Valentine Ruiz - RIBA Part 1 - Dissertation

PLASTIC-FREE ARCHITECTURE Can a house be completely made out of plastic-free materials?

Valentine Ruiz 19012724 ARCH6008 Dissertation 19th January 2022

Fig 1: Final Design project (Author’s own work, 2021)

With thanks to my dissertation supervisor, Mina Samangooei, for her time and commitment, and to my family for their support and motivation throughout my research.

A dissertation presented to the School of Architecture, Oxford Brookes University, in part fulfilment of the regulations for BA (Hons) in Architecture Statement of Originality: This dissertation is an original piece of work which is made available for copying with permission of the Head of the School of Architecture Signed

“The whole of the ecosystems of the world are based on healthy oceans and if that part of the planet becomes dysfunctional (…) the whole life on this planet will suffer.”

- Sir David Attenborough, Plastic Ocean, 2016 (1h34min)

Fig 2: Dead wildlife because of plastic (A Plastic Ocean, 2016)

1

2

LIST OF CONTENTS

•

OUTLINE .......................................................................................................................................................... 6

•

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 7

•

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 9

•

PART I: PLASTIC WASTE .......................................................................................................................... 14

•

PART II: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON THE USE OF PLASTIC IN A BUILDING ENVELOPE ...... 21

•

PART III: SOLUTIONS TOWARDS PLASTIC-FREE HOUSES ........................................................... 31

•

PART IV: CASE STUDY DESIGN STUDIO UNIT E ................................................................................ 37

•

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 46

Fig 3: Plastic camouflaged in the sand (Martus, 2021)

3

4

OUTLINE This dissertation will focus on finding a way to fight the current global issue of plastic pollution.

It is a problem that is growing more and more every day. Once the plastic is no longer used it is thrown away, but where does it end up? It usually ends up in the environment in some manner or form, with a great deal of it eventually ending up in the ocean [Fig.4]. It also builds up in our environment and in the stomach of our wildlife and our own stomachs. It is a pressing matter as plastic waste accumulation is increasing “exponentially, from 2.3 million tons in 1950 to 448 million tons by 2015. Production is expected to double by 2050” (Parker, 2019). We have reached a point where we can´t go back. The current plastic in our environment will not be able to leave, and it is our job to try not to dispose more of it.

This study will focus on the negative consequences that the wrong disposal of this material has in our oceans, where it is mostly found, and explore the possibility of designing a 100% plastic-free house.

Architecture, more specifically the building sector, is the second largest consumer of plastic. In this context, the designer’s job is to find a way to reduce the use and waste of it.

Some processes have already been developed to try and control the damages that the pollution is provoking in our environment. Bioremediation is a process to treat contaminated areas and is based on the use of natural organisms to break down hazardous substances into less toxic or non-toxic substances. There is also phytoremediation that uses green plants to detoxify contaminated soil and water with heavy metal or excess of minerals. These two processes allow the contaminated area to naturally regenerate. The contamination is reduced, because less amount of plastic decreases the amount of chemicals expelled into the environment and reduces plastic waste. There is no need for transporting the materials to a recycling plant, which ultimately reduces CO2 emissions.

Bioplastics and reused plastics are alternative options; however, this dissertation is a study aiming at determining how to build without any plastics, suppressing completely this material from the building industry.

Fig 4: Dead wildlife because of plastic (Martus, 2021) 5

6

METHODOLOGY I will analyze the consequences that plastic has on our environment, from articles and papers. The objective of this is to understand in which ways this material is used in the building industry and in which quantities, to see how it can be replaced.

The first three chapters of this dissertation will follow a theoretical method. The theories introduced in “A Plastic Ocean” and “Plastics in construction”, will be used as a starting point to analyze the plastic waste pollution problem, and how it is related to architecture. An analytical and comprehensive study will be undertaken through the work of Watt, “Surveying historic buildings”, and Deplazes, “Constructing architecture: materials, processes, structures: a handbook” among others, to understand the issues that historic buildings had, and how the introduction of plastic fixed them. Finally, a critical and descriptive analysis of the ideas exposed by Kennedy in “The Art of Natural Building: Design, Construction, Resources” will be carried out to study how alternative materials can be used in construction. The fourth chapter will follow a research design led process based on my project for the first semester of the Design Studio to exemplify the construction of a “natural” house.

