Technical Investigation Report // Passivhaus Principles and Sustainability

Page 1

≥ 60 kW

/yr Technical Investigation Report

Is It Possible for a Building to Achieve True Net Zero Carbon Emissions without the Passivhaus Plus Implementation of Passivhaus Principles?

Laura Hastings S18101972 ARC6012

≥ 120

/yr

Passivhaus Premium


Laura Hastings S18101972

Technical Investigation ARC6012

School of Architecture & Design Birmingham City University 17th December 2020 3,297 Words


Contents

Individual Report Introduction

What is Passivhaus? Passivhaus Criteria Passivhaus Principles

Pages 4-5 Page 4 Page 5

What is Net Zero Carbon Emissions? RIBA & LETI 2030 Targets

Pages 6-7 Page 6

Case Study: WWF Living Planet Centre \\ Hopkins Architects Metrics & Comparison Embodied Carbon Could Passivhaus Increase Sustainability? Is Carbon Offsetting Sustainable?

Pages 8-13 Page 9 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11

Case Study: The Enterprise Centre // Architype Metrics & Comparisons Embodied Carbon ‘True’ Net Zero Carbon Discussion

Pages 14-17 Page 15 Page 15 Page 16

Case Study: Lark Rise // bere:architects Operational Carbon Embodied Carbon ‘True’ Net Zero Carbon Discussion . Conclusion

Pages 18-21 Page 19 Page 21 Page 21

References References Figures Images Bibliography

Page 3

Page 22 Page 23-27 Page 23 Page 24 Page 26 Page 26

Appendix

Group Presentation Peer Assessment

Pages 28-44 Pages 45-46


WWF Living Planet Centre, ©RichardStonehouse (n.d.)


Page 3 \\

Is It Possible for a Building to Achieve True Net Zero Carbon Emissions without the Implementation of Passivhaus Principles? Introduction The current climate emergency cannot be underestimated, we are in a crisis caused by human activity, with only 11 years to potentially avoid catastrophic climate change and reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 (Brown, L. 2019). Architecture and the built environment have a huge role to play in achieving the 2050 goal, with buildings responsible for 49% of current carbon emissions (LETI, 2020). Designing architecture to be net zero carbon will have a positive impact on our environment globally, but what is a net zero carbon building? The UK Government has defined a net zero carbon building to be that “where there are net zero emissions in operation.” (Williams, J. 2012) The Passivhaus standard on the other hand has been defined as “A voluntary energy performance standard that is designed to reduce the space heating and cooling requirement whilst maintaining thermal comfort and internal air quality. Passivhaus Standard is of German origin, although the Passivhaus brand is internationally recognized for its ability to deliver low-energy.” (Gorse, C. 2020)

This investigation has led on from a group exploration of six case study buildings with varying design implementations which deem them to be ‘sustainable’. A number of these case studies were designed to meet passivhaus criteria, whilst others were recognised as net zero carbon. Throughout the group investigation it became apparent that some buildings were more sustainable than others with many not meeting the future 2030 RIBA and LETI net zero carbon targets. In this respect, I endeavour to develop a further understanding regarding the extent that passivhaus certification has in achieving a ‘truly’ net zero carbon building and creating an exemplar for buildings with optimised sustainability.

This essay will explore the limitations associated with the current definition of Net Zero Carbon and extent to which Passivhaus has in achieving a ‘True’ Net Zero Carbon building, to generate more sustainable and energy efficient buildings. This essay will argue that a ‘true’ net zero carbon building should be defined as one which is operationally self-sufficient from renewable energy resources within the locality of the site of which the building sits; eradicating any dependence on fossil fuels or carbon offsetting as a means to achieve absolute carbon neutrality. It should be noted that embodied carbon and the environmental impact of materiality also has an influence. WWF Living Planet Centre, ©RichardStonehouse (n.d.)


// Page 4

What is Passivhaus? Passivhaus Criteria Passivhaus is a means of designing and constructing low energy architecture. Dr Wolfgang Feist is referred to as the “father of passivhaus,” following his research in physics, quantum mechanics and later architecture, he carried out research into low energy buildings, to quantify energy losses in buildings and reduce these losses as much as possible, all whilst maintaining a comfortable and stable internal environment. (Bere, J. 2017) Today, Passivhaus certification is given to buildings when they meet a range of specifications, shown on fig.2. The specifications provide quantitative targets to encourage design for low operational energy and carbon demand.

Renewable Energy Demand

The Passivhaus certification is categorised by: Classic, Plus and Premium (fig.1). Whilst the base specification of the Passivhaus classes remain the same, key differences in the targets for ‘Renewable Primary Energy Demand’ and ‘Renewable Energy Generation’ can be observed. When Looking specifically at ‘Renewable Primary Energy Demand’ the target for Passivhaus Classic is ≤60kWh/m2/yr, which decreased to ≤45kWh/ m2/yr for Passivhaus Plus and ≤30kWh/m2/yr for Passivhaus Premium (Passipedia, 2016). Passivhaus Classic certification does not require any renewable energy generation, Passivhaus Plus certification requires ≥60kWh/m2/yr and Passivhaus Premium requires ≥120kWh/m² /yr (Ibid.).

Renewable Energy Generation N/A

≤ 60 kWh/m2/yr

Passivhaus Classic

≥ 60 kWh/m2 /yr

≤ 45 kWh/m2/yr

Passivhaus Plus

≥ 120 kWh/m2 /yr

≤ 30 kWh/m2/yr

Passivhaus Premium

Figure 1, Diagram of Passivhaus Categories, Redrawn by the Author (Hastings, L. 2020), Original Source (Passipedia, 2016)

Passivhaus Classic 2

Passivhaus Plus 2

Passivhaus Premium 2

Primary Energy Demand

≤ 120 kWh/m /yr

≤ 120 kWh/m /yr

≤ 120 kWh/m /yr

Renewable Primary Energy Demand

≤ 60 kWh/m2/yr

≤ 45 kWh/m2/yr

≤ 30 kWh/m2/yr

N/A

≥ 60 kWh/m2 /yr

≥ 120 kWh/m2 /yr

Space Heating Demand

≤ 15 kWh/m2/ yr

≤ 15 kWh/m2/ yr

≤ 15 kWh/m2/ yr

Space Cooling Demand

≤ 15 kWh/m2/ yr

≤ 15 kWh/m2/ yr

≤ 15 kWh/m2/ yr

≤ 0.6 air changes/ hr @ n50

≤ 0.6 air changes/ hr @ n50

≤ 0.6 air changes/ hr @ n50

Renewable Energy Generation

Airtightness

Figure 2, Table of Passivhaus Critera by Various Categories, By the Author (Hastings, L. 2020) Complied Information from Sources; (Passipedia, 2016), (Passive House Institute, 2020)


Page 5 \\

Passivhaus Principles There are 5 key principles implemented into building design to ensure that it meets Passivhaus criteria, shown in fig.3. The first principle of Passivhaus design is airtightness, to ensure that the building meets the required ≤0.6 air changes/ hr @ n50 (Passive House Institute, 2020). Airtightness is critical in passivhaus design to ensure that heat loss and leaks are avoided to minimise impact on operational performance of a building. Before certification is awarded, buildings must go through rigorous airtightness testing whereby a known “steady-state is established,” to detect leakage through cracks. All airtightness testing in the UK is compliant with the Air Tightness Testing & Measurement Association (Passivhaus Trust, 2015). Thermal Insulation is a key principle in Passivhaus, the walls must not exceed a U-Value of 0.15W/(m²K) (Passipedia, 2016), to maintain thermal comfort whilst reducing the energy required to heat or cool a space. Passivhaus also minimises thermal bridging and where possible, limiting the amount of heat lost (Ibid.). Passivhaus design of windows and doors also maintain the airtightness seal and reduce heat loss. Windows are argon or krypton filled e-glazing with well-insulated frames and a U-Value below 0.80W/(m²K). (Ibid.) The final principle is a mechanical ventilation and heat recovery system; a building designed to passivhaus standard should endeavour to have at least 75% of the heat from exhaust air should be transferred into the cooler, fresher air. (Ibid.) The Passivhaus principles combined ensure that a constant internal environment and thermal comfort can be achieved passively.

EXHAUST AIR

IL ATIO N

FRESH AIR

S)

LE

NT

SS

VE

AI LT VO TO HO

G TI

A

L

NE

EL

AN CP

HT

MECH

P

AN

IC

IN

SU

L AT

IO N

AIR

AB EW

EN

R S(

MA

L

W

IN

DO

WS

THER

AU

S

AIR SUPPLY

AIR EXTRACTION

AV O

IDA

NCE

PA SSIV H

G

E

THERMAL B

HEAT EXCHANGER

Figure 3, Diagram of the 5 Passivhaus Principles, Redrawn by the Author (Hastings, L. 2020), Original Source (Bere, J. 2017)

RID


// Page 6

What is Net Zero Carbon Emissions? RIBA & LETI 2030 Targets LETI (London Energy Transformative Initiative) have published a range of targets for net zero carbon buildings to meet by 2050 (fig.4) . LETI themselves define net zero operational carbon to be a building which “does not burn fossil fuels, is 100% powered by renewable energy, and achieves a level of energy performance in-use in line with our national climate change targets.” (LETI, 2020) LETI has also published several quantitative targets and standards for net zero buildings before 2050. LETI has stated that energy use intensity should not be more than 35kWh/m2/yr (GIA) for residential; 65kWh/ m2/yr (GIA) for schools and 55kWh/m2 /yr (GIA) for commercial offices. LETI also identifies a target of space heating demand to be less than 15kWh/m2/yr, the same as is specified by passivhaus criteria. It is desired that all heating and hot water should be powered by renewable sources, this combined with the target for all energy not met by on-site renewables should be met by off-site renewable investment or 15-year PPA, this is after renewables on site are maximised. Regarding Embodied Carbon, LETI only states that it should be reduced and verified post-construction. (Ibid.) The RIBA have also outlined their own target metrics to meet net carbon zero by 2030. Here, they focus on embodied carbon and operational energy, as shown in fig.4. For embodied carbon the RIBA target for domestic buildings is <300kgCO2e/m2, and non-domestic buildings is <500kgCO2e/m2. Regarding operational energy, the domestic target is set at <0 to 35kWh/m2/y with non-domestic targeted at <0 to 55kWh/m2/y DEC A rating (RIBA, 2019). This suggests that the definitions and targets associated with net zero carbon differ, and begs the question ‘what is ‘true’ net zero carbon and to what extent is this possible without passivhaus principles?’

RIBA 2030 Targets (Domestic)

RIBA 2030 Targets (Non-Domestic)

LETI 2030 Targets (Small Scale Housing)

LETI 2030 Targets (Commercial)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

< 0 to 35 kWh/m2/yr

2 < 0 to 55 kWh/m /yr DEC A rating

≤ 35 kWh/m2/yr

< 55 kWh/m2/yr

N/A

N/A

100%

Maximise

Space Heating Demand

≤15 kWh/m2/yr

15-20 kWh/m2/yr

≤15 kWh/m2/yr

≤ 15 kWh/m2/ yr

Space Cooling Demand

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Airtightness

N/A

N/A

< 1 air changes/ hr @ n50

< 1 air changes/ hr @ n50

2 Walls: 0.13-0.15 W/m K,

2 Walls: 0.13-0.15 W/m K,

Primary Energy Demand Renewable Primary Energy Demand Renewable Energy Generation

Wall/ Roof/ Floor U-Values

N/A

2

N/A

Floor: 0.08-0.10 W/m K, 2

Window U-Value Embodied Carbon

N/A

N/A 2

< 300 kgCO₂e/m

2

< 500 kgCO₂e/m

2

Floor: 0.10-0.12 W/m K, 2

Roof: 0.10-0.12W/m K

Roof: 0.10-0.12W/m K

≤0.8W/m2K

≤ 1W/m2K 2

< 500 kgCO₂e/m

2

< 600 kgCO₂e/m

Figure 4, Table of LETI & RIBA Net Zero Carbon 2030 Targets, By the Author (Hastings, L. 2020) Complied from sources (RIBA, 2019) & (LETI, 2020)


use y 2 yr rg /m / e h kW en

Low c a rb on ly pp su

Lo

w

Page 7 \\

ea

rs 5y

verif cation

nd nt a

me e r su

odied carbon

M Figure 5, Diagram of LETI Net Zero Carbon 2030 Targets, (LETI, 2020)

n b al a n ce

Em b

Ze r o c arb o

Net Zero Operational Carbon


WWF Living Planet Centre, ©RichardStonehouse (n.d.)


Page 9 \\

Case Study: WWF Living Planet Centre Hopkins Architects The WWF Living Planet Centre (LPC) was designed by Hopkins architects and constructed in 2013. Hopkins were briefed to design an environmentally friendly building that would become an inspirational exemplar of sustainable architecture. Designed as multifunctional building for both office and public educational spaces, the Living Planet Centre was designed to be a symbol of WWF’s global mission (WWF, 2020). The LPC is defined as a net zero carbon building and BREEAM ‘Outstanding’ (WWF, 2020) but does not meet passivhaus standards. For that reason, it can only be compared against the RIBA and LETI 2030 zero carbon targets which, as shown in fig.6, it fails to meet. Despite this, the building has been designed to optimise passive lighting, ventilation and thermal comfort strategies using louvres, optimised daylight positioning on site, exhaust wind cowls, earth ducts and a ground source heat pump which are diagrammed on fig.11.

