policy EN31 - 37

Towing Path

Gatti’s Wharf

Battlebridge Court

BM 19.65m

Route

Green Chain and Corridor EN47

Shopping and Conservation and Heritage Conservation Local and Services Shopping and

Grand Union

El Sub Sta

1 to

AD KING’S CROSS

Canal Regent’s Canal

Albert Wharf

London Canal Museum

ST PANCRAS

The British Library

Playground

n Grafto bers Cham

N TO

ings

Warehouse

St Pancras Station

The British Library

Playground

se y Hou lesle to 80 1 Wel Flat s

Build

16.2m

Ma ry’s

38 42 46

8 16 24

37 41 45

6 14 22

Path

.25

s La

8m 18.7

ACE

stoc

OLT

22.9m

Culro

Grand Union

Signal Box

19.3m

Centre

Posts

Trough

18.7m

munie ComCentr

ULS

ages

Winsh

Cott

Chur

ler Whee ns Garde

4 12 20

10 18

29.85

25 27

Vibart Walk

al n Can al Can

IDG

Maiden Lane

Ice WharfBridge

21.8m

Car Park

Housing Density Boundaries HG10

Bollards

16.8m

18.7m

Sub

Battle Bridge

21.5

Tank

Hou in 54 erla 1 to

Flats

180

TCBs

Cha

1 to 36

St Joseph’s

Bollar

Unio ent’s and G Reg

90 92

17.1m

Hall

TCBs

174 172

21 23

88 86

E N E LA S RS CLO PE LE O IL CO NEV

CR AS

30 38 46

RO Bolla

OSS

Had

lle

SOMERS TOWN

GTO

e 1 Hous 8 ch to

Warehouse

Camden Town Special Policy Area Policy CT1 - 4

Pontoon

22.5m

Culros

Post

16.5m

ILL

Chamberlain House

CRESCENT

28 36 44

17 19

LE M

Track

13 15

Brydon Walk

CK STREET HAVELO

to 178

176

40 44 48

ras Panc Lock

Path

Squar

39 43 47

20.3m

Oakley

37 41 45

38 42 46

er Wheel s Garden

Y K WA

m 25.33

Bollar

n Cana l Unio Cana nt’s and G Rege

1 to

40 48

YOR

18.4

Cycle

t Cour

Nevi

Depot

9 to 16 St Mary’s Ho

nix Phoe

1 to

Edith

24.3m

N LA

84 to 87

26 34 42

174 172

Path

as Pancr Lock

to 178

29.85m

ing Tow

23 to

STREET

Hopper

30.64

176

25.33m

ing

28 86

House (PH)

Post

DRUMMOND IN

Air Shaft

Some Coffee

Lion Lamb and (PH)

se Hou

Town

D Fn

13 to 24

29.28m

KE STREET

Hopper

30.64

Slop

CR N

dale Rye

Prim

Brereton

Bank

Statue

19.95

118

ton Eus Cotts

OEN

Posts

way

SOMERS TOWN

Depot

16.7

Flat

Ann

round

42 44

PEMBROKE

29.28m

30.9m

Path

20.3m

113 114

5 to

12a

se Hou

’ sius ool Aloy Sch St ary

e’s

TCBs

m 18.78

18.7m

106 108

n Gr

12a

St Aloysius RC Church

19.8m

37 to 40

105 107

ery Nurs Day to 39

Maria Fidelis Convent School

Sta

Sub

St Aloysius’ Convent 30 to s 14 1 to

21.5m

Hall

17.2m

19.5m

TCB

98 100

Hou

Playg

46 48

80 to 108

PEMBRO

31.6m

30.9m

ing Tow

1m 23.6

18.4

1 to

97 99

Tave(PH)

OEN

Flat

21.8m

Hotel

31.6m

Tunnel

90 92

1 to

ne’s

’s ard Rich

1 to

1 to 36

20.7m

Mar y’s

The Cock rn

SW OD

s Hall Culros

19.4m Playground

Posts

CRESCENT

TCBs Joseph’s Flats

Sta

(PH)

s Hall

E RO 20.1m

16.5m

17.1m

24.5m

Waterside Inn

1 to

18.7m

se Hou 35 lton 1 to

usti

22.2m

110 to 162

186

102

27 to

194

F RO AR WH

AD F RO

23.0

ing

110 to 162

186

Gantry

Tunnel

ET Slop

64 to

194

188

Signal

WH 104

1 to

Gantry

Cou

6 to

188

19 24

RY to

23.2m

PlayGroun

El Sub Sta

Garden

201 to 220

Centre

Housing Density Boundaries HG10

250 to 278

22.9m

19.2m

Bollard

Battle Bridge

Tiber

TCBs

Warehouse

Towing Path

Car Park

Pond

Sts

21.8m g Path al Towin Can on Uni El Sub Sta al nd ’s Can Gra ent Reg

Signal Box

BM 25.00m

Warehouse Trough

CLO

York Way Court 24.2m

24.44m

El Sub Sta

24.6m

Pond

Playground

Oakshott Court

N TO NG

Aug

Ho ’s 11 Joan1 to

E PD

Kate Greenaway Nursery School

274 to 293

Towing Path

Metropolitan Walk EN47

Metropolitan Walk Potential Connection or Alternative Metropolitan Walk Potential Connection or Alternative Route EN47

Posts

Canal Regent’s Canal

Posts

116

El Sub Sta

PlayGroun

El Sub Sta

Albert Wharf 22.5m

22.9m

El Sub Sta

Depot

Policy LC10

Playg

Library

Shelter

Grand Union

Pond

(Terminus)

Walker House Sub

Cha

ent Reg se Hou to 8

118

rd’s e Richa Hous

(PH)

ur Arth

OLT

Prin

ER W

130

se Hou

ARD 40

200

y Factor

181

Y WA

181

16 21

RE Y ST MLE

Clyd

TreatCentr 94

130

SOMERS TOWN

Depot

9 to 16 St Mary’s Ho

ols’ Scho mente

dale Rye

Cotts

Hou rlainto 54

mbe

S Bridge

16.8m 114

Playground

Canal KING’S CROSS Regent’s Canal

25.2m

Regent’s Canal Open Space Regent’s Canal Open Space Appendix EN3, RC8 Appendix EN3, RC8

Area for Green Chain and Corridor Community Regeneration Area for EN47 Policy LC10 Community Regeneration

1 to 11

Towing Path

21.5

BM 20.80m

11 13

Grand Union

24.3m

Play Area

Hall

TCBs

42 44

200

Facto

224

RK YO

202 to

Y WA

171

ROAD

22.3

Sta

Cou

4 1 to 14 9 to

24.0m

51 to 82

Naish Court

Posts

Garden

Air Shaft

Maiden Lane Bridge

24.5m

BM 25.00m

180

20.8m

112

Court

Chamberlain House

151

Post

SOMERS 36 TOWN rt

hott Oaks

Playground

46 48

224

LANE

171

RK YO

Walk

WHARF

Signal

se Hou

ET RE

Sub

D Fn

163

Linkwood

LANE OADFIELD

OADFIELD

Walk

202 to

Elm Friars

Linkwood

Walk

Elm Friars

Bowmore

Rosebank

Walk

Tunnel

D ROA des

100

5 to

ET RE

118

s Hou

62 64

48 50 52

M HA

ILL

Prim

DRUMMOND

Brereton

Play Area

El Sub Sta

7880

ound

N LANE

RESCENTN LANE

Rosebank

WHARF

il Rho Cec

Tiber

TCBs

110

104 102 106 108

19.2m

Cha

Transfer

17.2m

21.8m

23.8m

York Way Court

Station

Monica Shaw

Waste

17.7m

19.5m

TCB

ery

77 7981

Scho

91 89

19.4m

Nurs

Day

’

unity e

19.8m

Maria Fidelis Convent School 60

59 St Aloysius’ Convent 61

47 49 51

St ary

Garage

Hotel

113 114

AD 83

Euston Station

Depot

1 to

106 108

OEN

St Augustine’s sius House Aloy

PH PH

Euston Station

STREERS M SE SO O CL

Prim

ard’ Rich

1 to

12a

t’s gare se Mar Hou

St Aloysius

n’s e RC Church Marti Hous

21.5m

SE HE

105 107

1 to

138

se RC Hou ol sius ne’s Scho TOWN Aloy usti SOMERS ary St

Aug

N TO NG

146

RE ST

ER W

118

rd’s Richa Sta House Sub

150

OLT

Ho ’s 11 8 Joan1 to 1 to

Tave(PH)

20.7m

CE 83

AD RO D IXROA OENN PHGO

The Cock rn

20.9m

Monica Shaw

154

Club

PLA

N TO

98 100

You

SOMERS TOWN

ras Panc ol StTCBsScho y and ary Mar E Prim of C

142 144 146 148

20.4m

21.1m

97 99

130

use

d Woo e Hous

Day e Centr

21.4

Oakshott Court

Comm Centr

90 92

116

9 to

8991

t Cour

hott

oodGarage se

Hill-W Hou

9 to

4 1 to 14 9 to

St Mary’s Church

Day Centre

Flats

Oaks

LS SU OS

ael’s

M HA EN ALD

114

Hall

Walker House

7880

60 621 64 to

Mich

Edith Neville Primary School

151

PH 130

TO NG

130

School

Euston Station

134

22.34

160

ers

162

s ony’ AnthFlats 84 83

48 50 52

Hou

to to

Adventure Playground

23.8m

NA GRA

Track

18 19

W 47 49 51

Cycle

’

E RE ST

El Sub Sta

77 7981

59 61 63

olas Nich Flats

21.7m

102

N TO G

29 130

se Hou

Sts

ex Suss

112

The Doreen Bazell Hall

CLO

47 49

Place

Lawrence

Delhi Street

Library

Camden Town Special Policy Area Policy CT1 - 4

Playgr

COPENHAGEN STREET

24.2m

Natural Park

110

104 102 106 108

53 51

ate

Hou

Est

1 to

land

wn To

1 to

Playg

BM 27.18m

274 to 293

g Path al Towin Can on al Uni nd s Can Gra ent’ Reg

138 23.2m

18.4m

The Chenies

ET RE

Sports Centre

Bollard

Park

17.7m

Court

235

Towing Path

Natural

Playground

GTO

26 21.2m

20.9m

Hardwick House

1 to

Hou

Depot

ARR

134

cis’

St Augustine’s House

M HA EN ALD

NRY

S E

104

ALT

don ren

Mor

Sub Sta

Ald

ER M SO OS CL

18 19

1 to

ras her’s 32 Panc ol stop 1 to St Scho and aryChri St MaryE Prim of C

Depot

42 43 44

45 46

ins Coll ol iam y Scho

158

Cla

174

RC ol sius Scho SOMERSAloy TOWN ary to 36 se St Prim 1 Hou

s aret’ e MargHous

1 to

138

Chri

1 to

enh

LD O

147

Club 37

Fran

Sts

St Pancra Church Old

ATT

El Sub Sta

24.1m

25.2m

Pond

Towing Path

El Sub Sta

Pond

20.8m

BM 20.80m

20.4m

se Hou

her’s se stopHou

Kate Greenaway Nursery School

20.1m

93 87

21.1m

You

rge’s

21.6m

Transfer

Station

PLACE

OUTRAM

Playground

25.4m

Shelter

24.6m

142 144 146 148

91 89

83 81

11 13

Edith Neville 19 18 Primary School

South Camden

21.49

Hou

Geo

E AC

S IE

Will ndar Sir Seco

seSt Martin House

Hou

53 54

Sta

The Doreen Bazell Hall

EN CH

Community School

1 to45

’s

d Woo e Hous

1 to

lcot

Hous

1 to

Hill

Playgr

104

m 23.61

se Hou

STR

61 63 62 64 65

ex Suss

STEW G

ID AM BR NH

103

ETY REA

ael’s Mich

Playground

Depot

Shelter

Adventure Playground

1 to

Flats

21.7m

AnthFlats

1 to 33

Sub

7m 23.1

Hill

ood e

22.1m

kfoo

TO NG

22.21

School

Day Centre

Hardwick House

Bec

eck ckb Sto

235

Posts

Hill-W Hous Day Centre

ore

1 to 1 to

N TO

103

ony’s

1 to

The Chenies

Post

Sports Centre

1 to45

e Hous

olas’ Nich Flats

des

S EW ET M RE Y ST IT N UN NRY

CH 146

Mic

kled

ns Colli ol y Scho

ate

146

186

1 to

St Mary’s Church

Air Shaft

24.44m

26.1m

Waste Transfer Natural Park Station

Waste

King’s Cross Opportunity Area 90 Chapter 13

Playgro

24.1m

PCs

18.4m

119

Est

150

Alde

AM NH

Hou

22.6m

1 to

ses Hou

RE ST RN REET BU ST ED T M PLAT 13

St Pancras Gardens

Post

CRESCENT

19 18

Community School

21.7m

21.2m

Hous

18.6m

IN LD

42 43 44

Willi ndar Sir Seco

n Tow

Hou

188

use

154

192 190

foot

Geor

STR

tune Nep (PH)

Hou

cis’

Fran

Waste Transfer Station

D Fn Playground

The Gardener’s Cottage

TCBs

51 to 82

Naish Court

Depot

Natural Park

Park

Monument

Sts

maso nry

Natural

272

St Pancras Church Old

Hosp ital

King’s Cross Opportunity Area Chapter 13

24.2m

138

21.6m

20.0m

Shelter

Panc

il Rho Cec

1 to

end

nha 1 to

dwi

Gla

22.1m

1 to

Beck

PH 1 to

gh 40 er’s 32 er’s e 33 to nlei toph 1 to toph Hous Cra Chris Chris St

1 to

Mick

12 k kbec Stoc

1 to

Hou

Y R WA

22.21

1 to

163 8 184

102 to 110 97 to 105

Clar

secot Wol Hou

to 159 to 180 16

se1 to

Hou

olt re

1 to

nso

23.0m

45 46

104

TO NG

1 to

land

160

rsh 12

ledo

ses

Joh

1 to

ge’s

37 to 48

Track

INGT

53 54

158

RI Mor

162

Eve 1 to

1 to

GEW

nd grou Play

174

Cycle

61 63 62 64 65

ER me So

23.17

Bro

49 to 56

147 103

Hou

er Shelt

ras

South Camden

21.7m

FB 94 to 96 116 to 118

26.1m

Natural Park

uary

PCs

FB Post

School

Hous

Hou

1 to

ehou Ston

146

win

Posts

114

tock

186

1 to

Glad

19 24

20.6m

37 to 48

1 to

Cals

119

ses

115

111

Hou

22.6m

23.2m

Mayford 103

188

192 190

1 to

h Hou leig

Cran

une 92 to Nept (PH) 88

nson Joh

102 to 110 97 to 105

Y ST

21.51

Track

land

E ST

Cycle

1 to

Hart

163 to 184 159 to 180

Bro

MLE

49 to 56

ock

ST NN MDE

1 to

er Shelt

Calst

L CO

ingto

1 to

E PL

23.2m

ses

20.6m

17 25

AN CR

1 to

El Sub Sta

21.5m

maso

Gardens

St Pancras Gardens

Post Goldington Crescent Gardens

21.7m

164 to 179

nd grou Play

Hou

Dart

ehou

1 to

Shelte

115

79 15

1 to

E Ston

ST NN MDE CA

Games Court

Car Park

Games Court

94 to 96 116 to 118

111

E ST EGLydford

21.51

Shelte

The Gardener’s Cottage

18.6m

ENT

21.7m

en l Geff enta nis Den ronm exe Envi th Ann Heal

20.0m

St Pancras

D Fn

80 LT

Slipway

Hosp ital

TCBs

BM 19.28m

ST T RN EE STR EDBU

A CH

28.5m

11 13

Posts

25.2m

British Waterways St Pancras Yacht Basin

St Pancras Coroner’s Court

ras

Post

20.3m 13

School

Place

Lawrence

1 to 11

Depot

British Waterways St Pancras Yacht Basin

nry

272

Panc

CRESC Trough

Crowndale Court

Court

St Pancras Coroner’s Court

Monument

Games Court

164 to 179

Tunnel

and Hartl

1 to

lyn AC

ngto

1 to

New

E PL

ton Kings e Hous

1 to

to 59

ew’s Matth e Lodg

Mayford

CEDA

16 21

CO Darti

ton e Norbi Hous

1 to

Games Court

Goldington Court

TCBs

20.3m

Playgr

Posts

24.2m

l for s pita ase Hos l Dise pica Tro

21.5m

ary

Posts

33 25

25.2m

Mort

(PH)

2 to 22

29 21

COPENHAGEN STREET

Gardens

20.2m

25.4m

El Sub Sta

GO College Arms LD CAMDEN TOWN INGT ON

2 to 2

2 to 22

Car Park

n Geffe is ental xe Denn onm Envir th Anne Heal

Oblique Bridge

St Pancras

Warehouse

El Sub Sta

Goldington Crescent Gardens

to 59

Crowndale Court

Air Shaft

BM 24.93m

Mortu

Post

25.4m

Oblique Bridge 23.6m

3 to 24 82

36a

Delhi Street BM 27.18m

BM 24.93m

El Sub Sta

64 80

36e

36 Playgro 28

Playground

Posts

STREE

PLACE

OUTRAM

Playground

El Sub Sta

Slipway

Other Public and

217

Other Public and Private Open Space Private Open Space Policy EN48, Appendix EN3 Policy EN48, Appendix EN3

Area of Special Character Metropolitan Walk Area of Special Character Chapter 15 EN47 Chapter 15

50 66

58 74

Garage

FB Driving Range

25.4m

Chy

Garage

29.8m

Posts

33 25

29 21

LBs

l for pita ases Hos Dise ical Trop

St Pancras Hospital

E COLLEG

1 to 114

17 to

1 to

ord

on Kingst House

1 to

L CO YA ROerton

Dulv

1 to

Lydf

lyn

1 to

scom

1 to

Bran

New

Sta

on Norbit House

1 to

Sub

Theatre

El Sub Sta

BM 19.28m

Trough

Calsto

28.5m

Can

22.7 Chy

ELL

3 to 24

Lt Twr

Driving Range

El Sub Sta

St Pancras Hospital

Godwin

ion

’S RO

(London

RAND

64 80

elfo

1 to

Cam

erto

1 to

Dulv

TCBs

24 ck

1 to

Sub Sta

1 to 20

21.4m

Un Can

Goldington Court

TCBs

Court

21.0m

scom

Sta

1 to

Sub

Bran

Cran

22.7m

Warehouse

College Arms

The Lodge

81 to

broo

65 to 87

1 to

mon Beau als Anim ital Hosp

elfor Cam

Men’s

Adventure Playground

City

50 66

58 74

26.3m

Gra

21.8m

1 to

land Hart

30.3m FB

30.3m

36 28

Playground

Posts

STREE

Tank

Path

Central London Local Areas Chapter 14 217

29.8m

El Sub Sta

tal

20.2m

1 to 114

Godwin

Colleg

ing

’s

L’S

DEL RAN

36a

Lt Twr

26.3m

Can

Central London Covent Garden Local Areas Chapter 14

Policy EN62

El Sub Sta

Paget n Centre Christia Mission)

Garage

Conveyor

ent

RAS WAY ST PANC

ks 21.0m

Worki

Conveyor

Reg

ROAD DALE Helston CROWN ET RE The Lodge

ion

Ancient Woodland Policy EN62

Playground 18 20 26

22 24

ROAD

36e

Conveyor

El Sub Sta

CAMDEN TOWN (PH)

Bingfield Park

Adventure Playground Depot Playground

(London

Chy

2 to 22

2 to 2

Covent Garden

30.2m

Bingfield Park

El Sub Sta 14

City

Depot

LBs

Beaum Hospi als

El Sub Sta

Paget Centre Christian Mission)

30.3m

Warehouse

Sorting Office 23.6m

RAS WAY

t mon Beau als Anim ital Hosp

Wor

ont

Posts

Bingfield Park

Depot

Sta Sub

Conveyor

Anim

EGE

COLL

Sub

27.0m

El Sub Sta

2 to 22

Sta

Tank

Tow

ST PANC

24 ck Calsto

1 to

e rival

Mer

Un Can

yal Ro ary erin e leg Vet Col

TCBs

Sub 1Sta

21.4m

57 to 63

and

Theatre

17 to 31

Work

El 21

E 8

1 to 20

Cran

23.1m

ROAD ALE Helston CROWND Workin

GE LE

al Roy ary erin e leg Col

Vet

1 to

Hartl

k broo

E ST

100

E AC PL

Hall

8 to

den Cam ios Stud

ivale Merr

en 44 ool

100

RE 10

L CO YA

E ST EG

LL rake

STREET

8 to

L CO YA

Chy

Playground

30.2m

Silo

BM 27.94m

Garage

Reg

’s

Sta

Sub

Anima

(Upper)

29.3m

Posts

Silo

21.8m

Land

23.1m

24.0m

BM 24.21m

137

Shelte

1 to

17 to

Shelte

12 1 to Court er Plend

Boys School

Posts

Silo WB

Silo

86 7

to ont al Beaum Hospit ls

TCB

BM 24.21m

York House

RC Secondary

Warehouse

Tank

Depot

WB WB Silo

Warehouse

Jubilee Waterside Centre

Path

ent

(Upper)

Bingfield Park

30.3m

lle Co

St William of York

Posts

27.4m WB

Central London Area Ancient Woodland Chapter 14

Central London Area Chapter 14

TAYPORT

m 28.9

GIF

Playground

WB WB

BM 27.94m Depot

Gra

Warehouse

Boys School

29.3m

Tank

27.0m

Sorting Office

42 41

Warehouse

RD FO

100

Depot

Tank

24.0m

1 to

ing

Sta

Sub

Warehouse

RC Secondary

29.9m

Conveyor

29.1m

TAYPORT

St William of York

Tank

Conveyor

Warehouse

23.9m

York House

n l

Tow

Warehouse

29.1m

28.9m

29.9m Hoppers

29.66m

RE ST

D OR

22 24

21.7m

12 1 to Court r

Depot 29.0m

29.0m

Tank

27.4m

R WA

CEDA

Depot

Jubilee Waterside Centre 21.7m

ov Gr

Depot

27.5m

Hoppers

LEGEND

29.1m

Kings Cross Freight and Freightliner Terminal

Tank

LEGEND

Viadu

ct 29.1m

lle

TCB

Colleg

Viadu

BM 30.60m

Depot

Warehouse

Plende

den Cam ios Stud

114

Warehouse

24.1m

23.9m

g Men’s

Warehouse

113 to 127

21.5m

24.1m

89 to 111

81 to

W AY

33 to 55

113 to 127

ew’s Matth Lodge

Works

18 20 26

Lion en Gold (PH)

Community Centre

27.5m

WEAVERS WAY R WA DA

89 to 111

El Sub Sta

65 to 87

33 to 55

tre Cen

23.5m

cial

tre l Cen rcia

mer

63 El Sub Sta

WEAVERS WAY

s Ca

n Lion Golde (PH)

n l

Community Centre Allensbury Place

Kings Cross Freight and Freightliner Terminal

ge nt’

Posts

57 to 63

Com

me Com 63

Warehouse

232 to 246

R WA CEDA

Path

101 99

Wharf

Can

105

Tow ing

ion

Star

’s

22.2m

216 to 230

166

Posts

17 to 31

ent

200 to 214

184 to 198

160 to

DRIVE

232 to 246

1 to 15

Reg

216 to 230

BARKER

Path

101 99

Can

105

cras Pan

Tow ing

ion

Star Wharf

ney

168 to 182

200 to 214

184 to 198

166

Blake

1 to 15

168 to 182 160 to

BARKER DRIVE

STRE

Gr nd

22.2m

WEAVERS WAY

ney

115

Blake

WEAVERS WAY

M EW

115

GH OLT

CAMLEY

BER

CAMLEY

144 to 158

120 to 142

34 34

M EW

BE RG HO LT

Gra

en ool

Place

Allensbury

144 to 158

120 to 142

Prat Wha t rf

Pratt Wha rf

Hall

Playground

196

BM 30.60m

(PH)

YA RO

Works

196

100

Gray’s Inn Bridge

137

Beamish Gate

Warehouse

Constitution

YA RO

(PH)

32.6m

gor arf

rake

Playground

Gantry

6 4

Constitution

Land

Beamish Gate

Warehouse

Gray’s Inn Bridge

1 to

Gantry

CLO SE

gor arf

23.5m

32.6m

Tunnel

El Sub Sta

CLO

Walk

El Sub Sta Playing Court

Court

CH VIE W

Playing Court

St James Gate

masonry

St James Gate

masonry

120

Young Family Centre

SP Caulfield

CH VIE

Walk

Sloping

S Gantry

Court

BM 27.86m

Bowmore

Frampton

Sloping

S Gantry 120

Young Family Centre

1 to 12

Broadstone

Walk

Frampton

1 to 5

BM 27.86m

1 to 12

128

Abbotsbury

128

Posts

Broadstone

1 to 5

1 to 137

Lulworth

Abbotsbury

RESCENT

Lulworth

ngbank

1 to 137

54a

Caulfield

Sturminster

Posts

(PH)

Sturminster

1 to 9

Sherborne

1 to 9

WROTHAM ROAD

en Camd Arms

WROTHAM ROAD

E AC PL

Sherborne

(PH) Court

136

dento 9 Cam 1 ArmsLinton

27.7m

9 1 to n Linto Court

136

AR AG

27.7m

28.4m

AR AG

AG Cou

ngbank

Cou

St Pancras Station extension

Model and illustration of St Pancras Station extension Model and illustration of

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

The St in Pancras 2007; International and Domestic Station, CTRL site restoration and landscaping be completedstation >infrastructure, The King’s Cross-St Pancras LondonwillUnderground in 2007; upgrade, with two new ticket halls, entrances and public realm The King’s Cross-St Pancras London Underground station improvements, will be completed by 2007; upgrade, with two new ticket halls, entrances and public realm > P&O Developments have started the redevelopment of the four improvements, will be completed by 2007; blocks immediately to the of King’s Cross referred P&O Developments have started theeast redevelopment of the Station, four to as ‘Regent’s Quarter’. The development should be complete blocks immediately to the east of King’s Cross Station, referred by 2007;Quarter’. The development should be complete to as ‘Regent’s >by 2007; The restoration of St Pancras Chambers, with proposals for hotel The restoration of St Pancras proposals hotel works. and residential uses, Chambers, by 2007-8,with alongside theforCTRL and residential uses, are by 2007-8, the CTRL works. 2004; Applications likely toalongside be submitted in Spring Applications are likely to be submitted in Spring 2004;

The development is currently referred to as ‘King's Cross Central’ and it is likely to take place over the period 2007-2018. Initial applications are expected in early 2004;

Figure 3: An aerial view of the illustrative KXC masterplan.

12 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

2 EXISTING CONDITION

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

BACKGROUND

This submission for R5 North comprises the North, West and East Blocks of Plot R5. The North Block ranges from 8 to 16 storeys in height; the West Block is 8 storeys; and the East Block is 2 storeys (all including ground floors). When complete, the four buildings making up R5 North and R5 South will be linked at ground floor level to create a complete urban block footprint. The accommodation within R5 North comprises: • 63 GNSR residential apartments, including 21 larger three bed units, at levels 1 to 7 of the North Block; • 40 Shared Ownership residential apartments at levels 8 to 15 of the North Block; • 40 Extra Care residential apartments with associated communal facilities at levels 1 to 7 of the West Block; • 1 Open Market apartment at level 1 of the East Block; • 5 Commercial units at ground floor (capable of sub-division) totalling 675sqm and providing for a variety of use classes • Associated amenity, plant, refuse and cycle storage

CUB

ITT

PAR

CUB

ITT

PAS

SAG

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

EAST LANE GARDEN

ADS 5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

DESIGN SUMMARY

Site

Lower: Site plan for Kings Cross R5 by Maccreanor Lavington

Kings Cross R5

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Plot R5 is located in Development Zone R, which sits on the northeastern edge of the broader KXC masterplan. R5 North will form an interface with the existing buildings on York Way and mark an important entry point into the site, with the masterplan’s primary green open space and north-south route (Cubitt Park) running along the western side of the West and North Blocks. R5 North is bound by very different environments on its four sides: • York Way, forming the northern boundary to the site, is an existing busy vehicular route • Cubitt Park and North Square: To the west of Plot R5, a succession of routes and spaces are proposed from north to south, namely, North Square, Cubitt Passage and Cubitt Park • East Street, forming the eastern edge to Plot R5, will be a new street within the KXC site. When complete, it will be a no through road for vehicles (with the exception of emergency vehicles), terminating just beyond R5 South where it meets the Zone R Garden.

Constructions Completed 2 no. disabled parking bays for residents and visitors

On-going Constructions

Figure 41: Plan showing temporary location of visitor parking bays to the West Block and the disabled bays along York Way

Fenman House

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Massing The plot has set out its own aims whilst designing the blocks Public Realm: Maintaining a clear hierarchy yet connections to the major streets and public spaces surrounding zone R

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Built Form, Character and Identity: A relationship with the townscape that is not only visual - the height and form of the buildings - as well as functional - the nonobstruction of daylight to not only the apartments but also the streets Residential Environment: Creating communal spaces that are liveable for the residents among the blocks themselves. Internally, the overall massing accommodates the provision of outdoor spaces from cut-outs, compensating such with the heightened towers that reach the allowed maximum heights, and creating openings towards the South so natural daylight could reach the courtyard.

ADS 5

1.3

Massing Massing and Townscape and Townscape

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Scheme Scheme Description Description

The Outline The Permission Planningand Permission associated associated Plans Parameter Plans 16 storey tower 16 storey is positioned tower ison positioned North onBlock, the witha pair aBlock, further with a further The size of Helping to create a continuous strong facade alongPlanning the Outline Taller elementsand areParameter carefully positioned to look past each The massing of the the North Block of R5 North forms on York perimeter of the R-Zone. other and the other local tall buildings. Way withelement R4, the location the tallon element a described indescribed Section 1.1inarticulate Section 1.1 the articulate concept of thea concept consistent of aand consistent courtyard to 16 and storey tower 16 storey element tower envisaged on envisaged theofSouth Block the setting South whenupBlock this when this regular rhythm of tall elements along York Way. legible public legible face to public the edge face of to the Development edge of the Development Zones, with Zones, a with a is brought forward is brought in due forward course. in due Thecourse. tall element The tall on the element Northon the for North housing. Figure 8: Diagrams showing how the R5 massing works with the local massing and townscape theless rigid less rigidof approach internal approach to each internal Zone.toThe each design Zone.for The R5design North for R5Block Northis positioned corners, ope Block isoff-centre positionedtowards off-centre the towards north-eastern the north-eastern corner, corner, KXC masterplan, R5 is shown front centre.

