Technology Report 2024 (2/2)

U-VALUES - RETROFIT

U-values: New-builds = <0.15 W/(m2K) Retrofit EWI = <0.15 W/(m2K) Retrofit IWI = < 0.35 W/(m2K) Passivhaus/EnerpHit

internal environment B Retrofitted to a less stringent U-value of 0.35 due to complications with an internal insulation strategy.

RETROFIT OF 1960S BRICK CAVITY WALL (N-FACING)

80% RH

80% RH

In winter 80% relative humitidy is reached, which is the where mould might begin to form. However during the summer months the wall dries out, so with the cork insulation used this will prevent the degredation of the wall.

Cork doesn't rot, therefore this material is used particularly an infill insulation within the cavity, as moisture build-up is most likely to happen here.

RETROFIT OF CONCRETE FLAT ROOF - WARM

Need to consider if the structural integrity will be compromised due to the added weight from the insulation & green roof.

Test 1: insulating the cavity with cork granules.

- graphs taken from cold face of cavity insulation.

By installing a green roof, this can reduce the need for artificial cooling systems (Wilkinson, 2021).

RETROFIT OF 1960S CONCRETE FLOOR

Test 2: Further insulating internally to reach EnerPHit standards.

- graphs taken from cold face of internal insulation.

To reach EnerPHit U-values, the floor thickness must increase by 145mm. (cork slabs come in 20mm increases)

50

STORAGE storage & plant room

plant room

workshop tools

heavy machinery

STORAGE storage & plant room

classroom / extra workspace

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS classroom / STRATEGY

cleaners store

services A

lockers

workshop 2 chemicals & plastics

extra workspace

workshop tools

cleaners store main entrance / multifunction room

informal reception

terrace

PLANT ROOM storage

heavy machinery

lockers

distribution board

MVHR

WC Part M

MVHR to minimise heat loss in winter months. Units should have a heat recovery efficiency of ≥ 75%.

Adapted from Passivhaus.

extraction system

extraction system

lockers

workshop Every building on site requires2its- own plant room, chemicals & plastics containing: • Heat pump room (heating & hot water) (cooling?)

• MVHR connected to external wall (air) • Distribution board (electricity)

storage Heating & hot water& controls generation is fossil-fuel-free LETI

workshop 3 - timber / DIY

open desk space

storage for large items

MESSY room

lockers

common room

workshop 1 large items (uninsulated)

private studio

storage & controls

storage for large items

private studio

workshop 3 continued covered outdoor

heavy machinery

private studio

MESSY room

plant room

workshop 3 continued covered outdoor

heat pump connection

STORAGE

heavy machinery

heavy machinery

warm compost area

storage & controls

cold compost area

cleaners store

storage for large items

workshop 1 large items (uninsulated)

workshop 3 - timber / DIY FOOD HALL

garden / compost store

workshop tools

common room

hot compost area

lockers

lockers

workshop 2 chemicals & plastics

informal reception

main entrance / multifunction room disabled WC

storage for large items

reception

open desk space

HEAT PUMPS

disabled WC & shower

workshop 3 - timber / DIY changing rooms

toilets FOYER

lockers

MVHR

As the district heat network only keeps water temperatures around 30 degrees, each building requires an independent heat pump, with a heat pump room 3x2m footprint that sits inside the workshop plant room.

STORE + plant room 62m2

STAGE

distribution board

heat pump connection

TERRACE (partially covered)

KITCHEN CLASSROOM / community room 50m2

HOW TO - explaining the process of resource re-use instead of trash! (& how to use SORTING HALL)

exhibition window

tools

fire proof enclosure

gas suppresion system

DINING HALL & EVENTS 315m2

introduction

KITCHEN 74m2

MVHR

mural wall

main entrance / multifunction room

lockers

EXHIBITION / orientation gallery

chemical storage

SORTING HALL loading / unloading bay

toilets

STORAGE

MVHR will be used toinformal ensure high indoor air quality reception even in winter months.

biological cycle

MVHR

heat pump connection

LIBRARY OF THINGS reception & cloakroom

SWAP SHOP

SECOND HAND OR LOCAL SHOP

Food pop-up stall

Store 11m2

Bar

community fridges & freezers

plant room

distribution board

technological cycle

SUNSPACE - food prep & informal dining

COFFEE & CAKES

SHOPPING STREET & SUNSPACE

SUPPORT FROM MATERIALS & ELEMENTS

TERRACE (partially covered)

terrace

"Using a natural material that is able to moderate and regulate the temperature and humidity passively, can contribute to a reduction in heating and cooling energy footprints by up to 5% and 30% respectively" (Haddad, Lannon and Latif, 2024, p.4)

WORKSHOPS

WASTE CENTRE

EXTRA STRATEGIES REQUIRED

HOW TO - explaining the process of resource re-use used insteadwithin of trash!the workshop, extra systems are needed, onDue to the materials (& how to use SORTING HALL) top of the plant room with the MVHR unit, distribution board and heat pump

The sorting hall requires the storage of certain materials that need special storage requirements for safety.

connection.

Extraction system for workshops.

Unique storage requirements for sorting hall.

Both in the timber workshop and chemical workshop an extra extraction system is required, exhibition window with an external unit. The timber workshop only requires dust extraction, however the plastics & chemicals workshop requires pollutant extraction too. extraction system

extraction system introduction

mural wall

lockers

EXHIBITION / orientation gallery

distribution board

MVHR heavy machinery

fire proof enclosure

chemical storage

SORTING HALL plant room

heat pump connection

STORAGE

heavy machinery

toilets storage & controls

51 storage for large items

gas suppresion system

cleaners

ZERO-WASTE HOUSING

52

DESIGN FOR THE FUTURE - ACCESSIBILITY

Design ground floors in homes to Part M to allow for future adaptations.

Own target & Approved Doc M

internal environment F Buildings must be designed to last for at least 200 years (Dark Matter Labs, 2023), making it crucial that they are adaptable for future needs.

Furthermore, in the case of Barton-le-Clay's neighbourhood, there is a growing demand for housing options suitable for older residents looking to downsize.

SUMMARY OF DESIGN FEATURES

Turning circles

Doors open on a hinge rather than sliding as external sliding doors would be too heavy.

All windows start below 850mm high so those in wheelchairs have views out.

SU

Part M principal bedroom • Clear access to window • Access route of 750mm around the bed

SU

CH

To address this need, the entire ground floor of these homes has been designed to meet Part M, Category 3 accessibility standards. This ensures that the space can accommodate a variety of living situations, not just those of older adults.

For example, the ground floor could function as a self-contained flat, or a larger family could live alongside an elderly relative. Additionally, the Part M-compliant bedroom could be used as a second living room or study - now often desired as remote working becomes more prevalent.

Key

Flexible living room and dining layouts to ensure compatibility with a wide range of people.

• A centralised layout to avoid passages.

• Central circulation zone >1500mm to allow for 180° turning space at any point (900mm minimum, 1200mm is 90° turning space).

Part M compliant bathroom layout also gives the possibility for another door to be added in-between bedroom and bathroom for easier access.

1200mm clear space in front of all kitchen units and appliances.

• <4.8m to public footpath

Ample kitchen space for under-counter storage. Adjustable counter heights so counter can be at the max. height of 900mm.

• Level access throughout • Key facilities designed to accommodate disabilities

Shallow services and storage access with adjustable shelves.

Worktops should have knee-hole spaces 600mm deep to enable a wheelchair user to pull right up and use the whole width of the worktop (The University of Edinburgh, 2015).

• Easily adapted internal walls • Opening specified that are sufficient for use from a wide range of people.

CONCLUSION In attempting to create a housing model that accommodates a wide range of typologies and has options for future adaptability, other challenges have emerged, which will be discussed later in the report. It may be more effective to design several types of house, tailored to specific needs, as one house cannot meet every target, requirement and situation.

Although the housing part of the site is a no car zone, people who are disabled are allowed to drive their vehicles up to their house. There is space for parking in front of the house instead of the growing garden however this is discouraged. Parking options are given close by for blue-badge holders.

>1500mm between door swings

900mm

Entrance route should be lit to 100 lux (The University of Edinburgh, 2015).

53

Level access all the way into the building, to ensure easy access. Tiles are specified for the path and the sunspace to ensure a hard surface makes it easier for those using a wheelchair or mobility device.

FIRE & LIFE SAFETY

Approved Document B outlines for: • sufficient alarms and means of escape in the event of a fire • preventing the spread of fire & preventing premature collapse • sufficient access for the fire service, its appliances and facilities in buildings to help fire fighters • providing fire safety information to building owners and residents (HM Government, 2022)

internal environment I As low-density housing no more than three stories, there are less regulations in place compared to higher stories. The requirements specified are regardless of height. In particular, separating elements - floors and party walls - must prevent the spread of fire.

Separating wall needs to meet a 60 minute fire rating.

FIRE PROTECTION

All habitable rooms have an emergency escape window or external door,

SU

SU

Clay plaster is the most common internal finish in these homes. It achieves Class 0 surface spread of flames protection, meaning the internal lining of the residential spaces are protected sufficiently for 60 minutes and possibly longer (Clayworks, no date).

Different occupancies (2 flats), needs to be 60 minute fire separation between floors (HM Government, 2022). See 1:10 detail to see what materials are specified.

As a third storey higher than 4.5m, it potentially needs to have a protected staircase to exit safely. Therefore with a loft conversion the current staircases should to be separate from the main living space to prevent the spread of fire. This needs further investigation with a fire engineer.

CH

All structural elements including party walls and separating floors are required to meet a 60 minute fire rating. Any internal walls, as well as doors to habitable rooms off the escape route need to have a 30 minute fire rating.

Design to Approved Docs particularly Doc B for fire safety.

Approved Doc B

PARTY WALLS OF STROCKS

Preventing spread between terraces.

Strocks are unfired clay, so in the event of a fire they just become more like a fired brick, getting stronger whilst also remaining inflammable (Strocks Fire Resistance, 2024). No risk of combustion or spread of flame. This makes them highly fire resistant, even if exposed, therefore no other fire resistance is required.

*

The party walls are constructed as two leafs with a cavity in-between to prevent the transfer of sound. Therefore cavity closers are used to prevent the spread of fire within the cavity, particularly at junctions and in separating floors. These walls must increase 325mm above roof height to prevent the spread of fire across the roof.

The loft is less than 11 meters high, so no extra regulations if converted.

FIRE ESCAPE & FUTURE PROOFING: Fire regulations are getting stricter due to the Grenfell inquiry, however most of these are applied to buildings over 11m or 18m high. However, all residents should still be instructed on fire safety and fire doors, with clear signage also to ensure external access routes remain clear for fire services (addressed earlier in the report).

Each terrace will have it's own fire alarm system with an alarm in every room.

Entrances for flats are kept separate and no facilities are shared to meet fire regulations. This allows the stairs to be treated as a fire-safe block.

There must not be a common escape area, unless all flats are separated from the escape route. Otherwise, in the event of a fire on the ground floor, anyone on the upper levels would be trapped.

54

With a loft conversion, a fire door and compartmentalised stairs are required here to meet fire regulations.

Any staircase must be private, not shared by more than one flat, otherwise would need to separate each flat from the staircase to protect the spread of fire.

* Potentially does not comply as this floor is

above 4.5m from the ground. Consult a fire engineer for more information as its unclear.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN STRATEGY: OVERVIEW construction A & B

Domestic embodied carbon <300kgCO2/m2 LETI (best practice 2030)

HYBRID CONSTRUCTION

STRUCTURE

Minimise waste but celebrate site & local vernacular

All new-builds are net-zero-carbon.

LETI

0% construction waste to landfill OPD

75% materials must be sourced from the UK. LBC

70% by weight of building can be reused, recycled or backfilled at its end of life.

European Directive on construction & demolition waste, taken from Active House.

Key Strock walls

Infill walls (non- loadbearing)

Timber posts

ON SITE CONSTRUCTION USING WASTE & NATURAL MATERIALS

• slow process but celebrates site & using local waste materials which saves money in material cost (even though more cost with labour)

KEEPING FINISHES LOCAL: Locally sourced material

and

OFFSITE MANUFACTURE OF PANELS MINIMISING WASTE + CUSTOMISABLE FINISHES WITH LOCAL MATERIALS (IE PLASTER/CLADDING)

No connection to site On-site construction:

• quick process done in a factory that is not weather Dependant and minimises waste (inhouse processing of waste so most gets used)

+

+

Terraced house

Terraced house

TRADE OFF between:

! Building with panels - less natural

materials as likely tape will be used, however more efficient in building as waste is easier to manage.

Building on-site - creates more waste as need to order products to site, Between 10-30% of materials delivered to UK construction sites are wasted due to over-ordering, damage or loss (Letcher and Vallero, 2011).

Filled with loose cork insulation.

Double-leaf wall of strocks, manufactured onsite or locally & assembled on-site.

MATERIALS STRATEGY

Sizes of circle demonstrate proportion of material within the construction strategy.

Off-site construction:

+

+

1

Strocks made on-site

2

Local/vernacular finishes Off-site panels, depending on regional material availability

4

Foundations from K-Briq's (following their future regional strategy)

Insulating panels manufactured off-site, using waste or natural materials found regionally.

5

Timber structure

Insulating panels manufactured off-site, using waste or natural materials found regionally.

6

Other materials not yet manufactured in the UK (eg recycled foamglass)

55

si t e

3

1 igh b

ne

3

2

4

ourhood

regional

6

UK-wide

5

STRUCTURAL DESIGN STRATEGY: OVERVIEW construction A & B

Domestic embodied carbon <300kgCO2/m2 LETI (best practice 2030)

All new-builds are net-zero-carbon.

LETI

0% construction waste to landfill OPD

75% materials must be sourced from the UK. LBC

70% by weight of building can be reused, recycled or backfilled at its end of life.

European Directive on construction & demolition waste, taken from Active House.

TERRACED HOUSING

Uses less materials & more energy efficient Designing houses as terraces is important because shared party walls reduce the amount of material required. While the L-shaped design slightly mitigates this advantage, the impact is lessened by incorporating handed terraces.

LOADS

Row of handed terraces.

For optimal form and efficiency, terraces should be arranged in rows of at least six, with sunspaces positioned at the outer corners.

In addition to material efficiency, terraces also help reduce the impact of wind loads by acting as a unified structure. Working with the strock walls, this creates a robust and stable structure that ensures the building will remain durable and structurally safe.

LATERAL STABILITY The strock walls going in both directions offers very good stability, resiting lateral loads from any direction.

NEXT STEPS The house has been designed with a post-andbeam structure. This will be investigated next.

STABILITY IN POSTS To ensure lateral stability and minimise thermal bridges in the timber posts:

Cork insulation at edges

Stepped foundation with K-briq's.

56

Timber post buried into earth floor to stop lateral stability Metal plate possibly needed underneath post to ensure stability.

Structural foamglass blocks underneath to prevent thermal bridges.

TIMBER STRUCTURE CALCULATIONS construction A The timber structure calculations have been carried out as though the whole structure is timber post-and-beam. In reality the external walls will take many of the loads (instead of timber posts), however the posts that will take the most loads are situated in the middle of the construction anyway, and therefore the results are unaffected and remain accurate.

Tests were carried out to see which way the beams and joists would span, as well as to specify their required size to suitably account for stress and deflection.

LESSONS LEARNT: • Glue-laminated timbers would mean less chunky beams BUT requires glue (though would mean being able to use lower quality wood - this is a trade off).

• Using lower grade wood is less strong but more readily available (particularly relevant when picking local materials)

CONCLUSIONS The primary beams will run between terraces (E/W) They will be under more stress therefore it is usually best to have the shorter span so they can carry loads to the columns as directly as possible.

This makes the joists run longer widths of 4.8m.

Since some of the primary beams are instead the strock wall taking the load, the joists will need to be hung on joist hangers. With the placement of the windows for maximum daylighting & passive solar gain this fits better with the proposed design.

Next steps: I've decided to use I-joists instead of solid timber as this uses less material.

CALCULATIONS: FLOOR BEAMS ACROSS (E/W) - 3.6M SPAN 4.8m span for joists 3.6m span for beams

Floor beam calculation: • generally the depth needs to be above 250mm which means glulam! (breadth is not as important) - potentially because joists are spanning a long distance of 4.8m!

• after more testing - found that 250mm depth x 200mm breadth is acceptable - but this is not that common a piece of timber? (more common is 225mm which is unacceptable for bending stress and deflection)

FLOOR BEAMS (N/S) - 4.8M SPAN 3.6m span for joists 4.8m span for beams

Floor beam calculation: • joists span less so can be smaller (150x75) • BUT floor beam spans are longer so still require glulam

Timber strucure assumed for calculation. In reality many of these posts will be removed and solid walls will be there instead.

RAFTER & ROOF BEAM CALCULATION

4.8m span for rafter 3.6m span for roof beams (but load only x1.33 joists) Rafter calculation - ended up same size for joists which is good for simplicity, Beam calculation 1 & 2 - using C16 (lower grade) - depth 250 x 100 breath - depth 225 x 150 breath also okay using smaller breadth would mean..?

COLUMN CALCULATION - FOR WHOLE BUILDING load = roof beam load x1.5m + floor beam load x1.5m

Calculation - 7.8m is my highest column from floor to rafter - min i can have is breadth 200 x 125 depth, but 200 x 150mm would be more suitable here to fit beams exactly.

Resulting sketch of layout and sizes of timber.

57

KEY BUILD-UPS & U-VALUES

TRADE OFF between amount of

needed to reduce U-values, and ! materials amount of energy if its 100% renewable

construction B, internal environment B To ensure a sufficient thermal envelope, all buildup are aiming for Passivhaus U-values.

GROUND FLOOR

Using the value from HG Matthews Strocks, this creates a thick wall. In order to reduce thickness, the bricks have been tested with different amounts of hemp (see major study) to improve their thermal conductivity and therefore reduce thickness of cork granules within wall. However the value from HG Matthews is used as a worst-case scenario, and because the value for thermal conductivity is exact rather than estimated.

SU

SU

CH

NON-STRUCTURAL WALL

COMPARISON - using glaspor instead of leca reduces amount of material & thickness required.

FEATURE WALL

58

U-values: New-builds = <0.15 W/(m2K) Retrofit EWI = <0.15 W/(m2K) Retrofit IWI = < 0.35 W/(m2K) Passivhaus/EnerpHit

BUILD-UPS & U-VALUES construction B, internal environment B PITCHED ROOF

angled at 30°

SU

SU

CH

FLAT ROOF

This just misses Passivhaus standards, however as I'm not going for actual certification and the U-value is very close to the target I will not add more insulation to the build-up. I would need another 20mm insulation - I would choose cork and place it above the joists.

59

KEY MATERIALS

A local materials strategy & a regional materials strategy.

Own target.

construction B & F CONSIDERATIONS

The materials rated poorly by the table, shown in a row of mostly red and yellow, have high human value. In particular, windows offer arguably the most benefit out of all materials, offering daylight, connection to the outdoors, and much more. However these play the largest role in poor building performance as well as a negative environmental impact, therefore they must be balanced with low-carbon natural materials that can offer other health benefits.

Many natural materials don't allow for direct reuse or recycling, however since they are natural and can be returned to the earth this becomes unimportant, as long as they have substantial durability (more about this when discussing finishes).