WWF Living Planet Centre

RIBA 2030 Targets (Non-Domestic)

Embodied Carbon

1082 kgCO2e/m2

< 500 kgCO₂e/m2

< 600 kgCO₂e/m2

Operational Carbon

538 kgCO2e/m2

N/A

N/A

Energy Use Intensity

74.9 kWh/m2/yr

< 0 to 55 kWh/m2/yr DEC A rating

< 55 kWh/m2/yr

Whole Life Carbon

1620 kgCO2e/m2

N/A

N/A

65.17 kWh/m2/year

N/A

N/A

9.7 kWh/m2/year (13%)

N/A

N/A

Predicted Fossil Fuel Consumption Predicted Renewable Energy Generation

LETI 2030 Targets (Commercial)

Figure 6, Comparison Table for WWF LPC against RIBA & LETI 2030 Targets, (Hastings, L. 2020) Information collated from various sources: (LETI, 2020), (RIBA, 2019), (Gerrard, J. 2015), (WWF, 2014)

Embodied Carbon Embodied Carbon Material Elements Analysis Ready mix concrete (50% Recyled Content)

Steel

Glass

Wood (CLT and Glulam)

1500

1250

t CO2e

Embodied carbon is a consideration when evaluating net zero carbon. The WWF LPC has a very high embodied carbon figure of 1082 kgCO2e/ m2 derived from the steel roof supports and 2500 tonnes worth of concrete used in its construction (WWF, 2020). We can see from fig.6 that this figure does not meet either RIBA or LETI 2030 standards. It could be argued that the use of concrete was unnecessary and more sustainable, alternative materials could have been sourced. Fig.7 depicts the halving of embodied carbon if alternative, timber-based materials were used.

1000

750

500

250

0 WWF UK Living Planet Centre

WWF LPC Alternative Materials Analysis

Figure 7, Embodied Carbon Material Analysis, LCA Software (Hastings, L & Etneryte, U. 2020)


// Page 10

Could Passivhaus Principles Increase Sustainability? It could be argued that the carbon emissions of the WWF LPC would be reduced if passivhaus principles were incorporated into its design. Unfortunately, if passivhaus principles had been considered, the outcome proposal may have been very different. The perimeter of the LPC is entirely glazed (fig.8), resulting in no real external wall; causing issues when considering the passivhaus principles in minimising thermal bridging, airtightness, the ability to insulate and the use of passivhaus specified windows. Windows, particularly in passivhaus design, prove problematic in achieving an “energy balance” within the building (Corner, D., et al. 2018).

Ground Floor 0m

5m

Glazed Perimeter

Figure 8, Ground Floor Plan of WWF LPC edited to show Glazed Perimeter, (Hastings, L. 2020), Original Floorplan ©HopkinsArchitects

A means of calculating the heat transfer because of glazing is through R-Values, “A measure of a material’s resistance to heat transfer. It is calculated by dividing the thickness of the material by its *thermal conductivity. The thicker the material, the greater the thermal resistance. The lower the thermal conductivity of a material, the greater the thermal resistance.” (Gorse, C. 2020) Fig.9 explores how the overall R-Value is affected by the performance of the wall in comparison to glazing area showing a general trend of decreasing thermal resistance as glazing area to wall ratio increases. From this, we can deduce that the thermal resistance of the curtain walls used in the design of the LPC could be drastically improved to reduce heat loss and reduce operational energy usage.

Figure 9, Comparison Table showing Decrease in Thermal Resistance as Window Area Increases, (Corner, D. et al, 2018)


Page 11 \\

Is Carbon Offsetting Sustainable? For the WWF LPC to be defined as net zero carbon, a great deal of emissions are carbon offset using the gold standard, established in 2003 by WWF themselves (Gold Standard, 2003). Carbon offsetting is defined as “a carbon credit, sometimes called a carbon offset, represents the certified reduction or removal of one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) from the atmosphere. It’s equivalent to the average monthly carbon footprint of someone living in Europe.” (Gold Standard, n.d.) Carbon offsetting is a means of achieving carbon neutrality when the carbon consumption is not matched by use of renewable and sustainable means (fig.10). In the context of the LPC, only 13% of its energy demand is met by renewable energy generation from its photovoltaic panels (WWF, 2014). The Gold Standard organisation themselves acknowledges that carbon offsetting alone is not enough to combat the emerging climate emergency, and alone does not encourage individuals to reduce emissions and change their environmental habits. Note that only 80% of the cost of carbon credits goes to active investment programmes, with 20% covering administration fees (Gold Standard, 2020). Lovell, H. et al. (2009) discuss limitations associated with carbon offsetting; it is a largely unregulated industry, meaning that value and the investment into decarbonisation differs greatly dependent on the company. This is accompanied by the lack of tangible object in return for a purchase of carbon credits. Thus giving rise for the argument that in many ways, carbon offsetting is largely fictional, and may only have a limited impact on the carbon emissions of a building, as the responsibility falls on a 3rd party organisation to actively optimise investment, which cannot be guaranteed due to a lack of standardisation. Therefore, it is difficult to support the investment into carbon offsetting as a means of producing a ‘true’ net zero carbon building, as it is possible to design with carbon neutrality in mind and be dependable only from on-site renewables.

EXCESS CARBON EMISSIONS

INVESTMENT INTO DECARBONISATION

CARBON OFFSET SCALES Figure 10, Carbon Offset Scales, By the Author (Hastings, L. 2020)


te

1:

gy

10

1:1

0S

00

ca

le

S ca

le

Foundations

// Page 12

Louvres P

e a ssiv

Lig

ht

S ing

t ra

R a in w a t e r H

Figure 11, Sectional Drawing of WWF Living Planet Centre, (Hastings, L & Etneryte, U. 2020)

a r ve

st i n

y gS

e st

m


Page 13 \\

Lighting Strategies

Ground Source Heat Pump

Ventilation Strategies

Earth Ducts

Thermal Comfort

Water Management

Sustainable Timber (Circular Economy)

Steel Connector

e ta

Ground S

ce our

0S

Stale Air

10

Stale Air

l

E x h a u st W

C ind

ow

1

:5

t

Glulam Beam

1:

a He

0S

pD

Pu

m

Ground Heat

cale

il

Ground Heat

cal e

Ground Heat

s

Ground Heat

Fluid Filled Pipes

Renewable Energy

in Bea m Jo

ts


The Enterprise Centre, ©DennisGilbert (n.d.)


Page 15 \\

Case Study: The Enterprise Centre Architype Architects The Enterprise Centre (TEC) located on the University of East Anglia Campus, was designed by Architype Architects, and constructed in 2015. It is Passivhaus Classic certified, rated BREEAM ‘Outstanding’, and defined as net zero carbon (Passivhaus Trust, 2018). Fig.12 shows the metric comparison for The Enterprise Centre between the Passivhaus Classic specifications and net zero carbon 2030 LETI and RIBA targets. Primary Primary Energy Energy Demand Demand Renewable Renewable Primary Primary Energy Energy Demand Demand

The Enterprise The Enterprise Centre Centre

Passivhaus Passivhaus Classic Classic

Passivhaus Passivhaus PlusPlus

Passivhaus Passivhaus Premium Premium

RIBARIBA 20302030 Targets Targets (Non-Domestic) (Non-Domestic)

LETILETI 20302030 Targets Targets (Commercial) (Commercial)

2 111 kWh/m 111 kWh/m /yr 2/yr

2 /yr 2/yr ≤ 120≤ 120 kWh/m kWh/m

2 ≤ 120≤ 120 kWh/m kWh/m /yr 2/yr

2 ≤ 120≤ 120 kWh/m kWh/m /yr 2/yr

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

2 ≤ 30 kWh/m ≤ 30 kWh/m /yr 2/yr

2 2 < 0 to<55 0 to kWh/m 55 kWh/m /yr DEC /yr DEC A rating A rating

2 < 55 kWh/m < 55 kWh/m /yr 2/yr

N/A N/A

Maximise Maximise

2 /yr 2/yr ≤ 60 kWh/m ≤ 60 kWh/m

2 N/A (≤ 60 N/A (≤ 60 kWh/m kWh/m /yr) 2/yr)

Renewable Renewable Energy Energy Generation Generation

44MWh/yr 44MWh/yr (31.9%) (31.9%)

N/A N/A

2 ≤ 45 kWh/m ≤ 45 kWh/m /yr 2/yr

2

2

2

2

≥ 60 kWh/m ≥ 60 kWh/m /yr /yr

2/

2/

≥ 120≥kWh/m 120 kWh/m yr yr

Space Space Heating Heating Demand Demand

11 kWh/m 11 kWh/m /yr /yr

≤ 15 kWh/m ≤ 15 kWh/m / yr / yr

≤ 15 kWh/m ≤ 15 kWh/m / yr / yr

≤ 15 kWh/m ≤ 15 kWh/m / yr / yr

15-2015-20 kWh/m kWh/m /yr /yr

2 ≤ 15 kWh/m ≤ 15 kWh/m / yr 2/ yr

Space Space Cooling Cooling Demand Demand

2 N/A (≤ N/A 15(≤ kWh/m 15 kWh/m / yr) 2/ yr)

2 / yr 2/ yr ≤ 15 kWh/m ≤ 15 kWh/m

2 ≤ 15 kWh/m ≤ 15 kWh/m / yr 2/ yr

2 ≤ 15 kWh/m ≤ 15 kWh/m / yr 2/ yr

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

2

Airtightness Airtightness Wall/Wall/ Roof/Roof/ FloorFloor U-Values U-Values

2

2

0.2 air 0.2changes/ air changes/ hr @ n50 hr @ n50

Embodied Embodied Carbon Carbon

2

2

2

≤ 0.6 ≤air 0.6changes/ air changes/ hr @ n50 hr @ n50 ≤ 0.6 ≤air 0.6changes/ air changes/ hr @ n50 hr @ n50 ≤ 0.6 ≤air 0.6changes/ air changes/ hr @ n50 hr @ n50

2

N/A N/A

< 1 air < 1changes/ air changes/ hr @ n50 hr @ n50 2 K, Floor: K, Floor: Walls: Walls: 0.13-0.15 0.13-0.15 W/m2W/m

2 2 2 Walls: Walls: 0.122W/m 0.122W/m K, Floor: K, Floor: 0.128W/m 0.128W/m K, 2K,

Window Window U-Value U-Value

2

2 < 0.15W/m < 0.15W/m K 2K

2 < 0.15W/m < 0.15W/m K 2K

2 < 0.15W/m < 0.15W/m K 2K

N/A N/A

2 0.8W/m 0.8W/m K 2K

2 ≤0.8W/m ≤0.8W/m K 2K

2 ≤0.8W/m ≤0.8W/m K 2K

2 ≤0.8W/m ≤0.8W/m K 2K

N/A N/A

2 ≤ 1W/m ≤ 1W/m K 2K

2 2 < 500<kgCO₂e/m 500 kgCO₂e/m

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

2 2 < 500<kgCO₂e/m 500 kgCO₂e/m

2 2 < 600<kgCO₂e/m 600 kgCO₂e/m

2 Roof:Roof: 0.132W/m 0.132W/m K 2K

2 0.10-0.12 0.10-0.12 W/m2W/m K, Roof: K, Roof: 0.10-0.102 0.12W/m 0.12W/m K 2K

Figure 12, Comparative Table for The Enterprise Centre against Passivhaus Criteria and RIBA & LETI 2030 Targets, (Hastings, L. 2020), Information compiled from (Anon, 2016), (CIBSE, 2015), (Passivhaus Trust, 2019), (Passivhaus Institute, 2020), (LETI, 2020) and (RIBA, 2019)

Embodied Carbon Regarding materiality TEC is an example of construction from sustainable, low carbon materials; using 70% bio-based materials and the incorporation of a unique “thatch cassette system,” (fig.13) which wraps around the building and acts as a carbon negative material through being a carbon store of photosynthesised carbon for 100 years (CIBSE, 2015). The primary structure of the building is largely timber, with a Glulam Structural frame. The thermal insulation within the building is recycled waste paper converted into a fibre insulation, known as ‘warmcell’ and offers an example for insulation that meets Passivhaus criteria whilst being sustainable and utilises materials that otherwise would have gone to waste (UEA, n.d.). The use of bio-based and sustainable materials means that its embodied carbon is incredibly low, at <500kgCO2e/ m2 (PMC Architects, 2020)

which meets both LETI and RIBA 2030 targets. Fig.14 explores the materiality

10

1

11 12

2 14

3 1

Anodised Aluminium Flashings and Sills

2

Straw Cassette External Cladding Panels

3

Spruce Ply Cassette Backing Panel

4

Bituminous Wall Sheathing Board

5

External Grade MDF Lining

6

Timber/Aluminium Triple Glazed Window

7

Timber Slats with Acoustic Lining

8

OSB Board, Taped for Airtightness

9

Insulated Timber Stud Frame

10

Spruce Ply Ventilated Roof Deck With Bitumen Membrane Roofing System

11

Timber Roof Sheathing Board

12

Insulated Timber I-Joists

13

Acoustic Plasterboard

14

Glulam Timber Frame

15

Linoleum on Recycled Rubber Isolation Matt

16

40mm Recycled Glass Flowing Foor Screed

17

Timber I-Joist

13

4

8 9

5 6

15 17

16

7

Figure 13, Enterprise Centre Thatch Cassette Sectional Detail (TRADA, 2016), Edited by the Author (Hastings, L. 2020)


// Page 16 used and evidences a range of Passivhaus principles that are incorporated into TEC’s design. The use of thermal insulation around the entirety of the building increases airtightness and

1.

10 11

2.

3

9

2

4

12

8 9 7 6

5

1

Triple glazed facade with natural anodised aluminium and timber composite. Recycled newspaper insulation (Warmcel).

3.

Photovoltaic Panels.

4.

External Cladding Panels.

5.

Primary Glulam frame and CLT lift shaft.

6.

Local straw in thatch cassettes.

7.

OSB with SIGA Airtightness tapes.

8.

Timber stud framing.

9.

Timber sheathing board.

10. Reed roofing. 11. Cellulose acoustic spray finish. 12. Wood wool acoustic ceiling tiles.

Figure 14, Labelled Materiality Section, Redrawn by Author (Hastings, L. 2020), Original Drawing (CIBSE, 2015), Original Section ©ArchitypeArchitects

therefore reduces heat loss; increasing energy efficiency and reducing the operational energy required to maintain a consistent , comfortable internal environment. Fig.15 details the passivhaus specified window; argon filled e-glazing with a timber frame to help to create an optimised ‘energy balance’, and its relationship to the insulation barrier and “thatch cassette,” wrap. The detail also shows how thermal bridging has been minimised, particularly in junctions where the floor connects to an external wall, through thick layers of insulation.