Fig 5: Toxicity of plastic against inocence of a child (A Plastic Ocean, 2016) Fig 6: Plastic integrated into our daily lives (A Plastic Ocean, 2016) Fig 7: Plastic pollution accumulated (A Plastic Ocean, 2016)

7

8

INTRODUCTION

“The construction sector contributes to 23% of air pollution, 50% of the climate change, 40% to drinking water pollution, and 50% of landfill wastes. In separate research by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), the construction industry accounts for 40% of worldwide energy usage, with estimations that by 2030 emissions from commercial buildings will grow by 1.8%” (Sikra, 2019). As we can see, this sector is prone to having an aggressive impact on the environment. When it comes to plastic usage, this sector is also a big consumer.

Consequently, at the end of a building’s life, there is a lot of plastic waste not always successfully recycled or gotten rid of.

This plastic usually ends up in landfills or at the bottom of the ocean which increases its harmful impact on the environment.

Additionally, plastics in buildings are “damaging the health of their occupants, and to the earth” (Goudie, 2014), which is why it is urgent to reduce its use in the building industry.

Green building [Fig 8] and natural building [Fig.9] are two different movements that try to reduce the environmental impact that buildings have. However, they are commonly mixed together by the public opinion. They can be differentiated by the fact that green building is adding to a structure already built out of pollutant materials, a feature that would reduce the environmental impact (e.g. solar panels, vegetation on the walls…), while natural building is focussing mainly on what kind of materials are used in the construction of the building from the beginning.

9

Fig 8: Green building (Edificio planeta in Barcelona, Spain) (Bonells, 2017) Fig 9: Natural building (Unique Mud Home in Kerala, India) (Hart, 2019)

10

The natural building movement is centred on the use of materials that are “non-industrial, minimally processed, locally abundant, recycled, re-purposed, or salvaged” (Goudie, 2014). It also puts “emphasis on using the lowest and most benign technology to best achieve what needs to be done” (Piepkorn, 2005). Cob and earthbags (which are experiencing an increase in visibility in the movement) are recognized options for people interested in applying this movement; sometimes salvaged detritus are included under the natural building movement as well. The ethos behind this trend is to produce “buildings that heal, … that are most humane, that are most serving the real needs and desires of people that are intended to be served” (Piepkorn, 2005) [Fig.10,11].

This specific movement is the one that I will follow to conduct a study on whether nowadays houses can be fully built completely of natural materials, and in that case, which plastic materials have to be replaced to ensure a more environmentally friendly future for the building industry.

Fig 10: Traversa House, Marina Vella Arquitectura - interior (Marina Vella, 2020) Fig 11: Traversa House, Marina Vella Arquitectura - exterior (Marina Vella, 2020)

11

This dissertation will focus on reducing and trying to solve the plastic waste in the building construction industry. It will introduce the problem of plastic pollution in a general context, then focusing on the oceans, and more specifically in the field of architecture. It will conduct a critical analysis on the construction detail of historical buildings and how plastics have solved the problems that existed. Next, it will propose numerous alternatives to plastic-based materials and processes that exist with the aim of minimising the use of plastic. Finally, the research done throughout the essay will be applied to my own personal design project for the Design Studio and will evaluate whether a house can completely be made of free plastic-based materials.

I will focus on residential buildings for this study.