WALL

Certain materials do not necessarily have good 'zero-waste' characteristics, however they offer a high human value. This indirectly helps people live a more sustainable life as it allows them to be happier and connects them to nature.

FLOOR

The most important factors for material selection were making sure they were low-carbon and could belong to either the biological or technical cycles within a circular economy.

In the end I have prioritised natural low-carbon materials over more locally found ones. This is in the hope that into the future there will be more regional production of these materials fitting with the brief and future timeline that this construction fits within. Furthermore, travel embodied emissions are generally far smaller than the initial embodied emissions (A1-A3) it takes to produce these materials.

GLAZING

CONCLUSIONS

ROOF

These materials have been assessed as they are now, however this may change over time. For example, textile insulation is currently mostly manufactured abroad, but this could become a regional strategy.

75% materials must be sourced from the UK LBC

KEY MATERIAL

ZERO-WASTE MATERIAL METRICS LOWCARBON?

RECLAIMED? NATURAL?

RE-USE POTENTIAL? RECYCLABLE?

LOCALLY SOURCED?

Earth*

Yes.

Yes, if using excavation 'waste'

Yes.

Biological cycle returned to the earth.

Likely.

Community must create a Material Conservation Management Plan to minimise waste across all projects' lifespans - through the design, construction, operation and end-of-life stages.

LCC

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS - WASTE MINIMISED IN PRODUCTION? HUMAN VALUE???

• Using 'waste' excavation subsoil, this can become a cheap and almost totally zero-carbon material.

• Earthen floors offer grounding & various other human benefits Discussed in further on the finishes page.

Recycled foamglass

Medium, but yes compared to alternatives.

Yes.

No.

Can be reused.

No.

• This material is lower in carbon thn other foundation

Strocks*

Yes.

Partially, if using excavation 'waste'

Yes.

Unlikely to be reused but can return to the earth.

Likely.

• These offer high human value by connecting to earth and

alternatives (such as XPS) however it is expensive and is currently manufactured in Germany.

enabling understanding of building construction if exposed.

• Using waste subsoil or clay these can have very low carbon and cost, though might require more labour.

Discussed in further on the finishes page.

Loose cork insulation

Yes.

No, but byproduct of corkboards.

Yes.

Can be re-used but requires no contamination.

No - outside of UK.

• Loose cork allows for a hgih quality cavity fill without resorting

Warmcel

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, and biological cycle.

No - but sourced within UK. Could be more local

• Requires to be blown, making it good for off-site manufacture

OSB Yes. (including within I-joists)

No, but can use waste 'thinnings'.

Partially (uses glues but they can be natural)

Can be re-used or recycled.

No - but can be sourced within UK.

• OSB can be made in the UK from fast-growing timber species,

Clay plaster*

Can be partially, if using waste clay.

Yes.

No but can be returned to the earth.

Unlikely for sand.

Discussed in further on the finishes page.

Lime render* Medium.

No.

Yes.

No but can be returned to the earth.

Sourced within UK.

• Lime is required for an external render to ensure

Timber shingles

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Likely to degrade before re-use but can be returned to earth.

Can be.

• Since the timber does not need to be structural, the timber

Textiles insulation

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

• Manufacturing is common outside of the UK, however over

Sedum roof

Medium (less than an intensive green roof).

No

Only top layer.

Unlikely

Unlikely

• High human value, offering connected to nature.

• Can also make for a more pleasurable internal environment

Yes because re-used.

Yes.

Single-glazed windows Thermally efficient windows

Yes.

No.

to man-made high-carbon materails.

where waste can also be minimised.

including routine forest thinnings that rarely get used in other timber products (Milton, 2023).

weatherproofing.

Discussed in further on the finishes page.

can be sourced more locally. With a local and regional strategy, this can be enforced.

time this could change to regional manufacturing sites to deal with local textile waste.

by helping to prevent overheating.

No.

No.

No.

Yes, sometimes requires refurbishment.

Yes, from retrofitting neighbourhood homes.

• Contributes to the circular economy.

• By reusing these materails, there is a large saving in carbon

Yes.

No.

• Most windows are manufactured in Europe.

• Offering high human value but required to be thermally

and cost.

• Offers high human value. efficient to ensure good building performance, which results in costly and high carbon windows. However they can be reused.

* = These materials are also finishes and are therefore discussed further on in the report in more detail.

60

HOUSE DETAIL (1:20) construction B & C

TRADE OFF between amount of

and future proofing for ! materials adaptations

After much consideration I have realised by picking a hybrid construction I have made junctions more complicated. In future I would maybe stick to one construction method instead of structural strocks + timber frame. With the addition of non-structural modular walls for the remaining walls and a small flat roof I have managed to make the structure more complex, requiring more material types which can result in more waste.

Velux skylight, for natural ventilation

N

SUNSPACE EXTERNAL GLAZED WALL (south-facing within 15 degrees)

200x240mm timber beams 200x100 and 100x50 timber as a frame for reclaimed windows, wood sourced regionally Reclaimed windows from retroffited homes in the neighbourhood 200x600mm dry stone wall with level slate piece on top

0

500mm

1m

2m 0

2m

1m

2m

N 0

0

61

5m

10m

25m

50m

5m

KEY JUNCTIONS (1:10) construction B & D, internal environment H & I SUNSPACE TO INTERNAL WALL

(thermal envelope, weather proteted by glazed wall & roof) • 215mm strock with hemp, made with soil from excavation on site or waste clay and locally grown hemp • 180mm cork granules, a byproduct from corkboard insulation • 215mm strock with hemp • 30mm clay plaster from clay sourced regionally

Timber batten to support window, tied on both sides to the strocks.

from excavation projects (eg HS2)

GROUND/FLOOR

Thin layer of insulation either side of batten to lessen thermal bridging.

• 20mm rammed earth floor finish, earth from excavation on site • 100mm compacted earth, earth from excavation on site • Geotextile membrane • 500mm recycled foamed glass insulation • Geotextile membrane

Cavity wall ties in filled cavity, made of polypropylene to reduce cold bridging.

No service void to enhance the aesthetics of the feature wall's materiality.

Cork strip at junction to minimise thermal bridging.

CONSIDERATIONS • The exposed strocks important for understanding the building as well as where materials are sourced from. The strocks allow for the harnessing of thermal mass, used in conjunction with night-cooling in the summer months.

• The biggest issue is potentially moisture degradation in the exposed strocks, particularly underneath the window where plants will grow and get watered. Further consideration is required here.

• K-briq's are used below DPM (precedent of them being used for base-course) • No service voids here as uses more materials!!

Exposed services (apart from in the ground) as repair & maintenance is easier & lets the building be understood by the inhabitants. The softness of the finishes balances the industrial feel of the exposed services However exposed services are not useful for everything - imagine kids running around and bumbling into things. Therefore before people move in they can decide to have exposed services or a service void.

Plaster wraps around to window with tape used at the junction for continued airtightness.

Example of a Passivhaus thermal-bridge-free design using a porous concrete block.

DPC

(Passivhaus Institut, no date)

Concrete-free foundation with stepped K-briq's made from demolition waste

Porous concrete: (CIBSE, 2006) λ = 0.47 to 0.82 In comparison, a strock's thermal conductivity is 0.2, which is more insulative. Therefore this makes a thermal-bridge-free design.

62

Underfloor heating via WSHP connected to a District Heating Network.

KEY JUNCTIONS (1:10) construction B & D, internal environment H & I SEPARATING FLOOR BETWEEN FUTURE APARTMENTS A Robust Details certified separating floor: • 22mm T&G chipboard • 19mm breathaboard (alternative to gypsum) • 80mm FFT80 resiliant timber batten with • 50mm recycled textiles quilt laid inbetween battens • 18mm OSB or other wood based board with density over 600kg/m3 • 240mm I-Joists • 100mm recycled textile insulation inbetween joists (or other recycled insulative materials sourced regionally) • 16mm resilient bars with CT1 treatment at 400mm centers • 2 x 19mm breathaboard (alternative to gypsum),

CONSIDERATIONS: FIRE AND ACOUSTICS Measures for an adequate separating floor include: • Two layers of joists that go in different directions and don't touch each other.

• Quilt must be laid between flooring battens & not underneath.

• Flanking strips around perimeter of flooring board, isolating it from the walls (Part B) • Insulation at least 100 minimum (Part E) • Ceiling layers must have staggered joints.

• Services do not puncture ceiling linings, apart from cables which are sealed with flexible sealant (Part B).

(Robust Details, 2017) (Pat Borer, 2023)

Cavity closer to prevent the spread of fire. To comply with Building Regulations B, C and L, they must have a minimum R value of 0.45 m2k/W (Quantum Flooring Solutions, no date).

fixed with screws

5mm resilient flanking strip.

FFT80 resilient timber batten = wooden batten that has been fused with a acoustic resilient layer (JCW Acoustics, no date).

WINDOW/WALL The window detailed here is only double glazed with a simple timber frame, resulting in a low U-value and inadequate levels of heat loss, as investigated when discussing thermal bridges later in the report. This is not so important within this particular detail as it is facing a buffer zone, however it is likely that in reality a triple-glazed window will need to be used to minimise heat losses.

Glulam lintel to support strocks above.

In wanting the windows to let as much light in as possible, the joists are hung to reduce space needed between floors.

63

Down-lighters and recessed lighting installed within ceiling. No more than one light per 2m2 of ceiling area for fire regulations (Robust Details, 2017).

KEY JUNCTIONS (1:10) construction B & D, internal environment H & I ROOF • Timber shingles, or other tiled material sourced regionally • 19mm battens • 25mm counter battens • 18mm sarket board • 240mm I-Joists with recycled textiles insulation • 15mm wood-wool board • Clay plaster from clay sourced regionally from excavation projects (eg HS2)

ROOF (SUNSPACE) A partially insulated roof in the sunspace prevents overheating in the summer and some heat loss in the winter. This is used in conjunction with VELUX double-glazed windows to allow for natural cooling due to the stratification of heat.

Exposed cork for materiality.

Need to consider rain getting in & splashing strocks which are not protected against water. Use a sensor that detects rain & shuts the skylight automatically.

Repeated cavity closer to prevent spread of flame.

In retrospect might need to be a glulam beam using lower grade wood. A solid timber beam this size would be very expensive, and its durability would be decreased if exposed to the elements unless sufficiently protected.

64

TRADE OFF between cutting

FEATURE WALL MATERIAL SOURCING

on transport emissions and ! down sourcing local, which can mean

construction F CONSIDERATIONS As the zero-waste house is intended as a largescale alternative to traditional building, costs and sourcing will likely shift due to bulk ordering, which may impact production processes. For example, lime could be sourced from a local quarry, or a small factory could be established specifically to produce K-briqs. Where uncertainties remain, readily available products have been used, except for specific materials intentionally sourced on-site or locally, such as strocks and locally made K-briqs.

If products are sourced and manufactured onsite, labour costs and machinery transport must be considered. For instance, mixing clay mortar requires imported sand and skilled labor to prepare it; therefore, on a large scale, it may be more efficient—both in time and cost—to use an existing manufacturer, ideally one who sources their materials locally. However, there are many other social benefits from using local resources.

more time spent on labour.

Materials used

Sourcing Description

Made or supplied?

Notes Material / Composition?

Distance to

Manufacturer & Location Sourced from

neighbourhood

Supplier

Links

km

clay rich earth and chopped straw/hemp Strocks

(doesn’t use sand?).

Clay-rich earth

On-site waste material.

Made on site with on-

Manufactured on-site or

site/local materials

locally.

Cost per unit

Density

£

kg / m3

0km

There will be labour

N/A

costs, and costs to cover N/A

landscape strategy. Within

Straw/hemp

For party wall & feature

0km

takes time to dry - might

N/A

raise costs unless this is

neighbourhood boundary.

wall.

Bought from supplier

N/A

H.G. Matthews in the local

At manufacturer's site & local

Chiltern Hills

Chiltern Hills

Clay

Unfired brick. Mix of

On-site waste material

the farming of the hemp. Furthermore as it

Grown as part of neighbourhood

Compressive Strength N/mm²

Thermal Conductivit y W/mK

38km

0km

H.G. Matthews

2.6N/mm² 1350kg/cubic

standard, 4.6N/

metre (H.G

mm² high

Matthews, no

strength. (H.G

date)

Matthews, no

0.2 (H.G Matthews, no date)

date)

factored into the project https://www.hgmatthews.com/lime-and-cob/natural-building-blocks/strocks/ £2.95 + VAT per strock management.

N/A

sand, clay, water and binder (straw/hemp).

Adobe Bricks Another option for

Made on site with on-

Manufactured on-site or

site/local materials

locally.

party wall & feature

Sand

K-briq

demolition waste.

For below DPC.

from neighbourhood,

On-site or local

but manufactured by

demolition waste.

supplier.

Doing everything on-site can be complex and costly, involving labour and equipment logistics, potential accommodation expenses, and the return of equipment. Furthermore, this approach increases the likelihood of human error. A regional strategy—sourcing materials relatively locally while keeping costs and labour efficient—is generally more effective.

Bought from supplier

site/local materials

Clay Mortar

Mortar for light earth

18km

landscape strategy. Within

1730 (brick-

0.75 (brick-

mud, CIBSE

mud, CIBSE

Guide A)

Guide A)

0km

N/A

neighbourhood boundary.

Potentially 0km.

Manufactured locally from rubble on site. Regional

Regional =

Local demolition waste

maximum

strategy

Kenoteq

https://www.kenoteq.com/k-briq

???

29 N/mm²

0.74 W/MK

3.0 N/mm²

1.1 W/m∙K

0.08 N/mm²

0.59 W/m∙K

~200km Clay = on-site. Sand = Tarmac

Clay and sand..?

Broom South Sand and Gravel

18km

N/A

Quarry H.G. Matthews in the local

At manufacturer's site & local

Chiltern Hills

Chiltern Hills

38km

construction clay up Bought from supplier

the quarry.

The cost is not zero (see N/A Notes for Strocks). https://tarmac.com/locations/broom-south-sand-and-gravel-quarry/

Mains?

Natural

bricks (Strocks/Adobe).

Direct from

Grown as part of neighbourhood

(straw/hemp) Using waste materials

Gravel Quarry from mains?

Binder

Brick made from

Tarmac Broom South Sand and Need rainwater collection tank or

Rainwater

wall.

Made on site with on-

to 5 mm, sand 0-2 mm, wood

Claytec, Germany

Germany

605km

granulate (chips) up to 20 mm.

H.G. Matthews

https://www.hgmatthews.com/lime-and-cob/earth-mortars-renders/clay-mortar/ ???

https://claytec.de/wpcontent/uploads/2022/03/ 2021-02_05-022_EN.pdf https://www.lehmLehm-Laden laden.de/en_GB/shop/clayt ec-heavy-clay-masonrymortar-1000-kg-big-bag13257?category=1336#attr =

1600 (Claytec, no date)

~£118.80 for 1000kg (135.03 €).

Not including shopping or import costs.

239km Mortar potentially Lime mortar (non-

needed for external

hydraulic)

leaf of light-earth bricks

(Wareham - Lime

Chalk lime putty Bought from supplier

for feature wall.

and a blend of grit sand and Wareham

Stuff - Barton-leLime Stuff, Wiltshire

Buxton, Wareham, and other.

Clay)

Lime Stuff

495 (Buxton -

washed sand

£320 per 1000kg (incl.

Will not pay VAT if new-

VAT)

build housing.

1525

(Conserv®, no 0.75 N/mm² https://limestuff-static.myshopblocks.com/uploads/7fb512fe8a0b065afb6d274f5c85f1e3/Lime-Stuff-Product-Data-She date)

Lime-Stuff Barton-le-Clay)

Lime mortar

Mortar for below DPC.

(hydraulic)

NHL5.

Bought from supplier

1:2 lime: sand

Eco Right, Reading

Subsoil Mix of clay, sand and Earth Floors

fibre (The Earthen

Made on site with on-

Floor Company, no

site/local materials

Sand

Unknown

Lime Stuff

On-site waste material

0km

N/A

Tarmac Broom South Sand and Manufactured on-site or locally.

Fibre (straw/hemp)

date).

UK

Gravel Quarry

18km

Direct from the quarry.

Grown as part of neighbourhood landscape strategy. Within

0km

£780.00 for 1000kg Will not pay VAT if newhttps://www.limestuff.co.uk/hydraulic-lime-mortar/pre-mixed-hydraulic-productseco-right-eminent-500-mortar-hydraulic 5.0 N/mm² (incl. VAT) build housing.

https://tarmac.com/locations/broom-south-sand-and-gravel-quarry/ The cost is not zero (see N/A Notes for Strocks).

N/A

neighbourhood boundary.

Therefore, the feature wall and party walls should be sourced using material from site or local waste clay, which has many social benefits and seeks to remove local construction waste, but other materials and products should be manufactured regionally where it is most effective.

Properties

The cost is not zero.

Unfired block. Mix of

CONCLUSIONS

One key advantage of masonry construction is that it relies on traditional, well-established craftsmanship, eliminating the need for re-skilling.

It won't take extra training for bricklayers to familiarise themselves with strocks, and their skill will enable quick assembly, contributing to shorter build times & less labour costs than a totally new type of construction.

A local materials strategy & a regional materials strategy.

Own target.

Recycled Foamed Glass (RFG) Insulation

~110

Lightweight gravel Insulation beneath ground floor.

Bought from supplier

of foamed cellular glass (Ty-Mawr, no

GLAPOR

Germany

~940km

Ty-Mawr

date).

Geotextile

Above & beneath RFG

Membrane

insulation.

£140 per m3 (excl.

Can get bulk order

VAT)

discounts.

https://www.lime.org.uk/glapor-recycled-foamed-glass-rfg.html

[between 110120] (TyMawr, no date)

Bought from supplier

Material sourced on site

Sourced regionally Feature wall 65

275 kN/m3 (TyMawr, no date)

0.078 W/mK

FINISHES EVALUATION - NATURAL, LOCAL & CUSTOMISABLE construction E Natural finishes are important, not just environmentally, but also for people's health.

Furthermore exposed natural materials offer biophilic design qualities that can improve wellbeing, creativity and even productivity. As we spend most of our time indoors especially as working from home is becoming more prominent, its more important than ever to have connection with natural materials inside the home.

When selecting materials, through investigation earlier in this report, its become clear that some would need to be sourced from farther away to ensure the use of natural, low-carbon options for the structure. This makes it especially important to incorporate locally sourced finishes that celebrates place and connects residents to the local heritage.

Local finishes also help new homes blend with the historical vernacular, preventing this housing model from appearing uniform across different regions.

Additionally, customizable finishes give residents greater control over their homes, fostering a stronger sense of care and encouraging ongoing maintenance of both the property and its surroundings.

FINISH

DESCRIPTION / LOCATION

A local materials strategy & a regional materials strategy.

Own target.

Prioritise breathable building construction with natural materials for a healthier indoor environment.

Own target.

Customisable homes to increase feelings of ownership, inceasing care & therefore durability of buildings.

Own target.

LOCAL?

BENEFITS

LIFESPAN & DURABILITY

MAINTENANCE & OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

EXTERNAL

External to the thermal envelope, exposed to weather conditions.

Lime render (+ colour customisation)

External render across housing when moderate weather conditions.

Lime is local to UK. Common vernacular of local area.

• A lime render with colour customisation allows owners to choose the colour of their own house. This creates identity & specificity, & gives residents ownership.