Airtightness Seal Passivhaus Triple e-Glazed Window Thatch Cassette Facade

Figure 15, Enterprise Centre Thatch Cassette Sectional Detail Showing Airtighness Integration and use of Passivhaus Windows (TRADA, 2016), Edited by the Author (Hastings, L. 2020)

Whilst TEC meets the Passivhaus Classic criteria which lowers its operational energy requirements and makes it less carbon sufficient, it can be argued that it is not truly net zero carbon as its onsite renewables, namely photovoltaic panels, only produce 31.9% of TEC’s energy demand (UKGBC, n.d.), with the excess demand being sourced from non-renewables. Therefore, despite TEC being incredible sustainable with a low embodied carbon and energy demand, its reliance on fossil fuels results in a non-self-sufficient building which cannot be deemed truly net zero carbon, due to its contribution to carbon emissions.


Page 17 \\

The Enterprise Centre, ©DennisGilbert (n.d.)


Lark Rise, ©TimCrocker, (n.d.)


Page 19 \\

Case Study: Lark Rise bere:architects Operational Carbon Lark Rise is a residential construction designed by bere:architects and constructed in 2015, before being Passivhaus Plus certified in 2015 (Passivhaus Trust, n.d.). As discussed, prior, Passivhaus Plus is a category of Passivhaus whereby the renewable energy generation must be ≥60kWh/m2/yr and the renewable energy demand must be ≤45kWh/m2/yr (Anon, 2016). In the case of Lark Rise, its renewable energy generation is 79kWh/m2/yr and its renewable energy demand is 79kWh/m2/yr (Passivhaus Trust, n.d.), therefore, operationally, Lark Rise may be deemed carbon negative due to its generation of twice the renewable energy than it requires; excess being provided to the national grid. Lark Rise is an example of how architecture could provide renewable ‘mini power stations’ that are not only self-sufficient but contribute towards energy demands elsewhere. The ability of Lark Rise to be able to generate so much renewable energy is because of 62m2 area of Photovoltaic panels (CIBSE, 2019) located on its roof as shown on the roof plan in fig.17. Fig.16 shows Lark Rise in comparison to the specifications of the different Passivhaus Class criteria.

Primary Energy Demand Renewable Primary Energy Demand Renewable Energy Generation Space Heating Demand Space Cooling Demand Airtightness

Lark Rise

RIBA 2030 Targets (Domestic)

LETI 2030 Targets (Small Scale Housing)

Passivhaus Classic

Passivhaus Plus

Passivhaus Premium

N/A

N/A

N/A

≤ 120 kWh/m2/yr

≤ 120 kWh/m2/yr

≤ 120 kWh/m2/yr

< 0 to 35 kWh/m2/yr

≤ 35 kWh/m2/yr

≤ 60 kWh/m2/yr

≤ 45 kWh/m2/yr

≤ 30 kWh/m2/yr

N/A

100%

N/A

37kWh/m2/yr 2

79kWh/m /yr

2

2

2

≤15 kWh/m /yr

≤15 kWh/m /yr

≤ 15 kWh/m2/ yr

N/A

N/A

0.41 ACH@50pascals

N/A

7.11 kWh/m /yr

< 1 air changes/ hr @ n50

2

≥ 120 kWh/m2 /yr

2

≥ 60 kWh/m /yr 2

≤ 15 kWh/m / yr

≤ 15 kWh/m / yr

≤ 15 kWh/m2/ yr

≤ 15 kWh/m2/ yr

≤ 15 kWh/m2/ yr

≤ 15 kWh/m2/ yr

0.6 air changes/ hr @ n5≤ 0.6 air changes/ hr @ n50 ≤ 0.6 air changes/ hr @ n50

Walls Below Ground: 0.118 W/m2K

Wall/ Roof/ Floor U-Values

Walls Above Ground: 0.107 W/m2K, Floor: 0.075 W/m2K, Roof: 0.074

N/A

Walls: 0.13-0.15 W/m2K, Floor: 0.08-0.10 W/m2K, Roof: 0.10-0.12W/m2K

< 0.15W/m2K

< 0.15W/m2K

< 0.15W/m2K

2

W/m K

Window U-Value

0.60 W/(m2K)

N/A

≤0.8W/m2K

≤0.8W/m2K

≤0.8W/m2K

≤0.8W/m2K

Embodied Carbon

383 kgCO₂e/m2

< 300 kgCO₂e/m2

< 500 kgCO₂e/m2

N/A

N/A

N/A

Figure 16, Comparative Table for Lark Rise against Passivhaus Criteria and RIBA & LETI 2030 Targets, (Hastings, L. 2020), Information compiled from, (Passivhaus Trust, n.d), (CIBSE, 2019), (Passivhaus Institute, 2020), (LETI, 2020) and (RIBA, 2019)

Photovoltaic Panels

Figure 17, Lark Rise Roof Plan Showing Placement of Photovoltaic Panels, Overlay by Author (Hastings, L. 2020), Original Roof Plan ©bere:architects


// Page 20 Lark Rise’s ability to be carbon negative, operationally is possible through the implementation of passivhaus principles which ensure the property is low energy and its efficiency is optimised. Airtightness is one of those principles; a passivhaus must be ≤ 0.6 air changes/ hr @ n50. For Lark Rise to achieve a metric of 0.41 air changes/ hr @ n50, airtightness membranes have been incorporated to control air flow and maximise heat retention through the introduction of a mechanical ventilation and heat recovery system. For a building to be airtight, membranes must wrap around the entirety of the building, fig.18 explores how bere:architects detail the location of their airtightness membrane. Thermal Insulation and the avoidance of thermal bridges are also evident in fig.18, both principles of passivhaus, designed to maintain a constant internal environment that does not require energy for regular heating or cooling.

Figure 18, Example of Passivhaus Airtightness Detail, Redrawn by Author (Hastings, L. 2020), Original Source Drawings (bere:architects, 2020)


Page 21 \\

Embodied Carbon A limitation to Lark Rise’s carbon neutrality, is its materiality and therefore its embodied carbon. Its design results in the lower half of the building being partially buried, the ground floor has been largely constructed from in-situ concrete retaining walls; the above ground first floor being above ground level, was instead constructed from timber panels. Concrete is a carbon intensive material that is unsustainable. A viable argument for the use of alternative materials arises and would drastically decrease the embodied carbon of the building overall if more sustainable, timber-based materials were used throughout. Fig.19 shows embodied carbon calculations and the contributions of various materials. It is evident that concrete is the largest embodied carbon contributor at 34.8% and provides an overall embodied carbon figure of 383.04kgCO2e/m² (Veale, J. 2020).

Lark Rise 1

HBA_Soil HBA_Insulation - Mineral Wool

HBA_Wood - Hardwood

Location: HP17 0XS Ayelsbury, UK

HBA_Wood - Glulam

Floor Area: 175 m²

HBA_Wood_Average

Type: NewBuild

HBA_Insulation - Expanded Polystyrene (EPS)

Sector: Education

HBA_Glass

HBA_Concrete - Cast In Situ 50% GGBS RC25/30

Total Embodied Carbon

Lark Rise

RIBA Workstage: One Date: 19.10.2020

67 ton CO₂e 383.04 kg CO₂e/m²

Total Embodied Carbon Average per m² of Floor Area

Embodied Carbon per Material 34.8%

13.4%

10.9%

0.9%

0.2% 0.9%

5.6%

18.5%

14.8%

System boundary: Life Cycle Stages A1-A5, B4, C1-C4 according to BS EN 15978. Embodied carbon does not include carbon sequestration(stored embodied carbon). Rev

Description

Date

Scale @ A3

Date

Job Number

Project

10/19/20

Project Number

Project Name

Drawn By

Checked By

Status

Enter address here

Author

Checker Purpose of Issue

Drawing

1:1

Drawing No.

H\B:ERT HB Carbon Emissions Reduction Toolkit

Rev

1

Lark Rise

Figure 19, H\B:ERT Embodied Carbon Calculations for Lark Rise, (Veale, J. 2020)

Fig.16 shows Lark Rise compared to LETI and RIBA 2030 targets. Whilst Lark Rise meets the 2030 LETI target for small scale housing, it does not meet the RIBA target for 2030 of <300kgCO2e/m2 (RIBA, 2019). From this analysis we can determine that the use of alternative materials would have minimised the embodied carbon of Lark Rise. In this respect, we can define Lark Rise as a ‘true’ net zero carbon building, despite limitations with embodied carbon due to use of concrete, its operationally carbon negative production of excess renewable energy acts to sustainably ‘offset’ any short comings in the materiality selection.


// Page 22

Conclusion Out of the three case studies, Lark Rise provides the closest example to a ‘true’ net zero carbon building which also provides renewable energy to the national grid, as a result of meeting ‘Passivhaus Plus’ criteria, its only limitation to being carbon negative is the volume of concrete used in its construction, which in turn increases its embodied carbon. The Enterprise Centre provides an exemplar regarding embodied carbon and the use of sustainable materials, however, cannot be deemed truly net zero carbon due to its reliance on fossil fuel energy resources. This could be easily rectified by the integration of increased on-site renewables, as its passivhaus design reduces operational energy demand. It is evident through researching the WWF Living Planet centre that buildings currently defined as being net zero carbon, without Passivhaus principles are not enough to be truly net zero carbon and in many cases do not meet the net zero carbon LETI and RIBA targets. It is also apparent that carbon offsetting as a means of achieving net zero carbon is unsustainable and does not encourage the active implementation of more sustainable design. It is important to note the limitations associated with this investigation; quantitative figures used throughout are from secondary sources, many of which are derived from calculations. Whilst they are useful and inform areas of strength or weakness in a ‘sustainable’ design, it must be acknowledged that the performance gap may result in slight variations of results, should these metrics have been measured through primary study. It should also be noted that some figures were not available for some case studies, making these aspects more difficult to compare holistically. In conclusion, the implementation of Passivhaus principles are incredibly important for a building to achieve ‘true’ net zero carbon; particularly when considering operational carbon. Whilst passivhaus provides low energy targets which help to reduce operational carbon, it does not provide specifications regarding embodied carbon. Whilst embodied carbon can be reduced, it will never be neutral or negative, therefore it is down to the encouragement of carbon negative operations to ensure a true offset of embodied carbon. Instead, the RIBA and LETI targets encourage the use of more sustainable materials and minimal embodied carbon. The class system encouraged improved sustainability and self-sufficiency of buildings through renewable energy generation. WWF Living Planet Centre The Enterprise Centre

Lark Rise

N/A

111 kWh/m2/yr

N/A

74.9 kWh/m2/yr

N/A (≤ 60 kWh/m2/yr)

37kWh/m2/yr

9.7 kWh/m2/year (13%)

44MWh/yr (31.9%)

79kWh/m2/yr

Space Heating Demand

N/A

11 kWh/m2/yr

7.11 kWh/m2/yr

Space Cooling Demand

N/A

N/A (≤ 15 kWh/m2/ yr)

≤ 15 kWh/m2/ yr

Airtightness

N/A

0.2 air changes/ hr @ n50

0.41 ACH@50pascals

Walls: 0.122W/m2K,

Walls Below Ground: 0.118 W/m2K Walls Above Ground:

Primary Energy Demand Renewable Primary Energy Demand Renewable Energy Generation

Wall/ Roof/ Floor U-Values

N/A

2

Floor: 0.128W/m K, Roof: 0.132W/m2K

Window U-Value Embodied Carbon

0.107 W/m2K, Floor: 0.075 W/m2K, Roof: 0.074 W/m2K

N/A

0.8W/m2K

0.60 W/(m2K)

1082 kgCO2e/m2

< 500 kgCO₂e/m2

383 kgCO₂e/m2

Figure 20, Comparative Table for Lark Rise, TEC and WWF LPC, Table Produced by Author (Hastings, L. 2020), Information compiled from, (Passivhaus Trust, n.d), (CIBSE, 2019), (WWF, 2014),


Page 23 \\

References BERE, J. (2017), An Introduction to Passive House, RIBA Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne. BERE:ARCHITECTS, (2012), Airtightness Report: Practical Guidance to Achieve Excellent Levels of Airtightness in Passivhaus Building Fabric, [Online PDF] Available at: https://www.bere.co.uk/press/airtightness- report-a-practical-guide/ [Last Accessed 8th December 2020] BROWN, L. (2019), Climate change: What is a climate emergency? BBC, [Article] Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/ news/newsbeat-47570654, [Last Accessed 23rd November 2020] CIBSE (2015), Case Study: The Enterprise Centre, CIBSE Journal, September 2015 [online] Available at: http://portfolio. cpl.co.uk/CIBSE/201509/uea-passivhaus/ [Last accessed 29th November 2020] CIBSE (2019), Case study: Lark Rise, the UK’s first Passivhaus Plus, [Online] Available at: https://www.cibsejournal. com/case-studies/case-study-lark-rise-the-uks-first-passivhaus-plus/ , [Last Accessed 4th December 2020] CORNER, D., FILLINGER, J.C. & KWOK, A.G. (2018), Passive house details: solutions for high performance design, 1st edn, Routledge, London, New York GERRARD, J., CLARKE, S., DUNCAN-BOSU, R., STURGIS, S. & BARTLETT, R. (2015), "The Living Planet Centre, Woking, UK: delivering sustainable design", Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Engineering sustainability, vol. 168, no. 2, pp. 82-92 GOLD STANDARD (2020), Climate+, [Online]https://www.goldstandard.org/take-action/reduce-your-footprint, [Last Accessed 27th November 2020] GOLD STANDARD, (n.d.), Gold Standard Offsetting Guide, [Online] Available at: https://www.goldstandard.org/sites/ default/files/documents/gold_standard_offsetting_guide.pdf [Last Accessed 20/11/2020] GORSE, C. (2020) A Dictionary of Construction, Surveying, and Civil Engineering, edited by Christopher Gorse, et al., Oxford University Press. LETI (2020), LETI Climate Emergency Design Guide [Ebook] PASSIPEDIA, (2016), The new Passive House Classes, Available at: https://passipedia.org/certification/passive_house_ categories [Online], [Last Accessed 20th November 2020] PASSIVE HOUSE INSTITUTE (2020), Passive House Requirements, [Online] Available at: https://passivehouse.com/02_ informations/02_passive-house-requirements/02_passive-house-requirements.htm, [Last Accessed 9th November 2020] PASSIVHAUS TRUST (2015), How to Build a Passivhaus: Rules of Thumb, [Ebook] PASSIVHAUS TRUST (2020), What is Passivhaus?, [Online] Available at: https://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/what_is_ passivhaus.php, [Last Accessed 23rd November 2020] PASSIVHAUS TRUST, (2018), The Enterprise Centre, [online] Available at: https://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/projects/ detail/?cId=87 [Last Accessed 29th November, 2020] PASSIVHAUS TRUST, (n.d.), Lark Rise certified Passivhaus Plus, [Online] Available at: https://www.passivhaustrust.org. uk/news/detail/?nId=739, [Last Accessed 20th November 2020] PMC ARCHITECTS, (2020), The Embodiment of Low Carbon, [Online] Available at: https://www.pmcarchitects.com/ sustainability-information-blog-content/the-embodiment-of-low-carbon , [Last Accessed 4th December 2020] RIBA (2019), RIBA 2030 Climate Challenge, [Online] Available at: https://www.architecture.com/-/media/files/Climate- action/RIBA-2030-Climate-Challenge.pdf, [Last Accessed 23rd November 2020] TRADA, (2016), The Enterprise Centre, University of East Anglia, [Ebook]