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

respects these respects parameters these along parameters its twoalong edges itsfacing two edges York Way facing York Way places which which it centrally places between it centrally S5 between (which isS5 permitted (which isuppermitted to family up to of thr and Cubitt Park, and Cubitt while Park, at thewhile sameattime the reacting same time to the reacting likelyto the alikely a maximum a height maximum of 84m height AOD),ofand 84mthe AOD), 16 storey and the element 16 storey of R4 element(all of linked R4 geometry and geometry massingand of its massing neighbours, of its neighbours, in particularinBuildings particular Buildings (74m AOD). This (74msets AOD). up This a cluster sets of uptall a cluster buildings of tall along buildings York Way along York program. Way R2, R4 (both R2, approved), R4 (bothR3 approved), and S5. R3 and S5. and providesand theprovides North Block the tower North with Blocka tower bright,with southerly a bright, aspect southerly aspect A smaller 2 overlooking overlooking the R5 courtyard. the R5 courtyard. The maximum The allowable maximum height allowable of development height of development for Plot R5 is for set Plot out R5 is set out courtyard, in Parameterin Plan Parameter KXC014.Plan This KXC014. plan permits This plan a maximum permits height a maximum of height of The shoulder The level shoulder of 12 storeys level ofestablished 12 storeys established by R2 and R4 bysteps R2 and R4asteps deliberate 78.5m AOD in78.5m the north AOD of inthe theR5 north site,ofreducing the R5 site, to 77.0m reducing AODtoin77.0m the AODdown in theto 8 storeys down to on8the storeys Northonand theWest North Blocks and West of R5,Blocks offering of R5, offering street. south. The proposed south. The heights proposed for R5 heights Northfor areR5 below North these are below levels thesealevels more modest a more but urban modestscale but urban to Cubitt scale Park. to Cubitt The heights Park. The on R5 heights on R5 A colonnade with the tallest with element, the tallest the element, 16 storeythe North 16 storey Block North tower, Block at 77.9m tower, at North 77.9m were North carefully were considered carefully in considered order thatinthe order tall that elements the tall elements between the AOD and theAOD West and Block theat West 54.1m Block AOD. at 54.1m AOD. are perceived are as perceived “towers” as and“towers” the lower and elements the loweraselements “urban as “urban floor is acti blocks”, withblocks”, the tower with having the tower morehaving of an object more character of an object and character the and the The emerging The buildings emerging within buildings Development within Development Zone R haveZone tended R have tended units and a shoulders being shoulders part ofbeing a perimeter part of3)block aTowers perimeter context. block context. R5 Footprint is extruded to a 30m to incorporate 1) East facade 2) Cuts introduced to allow introduced to relate to to a incorporate variety of forms, a variety typically of forms, with typically a lowerwith shoulder a lower shoulder an urban bl A courtyard formed by a a pair on York cut away to allow light into additional light into the courtyard and surrounding building heights and The massing ofdatum. the North Block-of R5 forms and level of taller a series elements of taller positioned elementson positioned each building. on each With the location With for the the location towerfor element the tower on long R5 element North on identified, R5 North the identified, façade: the An ‘o perimeter block 16m - does not level theand courtyard and adjacent reducebuilding. overlooking. facilitate views. Way with R4, the location of of the tall element setting upaa series allow sufficient light into the central R4 plot. Thissize is exemplified This is is by exemplified the approved the Building approved R4 Building and thecreate R4 current public spac remaining volume remaining was volume developed wastodeveloped optimise indoor to optimise and outdoor indoor and outdoor of Plot TheR5 size of such Plot that R5 by itisrequires such thata itcut requires out to acurrent cutand out a the to create a storey is positioned tower is onpositioned the North on Block, the North with aBlock, further with a The further regular rhythm of tall elements along York Way. space. proposals forone proposals R5side, North. for R5 taller North. elements The taller areelements carefully are placed carefully into the bloc spaces spaces foruse. residential use. courtyard to courtyard leaving to The one a side, reasonable leaving adepth reasonable ‘C’ shape depth block ‘C’ shapeplaced block for residential element storey tower envisaged element onenvisaged the South on Block the when Souththis Block when this Figure 9: The stages of design development for R5 Building as a whole. to respect proximity, to maximize proximity, maximize and aspect reinforce and key reinforce views key views uses are de housing. Cuts forrespect housing. are made Cuts through areaspect made the remaining through the ‘C’remaining shape at the ‘C’ shape at the ard brought in due forward course. in due The course. tall element Theon tallthe element North on thefor North and public spaces and public at ground spaces level. atthe ground In thesunlight level. casetoof In R5 thedefining North, case ofthe R5 North, thea corners, opening corners, up the opening courtyard up to more courtyard more and sunlight aand defining ned ck is off-centre positioned towards off-centre the north-eastern towards the north-eastern corner, corner, family family majorofbuildings; three major thebuildings; North, South the and North, West South Blocks and West Blocks ich centrally placesbetween it centrally S5 (which between is S5 permitted (which up is permitted to up toof three (alloflinked (all linked floor), at ground each containing floor), each a different containing part a different of R5’s part of R5’s maximum ght of 84mheight AOD),of and 84m theAOD), 16 storey and the element 16 storey of R4element R4 at ground program. program. m sets AOD). up aThis cluster setsofuptall a cluster buildings of tall along buildings York Way along York Way edNorth provides Block thetower Northwith Block a bright, tower with southerly a bright, aspect southerly aspect A smaller 2 storey A smaller East 2Block storey is East placed Block on the is placed eastern onside the of eastern the side of the erlooking R5 courtyard. the R5 courtyard. courtyard, activating courtyard, theactivating frontage the to East frontage Streettoand Eastproviding Street and providing a steps deliberate a contrast deliberate in scale contrast within in scale the smaller within space the smaller of thisspace of this vel e shoulder of 12 storeys level of established 12 storeysby established R2 and R4by steps R2 and R4 wn ys on to 8 the storeys North on and the West North Blocks and of West R5,Blocks offering of R5, offering street. street. more but urban modest scale butto urban Cubitt scale Park. toThe Cubitt heights Park.on The R5heights on R5 A colonnade isAwrapped colonnade internally is wrapped around internally the courtyard around the to mediate courtyard to mediate efully rth were considered carefullyinconsidered order that in theorder tall elements that the tall elements between the human between and the building human scales. and building Streetscales. frontage Street at ground frontage at ground easperceived “towers” and as “towers” the lower andelements the lower as elements “urban as “urban floor is activated floorall is around activated theallblock around by the entrances, block by commercial entrances, commercial cks”, towerwith having the tower more of having an object morecharacter of an object andcharacter the and the units and a special units and façade a special treatment. façade The treatment. identity of The R5identity North as of R5 North as oulders part of being a perimeter part ofblock a perimeter context.block context. an urban block an is urban articulated block isbyarticulated the use of by twothe different use of two types different of types of façade: façade: face’ An wrapping ‘outside face’ around wrapping the block around addressing the block alladdressing all nthfor thethe location tower element for the tower on R5element North identified, on R5 North theidentified, the An ‘outside o allow 3) Towers - introduced to relate4)toThe East Block 4) The - added East Block to provide - added to provide 5) Courtyard Garden 5) Courtyard - a canopy Garden - a canopy 6) Street frontage 6) Street - animates frontage the- animates the public spaces, public and aspaces, lighter type and aoflighter façadetype to all ofelevations façade to all facing elevations facing me maining was developed volume was to developed optimise indoor to optimise and outdoor indoor and outdoor he courtyard and surrounding building heights and a deliberate contrast a deliberate in scale contrast and ain scale and a introduces a human introduces scalea to human the scale to the plot’s plinth. plot’s plinth. aces entialfor use. residential use. into the block. into This the treatment block. This andtreatment the arrangement and the arrangement of ground floor of ground floor facilitate long views. human moment. human moment. space. space. uses are described uses are in more described detailinlater more in detail this section. later in this section.

ription

n - a canopy scale to the

Floorplan and Configuration of Uses As stated previously, the various residential tenures are distributed The proposals for R5 North provide a total of 14,237sqm (GEA, across the three blocks, with GNSR and Shared Ownership being excluding plant, refuse and infrastructure elements as per Table located in the North Block between 1st to 7th floors and 8th to 15th 1 and Annex B of the Outline Planning Permission) of mainly floors, respectively. The Extra Care facility is accommodated at residential accommodation. Overall, 144 units are proposed, of 1st to 7th floor level of the West Block, whilst a single Open Market which 21 are family sized 3 bedroomed units. As stated above, unit occupies the 1st floor of the East Block. The arrangement of the blocks also provide 5 commercial units at street level as these tenures is illustrated in Figure 12 below and is described well as extensive communal areas, amenity space and servicing infacades further detail in relation to the building entrances, cores and facilities, as shown in Figure 10. describes ‘Internal’ and 7)‘External’ ‘Internal’ and ‘External’ facades 6) Street frontage 6) Street - animates frontage the - animates the The following7)section amenity spaces in the following pages. the configuration of these uses, their relationship to each other plot’s plinth. plot’s plinth. and the public ream.

Site boundary

King’s Cross Central King’s Cross UrbanCentral Design Urban ReportDesign R5 North Report 15 R5 North 15

Listed buildings Commercial unit Residential entrance Communal courtyard with openings to street Commercial street frontage Commercial unit with street frontage Residential entrance

Brown roof

Shared Ownership Tenure

Communal terrace

tion of entrances for the various Private terrace Figure 12: Diagrams indicating the distribution of tenures and amenity spaces throughout R5 North

ute

Cubitt Park Residential entrance Commercial unit Commercial street frontage Major vehicular route

Social Rent Tenure

Green roof Extra Care Tenure

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Programme

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

The facades of the development are designed as a continuous streetscape facing the major traffic - two main streets North and East of the property, and becoming the backdrop of the green space in the West. The proposals for R5 North provide a total of 14,237sqm of mainly residential accommodation. Overall, 144 units are proposed, of which 21 are family sized 3 bedroomed units.

1.3 Scheme Description

The various residential tenures are distributed across the three blocks, with GNSR and Shared Ownership being located in the North Block between 1st to 7th floors and 8th to 15th floors, respectively. The Extra Care facility is accommodated at 1st to Courtyard 7th floor level of the West A central courtyard of approximately 560sqm ope Block, whilst a single Open main residential entrances to the North and We Market unit occupies the courtyard will provide private amenity space fo 1st floor ofisthe East Block. although it anticipated that the GNSR tenants are

primary users due to the availability of other am

Terraces are located onCare residents. This Shared Ownership and Extra the heart the proposals, being surrounding on the 1st offloor and 8th component blocksaccessible of R5, and is intended be the floor, providing residents can meet and outdoor spaces - interact the in a safe, peacef The space will also specifically provide for ‘unde courtyard flanked by the play. building blocks are situated Allprovide blocks will overlook the space, although additio to communal living be all created by the location of the cycle stores at gro for the residents as well North Block and theentrance. openings in the eastern colon as better sunlight

provide glimpses out onto East Street (and vice ver

Figure 16: Illustrative sketch of one of the 1st floor roof terraces

The design of the courtyard will include a colon perimeter providing a unifying element and hum larger residential blocks. The colonnade will b structure; the thin leading edges and cross-m colonnade construction contrasting with the heavy surrounding buildings. The underside of the colonn

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Area schedule with gross internal floor area of each floor.

Residential (including circulation spaces)

Alternative Uses

Offices

Utility Elements

Total

Ground

223

599

746

1644

1493

1413

421

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Floor

14,983

20 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

DRAWINGS

Ground Floor

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

First Floor

2nd - 7th Floors

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

8th - 15th Floors

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 24

“Kings Cross R5 North” will be the focus of this research and exploration.

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

26 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Flats Layout of rooms at different types of unit remain similar and typical - bathrooms for the elderly homes are accessible and hence occupy a larger area.

All rooms are provided with full-height bay windows whilst balconies are provided only to rooms facing inwards and Southwards to the courtyard.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

In the North Block over 67 of the 103 units are dual aspect, together with the position of the core it was aimed to maximise apartments between North and West block overlooking each other. Usable balconies have a minimum area of 4.7 sqm, provided to 35 units.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 30

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

MATERIAL STUDIES The two main specific materials that Kings Cross R5 comprises of are concrete and bricks - concrete solely for the load-bearing structure and brick as the enveloping material. We should understand these two materials in all perspectives before suggesting any substituting proposal that would produce any change.

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

CONCRETE Composition Raw materials for concrete are available cheaply and in abundance for most places around the globe, hence used so widely and extensively disregarding geographical distinctions. Concrete is formed by mixing the aggregates with water and the binding agent that is cement, the process known as hydration.

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Viable aggregate can include gravel, crushed stone, sand, slag or geosynthetic aggregates - this makes up 60-80% of the the concrete mix. Cement on the other hand is a chemical combination of calcium, silicon, alluminium, iron and etc.

Sand and gravel quarry, both material, one coarse and one fine suit different types of concrete mix.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Strength Concrete is popular not just because of available material compositions, but also ts performance. It is plastic and malleable when newly mixed - giving possibility to create fluid forms that any possible formwork can be created - and it is strong and durable when hardened. The other most noteable quality it has is sharing the same thermal expansion properties with steel, which makes reinforced concrete a far stronger and flexible material than on its own - handling both compression and tension forces well as one unified, monolithic material that is joined by pouring.

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 33

Meiso no Mori Funeral Hall, Toyo Ito, 2009, utilises reinforced concrete’s bespoke qualities to create a form that is complicated to produce and assemble otherwise.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Embodied Carbon: Production and Transportation

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

In the overall production of concrete, the making of cement itself is energy intensive and therefore contribute heavily to its carbon footprint. To manufacture portland cement, the most common type of cement, raw material principally of limestone, clay, slate and others are quarried and crushed, then put into a cement kiln. The material is heated at 2, 700 degrees Fahrenheit, and the amount fuel that the burning would take forms the major carbon footprint.The mixing of aggregates, cement and water can take place off-site or on-site; whilst transportation of concrete can account for carbon footprint, over 95% of UK’s concrete is produced within UK, with an average 12 km delivery distance from concrete mixing to construction site.

Possible Reduction in Carbon Emission One argument to the high carbon factor of concrete calls for accounting its durability - that it being low-maintenance and long-lasting means reduction in overall production of new material to replace them. Regarding fuel consumption to fire them, concrete industries suggests that the use of biofuel or renewable energy could reduce its carbon footprint; whilst adding Ground Granulated Blast-furnace Slag or fly ash could make up to 15-30% of the cement, reducing abiut 35% of carbon emission - that is yet confined by weight, cost and availability, making these substitution still uncommon to implement with few examples.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Cement industries: Material grinding and burning sites in UK

Precast floor element made of slag / fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, cementfree, in Queensland’s University GCI Building, 2013

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

BRICK Composition

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Bricks are often clay-based, being a type of fine-grained natural soil, mixed with water to form wet clay. The mixture then is pressed into a mould - therefore enabling unique though most of the time regular, shapes - sent to the kiln to burn, in order for them to dry and harden. Bricks could be categorised into facing bricks or engineering bricks. The former used mainly for external aesthetics, being weather resistant, they could be mouled differently to achieve certain textures; the latter have a higher compressive strength and is used structurally such as groundworks, manholes and retaining walls.

Facing bricks: Extruded and wirecut with machines

Facing bricks: Soft mud bricks with hand-made processes

Engineering bricks: Clay-based or mixed with other materials

Strength

Bricks are formed with clay - the most abundant material possibly on Earth. They are often associated with vernaculars because of how primitive it could be made with hands in the lack of machines. A local circular economy could be one upside to using bricks most sustainably. Bricks have a high compressive strength, they were used as structural load-bearing walls before the popularity of concrete that deferred them into mainly an enveloping material.They are durable under harsh weather carrying rainwater stains and dirts. Chosen as an enveloping material, they often aim to “echo” a certain history in a literal sense; but practically the mortar joined brick envelope also reduces the need for complex secondary fixtures and hence simplifying the process.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 37

Tate Modern, Adaptation of the Turbine Hall and the new extension: Bricks are used almost reminiscently to evoke historical reference, only as a cladding material - hinted by the punctured joints

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Embodied Carbon: Production and Transportation

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

The main carbon footprint that clay bricks posess lie within their production process. The brick kilns to burn the wet clay usually involve the use of fossil fuels, or other forms of energy - this is particularly true when producing engineering bricks that have to undergo excessive heat to have a stronger compressive strength. Specially moulded bricks at specific conenctions or angles means a brand new formwork is needed; or rather bricks would have to be cut and hence becoming unnecessary waste. Below: The Interlock: bespoke facade of twisting bricks compromising 5000 special bricks of 44 different types

Despite being a common material, brick demands in UK are particulalrly high that lcoal sourcing and production cannot fulfill - in 2017 of the 2.4 billion bricks 20% have to be imported, adding to embodied carbon in transportation.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Possible Reduction in Carbon Emission Bricks in ancient times were sun-dried to harden and strengthen, now replaced by machinery burning to accelerate the process - the efficiency of such is maximised by a monitoring system that effectively dry the bricks minimising excessive heat.

Newport Street Gallery: 6000 special bricks were handmade or standard machine made; and blended with vast variety of bricks to match the existing building

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Shapes of tunnel kilns were made more efficient; natural gas to fuel the firing; and modes of retrieving waste heat were investigated to reduce the carbon footprint of the burning process. Later material such as the use of sand lime bricks could also reduce the amount of mortar needed to form joints. Local brick material sourcing should also be conducted to minimise transport especially viable in small scale productions.

40 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.4 General 4: Adjacent Development and Townscape General 7: Reinforcement of Street Hierarchy

and/or scale of façade elements.

In contrast to the buildings with a longer history in the surrounding neighbourhood General Guideline 7: - bricks were deployed structurally in the external wall; whereas the King Cross R5 mobilises the bricks onlydetailed as a cladding layer, along otherreinforces “delicate”the materials How the design of buildings street including the glazed for ceramic panels and the concrete hierarchy, through, example, location of precast entrances. ledges which adorn the building.

2.10

Entrances are centrally located within both the West an Blocks, their treatment contrasting with the shopfronts w either side to highlight their presence in the street scen strong, colourful residential entrance to the North Blo positively address the street by creating a front door on Way and alongside ground floor commercial uses, will e the diversity of uses along this route. As a result, York W benefit from 24 hour activity and begin to feel like a ‘mai rather than simply a traffic artery. Similarly, the entranc West Block on Cubitt Park will establish this space as an ‘a alongside other emerging buildings which will overlook t

Facade Detailing

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

General Guideline 4: refers back to the historical The materials of the facade buildings of medium sized workshops and warehouses in the How the detailed design of the building responds to adjacent vicinity and their choices are mainly aesthetic, besides the development and its townscape qualities, through, for weathering properties of bricks.Lighter bricks in the inward example, setbacks, choice of materials, and arrangement facing facade supposedly reflect more light into the courtyard.

ADS 5

Envelope Detail

The three proposed blocks are designed to form a ‘family similar approach to order and scale, but with varied deta those facades which present themselves onto the public and those which face into the communal spaces. In this treatment of the facades is a direct reflection of the hi of spaces onto which they face. This is most pronounced ‘internal’ facades which are much simpler in articulation of materials than those facing the public realm, building traditional architectural language of buildings and blocks Clarity and Simplicity fronts and backs. Further detail on the treatment of these The has been to strive for a clarity and simpli is setintention out in Section 1.3 and our response to Design Guid planning the building which reflects itself in a rati in Section of 2.10 based facade. Space planning, appearance, structure, There are also subtleties in the ‘external’ facade design b and performance become intrinsically linked with the the different public spaces. For example, the York Way there is an honest and inherent quality and legibility to th is the most rigid and ordered of the facades, whilst the The bays are clearly defined through the regularly spac to Cubitt Park is more informal in its ordering with vary and horizontal projections. The typical details are k widths and window sizes reflecting the internal progra and crisp, whilst providing depth to the facades. For ex communal and private spaces. typical window is deep set from the line of the brickwo Special treatments areare employed element jambs offacade the window frame detailed on in key aluminium building mark out a change form the or an important ord jun thinnest to possible profile. It isinfrom considered the public realm. For example, on the north facade of th proportioning of elements, and the texture and pattern o Block, verticality of theistower element is highlight that thethe building’s richness derived. deviation from the regular order through the application of Repetition and below Difference tone of ceramic the windows and through the omi the horizontal pre-cast concrete spandrel at every other le The facades of each block are carefully ordered, wi consideration given to those facing onto the commu (‘internal facades’) and those looking out over the pu (‘external facades’). The composition of elements and arc language is deliberately repetitive but with subtle va detailing and materiality to reflect the orientation an functions of the buildings.

General 12: Quality and Attention to Detail General Guideline 12:

In a residential building of this scale and complexity, certain governing principles were established to help maintain the original design aspirations and to contribute to the realisation of a coherent group of buildings. The same rationale has been applied to each of the blocks making up R5 North, and the emerging scheme for R5 South, with both being considered side by side as the design has progressed. The principles that have informed the proposed design and choice of material detailing is set out below alongside an explanation of their application. Further details can also be found in our responses to General Guidelines 1, 2 and 7 in Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4, respectively. Figure 55 (left and above): Illustrative view of R5 North from East Street showing the contrasting treatments of the external and internal facades and example (above) of typical Clerkenwell warehouse building

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

How the detailed design of the building maintains quality and attention to function and detail on all elevations.

‘External’ Facades

The external facades are richly detailed, rigorously or highly articulated brick facades. They are articulated regular rhythm of vertical brick piers projecting from t with a series of horizontal pre-cast concrete spandrels lines of the floors that project forward in line with the pie each bay created by these features, further articulation i by a profiled glazed ceramic panel above and below eac that provides a level of detailing that can be appreciat moves closer to the building. These panels also serve a purpose by concealing the ventilation systems into the fl

The ground floor facade is unified through the use of finel specially designed, pre-cast concrete elements which projecting frame around each bay to provide emphasis to and shopfront. The profile of this frame is carefully co

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

ANALYSIS

STRUCTURE The building structure is entirely composed of a concrete frame that would be cladded with bricks as an outermost weathering layer. The choice of the mode of construction and structural materials have not been mentioned or discussed in the report - but mostly concern labour and material costs, as well as time of construction.

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

The mid-rise typology that the building is maintained at 15 storeys reduces the urge of employing a steel frame construction that is applied more widely at higher rise buildings with its lower dead load.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Loadbearing

- Stud walls in between concrete piers - Pre-installed concrete ledges to carry bricks

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

The outward facing facade is cladded with a darker colour of bricks, whilst surfaces built up of metal C-sections provide the interfaces for brick claddings where there are no concrete structures. Bricks are fixed by extensions from the edge of the slabs, as well as the precast ledge every two floors.

Ceramic spandrel panels are installed which also covers the insulation layer.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

The inward facing facade is installed with full height openable windows, as insulation is installed behind the brick claddings that were extended from the edge of the slab. The wall buildup consists of the outermost layer of brick, behind such is a cavity followed by insulation touching the external face of the structure.

Ventilation ducts go through the ceilings and release through the outlet at the edge of the envelopes behind the bricks.

46 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

PLANS

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

1:200 GF - 7F Floor Plan - Existing Conditions

48 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

1:200 8F - 15F Floor Plan - Existing Conditions

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

SECTION DETAILS

1 Dark facing bricks 2 Precast concrete ledge

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

3 Glazed ceramic panel 4 Brick parapet 5 EPS (assumed) Insulation 6 235 mm Concrete Slab 7 Plasterboard 8 Plywood Flooring 9 70 mm EPS Insulation

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

52 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

EMBODIED CARBON ANALYSIS MATERIAL

ELEMENT

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E/M3

Aluminium Sheet (Powder Coated)

Envelope

174.0

3,356,634

Galvanised Steel

Fixings

1.6

27,011

Concrete Blocks

Partitions

2275.0

737,100

Reinforced Concrete

Superstructure 3092.4

2,065,456

Clay Bricks

Envelope

226.7

124,850

EPS Insulation

Envelope

415.0

40,255

Flat Glass

Envelope

49.4

178,125

Plasterboard

Fit Out

381.0

99,822

Vapour Barrier

Envelope

11.1

918.81

Cermic Tiles

Envelope

15.4

16,170

TOTAL

7,368,237

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

COST ANALYSIS

ELEMENT

AMOUNT

COST

Clay Bricks

Envelope

3,270 m2

£ 196,200

Concrete Floors

Superstructure

8,750 m2

£ 1,137,500

Concrete Walls

Superstructure

3,302 m2

£ 660,400

Concrete Blocks

Partitions

5,000 m2

£ 375,000

Galvanised Steel

Fixings

2 m3

£ 4,000

Plasterboard

Fit Out

19,050 m2

£ 381,000

Reynaers Windows and Glazing

Envelope

1333 m2

£ 333,125

EPS Insulation

Envelope

5,190 m2

£ 51,900

TOTAL (AS CALCULATED) TOTAL COST OF TOTAL SCHEME (ONLINE) TOTAL COST OF SELECTED AREA (ONLINE)

£ 3,406,625 £ 26,000,000 £ 18,117,315

PERCENTAGE OF PRICE THAT WILL CHANGE

18.8 %

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

MATERIAL

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

OPERATIONAL CARBON

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

OVERVIEW

Passive Design

- Thermal performance of the envelope - Natural lighting

Internal Building Systems

- Heat Interface Unit - Mechanical ventilation - Intelligent lighting system - Sanitary ware and appliances - Building Management System

Landscape

- Sustainable drainage system - Ecology - Material recycling - Excavation and re-use of top soil

Wider Site Systems

- Low-carbon district energy system - Site-wide drainage infrastructure

Construction

- CO2 Monitor, report and set targets for

• • •

materials productions off-site; transportation to site; and construction on site

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

KINGS CROSS CE ENTRAL R5 NOR RTH ENVIRON NMENTAL SU USTAINABILIT TY PLAN

PASSIVE C DESIGN Colour:

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Thermal:

Neutral 0.7 (min n)

V Visible light transmission t n (LT Factor) :

The external envelope can significantly reduce energy demand - the need to address thermal comfort issues innsmittance Summer whilst(G minimising the use of mechanical cooling. T Thermal tran G-Value): 0.40 (max) The building fabric performance will exceed the requirements of Part L of the

lding constr ruction proce ess shall inccorporate ro obust details s as de The buiRegulations Building 2010. ment (BRE) in order to e ensure building air tightness for Researcch Establishm The appli insulation the envelope the building is of high performance, an ed of pressure e of of50pa orr less. These ant imp e figuresmainly are ofatheir significa build-up in terms of the use of insulation and air-tightness. 3 2 Fig 2: Orien ntation of R5 North h overlaid on a dia agram showing thee sun paths uirement of 1 10 m /hr/m at a an applied d pressu Regulation Part L minimum requ ding energy consumption n by improving the air tig ghtness in reducing the build 3.1.3 Build ding Envelope, specific cation and th hermal perfo ormance Lighting:w will reduce the e energy required to heatt the spaces. result, ernal envelope can act as a an importtant climatic modifier. A well-designeed external envelope The exte Daylight factorred that the filtration oftosunlight apartments, that isin summer, can sign nificantly duceencourages energy demand. Th ermal comforrt issues he need addressinto the while miinimising e use ofform mec chanical oling, has opening ha ad a strong influence the uppon the design of R5 assisted by thethe building with thecoo courtyard that exposes blocks. North. Pass sive solar de esign 3.1.4

p in terms off the specifie ed glazing sttandard and insulation le evels will The building fabric performance mportant visionments of of na atural htingRegu islations an i2010 onsideration The prov tthe requirem Partt L ofdayligh the Bu uilding w with low U-va alues in will pass . Materialsco exceed be speci ified to ensur re that infiltra ation rates al lso exceed th he requireme ents of Part L L. design tteam have made a conscious effo ort to optimise daylight penetr

commen t osed the high den nsity environm the(2010 co0)nstraints imp posed b Elemen nt nsurate with Propo constru uction Bu uilding ment, Regu ulation 2 2 U ent Valu ueplots (W/m K) Valueation (W/m K)of the different adjoining g developme and d the Uorienta d bloc cks of R KXC sch heme. Co ommercial Residentia ial Externa al Wall

0.26

0.3 35

0.30

Roof 0.18 0.2 25 0.20 day ates the reco ommended d dwelling ylight factors from th Table 2 below indica Expose ed floor 0.22 0.2 25 0.25 and Sunlig to Good P ractice 1”, which is also re Daylight Glazing g 1.8ht:(including ( A Guide w window 2.2 2 2.0 1991 frame) ) able Homes – Technical guide g 2008” Sustaina Table 1: C Comparison of proposed p and cu urrent Building R Regulation U-Va alues

Area

R Recommend ded Dayligh ht Factor (DF F)

Bedroo om

1 1%

olar gains in nto the aparrtments but maintain a high level of o natural In orderr to reduce unwanted so Kitchen 2 high 2% h perform mance double glazing will be used oon all facades. The lighting andn energy efficiency, w will R have the following1.5% glazing Living Room 1characteristics :

JANUARY Y 2011/DM/0511 1131 ENVIROM MENTAL SUSTA AINABILITY PLA AN

Pag ge 8 of 41

Table 2: S Summary of dwe elling recommen nded daylight faactor from Code for sustainable homes

The perfformance of the key habitable spacess within the apartments a have h be year usin ng a dynamiic modelling software pa ckage to ens sure that, as s extern winter to o summer, the quality of daylight w within the spa aces remains consi calculate ed daylighting levels com mply with the e standards in the BRE guidance

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Glazing

Reynaers aluminium window systems were used. These solutions address the challenges and optimised thermal ratings. They meet the latest insulation requirements (at the time of design), being a thermally improved, three chamber energy-efficient system. The thermal breaks - sandwiched between each frame’s interior and exterior - is made from polyamide which prevents heat loss through the frame. This was chosen in order to match Camden Council’s goal to enhance and improve standards of affordable living for King’s Cross residents.

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Thermal insulation properties for King’s Cross R5 were considered to be a “crucial considetation”. All residences connect to the district heating network for high insulation and ventilation, and the window systems installed helped enhance this.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

INTERNAL BUILDING SYSTEMS Heat Interface Unit:

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Retrieving heat energy as well as utilsing the energy through a control system - to provide for hot water and heating to apartments. Mechanical Ventilation: Integrated with heat recovery - preheating the incoming air with exhaust air that is warm; an automatic system that responses to internal humidity - a slim duct system would direct air indoors from the ceiling, outwards to the grilles in the facade. Lighting: Energy efficient lighting - low energy, high efficiency compact fluorescent light fittings; lighting control system with intelligent dimming that would respond to lighting necessity. Sanitary ware and appliances: Hardwares that utilises water usage in households; irrigation water to be utilised.

Building management system (BMS): Automatic control system and monitoring operation that records and controls the building services to operate at maximum efficiency.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

1.6

Environmental Performance and Eco 1.6

The proposals cases exceedi the KXC Outlin A combination services and a that will return Building Regu The proposals cases exceedi In developing the KXC Outlin on the minimu A combination Permission to services and a equivalent to that will return (CfSH), or a ‘ Building Regu assessment ha which shows In developing 4 As onrating. the minimu apartments an Permission to pre-assessmen equivalent to resulting (CfSH), orinaa ‘p assessment ha Outlined below which shows part of the R5 4 rating. As •apartments High build an u-values th pre-assessmen resulting in a p • Passive so shading (e Outlined below partofofthe thebuild R5

Environmental Performance and Eco LANSCAPE Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS):

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Green and brown roof as well as the internal courtyard would attenuate slightly to the peak surface runoff by detaining rainfall through retention and infiltration and by encouraging evapotranspiration in warmer days. Ecology: Provision of brown/ green roof accommodates wildlife habitats that are undisturbed by the residents. Recycled materials: The brown roof uses crushed masonry and spoil that is planted with wild grasses that slightly mobilises upcycling.

•

Connectio High build hot waterth a u-values

•

High speci Passive so shading (e Installation of the build to monitor Connectio High efficie hot water a integral he ventilation High speci

• • •

Top soil:

•

Possibility to re-employ the excavated soil that could be used as landscaping material from the construction site. Figure 45: Stony grassland roof (top) and semi intensive living roof (bottom).

•

Installation to monitor

•

High efficie integral he ventilation

Figure 45: Stony grassland roof (top) and semi intensive living roof (bottom).

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

CARBON COPIES

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 64

3.0 CARBON COPIES

INTRODUCTION

Following the analysis of the original structure, sustainability and cost analysis of the original structure, this report then begins to look at alternative structrual scenarios and their respecture wall build-ups to analyse the best carbon-copy lower carbon and lower cost response. Carbon Copy 1.

CLT Interior Structure with a Self Standing Stone Facade

Carbon Copy 2.