• The historical local vernacular of Barton-leClay is lime render, ensuring continuitity & celebration of local heritage.

50-70 years, however this depends on quality of application, harsh weather exposure and regular maintenance.

• The render should be checked

Its very important that natural stains and paints are used to ensure the buildings remain breathable.

Made in the UK.

• Ensures the breathability of buildings, keeping them intuitive to internal environments by allowing the passage of moisture depending on the seasons.

External paint generally lasts 5-10 years. On plaster it can last 7-10 years, but this depends on exposure to elements such as sun or rain (Pizzazz Painting, 2021).

• Residents must be taught that

In place of lime render, suitable for when housing is located in more exposed areas.

The wood can be chosen by owners from a selection of regional native trees, stained or painted for customisation.

Can be, potentially local or regional.

• Using local timber offers better protection for

60 years (Henning Larsen, 2024). Certain wood types can remain untreated as they have natural preservatives protecting against moisture, rot an insect attacks (Duffield Timber, 2024).

• Timber cladding will naturally

Part of the southfacing facade only.

Sourced from retrofitting existing homes in the neighbourhood.

Yes.

• Allows a glimpse into residents lives, allowing identity to shine through whilst also providing privacy (acting as a buffer zone between private indoor spaces and front gardens). This also increases neighbourliness.

• Using wood the frame will • The exposed timber needs

(The Lime Centre, no date)

Natural breathable stains/paints

annually and any small damages or cracks should repaired.

THis should be included in the schemes maintenance plan.

• It must be paired with natural breathable paints to keep building functioning as designed & preventing moisture problems.

they have to use breathable paints otherwise this can create problems within the building fabric - namely interstitial condensation, leading to potential degradation of the materials.

(Earthborn, no date)

Timber cladding + stain/colour customisation

The importance of natural materials is discussed in more detail later on in this report, when discussing indoor air quality.

(John Maher Photography, no date)

Second-hand single glazed windows

(The Lime Centre, no date)

An example of one terrace's south-facing facade.

66

the building, and cladding is easier to replace.

deteriorate quickly due to weathering if left totally exposed, so it needs to be protected.

• Not suitable for sufficient thermal envelope, but after attaching to new timber frame becomes suitable for sunspace.

weather, impacting appearance and structural integrity (Duffield Timber, 2024).

• Using less durable species will require additional preservatives, or if the colour would like to be retained, staining (Duffield Timber, 2024).

to be treated & protected unfortunately with something less sustainable for longerlasting weather protection. This also requires maitenance to ensure a desirable lifetime. This could be part of the maintenance costs of the cohousing to ensure longevity.

• The larger frame pieces should be particularly considered as they will be expensive to replace.

FINISHES EVALUATION - NATURAL, LOCAL & CUSTOMISABLE construction E CONCLUSIONS A comprehensive maintenance plan is essential to ensure the long-term durability of external finishes.

Implementing such a plan is typically easier in a co-housing scheme, where a maintenance and care strategy is already in place, along with a monthly fee to cover the upkeep of communal spaces and shared amenities. In contrast, maintenance of a standalone house rests solely with the individual resident.

Internal finishes generally require less extensive maintenance since they aren't exposed to the elements. However, the building's services require ongoing upkeep. If these services are concealed behind decorative finishes, they may be at risk of damage during repairs. To mitigate this, it can be beneficial to expose the services that need regular attention, allowing for easier access and preventing unnecessary damage to the finishes.

No matter whether the home is being maintained by a resident or an organisation - it is important that residents are educated on how to maintain their homes. This knowledge helps them understand the building they're living in, fostering a sense of responsibility and preventing the 'out of sight, out of mind' mentality.

FINISH

DESCRIPTION / LOCATION

EXTERNAL BUT PROTECTED Exposed strocks (outer leaf of feature wall)

A local materials strategy & a regional materials strategy.

Own target.

Prioritise breathable building construction with natural materials for a healthier indoor environment.

Own target.

LOCAL?

BENEFITS

LIFESPAN & DURABILITY

MAINTENANCE & OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Sunspace feature wall.

Yes.

• Exposed structure made from local materials for site heritage and to give owners connection to place, materials and give them an understanding of the structure they're living in.

By exposing the structure, it will be more likely to degrade over time (instead of being protected by a finish like plaster), therefore the wall has been overspecified structurally.

The more fibres present in the strocks the more there is potential to crumble, particularly on corners.

Therefore there should be sufficient amounts of clay to prevent this.

• Need to consider moisture here.

Sunspace patio, residents create them at the local workshops & place them as part of their house 'christening'.

Yes.

• Giving homeowners the option to create their own tiles for their space allows them a strong sense of ownership over the space.

Ceramic tiles can last 75-100 years, however as handmade ones placed directly onto earth, this will likely be much less (Revis, 2016).

• Consideration should be taken

Yes.

• Hygroscopic material that balances internal humidity and improves airtightness & indoor air quality (no VOCs etc.)

• Connection with natural materials gives physiological & psychological health benefits

An expected lifespan of 60 years, but can last for the entire life of the building (Clayworks, no date).

• Clay plaster required minimal

Yes.

• Offers thermal mass, regulating the internal environment.

• Offers grounding & connection to nature many benefits similar to forest-bathing.

"Sustained longevity" (Rammed Earth Enterprises, no date). The floor should last the entire life of the building with regular maintenance.

• Regular maintenance with

Outside the thermal envelope but protected from weather conditions.

(H.G. Matthews, 2024)

Handmade tiles

Customisable homes to increase feelings of ownership, inceasing care & therefore durability of buildings.

Own target.

Particularly with the earthen ground directly in front and potential rain coming in from the skylight unless properly controlled. In order for the bricks to stay exposed here some lime might need to added into the strock to increase durability.

• A hydrothermal calculation has been carried out in WUFI to see how it would perform, making sure no rain is getting on the strocks. This is carried out later in the report. when laying tiles on the ground for wheelchair accessibility.

Tiles can be easily removed and replaced with smoother ones if necessary.

(Ceramystiq, no date) Internal finishes, within the thermal envelope.

INTERNAL Clay/earth plaster

maintenance and won't degrade over time. Damage can be easily repaired. (Clayworks, no date).

• Services should be considered as maintenance to them might require damaging the plaster.

(Clayworks, no date)

Rammed earth flooring

Internal ground floor finish. Using subsoil from excavation onsite or locally.

(The Lime Centre, no date)

67

beeswax or linseed oil to increase its longevity.

• Repair to services underfloor such as heating pipes will require damage to the floor, however this will happen rarely if properly installed.

GLAPOR recycled foamed glass 1

EMBODIED CARBON VS. COST

0.5700 Panelvent

138.5

1 0.001 100% 0.0010 Making all the U-values the same for better comparison.

115.6

0.570

100%

Geotextile membrane

EPD (GLAPOR Werk

COMPARING FOUNDATION SYSTEMS FOR CARBON REDUCTION AND AFFORDABILITY In designing a waste-free home, it’s essential to consider both the carbon footprint and the cost of construction. Foundations often account for a significant portion of a building's CO₂ emissions, making careful selection crucial for sustainable construction. This analysis compares two lowcarbon foundation types against a standard floor construction of concrete, to identify the most effective solution.

Floor Option 1 - Solid Floor

U value = 2 0.13 Floor Option - Timber Suspended

3

0.116 Domestic embodied carbon 2 <300kgCO2/m LETI (best practice 2030)

3

100%

(Bradfords, no date)

Embodied Carbon per m2 of element - A1-A3

construction G/H

78.9

Mitterteich GmbH, 2023) 1 0.012

Tot

U value = 0.13 Floor - Standard Construction

U

A1-A3 Area Depth

Material Breakdown

2

(m )

(m)

'Fraction' Volume Density Material Breakdown of Floor (m3) (kg/m3)

MassVolume Area Depth 'Fraction' Density Declared Area Depth 'Fraction' Mass Product V P Data Source Unit Data Data Source Material 2 2 3 Breakdown 3 2 2 (kg/m ) (m )Carbon (m ) (m) of Floor (kg/m ) Unit (m ) ) (m) (kg/m of Floor C Emissions

Earth floor top-coat

1

0.020

Earth floor top-coat 100% 0.0200

1

2000

The three types are assessed on the next page.

Earth sub-base

1

0.100

100% OSB

Geotextile membrane

1

0.001

100%

GLAPOR recycled foamed glass 1 Geotextile membrane

1

0.570 0.001

0.5700

138.5

100%200

0.018

Recycled textile insulation 0.0010 115.6

EPD (GLAPOR Werk

1

(Bradfords, no date)

0.012

100%

20mm earth topcoat earth topcoat Floor Option 2 - Timber Suspended20mm U value = 0.13 100mm earth sub-base 18mm OSB geotextile membrane I beam joists at 600mm centres 500mm recycled foamed glass 300mm recycled insulation Area Depth 'Fraction' Volumetextile Density Material Breakdown Data Source geotextile membrane 12mm panelvent 2 3 3

(m )

Total 0.012 DPM

(ÖKOBAUDAT, 2018)

1kgCO2e/m³ 0.075

m³

(Southern Timber, no date)

1

kg

0.1600

kgCO2e/kg

(CIBSE, 2015)

m³

1

0.1800

(Le Relais Metisse, 2015)

kg

kgCO2e/kg

(Panel Agency Limited,

600 U-VALUE = 0.13

no date) 1 0.0003

(kg/m2U ) value = 0.13 Carbon

40.0

100.0% (ÖKOBA

10.8

0

100.0%

(Geo&Te

13.9

0

(GLAPOR W

kg.CO2e/m³

75mm cement screed 160mm PIR insulation A1-A3 180mm C25 concrete slab DPM Mass Declared Product

ofFloor Floor - Standard (m ) (kg/m ) Construction

(m)

600

78.9 3.87E+01 Concrete Slab (C25) 0.280 20 0.116 3.42E+00

Mitterteich GmbH, 2023)

U-VALUE = 0.131

0.018

PIR Insulation 0.116 3.42E+00 0.022 630

(Bradfords, no date)

1

100%

Panelvent

U-VALUE = 0.13

1

115.6

0.020 2000 Cement Screed 9.349

100%40

(ÖKOBAUDAT, 2018)

0.1000

0.0010 I-beam joists

100%

0.020

Em

Gmb

100.0%

5.6

2

7.2

0

(Geo&Te

100.0%

Tot Unit

Unit

Data

Emissions

Floor Option 1 - Solid Floor

Earth floor top-coat

1

0.020

100% 0.020 2000 Material Breakdown

OSB

1

0.018

100%

I-beam joists

U value = 0.13

Area Depth 2

(m )

(m)

'Fraction' Volume Density of Floor

3

(m )

3

(kg/m )

Data Source

1

Mass

Product

Declared

(kg)

Carbon

Unit

Recycled textile insulation Emissions

Earth floor top-coat

1

0.020

100%

0.0200

Earth sub-base

1

0.100

100%

0.1000

Geotextile membrane

1

0.001

100%

0.0010

(ÖKOBAUDAT, 2018)

Panelvent

m³

200

115.6

GLAPOR

1

0.570

100%

0.5700

138.5

Geotextile membrane

1

0.001

100%

0.0010

115.6

(Bradfords, no date) EPD (GLAPOR Werk Mitterteich GmbH, 2023) (Bradfords, no date)

0.116

3.42E+00

kg

Area Depth

'Fraction' Volume Density

(m2)

of Floor

(m)

(m3)

(kg/m3)

kgCO2e/m³

1

kgCO2e/kg

78.9

3.87E+01

m³

kg.CO2e/m³

0.116

3.42E+00

kg

kgCO2e/kg

A1-A3 Material Breakdown

Data Source

Mass

Product

Declared

(kg)

Carbon

Unit

date)

(GLAPOR Werk Mitterteich GmbH, 2023)

DPM

(Geo&Tex 2000, 2019)

0.075

10.8

13.9

20

2 (m Unit)

22.06

delivery)

Result includes packaging

U value 23.97= 0.13

2

Mass(ÖKOBAP (kg/m2) C

Em

kgCO2e/kg (CIBSE, 2015)

kg

(ICE

157.5

kgCO2e/kg

0.1

(ICE

£23

1000kg

Gravel, no date)

100 x4.5m

Total

£0.91 £4.56

£250

roll

(Mike Wye, no date)

£0.56

£140

m³

(Ty-Mawr, no date)

833.3

0.0003 100 100.0% x4.5m

£250

roll

0.000

(Mike Wye, no date)

2

(Le Relais

£79.80

aggregate). This is cheaper than buying it new, but still won’t be as cheap as if it were waste subsoil

kg

kgCO2e/kg

428.4

from excavating, which would be free apart from (ICE, 2019) labour.

(Insulation Shop, no date)

£0.56

(ICE

49

0.25

Tot

£86.38

Total

5.36

Using cost for buying recycled screened soil (loose

(Wanlip Sand & Gravel, no date)

Notes (Ecotherm, 2022) 1m² kgCO2e/m² x100mm

A1-A3

'Fraction' Volume Density

(m) Data68 of Floor Carbon (m Total ) Source

0.483302

0.856454 7.2 Sand & 100.0% (Wanlip0.180 2380

1 no0.1800 date)

1

A1-A3 Product 3

kg

2100

5.6

(kg.CO2e/ m²)

Area Depth

0.455069

Component unit Unit Source 0.1600 100.0% Data0.160 33.5 Cost (excl.

VAT & (Le Relais Metisse, 2015) 2.48E+00

Calculation Notes 1

Result includes packaging

0.40

(kg/m3)

m³Data Source kgCO2e/m³

Cost per

rammed earth wall data.

0.40

(m3)

0.075

100.0%

(CIBSE, 2015)

0.012 600 0.93 (C25) Concrete Slab

(Geo&Tex 2000, 2019)

of Floor

Information taken from £23 Limited, 1000kg (Panel Agency

(ÖKOBAUDAT, 2018) 0.012 100%

Floor - Standard Construction Total

Floor Option 2 - Timber Suspended U value = 0.13 and full calculations in the appendix.

Example full calculation - see next page for summary Material Breakdown

2 0.280 (kg.CO 2e/ m )

0.19 9.349

(m)

(Southern Timber, no

630

A1-A3 Product

1

(m2)

1

Data Source Carbon Total PIR Insulation

Unit

40 2000

600

Cement Screed 0.022

A1-A3 Material Breakdown

0.018

Area Depth 'Fraction' Density (ÖKOBAUDAT, 2018) 40.0 Volume 9.349

Cost per Data Source 3 unit (kg/m ) Calculation Notes (excl. VAT &

Mass

Product

2 Component ) SourceCarbon Unit (kg/m Data Cost

Declared Unit

Unit Notes

Data

Embodied Carbon per m of element - A1-A3 U value Floor = 0.13 Option 2 - Timber Suspended

Floor Option 1 - Solid Floor

EMBODIED CARBON VS. COST

Area Depth

Material Breakdown

construction G/H Earth floor top-coat

CONSIDERATIONS The standard construction comes out cheapest, but at what cost? The carbon cost for A1-A3 is more than 6x higher than both alternative options.

A suspended floor construction may be the best economically viable solution for scale, whilst keeping the carbon cost low. This is due to currently expensive materials such as GLAPOR , but as this project is set into the future, the product is aimed to get more available driving the cost down.

Furthermore, a part of the terrace's design is to offer a farm-to-fork connection, which has resulted in the sunspace floor just being earth to allow for growing conditions. A suspended timber floor requires a ventilated space underneath and this becomes difficult with the sunspace's design - it would at least require the use of PVC pipes but it likely will require more intervention than this, therefore a solid floor is chosen. This is a consideration for the future.

The solid floor shows there doesn't have to be a trade off between cost and carbon. It just requires thought. This shows the importance of cost and carbon calculations in early design, which therefore shows the importance of considering construction types and material choices early on, to ensure projects do not go over budget. This is particularly important for Local Authority or Housing Association schemes, as well as Community Land Trusts.

CONCLUSIONS Alternative low-carbon constructions using natural materials don't necessarily cost more!

Next steps: These calculations don't consider labour costs, which may affect the cost a great deal. Further investigation into labour costs would be useful.

Floor Option 1 - Solid Earth Floor sub-base Material Breakdown

Earth floor top-coat

(m2)

(m)

1

0.020

A1-A3

Product

(m ) recycled (kg/mfoamed ) (kg) GLAPOR glass 1

Carbon 0.570

3

Mass

0.001

3

Geotextile membrane

0.0200

40

Geotextile membrane GLAPOR

0.1000

0.001

0.0010

115.6

Material Breakdown

0.5700

138.5

0.0010

115.6

2

(m )

78.9 1

0.116

(m3)

Panelvent

OSB I-beam joists Recycled textile insulation Panelvent

(kg/m3)

0.020

2000

0.018

600

of Floor

0.022

Declared

Emissions 0.012 100%

40.0

Unit

0.280

20

0.012

600

5.6 7.2

Cement Screed

1

1

Floor - Standard Construction Volume Density 3

(m )

DPM

no date)

£4.56

3

(kg/m )

1

(m)

1

0.1600

5.6

0.075

4.91 DPM

U value = 0.13

1

Timber, OSB - no Carbon

'Fraction' Volume Density 1m² (m3) of Floor (kg/m3)

Database.

Mass Data Source (kg/m2) Converted to volume first.

0.856454 0.075

6.94

x100mm 100.0%

kg

0.075

0.1600

6.17

2100

24.91

(kg.CO2e/ m²)

0.160

100.0%

33.5

(CIBSE, 2015)

kgCO2e/kg

0.160

Unit

kgCO2e/kg

£23

Total

Cost

2380

(ICE, 2019)

1000kg

£0.91

(ICE, 2019)

428.4

2100

0.000 18mm 833.3thick £17.95

0.180

0.000

Carbon Storage from ICE Database.

2.91E+01 6.94

m² kgCO2e/m² Converted to volume first. x100mm

Notes

6.17 497.00848

(kg.CO2e/ m²) 4.2

£30.95

3.456m³

2.91E+01

m² x100mm

A1-A3 100.0% 0.1800

0.180

Declared

(kg)

Carbon

Unit

0.0003

100.0%

Emissions

0.18312566

33.5

5.36

2.91E+01

2380

428.4

497.00848

833.3

0.25

4.2

2380

A1-A3 Product Carbon Total

(ICE, 2019)

428.4

Cost perm³ 497.00848

Calculation Notes

2 (Insulation Shop, no (kg.CO 2e/ m ) 0.000 833.3

date)

0.25

kg

28.84

69

Storage, from ICE

m³

Database.

kgCO2e/m³

kg

kgCO2/kg

1:3 cement:sand mix with

kgCO2e/m²

£8.15 (ICE, 2019)

£57.45

(MetecnoPIR, 2023)

28.84

UK average cement mixture from ICE Database

46.56

x1.6 to give 160mm thick.

unit (excl. VAT &

4.2

delivery)

kg

cement:sand:aggregate

kgCO2e/m³

Unit

(ICE, 2019)

Component

kgCO2/kg

Cost

(ICE, 2011)

m² x100mm

46.56

x1.6 to give 160mm thick.

m³

89.46

kg

1.05

£8.06

£107.50

m³

£83.24

160mm thick

£28.90

£107.50

m³

£19.35

£49.73

1000m²

£0.05

2.88m²,

cement:sand:aggregate with Ordinary Portland Cement Uncertain estimate in ICE Database, CO2 only.