12

PART I: PLASTIC WASTE

Plastic waste in the world in 2020 381 million tonnes

Single use plastics 40%

Single use plastic recycled 9%

Plastic waste produced by architecture 40%

Plastic is a very recent material. The first ever plastic material was made by nature: the natural rubber harvested from the gum tree over 500 years ago. More recent plastics, known as synthetic polymers, appeared around the 19th century, and were made “sometimes using natural substances like cellulose, but more often using the plentiful carbon atoms provided by petroleum and other fossil fuels” (Science History Institute, 2016). These types of plastics are the ones that we should be careful with, as they are not biodegradable and will remain in nature for centuries. “The motivation behind the development of the modern material dates back to the period of early industrialization and the need for an artificially producible alternative to the highly sought-after but expensive natural raw material” (Engelsmann et al., 2010). Its production accelerated after World War II and its development has led to a throw-away culture that can only have bad repercussions on our environment. “World population produces close to its own weight in plastics per year” (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013). According to a study carried out in 2017 about the production and the fate of all the plastic ever produced, in 2015, 407 million tons (virgin materials) entered the use phase, and 302 million tons left the use phase and became waste. Only 9% of the plastic is being recycled (Geyer et al., 2017) [Fig.12]. Single use plastic represents 40% of the plastic produced per year. It has a lifespan of minutes or hours and can persist in the environment for hundreds of years (ASBP, 2020) [Fig.12]. The appearance of this material has contributed to hundreds of achievements such as the revolution of medicine, has made space travel possible, lightened cars, jets, helmets… Unfortunately, plastic has additives to make it stronger and durable, which also persists when it becomes litter, which estimates a ranging to at least 400 years to break down (Parker, 2019).

Another harmful aspect of plastic is the impact the chemicals added during manufacture have on the environment. Pure plastics have low toxicity as they are soluble in water, but plastic manufactured products have additional additives, some of which can be toxic (Hahladakis et al., 2018).

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is considered the most toxic plastic as it contains plasticizers like adipates and phthalates that help with the flexibility of the material. Some of these compounds get filtered out of these products and have concerning effects on the health of living beings (Teuten et al., 2009).

Fig 12: Plastic statistics diagram (Author’s own work, 2021)

13

14

Even if we are improving plastic waste disposal, plastic waste that escapes ordinary processing such as landfill, recycling, or combustion eventually ends up in the ocean [Fig.14]. The plastics mainly come from land and sea-based sources. There are plastic particles that get into wastewater by default and are failed to be removed by treatment plants (Gross, 2015).

Plastic items used at sea, such as fishing tackle, will deteriorate overtime and release fragments into the ocean. Finally, events such as storms and tidal flooding may insert large quantities of plastic material into the water at once. “Every year almost 8 million tons of plastic waste enter the oceans from coastal nations” (Parker, 2019). Once the plastic enters the ocean, due to sunlight, wind, and wave action, it breaks down into small pieces that are called microplastics (ASBP, 2020). A study in 2015 carried by Marcus Eriksen from the Five Gyres Institute of Los Angeles, has estimated that there were “5.25 trillion items of plastic weighting more than 268,000 tones floating around the ocean”. Microplastics appear from the photochemical decay of large plastic items (land-based items and nautical equipment) but also from manufactured plastics that are less than 5 millimetres big, such as microbeads in cosmetics or pellets for the production of larger plastic items (Gross, 2015). Once into the sea, at 367 meters low, junk of all sorts can be found everywhere. At 1600 metres low, plastic bottles can be found that may remain there forever. “There must be a fair amount of plastic pollution on the sea floor but very little is known about its distribution, its ecological effects or even its fate due to the difficulty of access” (Gross, 2015).

Notably heavy plastics, such as PVC, will end up in the sediments near the shores where they have been released. “Most bulk plastics (polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE)) are buoyant and will drift out to the open ocean …

Floating debris tend to accumulate in large oceanic whirls” (Gross, 2015); also called gyre, which are centres where everything that is floating in the ocean ends up. There are five of them: the North Atlantic Gyre, the South Atlantic Gyre, the North Pacific Gyre, the South Pacific Gyre, and the Indian Ocean Gyre (A Plastic Ocean, 2016). A specific example would be the North Atlantic which has 3.440 metric tons of just microplastics (A Plastic Ocean, 2016) [Fig.13].

What happens in gyres is still open question: “degradation down to small molecules and ultimately carbon dioxide, biofouling leading to sinking and incorporation into the sediment, and, most worryingly, ingestion by animals and thus entry into the food web” (Gross, 2015).

Fig 13: Plastic pieces ing the North Atlantic Gyre (Lewis and Stauffer, 2015)

As stated before, plastic doesn’t break down, it breaks up; it becomes more proliferated. Consequently, there are more chances of plastic being ingested by marine animals (A Plastic Ocean, 2016) [Fig.16]. Plastic being introduced into the oceans is becoming one of the main causes of marine wildlife’s death; mainly because of starvation, entanglement or swallowing plastics that block digestive tracts or pierce organs (Parker, 2019) [Fig.15].