// Page 24 UEA (n.d.), The Enterprise Centre, [Online] Available At: https://sites.uea.ac.uk/documents/11713207/12700963/ TEC+about+the+building+sheet+2018.pdf/8aa5dcd5-fc85-9d3e-1a9d-46501e755307 [Last Accessed 29th November 2020] UKGBC, (n.d.) The Enterprise Centre, [Online] Available at: https://www.ukgbc.org/ukgbc-work/the-enterprise-centre/ [Last Accessed: 29th November 2020] VEALE, J. (2020), Lark Rise Embodied Carbon H\B:ERT Calculations WILLIAMS, J. (2012), Zero-carbon homes: a road-map, EarthScan, Abingdon, Oxon. WWF (2014), Living Planet Centre Building Information Case Study, [online] Available at: http://assets.wwf.org.uk/ downloads/breeam_case_study.pdf [Last Accessed 27th November 2020] WWF, (2020), The story of WWF-UK's living planet centre [online] Available at: http://assets.wwf.org.uk/custom/stories/ lpc/?_ga=2.71748627.1686414495.1606472561-283416247.1601286085 [Last Accessed 27th November 2020]

Figures Figure 1, Diagram of Passivhaus Categories, Redrawn by the Author (Hastings, L. 2020), Original Source: Passipedia, (2016), The new Passive House Classes, https://passipedia.org/certification/passive_ house_categories [Online], [Last Accessed 20th November 2020] Figure 2, Table of Passivhaus Criteria by Various Categories, By the Author (Hastings, L. 2020) Complied Information from Sources; PASSIPEDIA, (2016), The new Passive House Classes, Available at: https://passipedia.org/certification/ passive_house_categories [Online], [Last Accessed 20th November 2020] PASSIVE HOUSE INSTITUTE (2020), Passive House Requirements, [Online] Available at: https:// passivehouse.com/02_informations/02_passive-house-requirements/02_passive-house-requirements. htm, [Last Accessed 9th November 2020] Figure 3, Diagram of the 5 Passivhaus Principles, Redrawn by the Author (Hastings, L. 2020), Original Source BERE:ARCHITECTS, (2012), Airtightness Report: Practical Guidance to Achieve Excellent Levels of Airtightness in Passivhaus Building Fabric, [Online PDF] Available at: https://www.bere.co.uk/press/ airtightness-report-a-practical-guide/ [Last Accessed 8th December 2020] Figure 4, Table of LETI & RIBA Net Zero Carbon 2030 Targets, By the Author (Hastings, L. 2020) Complied from sources RIBA (2019), RIBA 2030 Climate Challenge, [Online] Available at: https://www.architecture.com/-/ media/files/Climate-action/RIBA-2030-Climate-Challenge.pdf, [Last Accessed 23rd November 2020] LETI (2020) LETI Climate Emergency Design Guide [Ebook] Figure 5, LETI, (2020) Diagram of LETI Net Zero Carbon 2030 Targets. Figure 6, Comparison Table for WWF LPC against RIBA & LETI 2030 Targets, (Hastings, L. 2020) Information collated from various sources: LETI (2020) LETI Climate Emergency Design Guide [Ebook] GERRARD, J., CLARKE, S., DUNCAN-BOSU, R., STURGIS, S. & BARTLETT, R. (2015), "The Living Planet Centre, Woking, UK: delivering sustainable design", Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Engineering sustainability, vol. 168, no. 2, pp. 82-92 RIBA (2019), RIBA 2030 Climate Challenge, [Online] Available at: https://www.architecture.com/-/ media/files/Climate-action/RIBA-2030-Climate-Challenge.pdf, [Last Accessed 23rd November 2020] WWF (2014), Living Planet Centre Building Information Case Study, [online] Available at: http://assets. wwf.org.uk/downloads/breeam_case_study.pdf [Last Accessed 27th November 2020] Figure 7, HASTINGS, L & ETNERYTE, U. (2020), Embodied Carbon Material Analysis, LCA Figure 8, Ground Floor Plan of WWF LPC edited to show Glazed Perimeter, (Hastings, L. 2020), Original Floorplan ©HopkinsArchitects Figure 9, CORNER, D. ET AL, (2018), Comparison Table showing Decrease in Thermal Resistance as Window Area Increases, Figure 10, Carbon Offset Scales, By the Author (Hastings, L. 2020)


Page 25 \\ Figure 11, HASTINGS, L & ETNERYTE, U. (2020), Sectional Drawing of WWF Living Planet Centre, Figure 12, Comparative Table for The Enterprise Centre against Passivhaus Criteria and RIBA & LETI 2030 Targets, (Hastings, L. 2020), Information compiled from CIBSE (2015), Case Study: The Enterprise Centre, CIBSE Journal, September 2015 [online] Available at: http://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/CIBSE/201509/uea-passivhaus/ [Last accessed 29th November 2020] LETI (2020) LETI Climate Emergency Design Guide [Ebook] PASSIPEDIA, (2016), The new Passive House Classes, Available at: https://passipedia.org/certification/ passive_house_categories [Online], [Last Accessed 20th November 2020] PASSIVE HOUSE INSTITUTE (2020), Passive House Requirements, [Online] Available at: https:// passivehouse.com/02_informations/02_passive-house-requirements/02_passive-house-requirements. htm, [Last Accessed 9th November 2020] PASSIVHAUS TRUST, (2018), The Enterprise Centre, [online] Available at: https://www.passivhaustrust. org.uk/projects/detail/?cId=87 [Last Accessed 29th November, 2020] RIBA (2019), RIBA 2030 Climate Challenge, [Online] Available at: https://www.architecture.com/-/ media/files/Climate-action/RIBA-2030-Climate-Challenge.pdf, [Last Accessed 23rd November 2020] Figure 13, TRADA, (2016), Enterprise Centre Thatch Cassette Sectional Detail, Edited by the Author (Hastings, L. 2020) Figure 14, Labelled Materiality Section, Redrawn by Author (Hastings, L. 2020), Original Drawing (CIBSE, 2015), Original Section ©ArchitypeArchitects Figure 15, TRADA, (2016), Enterprise Centre Thatch Cassette Sectional Detail Showing Airtighness Integration and use of Passivhaus Windows, Edited by the Author (Hastings, L. 2020) Figure 16, Comparative Table for Lark Rise against Passivhaus Criteria and RIBA & LETI 2030 Targets, (Hastings, L. 2020), Information compiled from, CIBSE (2019), Case study: Lark Rise, the UK’s first Passivhaus Plus, [Online] Available at: https://www. cibsejournal.com/case-studies/case-study-lark-rise-the-uks-first-passivhaus-plus/ , [Last Accessed 4th December 2020] LETI (2020) LETI Climate Emergency Design Guide [Ebook] PASSIPEDIA, (2016), The new Passive House Classes, Available at: https://passipedia.org/certification/ passive_house_categories [Online], [Last Accessed 20th November 2020] PASSIVE HOUSE INSTITUTE (2020), Passive House Requirements, [Online] Available at: https:// passivehouse.com/02_informations/02_passive-house-requirements/02_passive-house-requirements. htm, [Last Accessed 9th November 2020] PASSIVHAUS TRUST, (n.d.), Lark Rise certified Passivhaus Plus, [Online] Available at: https://www. passivhaustrust.org.uk/news/detail/?nId=739, [Last Accessed 20th November 2020] RIBA (2019), RIBA 2030 Climate Challenge, [Online] Available at: https://www.architecture.com/-/ media/files/Climate-action/RIBA-2030-Climate-Challenge.pdf, [Last Accessed 23rd November 2020] Figure 17, Lark Rise Roof Plan Showing Placement of Photovoltaic Panels, Overlay by Author (Hastings, L. 2020), Original Roof Plan ©bere:architects BERE:ARCHITECTS, (2012), Airtightness Report: Practical Guidance to Achieve Excellent Levels of Airtightness in Passivhaus Building Fabric, [Online PDF] Available at: https://www.bere. co.uk/press/ airtightness-report-a-practical-guide/ [Last Accessed 8th December 2020] Figure 18, Example of Passivhaus Airtightness Detail, Redrawn by Author (Hastings, L. 2020), Original Source Drawings (bere:architects, 2020) Figure 19, H\B:ERT Embodied Carbon Calculations for Lark Rise, (Veale, J. 2020) Figure 20, Comparative Table for Lark Rise, TEC and WWF LPC, Table Produced by Author (Hastings, L. 2020), Information compiled from, (Passivhaus Trust, n.d), (CIBSE, 2019), (WWF, 2014) CIBSE (2019), Case study: Lark Rise, the UK’s first Passivhaus Plus, [Online] Available at: https://www. cibsejournal.com/case-studies/case-study-lark-rise-the-uks-first-passivhaus-plus/ , [Last Accessed 4th December 2020] PASSIVHAUS TRUST, (n.d.), Lark Rise certified Passivhaus Plus, [Online] Available at: https://www. passivhaustrust.org.uk/news/detail/?nId=739, [Last Accessed 20th November 2020] PASSIVHAUS TRUST, (2018), The Enterprise Centre, [online] Available at: https://www.passivhaustrust. org.uk/projects/detail/?cId=87 [Last Accessed 29th November, 2020] GERRARD, J., CLARKE, S., DUNCAN-BOSU, R., STURGIS, S. & BARTLETT, R. (2015), “The Living Planet Centre, Woking, UK: delivering sustainable design”, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Engineering sustainability, vol. 168, no. 2, pp. 82-92


// Page 26

Images ©DennisGilbert, (n.d.), The Enterprise Centre, [Online] Available at: https://www.ribaj.com/buildings/the-enterprisecentre-university-of-east-anglia-norwich-architype-riba-awards-2017-east, [Last Accessed 8th December 2020] ©DennisGilbert, (n.d.), The Enterprise Centre, [Online] Available at: https://www.ribaj.com/buildings/the-enterprisecentre-university-of-east-anglia-norwich-architype-riba-awards-2017-east, [Last Accessed 8th December 2020] ©DennisGilbert, (n.d.), The Enterprise Centre, [Online] Available at: https://www.ribaj.com/buildings/the-enterprisecentre-university-of-east-anglia-norwich-architype-riba-awards-2017-east, [Last Accessed 8th December 2020] ©DennisGilbert, (n.d.), The Enterprise Centre, [Online] Available at: https://www.ribaj.com/buildings/the-enterprisecentre-university-of-east-anglia-norwich-architype-riba-awards-2017-east, [Last Accessed 8th December 2020] ©RichardStonehouse, (n.d.), WWF Living Planet Centre, [Online] Available at: http://www.richardstonehouse.co.uk/wwfuk-headquaters-woking-hopkins-architectural-photography-richard-stonehouse, [Last Accessed 8th December 2020] ©RichardStonehouse, (n.d.), WWF Living Planet Centre, [Online] Available at: http://www.richardstonehouse.co.uk/wwfuk-headquaters-woking-hopkins-architectural-photography-richard-stonehouse, [Last Accessed 8th December 2020] ©RichardStonehouse, (n.d.), WWF Living Planet Centre, [Online] Available at: http://www.richardstonehouse.co.uk/wwfuk-headquaters-woking-hopkins-architectural-photography-richard-stonehouse, [Last Accessed 8th December 2020] ©TimCrocker, (n.d.), Lark Rise, RIBA [Online] Available at: https://www.ribaj.com/buildings/regional-awards-2019south-bere-architects-house-lark-rise-aylesbury [Last Accessed 8th December 2020]

Bibliography ARCHITYPE (n.d), The Enterprise Centre, [Online] Available At: https://www.architype.co.uk/project/the-enterprise- centre-uea/ , [Last Accessed 15th November 2020] BERE, J. (2017), An Introduction to Passive House, RIBA Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne. BERE:ARCHITECTS, (2012), Airtightness Report: Practical Guidance to Achieve Excellent Levels of Airtightness in Passivhaus Building Fabric, [Online PDF] Available at: https://www.bere.co.uk/press/airtightness- report-a-practical-guide/ [Last Accessed 8th December 2020] BROWN, L. (2019), Climate change: What is a climate emergency? BBC, [Article] Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/ news/newsbeat-47570654, [Last Accessed 23rd November 2020] CIBSE (2015), Case Study: The Enterprise Centre, CIBSE Journal, September 2015 [online] Available at: http://portfolio. cpl.co.uk/CIBSE/201509/uea-passivhaus/ [Last accessed 29th November 2020] CIBSE (2019), Case study: Lark Rise, the UK’s first Passivhaus Plus, [Online] Available at: https://www.cibsejournal. com/case-studies/case-study-lark-rise-the-uks-first-passivhaus-plus/ , [Last Accessed 4th December 2020] CORNER, D., FILLINGER, J.C. & KWOK, A.G. (2018), Passive house details: solutions for high performance design, 1st edn, Routledge, London, New York GERRARD, J., CLARKE, S., DUNCAN-BOSU, R., STURGIS, S. & BARTLETT, R. (2015), "The Living Planet Centre, Woking, UK: delivering sustainable design", Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Engineering sustainability, vol. 168, no. 2, pp. 82-92 GOLD STANDARD (2020), Climate+, [Online]https://www.goldstandard.org/take-action/reduce-your-footprint, [Last Accessed 27th November 2020] GOLD STANDARD, (n.d.), Gold Standard Offsetting Guide, [Online] Available at: https://www.goldstandard.org/sites/ default/files/documents/gold_standard_offsetting_guide.pdf [Last Accessed 20/11/2020]