Total

89.46

Notes 1.05

165.91

average cement mixture from

165.91 >600% INCREASE

Total

Timber, MDF - no Carbon

(kg.CO 2e/ m2)

1198 x 2398,

Total

(OPC) from ICE Database

DPM

kg kgCO2/kg Timber, Wood I-Beam - no

between different joists of smaller, varying A1-A3 Product £11.31 depth, with same width as proposed I joists.

Data Source Carbon Total Calculation Notes

£23.40 kg 12mm Storage, from ICE Database. thick (CIBSE, 2015) 157.5 0.18312566 kgCO2/kg

5.36

Database.

0.18312566

Worked outTotal price from difference in price

£10.78 Declared joist Product Unit Unit Carbon £381.98 Emissions

0.25

£6.13 date)

m², 90x300

A1-A3

T

24.91

2440x1200,(Insulation Shop, no

100.0%

(L

A1-A3 Product

C25 concrete mix - 1:1:2

Product

157.5

kgCO2e/kg

See notes for Earth floor top-coat in Option 1.

C25 concrete mix - 1:1:2

Concrete Slab (C25)

kg

6.70

Cost per 100.0% (Ecotherm, 2022) 0.160 33.5 5.36 1m² 2.48E+00 kgCO2e/m² (Le Relais Metisse, 2015) Component unitx100mm

Timber, MDF - no Carbon

(Ecotherm, 2022)

157.5

(ICE, 2019)

Timber, Wood I-Beam - no Carbon Storage from ICE

2.48E+00

kg

0.0003 Storage, from ICE1Database.

6.70

kg

0.483302

2100

(excl. VAT &

ICE Database

PIR Insulation

rammed earth wall data.

0.455069 0.93

£86.38

0.075

0.856454 kg 7.2 0.1800 100.0% 0.180 delivery)

0.19

Mass 1

kgCO2e/m³

(loose aggregate). This is cheaper than buying it 23.97 kg 0.856454 kgCO2e/kg new,7.2 but still be as cheap as if it0.000 were 1 won’t 0.0003 100.0% 833.3 (kg.CO2e/ m²) waste subsoil from excavating, which would be Total free apart from labour.

£0.56Data Source

1:3 cement:sand mix with UK Total

Cement Screed

m³

Information taken from 100.0% 0.075 2100

U value = 0.13

Concrete Slab (C25)

Material Breakdown

DPM

1000kg 100 x4.5m

100.0%

0.075

Calculation Notes

(Panel Agency Limited,

Total PIR Insulation

(Panel Agency Limited, 1000kg £0.91 600

Product£250Declared roll Unit U value Unit = 0.13 Carbon

13.9

(CIBSE, 2015)

2 (kg.CO 2e/ m ) 0.012 600

kg

0.483302

Area Depth

630

Carbon Total

m³

0.455069

(m2)

0.075

(GLAPOR Werk Mitterteich

kg

£23

A1-A3

9.349 0.19

kg.CO2e/m³ Cost 22.06 GmbH, 2023) 1m² 1 0.1800 100.0% Concrete Slab (C25) 0.180 2380 (Le Relais Metisse, 2015) 2.48E+00 kgCO2e/m² 20 5.6 x100mm Using cost for buying recycled screened soilpackaging (Geo&Tex 2000, 2019) Result includes kgCO2e/kg 0.40

Total

1

Concrete Slab (C25) no date)

9.349

13.9

Material Breakdown

3.42E+00

10.8

date)

1

1 0.1600 100.0% PIR Insulation 0.160 33.5 (Geo&Tex 2000, 2019) Result includes packaging kgCO2e/kg 0.40 Component (CIBSE, 2015) 0.483302 kgCO2e/kg 630 13.9 Unit Notes kg

kg

delivery) 0.280

0.116

(Southern Timber, no

600

(excl. VAT & 3.87E+01 m³

date)

PIR Insulation A1-A3 Product (Le Relais Metisse, 2015) 0.280 20

Carbon

10.8

630

1

(ÖKOBAUDAT, 2018) 40.0 Cement Screed (ÖKOBAUDAT, 2018) kgCO2e/m³

unit0.022

3

23.97

A1-A3

1

U value = 0.13

Carbon Total Calculation Notes Not a widespread product 2so costs are high. (kg.CO 2e/ m ) Emissions Hopefully priceA1-A3 will decrease as it gets more 3.87E+01 m³ 22.06 £140 m³ £79.80 Area Depth 'Fraction' Volume Density Mass Declared Product popular. (ÖKOBAUDAT, 2018) (ÖKOBAUDAT, 2018) 0.020 100% 0.020 Material 2000 Breakdown 40.0 9.349 m³ kgCO2e/m³Data Source 0.19 Unit 3 x4.5m (m2) (m) of Floor (m3) 100 (kg/m ) (kg/m2) Unit Carbon Result includes packaging 3.42E+00 kg 0.40 Timber, OSB - no Carbon £250 roll £0.56 Emissions (Southern Timber, no 0.018 100% 0.455069 kg kgCO2e/kg (ICE, 2019) Storage, from ICE 0.018 600 10.8 4.91 (m)

U value = 0.13

(kg)

0.018

Cost per

Result includes packaging Mass Data Source (m ) Floor (kg/m -) Standard Construction (kg/m2) 3

1

Mass

Floor - Standard Construction

2000

Information taken 1 from 0.012Total 100% £230.012 rammed earth wall data.

Cement Screed (kg.CO2e/ m²)

1

100%

U value = 0.13

Floor - Standard Construction 0.022

0.19

0.93

Total

Recycled textile insulation

m³

3.42E+00

0.116Area 3.42E+00 0.40 Depth 'Fraction'kgVolume Density

1

Volume Density

Recycled textile insulation (Bradfords, no date) 115.6 Panelvent

m³

Floor Option 2 - Timber Suspended

I-beam joists Floor Option 2 - Timber Suspended

Earth floor top-coat

0.0010

200

OSB

Material Breakdown

(kg.CO 2e/ mMitterteich ) GmbH, 2023)

100%

0.020

1 200 0.018

A1-A3115.6 Product(Bradfords, no date) 0.0010 0.116 Declared 1 I-beam joists Carbon Total Calculation Notes EPD (GLAPOR Werk Unit 100% 2 0.5700 138.5 78.9

9.349

Earth floor top-coat

Geotextile membrane

0.1000 OSB

100%

9.349

400.020

100%

Emissions

1

U value = 0.13

A1-A3 A1-A3 A1-A3 Product AreaMass Depth Product 'Fraction' Volume Mass Area Product DeclaredVolume Density Depth 'Fraction' DeclaredDensity Data Source Unit Material Breakdown Unit Data Source 2 2 Carbon Total Calculation Notes 3 T 3 2 (m2(kg/m ) (m) of Floor (mUnit ) (kg/m3) (kg/m )(m ) Carbon Unit (m) of2 Floor (m3) (kg/m ) ) Carbon (kg.CO 2e/ m ) Emissions Emissions

1 0.0200 Earth floor top-coat (ÖKOBAUDAT, 2018) 2000

100%

1

Volume Density

2000 Earth sub-base

'Fraction' Volume Density Material3 Breakdown Data Source of Floor (m3) (kg/m )

1U value 0.100 = 0.13 100%

Geotextile membrane

Total

£56.37

(kg.CO2e/ m²)

with Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) from ICE Database Uncertain estimate in ICE Database, CO2 only.

T

WHOLE HOUSE - CARBON VS COST

Domestic embodied carbon <300kgCO2/m2 LETI (best practice 2030)

construction G/H

As these low-carbon materials become more widespread, this hopefully will bring the cost down.

Lowest Local Authority and Housing Association Median Schemes: Two or three storey Highest terraced housing

- how to bring the cost down elsewhere?

Mitigating the cost of lots of glazing by using singleglazing in the sunspace. Furthermore, through a National Retrofit Scheme, the single glazed and occasionally double glazed windows replaced in the neighbourhood will be refurbished and used in the sunspace, bringing down the cost from buying new.

SUBTOTAL

ADDING INFLATION 1% INCREASE FOR 2024 (FLOOR OPTION 1)

53% INCREASE (FLOOR OPTION 2)

£990

217

£214,830

£265,169

£267,820

£409,765

£1,132

217

£245,644

£303,203

£306,235

£468,539

£1,275

217

£276,675

£341,505

£344,920

£527,728

£265K

Building Cost

tp

er terrace

£305K

Building Cost

Lowest

Median

tp

er terrace

£340K

Building Cost Highest

Cheaper

More expensive

Co s

However, things this calculation hasn't considered: • Using waste materials can be cheaper.

• The decrease in carbon! This is not considered as a cost though it is costly to the environment.

NEXT STEPS

GIA (m2)

ONS SP

INFLATION is high! Costs have increased dramatically since 2020

More upfront costs can reduce operational costs! Must consider costs over the whole lifetime

PRICE PER m2

tp

er terrace

£270K

Building Cost

tp

er terrace

£385K

Building Cost

Lowest

Median

Co s

Low-carbon materials can often be used in private homes because they have the excess cash, whereas LA or HA schemes may not be able to justify this cost increase without creating unaffordable homes. This is why it is even more important to have regulations in place particularly relating to carbon.

RANGE

Co s

Material choices can drastically increase cost - this is why people, particularly housing associations use readily available & cheap materials such as concrete.

TYPE OF WORKS

(Bank of England, no date)

Co s

CONSIDERATIONS

(SPONS, 2020)

Co s

Using the GIA of the terrace and the embodied carbon calculations on the previous page, the estimated whole terrace cost has been calculated using the Spon’s Architects’ and Builders’ Price Book 2020, adding inflation to make it current.

tp

er terrace

£530K

Building Cost Highest

COSTLY & MONEY-SAVING STRATEGIES INCLUDED IN THE DESIGN: Cheaper

Single-glazed windows from retrofit.

More expensive

Using waste materials can bring down costs, though work on site will bring it back up.

Shows the benefit of off-site modular construction.

70

A smart system- eg automated external shutters, & skylights that open automatically

A Passivhaus window can cost considerably more than a standard window, as they offer much better performance.

CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE construction I 0. SITE PREPARATION

Top soil is removed and subsoil is excavated for use for the earthen floor and strocks. Topsoil is put back and the ground is compacted and levelled.

Any required services need to be considered here.

CONSTRUCTION OF A HANDED TERRACE In plan view

1. FOUNDATIONS

A mix of strip and plinth foundations are added for the strock walls and timber posts. These are made from stepping K-briq's to remove the need for concrete.

2. GROUND FLOOR

The floor construction will now be laid, minus the top-floor finish. The recycled foamglass insulation is compacted in between geotextile membranes (underneath and above), then some subsoil is returned and compacted for the floor base, and finished with the top coat. Now the floor is stable for construction to continue.

0. SITE PREPARATION

0. SITE PREPARATION

0. SITE PREPARATION

3A. EARTH WALLS & TIMBER POSTS

3B. ADDING BEAMS

3B. ADDING I-JOISTS

3A-C. EARTH WALLS & TIMBER FRAME

The heavyweight earth masonry walls are built first, built floor by floor similar to standard masonry construction. At each floor level the timber frame is constructed. The main beams run between terraces (E-W), with the I-joists added on joist hangers, running N-S. The strocks will get damaged by water.

Therefore good weather is needed or adequate shelter for construction. This is an important consideration as it may add cost to the build, particularly if they do get damaged and their structural integrity is lost, as new strocks will be required. Consider lime rendering immediately for the exposed south face.

4. ROOF PANELS & WEATHERPROOFING

Once the walls are built to the required height roofing panels are added, which are manufactured off site, and sealed with a waterproof membrane.

5. INFILL PANELS

Finally, the non-structural infill panels are added.

Now the lime render can be applied to make the terraces weather-tight. Now the rest of the construction including services and internal finishes can be added.

4. ROOF PANELS & WEATHERPROOFING

5. INFILL PANELS 71

Single-glazed wall process: • Collecting and logging all single-glazed windows from retrofitting existing homes in the community.

• Using computer modelling software to arrange them into the most efficient format within terraces - the frame arrangement might be different depending on availability of window sizes.

• Making up the frames (floor by floor) in local factory, refurbishing windows that need refurbishing. Must include operable windows at FFLs. • Panels are taken to site & installed at the same time as the Larsen Truss wall panels.

CONTEXT - WASTE IN CURRENT CONSTRUCTION PROCESS major study - using waste from the construction process Construction, demolition and excavation generated around three fifths (62%) of total UK waste in 2018 (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, 2024).

MAJOR STUDY Looking at waste produced by the construction process to put it back into the construction process as a material.

Considerations: • The transfer of skills - for example laying bricks.

• Traditional, familiar constructions as much as possible.

• Simplicity! Not to overcomplicate.

Beginning as early in the process, and in particular trying to find an alternative to the current newbuild housing development construction process, it seemed most appropriate to look at the first step to new construction - excavation - with the 'waste' material here being earth.

72

A local materials strategy & a regional materials strategy.

Own target.

0% construction waste to landfill One Planet Development

Community must create a Material Conservation Management Plan to minimise waste across all projects' lifespans - through the design, construction, operation and end-of-life stages.

LCC

A local materials strategy & a regional materials strategy.

Own target.

STROCKS WITH HS2 CLAY & HEMP major study - using waste from the construction process INTRODUCING STROCKS

HEMP INSTEAD OF STRAW

"Earth masonry gives good thermal mass, but not good thermal insulation." (Morton, 2008, p25)

Instead of using straw as a binder, hemp has been chosen as an alternative, which would be grown locally as part of my neighbourhood strategy to reduce emissions, boost local economy and eliminate waste. All parts of the plant can be used for a range of products, including textiles or rope.

Straw would already be used for animal bedding and low-carbon insulation in other parts of the construction process.

This concept draws inspiration from hemplime blocks and aims to develop a low-carbon construction material using locally sourced materials, specifically clay-rich earth excavated during the construction process. The goal is to create a sustainable building block that combines locally available earth with an insulative resource that can be grown within the community, thereby boosting the local economy and supporting the Zero-Waste Neighbourhood strategy.

The focus is on utilizing clay-rich earth, as opposed to pure excavated clay, to avoid the need for deeper excavation (unless it is waste clay from necessary excavation).

Strocks - large bricks made from clay-rich earth and straw - achieve a thermal conductivity of 0.2 W/mK (H.G Matthews, no date), which is superior to the thermal conductivity of porous concrete blocks, used in passive house designs to minimise thermal bridging (Passivhaus Institut, no date). As they are still structural, this means that building with strocks offers several benefit over fired bricks (the standard construction). Benefits of choosing strocks include: • Low-carbon, natural and local. Not difficult to make so can easily make with earth on site.

• Same bricklaying technique so doesn't require reskilling. Very common construction method • Offers insulative quality whilst also being structural, so can be used to create thermalbridge free design.

0% construction waste to landfill One Planet Development

Community must create a Material Conservation Management Plan to minimise waste across all projects' lifespans - through the design, construction, operation and end-of-life stages.

LCC

Instead of using the preliminary hemp fibres, the ‘shivs’ are used. Though this requires more processing that using the original fibre, they are a by-product from extracting the original fibre for other uses such as clothing (Morton, 2008). This process is already happening so it can be put to good use.

Lastly, because of hemp’s less widespread use in traditional earth-based building techniques like strocks or cob bricks, this study presents an opportunity to explore its application and validate the concept within the context of sustainable, low-carbon construction, and most importantly, within the context of removing waste from the construction process.

PROCESS OF MAJOR STUDY: 1. TESTING EARTH 2. PROOF OF CONCEPT - STROCK WITH HEMP 3. PROCESSING HS2 CLAY 4. TESTS OF DIFFERENT RATIOS 5. FINAL TESTS (EG DENSITY/STRENGTH)

(H.G Matthews, no date) 73

A local materials strategy & a regional materials strategy.

Own target.

CLAY-RICH EARTH major study - using waste from the construction process

0% construction waste to landfill One Planet Development

Community must create a Material Conservation Management Plan to minimise waste across all projects' lifespans - through the design, construction, operation and end-of-life stages.

LCC

The first step in making strocks was to find clayrich earth. After several unsuccessful site visits due to being unable to dig beneath the topsoil, it was determined that clay-rich earth could be mimicked by mixing clay and sand.

Clay-rich earth = 20% clay, 40 silt, 40% sand (Schofield and Smallcombe, 2012).

1:3 Clay-sand ratio should mimic clay-rich earth, then mix with hemp to create strock (Brandstatter, 2024).

Using a clay-to-sand ratio helps remove impurities and ensures a more controlled test, making it the better approach.

Crushing the dried earth.

First sieving to break it down.

Second sieving

Third sieving.

Final sieving.

Separation of clay and silt.

PROCESS OF COLLECTING CLAY Testing the earth is necessary to determine its composition and whether it is adequately clay-rich.

This is what would have taken place if suitable subsoil from site had been found.

1. COLLECT EARTH FROM THE GROUND 2. DRY IT 3. CRUSH IT 4. SIEVE IT • First 5mm sieve, break it down.

• Then 2mm sieve • 0.7mm sieve leaves out the larger organic debris and some sand out - after this makes a good building loam (building material) • 0.4mm sieve sieves through only the clay. Feels very cold - because it is holding relative humidity.

• 0.2mm to remove silt

USING HS2 CLAY Clay cannot be sourced from site. However, instead of buying pottery clay, clay has been sourced from an HS2 excavation site. This excavated clay is waste clay in extremely large quantities, therefore it is the perfect material to use for this study as it addresses waste from the wider construction process.

74

A local materials strategy & a regional materials strategy.

Own target.

TESTING THE MIX: HEMP INSTEAD OF STRAW major study - using waste from the construction process

0% construction waste to landfill One Planet Development

Community must create a Material Conservation Management Plan to minimise waste across all projects' lifespans - through the design, construction, operation and end-of-life stages.

LCC

After testing the earth, or deciding to use clay and sand, tests are now required for the strock mix of clay, sand and hemp.

There are several tests to ensure the mix has the correct proportions of: • Sand (good for compressive strength) • Clay (binds the brick • Hemp • Water The amount of water is particularly important. It needs to be ensured that the clay mix has the right plasticity before being moulded, otherwise when it dries it will seem as though there's too much clay (Brandstatter, 2024).

Preparing for the shrink test.

Making a recommended mix of clay, sand and hemp.

Performing the ball test.

When mixing, the mix can be tested by: • The ball test - upon throwing your ball of clay it should hold its shape on the ground, but also not stick too much to your fingers. If it breaks on the ground this means too much sand.

• The sausage test - 30mm sausage should hold its shape. If it breaks there's either too much water, too little clay, or a bad mix (Keeling, 2017).

SHRINK TEST The shrink test is important as it tests the shrinkage of the brick and therefore the amount of clay. Too much shrinkage means too much clay and the brick will leave cracks, reducing its structural integrity. However not enough sand and the

Making the brick formwork from timber offcuts.

Proof of concept process: • Making box for shrink test • Adding linseed oil inside the frame - as it dries the clay will stick to the wood without the oil.

• Compress the mix into the box, using a scraper to flatten the exposed face.

• Let it dry in a warm environment. Do not dry in summer sun as this will make it dry too fast and crack.

CONCLUSION: Shrinkage is between 10-20%, which means the initial mix and proof of concept works. The same mix was used to create a prototype in brick form (1:2 scale).