The main symbol of the impact of plastic in marine wildlife are sea birds with stomachs full of plastic waste and turtles with plastic bags entangled around their necks. However, the impact at a smaller scale is even more severe. The invertebrates that are located at the bottom of the food chain, where they colonize everything that floats, are called barnacles, and usually feed on plankton and fish larvae. One third of these animals are found to have ingested microplastics. Although plastic may have caused no physical damage, it has long term effects on any onward transfer to predators.

Consequently, microplastics can move up the food chain and end up on our food chain.

Fig 14 (Mariana, 2018) Fig 15 (Munro, 2013) Fig 16 (Cultura Colectiva, 2019) Plastic in marine life

15

16

In the field of architecture, plastic awareness has increased but there has been little attention to the use of the material in buildings (short and long long-life perspective) (ASBP, 2020). The construction sector in Europe is the second largest user of plastic (Scott et al., 2020), consuming around 10 million tons of plastic in 2015 (ASBP, 2020), which represents 6% of all plastic waste (ASBP, 2020): polyvinylchloride (PVC) – 52%, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) – 13%, expanded polystyrene (EPS) – 8%, polypropylene (PP) – 7.4% Plastic started being used for construction purposes around 1940s (Engelsmann et al., 2010, p.11), when the foundation for high-performance composite materials was laid. The properties of fibre-reinforced plastics (light weight, good weather resistance, excellent forming characteristics and high strength) made it a popular material for architectural applications.

“The first use of glass fibre-reinforced plastics (GRP) in building construction was in 1954…” (Engelsmann et al., 2010, p.11). R. Buckminster Fuller, in his geodesic dome [Fig.17], was the first to use this material. Three years later, the “Monsanto house of the future” by Richard Hamilton and Marvin Goody [Fig.18], was the first plastic house to be fully developed for mass production using the principle of sandwiching PUR insulation materials between two thin layers of GRP. This was an important step made for the development of building materials. It was effective in demonstrating the thermal, structural, and architectural performance of plastic constructions. The use of this new material in the building industry brought a new language of construction incorporating curved building elements and rounded forms, and the possibility of prefabricating elements and low level of maintenance. From the 1950s to the 1980s plastic houses designed for mass production appeared but none of them managed to be mass produced as it was difficult to obtain building control approval; they presented defects, such as moulds, they were not fireproof, and the public was not especially keen on using this material to produce the entire house. Plastic elements are still used for individual components. In recent years this material has experienced a renaissance as it has been implemented in the production of building elements, components for technical and constructional installations and for supporting structures and building skins.

Fossil fuel sources

Bio-sources

Reuse

Production and use

Lost to environment

Composting

Landill

Collected for recycling

Process losses

Open-loop recycling

Incineration

Closed-loop recycling

Fig 19: Plastic life-cycle diagram (Author’s own work, 2022)

Fig 17: R. Buckminster Fuller’s Geodesic dome (Martin, 2016)

17

Fig 18: Richard Hamilton, Monsanto House of the Future (Hidden Architecture, 2016)

18

Introducing plastic waste into the construction process as a material to be used is a subject that has widely been investigated. The waste from construction sites provides a substantial source of raw materials for building works. Synthetic materials are famously used in construction due to their durability and low weight.

The low biodegradability and large presence makes it a negative impact on the environment. PVC is one of the oldest materials used for the manufacture of pipes, gutters, windows, doors… This material becomes waste at the end of its life cycle.

Taken by recycling companies, which collect, grind, washes and reintroduces them for the manufacture of new products such as floor covering materials, panels, tiles, slabs… [Fig.20] A study undertaken by students at the Technical University of Cluj-Napoca in 2019, analyses the effects of adding PVC into the composition of organic mortar. They conducted an experiment where they mixed different concentrations of plastic with cement, hydrated lime, sand, and water. They concluded that adding this component would reduce the thermal conductivity, improve the thermal insulation property of the mortar, and increase the water absorption coefficient by capillarity. The flexural strength would decrease and its reaction to fire would increase due to the flammability of plastic. This new material could be used as plastering mortar, but would not be recommended for interior uses, because of its high flammability and its low waterproof coefficient. However, it shows the possibility of reusing plastic in a building, “not involving a high energy consumption and recovering the embodied energy of reused PVC” (Aciu et al., 2019), and reduces the amount of plastic that is landfilled. A second study carried out by Engineering Faculty, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy, examines lightweight plasters containing plastic waste and how virgin materials can be replaced up to 100% by waste polyethylene terephthalate (PET) particles and pulverized glass fibre reinforced plastic (GFRP). The results of the study showed that consequences were neither beneficial nor detrimental, as it caused a significant compressive strength loss, The loss of performance concerning flexural strength was less evident and caused a higher value of capillary water absorption but reached extremely low values of conductivity which meant an increase in thermal insulation.