CLT Interior Structure with a Stone Veneer Facade

Carbon Copy 3.

Loadbearing Stone Structure

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

3.0 CARBON COPIES

MATERIAL STUDIES TIMBER

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Sustainable timber is timber that has been harvested responsibly from well-managed forests that are continuously replenished and ensure that there is no damage to the surrounding environment. Trees also absorb carbon very rapidly while they are growing and absorb less as they age, so sustainably managed forests where timber is harvested and replaced can potentially be more of an effective carbon store than an undisturbed forest. Morevoer, timber is durable, and can be easily maintained, has warm aesthetic properties, is highly versatile, quick and simple to build with, great in earthquakes, is a good insulator, non-toxic and is a humidity regulator. The UK’s two main certification schemes – the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) – assure that all wood and wood-based products originate from sustainable sources. Therefore, as much as 90 per cent of timber used in the UK is certified at present.

FIRE REGULATIONS In a fire, the outer layer of mass timber will char in a predictable way that effectively self-extinguishes and shields the interior, allowing it to retain structural integrity for several hours in an intense fire – a big contrast with steel. However, the UK government has released details of its ban on combustible building materials in the wake of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, revealing that it will limit the use of cross-laminated timber in construction.

The legislation states that no combustible materials will be permitted on the external walls of any new buildings taller than 18 metres. In the legislation, it specified timber as one of these materials.

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

CLT PANELS Murray Grove is built in 2009, with the superstructure entirely in mass timber. The CLT panels for external and internal walls, floor slabs and shafts are all pre-fabricated with solid timber.

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Termed as “honeycomb” structure, lateral forces are taken by shear walls that are arranged perpendicularly.

CLT panels are finished by plasterboards in complaince with fire regulations and also servicing needs

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Structural walls include the entire periphery of the plan and most of the walls containing the service core in the middle

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Murray Grove was the first to suggest building alternatively with CLT, where residential layouts are often regular and demand partitions already. Prefabricated wall panels can easily accommodate the spaces required whilst saving time on site with the assembly of dry elements.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 70

GLULAM BEAM AND COLUMN STRUCTURE Mjøstårnet is built in 2019 with a glulam frame structure - this is adopted mainly to accommodate the need for open office spaces at the top floors. It is 10 storeys taller than Murray’s Grove and hence adding technical difficulties in terms of taking up wind load. The frame is erected independently to the prefabricated floor slabs and envelope sandwhich panels, which are also installed at the same time to protect the exposed frame from weather.

The prefabricated casette floor panels include both finishes, service space and sound insulation; whilst wall panels are installed in the same fashioned then applied with finish

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

The structural column grids accommodate both the residential and office space at different floors

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

CLT cores are merely carrying their own weight rather that the dead loads of the building

The main load-bearing structures are the column and beam structures that are strengthened by the diagonal bracing at the building peripheries. At the uppermost 5 floors concrete slabs are used instead of the prefabricated panels of laminated veneer lumber to add weight against the wind.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

GLULAM BEAM AND COLUMN / PREFABRICATION Treet is a 14 storey building that uses the glulam frame of columns and beam to further accelerate the construction process carrying prefabricated modular units. The units are made of conventional timber frames and are stacked on top of each other - the load is taken by the frame every 5 floors. The frame is then finished externally with insulation infills and rainscreen cladding, as well as curtain walling panels.

Section showing the integration of multiple prefabricated layers - the external finishing, the structural frame and the modular unit

Crane picking up the prefabricated CLT lift shaft

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Concrete slabs are used at 3 different levels when the load of the modules are transferred to the frame - adding weight to the frame but also taking copressive force - utlising its material properties. This construction methodology again aims at enhancing the delivery speed by involving even more elements for prefabrication - even though not the most material-saving. 73

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

COMPARISON: GLULAM VS CLT Mass timber can be employed in various ways - CLT panels / glulam beams and columns. They are distinguished from the above examples by different needs of spaces; as well as different delivery criterias ie. time and cost. In King’s Cross R5 our consideration takes place mostly in 3 areas that would form the basis of choosing how to work with mass timber for the alternative of this residential building.

Comparing wall and floor buildup of Murray’s Grove (left) and Mjøstårnet (right) and their respective dimensions

1. EFFECTIVE CEILING HEIGHT In the example of Mjøstårnet, the beams alone are 600mm deep, yet such is justified by the service spaces provided in between for cooling and ventialtion that office spaces require. In residential developments the demand for servicing spaces would be less.

The depth of members can influence hugely the dimensions of spaces such as floor to ceiling heights - with maximum building height stipulated this could contribute to a lot of design constraints in delivering room spaces.

ADS 5

Internal constraints in Mjøstårnet the office spaces and a specific Treet flat occuring every 5 storeys.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

2. LAYOUTS: FLEXIBILITY VS CONSTRAINTS In the two examples of glulam beam and column structures lateral stability is provided by diagonal trusses that are contained internally. Flexibility in some spaces mean constraints in others - whilst open office plan can accommodate these structures in circulation spaces, residential flats might be harder to accommodate.

Comparing internal walls and floor buildup of Murray’s Grove (left) and Mjøstårnet (right) - CLT panels already act as partition walls

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

3. MATERIAL USE In King’s Cross R5, the layouts for residential flats are regular and many partitions are needed - the use of CLT is more beneficial in terms of material spending where vertical load bearing structures takes the place of the stud walls as partitions, saving additonal secondary strcutures. Together with the floor to ceiling heights and regularity in rooms, CLT panel structure is hence adopted in our later proposals using CLT structures as walls and floors, instead of beam and columns - that is specific to this case study.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

EXPRESSION The use of CLT wall and floor panels can be detailed differently according to both preference and performance. In some cases CLT panels are exposed internally in the walls and the ceiling to utilise its visual effects. Yet these decisions need to be paired with the considerations for performance and other requirements such as serrvicing that require detailing.

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Barrett’s Grove (top left) exposes its CLT walls compared to other additional requirements as needed (below)

The build-up of the wall depends heavily on use of spaces - where particular noises is known there would be need for additional sound insulation, amongst party walls and also ceilings. The location and detailing of these devices would influence the overall perception of the spaces.

ADS 5

Servicing of pipes, electric cables and air ducts need to traverse both the vertical and horizontal elements. Depending on the desired expressions (exposed or concealed CLT), these hardwares are deployed differently - mainly by drilling out the timber or adding new layers on top of them.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

SERVICING

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Drawing of hollow floor slab to enable servicing CLT handbook from Swedish Wood:

https://www.woodcampus. co.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2019/05/SwedishWood-CLT-Handbook.pdf

ADS 5

Connections

CLT handbook from Swedish Wood:

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

https://www.woodcampus. co.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2019/05/SwedishWood-CLT-Handbook.pdf

floor to beam

Wall to wall

Wall to Floor

CONNECTIONS Connections of timber members can be done differently with various elements.

The choices can be again based on the visual effect that wants to be delivered, as well as the secondary elements that need to go on top of them, the choice of connections is to assist these additons.

Load-bearing CLT

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Eliminating the external walls and all load-bearing CLT structures are internal, with options of for the external walls.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Ideal direct replacement of CLT honeycomb structure loadbearing external walls and internal party walls

ADS 5

Existing building concrete frame of blade columns

Structural stone cavity wall accounting for all vertical structural elements Load-bearing stone

FROM CLT TO STONE

The proposal for alternatives instigated from an entirely timber solution, that is met with the ban of using combustible material like CLT for the external walls in buildings over 18 metres tall. The CLT is henced pushed back, and the external wall opened up with options to using stone differently. The main idea is to use stone like how Mjøstårnet used concrete slabs - to add weight and stabilise the building from the taking the lateral forces of the wind load.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

a) Self-standing stone tied back to main structure / Carries its own weght b) Stone cladding as rainscreen / Carried by studwalls and the primary structure c) Structural stone cavity walls / Carrying reversely the load of the building

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

EXTERNAL ENVELOPE IN STONE The following proposals look into how stone can be most effectively incorporated with CLT structures to achieve a building alternative, options include:

Stone Studwall Load-bearing CLT

The three options of using stone have each a different impact to overall material consumption and construction - weighing differently in benefits and drawbacks. For example in self-standing stone (A) internal structures of the building can be reduced, compared to stone cladding (B) which is carried by the building; yet amount of stone in (A) will far exceed the other option whilst CLT thickness increase would have less impact in embodied carbon than the increase in amount of stone used - also raising the cost.

ADS 5

INTERNAL STRUCTURE IN STONE

Structural plan for stone cavity walls (C) accounting for all vertical primary element / compared to internal partition walls (red line)

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

With all external walls being load-bearing stone cavity walls the internal structural walls are limited to the central corridor where CLT span between the maximum distance of 7 metres - reducing the amount of strcutural walls between flats.

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Option (C) is a result derived from the two previous options, where the amount of material of stone is most justified - not wasting the mass nor diminishing it, but making it load-bearing to the building. Internal partition walls would only have to fulfill the needs for sound insulation and dividing layouts, erected in timber studs; whilst stone cavity walls internally and externally add weight to and brace the building.

Two types of internal walls, load-bearing stone cavity walls with acoustic insulation and timber stud wall as partitions - thickness to be increased for party walls

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

3.0 CARBON COPIES

MATERIAL STUDIES STONE

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Structure Dimension stone has been employed as a structural material for thousands of years, but its use has declined in recent times. The loss of traditional skills and the rise of tindustrialisation has led this material to be perceived as expensive to quarry, cut and transport, being seen in the eyes of many as suitable only for cladding or flooring. Yet when paired with a modern approach to structural analysis, design and detailing, and a rigorous statistical analysis of material strengths, stone can realise its potential as a material fit for the 21st century. Used more recently by Fernand Pouillon in southern France after the Second World War, the idea of stone construction method seems anti-modern and raises concerns of progressive collapse. The current and conventional alternative is complex: employ a steel or concrete frame superstructure, fire rate, insulate, water proof, fix stainless steel rails through the former back to the frame, tape and seal vapour barriers. Then fix stainless steel clamps to the back of stone cladding panels before carefully hanging them, with grout being unnecessary but commonplace, due to its allusion to the traditional load-bearing nature of blocks.

Late 19th and early 20th century innovations in steel and concrete frames no longer required the visible masonry to be load-bearing, leaving it free to become a selfsupporting façade tied back to a frame, becoming thinner still and supported by shelves at all floor levels. These incremental innovations and requirements for better thermal, fire and waterproofing performance have gradually created an overly complex building system that has become normalised for buildings of all scales.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Types of Stone

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Many types of stones are available such as basalt, marble, limestone, sandstone, quartzite, travertine, slate, gneiss, laterite, and granite which can be used as construction materials. The stones used for building construction should be hard, durable, tough, and should be free from weathered soft patches of material, cracks, and other defects that are responsible for the reduction of strength and durability. Stones for construction purposes are obtained by quarrying from solid massive rocks

Basalt Stone was chosen for all schemes due to its light red colour, which resembles the colour of brick. It was also chosen due to its strength, which allows for smaller thicknesses to be used to achieve structural stability.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

3.0 CARBON COPIES

PROPOSALS CARBON COPY 1 SELF STANDING STONE AND CLT The first investigation looked at developing the existing design to explore new (and more sustainable) materials, such as CLT, stud walls and stone. The first proposal aims to change the design to into a post and lintel self standing stone facade that would connect to an interior stud wall and CLT floor and wall structure. The facade structure here is separated from the interior structure, where each work stand on its own.

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Case Studies Baretts Grove - Groupwork This case study utilises self standing bricks where the double-stacked and openbond of brickwork shows that the envelope is not load bearing, but a screen enveloping the whole facade.

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

21% IN PROJECT COST

115%

IN EMBODIED CARBON

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

86 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

PLAN

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

1:200 Floor Plan - Carbon Copy 1

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 88

SECTION DETAILS

200 mm Basalt

20 mm Air Gap

100 mm Themal Insulation

Wall Ties

Stud Walls

Bracket Connections

12 mm Plasterboard

275 mm CLT Floors

50 mm Acoustic Insulation

15 mm Floor Boards

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

4 9

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

1 3

2 5 7

90 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Detail Floor Plan - Carbon Copy 1

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

92 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

AXONOMETRIC

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 94

21%

115%

IN PROJECT COST

IN EMBODIED CARBON

EMBODIED CARBON ANALYSIS MATERIAL

ELEMENT

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E/M3

Aluminium Frame (Powder Coated)

Envelope

87.0

1,678,317

Galvanised Steel

Fixings

1.2

20,258

Cross Laminated Timber

Superstructure 3,561.5

- 2,995,179

Plywood

Fit Out

125.9

- 64,240

Thermacork Insulation

Envelope

519

- 44,634

Basalt

Envelope

520.8

98,438

Flat Glass

Envelope

74.2

176,153

Vapour Barrier

Envelope

11.1

919

TOTAL

- 1,129,966

PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE

- 115.3 %

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

COST ANALYSIS

ELEMENT

AMOUNT

COST

Aluminium

Envelope

4,480 kg

£ 336,000

Galvanised Steel

Fixings

1 m3

£ 3,000

Basalt

Superstructure

521 m3

£ 260,400

Thermacork Insulation

Envelope

5,190 m2

£ 103,800

CLT

Superstructure

3,561 m3

£ 890,363

Plywood

Fit Out

6,298 m2

£ 94,470

VELFAC Window

Envelope

1,333 m2

£ 506,350

Vapour Barrier

Envelope

11,000 m2

£ 55,000

TOTAL TOTAL (WITH ADDED COSTS)

£ 2,651,253 £ 14,331,097

PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE

- 20.8%

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

MATERIAL

96 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

RENDERED AXONOMETRIC

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

98 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

EXTERIOR - EXISTING

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

EXTERIOR - PROPOSED

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

100 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

INTERIOR - EXISTING

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

INTERIOR - PROPOSED

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

101

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

CARBON COPY 2 STONE VENEER AND CLT STRUCTURE The second proposal for the envelope suggests a stone or slate veneer / cladding to replace the bricks currently in the exisitng building. The envelope is entirely dependent on the secondary structures behind them, that is carried by the primary load-beaing structures.

102

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Slate used to be the most important building material in Scotland with over 80 quarries, the material is a kind of metamorphic rock (most commmon example being marble) sourced locally and used mainly as roofing material - it is a “found” material that would not requiring synthesising but cutting into appropriate forms and shapes. Improving: on minimising stone use:The previous proposal of self-standing stone already requires a studwall formed by windposts - to enclose the room and carry the insulations as well as necessary waterproofing layers. This option considers that the amount of stone - despite their minimised carbon footprint - can be further reduced as it becomes a form of cladding that does not even carry its own forces, but merely a thin weathering layer against rain and wind.

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

12% IN PROJECT COST

121%

IN EMBODIED CARBON

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

103

104 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

PLAN

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

105

1:200 Floor Plan - Carbon Copy 2

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 106

SECTION DETAILS

30 mm Stone Veneer

30 mm Air Gap

100 mm Themal Insulation

Wall Ties

Stud Walls

Bracket Connections

12 mm Plasterboard

275 mm CLT Floors

50 mm Acoustic Insulation

15 mmTimber Floors

ADS 5

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

6 9

1 2 3 5 7

4 10

107

108 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

109

Detail Floor Plan - Carbon Copy 2

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

110 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

AXONOMETRIC

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

111

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 112

12%

121%

IN PROJECT COST

IN EMBODIED CARBON

EMBODIED CARBON ANALYSIS MATERIAL

ELEMENT

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E/M3

Aluminium Frame (Powder Coated)

Envelope

87.0

1,678,317

Galvanised Steel

Fixings

2.6

43,893

Cross Laminated Timber

Superstructure 4,038.7

- 3,396,522

Plywood

Fit Out

61.1

- 31,161

Thermacork Insulation

Envelope

519

- 44,634

Basalt

Envelope

77.9

14,732

Flat Glass

Envelope

74.1

176,153

Vapour Barrier

Envelope

11.1

919

Plasterboard

Fit Out

64.8

16,993

TOTAL

- 1,541,308

PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE

- 120.9 %

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

COST ANALYSIS

ELEMENT

AMOUNT

COST

Aluminium

Envelope

9,480 kg

£ 711,000

Galvanised Steel

Fixings

5 m3

£ 12,500

Basalt

Superstructure

78 m3

£ 38,950

Plasterboard

Fit-Out

3,240 m2

£ 64,800

Thermacork Insulation

Envelope

5,190 m2

£ 103,800

CLT

Superstructure

4,039 m3

£ 1,009,668

Plywood

Fit Out

3,055 m2

£ 45,825

VELFAC Window

Envelope

1,333 m2

£ 506,350

Vapour Barrier

Envelope

11,000 m2

£ 55,000

£ 2,949,763 £ 15,944,665

PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE

- 11.9% 113

TOTAL TOTAL (WITH ADDED COSTS)

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

MATERIAL

114 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

RENDERED AXONOMETRIC

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

115

116 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

EXTERIOR - EXISTING

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

EXTERIOR - PROPOSED

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

117

118 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

INTERIOR - EXISTING

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

INTERIOR - PROPOSED

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

119

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

CARBON COPY 3 STRUCTURAL STONE The previous proposals require an interior load bearing structure to enclose the room and carry the insulations as well as necessary waterproofing layers. The final investigation explores the potential of incorporating the stone facade into the structural performance of the building.By depositing the structural load on the structural stone facade, it is anticipated that the amount of primary load-bearing structures of mass timber is eliminated, yet still an improvement to carbon footprint as amount of metal and plasterboard required is reduced.

120

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Case Studies Perraudin Architecture recently completed a stone house in Lyon.The building is entirely built up in load-bearing limestone walls of 40 cm. Precise coursing elevations define each stone, to be extracted, dimensioned and numbered in the quarry and then transported to the site. There, they are assembled using nothing but a thin bed of lime mortar.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

106% IN EMBODIED CARBON

24% IN PROJECT COST

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 121

The work of Fernand Pouillon focused on the reutilisation of stone in construction during post-war urbanism and the modernism.

122 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

PLAN

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

123

1:200 GF - 7F Floor Plan - Carbon Copy 3

124 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

125

1:200 8F - 15F Floor Plan - Carbon Copy 3

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 126

SECTION DETAILS

100 mm Basalt

20 mm Air Gap

100 mm Thermal Insulation

100 mm Basalt

Steel Cable Reinforcement

Wall Ties

Steel Bracket

Mortar

50 mm Acoustic Insulation

15 mm Timber Floorboard

275 mm Cross-Laminated Timber Floors

ADS 5

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

1 5 2 3 4 5

7 9

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

127

128 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

129

Detail Floor Plan - Carbon Copy 3

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

4 5

130 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

AXONOMETRIC

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

131

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 132

24%

106%

IN PROJECT COST

IN EMBODIED CARBON

EMBODIED CARBON ANALYSIS MATERIAL

ELEMENT

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E/M3

Aluminium Frame (Powder Coated)

Envelope

87.0

1,678,317

Galvanised Steel

Fixings

1.2

20,258

Steel Cables

Fixings

1.6

23,679

Cross Laminated Timber

Superstructure 2,844.0

- 2,391,804

Plywood

Fit Out

237.7

- 121,227

Thermacork Insulation

Envelope

519

- 44,634

Basalt

Superstructure 1,178.1

222,661

Flat Glass

Envelope

74.2

176,153

Vapour Barrier

Envelope

11.1

919

TOTAL

- 435,676

PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE

- 105.9%

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

COST ANALYSIS

ELEMENT

AMOUNT

COST

Galvanised Steel

Fixings

1 m3

£ 3,000

Basalt

Superstructure

1,178 m3

£ 589,050

Thermacork Insulation

Envelope

5,190 m2

£ 103,800

CLT

Superstructure

2,844 m3

£ 711,000

Plywood

Fit Out

11,885 m2

£ 178,275

VELFAC Window

Envelope

1,333 m2

£ 506,350

Vapour Barrier

Envelope

11,000 m2

£ 55,000

£ 2,551,345 £ 13,791,054

PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE

- 23.8%

133

TOTAL TOTAL (WITH ADDED COSTS)

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

MATERIAL

134 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

RENDERED AXONOMETRIC

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

135

136 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

EXTERIOR - EXISTING

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

EXTERIOR - PROPOSED

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

137

138 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

INTERIOR - EXISTING

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

INTERIOR - PROPOSED

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

139

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

3.0 CARBON COPIES

OPERATIONAL CARBON

OVERVIEW

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

While a reduction in embodied carbon can be achieved as demonstrated in Section 3.3, operational carbon throughout the lifecycle of the building must also be analysed in order to achieve a reduced Whole Life Carbon. Whole Life Carbon (WLC) includes embodied carbon, as defined in Section 1, and operational carbon. This includes carbon emissions associated with all in-use energy and embodied carbon associated with production and transport of materials for use in constructing, maintaining and deconstructing the building. The purpose of using WLC as a general aim is to help towards a building that can generate the lowest possible carbon emissions over its whole life (cradle-to-grave). Operational carbon is the carbon dioxide and GHGs emissions associated with the building's energy use due to heating, cooling, hot water, ventiltion, and lighting systems, as well as those associated with cooking, equipment, and lifts. Operational emissions can vary over the lifetime of the building and are governed by several factors, including building fabric efficiency, Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system efficiency, fuel type, carbon factors and the way the building is used by the occupiers. While some aspects of these carbon emissions would not be able to change in a carbon copy version of the building (due to the programme, window areas, and height of the building), others, such as heating, cooling and ventilation, can be alterered to lead to reduced emissions quantity. According to the current Part L methodology to reduce operational carbon and the LETI design guide, passive design and energy efficiency measures can be used to reduce peak and annual loads.

140

This sections looks at various changes that can be made to the design of the Kings Cross R5 Commercial and Residential Development that can aid in reducing the overall operational carbon (and hence WLC) of the typology.

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

141

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

HEATING

142

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

1. Using a heat pump An efficiently designed, installed and operated heat pump system, either at a building or heat network scale, can deliver immediate carbon emissions savings of 60-70% compared to conventional electric heating and 55-65% compared to an efficient gas boiler. As the grid decarbonises further in coming decades, the carbon savings delivered by heat pumps is expected to increase further towards 90-100% CO2 emissions reductions by 2050. Urban areas can bring additional challenges for heat pump retrofit in terms of strict limits on noise and finding suitable external and internal space. However, heat pump technology is diverse and versatile and, with appropriate design, installation and operation, heat pumps are technically viable across all London building types.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

2. Improving Fabric U-Values

FABRIC ELEMENT

EXISTING U-VALUE (W/m2K)

PROPOSED U-VALUE (W/m2K)

Walls

0.26

0.13

Floor

0.22

0.08

Roof

0.18

0.10

Windows

1.80

0.80

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

The fabric of the building has a very significant effect on the thermal performance as well as the overall costs of heating a space in the colder months. Moreover, due to its impact on operational carbon, the thermal conductivities of the materials are utilised to optimise the U-value of the resulting wall. These are extracted from BRE BR443 to help achieve the U-values presented in the table above. In all carbon copy proposals presented, the insulation used is Mineral wool, due to its low thermal conductivity (0.035 W/mK) and low embodied carbon (as explained in the previous section). It’s thickness is changed from one proposal to the next (where structural and facing materials are chosen for their embodied carbon content) to ensure an equal U-value of all three proposals that adhere to the 2020 LETI guide recommendations.

143

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

COOLING An increasing problem in homes in London (as well as most urban centers) is the issue of overheating. Tighter Building Regulations have made homes more energy efficient. As a result, new builds require much less energy to create a safe and comfortable environment for occupants; significantly reducing bills, improving health in winter and reducing heating requirements.These higher standards, however, combined with hot city temperatures increase the risk of overheating. Moreover, climate change is set to increase peak temperatures in London by 6.5 degrees Centigrade by the 2050s, thus increasing the urge to develop a sustainable ventilationa and cooling strategy. Additionally, there is an increase in the demand or housing in London in the form of dense flats. This then leads to added overheating risks as flats tend to suffer to a much greater degree when termpatures rise. This is due to the overcrowding and ventilation limits in flats. Overheating can be discussed as a factor of thermal comfort, which has a supposedly simple definition; ‘that condition of the mind that expresses comfort with the thermal environment’. However, as each of us has a very different idea of what being too hot or too cold means, creating a simple threshold comfort level is virtually impossible. Other variables also need to be taken into account; the ability of an occupant to change clothing and open windows, the availability of cooler rooms and the vulnerability of an occupant, will all have an influence on an individual’s thermal comfort. This creates a problem for the construction and property industry. Overheating risk is currently assessed using different criteria from one building to another.

144

One of the many risks this issue poses is the need for increased access to cooling and ventilation methods in the future. In the future, homes may simply be uninhabitable, or at the very least, they will require very expensive retrofitting.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

GLAZING

In terms of cost, VELFAC windows would cost less that the existing Reynaers aluminium windows, with an estimated cost of 380 GBP/m2 compated to an existing estimated cost of 510 GBP/m2.

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

VELFAC composite windows (shown in the figure below) will be used. These allow for the durability and versatility of aluminium and the sustainability of natural wood/. Aluminium is both highly durable and low maintenance, ensuring the windows will last 40 years or more. The wood frame contributes to great energy performance with U-values as low as 0.8 W/m²k .

145

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

GLAZING

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Triple glazing thermochromatic Smart Glass can be applied to the current double glazing system at Kings Cross R5. This glass works by changing it transmittance when struck by incident solar radiation and becomes darker as temperatures increase. Benefits of Thermochromic Smart Glass Can be installed just as normal glass into a building facade Internal PVB lamination gives improved safety and noise insulation Glass changes between tinted and clear states within minutes Maintains a view to the outside at all times Reduces glare and hence the resulting discomfort and loss of productivity There are no wires to route, since it is not electrically-powered Reduces air-conditioning usage thanks to rejection of infrared

146

The dynamic tinting results directly from radiant solar energy but could also be due to indirect thermal exchange, such as conduction or convection from adjacent building materials such as the glass itself, or from bricks, spacers or the metallic frame after they have been heated by the sun.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

A triple-glazed unit typically comprises:

The front piece of glass is needed as a wind barrier. The back piece of low-E coated glass keeps the heat which is retained in the thermochromic layer from re-radiating to the interior of the building. Single glazed windows, allowing for frames: U-Value = 4.5 W/m²·K; Double glazed windows, allowing for frames: U-Value = 3.3 W/m²·K; Triple glazed windows, allowing for frames: U-Value = 1.8 W/m²·K;

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

a front sheet of glass a gas space (filled with air, argon or krypton) the thermochromic layer another gas space and a back low-E coated sheet of glass.

Triple glazing can aid in reducing heat loss through the windows, thus reducing heating costs. Moreover, thermochromic smart glass has clear benefits in reducing solar heat gain into buildings, reducing air conditioning costs and contributing to ‘net-zero’ construction. Since the transmittance in the dark state is around the 10% mark, the view to the outside world is maintained, but glare is also reduced. Comparison Study 1m2 of a double glazed window will achieve a U-value of 1.4W/m2K, at a carbon cost of 142.5 kgCO2e. 1m2 of a triple glazed window will achieve a U-value of 0.8W/m2K, at a carbon cost of 213.8 kgCO2e. This demonstrates that triple glazing has superior insulative performance at a given thickness but at the cost of higher embodied carbon (increased by 50%).

147

148 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

4 FINDINGS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

149

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

4.0 FINDINGS

COMPARISONS The table below compares the conditions of the existing building to the conditions of all three carbon copy proposals presented.

INFORMATION

EXISTING CONDITIONS

CARBON CO SELF STANDIN

ENVELOPE

Bricks

Self-Standing

INTERIOR LOADBEARING WALLS

Reinforced Concrete

Cross Laminate

INTERIOR FLOORS

Reinforced Concrete

Cross Laminate

EMBODIED CARBON

7,368,237 kgCO2e

- 1,129,966 k

COST

3,346,625 GBP

2,651,253

BENEFITS

150

DRAWBACKS

The facade system is the main structure - redu thickness Follows building regulations at the time of Replacing of bricks construction (with regards to sustainability) intensive in production Thermal mass Replacing of concr Durable. A brick typically has a useful life of elements - with mass ti 150 years or more. Less EC and cost than t Trusted by the market Construction time can the brick laying option Lateral stability to be pro and weight of stone

High embodied carbon emissions High costs

Stone does not aid the can it be integrated? Stone will need to be ca to the original building and time less labour cost metal connections will will lead to added emb could be avoided

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

CARBON COPY 2: STONE VENEER

CARBON COPY 3: STRUCTURAL STONE

g Stone

Stone Veneer

Structural Stone

ed Timber

Cross Laminated Timber

Stone

ed Timber

Cross Laminated Timber

kgCO2e

- 1,541308 kgCO2e

- 435,677 kgCO2e

GBP

2,929,763 GBP

2,551,345GBP

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

OPY 1: NG STONE

independent from ucing load and wall

which is energy - with stone Reduced cost of material in terms of stone rete load-bearing thickness imber the original design be reduced from

Less CLT - lowering construction costs Utilising exterior as a load bearing structure Increasing thermal mass No secondary steel - less fixings

ovided by the mass

151

interior structure - dry asembly (better time) Fixings complexity increases / labour cost arved to look similar in assemby more labour costs secondary steel work Plasterboards Building is less carbon negative increased weight of clt structure - stability be needed - this Shear walls size need to be increased to bodied carbon than hold the facade - contrary to self-standing stone

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

4.0 FINDINGS

OVERALL SAVINGS EMBODIED CARBON

8000000 7000000

EMBODIED CARBON / KGCO2E

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

6000000 5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 -1000000 -2000000 EXISTING

CARBON COPY 1

CARBON COPY 2

CARBON COPY 3

EMBODIED CARBON / KGCO2E

-200000 -400000 -600000 -800000 -1000000 -1200000 -1400000 -1600000

152

-1800000 CARBON COPY 1

CARBON COPY 2

CARBON COPY 3

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

COST

4000000 40000000 3500000 35000000 3000000 30000000 2500000 25000000

1500000 15000000 1000000 10000000 500000 5000000 00 EXISTING

CARBON COPY 1

CARBON COPY 2

CARBON COPY 3

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

2000000 20000000

40000000 20000000 3000000 35000000 19800000 2900000 30000000 19600000 2800000 25000000 19400000 2700000 20000000 19200000 2600000 15000000 19000000 2500000 10000000 18800000 2400000 5000000 18600000 2300000 18400000 22000000 CARBON COPY 2

CARBON COPY 3

153

CARBON COPY 1

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

4.0 FINDINGS

EMBODIED CARBON

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ANALYSIS

The two main aims of this project were to achieve a low-carbon, low-cost alternative to the existing building, while not changing the overall design or function of the spaces. This section focuses on the changes in embodied carbon (calculations demonstrated in Section 3), which shows that this aim was achieved in all three Carbon Copies explored. The first carbon copy begins with the idea of introducing stone and CLT into the building instead of the existing brick and concrete materials. This led to an overall reduction of 115% of the embodied carbon emissions in comparison to the existing conditions of the case study. Following this, we explored the idea of reducing stone materials and increasing the CLT available. This led to a further decrease in the embodied carbon, leading to a reduction of 121%. Finally, we explored utilising the stone facade for its structural qualities.Thus, bringing the stone structure into the wall and reducing the requirements for stone, which led to a slight increase of embodied carbon (a reduction of 106%).

154

Due to the CLT and plywood materials used in all three proposals, they all present a chance for a negative carbon building scheme.

ADS 5

4.0 FINDINGS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

COST

ANALYSIS This section focuses on the changes in the overall envelope cost (calculations demonstrated in Section 3). The aim of developing a cheaper solution was acheived in all three Carbon Copies explored. The original conditions were calcualted to have a cost of £3,346,625. Following the changed made in the first carbon copy, this cost was calculated to have a 21% reduction. MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

The second carbon copy, while it does achieve lower embodied carbon values, does cost 11%more than the first carbon copy, with an overall decrease of 12% when compared to the original scheme. This due to the increased requirement for metal fixings, plasterboard, and CLT to support the facade. On the other hand, the third carbon copy is the cheapest. It costs 13% less than the second carbon copy and 24% less than the existing conditions.