The shrink test before it dried.

Dried shrink test, less than 20% shrinkage.

75

First bricks demonstrating proof of concept.

A local materials strategy & a regional materials strategy.

Own target.

HS2 CLAY & TESTING DIFFERENT RATIOS major study - using waste from the construction process HS2 CLAY

TESTS

All these bricks were created using waste clay from HS2 excavations.

TEST 1 - 1:4:5

Started out with using larger hemp pieces, however due to trying to mimic a strock at 1:2 scale, after Test 3 these were exchanged for smaller hemp shiv pieces.

The process of drying & sieving the clay was not followed, as this is an intensive process. As a result, the mixing process became more challenging, requiring extra effort to ensure the clay was evenly distributed in each batch. In the future, drying the clay beforehand would help minimize human error and improve consistency.

TEST 2 - 1:3:4 Mixing clay, sand and hemp. Ratios are recorded.

(large hemp) 12.5% HS2 clay, 36.5% sand, 50% large hemp • Larger pieces making it harder to hand-mix & stick together.

• Felt like I needed to compress it more when forming the brick - also due to big pieces?

• Not sure of it has good structural strength even though there’s technically more clay?

TEST 3 - 1:3:2

(large hemp) 17% clay, 50% sand, 33% large hemp • Easy to mix, much more dense.

Creating these at brick size (1:2 scale to a strock) requires small hemp should be used. However at strock size, large hemp pieces can be used, which requires less processing to get them to this size.

*TEST 4 - 4:9:9

OBSERVATIONS • When using a larger % of hemp, more clay is required to bind the hemp, but this means more shrinkage.

• There is a trade-off between making the brick more insulative (with more hemp) & making it more structural. This requires further testing.

Community must create a Material Conservation Management Plan to minimise waste across all projects' lifespans - through the design, construction, operation and end-of-life stages.

LCC

(large hemp) 10% HS2 clay, 40% sand, 50% large hemp • Consistency felt good, easy to make.

• Once dried: more of an insulative brick, feels quite crumbly as low amounts of clay.

PROCESS

CONSIDERATIONS

0% construction waste to landfill One Planet Development

A wet brick, taken as soon as the mould is removed.

(small hemp) 18% clay / 41% sand / 41% hemp • 300g with hemp wasn’t sticking & balls were breaking when I through them, so I added a bit of clay but it looks quite dense so maybe I should’ve added some more water to get the hemp more wet ?

*TEST 5 -2:3:5

CONCLUSIONS

(small hemp) 20% clay, 30% sand, 50% small hemp • Much more difference between this test and the last than expected.

Test 4 and 5 contain a substantial amount of hemp and clay, producing what seems like a study yet relatively insulative brick. The main difference is between using more or less sand (& therefore more clay & hemp). Next steps are to test their insulative and strength properties.

TEST 6 - 1:3:4 The bricks slowly air-drying.

(same as test 2 but small hemp) 12.5% HS2 clay, 36.5% sand, 50% large hemp Definitely not enough

* = Most successful. Requires further testing.

76

Brick tests.

A local materials strategy & a regional materials strategy.

Own target.

TESTING BRICKS - DENSITY major study - using waste from the construction process Mini hypothesis = with more hemp insulation, the brick will have less strength but be more insulative.

MATERIAL

DIMENSIONS WEIGHT BULK THERMAL (mm) (g) DENSITY CONDUCTIVITY

A full sized strock was also made and included in

Strock (HG Matthews)

the testing.

Test/brick size:

All sufficient densities for structural walls, test 5 sitting at the minimum structural wall densities for cob (Haddad, Lannon and Latif, 2024).

425 x 210 x 100

(kg/m3)

(W/mK)

1350

0.2

• Proof of concept test 215 x 100 x 49

1460

1390

0.206*

• Test 4

207 x 102 x 48

1454

1430

0.219*

• Test 5

207 x 102 x 47

1114

1120

0.166*

Full size Strock

425 x 215 x 92

12132

1440

0.213*

Weighing each test to find their weight then dividing by the volume to find density.

* = Using the inverse ratio method to estimate the thermal conductivity of my test bricks.

CONSIDERATIONS Thermal conductivity values have been estimated using the inverse ratio method, though this is not the most accurate method as it is based on the general trend that a denser material will have a higher thermal conductivity. However, as this graph shows, that seems to be the case.

Based on the general trend that a denser material with have a higher thermal conductivity.

DENSITY VS. THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY 2500 Reinforced cast concrete

Interestingly, strocks have a much higher density to what would be predicted by the trend line for all materials.

2000

CONCLUSIONS

1500

The tests have performed well, showing proof of concept whilst also concluding that increases the amount of hemp insulation within a brick does increase its thermal conductivity but reduces its density, probably making it less structurally strong.

This is tested on the next page.

Community must create a Material Conservation Management Plan to minimise waste across all projects' lifespans - through the design, construction, operation and end-of-life stages.

LCC

FINDING THE DENSITY TO ESTIMATE THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY:

DENSITY TEST

OBSERVATIONS

0% construction waste to landfill One Planet Development

Earth masonry brick (dense) Full sized strock

Brick

Test 4

Earth masonry brick (fibrous) Strocks Test 5

Proof of concept:

Brick - aerated 1000

Concrete Aerated blocks Straw bale

500 Wool Polyurethane foam

Fibreboard Cork

Hemcrete

Thatch

Straw clay medium

Straw clay light

Strawslab

Softwood Large clay/woodchip blocks Aerated concrete

Hemp clay light Warmcel 0.028 0.038 0.039 0.040 0.040 0.067 0.070 0.070 0.071 0.099 0.100 0.110 0.110 0.130 0.150 0.200 0.240 0.300 0.650 0.720 1.000 1.900 0 Polyurethane foam

Wool

Fibreboard

Hemcrete

Adapted from (Borer, 2023)

77

Straw clay light Hemp clay light Aerated concrete

Large Concrete Aerated Earth masonry clay/woodchip blocks brick (fibrous) blocks

Earth masonry brick (dense)

Standard:

EN 12390-3:2009

Sample age:

Sample:

Cube 150x150x150

Test date:

MAJOR STUDY! 11:16

Phone:

-----

A local materials strategy & aQuality result Community must create a Material Conservation 0% construction waste Fax: conformity EN 206:2013: not possible regional materials strategy.

Management Plan to minimise waste across Mail: to landfill Length Width Height Weight Bulk density Breakload Strength Name One Planet Website: Own target. all projects' lifespans - through the design, Development [mm] [mm] [mm] [g] [kg/m³] [kN] [MPa] construction, operation and end-of-life stages.

1 207 102 48LCC 1460 1430 593.2 28.1

TESTING BRICKS - STRENGTH major study - using waste from the construction process

Test protocol

Average Std. dev

STRENGTH TEST

1430 0.00

Strock with hemp Order: Sample 1 Series: Test 4 cob brick with hemp

The bricks were then tested for compressive strength, using a walter+bai ag Testing Machine.

600 EN 12390-3:2009 550 Cube 150x150x150 Sample: 500 Concrete450 class----400 ----350 Quality result 300 conformity EN 206:2013: 250 Length Width Name 200 [mm] [mm] 150 100 1 207 102 50 Average 0 M1 3000kN [kN]

Standard:

The values for the bricks were very different to the test on the full-sized strock. In comparing results with HG Matthew's Strock, the full sized strock shows a comparable but slightly lower compressive strength. This is significant as the strock manufacturing was carried out by hand which drastically increases human error, whilst also taking short-cuts such as not properly drying and crushing the clay before mixing. This shows that strocks could even be made on site by volunteers, which would reduce labour costs.

Std. dev

0

2

4

6

8

10

28.1 0.00

M1 3000kN [kN]

Compression test

Test:

OBSERVATIONS & CONSIDERATIONS

Production date:15/05/2024

10:41

Sample age:

163

00:20

Test date:

25/10/2024

11:01

Tester: not possible Height [mm]

Weight [g]

47

1120

12

14

16

18 20 Time [s]

Bulk density Breakload [kg/m³] [kN]

Strength [MPa]

1120

20.8

438.7

1120 22 0.00 24 26

20.8 28

30

340.00 36

32

Sample 1

Test 5

M1 3000kN [kN]

400 350 M1 3000kN [kN]

In comparing between Test 4 and Test 5, it shows that Test 5, the brick with more hemp, had lower compressive strength, confirming the minihypothesis that strength decreases as thermal conductivity increases.

00:35

25/10/2024

Tester:

Concrete class-----

163

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Date: 25/10/2024

Testing carried out. See appendix for more pictures.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14 16 Time [s]

18

20

22

24

26

Page: 1

28

30

CONCLUSIONS • As expected, more hemp insulation leads to less strength.

• Size mattered for the testing. This is potentially something to do with the height of the tests.

RECORDING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH MATERIAL MAKEUP Strock (HG Matthews)

DIMENSIONS WEIGHT BULK THERMAL (mm) (g) DENSITY CONDUCTIVITY 425 x 210 x 100

(kg/m3)

(W/m·K)

1350

0.2

BREAKLOAD COMPRESSIVE (kN) STRENGTH

Date: 25/10/2024

(MPa) or (N/mm2) 2.6 (standard) 4.6 (high strength)

Earth masonry compressive strength typically 2–7 N/mm2 (Morton, 2008)

Page: 1

Test/brick size • Proof of concept with hemp

215 x 100 x 49

1460

1390

0.206*

431.2

20.1

18% clay 207 x 102 x 48 41% sand 41% small hemp

1454

1430

0.219*

593.2

28.1

• Test 5

20% clay 207 x 102 x 47 30% sand 50% small hemp

1114

1120

0.166*

438.7

20.8

Full size Strock

425 x 215 x 92

12132

1440

0.213*

211.5

2.3

• Test 4

78

Comparison results comparing the different ratios of hemp/clay/ sand, primarily comparing between different percentages of hemp.

STROCKS IN WUFI - FEATURE WALL major study - using waste from the construction process A final test to see weather the strocks perform well in construction. Earlier in this report a point was made about the risk from moisture of exposing the strocks in the sunspace, even though it is protected from the elements. Therefore tests were carried out in WUFI, a dynamic hydrothermal tool that simulates moisture risk.

VALUE (H.G Matthews, no date)

PROCESS

ORIGINAL

*

Creating a new material, substituting values from a hemp-lime product with collected data on strocks and cob, in order to see how the wall-build up would perform. To test the external face, driving rain was recorded as zero, as the exposed face is within the sunspace so protected by the elements.

AVERAGE COB VALUE (Haddad, Lannon and Latif, 2024) VALUE (H.G Matthews, no date) *

CONCLUSIONS Though the Relative Humidity of the external face goes above 80% in the winter months, it then dries out in the summer months. This stops any degradation of the strocks, making them safe to expose. Even without an external render, the cold face of the insulation remains under the Lim II and wood pore lines, even with cellulose insulation which has the ability to rot. This shows the impressive performance of strocks and their ability to be used as a low carbon alternative to doubleleaf brick construction.

EXTERNAL FACE (should be weather protected)

COLD-FACE OF INSULATION - CORK

"The hygroscopic properties of earth masonry, given by its unfired clay content, strongly counter the risk of surface and interstitial condensation." (Morton, 2008, p.79)

FINAL CONCLUSIONS (MAJOR STUDY)

   

Proof of concept with hemp.

Using HS2 waste clay is possible Strocks can be made by hand and still be comparable to factory-made ones.

More hemp means better thermal conductivity but lower structural strength.

Further investigation required.

79

COLD-FACE OF INSULATION - CELLULOSE

THERMAL DESIGN STRATEGY

Reduce demand by increasing passive systems Own target.

internal environment A MAXIMISING PASSIVE SYSTEMS HOUSE ORIENTATION

• Open-plan orientation N-S to allow for good daylighting and air movement as well as deep penetration of solar gain.

FABRIC EFFICIENCY

• Terraced housing allows for low-density housing with an impressive form factor (<2). Sometimes these houses will be split (vertically) into apartments, improving form factor per dwelling even further.

• High u-values with minimised thermal bridges & triple glazed windows in thermal envelope

Limit peak heat loss for heating to 10W/m2 (including ventilation).

LETI

Space heating demand: New-builds = 15 kWh/m2/yr Retrofit = ~50 kWh/m2/yr LETI

Support circadian and psychological health through indoor daylight exposure and outdoor views.

WELL

SUNSPACE

Sufficient operable windows to provide natural ventilation for at least 6 months every year.

LBC

TRADE OFF between solar gain

• Large buffer space - the larger the space the better insulated the house will be (Borer and Harris, 2005).

• Primary ventilation for the house can be from this space used in conjuction with southern winds as this is the primary wind direction.

This method is called ventilation preheat (Borer and Harris, 2005).

passive heating in winter, ! for and overheating in summer. Is it possible to have both?

MVHR supporting natural ventilation to minimise heat loss in winter months. Units should have a heat recovery efficiency of ≥ 75%.

Adapted from Passivhaus.

THERMAL MASS & NIGHT-COOLING

• Thermal mass maximised through the use of strocks on the southern facade and party walls, as well as an earthen floor.

• Thermal mass retains heat through solar gain for passive heating in winter months.

• Aids overheating in summer by retaining heat, which can be purged at night via night-cooling.

NATURAL VENTILATION WITH MVHR

• Maximise natural ventilation in the summer months, but need to be wary of overheating from skylights.

• In winter, MVHR is required to minimise heat loss.

N

GOOD INTERNAL AIR QUALITY & THERMAL COMFORT

0

1m

2m 5m

5m

10m

10m

Cooler spaces at around 18°

SU

Living room 19

22

Bathroom 22

22

Bedroom 16

20

Kitchen, hallway 16 & storage

18

(Godfrey, 2024)

PREVENTING OVERHEATING - SUMMARY

• Avoiding west-facing windows.

• All windows and rooflights are operable, with blinds (particularly important on the rooflights).

• Rooflights can stay open when people aren't home, keeping the building and sunspace from overheating?

2m

Bathrooms at 22° SU

• Need to be wary of overheating, in the summer months due to climate change, particularly in the sunspace, but paired with external shutters, thermal mass & ventilation/night cooling strategies, overheating can be prevented. Allow for additional vair vents to be added within sunspace to increase air movement.

1m

Main living space at around 20° SU

FUTURE CLIMATE PROOFING

RECOMMENDED INDOOR TEMPERATURES

SU

• Ensures good health, comfort, performance and wellbeing • Protects the building against condensation

0

N

Working out the distance between terraces to ensure maximum solar gain.

Recommended temperatures according to the NHS. These have been adjusted slightly to the proposed terrace, as for example the kitchen & living area is open-plan to allow for deep penetration of solar gain. The average room temperature is around 20° (Godfrey, 2024).

The hallway spaces -can get warmer, as long as they're not being heated past 18°C. A heat ventilation recovery system could potentially remove any unnecessary hot air and supply it to other rooms that require the heat.

80

N

THERMAL BRIDGES internal environment B

0

1m

2m

0

1m

2m 5m

5m

N

10m

10m

SU

SU

SU

SU

Heat is attracted to the coldest point... therefore thermal bridges can make a big difference.

Many outer corners are removed because it is a terraced house. However, due to the cutaways in plan, there are two outer corners. However, these are cancelled out by the inner corners, shown on the right.

insulation?

Due to the strocks, the ground floor can be considered to be thermal-bridge-free, as discussed previously. Therfore this study will be investigating the window to wall detail.

The thermal bridge of a window occurs at the point you install it within the wall. The window has been installed in the insulation line to reduce the thermal bridge.

Example of outer corners (dark blue) cancelled out by inner corners (light blue).

therm 2 ( 21%)

Therm Version therm 7.8.57.0 2 ( 21%) (1 of 1)

Therm Version therm 7.8.57.0 test 3 (1 ( 21%) of 1)

Therm Version 7.8.57.0 (1 of 1

MODELLING FULL BUILD-UP IN THERM:

MODELLING THE FULL-BUILD UP: Test 1 - standard double glazing:

Test 2 - low-e double glazing:

Test 3 - double glazing with argon:

17.5

W/mK

Window U-value

Trying varying double-glazed windows with unsatisfactory results could also suggest that double glazed windows are not adequate for passive house certification. Passive house certified windows are always triple glazed with a U-value of 0.8 W/m2K.

Ψ

0.14

15.9 -0.217.5 -0.2

Wall U-value

11.1 7.9 14.3 4.7 1.4

W/m2K

1.6

0.246

SU

SU

SU

2.9

W/m2K

SU

CH

CH

The initial tests were very unsatisfactory, as the attempt was made to model the glazing. A doubleglazed window was specified, so the initial tests show a difference between glazing types, for example low-e double glazing, or filling the cavity with argon rather than air. The difference can be seen in the decrease in psi value, however these tests are likely innacurate due to the simplified method in calculating, as well as the simplied window frame.

W/m2K

W/mK

Window U-value



Ψ

0.14

15.9 -0.217.5 -0.2

Wall U-value

11.1 7.9 14.3 4.7 1.4

W/m2K

1.3

0.211

17.5

W/mK

Window U-value



Ψ

0.14

15.9 -0.217.5 -0.2

Wall U-value

7.9 11.1 4.7 14.3 1.4

W/m2K

20.7

0.212

W/m2K

20.7

 20.7

Full calculations can be viewed in the appendix.

-1.8

-1.8

-1.8

17.5

3.0 6.3 9.512.7

14.5°C

surface temperature

17.5

19.1

3.0 6.3 9.512.7

14.5°C

0.63

surface temperature

f value

 81

17.5

19.1

3.06.39.512.7 15.9

f value

surface temperature

15.9°C

0.72



0.78

f value



therm test 4 ( 21%)

Therm Version therm 7.8.57.0 test 5 (1 ( 21%) of 1)

THERMAL BRIDGES - INSTALLATION Ѱ

Therm Version 7.8.57.0 (1 of 1)

internal environment B INSTALLATION Ѱ: After initial testing which resulted in a high Ψ value of >0.2 W/mK, finding the installation Ψ was attempted. Windows are installed at the insulation line, to help reduce this thermal bridge. This is called the installation Ψ (Xenitidou, 2024).

A window's installation Ψ is the largest length of thermal bridge in most Passive House certified buildings, therefore it is significant (Xenitidou, 2024). The default value 0.04 W/m2K assumes it is reasonably well constructed. This can be reduced to 0.01, but can easily reach over 0.1 W/m2K. The Oliver and Lowe paper in 1995 CIBSE conference showed that poorly installed high performance elements (window to wall) resulted in the total U-value of the wall being the same as a singleglazed window.

INSTALLATION Ѱ METHOD 1 Test 1 - passivhaus window value:

0.7

W/m K

Test 2 - cork under sill:

0.7

W/m2K

0.070

2

Window U-value

Options to find the installation Ψ: 1. Modelling the whole window (more time consuming & beyond the scope of this report) 2. Just modeling the frame (also what people do in practice, just speeds up the process)

W/mK Ψ

0.14

0.063

Window U-value



W/mK Ψ

0.14

W/m2K



W/m2K

Wall U-value

Wall U-value

L2D= heat loss of window on wall L2Dwin = heat loss of window (separate calculation) UwLw = U value of wall x length of wall

Method 1 is highly complex, therefore I have tried to simplify it by using a Passivhaus certified therm test 6 ( 21%) window U-value. This will have skewed the results, because the U value changes depending on the window size to frame ratio.