To sum up, these studies show that the addition of plastic waste particles into mortar and plaster both bring good and bad qualities to the new material. But what about completely replacing the materials that have plastic?

Rotatory sieve Mixed recycle stream

Air separator

Size selection

Open-loop 94-98% pure plastics

Hard plastics

Hand picking

Waste stream 30-40% (including contaminated)

The idea of completely removing plastic from the process of construction has not been studied in such detail. A West Midlands housing association, pioneers in the industry, has announced their new project aimed to houses completely made without plastic [Fig.21]. “We are increasingly hearing about how single-use plastic waste is having an impact on the world’s environment: from build-up in the oceans, to landfill and we hope that by building houses with a new range of plastic-free components we can play our part to minimize the impact on the environment.” (Green Square Accord, 2021).

They will build 12 houses minimizing the use of plastic during the construction process.

There will be houses manufactured with the latest modern methods of construction to manufacture high quality, super-efficient houses. The association will focus on reducing the amount of plastic used in building materials but particularly wants to focus on removing the plastic from kitchens and bathrooms, parts of the houses that are renewed most frequently and the ones that produce more plastic waste.

My take on this would be to understand which materials of an ordinary house contain plastic, understand how they were considered in historical buildings, and consequently studying how they can be replaced by natural based materials, following the growing movement of natural building.

Multi-pass HDPE PET LDPE PP

Fig 21: Plastic free house, Accord Housing Asociation (Green Square Accord, 2019)

Pneumatic separator/NIR sensors

Incineration and/or energy recovery

Fig 20: Plastic recycling cycle diagram (Author’s own work, 2022)

19

20

PART II: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON THE USE OF PLASTIC IN A BUILDING ENVELOPE To understand which plastic materials need to be replaced and by what, we first need to understand how they were used and with what purpose. We are going to focus on four fundamental parts of the envelope of the building which are the insulation, the foundations, the roof, and the windows, and analyse how historic constructions used the materials, what weaknesses they presented, and how the appearance of plastic-based materials helped solve the issues and create a more comfortable interior atmosphere.

Insulation Many materials of natural origins were already used back in the days as insulation.

Dried eelgrass was firstly used by indigenous people by the Caribbean Sea and revived in 1893 by the Americans to produce insulating blankets called Cabot-Quilt: “dried eelgrass sandwiched between two layers of craft paper or asbestos” (Bozsaky, 2010). This material was impervious to decay, fire, and vermin. Cork was initially used as insulation by the Mediterranean and the romans, for insulating roofs. Monks in Spain and Portugal started to coat the inside of their walls with cork, but it wasn’t until the 1870s that the first cork insulating panel was made to sheath the inner façade of walls, but unfortunately in between the panel and the wall, condensation was developed, and various kinds of parasites nested in it (Bozsaky, 2010). Mineral wool, specifically asbestos, became popular during the industrial revolution where it was used for insulating pipes, steam engines, boilers, and chimneys. Harmful effects of this material were always known but started to get apparent after the first asbestos-related death in 1906. Natural mineral wool is “formed from effusive rocks when the escaping steam turns the molten lava into a fluffy fibre” (Bozsaky, 2010). This material was used to blanket huts and was first commercialized in 1840 to insulate pipes and machines to reduce heat loss and risk of accidents. Production had harmful effects on workers. Finally, rock wool, prepared from limestone, became a very popular fill-in insulation in light frame structures (Bozsaky, 2010). Loose insulations such as slag were first used as insulation for flat roofs and slab structures in the 19th century. It had a low price and was very attractive, but the disadvantage was its heavy dead weight that increased by the condensed water vapour accumulated in the structure. Another loose insulation was perlite, that had a breakthrough in 1938 when expanded perlite was founded. Its cellular structure resulted in resistance to conduction of heat, fireproof and extremely lightweight condition. It can be used as loose insulation in slab structures and as an aggregate in mortars and lightweight concrete (Bozsaky, 2010).