TOTAL MATERIAL USED / KG

AMOUNT OF FOUNDATION REQUIRED

CONSTRUCTION DELIVERY

OVERALL COSTS / GBP

EXISTING CONDITIONS

STONE

CLT

CONCRETE

MATERIAL PRICE / M3

155

156 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

4.0 FINDINGS

CARBON COPY 1

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

BENEFITS The facade system is independent from the main structure reducing load and wall thickness Replacing of bricks which is energy intensive in production with stone Replacing of concrete load-bearing elements - with mass timber Less EC and cost than the original design Construction time can be reduced from the brick laying option Lateral stability to be provided by the mass and weight of stone

changing the overall design or function of the spaces.

DRAWBACKS Stone does not aid the interior structure - can it be integrated? Stone will need to be carved to look similar to the original building - more labour costs and time Less labour cost metal connections will be needed - this will lead to added embodied carbon than could be avoided

157

158 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

4.0 FINDINGS

CARBON COPY 2

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

BENEFITS Reduced cost of material in terms of stone thickness

DRAWBACKS Dry asembly (better time) Fixings complexity increases / labour cost in assemby secondary steel work Plasterboards increased weight of clt structure - stability Shear walls size need to be increased to hold the facade contrary to self-standing stone

159

160 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

4.0 FINDINGS

CARBON COPY 3

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

BENEFITS Less CLT - lowering construction costs Utilising exterior as a load bearing structure Increasing thermal mass No secondary steel - less fixings

DRAWBACKS Building is less carbon negative

161

ADS 5

CONCLUSIONS

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

4.0 FINDINGS

Primary

Volume of CLT

Volume of Stone

CC 1

3,562 m3

521 m3

CC 2

4,039 m3

78 m3

CC 3

2844 m3

1178 m3

162

Original

Volume of Concrete

Volume of Bricks

3,092 m3

227 m3

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

Comparing the total carbon footprint and cost, as below, it can be seen that, based on the current calculations, the best carbon footprint achieved is in the second scheme. This scheme, however, was also found to be the more expensive. On the other hand, the first and third schemes were found to be very close in cost (100,000 GBP difference). However, the first scheme did seem to have a more negative footprint, attributed to its increased use of CLT as a building material.

Secondary

Results

Studwall

Fixings

Carbon Footprint

Cost

100%

7,368,237

3,346,625

100%

50%

-1,129,966

2,596,308

100%

200%

- 1,541308

2,894,818

150%

- 435,676

2,496,401

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Regarding the cost, it is important to note that these results will not be entirely accurate as it does not take into account the cost of prelimeraries in construction, the cost of labour, or the time taken to complete the construction. Literature review has found that with CLT floors added in exchange of concrete ones, a further percentage reduction of 15% can be achieved. Thus, in comparison, it is believed that Carbon Copies 1 and 2 should achieve lower costs.

163

164 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

5 FURTHER APPLICATIONS FOR TYPOLOY

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

165

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

5.0 FURTHER APPLICATIONS FOR TYPOLOGY

BACKGROUND

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

OVERALL APPLICATION This section looks into the Kings Cross development masterplan in terms of its overall building uses, as well as understanding their respective existing building methodologies. We want to discern outside of our case study building R5 how relevant the proposals could be applied equally to the buildings built at the same period of time, in regards to their uses and forms.

LAND-USE Among the development plan, all the newly built residential land use, except site E, are mid-rise urban blocks of 18 metres or above. They are of different floor areas and have each a different visual expression.

166

Apart from that, half of the builings are office spaces and the rest retail and institutional spaces - these different uses demand a different typology and hence are less relevant to our proposals, yet informs us of the level of sustainability and the more common mode of practice in the same context.

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Office Space Retail Cultural / Institutional

R5 (Site)

167

ADS 5

5.0 FURTHER APPLICATIONS FOR TYPOLOGY

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

APPLICATION

Floor area (m2)

Storeys

Total Floor Area

Construction Material for Concrete (m3) = FA*0.2 + FA*0.3*2.5

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Office 18166

163494

13370

80220

76209

9554

85986

81687

16200

178200

169290

4803

57636

54754

4281

59934

56937

11205

10645

2241

155319

Retail 1260

5040

4788

1348

4044

3842

10902

21804

20714

8833

17666

16783

603

1809

1719

1036

2072

1968

4283

51396

48826

Institutional 22656

135936

129139

3351

33510

31835

1556

3112

2956

Residential

Data for new building - uses and material construction in King’s Cross redevelopment Highlighted are the buildings in concrete and their respective volume of material (taking vertical elements as 30% of floor area)

1087

7609

7229

3527

35270

33507

5195

57145

54288

4992

69888

66394

2902

23216

22055

3372

33720

32034

11698

152074

144470

168

1038569

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

SCALE: R5 AS A MICROCOSM OF USE OF CONCRETE FRAME Our case study building represents one of the most dominant typology in the building industry being the concrete frame. In the new King’s Cross redevelopment alone over 80% of the developments are built in such way - and in material terms accounting for approsimately 1, 000, 000 m3 of concrete.

Use of concrete frame amongst building volumes

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Relative proportions (in volume) of building uses in King’s Cross redevelopment responding to table

SCALE: AMPLIFICATION OF CARBON REDUCTION Our alternative proposals suggest the use of stone and mass timber to replace in R5 bricks and concrete. Whilst so many other buildings are built in the similar fashion, the impact of our proposals would be amplified extended to a larger context - when our alternative proposals can readily substitute the studied typology of concrete frame buildings - not just in R5 itself.

169

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Construction for sites P2 and Q2, predominantly in concrete and otherwise steel frame

Besides the “conventional” building materials of concrete and steel, mass timber is currently employed only in the two-storey sports hall as well as the Google headquarters where CLT floor slabs are matched with steel and concrete.

170

King’s Cross Sports Hall at Q2 - made entirely out of mass timber and exposed internally. Google’s GQ in construction

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

CURRENT STATE AND LIMITS The model of our proposal using mass timber and stone cannot be applied directly when certain subjective elements need to be delivered for example forms and visual expressions. Yet through our proposal it is to posit that there can be more sustainable way to emulate the same language given enough investigations.

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

Coal Drops Yard’s signature form need to be tailored if replaced with mass timber; it has to be acknowledged that the looks of bricks and pigmented percast concrete will not be fully recreated, in site T1, S4.

171

172 MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

6 CATALOUGE OF MATERIALS AND METHODS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS

173

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 174

The following section includes details of componement/element connections.

ADS 5

EXTERNAL WALL TO INTERNAL FLOOR CONNECTION CARBON COPY 1 - SELF STANDING STONE AND CLT

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 175

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 176

EXTERNAL WALL TO INTERNAL FLOOR CONNECTION CARBON COPY 1 - STONE VENEER AND CLT

ADS 5

EXTERNAL WALL TO INTERNAL FLOOR CONNECTION CARBON COPY 3 - STRUCTURAL STONE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 177

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 178

INTERNAL WALL TO INTERNAL FLOOR CONNECTION CARBON COPIES 1 AND 2 - CLT

ADS 5

INTERNAL WALL TO INTERNAL FLOOR CONNECTION CARBON COPY 3 - STRUCTURAL STONE AND CLT

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART MID-RISE URBAN BLOCKS 179

2 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

ADS 5 2

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

CONTENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION Purpose of research Terminal 4 Barajas Airport Site location Design concept Typical structural bay Existing components Structural solutions Construction methodology Ventilation system

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 24 26

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION Building section Detail 1 - roof Detail 2 - V column to branches Detail 3 - Y column to branches Detail 4 - Y column to floor

30 34 36 38 40

3.0 CARBON COPY A Summary Building sections Detail 1 - roof Detail 2 - V column to branches Detail 3 - Y column to branches Detail 4 - Y column to floor

44 46 50 52 54 56

3.1 CARBON COPY B Summary Building sections Detail 1 - roof Detail 2 - V column to branches Detail 3 - Y column to branches Detail 4 - Y column to floor

60 62 64 66 68 70

Royal College of Art ADS 5

74 76 80

4.1 WHAT IF? ... B Summary Building sections Detail 1 - roof

84 86 90

5.0 DATA COMPARISONS Summary Embodied carbon (existing) Cost analysis (existing) Embodied carbon (Carbon copy A) Cost analysis (Carbon copy A) Embodied carbon (Carbon copy B) Cost analysis (Carbon copy B) Embodied carbon (What if?...A) Cost analysis (What if?...A) Embodied carbon (What if?...B) Cost analysis (What if?...B)

94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104

6.0 FINDINGS Final comparitive findings

106

7.0 APPENDICES Sketches and mark-ups from tutors / consultants

108

8.0 MENU OF COMPONENTS Roofing details V support details Y support details

122 128 130

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

4.0 WHAT IF? ... A Summary Building sections Detail 1 - roof

4 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

1 INTRODUCTION

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

1.0 INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH

AIRPORT AND BIG SHEDS TYPOLOGY

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

We are in a climate emergency. The construction industry contributes an estimated 40% of total carbon emissions in the world annually. 11% of which resulted from manufacturing materials and products such as steel, cement and glass, which has always been the superior choice for airport construction. With these two facts in mind, this research investigates the methods and envirionmental impact of the biggest airport terminal in Spain:Terminal 4, Barajas Airport. Through a detailed analysis of the existing condition, we propose alternative solutions that are both econimcally viable and radically better for the environment. Terminal 4, Barajas Airport, designed by Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners and Estudio Lamela, is a typical modular design building constructed mainly of steel and concrete. This project uses a typical Structural bay of the terminal as a research module. Through this research, we have concluded that by changing materials and construction methedology it is possible to build a carbon copy development of that proposed by Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners that is faster, cheaper and greener.

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

Royal College of Art ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Figure 1.1 Exterior view of Terminal 4, Barajas Airport

COST COMPARISON

ADS 5 Royal College of Art AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS 8

1.0 INTRODUCTION

TERMINAL 4 BARAJAS AIRPORT LOCATION

Terminal 4 Barajas Airport, Madrid, Spain

ARCHITECT

Estudio Lamela & Richard Rogers Partnership

AREA

470,000m

COMPLETION

2005

CLIENT

AENA

ENGINEERING FIRM STRUCTURE

Anthony Hunt Associates, TPS with OTEP; HCA SERVICES.

LIGHTING CONSULTANT

Arup/Speirs and Major Associates

FACADE ENGINEER

Arup

INSTALLATIONS

TPS; INITEC. Façade: OAP Façade Engineering.

STRATEGIC DESIGN AUTHORS

Warrington Fire Research

COST CONTROLLERS

Hanscomb y Gabinete de Ingeniería

ACOUSTIC

Sandy Brown

ILLUMINTARIOS ASSESORS

Jonathan Speirs

LANDSCAPE

dosAdos

CONTRACTOR

UTE Ferrovial, FCC, ACS, NECSO, SACYR

Royal College of Art ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Figure 1.2 Interior view of Terminal 4, Barajas Airport

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SITE LOCATION

TERMINAL 4

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

The site is located in the northeast of Madrid, in the district of Barajas, 12 kilometers from the center of the capital of Spain and separate 2km northwest of the rest of the T1, T2 and T3 with which it communicates with a shuttle bus (Airport Shuttle) free. The entire operation of the airport system also extends the municipalities of Alcobendas, San Sebastián and Paracuellos de Jarama.

Figure 1.3 Site plan of Terminal 4, Barajas Airport

Figure1.4 OS map

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

1.0 INTRODUCTION

DESIGN CONCEPT

Madrid’s Barajas Airport, designed by Richard Rogers Partnership in collaboration with Estudio Lamela, features a kilometre-long undulating steel roof, shaped in cross-section to resemble a bird in flight. This roof is supported on a bank of central columns painted in the colours of the spectrum and is punctuated by a series of roof lights providing natural lighting throughout the upper level of the terminal.

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Light-filled ‘canyons’ divide the parallel floors that accommodate the various stages of passenger processing - from point of arrival, through check-in and passport and security controls to departure lounges and, finally, to the aircraft. https://www.ajbuildingslibrary.co.uk/projects/display/id/898

Figure 1.6 Facade terminal, cross section

Royal College of Art ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Figure 1.5 Interior view of Terminal 4, Barajas Airport

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

1.0 INTRODUCTION

TYPICAL STRUCTURAL BAY

18m x 121 for Rooftop

72m

x 46.5 for Level 2 x 106 for Level 1 x 121 for Level 0 x 85 for Level -1

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

x 89 for Level -2

Royal College of Art ADS 5

27m

54m

108m

216m

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Figure 1.7 Terminal section

Figure 1.8 Roof of Terminal 4 Barajas Airport

ADS 5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Royal College of Art

EXISTING COMPONENTS

SIMPLE STRUCTURAL BAY WITH STANDARD DETAILS

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

The basic element of the terminal is a system of post-stressed concrete beams (fig. 1) and columns from which metal supports (fig. 2) branch off that support the winding main beams of the building roof. Thus, a double-curvature, modular, and repetitive surface is generated that spans over the entire area occupied by the buildings.

Figure 1.9 typical structural bay

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Figure 1.10 Exploded axonometric drawings

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

1.0 INTRODUCTION

STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS METAL V-SUPPORTS Each main beam has four support points - two in the centre and two on the sides - all of which lean on metal supports embedded in concrete plinths of a special design for the building structure support. (Fig1.11) The trunco-conical central supports are inclined forming a V with a section of 750 mm in the base and of 400 mm at the head. These elements were fabricated from 16-mm thick S355 steel plate and are joined to the main beams by means of a spherical joint with a 42 CrM04+QT steel pin. (Fig1.12)

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

METAL Y-SUPPORTS RODS The support points of the main beam ends consist in Y-shaped columns at an angle of 19º. Like a Y letter, the top section branches off in two separate arms each supporting a main beam. (Fig1.13) The selection of this structural option gave rise to a significant architectural constraint: these elements must cause minimum visual impact through the facades while contributing, at the same time, to the spatial definition of the canyons. They are formed by two elliptical tubes made of 14-mm thick steel plate in grade S355 with sections of 480 mm and 240 mm. Even though they receive only a vertical reaction and despite their inclination and Y-shape, a very important bending effect is generated, partially reduced by the stays located at the head of either arms and by the bottom flexible connection. (Fig1.14) In the sections where they run parallel, these tubes are plate-joined at different heights, thus yielding a performance equivalent to that of battened columns. The arm top sections are joined by a tubular stay (Ø159.20). The bottom support is articulated by means of a 42 CrM04+QT steel pin, whereas the upper end is joined to the main steel beam using a spherical joint with a 42 CrM04+QT steel pin.

FACADE CURTAIN WALL & STAINLESS STEEL RODS

The facade curtain wall contributes significantly to the stability of the assembly by bracing the roof structure to the concrete beams by means of a system of stainless steel rods distributed over the entire building perimeter. (Fig1.15)

Royal College of Art ADS 5

Figure1.12 V supports (indoor) Figure 1.11 V supports (outdoor)

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Figure 1.14 Y supports (outdoor)

Figure 1.13 Y supports (indoor)

Figure 1.15 Facade curtain wall & stainless steel

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

1.0 INTRODUCTION

MAIN BEAMS

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

With a length of 72 m, on-site measured, and arranged at 9 m from each other under the entire roof surface, the main beams allow for a geometric profile that has a great relevance to the eye-catching shape of the building. These seagullwing profiled beams are symmetric I sections with variable edge dimensions, ranging from a 1500 mm depth in the centre to a 750 mm depth in the area of the leaning shores. The wings have a section of 500 x 30 mm, with the web being made of 15 mm thick plate. For this, steel grade S355 J2G3 was selected except in the areas with higher curvature radii where, due to the stress increase produced by the deviation of the longitudinal strains, it was necessary to use a higher steel grade in the wings (S420N).

SECONDARY BEAMS Forming arches between the main beams, perpendicular secondary beams were used leaving a 3.5 m span between them. They were fabricated from rolled sections (IPE-500, HEB-500, and HEB-700) in grade S355 J2G3 that support UPN100 purlins in grade S275, on which the roof surface leans.

Royal College of Art ADS 5

EXPANSION JOINTS They are arranged at 72-m intervals to correspond with the building expansion joints, placed cross-sectionally on one the sides of the main beam, with a sliding bearing system for all the secondary beams set on to it.

A SPECIAL BRACING SYSTEM RODS It was set up to prevent buckling in some components along the roof, to distribute horizontal forces, and to optimise load transmission to the support elements. AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Figure 1.16 Secondary beams and bracing system

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

1.0 INTRODUCTION

CONCRETE STRUCTURES They are made up of 40 circular & rectangular pillars and reinforced & posttensioned beams. (Figure 1.17) 40 rectangular section forming porticoes with the structural modulation of 18 by 9 m of the building.

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

The circular pillars have diameters between 1.2m and 0.8m. The rectangular pillars are found in the central and central porticoes. (Figure 1.18) Paired form forming a rigid transverse action gantry post-tensioned beams. 180m wide by 0.8 meters deep both on Level 0 or lower and on Level 1 & Level 2. Their length is 18m spans with the expansion joint. The active reinforcement it consists of tendons of 15 cords each measuring 0.6 inches. (Figure 1.19) The slab on its surface is made up of precast pre-stressed alvelar plates of 7 with 38m between supports and 20cm / 30cm deep and a layer of compression of 10cm thk. The rest of the floors are reinforced concrete slabs. There are areas of smaller surface executed with prefabricated plates with a section for passage of facilities.

Royal College of Art ADS 5

Figure 1.17 Rectangular and circular concrete pillars

Figure 1.19 Post-tensioned concrete beams

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Figure 1.18 Central concrete support

24 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY

A E

B F

C G

Royal College of Art ADS 5

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Figure 1.20 Hypothesis of the Construction Process T4 Madrid Barajas Airport

https://www.deepl.com/en/translator#es/en/ Hip%C3%B3tesis%20del%20Proceso%20 Constructivo%20Aeropuerto%20T4%20Madrid%20 Barajas

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

1.0 INTRODUCTION

VENTILATION SYSTEM

Displacement ventilation systems are widely used in spaces of small and medium heights (up to 7.5 m), taking advantage of their high efficiency in removing contaminants by means of the air stratification. The higher the return is placed, the lesser airflow rate is needed to match the additional cooling load due to radiation from the ceiling.

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

The system consists of displacement diffussers on both sides of the central V-support, supply jet nozzles in totem where the exhaust air returns, and jet nozzles air curtain right at the bottom of facade curtain wall.

Figure 1.21 Ventilation system

Royal College of Art ADS 5

Return air

4 air nozzles

Return air duct

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Supply air duct nozzles

Exhaust air (return)

Supply jet nozzles in totem

Jet nozzles air curtain

Displacement diffusser

Figure 1.22 Ventilation diagram

28 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

DRAWINGS BUILDING SECTION Steel roof with zinc cover + concrete & steel support + steel facade + concrete slabs & beams

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

1:200

5.775m

±0.000m

-8.400m

-15.135m

72 m

Front Section

Royal College of Art ADS 5

6 1 1mm thk. zinc 2 Steel grade

S355 J2G3 Roll Section Secondary beam 3 Steel grade S275 UPN-100 purlins 4 5mm laminated bamboo strips 5 Steel grade S355 double-elliptical tubes 6 Facade curtain wall ＆ Stainless steel rods 7 Concrete plinth Reinforced concrete slab

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

8 Poststressed concrete beams 9 Concrete columns

10 Reinforced concrete slab 11 Reinforced concrete

Foundation beams

1:200

20M

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

DRAWINGS BUILDING SECTION Steel roof with zinc cover + concrete & steel support + steel facade + concrete slabs & beams

1:200 1

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

5.775m 5

±0.000m

-8.400m 1 1mm thk. zinc 2 Steel grade

S355 J2G3 I beam Section Main beam 3 50mm Steel rod 4 Steel grade S355 double-elliptical tubes 5 Facade curtain wall ＆ Stainless steel rods 6 Concrete plinth

-15.135m

4.5 m

Side Elevation

4.5 m

Royal College of Art ADS 5

1 Steel grade

5 6

7 8

S355 J2G3 Roll Section secondary beam 2 Steel grade S355 J2G3 I beam Section Main beam 3 Ø400-750x16 mm Steel grade S355 double-trunco-conical central support 4 Concrete plinth 5 Reinforced concrete slab

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

6 Poststressed

concrete beams 7 Concrete columns 9

8 Reinforced

concrete slab 9 Reinforced concrete

Foundation beams

Side Section

1:200

20M

34 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

DRAWINGS

DETAIL 1

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

36 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

DRAWINGS

DETAIL 2 1:20

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

38 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

DRAWINGS

DETAIL 3 1:20

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

40 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

DRAWINGS

DETAIL 4 1:20

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

CARBON COPY A: ENTIRELY TIMBER

ADS 5

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

3.0 CARBON COPY A

SUMMARY ENTIRELY TIMBER In order to reduce the overall emboided carbon, we bagan by changing the most carbon intensive elements of the existing structural solution - the reinforced concrete and concrete blocks. Why use concrete when you can use the inherient strength of stone in a carbon negative and more efficient process?

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

We have investigated four options, two carbon copies and two what if...options to assess which method is the greenest, fastest and cheapest. Our investigations show that with extended thinking about material qualities, Structural feasibility and detail node construction that it is possible to build carbon copies of the Barajas Terminal 4 that are cheaper and greener. Carbon copy A using mostly timber makes it a negative embodied carbon and the greenest option among all. However, using a large amount of laminated wood, which also makes it the most expensive option, is even more costly than the existing building made with steel and concrete, making it the least preferable choice in reality.

152.3% IN EMBODIED CARBON

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

Royal College of Art ADS 5

36.3% IN PROJECT COST

COST COMPARISON

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Figure 3.0 EMBT’s Timber Central Station in Naples

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

3.0 CARBON COPY A

DRAWINGS BUILDING SECTION Timber roof with stone tiles + timber support + timber facade + timber slabs & beams

1:200

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Refer Detail 3

5.775m

Refer Detail 4

±0.000m

-8.400m

-15.135m

72 m

Front Section

Royal College of Art ADS 5

Refer Detail 2

6 7

1 20mm thk. limestone tile 2 500x750mm section Glulam hardwood secondary beam 3 hardwood purlins

4 5mm laminated bamboo strips

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

5 Timber “V”-supports 6 Timber “Y”-supports 10

7 CLT softwood slab 8 Glulam hardwood beams 9 Glulam hardwood column

10 Stone slab 11

1:200

Stone foundation beams

20M

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

3.0 CARBON COPY A

DRAWINGS BUILDING SECTION Timber roof with stone tiles + timber support + timber facade + timber slabs & beams

1:200 1

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

5.775m

6 7

±0.000m 1 20mm thk.

limestone tile 2 500x750mm

Glulam hardwood Main beam 3 50mm Steel rod 4 250mm Hardwood branches 5 Steel Connector to branches 6 700mm Hardwood central support 7 150 x 400 mm Hardwood support facade window 8 Steel Connector

-8.400m

-15.135m

4.5 m

to floor

Side Elevation

4.5 m

Royal College of Art ADS 5

Refer Detail 1

1 500x750mm section

6 7

9 10

Side Section

1:200

Glulam hardwood secondary beam 2 500x1500mm Glulam hardwood Main beam 3 250mm Hardwood branches 4 Steel Connector to branches 5 700mm Hardwood central support 6 CLT softwood slab

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

7 600x1800mm

Glulam hardwood beams 8 Glulam hardwood column 9 Stone slab 10 Stone foundation beams 20M

50 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

3.0 CARBON COPY A

DRAWINGS

DETAIL 1

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

ADS 5

3.0 CARBON COPY A

Royal College of Art

DRAWINGS DETAIL 2 1：20

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

4 5

4 5 6

34 5 4 56 6

7 8

Timber “V”-supports connection detail isometric cutaway

7 8

8 7 8 1 700x700mm Hardwood glulam column

5 40mm Bea

6 40mm Cro steel plate 2 20mm Cross connection 1 700x700mm 5 40mm7 Bearing Hardwood steel plate ø60mm ste Pin Timber “V”-supports glulam column 6 40mm Cross conn 3 40mm Bearing steel plate 8 1400x700m connection detail steel plate 2 20mm 4 Cross 40mmconnection Connection steel plate isometric cutaway glulam colu 1 700x700mm 57 40mm Hardwood Bearing stee steel plate 1 700x700mm Hardwood 5 40mm Bearing steel plate ø60mm Pin Timber “V”-supports 6 40mm Cross conne 3 glulam 40mm column Bearing steel plate connection detail glulam column 6 40mm Cross connection 8 1400x700mm Hard steel plate 24 20mm Cross connection 40mm Connection steel plate isometric cutaway glulam column steel plate 2 20mm Cross connection steel plate 7 ø60mm Pin Timber “V”-supports steel plate 7 ø60mm Pin Timb 3 40mm Bearing steel plate 8 1400x700mm Hardw connection detail 3 40mm Bearing steel plate 8 Connection conn 1400x700mm Hardwood 4 40mm steel plate isometric cutaway glulam column 4 40mm Connection steel plate glulam column

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

3 4 5 6 7 8

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8

el plate

ection

wood

Timber “V”-supports connection detail section

1:20

0.2

ADS 5 Royal College of Art AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

3.0 CARBON COPY A

DRAWINGS DETAIL 3 1：20

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 2 3 3

4 5

Timber“Y”-supports connection detail isometric cutaway

Timber“Y”-supports 1 ø250mm connectionglulam detail column isometric cutaway 2 20mm Cross connection Timber“Y”-supports steel plate connection detail isometric 3 20mm Bearing steel plate cutaway 4 40mm Joint steel plate

6 7 7

1 ø250mm glulam column 2 20mm Cross connection 1 ø250mm 5 20mm Bearing st steel plate glulam column 6 Cross connection 3 20mm Bearing steel plate 40mm Joint steel plate 2 4 20mm Cross connection 7 Hardwood glulam 5 20mm Bearing stee steel plate 5 20mm Bearing steel plate Timber“Y 6 Cross connection s 3 20mm Bearing steel plate 6 Cross connection steel plate 40mm connectio 4 40mm Joint steel plate 7 Hardwood glulam c 7 Hardwood glulam column 700mm ø

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

5 6 7

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

el plate steel plate 40mm column 700mm ø

1 2 3 4

6 7

Timber“Y”-supports connection detail section

1:20

0.2

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

3.0 CARBON COPY A

DRAWINGS DETAIL 4 1：20

1 1 1

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

2 2 2

3 34 3

5 5

5 6 6 6

1 ø700 mm Hardwood glulam column

2 40mm Cross connection steel plate Timber “Y”-supports connection 3 30mm Bearing detail isometric cutaway Timber “Y”-supports connection steel plate detail isometric cutaway 4 40mm Bearing Timber “Y”-supports connection steel plate detail isometric cutaway

1 ø700 mm Hardwood glulam mmcolumn Hardwood 1 ø700 40mmcolumn Cross connection 2glulam steel plate Cross connection 2 40mm plate 30mm Bearing 3steel steel Bearing 3 30mm plate 40mm Bearing 4 steel plate steel plate Bearing 4 40mm 40mm Joint 5steel plate steel plate 6 30mm Anchor bar

5 40mm Join steel plate Joint 5 40mm 6 30mm Anch steel plate 6 30mm Ancho Timber tion de

ADS 5

3 4

5 6

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

or bar

Royal College of Art

2 3 4

5 6

Timber “Y”-supports connection detail section

1:20

0.2

Royal College of Art AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

CARBON COPY B: TIMBER + STONE

ADS 5

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

3.1 CARBON COPY B

SUMMARY HYBRID TIMBER + STONE In order to reduce the overall emboided carbon, we bagan by changing the most carbon intensive elements of the existing structural solution - the reinforced concrete and concrete blocks. Why use concrete when you can use the inherient strength of stone in a carbon negative and more efficient process?

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

98.4% IN EMBODIED CARBON

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

Royal College of Art ADS 5

47.1% IN PROJECT COST

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Figure 3.1 New Fundamentals Research Group, in partnership with S.N.B.R., designed and fabricated a stone vaulted pavilion for Rocalia

COST COMPARISON

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

3.1 CARBON COPY B

DRAWINGS BUILDING SECTION Timber roof with stone tiles + hybrid timber/stone support + timber facade + stone slabs & beams

1:200

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Refer Detail 3

5.775m

Refer Detail 4

±0.000m

-8.400m

-15.135m

72 m

Front Section

Royal College of Art ADS 5

Refer Detail 2

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

4 5 6

1 20mm thk. limestone tile 2 500x750mm section

Glulam hardwood secondary beam 3 hardwood purlins 4 5mm laminated bamboo strips

5 Hardwood branches 6 Stone column support 150 x 400 mm Hardwood 7 Stone slab 8 Post-tensioned stone

beams

9 Stone columns 10 Stone slab 11 Stone foundation

beams

1:200

20M

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

3.1 CARBON COPY B

DRAWINGS BUILDING SECTION Timber roof with stone tiles + hybrid timber/stone support + timber facade + stone slabs & beams

1:200 1

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

3 4

5.775m

6 7

±0.000m 1 20mm thk.

limestone tile

2 500x750mm

Glulam hardwood Main beam 3 50mm Steel rod

-8.400m

4 250mm Hardwood

branches 5 Steel Connector

to branches 6 700mm

-15.135m

Column support

7 150 x 400 mm Hardwood support facade window 8 40mm Steel bracket

4.5 m

Side Elevation

4.5 m

Royal College of Art ADS 5

Refer Detail 1

1 500x750mm section

6 7

9 10

Side Section

1:200

Glulam hardwood secondary beam 2 500x1500mm Glulam hardwood Main beam 3 250mm Hardwood branches 4 Steel Connector to branches 5 700mm

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

column support 6 Stone slab 7 600x900mm

Post-tensioned stone beams 8 Stone columns 9 Stone slab 10 Stone foundation beams

20M

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

3.1 CARBON COPY B

DRAWINGS DETAIL 2 1：20

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

1 2

2 3

5 4

5 6 7 6

8 7 8

Timber+stone “V”-supports connection detail isometric cutaway

1 Timber+stone “V”-supports connection detail isometric 2 cutaway Timber+stone 1 “V”-supports 700x700mm Hardwood 3 connection detail isometric glulam column 4 cutaway 2 20mm Cross connection steel plate 3 40mm Bearing steel plate 4 40mm Connection steel plate

1 700x700mm Hardwood 5 40mm Be glulam column 6 20mm cem 2 20mm Cross connection 7 60mm Te 700x700mm Hardwood 5 40mm Bearing s steel plate 8 700x680 La glulam column 3 40mm Bearing steel plate 6 20mm cement 20mm Cross connection 7 60mm Tension r 4 40mm Connection steel plate steel plate 8 700x680 Laminate 5 40mm Bearing steel plate 40mm Bearing steel plate 6 20mm cementsteel plate 40mm Connection 7 60mm Tension rod 8 700x680 Laminated Limestone Timber+ connecti

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

3 4 5 7 8

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

1 2

3 4 5

7 8

steel plate

rod ed Limestone

Timber+stone “V”-supports connection detail section

1:20

0.2

ADS 5 Royal College of Art AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

3.1 CARBON COPY B

DRAWINGS DETAIL 3 1：20

1 1

2 3 4

3 4

5 6

6 7

1 ø250mm Hardwood 5 20mm glulam column 6 60mm 2 20mm Cross connection 7 800x7 Timber+stone “Y”-supports steel plate Lamin 1 ø250mm Hardwood 5 20mm Bearing st connection detail isometric 3 20mm Bearing steel plate linest glulam column cutaway 4 40mm Joint steel plate 6 60mm Tension st connection 2 20mm Cross 1 ø250mm Hardwood 5 20mm Bearing steel plate7 800x700x690mm Timber+stone “Y”-supports steel plate glulam column 6 60mm Tension steel rod Laminated tensio connection detail isometric 3 20mm Bearing steel plate linestone column 2 20mm Cross connection 7 800x700x690mm cutaway 4 40mm Joint steel plate Timber+stone “Y”-supports Tim steel plate Laminated tension connection detail isometric con 3 20mm Bearing steel plate linestone column cutaway 4 40mm Joint steel plate

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

6 7

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

teel plate teel rod m on n

2 3

5 6 7

Timber+stone “Y”-supports connection detail section

1:20

0.2

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

3.1 CARBON COPY B

DRAWINGS DETAIL 4 1：20

1 1

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

1 2

2 3

4 4

4 5 5 6

1 20mm cement Timber+Stone “Y”-supports connection 2 Laminated tension detail isometric cutaway linestone column 800x700x690mm Timber+Stone “Y”-supports connection 3 Tension steel rod 60mm r+Stone “Y”-supports connection detail isometric cutaway 4 Steel bracket 40mm isometric cutaway

5 6

1 20mm cement 2 Laminated tension 1 20mmcolumn linestone cement800x700x690mm 2 Laminated tension 3 Tension steel rod 60mm 5 30mm Anch column 800x700x690mm 4 Steellinestone bracket 40mm 6 Bearing stee 3 Tension steel 5 30mm “Y”-suA 5 30mm Anchor bar rod 60mm Timber+Stone 4 Steel bracket 40mm 6detail Bearing connection sec 6 Bearing steel plate 40mm

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

4 5 6

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Anchor bar g steel plate 40mm

1 2

4 5 6

Timber+Stone “Y”-supports connection detail section

1:20

0.2

Royal College of Art AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

WHAT IF ? ... A: TENSILE TIMBER

ADS 5

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

4.0 WHAT IF?... A

SUMMARY TENSILE TIMBER In order to reduce the overall emboided carbon, we bagan by changing the most carbon intensive elements of the existing structural solution - the reinforced concrete and concrete blocks. Why use concrete when you can use the inherient strength of stone in a carbon negative and more efficient process?