Page 27 \\ GORSE, C. (2020) A Dictionary of Construction, Surveying, and Civil Engineering, edited by Christopher Gorse, et al., Oxford University Press. HARTMAN, H. (2019), Revisit: Hopkins’ WWF Living Planet Centre six years on, [Online] Available at: https://www. architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/revisit-hopkins-wwf-living-planet-centre-six-years-on, [Last Accessed 20th November 2020] LETI (2020) LETI Climate Emergency Design Guide [Ebook] MITCHELL, R. & NATARAJAN, S. 2020, "UK Passivhaus and the energy performance gap", Energy and buildings, vol. 224, pp. 110240. PASSIPEDIA, (2016), The new Passive House Classes, Available at: https://passipedia.org/certification/passive_house_ categories [Online], [Last Accessed 20th November 2020] PASSIVE HOUSE INSTITUTE (2020), Passive House Requirements, [Online] Available at: https://passivehouse.com/02_ informations/02_passive-house-requirements/02_passive-house-requirements.htm, [Last Accessed 9th November 2020] PASSIVHAUS TRUST (2015), How to Build a Passivhaus: Rules of Thumb, [Ebook] PASSIVHAUS TRUST (2020), What is Passivhaus?, [Online] Available at: https://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/what_is_ passivhaus.php, [Last Accessed 23rd November 2020] PASSIVHAUS TRUST, (2018), The Enterprise Centre, [online] Available at: https://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/projects/ detail/?cId=87 [Last Accessed 29th November, 2020] PASSIVHAUS TRUST, (n.d.), Lark Rise certified Passivhaus Plus, [Online] Available at: https://www.passivhaustrust.org. uk/news/detail/?nId=739, [Last Accessed 20th November 2020] PMC ARCHITECTS, (2020), The Embodiment of Low Carbon, [Online] Available at: https://www.pmcarchitects.com/ sustainability-information-blog-content/the-embodiment-of-low-carbon , [Last Accessed 4th December 2020] RIBA (2019), RIBA 2030 Climate Challenge, [Online] Available at: https://www.architecture.com/-/media/files/Climate- action/RIBA-2030-Climate-Challenge.pdf, [Last Accessed 23rd November 2020] TRADA, (2016), The Enterprise Centre, University of East Anglia, [Ebook] UEA (n.d.), The Enterprise Centre, [Online] Available At: https://sites.uea.ac.uk/documents/11713207/12700963/ TEC+about+the+building+sheet+2018.pdf/8aa5dcd5-fc85-9d3e-1a9d-46501e755307 [Last Accessed 29th November 2020] UKGBC, (n.d.) The Enterprise Centre, [Online] Available at: https://www.ukgbc.org/ukgbc-work/the-enterprise-centre/ [Last Accessed: 29th November 2020] VEALE, J. (2020), Lark Rise Embodied Carbon H\B:ERT Calculations WILLIAMS, J. (2012), Zero-carbon homes: a road-map, EarthScan, Abingdon, Oxon. WWF (2014), Living Planet Centre Building Information Case Study, [online] Available at: http://assets.wwf.org.uk/ downloads/breeam_case_study.pdf [Last Accessed 27th November 2020] WWF, (2020), The story of WWF-UK's living planet centre [online] Available at: http://assets.wwf.org.uk/custom/stories/ lpc/?_ga=2.71748627.1686414495.1606472561-283416247.1601286085 [Last Accessed 27th November 2020] YOUNG, E. (2015), When Adapt Low Carbon asked Architype to design its Enterprise Centre, a bio-building was the obvious choice, RIBA Journal, Available at: https://www.ribaj.com/buildings/adapt-low-carbon- enterprise-centre-uea-architype , [Last Accessed 29th November 2020]


// Page 28

SUSTAINABILITY 6012 TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

• Ugne Etneryte • Laura Hastings • Josh Veale • Byron Gregory • Dominika Pipowska • Willem Rushton • • Paveena Sidhu • Ananya Jain • Humaira Ramzan • Lina Ahmed • Balpreet Singh • Keti Cota • Nathan Sunderland • Andrej Mesoncukov •

INTRODUCTION

BLOOMBERG BUILDING

WWF UK LIVING PLANET CENTRE

THE ENTERPRISE CENTRE

Architect | Foster & Partners Date | 2017 Location | London GIFA | 102,190m² Building Type | Office

Architect | Hopkins Architects Date | 2013 Location | Woking GIFA | 3,675 m2 Building Type | Office & Education

Architect | Architype Date | 2015 Location | Norwich GIFA | 3,400 m2 Building Type | Office & Education

CORK HOUSE

LARCH HOUSE

LARK RISE

Architect | Matthew Barnett Howland with Dido Milne and Oliver Wilton Date | 2019 Location | Berkshire GIFA | 44 m2 Building Type | Residential

Architect | Bere: Architects Date | 2010 Location | London GIFA | 99 m2 Building Type |Residential

Architect | Bere: Architects Date | 2017 Location | London GIFA | 175 m2 Building Type |Residential


BLOOMBERG LONDON Architect | Foster + Partners Date | October 2017 Location |London, Queen Victoria Street GIFA | 102,190m² Building Type | Office Building

SUSTAINABILITY MATRIX

Bloomberg L.P. is a privately owned company. The financial, software, data and media company has located its European headquarters in London, England’s capital city. Bloomberg London has been designed by Foster and Partners. The building has been well design with business and sustainability at the heart of design, Michael Bloomberg (company CEO) states “This building is designed to encourage cooperation and collaboration, and that’s what makes for a successful business”. The building itself is a office building which is an award winning building, winning the RIBA 2018 Stirling prize ‘people’s vote’. Bloomberg London has been awarded the one of the world’s highest BREEAM rating for an office buildings, which does not come as a surprise when you look at the ways in which the building uses innovative ideas in order to be more sustainable. The building scored and outstanding score on BREEAM with a score of 98.5%. The innovative ides in which this building uses includes: Integrated Ceiling Panels, Water Conservation, Natural Ventilation, Smart Airflow and Combined Heat & Power. To give an idea of how well these innovative ideas work the building actually provides a 73% saving in water consumption and a 35% saving in energy consumption and associated CO2 submissions when compared to other office buildings. Unfortunately this building isn’t perfect and there are question marks when it comes to this building being completely sustainable, the importation of 600 tonnes of bronze from Japan and granite from a quarry in India sound alarm bells.

Embodied Carbon

-Whole life carbon scored 2.5 out of 5. The building itself has issues when it comes to embodied carbon. Lots of the materials in the building have a high value of embodied carbon. Importation of 600 tonnes of bronze from Japan, granite from a quarry in India as well as all the sandstone and concrete. Fortunately operational carbon is low thanks to all the innovative solutions to boost sustainability. -Operational carbon scored 4 out of 5 which is a good score. This is thanks to the building reducing its carbon emissions through innovative ways of ventilation, heating, lighting, energy consumption, heating and cooling. The figure of 736,603 kgCO2eq/yr for operational carbon is a good score, this is helped by 500-750 metric tonnes of CO2 being saved each year thanks to the an on-site Combined Heat and Power (CHP) generation centre. -Embodied Carbon scored 1.5 out of 5 which is a big concern when looking at the sustainability of the building. Looking at materials used it is clear to see why is score has been awarded. Materials used during construction include the importation of 600 tonnes of bronze from Japan and granite from a quarry in India. In terms of the BREEAM score the building was given 62.15% when looking at if materials where responsibly sourced.

Whole Life Carbon

-Biophilic design scored 1 out of 5. This is due to limited biophilia being included in the design. However, a living wall and ‘Forgotten Streams’,which is a homage to the ancient Walbrook River.

Operational Carbon

-Circular economy scored 2.5 out of 5 as many of the materials used within the construction of Bloomberg can be reused with ease. For example the concrete can be reused but it is not easy. It requires the concrete to be broken down to provide new aggregate, the bronze fins would need to be melted down to be reused and the stone could be reused in new buildings. Bloomberg also has a zero landfill policy so materials used must be reused or recycled and turned into something new. -Fabric first scored 4 out of 5 which is a very respectable score. This was awarded as Bloomberg London as the building aimed to minimise the need for energy consumption through a means of different ways. The building itself works to reduce the need for energy saving technology, for example to use of LED lights rather than conventional office lights or the way that the building is designed with bronze fins that work to optimize natural ventilation.

Biophilic Design Circular Economy

-Innovation for sustainability scored 5 out of 5. This is the highest score you can get and this was given for good reason. The building is all about innovation in terms for being sustainable. Designed into the building is a number of key innovation including integrated Ceiling Panels which incorporates 500,000 LED lights which use 40% less energy than traditional office lighting, the panels also combine heating, cooling and acoustics. Water Conservation which uses rainwater from the roof, cooling tower blowoff water and grey water to serve vacuum flush toilets. The system saves 25 million litres of water each year. Natural ventilation uses bronze fins and smart airflow and combined heat & power uses a on site generation centre to supply heat and power in one system to reduce carbon emotions. Waste heat generated is recycled for heating and cooling and this system saves 500-750 tonnes of CO2 each year.

Fabric First Innovation for Sustainability

-Regenerative Health and Well Being scored 4 out of 5. This score was awarded due to the building using natural ventilation with the assistant of mechanical bronze fins which open and close to allow in fresh air, this also reduces dependency of mechanical ventilation and cooling equipment. A smart airflow system also senses CO2 levels to ensure that CO2 levels do not get to high as air can be distributed accordingly. This system is set to also save 600-750 MWhr of power per annum, reducing CO2 emissions by approximately 300 metric tonnes each year. This system allows occupants inside the building to breath clean air and give the location of the building this is very impressive. A score of 5 was not awarded as lots of concrete has been used which provides problems to health.

Regenerative Health and Well Being Waste Management

-Waste Management scored 5 out of 5 for many reasons. Firstly, ‘Bloomberg has been a zero-landfill operation in London since 2010; instead waste is recycled, composted or converted to energy’. To add to this figures regarding construction waste and recovery are very impressive, these figures include: construction waste 7.50 tonnes/100m2, construction waste diverted from landfill 80%/ 3,745 tonnes and demolition waste diverted from landfill 90%.

Water Management Holistic Sustainability

-Water Management scored 5 out of 5 as the building does a very good job at reducing the amount of fresh water used. As mentioned earlier the water conservation methods play a key roll in reducing the amount of water used. The total net figure for the amount of freshwater used is 9.01 m3/person/yr. The water demand that is met via greywater/ rainwater sources is 4.10 L/ person/day and the net use is 35.60 L/person/day.

36 55

-Holistic Sustainability scored 2.5 out of 5 as the building isn’t completely sustainable. The building is sustainable in regards to the methods used to reduce the effects of the building on global warming and climate change. The methods used and innovative and creative but they do not cover up the fact the embodied carbon for the building is high due to the amount of imported materials. However, the building does well in regards to waste and water management as well as regenerative health and well being.

FLOOR PLANS/SECTIONS/DETAIL/AXONOMETRIC

GROUND LEVEL

LEVEL 8

BRONZE FINS VENTILATION DETAIL

SECTION

SECTION

AXONOMETRIC DRAWING


CARBON ANALYSIS

SANDSTONE - 6095 TONNES OF CO2E

ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS This building is a very impressive building when it comes to innovation to improve the sustainability of the building. However, the actual materials used in the construction of the building has a lot to be desired as they are not the most sustainable and could be improved.


CARBON ANALYSIS- Swapping Concrete for CLT

Page 31 \\

Conclusion for changing out concrete: The main structural material of the building is concrete. Concrete structurally is successful but sustainability wise is unsuccessful as it has a high embodied carbon. Advancements in the timber industry allows materials like CLT to be use for the structural aspects of the building. CLT is much better for sustainability as there is less impact on the environment as the embodied carbon is lower.


WWF LIVING PLANET CENTRE Architect | Hopkins Architects Date | 2013 Location | Woking GIFA | 3675 m2 Building Type | Commercial

SUSTAINABILITY MATRIX

Operational Carbon. According to the LETI standards for Operational Carbon, the target should be <500 kgCO2e/m2, and the Living Planet Centre’s figure is 538 kgCO2e/m2.

Whole Life Carbon

Embodied Carbon. The Embodied Carbon does not meet the standards of <350 kgCO2e/m2 - Living Planet Centre’s Embodied Carbon reaches 1082 kgCO2e/m2.

Operational Carbon

The Living Planet Centre is the home of WWF-UK. It accommodates the headquarters for the charity and a visitor centre. Located within the town centre, the building sits alongside the Basingstoke Canal. The building sits on raised in-sitsu concrete podium, with the brief requiring that the existing public car park at the ground level be retained.

Embodied Carbon

The building houses an open-plan workplace for 300 staff, a conference venue, education support facilities and the WWF Experience exhibit. At ground level a new wetlands area was created to attracts dragonflies, beetles, etc., and it enhances the public to the canal.

Fabric First

The project aimed to create a building with minimal environmental impact, through smart design, materials and technology. The building is rated BREEAM Outstanding, with a score of 90%.There is a 42% reduction of embodied carbon throughout the whole life of the building. 98.5% of the materials were certified as responsibly sourced.

Whole Life Carbon. Comparing the Whole Life Carbon metrics of the Living Planet Centre, which is 1620 kgCO2e/m2, with the LETI 2030 target of <850 kgCO2e/m2, we can draw conclusions that the Living Planet Centre Whole Life Carbon is almost double the target.