In comparison, by modelling just the frame, this produces a more accurate result. It shows that a timber frame only would not be sufficient at reducing thermal bridges enough for Passivhaus.

λ = 0.084 Therm Version 7.8.57.0 (1 of 1)

18°C

0.87

surface temperature

18°C



Caculated from Passive House window U-factor minimum of 0.8 W/m2K, with a drawn thickness of 105mm. See appendix for calculation.

0.87

surface temperature

f value

f value



INSTALLATION Ѱ METHOD 2 Test 1 - timber frame

Test 2 - external conditions to sunspace (10ºC warmer)

1.6

Frame value

W/mK Ψ

0.14

W/m2K

Wall U-value

METHOD 2:

Ψinstallation = L2D - UfLf - UwLw

0.084

W/m2K

CONCLUSIONS: The window detail requires more investigation to reduce thermal bridging to low enough values to discount them when calculating heating demand.

To mitigate thermal bridges at the frame, the insulation should always be wrapped externally around the frame. It is easy to understand why windows are complex in design and costly.

The other key lesson learnt was that mould won't grow even with a simple timber frame due to the sunspace.

Ψinstallation = L2D - L2Dwin - UwLw Ψinstallation = thermal bridge of window install

CONSIDERATIONS

Sunspace and the f-value: Having the window in the sunspace instead of directly external contributes to the f-value, as shown in the last test. Therefore even with a simple timber frame it is likely mould won't grow.

METHOD 1:

Ψinstallation = thermal bridge of window install



-0.2 3.0 6.3 9.5 12.7 15.9

L2D= total heat loss

-0.2 3.0 6.3 9.5 12.7 15.9

19.1

UfLf = U factor of frame x length of frame

19.1 20.7

20.7

-1.8

-1.8 1.44.7 14.3 7.911.1

15.2°C

surface temperature

1.44.7 14.3 7.911.1

17.5

18°C

0.75

surface temperature

f value



82

UwLw = U value of wall x length of wall (Xenitidou, 2024)

17.5

0.87

f value



DAYLIGHTING/ENERGY - INITIAL TESTS ON SEFAIRA

TRADE OFF between solar gain

passive heating in winter, and ! for overheating in summer.

internal environment C Worst-case scenario of mid-terraced house, with one family living in the house and a converted loft (i.e. with added skylights)

SEFAIRA TEST 1

SEFAIRA • Thermal buffer zone of sunspace including singleglazed windows - model as shading.

• Partially insulated roof - just model as shading.

• Party walls - model as internal walls? Unsure if considered.

• Thermal mass - not considered.

Limitation Unable to know if Sefaira is modelling the party walls correctly. They are labelled as internal walls.

CONSIDERATIONS • By focusing on less materials via terraced housing & designing for the future (maximum adaptability, designing for Part M on ground floor), a deep floor plan has been created. The ground floor has particularly low-lighting levels in the middle (the kitchen area).

• Energy & daylight modelling should happen at the same time as considering materials.

CONCLUSIONS Comparing to the house plan, daylighting levels are sufficient in most of the home, apart from the core living space on the ground floor, which is tested further on Velux later in this report.

Furthermore, considerations for the upper floor skylights are required to prevent glare and overheating. These could include decreasing the size of the skylight to find the most amount of welllit space, and using double-blinds, including light diffusing ones, to reduce glare.

Sefaira is a good basic tool for initial tests, however parameters are not easily understood, making it an ineffective tool for a detailed investigation.

83

SEFAIRA TEST 2

DAYLIGHT ASSESSMENT OF GROUND FLOOR LIVING SPACE

Daylight factor of 2.1 in >70% of the occupied space / Illuminance of 300 lux in dwellings in >70% of the occupied space Active House (level 1)

internal environment D Testing to improve daylighting in the ground floor open-plan living space, which suffers from low natural light levels, particularly when the house is divided into two flats.

Limitations of Velux: • Material palette is limited, and requires entering lots of custom materials, reducing accuracy in results.

• Daylight Autonomy (DA) or Usable Daylight Index (UDI) is a more effective way of working out suitable daylight levels. However this requires high RAM and takes a long time. The computer used was unable to handle this.

TEST 1

TEST 2

• Dark earthen flooring.

• North facing windows smaller than south-facing ones for less heat loss.

• No windows in roof of buffer zone to protect against overheating.

• Lighter polished flooring, e.g. wood.

• Taller windows on north facade.

• Door into sunspace has glazing instead of solid.

• Two rows of roof windows in the buffer zone added, also aiding natural ventilation.

TEST 3

• Removing the shading from the balconies both inside and in front of the sunspace.

CONSIDERATIONS: The reflectivity of materials made a significant difference to the Daylight Factor. Even just a 10% difference in reflectivity made a noticable difference. The natural finishes I've specified are low in reflectivity, and therefore considering the low light levels a more reflective, polished finish of lighter colours (specifically the floor - changing it from earth to pine wood) would make a difference.

There is a trade off here between have a nice balcony and access to the sunspace, or better daylight in the ground floor. These balcony and access is not so important if the house is just one dwelling, but when it is split into two dwellings it is an important part of my brief for the top apartment to also have access to the sunspace, as well as outside space on the south facade.

Next steps: • Make the plan not as deep. By trying to make the building fit as much potential uses (maximum flexibility & adaptations - in particular being able to make the ground floor its own flat, Part M bedroom included), I have created a very deep plan.

• Require floor to be very light in colour.

• Additional skylights in the sunspace roof, however this could lead to the sunspace overheating in the summer.

• Change the build-up of the south-facade for more windows, as I've concentrated too much on thermal mass and need to allow more daylighting.

1.3% average 1.2% average

0.51%

0.81%

Daylight Factor

Daylight Factor

Median

Average

6%

1.25%

1.78%

Daylight Factor

Daylight Factor

Median

≥ 2.1% DT



84

Average

24%

≥ 2.1% DT



1.51%

2.01%

Daylight Factor

Daylight Factor

Median

Average

29%

≥ 2.1% DT



DAYLIGHT ASSESSMENT OF GROUND FLOOR LIVING SPACE

Daylight factor of 2.1 in >70% of the occupied space / Illuminance of 300 lux in dwellings in >70% of the occupied space Active House (level 1)

internal environment D CONCLUSIONS Having lots of natural daylight is important for the health and happiness of residents. Currently the core living space is not meeting the daylighting targets, which is better for energy demand but does not consider the human value. More designing and testing is required to ensure the core living space can meet the requirements.

TEST 4

TRADE OFF between better

• Keeping the balconies, however changing the feature wall construction to a frame system to add more windows. This would however increase the heat loss and expenditure (due to more expensive triple glazing). Larger panes of glass should be used to minimise the frame.

• Minimising the walkway width in the first floor of the sunspace to the minimum of 900mm.

and better building ! daylighting performance (decreasing heat

loss & increasing thermal mass)

The idea is that the sunspace would be used frequently due to the combination of solar gain and thermal mass, allowing it to be comfortable even in the evenings. This requires more thought in order to keep that thermal mass value whilst also getting more daylight in.

(McMullan, 2007, as cited in Borer, 2023) Further strategies to get more daylighting into ground floor:

The idea was to find a zero-waste house blueprint suitable for the most amount of people but this is impossible to find as there are many trade offs involved.

most extensive Shallower plan • Requires a complete redesign of the house.

STRATEGIES TO INCREASE DAYLIGHTING One strategy to improve the daylighting would be to change the feature wall to a frame construction to have more windows. However this would decrease the thermal mass and make the sunspace less comfortable and therefore less useable.

Another way this problem would be solved in a semi-detached home, allowing windows into the depth of the plan, however this means a decrease in form factor and more materials used.

These methods and more of increasing the daylight are assessed between the least to the most extensive intervention on the right.

1.6% average

ADJUSTED TARGET

1.87%

2.39%

Daylight Factor

Daylight Factor

Median

Average

>40%

40%

≥ 2.1% DT

≥ 2.1% DT

Active House TARGET min.



Next steps:

This doesn't reach the full target specified at the beginning of this report, which is Active House Level 1, the highest level. It passes the lowest level (≥40%).

Floor to ceiling windows on GF south wall (feature wall) • Likely requires a different wall build-up as even larger lintels will be needed in this construction. May make more sense to pick a frame-type construction here.

Light pipes • Straight from the roof down for maximum transmission, but would reduce the floor plan.

• Could hide them in the walls of the north-facing bedroom on the 1st floor.

• Still low light transmission at 30-60% (Pat Borer, 2023) Light shelf (Gordon Incorporated, no date) • Light reflectivity = 34% • Uses polycarbonate for best reflectivity.

Not only is this a petrochemical material, but it also won't fit in aesthetically to the rest of the house.

As the housing plan requires re-assessing to reach the target light levels, for the rest of the report a mix between Test 1 and Test 2 (added skylights) will be used.

Light, reflective surfaces

least extensive

85

HEAT BALANCE: DESIGN PH

Form factor of 1.7-2.5.

LETI

internal environment C Worst-case scenario of a mid-terraced house, with one family living in the house and a converted loft.

BENCHMARK:

Overall UK average space heating demand (LETI, 2021)

Design PH was created for Passivhaus, and therefore uses the Passivhaus methodology of calculating heat demand. It uses the treated floor area, (TFA), which is the 'net usable floor area', removing internal walls, stairs and other unusable spaces.

130

kWh/m2a Annual

END OF TERRACE - WEST SIDE

Using the Passivhaus methodology, the outside edge is measured from the outside of the thermal envelope, which gives a pessimistic result. Because of this, thermal bridges can be omitted from this method (Heat loss measuring from outside the thermal envelope has been calculated to be greater than the heat loss from inside the thermal envelope plus thermal bridges).

178m2 TFA

Party walls: Party walls are now considered within Design PH, and so have been modelled. With an end-of-terrace house, the house would have a poorer form factor and higher heat demand.

Thermal mass: Thermal mass is not considered. It would reduce the peak fluctuations of heat however this wouldn't necessarily affect the heating demand.

Loft conversion over time: The plan was to compare different floor areas of the house over time - as the loft gets converted.

However the insulation already included at rafter level when the house is constructed. This makes the thermal envelope at rafter level, even if the loft remains unconverted. Unless two thermal lines are included in the construction (more resources & money), the heating demand will likely not change even if no heating on the top floor is needed. There will likely be no heating on the top floor needed anyway due to the natural stratification of heat.

2.85

Form factor

23.0

kWh/m a 2

Annual

82% decrease from UK average

No windows included on end-of-terrace wall included. In reality there would be added windows making the heat loss & resultant heat demand greater.

CONSIDERATIONS Buffer zone: The sunspace with its single-glazed wall and partially-insulated roof cannot be considered in Design PH. Therefore it has been modelled as shading. This will make the results less accurate since the single-glazed wall and resulting solar gains cannot be modelled accurately.

Space heating demand: New-builds = 15 kWh/m2/yr Retrofit = ~50 kWh/m2/yr LETI

Thermal bridges: Assuming thermal bridges are non-existent, however in my structure I do have some small thermal bridges, mostly at the feature wall inbetween the sunspace (thermal buffer zone) and the interior.

END OF TERRACE - EAST SIDE

178m2 TFA

2.82

Form factor

22.6

kWh/m a 2

83% decrease

Annual

CONCLUSIONS & NEXT STEPS No windows included on end-of-terrace wall included.

Does not meet LETI target. Solar heat gain not as high as expected, however it does not consider the thermal buffer zone.

MID-TERRACE

Focusing on the mid-terrace as this will be the most common type within this typology.

178m2

Only the mid-terraces meet the form-factor target given by LETI. The end terraces could initially be divided into two dwellings (instead of the potential for this to happen later on) to make sure they meet the form factor.

TFA

2.37

Form factor

1.7-2.5

15

Form factor TARGET

86

18.3

kWh/m2a Annual

kWh/m2a TARGET

86% decrease

HEAT DEMAND WITH PHVP

Limit peak heat loss for heating to 10W/m2 (including ventilation).

LETI

internal environment C Design PH has been imported into PHVP for a more detailed investigation into heating demands, including a breakdown of the heat loss from each element, as well as the peak load.

See appendix for calculations.

TEST 1

Direct from Design PH.

Space heating demand: New-builds = 15 kWh/m2/yr Retrofit = ~50 kWh/m2/yr LETI

TEST 2

19.7

kWh/m a 2

Annual

CONSIDERATIONS Party walls: These are ignored as an element in the heat loss calculations, therefore predicting there will be no heat loss through these walls. In reality this figure may not be zero.

Thermal bridges: No thermal bridges have been accounted for.

Solar gain from sunspace: Most of the solar gain is actually outside the thermal envelope in the sunspace (buffer zone), which has been modelled as gaps in the shading in Design PH. Therefore it has also not been considered in PHVP.

CONCLUSIONS The initial result is slightly worse in PHVP, this is likely due to some approximations Design PH does.

As PHVP offers a more detailed investigation, it should be considered as the the more accurate result.One of the biggest benefits of using PHVP is that it allows for buffer zones to be included. This reduces the energy demand by 4%, though it still doesn't meet LETI targets.

There is considerable heat loss through windows on the north facade, more than the solar gain from the south-facing windows. However, the terrace has a deep plan and can have no windows on the east or west facade, so these larger north windows are needed for daylighting. The windows on the south-facing feature wall can also not be made bigger unless a different construction for this wall is proposed. However then the thermal mass wouldn't be harnessed.

PHVP does not consider thermal mass, however this wouldn't necessarily affect heating demand.

Next steps: To reduce overall energy consumption to reach LETI targets.

87



Adding sunspace walls as buffer zone.

5.2

W/m2

19.0

kWh/m a

4.9

2

Peak load



Annual



W/m2

Peak load



ENERGY CONSUMPTION & PLANT EFFICIENCY

Reduce energy consumption to <35 kWh/m2.yr. (Energy use intensity in GIA, excluding renewable energy contribution).

LETI

internal environment C TEST 2 - EFFICIENCY 400%

kWh/yr

~39

kWh/yr/m

This considers the worst-case scenario of a midterrace - one-dwelling with a converted loft.

Annual per terrace

CONSIDERATIONS:

Co

Even with a District Heat Network, the energy consumption so far does not meet the LETI target, though it's close. I have not however yet calculated renewable energy generation on-site, which is excluded from the final figure. Therefore it can be assumed each house is on track to meet the target.

£1,605

£9

Per terrace

Per m2

st

Co

st

/yr

~8% decrease

co

1,571

kWh/yr

Co

~6% decrease

~5% decrease

Per terrace

BOILER SIZE

mptio n

~6,450

co

nsu

~36

kWh/yr/m2 Annual per m2

st

Co

£ per kWh

Electricity Standard 0.286

Per terrace

Per m2

mission al E s

1,490

kgCO2/yr Per terrace

/yr

This doesn't include energy coming from renewable sources.

With the District Heat Network proposed, the emissions should be very little.

Emissions Boiler kgCO2/kWh Efficiency (%) 0.275

100

0?

100

GSHP 0.082

0.079

350

ASHP 0.097

0.094

294

District Heating Network 0.071* (WSHP system)

0.069*

400

Renewable electricity 0.252 (Octopus flexible tariff)

* = calculated from electricity standard x increase Heating on a weekend vs. heating on weekday/WFH: On a workday (nobody in the house during the day), ratio likely to be higher.

On a weekend ratio less (less time to heat up because its on for longer).

Mix of heavy and light construction.

88

st

£8.75

/yr

WORKING OUT FUEL COSTS Fuel

mptio n

£1,520

on

kgCO2/yr

nsu

Annual per terrace

mission al E s

I have kept standing charges and maintenance charges the same but these will likely be higher to connect to and run the network. Therefore this might cancel out the money saved with cashback from community-owned energy generation, which has also been unaccounted for in these calculations.

Full calculations in PHVP can be seen in the appendix.

This shows the importance of community owned energy generation to cut back on prices.

Electricity is currently very expensive compared to fossil fuels.

Opera ti

Opera ti

Between the single ASHP unit per household and connecting to a network, there wasn't as big of a decrease as expected. A District Heat Network is a large-scale, extensive and expensive intervention, and this suggests that it might be not as beneficial as expected. However, it does not account for community energy generation from renewables, which is also part of the neighbourhood strategy.

With this, it can be assumed that the carbon and cost figures would be much lower. This shows the importance of multiple integrated services working together to drastically reduce both costs and emissions.

Renewable energy generation at community scale is discussed earlier in the report. Energy generation per terrace is discussed later in the report.

Annual per m2

/yr

on

2

Connected to district heating network.

gy

mptio n

Ener

~6,950

c

su on

gy

mptio n gy

c

su on

Ener

gy

ASHP per dwelling.

Ener

TEST 1 - EFFICIENCY 294%

Ener

Comparison between an ASHP unit per dwelling and connecting to a district heating network, as proposed in my neighbourhood strategies. The main changing factor here is plant efficiency, which slightly affects cost and emissions.

in efficiency. Given that the source will be renewable energy, the real amounts shold be less.

Electricity is currently more expensive then gas, however by increasing efficiency this brings the cost back down. In the future with proposed energy generation, this will hopefully continue to decrease.

ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING

150lux - general lighting adequate for day-to-day

0

1m

2m

200-300 lux - requiring better lighting than standard, eg bathrooms or reading

services B

5m

10m

400-500 lux - task lighting

CONSIDERATIONS:

ExA N= F x UF x MF

SU

SU

Flexibility in lighting for certain spaces is recommended. For example, a dining table is used for multiple activities, such as dining at 150-200lux or studying at 400-500lux (Ledrise Led Professional, 2023). Therefore dimmable lights must be ensured, including in overhead lighting to give flexibility to residents.

N = Number of lights E = Planned illuminance (lux) A = Area of room (m2) F = average luminous flux from each lamp (lm) UF = Utilisation factor MF = Maintenance factor

Higher levels of general lighting are required for the elderly. Therefore the Part M bedroom is more adequately lit.

N=?

E = 150 lux A = 178m2 F = 320 lm / UF = 0.5 (an average) MF = 0.65 (lights only cleaned semi-regularly)

Task/mood lighting: Housing also requires options, therefore adding to being able to light all spaces with the 'general' lighting, there also needs to be task lighting and accessory/mood lighting, which can also be used for tasks such as reading.

Furthermore, task lighting via non-general lighting can reduce the intensity of overhead lighting needed therefore reducing lighting demand. For example, general lighting in a space can be 150 lux, with spot lighting for the areas that need 400 lux, instead of the whole room requiring 400 lux.

An example of this is displayed in the terrace's kitchens.

SU

SU SU

CALCULATION VIA LUMEN METHOD:

SU

CH

256 SMALL LEDS

LED lighting to reduce energy demand.

CH

Calculating for simple LED spotlights for general lighting, however this would look very messy without a ceiling service void. Therefore the ceiling should either have a service void for the many LED bulbs, or pick a different type of lighting.

89

ELECTRICAL LOADS

Reduce energy consumption to <35 kWh/m2.yr. (Energy use intensity in GIA, excluding renewable energy contribution).

LETI

internal environment E Calculating a worst-case-scenario of one terrace's electrical load - seven people in one dwelling, included two that work from home.

SCENARIO: 7 PEOPLE, 1 HOUSEHOLD Item

Description / Location

CONSIDERATIONS: By creating a common house with a shared laundry room including drying stands, this reduces the moisture load and the electrical load each terrace has to deal with. No utility appliances are needed, such as a washing machine or dryer.