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

We have investigated four options, two carbon copies and two what if...options to assess which method is the greenest, fastest and cheapest. Our investigations show that with extended thinking about material qualities, Structural feasibility and detail node construction that it is possible to build carbon copies of the Barajas Terminal 4 that are cheaper and greener. What if A option uses alternative roof timber tensile structure advised by the structural engineer. The main difference is changing the shape of the beam in a more structurally natural form, which can reduce the number of timbers used to less than a half compared to Carbon Copy A. The structurally natural shape of the beam can help reduce the cost significantly. Also, it can still have a similar structure to the original design and requires no extra vertical support.structure to the original design and requires no extra vertical support.

93.6% IN EMBODIED CARBON

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

Royal College of Art ADS 5

50.7% IN PROJECT COST

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Figure 4.0 AA Design + Make students test the limits of timber in tensile woodland canopy

COST COMPARISON

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

3.2 WHAT IF? ... A

DRAWINGS BUILDING SECTION Tensile timber roof with stone tiles + hybrid support + timber facade + stone slabs, columns & beams

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

1:200

5.775m

±0.000m

-8.400m

-15.135m

72 m

Front Section

Royal College of Art ADS 5

1 2

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

4 5

7 1 1mm thk. ZINC Sheet 2 400x400mm Glulam

hardwood secondary beams 3 Φ100mm Bamboo bracing system 4 Hardwood branches 5 Stone column support 6 Stone slab 7 Post-tensioned stone

beams

8 Stone columns 9 Stone slab 10 Stone foundation

beams

1:200

20M

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

3.2 WHAT IF? ... A

DRAWINGS BUILDING SECTION Tensile timber roof with stone tiles + hybrid support + timber facade + stone slabs, columns & beams

1:200 1

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

3 4

5.775m

6 7

±0.000m 1 2

3 4 5 6 7

20mm thk. limestone tile 500x750mm Glulam hardwood Main beam Φ100mm Bamboo bracing system 250mm Hardwood branches Steel Connector to branches 700mm Stone

-8.400m

-15.135m

column support

150 x 400 mm Hardwood support facade window

Stone slab

4.5 m

Side Elevation

4.5 m

Royal College of Art ADS 5

Refer Detail 1

2 3 4

6 1 800x400mm

7 8

10 11

Glulam hardwood Main beam 2 1mm thk. ZINC Sheet 3 400x400mm Glulam hardwood secondary beams 4 Φ100mm Bamboo bracing system

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

5 250MM Hardwood branches 6 700mm Stone column support 7 Stone slab 8 600x900mm

Post-tensioned stone beams 9 Stone columns 10 Stone slab 11 Stone foundation

beams

Side Section

1:200

20M

80 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

3.2 WHAT IF? ... A

DRAWINGS

DETAIL 1

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

WHAT IF ? ... B: TENSILE TIMBER

ADS 5

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

4.1 WHAT IF?...B

SUMMARY STONE VAULT In order to reduce the overall emboided carbon, we bagan by changing the most carbon intensive elements of the existing structural solution - the reinforced concrete and concrete blocks. Why use concrete when you can use the inherient strength of stone in a carbon negative and more efficient process?

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

We have investigated four options, two carbon copies and two what if...options to assess which method is the greenest, fastest and cheapest. Our investigations show that with extended thinking about material qualities, Structural feasibility and detail node construction that it is possible to build carbon copies of the Barajas Terminal 4 that are cheaper and greener. What if...B option uses alternative roof stone tensile structure advised by the structural engineer. Compared to timber tensile structure in What if?...A, it eliminates the use of the bamboo bracing system, which can significantly reduce the amount of timber used, making it the cheapest option among all.

91.4% IN EMBODIED CARBON

EMBODIED CARBON COMPARISON

Royal College of Art ADS 5

70.6% IN PROJECT COST

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Figure 4.1W Amin Taha + Groupwork Amin Taha designed a sculptural pavilion for the 2018 Venice Biennale

COST COMPARISON

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

4.1 WHAT IF?... B

DRAWINGS BUILDING SECTION Stone vault with stone tiles + hybrid timber/stone support + timber facade + stone slabs, columns & beams

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

1:200

5.775m

±0.000m

-8.400m

-15.135m

72 m

Front Section

Royal College of Art ADS 5

1 2

3 4

1 1mm thk. ZINC Sheet

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

2 5 layers of 10mm

Limestone 3 800x400mm Glulam hardwood Main beam

4 Hardwood branches

5 Hardwood branches 6 Stone column support 7 Stone slab 8 Post-tensioned stone

beams

9 Stone columns 10 Stone slab 11 Stone foundation

beams

1:200

20M

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

4.1 WHAT IF? ... B

DRAWINGS BUILDING SECTION Stone vault with stone tiles + hybrid timber/stone support + timber facade + stone slabs, columns & beams

1:200 1

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

3 4

5.775m

6 7

±0.000m

1 1mm thk. ZINC

Sheet 2 500x750mm

Glulam hardwood Main beam 3 5 layers of 10mm

-8.400m

Limestone 4 250mm Hardwood

branches 5 Steel Connector

to branches

-15.135m

6 700mm Stone column support 7 150 x 400 mm Hardwood support facade window

4.5 m

Side Elevation

4.5 m

Royal College of Art ADS 5

Refer Detail 1

2 3

1 800x400mm

6 7

9 10

Side Section

1:200

Glulam hardwood Main beam 2 1mm thk. ZINC Sheet 3 5 layers of 10mm Limestone

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

4 250MM Hardwood branches 5 700mm Stone column support 6 Stone slab 7 600x900mm

Post-tensioned stone beams 8 Stone columns 9 Stone slab 10 Stone foundation beams

20M

90 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

4.1 WHAT IF? ... B

DRAWINGS

DETAIL 1

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

92 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

5 DATA COMPARISONS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

ADS 5

5.0 DATA COMPARISONS

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

EMBODIED CARBON (EXISTING)

MATERIAL

ELEMENT

VOLUME M³

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

Zinc Rock wool Bitumen elastomer Fibre felt Perforated aluminum sheet

Roof finish Insulation Vapour barrier Vapour control Acoustic Insulation

147 38,906 220 147 125

6,019,412 1,789,674 64,525 17,177 1,955,876

Galvanised steel profile Stainless steel

103 6,263

2,377,908 67,524,822

Bamboo

Metal deck Rod, roll section I beam and purlin Laminated strip

734

-687,075

Steel Concrete

Tube and support Plinth

2,012 2,584

21,698,068 1,725,951

Stainless steel

Window frame

605

6,520,678

Reinforced concrete

Beam, column, slab and foundation

275,493

120,941,501

TOTAL

293,036,452

Royal College of Art

COST ANALYSIS (EXISTING)

ADS 5

ELEMENT

VOLUME M³

COST £

Zinc Rock wool Bitumen elastomer Fibre felt Perforated aluminum sheet

Roof finish Insulation Vapour barrier Vapour control Acoustic Insulation

147 38,906 220 147 125

14,681,492 22,756,312 7,340,746 7,340,746 14,681,492

Galvanised steel profile Stainless steel

103 6263

11,745,193 23,308

Bamboo

Metal deck Rod, roll section, I beam and purlin Laminated strip

734

489,383

Steel Concrete

Tube and support Plinth

2,012 2,584

3,976 258,376

Stainless steel

Window frame

605

5,036

Reinforced concrete

Beam, column, slab and foundation

275,493

171,254,067

TOTAL

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

MATERIAL

250,580,126

ADS 5

5.0 DATA COMPARISONS

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

EMBODIED CARBON (CARBON COPY A)

MATERIAL

ELEMENT

VOLUME M³

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

Limestone Aluminum EPDM rubber sheet Rock wool Bitumen elastomer Fibre felt Perforated aluminum sheet

Roof tile Channel and fixing Waterproofing Insulation Vapour barrier Vapour control Acoustic Insulation

2,936 44 220 38,906 220 147 125

554,960 713,303 708,861 1,789,674 64,525 17,177 1,955,876

Galvanised steel profile Hardwood

103 28,592

2,377,908 -29,249,629

bamboo

Metal deck Bracing,secondary beam, main beam and purlin Laminated strip

734

-687,075

Hardwood Steel

V support and column Rods and connector

5,690 296

-5,821,126 3,194,837

Hardwood

Window frame

751

-768,059

Hardwood Softwood Limestone

Beam and column Slab Foundation

67,541 108,023 90,193

-69,094,185 -75,940,324 17,046,401

TOTAL

-153,136,876

Royal College of Art

COST ANALYSIS (CARBON COPY A)

ADS 5

ELEMENT

VOLUME M³

COST £

Limestone Aluminum EPDM rubber sheet Rock wool Bitumen elastomer Fibre felt Perforated aluminum sheet

Roof tile Channel and fixing Waterproofing Insulation Vapour barrier Vapour control Acoustic Insulation

2,936 44 220 38,906 220 147 125

880,889 1,763,300 1,468,149 22,756,312 7,340,746 7,340,746 14,681,492

Galvanised steel profile Hardwood

103 28,592

11,745,193 19,061,342

bamboo

Metal deck Bracing system,secondary beam, main beam and purlin Laminated strip

734

489,383

Hardwood Steel

V support and column Rod and connector

5,690 296

3,793,500 585

Hardwood

Window frame

751

500,527

Hardwood Softwood Limestone

Beam and column Slab Foundation

67,541 108,023 90,193

42,702,685 180,038,700 27,057,780

TOTAL

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

MATERIAL

341,621,331

ADS 5

5.0 DATA COMPARISONS

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

EMBODIED CARBON (CARBON COPY B)

MATERIAL

ELEMENT

VOLUME M³

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

Limestone Aluminum EPDM rubber sheet Rock wool Bitumen elastomer Fibre felt Perforated aluminum sheet

Roof tile Channel and fixing Waterproofing Insulation Vapour barrier Vapour control Acoustic Insulation

2,936 44 220 38,906 220 147 125

554,960 713,303 708,861 1,789,674 64,525 17,177 1,955,876

Galvanised steel profile Hardwood

103 28,592

2,377,908 -29,249,629

Bamboo

Metal deck Bracing, secondary beam main beam and purlin Laminated strip

734

-687,075

Hardwood Limestone Steel

V Support Column Tension rods and connector

2,747 4,888 200

-2,810,220 923,832 2,154,110

Hardwood

Window frame

751

-768,059

Limestone Steel

Slab, beam and column Tension rod

137,747 80

26,034,104 858,764

TOTAL

4,638,112

Royal College of Art

COST ANALYSIS (CARBON COPY B)

ADS 5

ELEMENT

VOLUME M³

COST £

Limestone Aluminum EPDM rubber sheet Rock wool Bitumen elastomer Fibre felt Perforated aluminum sheet

Roof tile Channel and fixing Waterproofing Insulation Vapour barrier Vapour control Acoustic Insulation

2,936 44 220 38,906 220 147 125

880,889 1,763,300 1,468,149 22,756,312 7,340,746 7,340,746 14,681,492

Galvanised steel profile Hardwood

103 28,592

11,745,193 19,061,342

Bamboo

Metal deck Bracing, secondary beam main beam and purlin Laminated strip

734

489,383

Hardwood Limestone Steel

V Support Column Tension rods and connector

2,747 4,888 200

1,831,358 1,466,400 395

Hardwood

Window frame

751

500,527

Limestone Steel

Slab, beam and column Tension rod

137,747 80

41,323,975 157

TOTAL

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

MATERIAL

132,650,365

ADS 5

5.0 DATA COMPARISONS

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

EMBODIED CARBON (WHAT IF? ... A) MATERIAL

ELEMENT

VOLUME M³

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

Limestone Aluminum EPDM rubber sheet Rock wool Bitumen elastomer Fibre felt Perforated aluminum sheet

Roof tile Channel and fixing Waterproofing Insulation Vapour barrier Vapour control Acoustic Insulation

2,933 44 220 38,867 220 147 125

554,398 712,580 708,143 1,787,860 64,460 17,160 1,953,893

Galvanised steel profile Hardwood Hardwood

Metal deck Secondary & main beam Tensile structure

103 12,923 2,679

2,375,498 -13,220,024 -2,507,448

Hardwood Limestone Steel

V Support Column Tension rod and connector

2,747 4,888 200

-2,810,220 923,832 2,154,110

Hardwood

Window frame

751

-768,059

Limestone Steel

Slab, beam and column Tension rod

137,747 80

26,034,104 858,764

100

TOTAL

18,839,050

Royal College of Art

COST ANALYSIS (WHAT IF? ... A)

ADS 5

ELEMENT

VOLUME M³

COST £

Limestone Aluminum EPDM rubber sheet Rock wool Bitumen elastomer Fibre felt Perforated aluminum sheet

Roof tile Channel and fixing Waterproofing Insulation Vapour barrier Vapour control Acoustic Insulation

2,933 44 220 38,867 220 147 125

879,997 1,761,512 1,466,661 22,733,245 7,333,305 7,333,305 14,666,610

Galvanised steel profile Hardwood Hardwood

Metal deck Secondary & main beam Tensile structure

103 12,923 2679

11,733,288 8,615,200 1,785,980

Hardwood Limestone Steel

V Support Column Tension rod and connector

2,747 4,888 200

-2,810,220 923,832 2,154,110

Hardwood

Window frame

751

500,527

Limestone Steel

Slab, beam and column Tension rod

137,747 80

41,323,975 157

TOTAL

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

MATERIAL

123,431,915

101

ADS 5

5.0 DATA COMPARISONS

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

EMBODIED CARBON (WHAT IF? ... B)

MATERIAL

ELEMENT

VOLUME M³

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

Limestone Aluminum EPDM rubber sheet Rock wool

Roof tile Channel & fixing Waterproofing Insulation

2,933 44 220 22,000

554,398 712,580 708,143 1,011,996

Limstone Resin Hardwood Bamboo

Vault Adhesive Main beam & purlin Laminated strip

7,333 587 10,776 733

1,385,995 6,073,704 - 11,024,045 - 686,379

Hardwood Limestone Steel

V Support Column Tension rod and connector

2,747 4,888 200

- 2,810,220 923,832 2,154,110

Hardwood

Window frame

751

- 768,059

Limestone Steel

Slab, beam and column Tension rod

137,747 80

26,034,104 858,764

102

TOTAL

25,128,923

Royal College of Art

COST ANALYSIS (WHAT IF? ... B)

ADS 5

ELEMENT

VOLUME M³

COST £

Limestone Aluminum EPDM rubber sheet Rock wool

Roof tile Channel & fixing Waterproofing Insulation

2,933 44 220 22,000

879,997 1,761,513 1,466,661 14,666,610

Limstone Resin Hardwood Bamboo

Vault Adhesive Main beam & purlin Laminated strip

7,333 587 10,776 733

2,199,991 Unknown 7,184,128 488,887

Hardwood Limestone Steel

V Support Column Tension rod and connector

2,747 4,888 200

1,831,358 1,466,400 395

Hardwood

Window frame

751

500,527

Limestone Steel

Slab, beam and column Tension rod

137,747 80

41,323,975 157

TOTAL

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

MATERIAL

73,770,599

103

104 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

6 FINDINGS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

105

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

6.0 FINDINGS

FINAL COMPARITIVE FINDINGS CARBON COPY A: ENTIRELY TIMBER

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Carbon copy A using mostly timber makes it a negative embodied carbon and the greenest option among all. However, using a large amount of laminated wood, which also makes it the most expensive option, is even more costly than the existing building made with steel and concrete, making it the least preferable choice in reality.

CARBON COPY B: HYBRID TIMBER + STONE Carbon copy B uses mainly stone, making it almost a zero embodied carbon solution. Theoretically, stone can be used half of the volume compared to the existing building� which can help reduce almost half the price and make it the best choice in carbon copy.

WHAT IF?... A: TENSILE TIMBER What if A option uses alternative roof timber tensile structure advised by the structural engineer. The main difference is changing the shape of the beam in a more structurally natural form, which can reduce the number of timbers used to less than a half compared to Carbon Copy A. The structurally natural shape of the beam can help reduce the cost significantly. Also, it can still have a similar structure to the original design and requires no extra vertical support.

WHAT IF?...B: STONE VAULT

106

What if...B option uses alternative roof stone tensile structure advised by the structural engineer. Compared to timber tensile structure in What if?...A, it eliminates the use of the bamboo bracing system, which can significantly reduce the amount of timber used, making it the cheapest option among all.

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

COST COMPARISON

Royal College of Art

EMBOODIED CARBON COMPARISON

107

108 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

7 APPENDICES

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

109

110 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

7.0 APPENDICES

PROPOSED ELEMENTS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

111

112 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

7.0 APPENDICES

NOTES AND SKETCHES

28 Oct 2021

Royal College of Art

2 Nov 2021

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

113

114 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

9 Nov 2021

ADS 5

Royal College of Art

16 Nov 2021

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

115

116 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

23 Nov 2021

ADS 5

Royal College of Art

28 Nov 2021

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

117

118 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

Royal College of Art

2 Dec 2021

ADS 5

Royal College of Art

17 Jan 2022

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

119

120 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

8 MENU OF COMPONENTS

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

121

ADS 5 Royal College of Art AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS 122

8.0 MENU OF COMPONENTS

ROOFING DETAILS CARBON COPY A AND B

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

123

ADS 5 Royal College of Art AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS 124

8.0 MENU OF COMPONENTS

ROOFING DETAILS WHAT IF ?... A

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

125

ADS 5 Royal College of Art AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS 126

8.0 MENU OF COMPONENTS

ROOFING DETAILS WHAT IF ?... B

Royal College of Art

ADS 5 AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

127

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

8.0 MENU OF COMPONENTS

V-SUPPORT DETAILS CARBON COPY A

21 1 3

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

4 2 3

53 64

2 3

4 5

4 6

7 6 8

7 8

Timber “V”-supports connection detail Timber “V”-supports isometric cutaway connection detail isometric cutaway

1 700x700mm Hardwood glulam column

128

V”-supports n detail cutaway

2 20mm Cross connection steel plate Timber “V”-supports 3 connection 40mm Bearing detailsteel plate 4 isometric 40mm Connection cutaway steel plate

7 1 700x700mm Hardwood glulam column

1 700x700mm Hardwood 2 20mm Cross connection glulam column

steel plate 2 20mm Cross connection 3 40mm Bearing steel plate steel plate 4 40mm Connection steel plate 3 40mm Bearing steel plate 4 40mm Connection steel plate

5 40mm Bearing stee

6 40mm Cross conne

5 40mm steel Bearing plate steel pla

6740mm Cross connection ø60mm Pin steel plate 1400x700mm Hardw Pin 78ø60mm

glulam column 8 1400x700mm Hardwood glulam column

5 40mm 1Bearing steel plate 700x700mm Hardwood glulam column 6 40mm Cross connection steel plate 2 20mm Cross connection 7 ø60mm Pin steel plate 3 40mm Bearing steel plate 8 1400x700mm Hardwood 40mm Connection steel plate glulam4column

5 40mm Be

6 40mm Cr steel plate ø60mm 7 Timber “V”-P connection 8 1400x700d glulam co

Royal College of Art

CARBON COPY B

ADS 5

2 2 3

3 4 4

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

5 7 6 6

7 8

7 7 8 Timber+stone “V”-supports connection detail isometric Timber+stone “V”-supports cutaway

1 8 700x700mm Hardwood glulam column 1 700x700mm Hardwood 5 2 Cross connection glulam20mm column 6 steel plate 2 20mm Cross connection 3 40mm Bearing steel plate 7 steel plate 4 40mm Connection steel plate8

5 40mm Bearing steel p 6 20mm cement 40mm Bearing steel plat 7 60mm Tension rod 20mm cement 8 700x680 Laminated Lim

60mm Tension rod 700x680 Laminated Limest

129

3 40mm Bearing steel plate connection detail isometric 1 700x700mm Hardwood 4 40mm Connection steel plate Bearing steel plate cutaway 5 40mm glulam column 1 700x700mm Hardwood 6 20mm cement 5 40mm Bearing steel plate 2 20mm Cross connection glulam column 7 60mm Tension rod 6 20mm cement steel plate 2 20mm Cross connection Timber+stone “V”-supports 7 60mm Tension rod 8 700x680 Laminated Limestone 3 40mm Bearing steel plate steel plate connection detail isometric 8 700x680 Laminated Limestone stone “V”-supports Timber+stone “V”-supp 4 40mm Connection steel plate 3 40mm Bearing steel plate cutaway on detail isometric connection detail sectio 4 40mm Connection steel plate

ADS 5 Royal College of Art AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

8.0 MENU OF COMPONENTS

Y-SUPPORT DETAILS CARBON COPY A

1 2

1 3

3 4

4 5 3

4 5

6 7

7 Timber“Y”-supports connection detail isometric cutaway

130

er“Y”-supports ection detail isometric way

Timber“Y”-supports 1 ø250mm connectionglulam detail column isometric cutaway 2 20mm Cross connection Timber“Y”-supports steel plate detail steel isometric 3connection 20mm Bearing plate 4cutaway 40mm Joint steel plate

1 ø250mm 7 glulam column 2 20mm Cross connection steel plate 1 ø250mm 3 20mm Bearing steel plate glulam column 4 40mm Joint steel plate

5 20mm Bearing steel plate 6 Cross connection steel plate 4 7 Hardwood glulam column 70

2 20mm Cross connection 5 20mm Bearing steel plate steel plate 1 ø250mm 6 Cross connection steel plate 3 20mm Bearing plate glulam steel column 4 40mm2Joint steel plateconnection 7 Hardwood glulam column 7 20mm Cross 5 20mm Bearing stee steel plate 5 20mm Bearing steel plate Timber“Y”-supports 6connection Cross connection s 20mm Bearing steel40mm plate 6 Cross 3connection steel plate detail sec 4 40mm Joint steel plate 7 Hardwood glulam c 7 Hardwood glulam column 700mm ø

Royal College of Art

CARBON COPY B

ADS 5

22 1

2 3 4 5

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

4 6

6 7

Timber+stone “Y”-supports 7 connection detail isometric cutaway

1 ø250mm Hardwood glulam column 2 20mm Cross connection 7Hardwood 1 ø250mm steel plate glulam column Bearing steel plate 3 20mm 4 40mm Jointconnection steel plate Cross 2 20mm

5 20mm Bearing steel plate 6 60mm Tension steel rod 7 800x700x690mm 20mm Bearing steel plate 5Laminated tension 60mm column Tension steel rod 6linestone

7 800x700x690mm Timber+stone “Y”-supports steel plate Laminated tension connection detail isometric 3 20mm Bearing steel plate linestone column cutaway 4 40mm Joint steel plate 5 20mm Bearing steel plate 1 ø250mm Hardwood 1 ø250mm Hardwood 5 20mm Bearing steel plate glulam column 6 60mm Tension steel rod glulam column Tension steel rod7 800x700x690mm 6 60mm connection 2 20mm Cross Timber+stone “Y”-supports 2 20mm Cross connection steel plate 7 800x700x690mm Laminated tension +stone “Y”-supports Timber+stone “Y”-supp connection detail isometric steel plate steel plate 3 20mm Bearing Laminated tension linestone column ion detail isometric connection detail sectio cutaway 4 40mm Joint linestone 3 20mm Bearing steel plate steel platecolumn y 4 40mm Joint steel plate

131

ADS 5 Royal College of Art

8.0 MENU OF COMPONENTS

Y-SUPPORT DETAILS CARBON COPY A

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

2 2

3 4 3 4 3

6 5

5 6

1 ø700 mm Hardwood glulam column

1 ø700 mm Hardwood glulam column Timber “Y”-supports connection

132

40mm Cross connection detail 2isometric cutaway steel plate Timber “Y”-supports connection detail isometric cutaway3 30mm Bearing steel plate Timber “Y”-supports connection 40mm Bearing 4 Timber “Y”-supports connection detail isometric cutaway steel plate detail isometric cutaway

2 40mm Cross connect 1 ø700 mm Hardwood steel plate glulam column 3 30mm Bearing 2 40mm Cross connection 1 ø700 mm Hardwood steel plate steel plate glulam column 4 40mm Bearing 30mmCross Bearing 3 connection 2 40mm steel plate steelplate plate steel 5 40mm Join 4 40mm Bearing steel plate Bearing 3 30mm steel plate 6 30mm Anch steel plate 5 40mm Joint 5 40mm Joint Bearing 4 40mm Timber steel plate steel plate plate Ancho 6 30mmtion de 30mm Anchor bar 6steel

Royal College of Art

CARBON COPY B

ADS 5

1 1 2 2

2 3

3 4

4 4

AIRPORTS AND BIG SHEDS

5 6

4 5

Timber+Stone “Y”-supports connection detail isometric cutaway

1 20mm cement 2 Laminated tension linestone column 800x700x690mm 3 Tension steel rod 60mm 4 Steel bracket 40mm

1 20mm cement 2 Laminated tension linestone column 800x700x690mm 1 20mm cement 1 20mm cement Tension steel rod 60mm Timber+Stone “Y”-supports connection2 Laminated3tension 5 30mm Anchor 2 Laminated tension 4 Steel 800x700x690mm bracket 40mm detail isometric cutaway linestone column 800x700x690mm 6 Bearing steel p linestone column 3 Tension steel rod 60mm 3 Tension steel Timber+Stone Stone “Y”-supportsTimber+Stone connection “Y”-supports 5 30mm Anchor bar rod 60mm connection 5 30mm Anchor bar“Y”-supp 4 Steel bracket 40mm connection detail40mm sectio ometric cutaway detail isometric cutaway 6 4 Steel bracketBearing 40mm steel plate 40mm6 Bearing steel plate

133

ADS 5

CONTENTS 1.0_INTRODUCTION Architecture and Health

2.0_CASE STUDY: EVELINA LONDON CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL 6 7 8 10 12 14 18 20 22 26 27 HOSPITAL / LAB

HOSPITAL / LAB

Case Study Key Figures Site Overview Program Requirements Existing Structural Plans Existing Section Existing Elevation Existing Material Selection Existing Details (Concrete Frame, GRC Cladding) Existing Embodied Carbon Analysis Existing Cost Analysis 3.0_PROPOSED OPTION A: CLT TRUSS + STONE COLUMNS/CORE An Introduction to Timber Construction How can timber be applied to healthcare? CLT Healthcare Precedent: Dyson Neonatal Unit, Bath CLT Healthcare Precedent: Maggie’s Oldham CLT Structural Precedent: Sara Cultural Centre CLT Structural Precedent: Congress Centre, Agordo Proposed Structural Plan (Typical Floor) RCP (Typical Floor) Proposed 1:150 Wall Section Proposed Key Details (1:20) Proposed Embodied Carbon Calculations Proposed Cost Analysis

30 31 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 54 55

4.0_PROPOSED OPTION B: PRE-STRESSED STONE FLOORS, STONE COLUMNS/CORES

Royal College of Art

58 60 62 64 66 68 70 82 84 85

Royal College of Art

An Introduction to Stone Construction The Use of Stone in Healthcare Precedent: Stone Exoskeletons Proposed Structural Plan Proposed RCP Proposed 1:50 Section Key Details (1:5/1:10) Facade Detail Embodied Carbon Calculations Cost Analysis

ADS 5

1.0_INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH ARCHITECTURE & HEALTH

HOSPITAL / LAB

Advances in modern medicine mean we are now living longer than ever and spending an increasing amount of time in hospitals, either as patients or carers. Today, we automatically associate hospitals with an almost antiseptic architecture, one of disinfectant and sterilisation. Charles Jencks refers to hospitals as “huge, impersonal factories for manufacturing health.” Even the term “Health”, Edwin Heathcote argues has been commodified, commercialised, personalised and politicised. Traditionally, hospitals were a monument to the Gods, and later a monument to the sciences. Health was positioned at the heart of the city. In modern times there was a shift; the hospital became a machine, a highly complex and functional box that accommodates technology designed to prolong life. Heathcote suggests that this is where architecture “flatlined”. How can we reintroduce architecture into the medical process? How are we able to de-institutionalise the experience and create healthier buildings? With time, this particular typology will inevitably morph into something more complex. More recently, the NHS has become conscious of the role the built environment plays as a tool of “healing”. This year they even referenced the role of design within their long term plan and how they are unveiling a “healthier built environment”, despite using the most toxic materials. Can stone and timber be integrated within the hospital/laboratory typology?

Royal College of Art

Left to right: UCL Cancer Institute, Maggie’s Barts Central Atria

Aerial view of Evelina London Children’s Hospital extension Hawkins\Brown, 2021

ADS 5

2.0_EXISTING CONDITION

EVELINA LONDON HAWKINS\BROWN, 2021 KEY FIGURES AT A GLANCE Submission: 2021 Evelina London Children’s Hospital is an internationally renowned centre in children’s healthcare. It opened on the St Thomas’ Hospital site in Lambeth in 2005, bringing together the local paediatric services of St Thomas’ Hospital with the internationally recognised services at Guy’s Hospital. It is one of the largest providers of children’s healthcare in the UK. Activity in the hospital has doubled over the last 15 years. Despite Trust investment to expand facilities within the existing building and maintain the quality of care, the original hospital (designed by Hopkins Architects) is now too small to meet demand.