Biophilic Design. Grant Associates were landscape architects on the project, briefed to increase the biodiversity and natural unity with the building. Whilst a range of planting of mature trees has improved the woodland around the site, the biophilic design has limitations, as it has not been woven into the building footprint itself, rather the landscape acts as a standalone sustainability feature. Circular Economy. Most of the timber used in the building can be recycled and reused at the end of the centres life, whereas the concrete that was used for the foundations and car park is not suitable for dismantlement.

Biophilic Design Circular Economy

Fabric First. The Living Planet centre has a good provision of passive strategies as a means of reducing energy consumption in operation. Great thought and detail has been taken to harness and optimise natural daylighting, passive ventilation and heating and cooling (thermal comfort) systems. Innovation for Sustainability. Even though the building uses various sustainable practices, such as the wind cowls, solar panels, and rainwater collection, but there is nothing innovative about them. The only innovation would be that the WWF reclaimed IT network equipment.

Innovation for Sustainability

Regenerative Health and Well Being. Within the building there is a lack of communication between the staff and the facilities management team regarding daylighting (blinds operate manually, which means that staff have to track down a person from the facilities management team and request that the blinds be closed) and ventilation (the facilities management have to open and close the double doors because the staff do not take initiative). There has also been complaints from the staff that in the winter it gets cold - no proper heating system.

Regenerative Health and Well Being Waste Management

Waste Management. They send 0% of the office waste to landfill and the 15% of waste that can not be recycled is sent to an energy-from-waste site where it is burned to create electricity and/or heat. Compost waste is sent for anaerobic digestion that can be used for fuel, what is left is used as fertiliser. Office waste is separated into compostables/recyclables/non-recyclables and monitored every month.

Water Management Holistic Sustainability

FLOOR PLANS/SECTIONS/ELEVATIONS

1:1000 Mezzanine Floor Plan

1:500 South East Elevation

1:1000 Ground Floor Plan

1:500 Section

37.5 55

Water Management. Rainwater is collected to a collection tank and excess rain will go to the wetland area as part of the sustainable urban drainage system, once that is full the water will flow to the Basingstoke Canal. Recycled ‘greywater’ from hand basins and showers passes through a filter and UV treatment unit before it is reused in the toilets. Holistic Sustainability, Whilst every attempt has been made to create a sustainable building, the heavy use of concrete as a major structural element and the compromise of the building above an existing car park, limits the building’s sustainability holistically, despite good levels of fabric first approach through environmental strategies that draw on passive heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting.


Page 33 \\

Lighting Strategies

Ground Source Heat Pump

Foundations

Ventilation Strategies

Earth Ducts

Thermal Comfort

Water Management

Sustainable Timber (Circular Economy)

Steel Connector

Ground Heat

s i ve

Lig

R a in w a t e r H

a r ve

Ground S

ce our

0S

0S

10

cal e

e ta pD

% Reduction in Embodied Carbon Using Alternative Materials

Glass

Wood (CLT and Glulam)

100 %

1500

80 %

% - t CO2e

1250

1000

750

60 %

460 kg CO2e/m2 40 %

500

218 kg CO2e/m2

20 %

250

E x h a u st W i

nd

Co

Bea m Jo

int

Project name

Report date

Building type

Sustainability LPC Case

23.10.2020

Office buildings

Study this, we were able to halve the embodied carbon of In doing Design name to 218 kgCO Assessor floor area the building e/m2. Whilst theGross Living Planet Centre 2 Living Planet Centre Base Laura Hastings 3675.0 m2 endeavours to be a sustainable building, from the analysis carried Location Contact details Organisation out we can identify thatlaura.hastings2@mail.bcu.a on a material basis, much more sustainable United Kingdom c.uk materials could have been chosen to and less carbon intensive significantly reduce the impact on the environment. Embodied carbon result summary Embodied carbon is defined as the carbon emissions from the manufacture, transportation, use and end-

Sustainability LPC Case Study, 23.10.2020 of-life of construction materials.

0 WWF UK Living Planet Centre

0%

WWF LPC Alternative Materials Analysis

WWF UK Living Planet Centre

WWF LPC Alternative Materials Analysis

460 kg

84 540 €

1 691 t

Kilograms of carbon dioxide

Social cost set at a rate of 50€/ton

Total carbon dioxide

Embodied Carbon Report CO2e/m2

social cost of carbon

CO2e

This reportper is created with One Click LCA Planetary - a free embodied carbon tool. It emissions calculates equivalent metre squared equivalent in cradle tons to gate (A1 - A3) embodied carbon impacts and materials efficiency for the 10 most carbon-intensive material categories. It is built on the world’s #1 life-cycle assessment platform, One Click LCA.

WWF UK Living Planet Centre

Which is roughly

Get free access at oneclicklca.com/planetary.

Embodied Carbon Element Analysis

Report date

Building type

Sustainability LPC Case

23.10.2020

Office buildings return flights from the UK

Design name

Assessor

Gross floor area

Living Planet Centre Material

Laura Hastings

3675.0 m2

Location

Contact details

Organisation

United Kingdom

laura.hastings2@mail.bcu.a c.uk

-

to Australia

Alternatives

800

equal to:

423

Project name Study

WWF LPC Alternative Materials Comparison

1000

3 382

trees planted to offset emissions

3.0 m

loads of laundry

254

Embodied carbon result summary

new cars

Embodied carbon is defined as the carbon emissions from the manufacture, transportation, use and end-

WWF LPC Alternative Materials Comparison Created with One Click LCA Planetary: oneclicklca.com/planetary

of-life of construction materials.

600

218 kg

39 971 €

799 t

Kilograms of carbon dioxide

Social cost set at a rate of 50€/ton

Total carbon dioxide

CO2e/m2

equivalent per metre squared

400

social cost of carbon

CO2e

equivalent emissions in tons

Which is roughly equal to:

200

return flights from the UK to Australia

200

1 599

trees planted to offset emissions

0

s1

The choice and selection of materials used in the construction and design of the WWF UK Living Planet Centre has been analysed based on their Embodied Carbon Content. By calculating estimates of key material volumes and masses, we were able to calculate Sustainability LPC Case Study, 23.10.2020 embodied carbon to be 460 kgCO2e/m2. The large volumes of concrete and use of steel in structural elements of the building Embodied Carbon Report contributed to this figure. We were then able to swap out the This reportthat is created with One Click LCA Planetary -intensive a free embodied carbon tool. It sustainable, calculates cradle to materials were most carbon for more gate (A1 - A3) embodied carbon impacts and materials efficiency for the 10 most carbon-intensive timberbased elements. For example, the concrete floor slabs, material categories. It is built on the world’s #1 life-cycle assessment platform, One Click LCA. columns and atsteel columns were substituted for more sustainable Get free access oneclicklca.com/planetary . alternatives such as CLT or Glulam.

WWF Living Planet Centre Embodied Carbon

t CO2e

t CO2e

Glulam Beam

wl

CARBON ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS

Embodied Carbon Material Elements Analysis Steel

Stale Air

Stale Air

t

1:

a He

CARBON ANALYSIS

Ready mix concrete (50% Recyled Content)

cale

il

m

Pu

e st

s

st i n

y gS

m

1:

ra

:5

h

St

Ground Heat

10

1:1

gy te

Louvres Pas

g ti n

Ground Heat

0S

00

ca

le

S ca

le

Ground Heat

Fluid Filled Pipes

Renewable Energy

Foundations

Load-Bearing Vertical Structures

Floor Slabs

Other Structures & Materials

1.4 m

loads of laundry

120 Created with One Click LCA Planetary: oneclicklca.com/planetary

new cars


THE ENTERPRISE CENTRE Architect | Architype Date | 2015 Location |Norfolk, Norwich GIFA | 3,400 sqm Building Type |Domestic

SUSTAINABILITY MATRIX

The Enterprise Centre is the new gateway to the University of East Anglia (UEA) campus. The project centre is considered to be a leader in building technologies.

Embodied Carbon

The building achieved dual certification of Passivhaus and the outstanding BREEAM accreditation.

Circular Economy

The Enterprise Centre has an incredibly low embodied carbon, when compared to the RIBA standards and LETI 2030 Target as its only 193kgCO2 e/m2. The RIBA standards suggests 500kgCo2e/m2 and the LETI standards suggest 350kgCo2e/m2. The embodied carbon the building is around 20% of any university building. The Enterprise Centre has a 100-year life span. Embodied-carbon was modelled over 100 years, to optimise systems over the whole-life of the building. The embodied carbon calculation for 100-year life span is 440kgCo2/m2

Whole Life Carbon Operational Carbon

The building is a low-carbon modular building uses a variation of natural materials to help it communicate seamlessly with its surroundings. The first of its kind in the world in using the innovative straw cladding cassette system, which was constructed off-site and raised to the building façades as a series of elaborately designed vertically suspended panels. The base is 100% recycled. The building uses a unique blend of low carbon concrete which was used in the building’s foundations. The building insulation was produced from 100% recycled newspapers. While, the other materials are local natural materials.

The building is designed in an E shape to respond to the environmental factors. The building’s E shape allows natural lighting and ventilation to permeate the interiors. The shading strategy includes the use of brise soliel and overhangs on south-facing elevations. Deep thatch panel reveals the main areas of glazing. Biodiversity features like insect hotels, bat and bird boxes and display bed terraces enhance ecological value around the site.

Biophilic Design

The U values of the building are extremely low in comparison to the vvvv standards. Super thick insulation is wrapped around the building in a duvet layer. The building achieves high standards of air tightness as well. The prefabricated thatch panels also provide insulation to the building. Triple glazed windows are used which allow beneficial solar gain and good daylighting as well as good levels of insulation. MHVR is used for circulation of fresh air. Additional summer ventilation is provided by opening windows and louvres, stack effect and high level exhaust.

Fabric First Innovation for Sustainability

Most of the building’s materials are from local supply chains within 100 miles diameter. The materials used for the building are either bio-renewable or recycled materials like Norfolk flint, hemp fabric, reprocessed glass, re-purposed mahogany benches, reclaimed oak, clay plaster and nettle boards. Wall covering and finishes are also local and natural, and the wall paints are organic and solvent-free. The building materials were mostly prefabricated, hence reducing wastage on site.

Regenerative Health and Well Being Waste Management

The building innovatively uses prefabricated, vertically hung thatch panel cassettes which is a first of its kind. Thatch is a blend of wheat and straw. It is a carbon negative material which was locally sourced. It naturally waterproof and has a long lifespan.

Water Management Holistic Sustainability

45.5 55

The building has 50kW of roof mounted PVs. 31.9% of the building’s electricity is produced from renewable sources, hence exceeding the local planning conditions of 10% renewable energy. The building reuses rainwater for flushing. Water saving sanitary-ware is used in the building. The site is equipped with cycle racks, showers, and lockers to promote green transport. Site waste management and building recycling nodes are also present.

FLOOR PLANS/SECTION/DETAIL PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

The Enterprise Centre, University of East Anglia

1

2

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

3

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Detail section through external wall of straw cassette panels

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

Academic/office building

10

11

Key

12

13

14 4 7

Ground floor plan

8

First floor plan

9

1

anodised aluminium flashings and sills

2

straw cassette external cladding panels

3

spruce ply cassette backing panel

4

bituminous wall sheathing board

5

external grade MDF lining

6

timber/aluminium triple glazed window

7

timber slats with acoustic lining

8

OSB board, taped for airtightness

9

insulated timber stud frame

10

spruce ply ventilated roof deck with bitumen membrane roofing system

11

timber roof sheathing board

12

insulated timber I-joists

13

acoustic plasterboard

14

glulam timber frame

15

linoleum on recycled rubber isolation matt

16

40mm recycled glass flowing floor screed

17

timber I-joist

5 PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

6

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

1

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT VERSION

15

2

16 17 13

14

7

5

Wall detail Showing cassette system Case Study © Exova (UK) Ltd. 2016

Long section

6


Sustainable transport- Cycle

racks, showers and lockers are provided to encourage sustainable transport.

Biodiversity- Having included bird boxes and an inhabitation for insects.

Shading strategy - was

Renewable energy -

considered to break sun light during

The building uses solar panels to generate 31% of the electricity

summer.

Key: Bauder Solar SolfixxTo increase airtightness.

MVHR unit- is used throughout, to provide fresh air to all spaces.

Rainwater harvestingto flush toilets.

Thatch cassette systemto increase airtightness and also work as natural rain screen

Triple Glazing- reduce noise and limit heat loss

All materials are from local supply chains for within the diameter on 100 miles.

CARBON ANALYSIS % Decrease in emissions

ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS One click LCA software was used to calculate the amount of embodied carbon of the materials used. Since, the embodied carbon of the materials used in the Enterprise Centre are extremely low, we substituted the timber frame of the building with a concrete frame. The results are shown in the figures below. The substituted materials have doubled the carbon emissions. This shows the negative impact that concrete has on the built environment and hence designers should aim to use eco-friendly materials like timber to reduce the emissions and help combat climate change. The embodied carbon emissions of the Enterprise Centre are around 20% of a conventional university building. The choice of materials has a great impact on the carbon emissions, the university buildings uses locally sourced reclaimed materials with low embodied carbon. The Enterprise Centre achieved Passivhaus and BREEAM Outstanding certification and continues to demonstrate high performance in-use through its DEC A rating.