The lighting, cooking and appliances load was calculated by hand using PHPP. This came out 23% lower than the standard value of 23 kWH/m2a given in the PHVP spreadsheets. This is because laundry appliances have not been included, as they will belong in the communal house. Re-calculating the terraces energy consumption, energy cost and emissions, there is a considerable decrease, and now meets LETI's target of 35kWh/annum. This is also a worst-case-scenario, and therefore most dwellings will have an even lower consumption.

As the terrace has been calculated, there has been no consideration for the common house. This should be calculated by working out how many people/households the common house serves (likely dependent per scheme), and factoring this into each home's energy use to compare. As less resources will be needed because they will be shared, the result should still be lower than if the standard 23 kWH/m2a was used (seen in PHVP).

Lighting Across whole house.

Power consumption

Units Assumed usage

11W

Yearly consumption (kWh/year)

see PHPP spreadsheet

(Passive House Institute, 2019)

225

Fridge One per household.

0.78 kWh/d per person

1

Calculated per person

(Passive House Institute, 2019)

285

Freezer Separate freezer as stores food better, creating less waste.

0.88 kWh/d per person

1

Calculated per person

(Passive House Institute, 2019)

321

0.2 kWh/use per person

1

Calculated per person

(Passive House Institute, 2019)

700

0.89 kWh/use

1

3 x weekly

(Big Clean Switch, 2023)

139

Induction hob One per household.

Oven One per household.

Dishwasher One per household.

1.10 kWh/use per person 1

65 per person per year (Passive House Institute, 2019)

501

50kWh/a per person

1

Calculated per person

(Passive House Institute, 2019)

350

5 W/d. 3.8 calculated from (Shaw, 2021) + standby time

2

24/7, 365

(Shaw, 2021)

Computer Assuming 2x people WFH 2 days/ week.

166W

2

8 house/day (2 days/ week)

(Energy Saving Trust, Department of Energy & Climate Change, and Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, 2012)

276

Hairdryer One shared between bedrooms.

1000W

1

0.2 hours/week

(Pelsmakers, 2015)

21

1200W

1

0.4 hours/week

(Pelsmakers, 2015)

25

Calculated per person

(Passive House Institute, 2019)

Small appliances, etc. Including microwave, toaster, blender, etc.

Energy monitors Allows understanding of how the house works.

Hoover/vacuum One per household.

Consumer electrics Home electronics intended for everyday use , for entertainment communications or recreation (SOURCE)

Electricity and low-energy appliances:

4

TOTAL

3154 kWh

PER M2

17.7 kWh/m2yr

ADJUSTING PREVIOUS CALCULATIONS:

A+ or A+++ rated appliances should be specified in order to further improve efficiency and reduce emissions. This calculation has assumed average power consumptions for appliances, so lowenergy appliances will further decrease the energy consumption.

Sometimes electric appliances are more expensive than their gas options, because the price of electricity is higher (Nottingham Energy Partnership, 2024). However this means the energy can come from renewable sources, and if renewable energy is community owned in the neighbourhood, this can create cashback making this cheaper. Furthermore, into the future if we move towards a Zero-Carbon Britain, the price of electricity should come down.

Source

(Big Clean Switch, 2023)

Considerable cost reduction, however there will be a regular service charge to cover the common house, therefore it does not reflect the cost the resident has to pay in total but more the running of just their own home.

Considerable carbon reduction due to less electricity being used, however if electricity is specified as renewable, this figure would be lower anyway.

90

~6,450

~36

kWh/yr

kWh/yr/m

Annual per terrace

Annual per m2

£1,520

£8.75

Per terrace

Per m2

/yr

1,490

kgCO2/yr Per terrace

/yr

2

~17% decrease

~18% decrease

~21% decrease

~5500

~31

kWh/yr

kWh/yr/m2

£1,284

£7.21

Per terrace

Per m2

Annual per terrace

/yr

1,230

kgCO2/yr Per terrace

Annual per m2

/yr

RENEWABLE ENERGY PER TERRACE

Standard domestic PV system

Net-zeroestimates PV system PVGIS-5 of solar electricity generation:

PVGIS-5 estimates of solar electricity generation: kWp

Slope = inputs: 30° Provided

Azimuth = 0° 51.964,-0.424 Latitude/Longitude: Horizon: Calculated Database used: PVGIS-SARAH3 PV technology: Crystalline silicon PV installed: 3 kWp System loss: 14 %

Peak PV power Simulation outputs

Latitude/Longitude: Azimuth = 0° 51.964,-0.424 Slope angle: 30 ° Horizon: Calculated Azimuth angle: 0° Database used: PVGIS-SARAH3 Yearly PV energy production: 2966.94 kWh PV technology: Crystalline silicon Yearly in-plane irradiation: 1256.72 kWh/m² PV installed: 5.6 kWp Year-to-year variability: 121.26 kWh System loss: 14 % Changes in output due to: Angle of incidence: -3.27 % Spectral effects: 1.85 % Temperature and low irradiance: -7.12 % Total loss: -21.3 %

Monthly energy output: Average month per terrace (Annual demand ÷ 12) Monthly 458 energy output from fix-angle PV system:

Adding some battery storage on site will add resiliency to each home, for example in the case of a power-cut, which will likely become more frequent as climate change causes more extreme weather.

kWp

The houses won't always be orientated directly south. Several quick tests were run to see how Outline of horizon at chosen location: much difference it would make if they were 30 ° orientated 15° or 30° either east or west.

0°

Slope angle: Azimuth angle: Yearly PV energy production: 5538.29 kWh 15° West = ~ <1% decrease Yearly in-plane irradiation: 1256.72 kWh/m² 15° East = ~ <0.5% decrease Year-to-year variability: 226.35 kWh 30° West = <2.9% decrease Changes in output due to: 30° East = <2.1% decrease Angle of incidence: -3.27 % Spectral effects: 1.85 % Conclusion = negligible difference at 15°, still Temperature and low irradiance: -7.12 % very small difference at 30°. Therefore houses Total loss: -21.3 %

can be orientated up to a 30° difference from directly south-facing and still have efficient energy generation.

Monthly in-plane energy output fromfor fix-angle PV system: Monthly irradiation fixed-angle:

Monthly in-plane irradiation for fixed-angle:

HOW MANY PANELS TO REACH TARGET?

Average month per terrace (Annual demand ÷ 12)

458

Using a standard residential monocrystalline PV panel: 1m

5.6

kWp

Peak PV power

!

demand. This would be a more beneficial comparison used PHPP which gives a monthly energy Monthlyhaving PV energy and solar irradiation demand, to analyse against the PV output per month.

kWh/yr/m2

kWh/yr/m2

Option 2: Loft conversion

e

-

NET ZERO

En

E ne r

e

En

5538

=

=



g

~14

kWh/year

-

31.1

2 kWh/yr/m kWh/yr/m2 PVGIS ©European Union, 2001-2024.

=

r

NET ZERO

CONCLUSION:

kWh/year Annual per is authorised, Energy produced Reproduction provided the source is acknowledged, 2disruption otherwise 2 data or information on this site may Annual It is our goal tosave minimise caused by technical errors.

However, some have been per where stated. m per m TFA created or structured in files or formats that are not error-free and we cannot guarantee that our service will not be interrupted2or otherwise affected by such problems. The Commission accepts no responsibility with regard to such problems incurred asm a result of using this site or any linked external sites.

The European Commission maintains this website to enhance public access to information about its initiatives and European Union policies in general. Our goal is to keep this information timely and accurate. If errors are brought to our attention, we will try to correct them. However, the Commission accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the information on this site.

Annual per Energy produced Annual per 2 m2 disruption caused by technical errors. per m2some TFA It is our goal to minimise However, data or information on this site may havem been created or structured in files or formats that are not error-free and we cannot guarantee that our service will not be interrupted or otherwise affected by such problems. The Commission accepts no responsibility with regard to such problems incurred as a result of using this site or any linked external sites.

~31

n

e

r

The European Commission maintains this website to enhance public access to information about its initiatives and European Union policies in general. Our goal is to keep this information timely and accurate. If errors are brought to our attention, we will try to correct them. However, the Commission accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the information on this site.

For more information, please visit https://ec.europa.eu/info/legal-notice_en

~5,500



E ne r

-

16.8

400W

Monthly PV energy and solar irradiation

~2500

=

e

a

-

2966

X 14 panels

Month E_m H(i)_m SD_m January 202.7 43.3 33.3 E_m: Average monthly electricity production from the defined system [kWh]. E_m: Average monthly electricity production from the defined system [kWh].

Average monthly sum of global irradiation per square meter received by the modules February 277.2 59.8 59.5 H(i)_m: Average monthly sum of global irradiation per square meter received byH(i)_m: the modules of the given system [kWh/m²]. of the given system [kWh/m²].

March 469.1 102.3 78.5 a outpu ill need still neede dem nd ual to year-to-year t SD_m: Standard deviation of the monthly electricity production due to year-to-year variation [kWh]. y st e SD_m: rStandard deviation of the monthly production variation April 140.1 gy d rg [kWh]. d gy electricity620.8 nndue76.7 May 674.5 154.8 77.8 June 685.2 159.8 68.8 JulykWh/yr 692.0 163.4 68.0 kWh/year kWh/year Panels can be arranged in multiple ways.

Annual per 616.3 143.8 64.5 August kWh/year Energy Energy produced terrace 520.6 119.0 47.9 September Energy October 362.7 80.5 45.5 November 239.2 51.8 37.9 outpu emand 177.9 38.2 ual36.6 still neede still neede d December t y n y g gy d d

En

~31

PV

~5,500

E_m H(i)_m SD_m 108.6 43.3 17.9 148.5 59.8 31.9 251.3 102.3al ou 42.1 t pu t u n 332.6 140.1 41.1 n 361.4 154.8 41.7 367.1 159.8 36.9 370.7 163.4 36.4 kWh/year 330.2 Energy 143.8 produced 34.6 278.9 119.0 25.6 194.3 80.5 24.4 128.1 51.8 o 20.3 utpu ual 19.6 t 95.3 38.2 n n

PV a

E ne r

Month January February March a dem nd April gy May June JulykWh/yr Annual per August terrace September October November a dem nd December gy

2m

Option 1: No loft conversion

LIMITATION PHVP only calculates an annual

E ne r

A standard 3kWp solar system wouldn’t meet the highest energy demands, even during summer.

To cover annual energy needs, a 5.6kWp system would be required. However, since solar panels generate more energy in summer when demand is lower and less in winter when heating demand rises, this system alone cannot make the house self-sufficient. Connecting to the grid is therefore essential, allowing excess energy to be sold and stored. Cashback can be made on this surplus with schemes like the Smart Export Guarantee, which will reduce the home's energy production (Varela, 2024).

DIFFERENCE IN AZIMUTH:

Monthly energy output:

CONSIDERATIONS The addition of PVs often require a structural report. If the system size exceeds 3.68kWp, it is also necessary to send an application to the District Network Operator (Spirit Energy, no date).

However, as these are new-build homes, the PV system can be integrated into the planning proposal.

5.6

Peak PV Provided Simulation outputs Slope = inputs: 30° Outline of horizon at power chosen location:

En

• South-facing roof, due south.

• 30° roof tilt. Although this angle has already been specified without considering PVs, this is apparently the best angle for overall performance (Energy Saving Trust, no date).

• Grid-connected.

Solar panel efficiency = 20% standard (residential).

Standard efficiency will increase in the future.

Currently higher efficiencies are much more expensive (Vourvoulias, 2024), but use less space.

TEST 2

3.0

a

Using the PV GIS online tool on europa.eu (European Commission, 2022)

TEST 1

PV

PV STUDY (PER TERRACE)

ventilation & daylighting. of grid-connected PV Performance of grid-connected Performance PV

a

Though the daylighting study requires more skylights in the sunspace, the energy demand has been calculated without this change. Therefore this PV comparison has been done using the previous design and the resultant space demand calculated with PHPP electrical loads (as seen on previous page).

on south-facing roof ! •• PVs Skylights for natural

PV

services C

TRADE OFF between:



Report generated on 2024/11/06

For more information, please visit https://ec.europa.eu/info/legal-notice_en

91





Target achieved

PVGIS ©European Union, 2001-2024.

provided the source is acknowledged, TheReproduction amount isofauthorised, solar panels required for save where otherwise stated. meeting the target can easily fit on the southReport generated on 2024/11/06 facing roof. Additional design work and consulting with solar panel providers can ensure the panels will work aesthetically.

OVERHEATING internal environment G With climate change, summers are going to get hotter with more frequent heatwaves. As these homes are built to be long-lasting, it must prevent overheating. Passive strategies have been prioritised, followed by testing to see whether future mechanical cooling will be required.

LOFT - potential overheating

• Due to the natual stratification of heat, the loft is likely to get hot, particularly with a highl insulated and airtight building.

• This should be minimised by automatic louvres/ vents and night-time cooling....

Internal temperatures should not exceed 25 °C for >5% of annual habitable hours and 28 °C for less than 1% of the hours.” (CIBSE, 2012)

THERMAL MASS & NIGHT-TIME COOLING

• Harnessing thermal mass of the strocks and earthen floor to keep temperatures cool in the daytime. As heat is radiated back out at night, this must be used in conjunction with night-time cooling otherwise overheating will occur.

• Thermal mass means you don't get peaks in the day because the building absorbs the heat (Plesner and Freshwater, 2023).

• The skylights have been positioned at th highest points in rooms to allow for nighttime cooling. This can happen automatically, which is particularly important in the sunspace and stairwell - as non-bedroom spaces people might forget to open them.

SOLAR SHADING AND SHUTTERS

• Adding shutters/blinds on the outside of the sunspace to minimise overheating. This can be operated both manually and automatic (for example via temperature sensing) to prevent unwanted solar gains. Most important in the summer months between 12-4pm (Yannas, 1994).

• In a heatwave, keeping the windows shut in the daytime, particularly with shutters or curtains, will minimise unwanted heat gain.

• The roof glazing in the sunspace needs to be at least double-glazed, or with single glazing blinds or shutters are needed for night insulation, at least 1m2K/W (Yannas, 1994). This also stops the heat from escaping in the winter.

EXTERIOR PLANTING & FINISHES

Decidious planting - runner beans and vines (drop leaves at the right time) will be used to provide extra shading.

Natural ventilation & cooling enhanced by southerly winds.

To cool the building down, vents and windows near the bottom intake air and vents and windows

With the strocks providing thermal mass, it keeps the building cool.

SUNSPACE

• Partially insulated & non-glazing roof, to minimise overheating.

• Combined shading via roof & balconies, heat storage via thermal mass and vents at the top and the bottom are essential to reduce overheating (Yannas, 1994).

• Direct gain through roof of sunspace to thermal mass of feature wall. Heat is purged through night-time cooling.

(Keeffe, G. and McHugh, I., 2014, as cited in Borer, 2023) 92

NATURAL COOLING internal environment G NATURAL COOLING Due to the stratification of heat, most of the skylights particularly those in the sunspace have been placed at the highest ceiling points, most useful for passive ventilation.

Using an intelligent system of skylights that open automatically (& securely).

As well as night-time ventilation, cross-ventilation should be harnessed. It is easier on the ground floor as the open-plan living space is open to both facades. However this becomes more difficult at the higher levels. This will be tested in OPTIVENT.

2 2

Natural cooling via updraft airflow for northern european climates will usually be sufficient.

However this may change as climate change. As we shift towards a Mediterranean cliamte updraught cooling can still work at night therefore night-time cooling this will become more and more important (Borer, 2023).

3

Thermal mass means building will take longer to cooldown. An automated system will allow the building to cool down even when unoccupied.

2

1

Ground floor bathroom The bathroom on the ground floor has no windows, which is not ideal. It must have adequate mechanical ventilation to ensure mould growth etc doen't happen. Since the bathrooms are stacked above each other, stack ventilation could potentially be utilised here.

Natural ventilation & cooling enhanced by southerly winds.

1

To cool the building down, vents and windows near the bottom intake air and vents and windows

Updraught single-sided ventilation:

2

(CIBSE, 2005)

Cross ventilation:

(CIBSE, 2005)

93

With the strocks providing thermal mass, it keeps the building cool.

3

Stack ventilation: • Openings on opposite sides to enhance effectiveness.

• Enhanced via solar gain (Borer, 2023)

OPTIVENT SIMULATION

Total Total Cell 1:heat generated (kW) 175.55 Cell 1:heat generated (kW) 175.55 Ext. Surf.(W/m²·K): Transmittance (W/m²·K): 0.14 0.9 Ext. Surf.(W/m²·K): Transmittance (W/m²·K): 0.14 0.9 U-Value U-Value Cell 3.32 Cell 3.32 Total1:heat generated (kW) Total1:heat generated (kW) Ext. Surf. Transmittance (W/m²·K): 0.9 Ext. Surf. Transmittance (W/m²·K): 0.9 Roof Roof Cell 1: 3.32 Cell 1: 3.32 Roof Roof Surface Absorptance (0-1): 0.5 Surface Absorptance (0-1): 0.5 A Natural0.15 Ventilation Steady-State Tool U-Value (W/m²·K): (0-1): U-Value (W/m²·K):Calculation 0.15 Surface Absorptance 0.5 Surface Absorptance (0-1): 0.5 for the Early Design Stage of Buildings.

Ext. Surf.(W/m²·K): Transmittance (W/m²·K) 0.15 3.2 Ext. Surf.(W/m²·K): Transmittance (W/m²·K) 0.15 3.2 U-Value U-Value Ext. Surf. Transmittance (W/m²·K) 3.2 Ext. Surf. Transmittance (W/m²·K) 3.2

OPTIVENT 2.0

internal environment G, services A As a partial loft space, this is likely to be a room that might overheat due to the natural stratification of heat. As a bedroom and potentially a primary living space too, it is important that temperatures remain comfortable. Therefore an investigation on OPTIVENT has been carried out to test whether the room could be naturally cooled in hot weather or a mechanical system is required.

CONSIDERATIONS Buoyancy rates represent the worst-case scenario (i.e. no wind). The space is considered to be thermally comfortable for a typical British summer (mean temperature of 25°), however the airflow rate achieved is not enough for cooling, though it is enough for fresh air.

Increased wind speed will achieve rates for cooling, though it then predicts a worse comfort condition as it reducing the operative temperature (a measure of human comfort) to below accepted standards (Designing Buildings, 2023).

The test assumes an indoor temperature of 24° and an outdoor of 22°. In reality this could look very different. Temperature differences are required for sufficient cooling - as we switch to a more Mediterranean climate with warmer nights night-cooling may become less possible to ensure comfortable sleeping temperatures of under 20°.

CONCLUSIONS: OPTIVENT calculates amount of airflow needed for natural cooling by calculating internal and solar heat gains (Vallejo et al., 2015). For this space, due to external shading devices, thermal mass & ventilation, in reality the amount required for natural cooling is likely to be less, and it may become possible for the space to be naturally cooled.

Yet, in order to future-proof the building, a mechanical cooling method should still be proposed to ensure the indoor environment remains comfortable when natural cooling becomes insufficient. This is important as heatwaves become more frequent.

Project Data:

Buoyancy driven Project Name:

TEST 0 - BASE TESTVersion: Buoyancy driven

Date: Worst-case scenario, mean Consultant: temperature of 30 degrees.