HOSPITAL / LAB

Aerial Rendering of Evelina London Children’s Hospital Extension, Image Credit:

Gross Internal Area (GIA): 27,306 m2 Typical Floor Gross Internal Area (GIA): 2,080 m2 Net Internal Area (NIA): 15,877 m2

KEY INFORMATION (BY LEVEL) LEVEL

FUNCTION

HEIGHT

SLAB DEPTH

LAYOUT TYPE

Plant

6600

300

1 - Basement

High Tech

5000

300

1 - Basement

Med Tech

3910

300

2 - Ground

High Tech

4950

250

3 - Typical

High Tech

4950

250

3 - Typical

High Tech

4950

250

3 - Typical

High Tech

4950

250

3 - Typical

Plant

4900

250

3 - Typical

Med Tech

4300

250

3 - Typical

Med Tech

4300

250

3 - Typical

Med Tech

4300

250

3 - Typical

Med Tech

4350

250

3 - Typical

Plant

4900

250

4 - Upper

Terrace/Plant

3850

250

4 - Upper

Roof

200

Royal College of Art

The proposal was submitted for planning in May 2021.

Storeys: 13, including 2 basement levels

HOSPITAL / LAB

The proposals include the demolition of St Thomas’ House and the Dunhill Fitness centre, to accommodate a new 11-storey building located directly south of the existing Evelina London Children’s Hospital, with connections from basement level B1 up to and including level 03. The two buildings will operate as a single entity. New accommodation will be provided over 13 floors, with two basement levels, three dedicated plant floors at B2 level, level 05 and level 10, an external terrace at level 03 and a roof terrace at level 11. Critical care, operating theatres and in-patient beds are provided with associated clinical support spaces. Space is also provided for research, imaging, dedicated staff and family areas, public reception and cafe space.

Height: 61.50m (AOD)

ADS 5

2.0_EXISTING CONDITION

SITE OVERVIEW The proposal site is located directly south of the existing Evelina London Children’s Hospital which sits at the southern end of the St Thomas’ Campus. The site faces onto the River Thames and towards the Palace of Westminster and the associated UNESCO World Heritage site. The site is within the Albert Embankment Conservation area and also the Waterloo Opportunity area. To the south east, on the opposite side of Lambeth Palace Road, is the Lambeth Palace conservation area. Westminster Bridge is located to the north and Lambeth Bridge to the south. The site sits within several protected viewing corridors as defined by the London View Management Framework (LVMF). These provide constraints to the overall scale of the proposals and the architectural character of any proposals.

HOSPITAL / LAB

8 7 6 1

HOSPITAL / LAB

Lambeth Palace Road is a busy, main route into central London. It is a TFL red route and also provides the main emergency access ‘Blue Light Route’ to and from the hospital approximately 50m north of the site. The busy road contributes to increased pollution levels (both in terms of particulates and noise) in the local environs. The air-borne particulates are mitigated somewhat by the relative strength of the prevailing south-westerly winds that approach the site having run up the river and along Lambeth Palace Road. Careful consideration of the microclimate is needed.

Aerial View of St Thomas’ Campus

The proposal site is located at the southern end of the St Thomas’ Hospital Campus, currently occupied by St. Thomas’ House (4) and the Dunhill Fitness Centre (10). The existing Evelina London Children’s Hospital (5) is immediately to the north, into which the new building will connect. Hospital Street (11) sits to the west of the site with the south wing to its west adjacent to the River Thames. The taller buildings in the central part of the campus are East Wing (6), Lambeth Wing (8), and North Wing (1), with Gassiot House beyond at the northern edge of the campus.

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

2.0_EXISTING CONDITION

HOSPITAL / LAB

PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

Stacking Section Source: DAS, Planning Portal

The spatial requirement of the proposed building has been agreed as circa 28,000sqm (GIA) to accommodate the following: •

100 in-patient beds, including clinical research beds, and 20 critical care beds, provided in a range of en-suite and shared wards.

•

14 operating theatres and intervention rooms, as well as comprehensive diagnostic services and other supporting clinical functions to care for patients.

•

Diagnostic imaging suites in order to provide a variety of non-invasive methods of diagnosis using scanners like X-ray, MRIs and CT Scanners.

•

Research spaces and laboratories to support research into new medicines, technologies and therapies (such as gene therapy, which can mean individual patients are able to be treated more specifically and illnesses targeted at a genetic level.)

Day Rooms, Parent Rooms and Staff Welfare Spaces to provide space for rest, relaxation and respite - all of which are vital in providing a healthy and caring environment.

The result is a set of flexible and adaptable floor plates that can accommodate future change. As a result of this need for flexibility, the building height becomes pre-determined based on the number of floors of each type contained within the proposals. The diagram above shows a broad 50:50 allocation of high tech and medium tech spaces borne out of clinical studies and healthcare planning with the Trust. The floor typologies are arranged in clusters of high tech on the lower levels and medium tech on the upper levels, split by an interstitial plant floor serving the floors below and capped by a second plant floor serving the upper floors. This arrangement offers the most efficient use of internal area to minimise space required for M&E risers.

Royal College of Art

• •

The brief for the development calls for an adaptable estates response: a flexible and reworkable solution that can accommodate changes to the internal clinical environment with minimal impact to the building fabric. The response to this requirement is an internal stacking diagram providing floor types to meet specific performance criteria of required clinical fit-out typologies. These principles revolve around two fundamental types of floor plate: high tech and medium tech areas. The former requires an increased floor to floor and ceiling void to enable flexible servicing of high tech environments such as operating theatres, critical care facilities and/or imaging equipment. The latter, medium tech floors, require lower levels of servicing and have a reduced floor to floor height as a result of less intensive use. These are typically for non-critical care in-patient wards and therapy spaces.

ADS 5

2.0_EXISTING CONDITION

EXISTING STRUCTURAL PLANS - LEVEL 00

HOSPITAL / LAB

EXISTING STRUCTURAL PLANS - LEVEL B2

Existing Structural Plan: Level B2

Existing Structural Plan: Level 00 Non-Loadbearing Wall

Loadbearing Wall (Concrete)

Column

Non-Loadbearing Wall (Plasterboard)

Glazed Wall

Column (Concrete)

GRC Cladding

Glazed Wall

Pile Foundation

0 Scale 1:200

Scale 1:200

Royal College of Art

Loadbearing Wall

ADS 5

2.0_EXISTING CONDITION

EXISTING STRUCTURAL PLANS - LEVEL 00

HOSPITAL / LAB

EXISTING STRUCTURAL PLANS - TYPICAL

Existing Structural Plan: Level 10

Existing Structural Plan: Typical Floor Loadbearing Wall (Concrete) Non-Loadbearing Wall (Plasterboard)

Non-Loadbearing Wall (Plasterboard)

Column (Concrete)

Glazed Wall

GRC Cladding

Royal College of Art

GRC Cladding

Scale 1:200

Royal College of Art

Loadbearing Wall (Concrete)

ADS 5

2.0_EXISTING CONDITION

HOSPITAL / LAB

EXISTING FOUNDATIONS

Existing Pile Foundation: Layout Ground-Bearing Concrete Floor Slab

Royal College of Art

800mm x 25m Concrete Pile Foundation

Scale 1:200

ADS 5

2.0_EXISTING CONDITION

HOSPITAL / LAB

EXISTING ELEVATION

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

2.0_EXISTING CONDITION

EXISTING MATERIAL SELECTION

Ribbed GRC Panel to match Portland Stone RIBBED GRC PANEL TO MATCH PORTLAND STONE

FRAMELESS GLASS Frameless glass panels PANELS

• Grey PPC performance louvres GREY PPC PERFORMANCE LOUVRES

• SolidGRC GRC panel tie inLAMBETH with Lambeth SOLID PANEL TO TIEto IN WITH RED TONES red tones

• Concrete columns to match

CONCRETE COLUMNS TO MATCH PortlandSTONE Stone PORTLAND

• •

Royal College of Art

•

GRC cladding is used across all areas of the façade and provides a harmonious and versatile palette that responds to the two distinct characters of local and city scale context. Three-dimensional panels give the cladding qualities of craft, solidity and permanence. Textured finishes and visible aggregate add quality, interest and life to the material at a closer scale. Large scale frameless structural glazing keeps details clean and crisp, de-cluttering the façade and working successfully with the scale of the horizontal banding. Ribbed slotted GRC panels add texture to the façade whilst allowing the ventilation louvres behind to function where required. Powder coated metal ventilation louvres alternate between the GRC slotted panels at level 5 balancing the rhythm of the elevation with the performance requirements of the plant floor. Light warm grey tones will be harmonious with the curtain walling and the upper levels GRC Perforated aluminium cladding will be used to clad the projecting fins which mitigate the wind velocity along the south east

Royal College of Art

FRAMELESS GLAZED CURTAIN Frameless glazed curtain WALLING, GREY MULLIONS INTERNALLY.grey MIX OF SEMI OPAQUE walling, mullions & CLEAR GLASS internally. Mix of semiopaque and clear glass.

elevation and on Lambeth Palace Road. Twin skin glazing allows the larger outer panels to appear seamless, with smaller internal openable windows enabling ease of cleaning and maintenance. The slab edge follows the sawtooth profile of the façade for consistent fire stopping, weathering detailing and structural support. Furthermore, highperformance specification of glazing and insulation reduces unwanted solar gain in summer and heat loss in winter, optimised with the building services to reduce energy use in heating and cooling.

HOSPITAL / LAB

Solid GRC panel to match Portland Stone SOLID GRC PANEL TO MATCH PORTLAND STONE

The materials palette selection for the proposal must have the versatility to address the two distinct characteristics of the site’s immediate and wider contexts. Glass reinforced concrete (GRC) was chosen by the Architect as the cladding material because it provides a versatile platform for a contextual response: variation in colour, tone and texture can easily be achieved, whilst maintaining a consistency of material to homogenise the building. Opportunities to vary the amount of texture and visible aggregate, as well as its three dimensional form, give the material a quality which can respond to its sensitive context positively to improve and enhance the conservation area.

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION ADS 5

ADS 5

2.0_EXISTING CONDITION

EXISTING DETAILS DETAIL A. GRC PANEL HEAD/BASE 2

The proposed substructure is composed of: • Reinforced concrete piles, pile mats; • Reinforced concrete lowest floor slab, lift pits; and • Reinforced concrete retaining walls.

5 8

The proposed superstructure of the building is composed of: • Reinforced concrete frame and upper floors; and • Steel frame and composite slabs with concrete on metal deck.

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

The external wall systems for the proposed structure are: • Double glazed curtain wall with PPC aluminium frame; • Single glazed curtain wall with PPC aluminium frame; • Precast GRC rainscreen cladding; • Aluminium rainscreen cladding • Architectural rainscreen with decorative cement render finish The façade is to be constructed using a unitised façade system, allowing off-site manufacture and increasing the speed of installation compared to a site-assembled curtain walling system. It was conceived as a kit of parts that enables glazing and some of the solid panels to be interchangeable, allowing adaptability and reconfigurability for the internal environment. This inherently prolongs the life of the building and its components, and reduces the whole life cycle carbon usage of the project. This approach forces repetition into the design which enables a rigorous modular basis for construction with high levels of repetition to drive cost efficiencies.

DETAIL B. INTERSTITIAL BLIND 1. 150mm Rigid Insulation 2. 40mm Curtain Walling System 3. Motorized Blind System 4. Skim Coat 5. Head Rail

4 5 3

4 6

DETAIL C. GRC PANEL BASE/BAND JUNCTION

7 3

1. 350mm Concrete Floorslab 2. 40mm Curtain Walling System 3. 150mm Rigid Insulation 4. GRC Panel 5. GRC Support Bracket 6. 10mm x 24mm Isolation Pad 7. S. Steel Hollow Section

HOSPITAL / LAB

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

1. 350mm Concrete Floorslab 2. 40mm Curtain Walling System 3. 150mm Rigid Insulation 4. GRC Panel 5. GRC Support Bracket 6. Top Hat Bracket Fixing 7. Steel Frame 8. 10mm x 24mm Isolation Pads

Royal College of Art

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

ADS 5

HOSPITAL / LAB

ADS 5

2.0_EXISTING CONDITION

Royal College of Art

≠Proposed Elevation

Royal College of Art

≠Proposed Ground Floor entrance collonate

ADS 5

2.0_EXISTING CONDITION

COST ANALYSIS

EMBODIED CARBON CALCULATIONS

MATERIAL

ELEMENT

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

MATERIAL

QUANTITY M3

COST

COST £

Concrete

Core/Floor Slabs

32450

77,360,852

Concrete

32450

£100/ M2

£3,245,002

262

2,072,992

Galvanised 262 Structural Steel

£2500 / t

£644,500

Plasterboard

Internal Partitions/ Linings

2936

2,789,571

Flat Glass

163

£500/ M2

£32,600,000

GRC

Facade Cladding

2655

5,177,809

Fiber Felt

1320

£50/ M2

£16,500,000

Rockwool Insulation

Insulation

1814

54,409

Intumescent 2 Paint (For Steel)

£50/ M2

£400,000

Flat Glass

Curtain Walling

163

407,258

Plasterboard

2936

£20/ M2

£4,697,600

87,868,020

Vapour Barrier (Polyethylene)

£5/ M2

£32,500

Alumnium Sheets

£75/ Kg

£1,500,000

GRC

2655

£500/ M2

£88,500,000

TOTAL

Royal College of Art

TOTAL

HOSPITAL / LAB

Galvanised Columns/ Structural Steel Connections

£117,429,602

ADS 5

3.0_CARBON_COPY_A

CARBON COPY A: CLT EVELINA LONDON CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL

96%

78%

IN EMBODIED CARBON

IN PROJECT COST

CORE

Stacked stone; Granite / Basalt / Marble

COLUMNS

Pre-tensioned limestone,

LINTELS

Pre-tensioned stone, 600mm thickness all the time Limestone

BEAMS

Glulam beams + Partial cellular beams Softwood glulam + Hot rolled structural steel

FLOOR SLAB

Sustainably sourced CLT

OUTRIGGER

Granite / Basalt / Marble

HOSPITAL / LAB

STONE EXOSKELETON + TIMBER TRUSSES + STONE CORE

CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY Royal College of Art

Royal College of Art

Taking 15 Clerkenwell Close as a reference, the alternative proposal will build a stone exoskeleton for Evelina London. Simultaneously, the project will replace the original concrete core with stacked stone (using granite, basalt or marble). Timber trusses are used as the primary structural support for the flooring.

ADS 5

3.0_CARBON_COPY_A

TIMBER CONSTRUCTION

CROSS LAMINATED TIMBER

HOSPITAL / LAB

Left to right: Surrey Memorial Hospital, Maggie’s Leeds,

HOSPITAL / LAB

The emergence of cross-laminated timber (CLT) over the last two decades has provided a viable alternative to traditional construction methods (use of concrete, steel, cement). The production and use of cement is responsible for approximately 8% of the world’s CO2 emissions, a figure that will only increase if urban construction trends continue. If we were to build in timber, instead of materials with high levels of embodied carbon, we would save an average of 45 tons of CO2 per building. Development of mass timber products such as CLT has enabled timer to compete structurally at scale. Highly engineered products as such overcome many of the issues associated with the ‘timber frame’. Devised less than 25 years ago in Austria, CLT utilises a range of species and grades for high performance applications. Cross-laminating is a way of optimising varying grade softwood to create boards with a high and predictable strength. CLT panels themselves consist of layers of structural boards stacked in perpendicular layers and glued together under high pressure. A cross section of a CLT panel is typically fabricated with 3 to 9 layers of boards. By alternating the orientation of the layers of wood, expansion and shrinkage in the plane of the panel is minimised. The end result is an overall increase in stability and structural capacity. In short, CLT allows us to construct lighter, better quality buildings, more quickly, with reduced foundations and far fewer deliveries to site. This particular method of construction leads of safer, cleaner, quieter sites, with a reduced number of workers and consequently less nuisance to neighbours. The material itself performs as a form of thermal and acoustic insulation and also has verifiable health and well-being benefits.

IS IT APPLICABLE IN A HEALTHCARE SETTING? Alex de Rijke believes that in wood “there is hope, humanity, scale, warmth, and nature’s clever plan to absorb carbon.” Numerous healthcare architects have already started to explore the physiological benefits of using wood and natural materials in hospitals. Wood in particular is visually warm and contributes to a socially positive experience for building occupants. Despite the rise of mass timber construction, it has yet to be incorporated into a clinical setting. Timber is already being used in healthcare facilities but is typically relegated to nonclinical areas such as exterior canopies, lobbies, atria, and various other public spaces. Could this be applied to a clinical setting, to reverse the norms of hospital architecture, where clinical environments and management procedures make patients feel disempowered? It is important to note that among the physical requirements for human health, wood contributes naturally to humidity control by absorbing moisture from the air and releasing it when it is less humid. Finishes can also contribute to the control of air-borne contaminants as they are durable, easily maintained, dust-free after installation and emit few, if any, harmful vapours. Despite this, there are various considerations and roadblocks to adopting the use of mass timber within clinical areas of healthcare facilities. These include structural systems, fire protection and infection control.

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

3.0_CARBON_COPY_A

1. STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

3. FIRE PROTECTION As wood is combustible it leads to an inevitable concern about fire performance of timber buildings, especially if being proposed in a high tech/energy intensive setting. As a result, local fire codes globally generally prevent the use of timber (alongside other combustible materials) in buildings over a certain height. On the other hand, UK building regulations, Part B relating to fire, essentially imply that any system can be used so long as it meets the objectives of the regulations. Specialist fire engineering is essential in order to minimise risk and ensure that the structure and linings present an appropriate solution. The nature of CLT is that it will begin to char once it is exposed to temperatures of over 300 degrees celsius. As the face of the timber chars, the zone of wood inside is heated, known as the pyrolysis zone in which the wood begins to undergo thermal decomposition. A “zero strength layer” of heated wood exists directly behind the char which has lost any form of structural performance. However, beyond this the wood is unaffected and will perform as normal structurally. By oversizing various elements to allow for a “sacrificial zone”, relevant fire performance can be met. Additional fire protection can be achieved through adding fire protective barriers such as plasterboard or fire-board, which typically provides up to 90 minutes of protection. In addition, do individual surfaces need protection in order to prevent the charring or ignition of the timber structure? Chemical retardants can also be used to reduce or prevent the spread of flame, however this may have an impact in that it might limit the timber’s re-use at the end of the building’s life. Can these

HOSPITAL / LAB

Entuitive, a Canadian engineering consultancy completed a research project with Forestry Innovation Investment (FII) to study the various structural systems that would meet the requirements to allow for timber as a building material in healthcare facilities. When comparing wood to more conventional elements used in healthcare architecture such as steel or concrete, wood beams must be deeper in order to achieve the long spans required for operating theatres and laboratories. This also presents issues with regards to servicing the structure as the structural elements will be deeper. Within the study, several flat ceiling hybrid floor systems were examined and proposed. These hybrid systems include the use of steel or concrete elements and are key to the introduction of mass timber to the healthcare realm, as the report states. The report also references use of a Glulam Truss that is manufactured within a controlled environment using lumber laminations that have been kiln dried. Could these particular systems be studied for the purpose of this exercise but be made entirely from engineered timber, instead of a combination of timber and steel?

2. INFECTION CONTROL

Royal College of Art

Infection control is a major roadblock and consideration for the use of timber within a healthcare setting. In high-tech/clinical specialist areas such as operating theatres , intensive care units, and imaging suites, surfaces have to be smooth and monolithic, as well as durable enough to withstand constant cleaning and disinfection. Exposed cellulose-based materials are not allowed due to their reaction to excessive moisture and sensitivity to wear. It is common that surfaces are required to be easy to clean, resistant to microbial spread and growth, smooth and non-porous, and seamless. Some authorities, including here in the UK reject the use of mass timber in specialist clinical environments. Concrete is also a porous material, however it is typically covered with epoxy flooring to meet various requirements. Can this be applied in the case of timber? Or can the floor finish itself be UV cured? Entuitive even suggests that the requirements to encapsulate mass timber for fire performance can be used to meet the requirements for infection control.

ADS 5

3.0_CARBON_COPY_A

CLT PRECEDENTS (HEALTHCARE) THE DYSON CENTRE FOR NEONATAL CARE, BATH FEILDEN CLEGG BRADLEY STUDIOS

HOSPITAL / LAB

This project was of interest due to the fact that it is the first example of use of CLT in a healthcare environment within the UK. Located within Bath’s Royal United Hospital, the project consists of a single-storey new build extension, alongside the refurbishment of the space occupied by the existing NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit) facility. The new build element accommodates the clinical, support and reception functions whereas the refurbishment accommodates the staff and parents’ facilities. A “route” is created through the architecture where treatment rooms are arranged in sequence with intensive care units at the start and recovering patients at the end. The superstructure of the centre was constructed entirely from CLT, manufactured by KLH Massivholz, (which is exposed on the interior) and built over the period of 3 weeks. The building demonstrates that CLT can meet the requirements for infection control and create a calm and somewhat domestic environment within an acute clinical setting. In addition, various medical equipment is hidden to further enhance this sense of well-being for patients and families. Following the opening, a research team was set up to measure and understand the effect of the architecture on the environment and its users. The results demonstrate that the new building is quieter and more efficient: construction U-values and air permeability are up to 50% better than the minimum standards; overall regulated annual CO2 emissions of about 118kg CO2/sqm, are 28% better than the ‘Target Emission Rating’. In addition, the project has also achieved a Breeam “Excellent”, and also incorporates a sedum roof for rainwater attenuation, and to increase biodiversity on the site. The study also shows that the architecture has had a profound impact on parents and baby interaction, and babies are also sleeping 20% longer.

Source: Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios

TEMPLATE FOR FUTURE HEALTHCARE PROJECTS? Sustainability in construction and use has been central to the design of the extension. Part of the brief states that the project should “lead the way” for sustainable healthcare design. Timber construction has huge benefits with regards to embodied energy, and is quick and clean to construct within a healthcare environment. The team did not want the building to be a “one-off” showcase for sustainability but rather a template and catalyst for sustainable healthcare design by challenging existing standards, identifying and defining new goals, and developing strategies that are easy to replicate elsewhere in the healthcare sector.

Royal College of Art

An additional aspect that was of particular interest was the strategy for servicing the building. The extension incorporates a range of both mechanical and electrical services that can be maintained without access to the clinical areas. A central, high-level walkthrough duct distributes services throughout the building and will allow for as the architects say “unobtrusive replacement of equipment in the future.”

ADS 5

3.0_CARBON_COPY_A

MAGGIE’S OLDHAM, GREATER MANCHESTER DRMM ARCHITECTS

HOSPITAL / LAB

Maggie’s Centres seek to provide as Charles Jencks describes, the “architecture of hope”. They are centres built in the grounds of NHS cancer hospitals that offer free practical and emotional support for people affected by cancer. Maggie’s Oldham was examined as it is the first permanent building constructed using sustainable tulipwood CLT, following on from DRMM, AHEC and Arup’s development of this specific material in 2013, a new material that outperformed existing CLT. Alex de Rijke believes that in wood “there is hope, humanity, scale, warmth, and nature’s clever plan to absorb carbon.” Externally, the building is draped in corrugated, heat-treated wood. Inside and out, structure, furniture and thermally-modified cladding is all of American tulipwood, a fastgrowing deciduous Magnolia tree. Maggie’s Oldham is the first CLT hardwood building in the world. Although the Maggie’s Centres are not clinical in any way, this particular centre was examined for the use of wood as part of a bigger design intention to reverse the norms of hospital architecture, where clinical environments and management procedures make patients feel dispirited and disempowered.

Source: DRMM Architects

TIMBER COMPONENTS

Royal College of Art

The centre itself is constructed from over 20 prefabricated panels of crosslaminated American tulipwood, ranging from 0.5m to 12m long. The tulipwood CLT was engineered for its unique strength and lightness, as well as its sustainability and holistic qualities. Wood fibre insulation (as seen in the plan above) ensures a breathable, healthy environment while the huge window frames are constructed out of American white oak. Externally, the building is enclosed in a custom-fluted, thermally modified tulipwood.

ADS 5

3.0_CARBON_COPY_A

CLT PRECEDENTS (STRUCTURE) SARA CULTURAL CENTRE SKELLFETA, SWEDEN WHITE ARKITEKTER

HOSPITAL / LAB

Skellefta’s municipality was witnessing significant population decline and this particular scheme sought to reverse this trend. The scheme was actually conceived of in 1905 as part of a wider masterplan that was never built. It is essentially a 20-storey mixed-use building that houses a theatre, library, various art galleries and a hotel. The competition was won by White Arkitekter for its sustainable attributes, namely the use of timber. The structure is exposed inside and out. In addition, one is able to dismount everything and all parts are prefabricated off-site. Even the hotel rooms are three module ready-made boxes that can be staked on-site. The cultural centre is a gluam post-and-beam construction with CLT slabs. The walls of the stages are also made from CLT and these are connected to the hotel. What was of particular interest to us was the hybrid truss system that the architects have proposed, in order to free up space. More specifically, the steel elements are acting in tension, and the timber elements act in compression. The cultural centre was unveiled earlier this year, having been constructed from 13,000m3 of wood from locally harvested trees. In addition, building in wood shortened the construction time by 60%. Can the module-based construction approach used here be applied to hospitals? Or the use of a hybrid truss in the performance venues, in order to eliminate the need of columns?

Source: Architects Journal, October 2021

WORKING DETAIL

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

3.0_CARBON_COPY_A

CONGRESS & EXHIBITION CENTRE, AGORDO STUDIO BOTTER & STUDIO BRESSAN

HOSPITAL / LAB

This particular case study was examined for the use of the timber frame and more specifically the roof truss. The building is a Congress and Exhibition Centre in Agordo, Italy. The architects, Studio Botter and Studio Bressan have cited the surrounding mountainous landscape as inspiration for the form of the roof. The extensive use of local wood was influenced by traditional alpine construction methods, as well as a desire to build in a sustainable manner. The load-bearing structure is made from Glulam, including the pillars, roof beams and trusses, which span 45 metres. The use of the truss means that the main hall is able to be free of any form of structural element and is able to be divided into sub-modules and partitioned freely. The adaptable nature of the space has been demonstrated recently when the building was converted in August 2020 into a mask production plant for the Italian State to contain the Covid 19 pandemic. There are also minimal interior finishes, allowing for the timber structure to be both practical and aesthetic.

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

3.0_CARBON_COPY_A

HOSPITAL / LAB

STRUCTURAL PLANS - TYPICAL FLOOR

Proposed Structural Plan (Timber): Typical Floor Loadbearing Limestone Wall Non-Loadbearing Wall Stone Column Glazed Wall

Royal College of Art

0 Scale 1:200

ADS 5

3.0_CARBON_COPY_A

HOSPITAL / LAB

RCP - TYPICAL FLOOR

Proposed RCP (Stone): Typical Floor Loadbearing Limestone Wall Stone Column Glulam Truss CLT panels Glazed Wall

Royal College of Art

Scale 1:200

ADS 5

3.0_CARBON_COPY_A

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION A. MED TECH/TYPICAL (CLINICAL WARDS, CONSULTING ROOMS)

PROPOSED 1:150 SECTION

22mm Bio Tile 4mm Bond Coat 12.5 Cementitious Board 18mm Plywood Sheet 150mm Timber Raised Floor w/ Rockwool Insulation 150mm BauBuche Gang-nail Truss with 500mm Service Zone Suspended Ceiling System w/ 100x40mm Sustainable Timber Battens

B. HIGH TECH/CLINICAL SPECIALIST (OPERATING THEATRES/IMAGING SUITES)

HOSPITAL / LAB

C. CIRCULATION/HEAVY TRAFFIC (CORRIDOORS/LOBBY) 22mm Bio Tile 4mm Bond Coat 12.5 Cementitious Board 18mm Plywood Sheet 150mm Timber Raised Floor w/ Rockwool Insulation 150mm BauBuche Gang-nail Truss with 500mm Service Zone Suspended Ceiling System w/ 100x40mm Sustainable Timber Battens

D. FACADE

500mm Load-bearing Limestone blockwork Fixed to 20mm Galvanised Steel Plates (exposed faces painted white) 18mm Stone Connection Plate 250mm Maintenance Deck 6mm Fixing Plate 40mm Curtain Wall System w/ Roller Blind System

HOSPITAL / LAB

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

12.5mm Anti-Static/Resin Floor 20mm Recycled Rubber Sound Absorption Layer 18mm Playwood Sheet 150mm Timber Raised Floor w/ Rockwool Insulation 220mm BauBuche Gangnail Truss w/ 1100mm Service Zone 50x50mm Timber Noggins fixed to 12.5mm Plasterboard w/ Vinyl Finish

E. ROOF

Royal College of Art

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION ADS 5

ADS 5

3.0_CARBON_COPY_A

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

HOSPITAL / LAB

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

5 2 3 4

8 7

HOSPITAL / LAB

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

14 6

DETAIL A, SCALE 1:20 (FACADE TO TYPICAL MED TECH FLOOR) 1. 500mm Loadbearing Limestone Blockwork 2. Galvanised Steel Plates (exposed faces painted white) 3. Stone Connection Plate 4. Fixing Plate 5. 230mm Rockwool Insulation 6. 40mm Curtain Walling System 7. Roller Blind (Ceiling Mounted) 8. Suspended Ceiling System with 100 x40mm Recycled Timber Battens 9. 150mm BauBuche Timber Truss with 500mm Service Zone 10. 150mm Timber Raised Floor with Rockwool Insulation 11. 18mm Plywood Sheet 12. 12.55 Cementitious Board 13. 4mm Bond Coat 14. 22mm Bio Tile (Floor Finish)

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Royal College of Art

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION Royal College of Art

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

KEY DETAILS

HOSPITAL / LAB

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

10 8

12 11

HOSPITAL / LAB

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

ADS 5

8 1 4

DETAIL B, SCALE 1:20 (FACADE TO GROUND/RETAINING WALL)

DETAIL C, SCALE 1:20 (FACADE TO GROUND/RETAINING WALL)

1. 500mm Loadbearing Limestone Blockwork 2. Ground 3. Galvanised Steel L Plate, bolted to blockwork (exposed faces painted white) 4. 4mm Vapour Control Layer 5. Stone Connection Plate 6. Fixing Plate 7. 230mm Rockwool Insulation 8. 40mm Curtain Walling System 9. Joist Hanger 10. 12.5mm Anti-Static/Resin Floor 11. 20mm Recycled Rubber Sound Absorption Layer 12. 18mm Plywood Sheet 13. 200mm BauBuche Timber Truss with 1100mm Service Zone 14. 50x50mm Timber Noggins fixed to 12.5mm Plasterboard with Vinyl Finish

1. 500mm Loadbearing Limestone Blockwork 2. 200m BauBuche Truss with 500mm Service Zone 3. 40mm Curtain Walling System 4. Roller Blind (Ceiling Mounted) 5. Galvanised Steel Plates (exposed faces painted white) 6. Stone Connection Plate 7. Fixing Plate 8. 230mm Rockwool Insulation 9. 200mm Rigid Insulation (Roof) 10. 4mm Waterproof Tanking Membrane 11. 100 x 50mm Sustainable Timber Deck Joists 12. Sustainable Timber Decking 13. 25mm Structural, toughened and heat-soaked glass 14. 1mm Silicone Sealant

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Royal College of Art

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

ADS 5

3.0_CARBON_COPY_A

ADS 5

3.0_CARBON_COPY_A

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

HOSPITAL / LAB

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

DETAIL D, SCALE 1:20 (COLUMN/PLATE/JOIST CONNECTION)

Royal College of Art

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

ADS 5

3.0_CARBON_COPY_A

Royal College of Art

QUANTITY M

Concrete

3067

439

1,345,420

Concrete

3067

£100/ M3

£306,700

Galvanised Structural Steel

109

16,882

1,840,156

Galvanised Structural Steel

109

£2500/ t

£268,140

Flat Glass

163

2375

387,170

Flat Glass

163

£500/ M2

£32,600,000

Light Concrete

1875

288

540,196

Light Concrete

1875

£100/ M3

£187,500

Intumescent Paint

0.8

5650

4520

Intumescent Paint

0.8

£50/ M2

£160,000

Plasterboard

410

262

107,395

Plasterboard

410

£20/ M2

£656,000

Vapour Barrier (Polyethylene)

913

Vapour Barrier (Polyethylene)

£5/ M2

£13,750

Natural Stone

780

1515

1,181,700

Natural Stone

780

£500/ M3

£390,000

Rockwool Insulation

1320

60720

Rockwool Insulation

1320

£50/ M2

£440,000

Sustainably Sourced CLT

8690

-841

-7,311,122

Sustainably Sourced CLT

8690

£250/ M2

£86,900,000

Sustainably 3150 Sourced Plywood

-510

-1,606,926

Sustainably 3150 Sourced Plywood

£15/ M2

£2,625,000

-3,449,858

TOTAL

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

MATERIAL

QUANTITY M3

COST PER UNIT

COST £

Royal College of Art

MATERIAL

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E/M3

TOTAL

COST ANALYSIS

HOSPITAL / LAB

EMBODIED CARBON CALCULATIONS

£95,207,090

ADS 5

4.0_CARBON_COPY_B

CARBON COPY B: STONE EVELINA LONDON CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL

96%

18%

IN EMBODIED CARBON

IN PROJECT COST

STONE EXOSKELETON + INTERNAL STRUCTURE + PRETENSIONED STONE TILE FLOOR

Limestone

COLUMNS

Pre-tensioned Limestone with Steel Reinforcement

LINTELS

Pre-tensioned Portland Stone on Galvanised Steel Plates

FLOOR SLAB

100x100mm Pre-tensioned Limestone Floor Slabs With Galvanised Steel String and Washer Fastenings

INNER FACADE

Triple-glazed Curtain Walling System

OUTRIGGER

Loadbearing Portland Stone Exoskeleton with Various Surface Finishes

HOSPITAL / LAB

CORE

CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY Royal College of Art

Royal College of Art

Taking 15 Clerkenwell Close as a reference, the facade will be made up of curtain walling behind a stone exoskeleton. The concrete frame will be replaced with 1000 x 1000mm pre-tensioned stone tiles with string and washer connections at each edge. The tiles, some of which are concave in shape, are arranged to optimise load distribution to the columns and loadbearing walls. These columns and walls, originally of concrete, will be replaced with stacked stone (using granite, basalt or marble).