The Enterprise Centre Alternative Materials

124 kg CO2e/m2

Foundation, sub-surface, basement and retaining walls

59 kg CO2e/m2

Floor slabs, ceilings, roofing decks, beams and roof Columns and load-bearing vertical structures Windows and doors

Element Analysis Foundation, sub-surface, basement and retaining walls

Columns and load-bearing vertical structures

Floor slabs, ceilings, roofing decks, beams and roof

Windows and doors

Carbon Emissions-Alternative Material Alternative Materials Embodied Carbon The Enterprise Centre

Foundation, sub-surface, basement and retaining walls

Alternative Materials

Floor slabs, ceilings, roofing decks, beams and roof

Element Analysis

Columns and load-bearing vertical structures Windows and doors

Carbon Emissions-The Enterprise Centre

The Enterprise Centre Embodied Carbon

Foundation, sub-surface, basement and retaining walls

Windows and doors

Columns and load-bearing vertical structures

The Enterprise Centre Alternative Materials

Floor slabs, ceilings, roofing decks, beams and roof


CORK HOUSE

Architect | Matthew Barnett Howland with Dido Milne and Oliver Wilton Date I January 2019 Location | Eton, Berkshire GIFA | 44m² Building Type | Dwelling Cork House is first of its kind project was completed in January 2019 by Matthew Barnett Howland and his team. Nominated to multiple awards like RIBA Stirling Prize 2019, National Award or President’s Award for research is located on restricted site purchased by Howland and Milne includes Grade II listed 19th century Mill House. It is garden shares a lie next to Thames Water filtration plant. The aim of the project was to re-evaluate what makes a building sustainable, starting from paying close attention to whole-life carbon, life cycle of materials and innovative design. Designed for assembly construction consists of 1, 268 blocks of expanded cork which interlock with each other horizontally and vertically, creating a structure that remains in compression while Accoy timber beams are there to support the spread of all lateral loads. Cork is included not just as structural material but also as insulation, internal and external finish. Interior itself creates rich sensory environment that engages all senses: sight, touch, sound and smell. Starting from soft bio-renewable cork, oak and Accoya wood, through red cedar and uncoated brass and copper. Extensive researched paired with numerous prototype testing resulted in dwelling that is known for its excellent thermal performance and for being embodied carbon negative at completion.

SUSTAINABILITY MATRIX Whole Life Carbon Operational Carbon Embodied Carbon Biophilic Design Circular Economy Fabric First Innovation for Sustainability Regenerative Health and Well Being Waste Management Water Management Holistic Sustainability

42.5 55

Whole life carbon: Whole life carbon is estimated to be 618 kg CO2e/m2 which is approximately on third of a timber frame passivhaus and about less than half than for zero-net carbon building. However, the estimation is based on 60-year lifespan and there is no real precedence for cork buildings as cork house is a first of its kind. Operational carbon: Operational carbon is rated to be 333 kgCO2e/m2 which is below 500 kgCO2e/m2 which meets RIBA 2030 Target. It is mostly associated with energy use. Carbon is reduced through use of on-site PV array. Embodied carbon: Embodied carbon is determined to be -18 kgCO2eq/m2/yr which achieves a goal of RIBA 2030 and Leti 2030 standards ( > 350 > 500 kgCO2eq/m2/yr ). Biophilic design: Biophilic design focuses on brining person closer to nature through design. Cork house achieves that through expanding the access to natural lighting thanks to sky light, using natural stack ventilation, but most importantly, by creating a rich sensory environment. Also, it has minimal effect on the side due its small size and the type of foundations. Circular economy: One of the main principles of the design is the lifecycle of materials. Cork is 100 % renewable as well as majority of the materials used for construction. All parts can be easily assembled and disassembled and then recycled and reused. It was designed to be taken apart. Fabric first: Cork house is know from its excellent thermal performance. Cork provides thermal and acoustic insulation where u-value is estimated to be as low as 0.15 W/m2. Innovation and Sustainability: The construction of the scheme is based on simple but innovative use of cork. The system of cork blocks that interlock with each other with help of friction fit joints other was developed. All block were produced off site through robotic milling technique, also developed during research. It eliminated use of mortar or glue and guaranteed an easy assembly. Regenerative Health and Well Being: Use of mainly natural bio-renewable materials, uncoated elements as well as lack of glue or mortar ensures that Cork House is easy to recycle and creates environment that is friendly for our senses, supports our well being and health. Waste Management: System of interlocking cork block allowed for prefabrication of all blocks, minimising on site waste during construction. Water Management: The rainwater is channelled from the surface of the cork corbels to red cedar weatherboards, then drained into copper-clad valleys and then realised into series of gutters. It is a simple method of discharging rainwater and there is no information on any rainwater collection which could benefit the entire scheme. Holistic Sustainability: Design focuses on sustainable but simple solutions in terms of construction process and use of bio-renewable materials. It shows great thermal performance and low whole-life carbon with minimal effect on the site. With its rich sensory environment creates a great place that supports well being. However, simple solutions are seen also in lack of extended use of recyclable energy. Small use of solar energy and lack better water management where is a good potential for it. Cork house is the first of its kind. Its life-span cannot be 100% confirmed and some of the outcomes will be revealed with time.

FLOOR PLANS/SECTION/ISOMETRIC

Accoya frames

Cork roof blocks

Accoya valley beam

Cork wall blocks

Explanation (if needed)

Long section Spruce CLT floor panel

Accoya ring beam

Steel screw pile with extension

Plan

Detail cross section

Exploded isometric


Page 37 \\ Cork House does not use any sustainable or green energy sources.

All interior fittings and furniture is hand crafted from pipping oak and cross laminated spruce.

The sky lights act as perfect natural ventilation, being positioned at the top of the building. they are easily controlled to open and close, allowing hot air to be expelled and allow cool air to enter.

Daylight

Ventilation

Thermal Comfort

Rainwater

The floor boards are made from sustainably sourced solid oak.

Renewable Sources

The sky lights and pyramid shaped roof allows for lots of natural lighting to enter the house, eliminating the need for artificial lighting during the day.

The structural beams, lintels, window frames and door frames are all made from sustainably sourced Hardwood timber (stained accoya).

Sustainable Timber

Cork house is heated via underfloor heating systems and a log burner situated in the centre of the house.

CARBON ANALYSIS

Cork House 1 Floor Area: 1 m² Location: Eton, Berkshire

HBA_Cork Block HBA_Brass

Type: NewBuild

HBA_Wood - Hardboard

Sector: Education

HBA_Glass

HBA_Wood - Hardwood

Total Embodied Carbon

As is shown in the Embodied Carbon calculations, Cork house as it exists, already has a very low embodied carbon score (shown on the left). As the majority material, cork, had an embodied carbon rating of almost zero, it was impossible to find a substitute material that would better the overall embodied carbon rating of the building. The timber structural beams were also irreplaceable, with the only alternative being steel, which would obviously raise the embodied carbon rating. The one material element that we felt could however be substituted was the use of accoya window frames, despite them already having a reasonably good embodied carbon rating.

Cork House

RIBA Workstage: One Date: 25.10.2020

17 ton CO₂e 16758 kg CO₂e/m²

Total Embodied Carbon Average per m² of Floor Area

Embodied Carbon per Material 54.2%

11.3%

15 14596 4

1.5%

40

1.9%

31.1%

The image above shows the embodied carbon calculations for if the accoya timber window/door frames were to also be made from cork. This would clearly result in a reduction in the embodied carbon rating of the building, from 17 tons, to 15 tons. However, using cork as a material for window and door frames would be considered experimental. System boundary: Life Cycle Stages A1-A5, B4, C1-C4 according to BS EN 15978. Embodied carbon does not include carbon sequestration(stored embodied carbon).

ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS

Rev

Description

Date

Scale @ A3

Date

Job Number

Project

10/25/20

Project Number

Project Name

Drawn By

Checked By

Status

Author

Checker

1:1

Enter address here

H\B:ERT

For comparison, we calculated what the embodied carbon of the building would have been, had uPVC window frames have been used (image below). Astonishingly, it would have increased the embodied carbon rating by 11 Tons, or 68%.

HB Carbon Emissions Reduction Toolkit

As shown by the H\B:ERT calculations above, the majority of the embodied carbon within the building (54.2%) comes from the hard wood accoya Embodied Carbon timber, used for the structural beams, window frames and door frames. Calculations Meanwhile, glass accounts for 31% of the embodied carbon within Cork House’s structure, this is because glass as a material has an embodied carbon (tonCO2/ton) rating of 1.4, which is extremely high. Despite cork being used for a large majority of the building, it only accounts for 1.9% of the buildings embodied carbon. This is due to the fact that Cork as a material has an embodied carbon (tonCO2/ton) rating of almost 0, meaning it has a low impact environmentally and is therefore a very sustainable material. Drawing No.

Rev

Purpose of Issue

Drawing

2

In conclusion, we consider the existing materials used within Cork house’s structure to be very good and difficult to improve upon without affecting the durability or structural integrity of the building.


LARCH HOUSE Architect | bere:architects Date |2010 Location | Wales GIFA |99sqm Building Type | Residential

SUSTAINABILITY MATRIX

- The Larch House is the UK’s first zero carbon (CSH code 6), low cost, Certified Passivhaus, built as a prototype for social housing and designed by bere:architects.

Embodied Carbon

Despite its unpromising location, most of the energy needs are met by heat from the sun, occupants and appliances. The Larch House generates as much energy from the sun in the summer months, from solar thermal and photovoltaic panels (with an estimated feed-in tariff of over £900 a year) as well as by glazing, as it uses for the whole year, making it Zero Carbon by UK standards The design of the passivhaus inspired by the simple forms of traditional cottages. The rectangular plan creates a large southern elevation to maximise thermal gains, shallow enough for maximum daylighting potential. Holbrook worked closely with bere:architects to ensure the exacting passive house standards for airtightness and cold bridging were achieved, at the same time as making use of locally produced timber. Holbrook also used a closed panel system from timber for walls. This had a very low u-value even by passive house standards:

The Larch House is passivhaus, Net Zero Carbon house that generates more energy throughout the summer months through solar heat and solar panels, than it uses for the whole year.

Whole Life Carbon Operational Carbon

Although the house is built on a hilltop, there is not an excessive amount of connection to the natural environment, in regards to landscaping. The extents of the connection to the exterior would be renewable sourcing reliability to the weather.

Biophilic Design Circular Economy

The house aims to maximise the performance of its components before the mechanical/electrical services; it does this through its secure wall insulation with very low U-values, called panel system and 55% glazing through the windows on the south side to maximise the thermal comfort.

Fabric First Innovation for Sustainability Regenerative Health and Well Being Waste Management Water Management Holistic Sustainability

42.5 55

For the year that this house was built (2010) , the innovation for sustainability was impressive due to it becoming the first Net Zero Carbon house. However, 10 years on, with more advanced innovations, the house could involve more sustainable features such as a beneficial way to manage both the waste and water management. Despite this, the house uses a water butt to collect rainwater for garden watering; and the foundation was formed/recycled from local steel industry waste. The house focuses its elements towards heating efficiency and energy. Due to these priorities, Larch House lacks further physically connection to the exterior of its surroundings and context.

FLOOR PLANS/SECTIONS/ELEVATIONS/DETAIL

First floor plan

Section AA

South Elevation

Ground floor plan

Section BB

Technical detail of window fixing


Page 39 \\

Solar panelling

Gutter for rainwater collection. A water butt stores rain water for garden watering

Sheeps wall insulation fitted to exterior of superstructure protected by wood fibre insulation panels

55% glazing ratio on southside of building to maximise solar heat projection.

Ventilation system on ground floor (red) - damp exhaust air from kitchen and bathroom removed (blue) - fresh air into bedrooms and living areas

Locally sourced timber - timber frame construction

CARBON ANALYSIS Global warming t CO2e - Classifications þÿ F o u n d a t i o n , s u b - s u r f a c e , b a s e m e n t a n d r e t a i n i n g w a l l s & Other structures and materials - 39.8% External walls and facade - 3.0% Windows and doors - 2.1% Internal walls and non-bearing structures - 1.7% þÿ F l o o r s l a b s , c e i l i n g s , r o o f i n g d e c k s , b e a m s a n d r o o f - 1 . & Columns and load-bearing vertical structures - 1.0%

An important thing to note within the original carbon analysis is that whilst calculating the impact of insulation, the significance isn’t accurate as the sheep’s wool insulation used was not an option within the LCA analysis. Additional things not considered within this carbon analysis are the thick slate wall which would improve the carbon amount more, and the concrete used recycled which has less of an impact

Global warming t CO2e - Classifications þÿ F o u n d a t i o n , s u b - s u r f a c e , b a s e m e n t a n d r e t a i n i n g w a l l s & External walls and facade - 29.5% Other structures and materials - 27.5% Internal walls and non-bearing structures - 4.1% Windows and doors - 1.4% þÿ F l o o r s l a b s , c e i l i n g s , r o o f i n g d e c k s , b e a m s a n d r o o f - 0 . & Columns and load-bearing vertical structures - 0.7%

For the comparison the quality of materials was increased but will produce more carbon and use carbon offsetting and how the slate is replaced for recycled bricks to use what materials we have instead of digging new sources of materials.

ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS Overall, the Larch House choice of materials and sustainable technology has impacted the carbon analysis of the house by significantly carbon emissions that may have potentially been released otherwise. The carbon emissions have been considered thoroughly throughout the design and construction process of the home. An example of this is the timber being locally source; Holbrook worked closely within the construction process to ensure low u-values , and through closed panel system from timber for the walls, it resulted in a very low u-value, even by the passive house standards. One of the most successful points of carbon emissions being reduced is the fact that features such as, the solar thermal and photovoltaic panels and the well-designed glazing generates as much energy from the sun in the summer, as it uses for the whole year - ultimately resulting in it being Zero Carbon. This sets a great example towards the RIBA Climate Challenge of Zero Carbon by 2030 - however, despite the success in this particular field, the Larch House can still be seen to have multiple areas for improvement The One Click LCA software was used to calculate the amount of embodied carbon of the materials used.


LARK RISE Architect | Bere Architects Date | 2014/2015 Location | Buckinghamshire GIFA | 175 m2 Building Type | Residential, Isolated or semi-detached house Lark Rise, the first Passivhaus Plus building in the UK, was rigorously designed and built by Bere Architecs in 2015 to test the viability of the concept ‘house as power station’ in a north European climate and to establish the potential for a cluster of similar houses to draw down energy from the National Grid. Lark Rise is an ultra-low-energy, all-electric, contemporary and healthy certified Passivhaus Plus home. It is a detached two-storey, two-bedroom dwelling of 175m2 located on a North West facing slope on the edge of the Chiltern Hills in Buckinghamshire, England. It is partially prefabricated with heavyweight reinforced concrete retaining construction system to ground floor at garden level and prefabricated timber frame structure to first and floor at entrance level.

SUSTAINABILITY MATRIX

THE WHOLE LIFE CARBON: this has not be assessed. But on another similar project, but with 1/4 the generating capacity, we found that the embodied energy from the building’s construction could be paid back in 60 years.