Natural ventilation strategy: Project Name driven Buoyancy Run 1 driven Buoyancy 2024-11-08 Consultant

Mean outdoor temperature = 25 °C Wind Speed = 1 m/s Location Data: Terrain data = urban Shading 20% Latitude (decimal degrees):

Cross ventilation

Building Data:

OPTIVENT 2.0

OPTIVENT 2.0

52 Cell - Floor area (m²): 15.75 Month: June - Volume 78.73 A Natural Ventilation Steady-State Calculation Tool forCell the Early(m³): Design A Natural Stage of Ventilation Buildings. Steady-State Calculation Tool for the Early Design Stage of Buildings.

The height between apertures Hour:creates an 12 Outdoor temperature (°C): 22 effective stacking effect asPrevailing it increases theoutdoor mean Indoor temperature (°C) 24 distance the warm air can rise. Therefore the temperature (°C): 25 To Ti (°C): 2 Project Data: thermally comfortable, Project Natural Data: ventilation strategy: Natural ventilation str space is considered Meteorological Wind Speed (m/s): 3 Buoyancy + Wind driven Buoyancy + Wind driven complying with ASHRAE 55-2013.

Project Name: Project Name Project Cross ventilation Name: Project Name Cross ventilation Terrain data: 4 Shading proportion Buoyancy + Wind driven Buoyancy + Wind driven Version: RunAzimuth: 3 Version: Run 3 Inlet (surface) S will likely be higher However the airflow rate required for cooling Date: 2024-11-08 Date: 2024-11-08 as the window is is higher than the achieved airflow rate, Consultant: Consultant Consultant: Consultant recessed and through suggesting the space cannot be sufficiently the use of external cooled without the use of a mechanical Apertures Data: Construction Data: Cell - Heat Gains: blinds keeping the system. Airflow rate is only slightly increased spaceAirflow cooler. withLocation wind as wind speeds are low.

Data: Building Data: Location Data: Building Data: Glazing: Number of people: 2 Effective Height occupant gains 10.23 degrees): Area Latitude (decimalheat degrees): 52 Cell(0-1): - Floor area 15.75(W/m²):Latitude (decimal 52 Solarhave Transmittance Factor 0.7 (m²): NOTE: The internal gains been Equipment 78.73 gains (W/m²): 5 (m²) Month: June Cell Volume (m³): Month: June calculated assuming the space is aProportion primary (%): Shading 20 Lighting gains 22 (W/m²): Hour: 10 Hour: 12 Outdoor temperature (°C): 12 living space as well as a bedroom (4 people).

Wall Total internal gains (W/m²): 25.23 1.8 Prevailing mean outdoor Indoor temperature (°C) 24 Prevailing mean outdoorInlet 1: Total Solar Gains (W/m²) Outlet 1: 1.8 temperature (°C): 33 To - Ti (°C): 0.5 2 temperature (°C): 33 Surface Absorptance (0-1): Cell 1: 175.55 Meteorological Wind Speed (m/s): 1 Meteorological Wind Speed (m/s): 1 U-Value (W/m²·K): 0.14 Total heat generated (kW) Terrain data: 4 Terrain data: 4 Ext. Surf. Transmittance (W/m²·K): 0.9 LIMITATION: LIMITATION: ASHRAE Inlet (surface) Azimuth: OPTIVENTSis used to quickly test Cell 1: Inlet (surface)3.16 Azimuth: S Roof different strategies and openings to test the feasibility Standard 55-2013 uses 80% and

! of natural ventilation (Vallejo et al., 2015). Not made

Surface Absorptance (0-1): 0.5 0.15 or for domestic U-Value setups,(W/m²·K): for example angles roofs Construction Data: Cell - Heat Gains: Ext. Surf.

(W/m²·K) 3.2 mezzanine levels, so Transmittance the room has been simplified.

Buoyancy + Wind driven

15.75 78.73 22 24 2

! 90% user acceptability limits.

To ensure good design, the Apertures Construction building shouldData: beData: aiming for 4 100% Glazing: Effective Height user acceptability limits. Airflow

Glazing: Number people: This means the results might lack someofaccuracy. occupant gains (W/m²): 20.45 Area Zn Rate Solar Transmittance Factor (0-1): 0.7 Solar Transmittance Factor (0-1): 0.7 Equipment gains (W/m²): 5 (m²) (m) (m³/s) Shading Proportion (%):Buoyancy driven 20 Shading Proportion (%): 20 Lighting gains (W/m²): 10 B B+W Wall Total internal gains (W/m²): 35.45 Wall Inlet 1: 1.8 1.5 0.53 0.67 Total Solar Gains (W/m²) Outlet 1: 1.8 2 0.53 0.67 INCREASING WIND INCREASING TEMPERATURES Surface Absorptance (0-1): 0.5 Surface Absorptance (0-1): 0.5 Cell 1: 175.55 U-Value (W/m²·K): 0.14 U-Value (W/m²·K): 0.14 Total heat generated (kW) Ext. Surf.=Transmittance (W/m²·K): 0.9 Ext. Surf.

Wind Speed 3 m/s Mean outdoor temperature = 33 °C Transmittance (W/m²·K): 0.9 Cell 1: 3.32 Roof Roof Cooling can be achieved in the base scenario by increasing the As temperatures increase the ability for natural cooling wind speedAbsorptance to 3m/s. This(0-1): however decreases the comfort level decreases, until at 33°C, Surface comfortAbsorptance conditions no longer comply Surface 0.5 (0-1): 0.5 by reducing the operative temperature a measure of human with ASHRAE 15-2013.

This is something to consider as our0.15 U-Value (W/m²·K): 0.15 U-Value (W/m²·K): comfort (Designing Buildings, 2023). Greater wind speeds summer temperatures increase to climate change.

Ext. Surf.

Transmittance (W/m²·K) 3.2 Ext. Surf.due Transmittance (W/m²·K) 3.2 will reduce the operative temperature to below acceptable standards.

Buoyancy driven

Zn - FloorRate Cell area (m²): (m) - Volume (m³/s) Cell (m³): B B+W (°C): Outdoor temperature 1.5 0.53 1.33 (°C) Indoor temperature 2 To - Ti 0.53 (°C): 1.33

Buoyancy driven

Cell - Heat Gains:

Apertures Data:

Number of people: 4 WORKING WITH THE SUNSPACE

Effective occupant gains (W/m²): 20.45 Area Equipment gains (W/m²): 5 (m²) ToLighting encourage wind flow from outside into the gains (W/m²): 10 sunspace and then the room,35.45 louvres Inlet will 1:be Total internal gains (W/m²): 1.8 proposed single-glazed facade, Total Solarwithin Gains the (W/m²) Outletwhich 1: 1.8 Cell 1: will open automatically (with175.55 user control) to Total heat generated encourage airflow (kW) and prevent the sunspace from Cell 1: 3.32

overheating.

Due to large amounts of thermal mass and lots of ventilation points at the highest point in the sunspace, the sunspace shouldn't overheat.

Therefore the inlet can be considered to be external, allowing for relative accuracy in using OPTIVENT.

SUMMARY OF DESIGN MEASURES applied that will reduce amount of required airflow for cooling: • increased shading via external blinds • recessed windows • thermal mass (working with ventilation)

See appendix for setup and calculations.

Buoyancy + Wind driven

94

Buoyancy + Wind driven

Heigh Zn (m) 1.5 2

INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND VENTILATION internal environment G POTENTIAL RISKS

• natural materials, no VOCs so no offgassing.

• little clothes drying inside - majority done in common house where ventilation system is constantly maintained • Preventing interstitial condensation in construction elements including minimised thermal bridging: • Maximising natural ventilation in summer

1m

2m

• Humans produce a lot of CO2 and moisture and bring in bacteria.

• Potential condensation in the winter months • High moisture levels in kitchens and N N N bathrooms from cooking and showering.

Open-plan kitchen can cause more issues.

• Without proper maintenance of envelope & systems, leaks will lead to building degradation.

0

1m

5m2m

0

1m

5m 2m

10m

5m

10m

10m

SU

SU

SU

Main parameters for ventilation: Winter = humidity and CO2 Summer = temperatur. Requires intensive ventilation / purge ventilation via windows giving a higher air change rate (Plesner and Freshwater, 2023).

SU

0

SU

Problems with moisture is one of the leading causes of building degredation, and proper ventilation can help mitigate this, therefore ventilation is also a major way to increase a buildings durability. I investigated this properly within my Research Paper.

DESIGN MEASURES TAKEN:

SU

"Continous renewal of indoor air essential for occupant health and the removal of moisture, odours and pollutants". (Yannas, 1994, p102)

Need to replace the air and remove the moisture.

BREATHABLE ENVELOPE:

• In the timber frame north wall and roof constructions, using the 5:1 vapour resistance rule, with a low resistivity sheathing on the outside with a high resistivity OSB3 on the inside, preventing interstitial condensation and damage to the timber.

NON-TOXIC MATERIALS

Natural non-toxic materials have been selected for construction within the construction as well as the finishes, removing any potential for offgassing from VOCs. These materials also help to regulate moisture levels and temperatures within the home creating a more comfortable environment.

N

0

TYPOLOGY 1

1m

2m

0

1m

2m 5m

5m

N

10m

10m

TYPOLOGY 2/3

SU

SU

SU

SU

SU

CH SU

CH

SU

SU

SU

Mechanical extracts are required in kitchens and bathrooms (HM Government, 2021), unless stack ventilation can be used. With the current plan, stack ventilation is difficult particularly for the kitchen as that area changes on floors above.

Therefore, mechanical ventilation is required to provide these extracts. This is discussed on the next pages.

SU

CH

MECHANICAL EXTRACTS

Utilising the wind to maximise natural ventilation and throughflow. Wind-rose of Barton-le-Clay, as seen earlier in the report.

95

MECHANICAL SERVICES services A

Each dwelling is required to have their own water-based heat pump. In colder months, to provide heating, it will further heat the water from the Network's hot water pipe to the required temperature. In summer it will remove the heat from within the building, adding it to the hot water pipe (E.ON ectogrid™, no date).

The heat energy form the District Network, combined with the buildings own heat pump, provides the buildings heating, either through underfloor heating or radiators. With a heat network, individual heat meters are required per dwelling to measure the energy used & work out costs.

Summer

to District Network

Electricity connected to the grid, from renewable sources only (e.g. solar)

WSHP

WSHP

Terraced house (1 or 2 dwellings)

Terraced house (1 or 2 dwellings)

N

EXAMPLE PLANT LOCATION & SERVICE RUNS Minimising distances and kinks in the MVHR system, providing fresh air in habitable spaces and extraction in areas with higher amounts of moisture and contaminants (i.e. kitchens and bathrooms). The system would be slightly different in a two-dwelling terrace.

0

1m

2m

0

1m

2m 5m

5m

10m

10m

Digital energy monitor connected to systems, making it a smart home and allowing residents to understand their home.

One on every floor.

MVHR

Move?

Providing ventilation An MVHR unit is required per dwelling to ensure an adequate supply of fresh air particularly in the winter months. A large part of moisture issues in homes come from inadequate use of services (SOURCE), for example improper working of ventilation systems. Having the MVHR system exposed for easy maintenance ensures that any issues can be quickly fixed, preventing potential moisture issues which can result in poor occupant health or degradation of the building fabric (something to be particularly careful with for exposed strocks). Furthermore it ensures finishes remain untouched increasing their longevity.

However aesthetically this is not such a nice option.

The MVHR units will remain exposed for maintenance reasons, whilst also not decreasing ceiling or window heights, or adding distance between floor levels.

N

SU

A 5th generation District Network can provide heating, cooling and domestic hot water (Helen Carlström, The Fifth Generation of District Heating - ECTOGRID, EON, no date). This makes it durable and an excellent option to account for a future change in temperature, stopping excessive resource use by preventing a large system overhaul.

Electricity connected to the grid, from renewable sources only (e.g. wind)

SU

Providing heating, cooling & hot water

to District Network

Winter

SU

5TH GENERATION DISTRICT NETWORK:

HEATING/COOLING SYSTEM

SU

Currently the UK's temperate climate means we have a majority heating demand. however, with climate change cooling will become more common.

Though passive measures to prevent overheating have been utlised, the mechanical services should still consider the potential for mechanical cooling.

The heat energy from the District Network, boosted by each dwellings heat pump, provides heating through a network of underfloor pipes, which also provides high user comfort.

Unit is situated within a central location to minimise duct runs. It should however be closer to an external wall, keeping the intake and exhaust points as short as possible.

96

ACOUSTICS internal environments H

Reverberation time is still too low to be ideal.

This may be due to the calculation assuming for a rectangular room. However, reverberation times are less important for small furnished rooms - the most important factor is that it is not too high.

7.3m

9.6m

2.3m

ideal =

7.8m

The first test revealed the reverberation time is much lower than the ideal value. This is likely due to the floor surface absorbtion coefficient as a rammed earth wall finish. In reality it will be reflective, polished finish as it is finished with linseed oil. Substituting to a wood finish increases the result by 37%.

Adding in hard or reflective surfaces will help to sustain sound waves, increasing the reverberation time, for example if the kitchen counters are made from plywood. However soft furnishings such as armchairs and sofas will negate this effect.

Furthermore, it makes a difference what material is behind the finish. For example, having an airspace behind the finishing material can affect the sound coefficient considerably, for example 0.03 to

TEST 1

RT60

TEST 2

Reverberation time

Restaurant

Room Length L Width W Height H Floor area Volume V

m m 2.5 m 55.532 m2 138.83 m3

Length W 7.3+2.3 Length N 5.15+2.65 Length E 9.6 Length S

Data

A = Area m2 formulae

Areas

Description

Wall 1 Wall 2 Wall 3 Wall 4 Ceiling Floor People Other Other

West - clay plaster North - clay plaster East - strocks (rammed earth plaster) South - clay plaster (plaster walls) Breathaboard (plasterboard) Rammed earth number of

7.8

Volume V RT60

• RT 60 = reverberation time (s) •V • Sa

Formulae

Help Absorb.

Coeff 'a' Sabin Sa formulae

24.0 19.5 24.0 19.5 55.5 55.5 7.0

L*H W*H L*H W*H L*W L*W

0.09 0.09 0.25 0.09 0.04 0.25 0.35

2.16 1.76 6.00 1.76 2.22 13.88 2.45

A*'a' A*'a' A*'a' A*'a' A*'a' A*'a' A*'a' A*'a' A*'a'

55.532

L*W*H

Sa

30.22

Σ

0.30 0.161*V/Sa seconds

T

CONSIDERATIONS:

0.42

seconds

Increase in room volume = increase in reverberation time.

Reverberation time is important for sound quality.

With a too high reverberation time, the room is considered 'echoic', with a too low reverberation time, it can be considered 'acoustically dead' (Larson Davis, no date).

This study investigates the reverberation time of the main living space. It is dependent on the areas of exposed surfaces, their sound adsorption and the distances between them (Pat Borer, 2023). The ideal reverberation time for speech is 0.5-1.

t = reverberation time (s) r = 4 for speech V = volume of room (m3) For downstairs living area when stairs belong to another apartment above: r=4 ET V = 55.532 x 2.5 RG

2.65m

Natural finishes have a better sound absorption than man-made ones. Since the house only has natural finishes this has improved acoustics drastically. WIth an earthen floor finish, the result is low enough to be a recording studio. This makes the room versitile for many applications, which fits well with the brief.

t = r(0.0118√3V + 0.1070)

SU

SU

CONCLUSIONS

3

= volume of the room (m ) = total absorption of surfaces (m 2 sabins) = Σ (surface area x absorption coefficient)

es

t1

0.30

seconds RT60

This can't be right, as 'a' is a ratio between 0 & 1 Added materials Clayworks rammed earth?

(Clayworks, no date)

Clayworks clay plaster

(Clayworks, no date)

Sound Absorption Coefficient 'a' 0.2 for 7mm 0.25 for 10mm 0.09

97

Changing floor sound absorption coefficient from 0.25 to 0.1 (Rammed earth wall finish to wooden floor)

T

Requirements of good acoustics include: • Adequate levels of sound • Even distribution to all listeners • A suitable rate of decay (reverberation time) • Acceptable levels of background/external noise • Absence of echoes (McMullan, 2007)

Stephen and Bate formula:

~2% increase

t2

seconds RT60

TEST 3 Previous calculations have not considered windows.

Double-glazing has a reverberation time of 0.03 (Acoustic Traffic, no date),

es

0.41

~37% increase

T

Good acoustics is important within a home, improving our comfort, well-being and even productivity. It's important to block noise pollution from the external environment, as well as prevent echoes and aid communication within and around the home.

5.15m

TA

Acoustics has also been considered within the 1:10 details earlier in this report.

0.06 (Acoustic Traffic, no date). As bigger areas of material affect the result more, a change in wall build-up can have considerable effect.

CH

"The sounds and noises we experience within our homes are often overlooked, considered an incidental part of our everyday living environment."

(Fenton, 2023).

es

t3

0.42

seconds RT60

CONCLUSIONS The scope for this report was very large covering many scales, and therefore some points require further investigation, as the work has been spread across different scales. The Zero Waste Neighbourhood is an extensive proposal that realistically requires many years of investigation.

The targets set were very ambitious and extensive.

It has been hard to meet them all - quite often trade-offs are required which are highlighted throughout the report.

SYSTEM CHANGE & NEIGHBOURHOOD SCALE

SITE SCALE

VILLAGE HUB

ZERO-WASTE HOUSING

Proposing a Zero-Waste Neighbourhood is challenging, particularly within today's consumerdriven society. Achieving this vision requires substantial funding and some level of government intervention, which can make widespread implementation difficult. However, this scheme demonstrates the potential and adaptability of a zero-waste approach, using Barton-le-Clay as a case study. Community ownership emerges as a key strategy for decentralisation, fostering resilient and self-sufficient communities.

The neighbourhood strategies of a Village Hub centred around waste and a Zero-Waste Housing scheme have been applied site-specifically, with additional consideration to landscaping, allowing the site to mitigate against climate change. The spaces in between buildings are just as or even more important than the buildings themselves, which this scheme demonstrates. However by spreading to too many scales in this proposal, there are still some design and technical considerations to explore - seen in the conclusion for the Village Hub.

Due to the concentration of this report on the neighbourhood scale, site scale and housing, not as much attention was paid to the village hub.

Particularly important considerations that require further investigation include daylighting, natural ventilation and overheating.

Developing a scalable housing model with sitespecific elements—ensuring it isn’t a one-sizefits-all solution—has been relatively successful.

However, there are many challenges yet to be solved, and further investigation is needed to refine the approach.

To minimize waste and design for adaptability, daylighting has been one of the greatest challenges. Currently, the ground floor falls short of target daylight levels, requiring design adjustments. This will likely involve removing the feature wall to allow for additional glazing, though this would reduce the thermal mass. Quantifying thermal mass is a challenging task and has not been done in this report. Further investigation is needed to understand its impact on energy consumption.

On a positive note, testing has shown that with on-site energy generation and integration into a district heat network, energy consumption is well below targets, achieving ‘Net-Zero’ status. This milestone is a significant step toward a zero-waste housing model.

Another key conclusion is that one terrace cannot fit all situations. There should be different homes that cater to different needs, and this also prevents copy-paste housing. However it has been an interesting exploration to see what is possible.

98