ADS 5

4.0_CARBON_COPY_B

THE USE OF STONE IN HEALTHCARE THE KIRCHE AM STEINHOF Throughout history, religion and healthcare have maintained an enduring relationship and, even today, The Roman Catholic Church is the largest nongovernment provider of health care services in the world. Naturally, this implies a correspondence between healthcare insitutions and stone construction. This case study explores the Kirche am Steinhof, completed in 1907 in the western suburbs of Vienna. It is the church of a psychiatric hospital. The Kirche am Steinhof can be considered the culmination in a series of experiments by Otto Wagner in using the architectural and ornamental vocabularies of the archaic Near East and West in association with the utilitarian values or ‘Nütz-stil’, which he had been developing over the previous decade.

HOSPITAL / LAB

Carrera marble panels are used extensively to dress the building. On the external walls, these panels sit above a rusticated granite base. Stone panels are considered by Semper to be part of the evolution of the textile wall hanging; the philosophy and symbols of the textile are transmuted into a new material, which continues to ‘dress’ the wall. The marble panels contain obvious bolt head fixings through to the solid brick masonry structure behind, purely symbolic of the Semperian idea of fabrication. The marble panels would have been cemented to the brick structure, so whilst the bolts would initially have helped to hold the panels in place for the first few weeks, until the mortar had set, they subsequently would not have a structural purpose, so are in essence a decoratively treated formwork. Here, one sees Wagner’s functionalist philosophy come to the fore: as specified in ‘Moderne Architektur’, the interior surfaces of the church being entirely clad in marble tiles meant that they were easy to clean. There are also no absorbent materials in the nave. The tiled floor is sloped, improving sight lines whilst also making it easier to sluice clean. All of the timber pews are much shorted than normal (and are all the same size), to make it easier to quickly extract patients in distress. Even the marble font has been designed to improve hygienic standards, with a continuous flow of holy water, to ensure that patients do not transmit disease.

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

4.0_CARBON_COPY_B

STONE PRECEDENTS: FACADE 30 FINSBURY SQUARE, LONDON ERIC PARRY ARCHITECTS

HOSPITAL / LAB

30 Finsbury Square was conceived in 2002 for Scottish Widows, who sought to replace a locally-listed Edwardian building and a post-war building on the edge of Finsbury Square. The square was originally laid out in the 18th century as a residential square but, due to its location, it became an important commercial centre close to the City of London. Eric Parry himself said he wanted to create an “egalitarian” building, unlike its classical neighbours. The project is essentially one whole side of the square and comprises 16,660 square metres of office space, which is arranged over 7 storeys. Being located in one of the Borough of Camden’s Conservation Areas meant that the facade had to relate to the existing buildings which were largely constructed of Portland Stone. What was of particular interest was not merely the visual aspect of the facade but the way in which stone is used as a load-bearing element. Parry has used pre-stressed external Portland Stone columns to support the various floor slabs, which allow for uninterrupted floor plates and no internal columns. As you move up the building, the structural elements are more spaced out as the structural loads reduce. At ground level, the structural elements are thicker where the stone needs additional capacity.

Source: Eric Parry Architects

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

4.0_CARBON_COPY_B

HOSPITAL / LAB

STRUCTURAL PLANS - TYPICAL FLOOR

Proposed Structural Plan (Stone): Typical Floor Loadbearing Limestone Wall Non-Loadbearing Wall Stone Column Glazed Wall

Royal College of Art

Scale 1:200

ADS 5

4.0_CARBON_COPY_B

HOSPITAL / LAB

RCP - TYPICAL FLOOR

Proposed RCP (Stone): Typical Floor Loadbearing Limestone Wall 1000x1000mm Stone Floor Tile Stone Column Glazing

Royal College of Art

Scale 1:200

Proposed Condition: Structural Stone Med Tech / Typical Clinical Wards, Consulting Rooms (L06 / L07 / L08 / L09)

ADS 5

PROPOSED: 1:50 SECTION

1. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 2. Suspended ceiling with services zone

275 mm 400 mm

Floor:

1. Vinyl-faced gypsum board 2. Recycled rubber sound absorption layer 3. Counter floor 4. Rockwool insulation 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs

20 mm 40 mm 20 mm 80 mm 275 mm

Ceiling:

1. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 2. Suspended ceiling with services zone

275 mm 1000 mm

Floor:

1. Vinyl-faced gypsum board 2. Recycled rubber sound absorption layer 3. Counter floor 4. Raised services floor with Rockwool insulation 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs

20 mm 40 mm 20 mm 165 mm 80 mm 275 mm

Terrace (L11)

1. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 2. Suspended ceiling with services zone

275 mm 400 mm

Floor:

1. Vinyl-faced gypsum board 2. Recycled rubber sound absorption layer 3. Counter floor 4. Rockwool insulation 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs

20 mm 40 mm 20 mm 80 mm 275 mm

High Tech / Clinical Specialist Operating Theatres, Imaging Suites (B1 / L01 / L02 / L03 / L04)

Level 10: Plant

275 mm 1000 mm

1. Vinyl-faced gypsum board 2. Recycled rubber sound absorption layer 3. Counter floor 4. Raised services floor with Rockwool insulation 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs

20 mm 40 mm 20 mm 165 mm 80 mm 275 mm

Plant (B2 / L05 / L10 / L11) Floor:

Roof

Ceiling:

1. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 2. Services zone

275 mm 400 mm

Floor:

1. Portland Stone floor tiles 2. Recycled rubber sound absorption layer 3. Counter floor 4. Rockwool insulation 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs

24 mm 40 mm 20 mm 80 mm 275 mm

1. Limestone floor tiles 2. Mortar bed 3. Screed 4. Rockwool insulation 5. Damp proof membrane 6. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs or Limestone raft foundation at B2 No Ceiling Finish.

15 mm 15 mm 30 mm 160 mm 2 mm 275 mm 800 mm

2. Battens 3. Waterproof membrane 4. Rockwool insulation 5. Screed 6. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs

75 mm 2mm 60 mm 60mm 275 mm

1. Topsoil 80 mm 2. Drainage / Protection Mat 35 mm 3. Rockwool insulation 60 mm 4. Vapour barrier 2 mm Terrace Decking 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor 1.slabs 275 mm 30 mm

Level 06: Typical (Med Tech)

Level 05: Plant

Roof

1. Topsoil mm 1. Loadbearing Portland Stone blockwork 300 mm 80 2. Drainage / Protection Mat 35 mm 3. Rockwool insulation 60 mm on Galvanised steel plates 20 mm 2 mm 4. Vapour barrier 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabsmm 275 mm 2. Maintenance gap 250 3. Triple-glazed curtain walling 60 mm Facade (L00 - L11)

1. Loadbearing Portland Stone blockwork on Galvanised steel plates 2. Maintenance gap 3. Triple-glazed curtain walling

Retaining Wall (B2 - B1) Circulation / Heavy Traffic Corridors, Lobby, Stairs (L00)

Level 09: Typical (Med Tech)

HOSPITAL / LAB

1. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 2. Suspended ceiling with services zone

Corridors, Lobby, Stairs (L00) 1. Decking 30 mm Ceiling: 1. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 275 mm 2. Battens 75 mm 400 2. Services zone mm 3. Waterproof membrane 2mm Floor: 1. Portland Stone floor tiles 24 mm 2. Recycled rubber sound absorption layer 40 mm 4. Rockwool insulation 60 mm 3. Counter floor 20 mm 4. Rockwool insulation 80 mm 5. Screed 60mm 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 275 mm 6. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 275 mm

Facade (L00 - L11)

HOSPITAL / LAB

Plant

Circulation / Heavy Traffic

Ceiling:

Floor:

Level 11: Terrace

High Tech / Clinical Specialist Operating Theatres, Imaging Suites (B1 / L01 / L02 / L03 / L04)

Med Tech / Typical Clinical Wards, Consulting Rooms (L06 / L07 / L08 / L09)

Ceiling:

ADS 5

4.0_CARBON_COPY_B

300 mm 20 mm 250 mm 60 mm

Retaining Wall (B2 - B1) 1. Porous boards 60 mm 1. Porous boards mm 2. Limestone blockwork 400 mm 60 2. Limestone blockwork 400 mm 3. Rockwool insulation 140 mm 3. Rockwool insulation 140 mm 4. Vapour control layer 2 mm 5. Gypsum boards 4. Vapour control layer 2 mm 60 mm 5. Gypsum boards 60 mm

Level 04: High Tech

Level 01: High Tech

Level 00: Entrance / Lobby

Plant (L05 / L10 / L11) Floor:

1. Limestone floor tiles

15 mm

2. Mortar bed 15 mm 3. Screed 30 mm 4. Rockwool insulation 160 mm 5. Damp proof membrane 2 mm 6. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 275 mm No Ceiling Finish.

Level B1: High Tech

Level B2: Plant

Royal College of Art

Floor:

Royal College of Art

Basement Plant (B2) 1. Limestone floor tiles 15 mm 2. Mortar bed 15 mm 3. Screed 30 mm 4. Rockwool insulation 160 mm 5. Damp proof membrane 2 mm 6. Limestone raft foundation 800 mm No Ceiling Finish.

69 0

Scale 1:50 at A1

ADS 5

Proposed Condition: 4.0_CARBON_COPY_B Structural Stone

Med Tech / Typical Clinical Wards, Consulting Rooms (L06 / L07 / L08 / L09) Ceiling:

1. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 2. Suspended ceiling with services zone

275 mm 400 mm

Floor:

1. Vinyl-faced gypsum board 2. Recycled rubber sound absorption layer 3. Counter floor 4. Rockwool insulation 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs

20 mm 40 mm 20 mm 80 mm 275 mm

High Tech / Clinical Specialist Operating Theatres, Imaging Suites (B1 / L01 / L02 / L03 / L04) Ceiling:

1. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 2. Suspended ceiling with services zone

275 mm 1000 mm

Floor:

1. Vinyl-faced gypsum board 2. Recycled rubber sound absorption layer 3. Counter floor 4. Raised services floor with Rockwool insulation 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs

20 mm 40 mm 20 mm 165 mm 80 mm 275 mm

Level 11: Terrace

Plant

C Level 10: Plant

Circulation / Heavy Traffic Corridors, Lobby, Stairs (L00) Ceiling:

1. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 2. Services zone

275 mm 400 mm

Floor:

1. Portland Stone floor tiles 2. Recycled rubber sound absorption layer 3. Counter floor 4. Rockwool insulation 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs

24 mm 40 mm 20 mm 80 mm 275 mm

E A

5 Level 09: Typical (Med Tech)

Plant (B2 / L05 / L10 / L11)

Terrace

1. Limestone floor tiles 2. Mortar bed 3. Screed 4. Rockwool insulation 5. Damp proof membrane 6. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs or Limestone raft foundation at B2 No Ceiling Finish.

15 mm 15 mm 30 mm 160 mm 2 mm 275 mm 800 mm

1. Decking 2. Battens 3. Waterproof membrane 4. Rockwool insulation 5. Screed 6. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs

30 mm 75 mm 2mm 60 mm 60mm 275 mm

Level 06: Typical (Med Tech)

Level 05: Plant

1 Roof

1. Topsoil 2. Drainage / Protection Mat 3. Rockwool insulation 4. Vapour barrier 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs

HOSPITAL / LAB

Floor:

80 mm 35 mm 60 mm 2 mm 275 mm

Facade (L00 - L11) 1. Loadbearing Portland Stone blockwork on Galvanised steel plates 2. Maintenance gap 3. Triple-glazed curtain walling

300 mm 20 mm 250 mm 60 mm Level 04: High Tech

Retaining Wall (B2 - B1) 1. Porous boards 2. Limestone blockwork 3. Rockwool insulation 4. Vapour control layer 5. Gypsum boards

60 mm 400 mm 140 mm 2 mm 60 mm

Level 01: High Tech

Level 00: Entrance / Lobby

1. 500mm Rough Cut Loadbearing Portland Stone Blockwork 2. Galvanised Steel Plates (exposed faces painted white) 3. Stone Connection Plate 4. Fixing Plate 5. 40mm Curtain Walling System 6. Roller Blind (ceiling mounted) 7. 165mm Raised Services Floor 8. 1000 x 1000mm Limestone Floor Slab Tiles & Floor Finishes 9. Suspended Ceiling System with 100x40mm Recycled Timber Battens Royal College of Art

Royal College of Art

DETAIL A, SCALE 1:20 (FACADE TO TYPICAL MED TECH FLOOR)

Level B1: High Tech

Level B2: Plant

ADS 5

4.0_CARBON_COPY_B

HOSPITAL / LAB

11 6

HOSPITAL / LAB

4 1

DETAIL B, SCALE 1:20 (FACADE TO GROUND/RETAINING WALL)

DETAIL C, SCALE 1:20 (FACADE TO L11 TERRACE)

1. 500mm Limestone Blockwork Retaining Wall 2. Ground 3. 500mm Rough Cut Loadbearing Portland Stone Blockwork 4. Galvanised Steel L Plate, bolted to blockwork (exposed faces painted white) 5. Paving Stone 6. 40mm Curtain Walling System 7. 1000 x 1000mm Limestone Floor Slab Tiles & Floor Finishes

1. 500mm Smooth Cut Loadbearing Portland Stone Blockwork 2. 300mm Smooth Cut Loadbearing Portland Stone Blockwork 3. 500mm Portland Stone Blockwork 4. Galvanised Steel L Plate, bolted to blockwork (exposed faces painted white) 5. Galvanised Steel Plates (exposed faces painted white) 6. Stone Connection Plate 7. Fixing Plate 8. 40mm Balustrade System 9. 25mm Structural, Toughened and Heat Soaked Glass 10. Roller Blind (ceiling mounted) 11. 1000 x 1000mm Limestone Floor Slab Tiles & Floor Finishes

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

4.0_CARBON_COPY_B

2 6

HOSPITAL / LAB

7 6

DETAIL D, SCALE 1:20 (PARAPET AND GREEN ROOF)

DETAIL E, SCALE 1:20 (COLUMN/PLATE/JOIST/FLOOR CONNECTION)

1. 300mm Smooth Cut Portland Stone Parapet 2. Planting 3. 80mm Topsoil 4. 40mm Curtain Walling System 5. Roller Blind (ceiling mounted) 6. 1000 x 1000mm Limestone Floor Slab Tiles

1. 300-600mm Limestone Column, Steel Reinforced 2. Galvanised Steel Hanger, bolted to blockwork 3. Galvanised Steel Pin 4. Galvanised Steel L Plate, bolted to blockwork 5. 1000 x 1000mm Limestone Floor Slab Tiles & Floor Finishes 6. Galvanised Steel String and Washer Connections 7. Suspended Ceiling System with 100x40mm Recycled Timber Battens 8. 165mm Raised Services Floor

Royal College of Art

ADS 5

4.0_CARBON_COPY_B

CEILING

Ceiling: 1. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 2. Suspended ceiling with services zone

SCALE 1:20 HIGH TECH / CLINICAL SPECIALIST Operating Theatres, Imaging Suites B1 / L01 / L02 / L03 / L04 275 mm 400 mm

1. Vinyl-faced gypsum board 20 mm 2. Recycled rubber sound absorption layer 40 mm 3. Counter floor 20 mm 4. Rockwool insulation 80 mm 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 275 mm

Ceiling: 1. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 2. Suspended ceiling with services zone

275 mm 1000 mm

Floor:

1. Vinyl-faced gypsum board 20 mm 2. Recycled rubber sound absorption layer 40 mm 3. Counter floor 20 mm 4. Raised services floor 165 mm with Rockwool insulation 80 mm 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 275 mm

Royal College of Art

Floor:

HOSPITAL / LAB

FLOOR

HOSPITAL / LAB

CEILING

SCALE 1:20 MED. TECH / TYPICAL Wards, Consulting Rooms L06 / L07 / L08 / L09

ADS 5

4.0_CARBON_COPY_B

CEILING

CEILING HOSPITAL / LAB

HOSPITAL / LAB

FLOOR

SCALE 1:20 CIRCULATION / HEAVY TRAFFIC

SCALE 1:20 PLANT

Corridors, Lobby, Stairs L00 (All)

B2 / L05 / L10 / L11

Ceiling: 1. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 2. Services zone

1. Portland Stone floor tiles 24 mm 2. Recycled rubber sound absorption layer 40 mm 3. Counter floor 20 mm 4. Rockwool insulation 80 mm 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 275 mm

Floor:

1. Limestone floor tiles 15 mm 2. Mortar bed 15 mm 3. Screed 30 mm 4. Rockwool insulation 160 mm 5. Damp proof membrane 2 mm 6. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 275 mm (at B2) 7. Limestone raft foundation 800 mm Royal College of Art

Royal College of Art

Floor:

275 mm 400 mm

No Ceiling Finish.

ADS 5

4.0_CARBON_COPY_B

HOSPITAL / LAB

FLOOR

HOSPITAL / LAB

CEILING

SCALE 1:20 ROOF/PARAPET L11

Royal College of Art

1. Topsoil 80 mm 2. Drainage / Protection Mat 35 mm 3. Rockwool insulation 60 mm 4. Vapour barrier 2 mm 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 275 mm

ADS 5

4.0_CARBON_COPY_B

ADS 5

Proposed Condition: Structural Stone

FACADE DETAIL

Med Tech / Typical Clinical Wards, Consulting Rooms (L06 / L07 / L08 / L09) Ceiling:

1. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 2. Suspended ceiling with services zone

275 mm 400 mm

Floor:

1. Vinyl-faced gypsum board 2. Recycled rubber sound absorption layer 3. Counter floor 4. Rockwool insulation 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs

20 mm 40 mm 20 mm 80 mm 275 mm

Level 11: Terrace

Plant

High Tech / Clinical Specialist Operating Theatres, Imaging Suites (B1 / L01 / L02 / L03 / L04) Ceiling:

1. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 2. Suspended ceiling with services zone

275 mm 1000 mm

Floor:

1. Vinyl-faced gypsum board 2. Recycled rubber sound absorption layer 3. Counter floor 4. Raised services floor with Rockwool insulation 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs

20 mm 40 mm 20 mm 165 mm 80 mm 275 mm

Level 10: Plant

Circulation / Heavy Traffic Corridors, Lobby, Stairs (L00) Ceiling:

1. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs 2. Services zone

275 mm 400 mm

Floor:

1. Portland Stone floor tiles 2. Recycled rubber sound absorption layer 3. Counter floor 4. Rockwool insulation 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs

24 mm 40 mm 20 mm 80 mm 275 mm

Level 09: Typical (Med Tech)

Plant (B2 / L05 / L10 / L11)

Terrace

Roof

1. Limestone floor tiles 2. Mortar bed 3. Screed 4. Rockwool insulation 5. Damp proof membrane 6. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs or Limestone raft foundation at B2 No Ceiling Finish.

15 mm 15 mm 30 mm 160 mm 2 mm 275 mm 800 mm

1. Decking 2. Battens 3. Waterproof membrane 4. Rockwool insulation 5. Screed 6. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs

30 mm 75 mm 2mm 60 mm 60mm 275 mm

1. Topsoil 2. Drainage / Protection Mat 3. Rockwool insulation 4. Vapour barrier 5. 1000x1000 mm limestone floor slabs

80 mm 35 mm 60 mm 2 mm 275 mm

Level 06: Typical (Med Tech)

HOSPITAL / LAB

Floor:

Level 05: Plant

Facade (L00 - L11) 1. Loadbearing Portland Stone blockwork on Galvanised steel plates 2. Maintenance gap 3. Triple-glazed curtain walling

300 mm 20 mm 250 mm 60 mm Level 04: High Tech

Retaining Wall (B2 - B1) 1. Porous boards 2. Limestone blockwork 3. Rockwool insulation 4. Vapour control layer 5. Gypsum boards

60 mm 400 mm 140 mm 2 mm 60 mm

Level 01: High Tech

Royal College of Art

Level 00: Entrance / Lobby

Level B1: High Tech

Level B2: Plant

ADS 5

4.0_CARBON_COPY_B

EMBODIED CARBON CALCULATIONS

HOSPITAL / LAB

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E

MATERIAL

QUANTITY M3

COST PER UNIT

COST £

Portland Stone (Exoskeleton)

2655

790

2,097,450

Portland Stone (Exoskeleton)

2655

£500/ M3

1,327,500

Limestone (Structural)

13,708

697

9,554,476

Limestone (Structural)

13,708

£300/ M3

4,112,400

Flat Glass

163

2375

387,125

Flat Glass

163

£500/ M2

8,150,000

-1,023

-65,491

Sustainably Sourced Hardwood

£100/ M2

640,000

Galvanised Steel

114

16,882

1,924,567

Galvanised Steel

114

£2500/ t

285,000

Aluminium

19,291

38,582

Aluminium

£75/ kg

202,425

Polyethylene (Vapour Barrier)

913

Vapour Barrier (Polyethylene)

£5/ M2

605

Rockwool

1814

83,444

Rockwool

1814

£50/ M2

907,000

Screed

124

439

54,436

Screed

124

£100/ M3

124,000

Plasterboard

2936

769,050

Plasterboard

2936

£20/ M2

2,348,800

Intumescent Paint

0.8

5650

4520

Intumescent Paint

0.8

£100/ M2

80,000

14,849,117

TOTAL

Royal College of Art

QUANTITY M3

HOSPITAL / LAB

Royal College of Art

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E/M3

MATERIAL

Sustainably Sourced Hardwood

COST ANALYSIS

£18,177,730

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

CONTENTS 1.0

INTRODUCTION Purpose of Research

2.0

EXISTING CONDITION Introduction History Existing uses Photographs Existing Drawings Construction Carbon calculations Cost analysis Existing Condition Summary

3.0

CARBON COPY - TIMBER Introduction Cross Laminated Timber Form Development Proposed Drawings Construction Methodology Components Visualisation Carbon calculations Cost analysis Conclusion

4.0

CARBON COPY - STONE Introduction Tensile Stone Form Development Proposed Drawings Construction Methodology Components Visualisation Carbon calculations Cost analysis Conclusion

5.0

FINDINGS Carbon Cost Comparison

6.0

CATALOGUE OF MATERIAL COMPONENTS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

6 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

1 INTRODUCTION

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH

M25 Overpass

BRIDGE TYPOLOGY

Bridges are a key element in transport infrastructure, providing more efficient access across various geographies. They are a simple, yet energy intensive structure, formed with safety and structural capacity as the key design drivers. This has led to a unanimous use of concrete and steel as the primary materials due to their strength and reliability. These are, however among the biggest contributors to carbon emissions, and within the current context of the climate crisis, we must look for alternative materials and construction methodologies which could reduce our environmental impact.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

This report analyses the existing conditions of bridges and infrastructure, focussing on the case study of London Bridge; a typical example of the construction materials and techniques used today within the typology.

ADS 5

ABSTRACT

Our analysis focusses on the structural methodology and the environmental impact this causes through its use of high embodied carbon materials such as concrete and steel. Within the current context of the climate crisis, the construction industry must find alternative methods and materials which reduce their environmental impact. BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

This report explores how two different materials could be used - timber and stone, as an alternative to concrete and steel to generate a ‘Carbon Copy’ of the existing form. We examine the difference in embodied carbon that these materials would offer, and the successes and difficulties that might arise from working with these elements, with the ultimate goal being an alternative solution to current construction methods which could transform the construction industry into a carbon sequestering industry.

10 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

1 EXISTING CONDITION

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ADS 5

LONDON BRIDGE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

PURPOSE OF CASE STUDY We are analysing a standard example of the bridge and infrastructure typology in order to provide a base for our alternative proposal. By looking at an existing example, we can propose a ‘Carbon Copy’ which provides an alternative solution to the brief.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

WHY LONDON BRIDGE London Bridge represents the typology in both its construction being precast reinforced concrete and in its purpose as it provides both pedestrian and vehicular access across the Thames. LOCATION The bridge spans 269m, connecting the Northern and Southern banks of the Thames between the City of London and Southwark. DATE OF CONSTRUCTION The modern London Bridge was constructed between 1967 and 1972 and was opened to the public in 1973. It was designed by Architect Lord Holford and Engineers Mott, Hay and Anderson, with John Mowlem and Co. as contractor. CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL/METHODOLOGY

The bridge is a concrete and steel box girder construction which spans over the river using three arches with two concrete piers standing in the water. The largest arch spans 104m, giving a clearance of 8.9m above the maintained water level.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ADS 5

HISTORY

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

ROMAN BRIDGES The first bridge was probably a Roman military pontoon type, giving easier access across the river to the Roman army. Around AD 50, the temporary bridge over the Thames was replaced by a permanent timber piled bridge, maintained and guarded by a small garrison.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

EARLY MEDIEVAL BRIDGES After the fall of the Roman Empire Londondinium was abandoned and the bridge destroyed. The river became a boundary between the kingdoms of Mercia and Wessex. The bridge was rebuilt around 990 and proceeded to be destroyed and rebuilt in timber multiple times until 1163 when the final timber bridge on the site was built. OLD LONDON BRIDGE King Henry II commissioned a new bridge to be built from stone which began construction in 1176. This was not completed until 1209The bridge was about 280m long, and had nineteen piers linked by nineteen arches and a wooden drawbridge. There were ‘starlings’ around the piers to protect them and the bridge, including the part occupied by houses, was from 6-7.5m wide. All the houses were shops, and the bridge was one of the City of London’s four or five main shopping streets. NEW LONDON BRIDGE

The New London Bridge was designed by John Rennie as part of a competition in 1799. Work began in 1824, with the old bridge still in use, and was demolished in 1831 when the new bridge was opened. Rennie’s bridge was 283m long and 15m wide and was constructed from Haytor granite. In 1896 the bridge was the busiest point in London, and one of its most congested; it was widened by 4m, using granite corbels. Subsequent surveys showed that the bridge was sinking an inch every eight years, and by 1924 it was decided that the bridge would have to be removed and replaced.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Artist’s impression of Roman London

The Frozen Thames (1677) by Abraham Hondius

New London Bridge in the late 19th century

ADS 5

USE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

VEHICULAR

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The current London Bridge is a busy route for traffic, providing access for the A2 across the Thames. There are 2 traffic lanes and a bus lane on either side of the bridge, creating an overall road width of 9.75m on either side.

Aerial map of London Bridge Source: Bing Maps

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

PEDESTRIAN Each side of the bridge has a wide pedestrian walkway - 6.8m on one side and 4.8 on the other, with granite clad steel handrails and a temporary steel barrier between road and pavement.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Photograph of bridge carriages

18 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

PHOTOGRAPHS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

CONSTRUCTION

HOW WAS IT BUILT? The bridge superstructure was designed as four pre-cast concrete box beams with steel reinforcement.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The existing London Bridge was used as the framework for the construction as well as a temporary gantry built across the river on column supports. The Existing bridge remained open to traffic, while they constructed a girder on either side, allowing traffic to then be rerouted to the new girders while the existing bridge was demolished and the final two central girders constructed. The traffic congestion and limited working space at the bridge meant that the pre-cast box parts were brought up the river by barge from the casting yard in Surrey Commercial Dock. Construction was carried out using the cantilever method, with segments being built outward from two piers, each segment tied to the previous one by high-strength steel tendons. In the centre the two cantilevers did not meet but stopped short, leaving a space into which the builders placed a concrete beam to complete the span.

1. Existing London Bridge traffic flow

2. Existing bridge used as framework for new girders on either side, maintaining traffic flow across the bridge. Temporary gantry erected to lift and move concrete box sections

3. Once completed, traffic flow redirected onto new girders. Existing bridge demolished and final two central girders constructed

4. Completed bridge comprised of 4 concrete box beam girders

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

Images of the construction of the Modern London Bridge, taken from the film New London Bridge by British Pathe, 1969; accessible at {https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=rtIlkcX9tjI}

The precast elements were transported to the site via boat from Surrey Quays

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The elements were craned into place by the temporary gantry

Steel framed elements craned into place

New precast concrete girders placed alongside the existing bridge

EXISTING DRAWINGS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

STRUCTURAL SECTION The superstructure is made up of 4 pre-cast reinforced concrete box girders which span the river across 2 concrete piers. These hollow sections provide space for services and reduce the mass of concrete. On top of this structure sits a poured concrete slab and the road build up of aggregate, waterproofing and tarmac.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

24 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

EXISTING DRAWINGS

ELEVATION

PLAN

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

EMBODIED CARBON

This break down illustrates the different structural and non-structural elements that make up the existing bridge, and the embodied carbon of each element. The heavy use of reinforced concrete as the primary material has led to a high value of embodied carbon. This is due to the energy and carbon intensive processes of manufacturing cement and steel.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

DETAIL OF SHORT SECTION THROUGH EXISTING

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E/M3

REINFORCED CONCRETE PIERS

2,424

1,619,232

REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK

8,628

5,763,504

REINFORCED CONCRETE PERPENDICULAR STRUCTURE

1167

779,556 TOTAL - 257,144

Granite Cladding

20,280

Stainless Steel Handrail

185,104

Steel Frame

0.25

5,785

Cement Blocks

142

45,975 TOTAL - 207,077

Steel Rail

185,104

Steel frame

0.25

5,785

Cement Base

16,188

ROAD SURFACE

TOTAL - 137,590

Tarmac Wearing Coat

732

129,543

Reclaimed Concrete Aggregate

732

7,218

Polyethylene Vapour Barrier

829

PAVEMENT SURFACE

TOTAL - 232,275

Sandstone tile

149

25,926

Concrete Pad

298

199,064

Concrete Curb

22.5

7,285

TOTAL

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

PEDESTRIAN GUARDRAIL

ADS 5

BALUSTRADE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ELEMENT

8,996,378

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

COST ANALYSIS

This table illustrates the cost of each element of the existing bridge. The minimal use of materials has meant that the bridge is relatively cheap and is efficient in its use of materials.