Whole Life Carbon Operational Carbon

OPERATIONAL CARBON: this has not be assessed. However the building produces more electricity than it requires, therefore operational carbon can be expected to be very low.

Embodied Carbon

EMBODIED CARBON: which is 383kgCO2e/m2, is not the best result the building achieved.

Biophilic Design

BIOPHILIC DESIGN: the building preserved the surrounding environment with having a garden on the roof.

Circular Economy Fabric First

CIRCULAR ECONOMY, there is no data available on the origin of the materials. However the building uses recycled materials (timber and glass), but the usage of concrete could be avoided.

Innovation for Sustainability

FABRIC FIRST: Lark Rise uses natural ventilation, Nocturnal Over ventilation, double flow heat exchanger, as result the Air Tightness Value is 0,41.

Regenerative Health and Well Being

INNOVATIONAL FOR SUSTAINBALITY: the building is fully independent, could be a great example for new buildings but the choice of materials is questionable. REGENERATIVE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING: the indoor air and humidity conditions contribute to healthy and comfortable conditions. Both summer and winter temperatures have been found to be very comfortable (average 12.5 C), with negligible seasonal, daily, or hourly fluctuations.

Waste Management Water Management

WASTE MANAGEMENT: all waste water is processed on site using a low energy septic tank and zero energy natural water polishing system based on natural bacteria in a peat store.

Holistic Sustainability

40 55

WATER MANAGEMENT: Lark Rise uses efficient Viessmann heat pump and integral water tank. Consequently Lark Rise DHW consumption is very low. HOLISTIC SUSTAINABILITY: The project looks incomplete as some aspects have not been fully considered which is why this point has not got full marks.

FLOOR PLANS/SECTIONS/IMAGES

Roof Plan

Ground Floor Plan

First Floor Plan

Detail Section

Interior

Exterior


Axonometric - Lark Rise

Glulam Box Roof With Garden

Photovoltaic Array

Double-Floor Heat Exchangers With Underfloor Hea�ng

Natural Ven�la�on With Heat Recovery Ven�la�on

CARBON ANALYSIS

Tesla Powerwall Ba�ery


// Page 42

ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS Overall, Lark Rise is a great example for the future that addresses various aspects such as innovation, sustainability and independence. After analysing various points in detail some negative factors can be found. Starting with positive characteristics, Lark Rise is fully independent, producing its own electricity, so much that he produces more than is necessary. Second positive aspect is the recycling of water on the site using a low energy septic tank and zero energy natural water polishing system based on natural bacteria in a peat store. This eliminates the transport of water to a different site to be then treated. On the other hand, there are some points that have not been fully developed. The first point is the production of electricity, in fact unused electricity cannot be exported due to the problems of different types of cables. Consequently, to conserve this amount of electricity it was necessary to use Tesla batteries, transported directly from USA. Second negative point is the choice of materials. Lark Rise only partially uses sustainable materials (timber and glass), but the choice of concrete is questionable. Other materials such as sandstone be used as a supporting structure. Consequently, concrete has a direct impact on other aspects, such as emissions and whole cycle carbon. Having all these points together, can Lark Rise be considered a sustainable project? Yes, but only in the present. In fact, if the constructions of the future use solar energy and other sustainable materials, they could be much more efficient in comparison with Lark Rise. So, in conclusion, Lark Rise is a good start but needs to be perfected on some aspects. Therefore the project is incomplete.

CONCLUSION

BLOOMBERG BUILDING

WWF UK LIVING PLANET CENTRE

THE ENTERPRISE CENTRE

Whole Life Carbon

Whole Life Carbon

Whole Life Carbon

Operational Carbon

Operational Carbon

Operational Carbon

Embodied Carbon

Embodied Carbon

Embodied Carbon

Biophilic Design

Biophilic Design

Biophilic Design

Circular Economy

Circular Economy

Circular Economy

Fabric First

Fabric First

Fabric First

Innovation for Sustainability

Innovation for Sustainability

Innovation for Sustainability

Regenerative Health and Well Being

Regenerative Health and Well Being

Regenerative Health and Well Being

Waste Management

Waste Management

Waste Management

Water Management

Water Management

Water Management

Holistic Sustainability

Holistic Sustainability

Holistic Sustainability

Total Rating: Average:

36/55 3.27

Total Rating: Average:

37.5 /55 3.41

Total Rating: Average:

45.5/55 4.09


CONCLUSION

Page 43 \\

CORK HOUSE

LARCH HOUSE

LARK RISE

Whole Life Carbon

Whole Life Carbon

Whole Life Carbon

Operational Carbon

Operational Carbon

Operational Carbon

Embodied Carbon

Embodied Carbon

Embodied Carbon

Biophilic Design

Biophilic Design

Biophilic Design

Circular Economy

Circular Economy

Circular Economy

Fabric First

Fabric First

Fabric First

Innovation for Sustainability

Innovation for Sustainability

Innovation for Sustainability

Regenerative Health and Well Being

Regenerative Health and Well Being

Regenerative Health and Well Being

Waste Management

Waste Management

Waste Management

Water Management

Water Management

Water Management

Holistic Sustainability

Holistic Sustainability

Holistic Sustainability

Total Rating: Average:

42.5/55 3.86

Total Rating: Average:

42.5/55 3.86

Total Rating: Average:

40/55 3.64

CONCLUSION

METRICS DATA TABLE Gener al Infor mat i on Architect Year Constructed GIFA (m2) U- Values Wall U- Value Floor U- Value Roof U- value Window U- value Life Span of Building Air Tightness C a r bo n A n a l y s i s Whole Life Carbon ( kgCO2e/m2) Embodied Carbon ( kgCO2e/m2) Operational Carbon ( kgCO2e/m2) Annual CO2 Emissions Water Managment/ Usage Main Water Greywater Recycling Rainwater Harvesting

UK WWF Living Planet Centre

The Enterprise Centre

Bloomberg Building

Cork House

Lark Rise

Larch House

Hopkins Architects 2013 3675 m2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 60 years

Architype 2015 3,400 m2

2019 44 m2 0.15 W/m2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Bere Architects 2017 175 0.107 W/m2K 0.118W/m2K 0.075W/m2K 0.074W/m2K 0.6W/m2K N/A

Bere: architects 2010 99m2

0.122 W/mk2 0.128W/mk2 0.132 W/m2K 0.81 W/M2k 100 years

Foster + Partners 2017 102,190m² N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A

0.21ach/h @50 Pa

N/A

5m6 m3/hr/m2

0.41

0.2h-1 at 50Pa

1620 kgCO2e/m2 1082 kgCO2e/m2 538 kgCO2e/m2 1852 kgCO2e/m2

440 kgCO2e/m2 193kgCO2 e/m2 N/A N/A

N/A N/A 736,603 kgCO2eq/yr N/A

619 kg CO2e/m2 -18 kgCO2eq/m2/yr 333 kgCO2e/m2 5.5 kg CO2eq/m2yr

N/A 383kgCO2e/m2 N/A 16kgCO2e/m2/year

Net-Zero

13.96kg/m2/year

75 m3/month 2.5 m3/month 76 m3/month

N/A N/A N/A

57,934 m3/yr 4.10 L/person/day combined 4.10 L/person/day combined

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

25 kW/m2 (20%) 75% 10% 175 kW/m2 N/A 5.5 Wm2

50 kW/m2(31.90 %) N/A N/A 30 kWh/m2/year 19kWh/m2/year N/A

65.54 kWh/m2/yr (73%) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A 179.2 kWh/m2/yr N/A

12.4 kW N/A N/A -6.16MWh 7.11kWh/m2/year 6.11kWh/m2/year

99% 70%

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

0.105W/m2K 0.083 W/m2k 0.086W/m2K 0.8W/m2k N/A

E n e r gy Energy from Renewable Sources CHP Efficiency CHP Waste Reduction Total Energy Usage Annual Heating Consumption Lighting Consumption W ast e Construction Waste Recycled Building/Office Waste Recycled

-52kWh/m2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A

CONCLUSION Throughout our investigation, we have researched a total of six case studies and analysed both the successes and limitations of their sustainability. In order to compare these case studies we embarked on creating a ‘Sustainability Matrix’ which allowed us to rate the case study buildings against an agreed criteria, which was both a qualitative and quantitative comparison. Through this we found that The Enterprise Centre was the most sustainable of all the case studies, with Cork House and Larch House

not far behind. The least sustainable was found to be the Bloomberg Building. Throughout this process of investigation however, we have recognised that the case studies vary in size and function, which also may impact on their sustainability or the comparisons between them quantitatively, a consideration which must be acknowledged. It may also be a more valid analysis by comparing the three larger office buildings and the three smaller houses independently.

It was also incredibly difficult to compare the buildings based on the quantitative metrics table alone, not only because some figures for some buildings were not available, but because larger buildings would require a greater amount of energy to build and operate in general.


GLOSSARY Attenuation Swale:

A wide shallow ditch designed to catch any runoff water from the building.

Biophilic Design:

Biophilic design is a concept used within the building industry to increase occupant connectivity to the natural environment through the use of direct nature, indirect nature, and space and place conditions.

Building Airtightness: Building airtightness can be defined as the resistance to inward or outward air leakage through unintentional leakage points or areas in the building envelope. Carbon Neutral:

Making or resulting in no net release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, especially because of carbon offsetting.

Circular Economy:

An economic model in which resources/materials are kept in use at the highest level possible for as long as they can withstand to maximise value and reduce waste.

Date Disclosure:

“Unless we can gain a good understanding of how our buildings are performing in-use through post occupancy evaluation, we cannot achieve net zero carbon. Currently the way that buildings are assessed in regulations is according to a Building Regulations energy model (Part L) rather than inuse consumption. There is also a huge ‘performance gap’ between how we estimate the energy consumption of new buildings and how they perform in-use.” -Leti Climate Emergency Design Guide

Demand Response:

Embodied Carbon:

Unregulated Energy:

“Integrating demand response and energy storage into buildings allows buildings to be flexible with their demand on the grid for power. This is fundamental to allow the grid to harness renewable energy sources that allows it to decarbonise to a level that is needed to meet our climate change targets.” -Leti Climate Emergency Design Guide Total greenhouse gas emissions of extraction, manufacture, transportation, and assembly of product/material. The carbon emissions associated with the extraction and processing

“Energy consumed by a building that is outside of the scope of Building Regulations, e.g. energy associated with equipment such as fridges, washing machines, TVs, computers, lifts, and cooking.” -Leti Climate Emergency Design Guide

Upfront Embodied Carbon: “The carbon emissions associated with the extraction and processing of materials, the energy and water consumption used by the factory in producing products, transporting materials to site, and constructing the building.” -Leti Climate Emergency Design Guide Whole Life Carbon:

Whole Life Carbon is both embodied and operational carbon, such as heating, cooling, powering, water.

Wind Exhaust Cowls:

A natural ventilation system. When the wind blows, low pressure is created inside the cowls and creates a vacuum, sucking out warm, stale air from the building. During the summer, the system helps unwanted warm or stale air escape the building.

Zero Carbon:

A process causing or resulting in no release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

of materials and the energy and water consumption used by the factory in producing products and constructing the building. It also includes the ‘in-use’ stage (maintenance, replacement, and emissions associated with refrigerant leakage and ‘end of life’ stage (demolition, disassembly, and disposal of any parts of product or building and any transportation relating to the above. Embodied Energy:

Energy that is consumed throughout the processes of gathering and processing natural resources, transporting, and delivering the product; does not include the operation and disposal of material.

Energain Tiles:

The tiles absorb and hold heat by a ‘phase change material’ (kind of a wax), that melts when it warms up – when it does melt (at around 22°C) it absorbs heat from the room and stores it, and when the temperature drops back to 18°C, the wax re-solidifies and the heat is released back into the room.

Fabric First:

A ‘fabric first’ approach to building design involves maximising the performance of the components and materials that make up the building fabric itself, before considering the use of mechanical or electrical building services systems.

Fossil Fuel:

A natural fuel, that is usually petroleum, coal, or gas.

Future of Heat:

“The decarbonisation of heating and hot water will have a huge impact on carbon emission reductions and is a crucial step in the net zero pathway.” - Leti Climate Emergency Design Guide

Ground Source Heat Pump: A geothermal heat pump or ground source heat pump is a heating and/or cooling system that transfers heat to or from the ground. Hot Desking:

Material Consumption:

An office organization of allocating desks to workers when they are required or on a rota system, rather than giving each worker their own desk. The amount of materials needed for

production in a building; can be measured in cost or physical terms. Multifunctional Elements: Elements that allow to safe space and satisfy multiple needs. Operational Carbon:

“The carbon dioxide and equivalent global warming potential (GWP) of other gases associated with the in-use operation of the building. This usually includes carbon emissions associated with heating, hot water, cooling, ventilation, and lighting systems, as well as those associated with cooking, equipment, and lifts (i.e. both regulated and unregulated energy uses).” -Leti Climate Emergency Design Guide

Photovoltaic Panels:

The term solar panel is used colloquially for a photo-voltaic module. A PV module is an assembly of photo-voltaic cells mounted in a framework for installation. Photo-voltaic cells use sunlight as a source of energy and generate direct current electricity.

Regulated Energy:

“Energy consumed by a building, associated with fixed installations for heating, hot water, cooling, ventilation, and lighting systems.” -Leti Climate Emergency Design Guide

Renewable Energy:

A natural energy source that generates electricity and/or heating/cooling. Sources include solar, wind, wave, marine, hydro, etc..

Sustainable Design:

The design seeks to minimise negative impact to the environment, health and comfort of people; reduce waste, use recyclable and reusable materials/resource, improve buildings performance.

Thermal Mass:

The ability for a material to absorb and store heat. It will absorb thermal energy when the surroundings are higher in temperature than the mass and give thermal energy back when the surroundings are cooler.

U-Value:

The rate of transfer of heat through a structure divided by the difference in temperature across that structure. The units of measurement are W/ m2K.


Millions discover their favorite reads on issuu every month.

Give your content the digital home it deserves. Get it to any device in seconds.