AMOUNT

COST

REINFORCED CONCRETE PIERS

2,424m3

£4,040,000

REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK

8,628m3

£5,752,000

REINFORCED CONCRETE PERPENDICULAR STRUCTURE

1,167m3

£778,000 TOTAL - £ 2,202,138

Granite Cladding

81m3

£2,025,000

Stainless Steel Handrail

63,200 kg

£158,000

Stainless Steel Frame

1,975 kg

£4,938

Concrete Blocks 40MPa

142 m3

£14,200 TOTAL - £ 167,938

Steel Rail

63,200 kg

£158,000

Steel frame

1,975 kg

£4,938

Cement Base

50 m3

£5,000

ROAD SURFACE

TOTAL - £ 552,627

Tarmac Wearing Coat

4,855.87 m2

£291,352

Reclaimed Concrete Aggregate

1,369,000 kg

£18,481

Bitumen Elastomer

4,855.87 m2

£242,794

PAVEMENT SURFACE

TOTAL - £76,750

Sandstone tile

149m3

£44,700

Concrete Pad

298m3

£29,800

Concrete Curb

22.5m3

£2,250

TOTAL

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

PEDESTRIAN GUARDRAIL

ADS 5

BALUSTRADE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ELEMENT

£ 13,569,453

30 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2.0 EXISTING CONDITION

ADS 5

CONCLUSIONS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

EXISTING CONDITION SUMMARY

London Bridge provides an essential route across the Thames for vehicles and pedestrians alike. It is a simple, minimal design which has very little visual impact. It’s construction is elegant and austere in the amount of material used, but the reinforced concrete and steel materials have a significant environmental impact. SET OUT OF BRIEF

TIMBER AND STONE

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

In order to create a ‘Carbon Copy’ of the bridge, various factors must remain constant. The span of the bridge and its position must remain, along with the placement of the piers in order not to impact river traffic. The air draft underneath the bridge must also be kept the same for this reason. The bridge width and the number of carriages and pavement area must remain the same in order to allow the same amount of traffic to pass over the bridge. The road level must be retained and the visual impact of the bridge’s height should be kept as low as possible. The same safety measures should also remain in place; guard rails at the edges of the bridge and between the pedestrian and vehicle zones. Due to a lack of accessible information of the bridge’s foundations, this study will address the parts of the bridge above the mean low water line.

The proposed materials are timber and stone; two naturally sourced materials which have a low embodied carbon value thanks to their natural structural qualities and lack of need for additional processing, as well as their carbon sequestering characteristics. Each material option will seek to use as little steel and concrete as possible, creating a bridge which mimics the existing, maintaining the factors set out in the above brief, but using materials which have a significantly lower environmental impact.

32 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

CARBON COPIES

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ADS 5

PROPOSALS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

CARBON COPIES

Following the analysis of the existing structure and its environmental and financial costs, this report begins to look at alternative structural scenarios which make use of low embodied carbon materials in order to propose a ‘Carbon Copy’ which improves the structure’s environmental and financial credentials. The two solutions explored are:

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Carbon Copy A: Timber Carbon Copy B: Stone

CARBON COPY A: TIMBER

126%

41%

IN EMBODIED CARBON

IN PROJECT COST

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

83%

IN EMBODIED CARBON

IN PROJECT COST

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

77%

CARBON COPY B: STONE

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

CARBON COPY: TIMBER

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ADS 5

TIMBER

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

3.0 CARBON COPY - TIMBER

INTRODUCTION Timber has long been a common material used in bridge construction, from the first ever trees which fell across rivers and ravines, to the great Roman pontoon bridges, timber has provided a readily available solution to spanning across inaccessible terrain.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Bridge innovation has led to the development of complex forms and shapes which utilise the natural properties of the material to carry load over longer distances. GRUBENMANN BROTHERS The Grubenmann brothers were two Swiss carpenters who operated in the second half of the eighteenth century, creating several examples of timber bridges which spanned significant lengths. The bridge at Schaffhausen over the Rhine, in 1755, comprised of two spans of 52m and 59m that met at an angle in midstream, resting on a central stone pier. This was achieved through using the principles of the arch and the truss in timber. BEAM TRUSS It was in the first half of the nineteenth century that the beam-like truss as now known really emerged, particularly in North America under the stimulus of an almost insatiable demand first for road and then for railway bridges. The drawing below shows a few of the most significant from among the very large number of designs proposed and constructed up to 1848. The first three were intended for construction wholly or primarily in timber; the others marked the transition to iron.

- Developments in Structural Form by Rowland Mainstone

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Side elevations (top and bottom) of the timber framing of the two spans of the Grubenmann brothers’ covered bridge at Schaffhausen, together with typical cross sections and a plan of the lateral bracing at floor level of the shorter span, from J. Rondelet, Traite theorique et pratique de I’art de bdtir, vol.4, part 1, Paris, 1814.

Bridge trusses of the first half of the nineteenth century: (a) Burr, 1804; (b) Town, 1820; (c) Howe, 1841; (d) Pratt, 1844; (e) Whipple, 1846; (f) Warren, 1848. Single lines represent the ties in (c) to (e).

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.0 CARBON COPY - TIMBER

CROSS LAMINATED TIMBER Cross Laminated Timber is manufactured by gluing multiple layers of timber together perpendicular to each other to create a thicker and stronger compound beam.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

CLT provides a new structural solution for larger spans and heavier loads. Although it is yet to be tested at the scale of London Bridge, some examples such as the Mistissini Bridge in Quebec and the Duchesnay Creek bridge in Ontario have used CLT as the superstructure, spanning distances of up to 43m.

Mistissini Bridge

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Duchesnay Creek Bridge, Ontario uses timber arches bolted in between the beams to achieve its span.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.0 CARBON COPY - TIMBER

With help from the structural engineer, the cross sectional area needed for a timber bridge spanning the same distances and holding the same load was established as being 30m x 1.5m of solid timber. This area could then be divided into beams capable of performing the same function of the existing bridge in timber. In order to create a form which closely resembles the existing London Bridge in timber, shallow arches and extremely deep CLT beams would need to be used.

Existing cross section: Reinforced concrete hollow structural girders

17m2

Cross sectional area needed for equivalent structural support in timber

45m2

Cross sectional area divided into CLT beams to achieve bridge span

45m2

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

Timber does not perform well in an arched form and for the spans needed, 3.5m deep beams would have to be manufactured. This combination of inefficient form and amount of material means that this option would not be viable and an alternative form must be found which responds better to the properties of the material. The most effective way of spanning these distances in timber would be to employ a truss beam. This, however, would have a large visual impact and would not be an exact carbon copy. In response to the feedback from the Structural Engineer, a better structural solution to form these spans in timber would be to use steel pylons and cables which could be set to the same height as the existing street lamps in order to minimise any visual impact.

Chart Datum

61720m

8773m 15973m

Mean High Water Springs

103730m

93520m

Existing elevation

258980m

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

existing street lamp level

Timber arch form

existing street lamp level Fink truss timber suspension bridge

3.0 CARBON COPY - TIMBER

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

TIMBER PROPOSAL

The proposed form employs a Fink Truss, locating steel pylons at the joins between each CLT beam and connecting these to each other using steel cables. This allows the beams to be supported at the key junctions where they join and reduces the need for the larger CLT beams previously explored, instead using smaller beams as a secondary structure spanning between the large beams supported by the cables in tension.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

This has allowed the constraints set out in the brief to be adhered to, maintaining the span, height, air draft and width of the bridge. This allows the existing use of the bridge to be maintained, supporting 3 traffic lanes and a pedestrian walkway either side, and allowing river traffic to pass beneath.

62m

ELEVATION

103.7m

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

93.8m

46 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.0 CARBON COPY - TIMBER

62m

PLAN 10

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

93.8m 03.7m

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.0 CARBON COPY - TIMBER

1. Limestone piers

2. CLT Beams

3. Steel fixings

4. Steel pylons

5. Steel cables

6. CLT secondary structure

7. Timber railings

8. Road and pavement build-up

SUMMARY OF COMPONENTS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

AXONOMETRIC SECTION - ABOVE

AXONOMETRIC SECTION - BELOW

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.0 CARBON COPY - TIMBER

CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY The superstructure is made up of 3 large CLT beams formed out of a series of smaller beams bolted together. These are made up of central thicker beams of 3.5m depth and smaller beams of 2m depth either side. The larger central beams are joined through a steel shoe which wraps around where the beams are joined at the piers and pylon junctions, and the tensile steel cables are connected to these steel joints. The steel pylons also sit on top of the steel shoe and are welded in. Cables are connected at the top and bottom of the 11m verticals. The secondary structure is formed of 500mm deep CLT beams which run perpendicular to the large beams and are supported on top of the smaller beam sections. These are also supported underneath using diagonal timber struts.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The road build up above these is made up of timber panels, limestone aggregate and sandstone paving.

11000mm

3720mm

3000mm

4000mm

3000mm

mean high water

7170mm

mean low water

SHORT SECTION

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

800mm

1 1. Steel cables connect to top of pylon 2. Steel pylon 3. Cable connection at base of pylon 4. Steel shoe 5. Road build-up 6. CLT beams primary structure 7. CLT secondary structure 8. Timber hand rail 9. Limestone pier

ADS 5

1000mm

3 4

11000mm

300mm 500mm 3500mm

2000mm

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

1000mm 1000mm 1000mm

5410mm

4665mm

SHORT SECTION 51

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.0 CARBON COPY - TIMBER

1. Steel pylon 2. Steel cables 3. Steel shoe 4. CLT primary structure 5. CLT secondary structure 6. Road build-up 7. Limestone pier 8. Steel plate and bolts

300mm

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

2 1

900mm 500mm 2000mm

250mm

8 5000mm

2000mm

7 8600mm

2950mm

3950mm

SECTION THROUGH PIER 52

5 4

ADS 5

5 8

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

4 7

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

AXONOMETRIC DETAIL THROUGH PIER JUNCTION

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.0 CARBON COPY - TIMBER

DETAIL A

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DETAIL B

5 3

1. Steel pylon 2. Steel cables 3. Steel shoe 4. CLT primary structure 5. CLT secondary structure 6. Steel plate and bolts

AXONOMETRIC DETAIL THROUGH PYLON BEAM JUNCTION

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

DETAIL A At the top of each pylon, a welded steel plate provides a connection point for the cables.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

These are bolted together through the plate and allow for any movement.

DETAIL B At the base of the pylon, it is welded to the steel shoe which connects two primary CLT beams. Here, there is another plate which provides the connection for the steel cables at low level in the same way as the at the top of the pylons.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.0 CARBON COPY - TIMBER

VISUALISATION: VIEW FROM SOUTH BANK

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ADS 5

The analysis of embodied carbon of the proposed timber bridge has shown a 126% reduction from the existing bridge. The majority of this has come from the use of timber as the primary material. Because it sequesters carbon throughout its lifetime, timber can dramatically offset the carbon that is produced in the production of steel and stone, yielding a negative carbon value.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

EMBODIED CARBON

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

3.0 CARBON COPY - TIMBER

ELEMENT

VOLUME M3

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E/M3

EMBODIED CARBON DIFFERENCE

LIMESTONE PIERS

3,413

645,057

-974,175

SUSTAINABLY SOURCED CLT SUPERSTRUCTURE

7,285

-6,129,059

-12,672,119

TIMBER BALUSTRADE

134

-137,122

-394,266

TIMBER PEDESTRIAN GUARDRAIL

-207,077

STEEL FIXINGS

1,097,341

STEEL CABLES

405,932

STEEL PYLONS

129

2,177,799

-345,503

-483,093

ROAD SURFACE Sandstone slabs

525

91,350

Quarried Sandstone aggregate

525

4,843

Timber load protection layer

525

-441,696

PAVEMENT SURFACE

-126,356

Sandstone tile

192

33,408

Quarried Sandstone aggregate

192

1771

Timber load protection layer

192

-161,535

TOTAL

-2,411,911

-358,631

-11,408,289

126% reduction in Embodied Carbon

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

COST

AMOUNT

COST £

COST DIFFERENCE

LIMESTONE PIERS

3,413m3

£1,023,900

-3,016,100

SUSTAINABLY SOURCED CLT SUPERSTRUCTURE

48,566m2

£12,141,500

+5,611,500

TIMBER BALUSTRADE

986.1m2

£98,610

-2,103,528

STEEL FIXINGS

513.5t

£1,283,750

+1,283,750

STEEL CABLES

189.6t

£474,000

+474,000

STEEL PYLONS

1,019.1t

£2,547,750

+2,547,750

£1,190,000

+637,373

ROAD SURFACE Sandstone slabs

525m3

£157,500

Quarried Sandstone aggregate

525m3

£157,500

Timber load protection layer

3,500m2

£875,000

PAVEMENT SURFACE

£435,200

Sandstone tile

192m3

£57,600

Quarried Sandstone aggregate

192m3

£57,600

Timber load protection layer

1,280m2

£320,000

TOTAL

£19,194,710

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ELEMENT

ADS 5

The cost of the proposed timber bridge is 41% higher than the existing concrete bridge. The analysis below shows that this cost predominantly comes from the CLT beams which form the superstructure of the bridge. The added steel also accounts for much of the added cost. The alternative stone piers and timber balustrade, however, provide a much cheaper alternative to the existing elements.

+358,450

+£5,625,257 41% increase in cost

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

3.0 CARBON COPY - TIMBER

CONCLUSION

This exploration has shown how timber could be used as the primary material in bridge design, providing a solution to large spans for heavy loads which is carbon sequestering.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

However, due to the loads, spans and weathering factors, the amount of timber that would need to be used would not make the option realistically viable. Although the bridge satisfies the brief in terms of use and dimensions, it does not have the same visual simplicity and elegance of the existing London Bridge. The pylons and cables do create a visibility barrier, which could pose a problem for the visitors to the city, obstructing views of the surrounding buildings and bridges. This is not to say, however, that timber should not be used in bridge design. The large 103m span of London Bridge is what has led to the amount of timber needed, and with a smaller span or lighter load, timber could provide a solution, fulfilling all areas of the brief. This has been shown in the precedents of Duchesnay Creek and Mistissini where the shorter span has been achieved without the use of pylons. WHAT IF A more efficient timber bridge form would employ a truss form, creating a beam which could span longer distances without the use of pylons and cables. The problem with creating a timber truss bridge in this context is the visual impact that it would have. For the sake of creating a ‘Carbon Copy’, this option has not been explored further.

This is an example of efficiency of form in relation to particular materials having the greatest influence on the design of the bridge. In future bridge design, a CLT truss could provide the required span and hold the required load.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

62 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

4 CARBON COPY - STONE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

4.0 CARBON COPY - STONE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

STONE

THE SHALLOW STONE ARCH

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The Romans are most commonly attributed to be the greatest masonry bridge builders of antiquity. They built passages and aqueducts still standing today. These immensely robust structures would only get more robust as they carried heavier loads, thanks to their great understanding of forces and the art of cutting stone. Semicircular arches would transfer their loads on their typically thick piers. “The legacy of the Roman bridge builders is encompassed within the six span bridge over the river Tagus at Alcantara in Spain, which contains individual spans of up to 30m.” Roman masonry bridge building was extremely expensive due to the shear mass and amount of material necessary. While roman bridges became an icon representing masonry bridge construction, a whole new revolution of masonry bridge building was happening in China. “the Chinese were also developing bridges with new geometries (segmental, elliptical, parabolic, etc.) and the Zhaozhou Bridge, built from 595 to 605 AD during the Sui Dynasty in China, is historically significant as it is the world’s oldest open-spandrel, stone, segmental arch bridge. This bridge demonstrates an advanced level of understanding of the forces exerted on the arch, piers and abutments, which was not demonstrated in Europe until the Renaissance period.” Segmental bridge building has had a more visible impact on how we build bridges today in both reducing the amount of material and keeping the walkway relatively low in respect to the span more commonly having to go up by 1 meter in height for every 8 meters in span.

The New Stone Age Exibition at the Building Centre

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

La Balme Bridge Source: https:// structurae.net/en/ structures/la-balmebridge

NEED FOR IT Highways agency BD91/04: ‘Experience has shown that arch bridges are very durable structures requiring little maintenance in comparison to other bridge forms. BD 57 (DMRB 1.3.7) says their use should be considered. However, there has not previously been a standard for the design of new unreinforced arch bridges. The objective of this Standard is to encourage a renaissance in arch building using unreinforced masonry materials.’ https://www.thenbs.com/PublicationIndex/documents/ details?Pub=HA&DocID=329043

4.0 CARBON COPY - STONE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

TENSIONED STONE

HOW DOES IT WORK The concept of tensioned stone capitalizes on the stone’s unparalleled ability to perform in compression. A bar is threaded through a series of blocks, stretched and secured at the ends by a metal plate. As the bar attempts to return to its former length, the stone will be compressed by the metal ends that are trying to come closer to each other.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

This allows us to build elements like beams out of stone, that unlike a column are affected by tension as well as compression. Wile this technique is not new in itself and is widely used to stiffen spanning concrete elements, it’s application in combination with cut stone is uncommon with only a few instances in construction where it has been used structurally. A reevaluation of this technique could allow us to treat stone with the same freedom as we do with concrete.

The New Stone Age Exibition at the Building Centre

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

PERFORMANCE Coupled with the form of the arch tensioning stone is then able to achieve much wider spans while also performing a structural role. The tensioning increases the failure load of the stone in bending, while the form of the arch minimizes the bending stress by transferring it onto the piers. Tensioning stone just as we pre/post tension concrete can amplify and empower the architectural language of the material just as reinforcing concrete with rebar did for Modernism. Photograph of assembly of a masonry arch. An arch a framework and its drilled masonry elements in the foreground.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Photograph of a structural threaded masonry arch inside Padre Pio Pilgrimage Church

4.0 CARBON COPY - STONE

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ASSEMBLY

TRANSPORTATION AND PHASING In the construction of the six central towers of the Sagrada Famìlia, tensioned stone panels played a central role in making the building process quicker and safer, than laying each stone individually. It made it possible to safely assemble the sections at ground level and review the work before lifting it in place. It minimizes the work done on site, making it easier to schedule tasks, as the finished panels can be stored before using. This allowed the type of work to be standardised both on site and in the manufacturing plant.

AFTERLIFE Tensioning stone makes it possible to have dry joinery between elements making it easier to re purpose or replace individual blocks if necessary. Its lighter structure lends itself to being easily demountable. Just as the previous stone Bridge had a second life in Arizona, the proposed tensioned stone London Bridge could be dismantled and reassembled with much more easr somewhere else if necessary.

A postcard of the Old London Bridge reassembled in Lake Havasu City, Arizona , U.S.A.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

Photograph of the stone panels being stored off-site in preparation of assembly.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Photograph of a worker tensioning the stone elements of a structural panel for the construction of one of the central towers of the Sagrada Famìlia.

Photograph of the tensioned stone panels being guided into place by two workers on site.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

4.0 CARBON COPY - STONE

PROPOSAL

The proposal for a light weight stone bridge that spans a total of 150m with only two piers has to be achieved through the strategic use of parabolic geometry and the tensioning of the primary structure. In the proposal the arch form a parabolic shape to account for the uneven loading of the road above. From a visual perspective the proposal assumes an even slimmer profile than the existing pre cast bridge while still having the same pier position. The arches pierce through the deck and making the bridge even slimmer and the open spandrels create unprecedented views on the Themes.

LONG ELEVATION LOOKING EAST

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

SKETCH OF STRUCTURE

72 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

4.0 CARBON COPY - STONE

PROPOSAL

PLAN OF BRIDGE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

4.0 CARBON COPY - STONE

ELEVATION USE OF BRIDGE The bridge retains the same profile of the existing bridge providing an additional 3m height throughout most of the central span. While the bridge does provide this additional height it does so without compromising on the camber of the road surface above, the road surface maintains the same pitch as the existing bridge, so that not only vehicular but also pedestrian access is effortless even for those with impaired mobility. The structural arches pierce the road surface making the profile exceptionally thin. And the loading of the arch is made uniform through the parabolic shape of the arch as well as secondary parabolic arches to distribute the weight that would otherwise go directly on the piers.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

This allows a light profile design that works with open spandrels.

DETAILED ELEVATION WITH TRANSIT

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

76 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

4.0 CARBON COPY - STONE

SECTION

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

SHORT SECTION THROUGH TOP OF MAIN ARCH

ADS 5 ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

RELEVANCE The menu of components represents an order of structure going from the interface with the water to the touch of the hand. 1. The Pier to Arch component presents the tensioning strategy for the primary structure and a pier design which is friendlier to the water life of the Themes. 2. The Arch to Beam component is representative of how a post tensioned system can work at different scales and the way these come together. How secondary beams can be tied to the primary structure through he use of the tensioning element on itself.

3. The Beam to Balustrade component shows an elegant way to anchor the tensioning system in such a way to hold the balustrade in place. This simplifies the detailing and reduces the amount of joinery required.

4.0 CARBON COPY - STONE

ADS 5

PIER TO ARCH ARCH TO BEAM BEAM TO BALUSTRADE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

MENU OF COMPONENTS

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

4.0 CARBON COPY - STONE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

PIER TO ARCH

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

2. 3. 4.

10.

The interface to the pier is the most vital part of the tensioned arch as it has to withstand forces coming from different directions and contain the space for the tensioning component at the base of the arch as well.

ADS 5

The stone piers sit within the same footprint as the previous concrete one, with ashlar construction to support the arches and rough stone crib construction as infill. The additional ashlar on the ends holds the cross bracing in place and prevents possible damage from impact with boats. The stone crib construction decreases the amount of material used while providing shelter for the resilient water life of the Themes.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

HOW DOES IT WORK

The stone arches taper at the base to redistribute the forces onto the piers more evenly. The base of the arches contains the elements of a Fressinet inspired tensioning system. This comprises of a steel anchor, a bearing plate and cable grips to keep the tendons in place. BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

11.

1. Ashlar Arch 2. Limestone Arch Base 3. Cable Guide 7.

4. Bearing Plate and Cable Grips 5. Access for Tensioning 6. Steel Anchoring Plate 7. 19 x 12,7mm Steel Tendons 8. Cross Bracing Steel Tendon 9. Stone Pier 10. Connection to Pier 11. Stone Crib Infill

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

4.0 CARBON COPY - STONE

ARCH TO BEAM

PRESSED METAL PLATE CONNECTION The connection between the secondary beam and the arch primary structure relies on the compression of the tendons running through the beams. A metal plate is pressed between the beam and the arch to compensate for small variances in beam length. The metal plate moulds to the texture of the arch, in turn creating a firm grip.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

KEYSTONE BEAMS While an arch typology works entirely in compression, beams need to withstand bending. While this could be achieved with multiple tendons in the stone, to decrease the amount of steel necessary the stones are cut in rhombus and trapezoidal forms to keystone in each other. This redistributes the live loads in the beam.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

6. 4.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

1. Limestone Ashlar Primary Arch Structure 1600mm x 1250mm 2. Limestone Ashlar Beam 600mm x 400mm 3. Limestone Ashlar Cantilever Beam 300-600mm x 400mm 4. 12,7mm Diameter Steel Tendon 5. 19 x 12,7mm Diameter Steel Tendon 6. Hot Rolled Metal Plate 7. Hot Rolled Metal Cable Sheath

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

4.0 CARBON COPY - STONE

BEAM TO BALUSTRADE

FIXINGS The design of the balustrade integrates the anchorage of the tendons and the fixing of the handrail/safety net into one detail.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Metal plates press on the vertical stone element which supports the handrail and hold the bottom fixing for the safety net. The cable safety net is kept tort by the handrail cable and the bottom fixing attached to the metal plates. The metal plate acts as the anchor for the tensioning system, on which washers and nuts are threaded. The tensioning system employed for the secondary beams which support the carriage way is a Lee McAll Tensioning System. This system employs the use of a threaded nut to tension the tendon, and is much simpler than other analogous tensioning systems.

POST TENSIONING CABLE Sandstone planks act as the tertiary structure for both the walkway and the vehicular lanes. The choice of sandstone over other types of stone is justified by the coarse texture of sandstone that does not wear with use. It is important for sandstone to be scanned for fissures and cracks. This is especially important due to the change in temperatures and humidity in the London climate.

Stone is proportionally a lot less carbon intensive than steel, this proposal tried to minimise the amount of steel necessary. This was achieved by using steel only when used in tension in the form of steel tendons. The use of galvanized steel has also been reduced in the joinery as the secondary structure is threaded to the primary through the same tendons that keep the structure in compression.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2. 4. 3.

7. 8.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

1. Handrail Cable 2. Cable Mesh 3. Stone Balustrade 4. Rough Sandstone Plank 1500mm x 150mm 5. Hot Rolled Metal Sheath 6. Washer and Nut 7. 12,7 mm Steel Tendon 8. Limestone Cantilever beam 600-300mm x 400mm

VISUALISATION: VIEW FROM SOUTH BANK

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

4.0 CARBON COPY - STONE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

CARBON CALCULATION Element

Volume m3

Primary Arches

Total - 457,639

Lime Stone

1522.00

287,658

Galvanized Steel Plates

7.20

121,552

Cables

2.86

48,429

Spandrels

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Embodied Carbon kgCO2e/m3

Total - 177,127

Lime stone

774.00

146,286

Cables

1.82

30,841

Secondary Beams

Total - 328,508

Lime Stone

1090.00

206,010

Galvanized Steel Plates

6.70

113,111

Cables

0.55

9,387

Path Slabs Sand Stone

Total - 202,884 1166.00

Balustrade

202,884 Total - 28,693

Stone

28.00

5,292

Cable

0.05

846

Netting

0.03

567

Galvanizes Steel Plates

1.30

21,988

Total - 1,198,227

4.0 CARBON COPY - STONE

Element

Amount

Primary Arches

Cost Total - £655,285

1,522.00 m3

£456,600

Metal Plates

56,880 kg

£142,200

Cables

22,594 kg

£56,485

Spandrels

Total - £268,145 774.00 m3

£232,200

Cables

14,378 kg

£35,945

Secondary Beams

Total - £470,188

Lime Stone

1,090.00 m3

£327,000

Metal Plates

52,930 kg

£132,325

Cables

4,345 kg

£10,863

Path Slabs

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Lime stone

Sand Stone

ADS 5

Lime stone

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

COST CALCULATION

Total - £349,800 1,166.00 m3

Balustrade

£349,800 Total - £35,656

Stone

28.00 m3

£8,400

Cable

395 kg

£988

Netting

237 kg

£593

Metal Plates

10,270 kg

£25,675 Total - £ 2,305,874

90 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

5 FINDINGS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

EMBODIED CARBON

It is clear that both options dramatically reduce the embodied carbon of the bridge through the use of alternative materials. The natural carbon sequestering values of timber and stone allow for reductions of 126% and 77% respectively.

10,000,000

8,000,000

EMBODIED CARBON KGCO2E/M3

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

5.0 FINDINGS

6,000,000

4,000,000

2,000,000

-2,000,000

-4,000,000

EXISTING

TIMBER

STONE

5.0 FINDINGS ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

COST

ADS 5

The material costs of each option provide another view of each proposal. The inadequacy of timber for large spans and heavy loads is emphasized in the cost projected, highlighting the need for a much larger amount of material with a 41% cost increase. The stone, however, illustrates the strength of the material through the reduction of material and cost, providing a solution which is 83% cheaper. This figure, however appears to be far too low which could be due to an inaccurate cost value of Limestone, or an error in calculations. Illustrated below is also a stone value of £1500/ m3 which seems to provide a more realistic value.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

25,000,000

20,000,000

COST £

15,000,000

10,000,000 If the cost of Limestone was assumed to be £1500/ m3, this would seem to be a more reliable figure

5,000,000

Cost of Limestone assumed as £300/m3. This figure seems too low

EXISTING

TIMBER

STONE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

5.0 FINDINGS

COMPARISON TIMBER

126%

41%

IN EMBODIED CARBON

IN PROJECT COST

PROS Dramatic reduction in embodied carbon CONS

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Visual impact increased due to steel pylons Material qualities not suited for the existing form and span An excessive amount of material is needed, leading to an increase in project cost

STONE

77%

83%

IN EMBODIED CARBON

IN PROJECT COST

PROS Large reduction in embodied carbon Large reduction in project cost Material suited to shallow arch form and span, providing a more efficient alternative to concrete CONS

More skilled labour and construction techniques required

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

Existing photograph

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Proposed timber bridge

Proposed stone bridge

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

5.0 FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, these two options have illustrated the possibilities of using alternative, low carbon materials to create bridges with large spans and heavy loads. This is an important intervention into the bridge typology which is dominated by reinforced concrete and steel construction.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

For the constraints given by London Bridge, the stone bridge has provided a more viable option in terms of material use, cost, and fitness for purpose in its material choice. This is due to the natural compressive strength of stone which is what is required to carry the heavy traffic load. Although the timber bridge provided a possible solution, the sheer amount of material and the weathering and structural properties of timber would mean that it is less applicable. However, if the spans were to be smaller and the load lighter, timber could provide a better alternative to stone, as is the case with many footbridges and short crossings around the world. The stone option provides a possible future to masonry arch building which integrates tendons to achieve shallow arches that work entirely in compression just like a full arch. It is very difficult to predict the amount of tendons necessary for the arches to work and they would need to be protected from weathering and rusting. Stone becomes a viable option although it would require a new set of engineering knowledge for the tensioning of the arches.

Overall this exercise has been extremely useful in analysing the common construction techniques which are taken for granted and exploring how alternative materials and techniques could provide better solutions.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

98 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

6 MENU OF COMPONENTS

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5 BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

6.0 MENU OF COMPONENTS

1. Steel pylon 2. Steel cables 3. Steel shoe 4. CLT primary structure 5. CLT secondary structure 6. Road build-up 7. Limestone pier 8. Steel plate and bolts

300mm

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

2 1

900mm 500mm 2000mm

250mm

8 5000mm

2000mm

7 8600mm

2950mm

3950mm

SECTION THROUGH PIER 100

5 4

ADS 5

5 8

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

4 7

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

AXONOMETRIC DETAIL THROUGH PIER JUNCTION

101

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

6.0 MENU OF COMPONENTS

DETAIL A

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DETAIL B

5 3

1. Steel pylon 2. Steel cables 3. Steel shoe 4. CLT primary structure 5. CLT secondary structure 6. Steel plate and bolts

102

AXONOMETRIC DETAIL THROUGH PYLON BEAM JUNCTION

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

DETAIL A At the top of each pylon, a welded steel plate provides a connection point for the cables.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

These are bolted together through the plate and allow for any movement.

103

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

6.0 MENU OF COMPONENTS

3. 4.

10.

104

AXONOMETRIC DETAIL - PIER TO ARCH

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART ADS 5

1. Ashlar Arch 2. Limestone Arch Base 3. Cable Guide 7.

4. Bearing Plate and Cable Grips

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

11.

5. Access for Tensioning 6. Steel Anchoring Plate 7. 19 x 12,7mm Steel Tendons 8. Cross Bracing Steel Tendon 9. Stone Pier 10. Connection to Pier 11. Stone Crib Infill

105

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

6.0 MENU OF COMPONENTS

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

6. 4.

106

AXONOMETRIC DETAIL - ARCH TO BEAM

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART

ADS 5

2. 4. 3.

7. 8.

BRIDGES AND INFRASTRUCTURE