The choice of insulation is the result of evaluating multiple objectives, “that is why a hygrothermal assessment of construction (needs to be) undertaken” (Bottino-Leone, 2019). It is a crucial step as it will allow to evaluate the optimization of the insulation thickness and to prevent moisture damage in construction. It is also important to simultaneously carry a comparative assessment of the ecological impact of the different materials. A study in 2019, carried out by a partnership between Eurac Research in Bolzano, Italy, and Technische Universität Dresden in Germany, seeked to evaluate the thermal insulating qualities that historic building walls had.

They found out that from all the materials used in those times, wood fibre and mineral foam had the best performance, and CA-PUR and cork insulation systems had the highest humidity values which lowered its insulating qualities. The behaviour of the wall changed very slightly with the different insulating materials which suggested that the hygrothermal qualities of the insulation were not the main influencing factor in this case. The study proposes replacing the exterior plaster with a water repellent plaster characterized by a lower water absorption, which lowers the relative humidity behind the insulation. Overall, the study proves that “none of the selected insulation materials lead to an acceptable hygrothermal behaviour due to the driving rain load on the exterior part of the construction” (Bottino-Leone, 2019) [Fig.22].

21

Fig 22: Detail drawing collage historical building wall (Author’s own work, 2022)

22

Foundations and roofs “Water related issues account for over 80% of building defects” (Projex, 2021).

9 8 7

6

5

Fig 23: Plastic insulation picture (Net, 2020)

4

3

9. External cladding 8. Counter battens 7. Extruded polysterene insulation 6. Polysterene insulation

1

5. Structural sheathing 2

4. Gypsum wall board 3. 0.15mm polyethylene air vapour barrier 2. Polyethylene air vapour barrier 1. Pressure treated wall botom plate

Fig 24: Detail drawing of new materials wall (Author’s own work, 2022)

To achieve an insulation material that had an acceptable hygrothermal behaviour, some new materials appeared such as foam glass or plastic glass. The upside of these new materials was that they indeed achieved their purpose of thoroughfully insulating the building, but as a downside, a lot of chemicals were added, and the main material used was plastic. Foam glass appeared in 1934 and was lightweight, rigid, fire, water, rodent, and insect-resistant, which made it easy to introduce as a new insulation material. Years after, a huge revolution in the market happened between the 1940s and 1950s, and artificial insulation materials started to overlook natural materials.

Polyurethane foam insulation [Fig.23] is a good material for insulating layers. It is a good air barrier, it allows a low air presence, it seals wall to prevent penetrations, and prevents drafts and hot spots. It also prevents moisture penetration, eliminates dew points in wall cavity, and controls mould problems. Additionally, it is a good sound barrier as the air seals to absorb sound and dampens sound vibrations transmitted through solid materials. When it comes to thermal insulation, it does not settle with time, and it reduces the thermal bridging effect. This material is a poor conductor of heat, has a high R-value and blocks heat transfer by conduction. It is considered air-impermeable insulation which prevents air infiltration and heat transfer. The cells in the plastic help reduce the air movement within and through the walls which reduces heat transfer in the insulation mass. Because of this specific cell structure, the heat transfer through radiation is minimized, which leads to great comfort. (Amirah et al., 2018) [Fig.24].

23

In the foundations of buildings, the main problem was ground water infiltration that produces damp and moisture [Fig.26]. Common sources were rain, ground water and condensation (Smith and United States. National Park Service, 1984). Light rains did not really cause moisture, as they evaporated instantly during the drying cycle, but heavy or wind-driven rains were more likely to create deeper moisture as the evaporation was not always complete. “Most serious penetration takes place between brick and mortar, … minute cracks are quite efficient at drawing moisture into deep walls” (Smith and United States. National Park Service, 1984, p.12). Moreover, rain caused damage at the bottom of buildings if it was allowed to splash back at the building or to form puddles against the wall. Water levels were marked by subterranean water table which changed depending on the rainfall during each season. Heavy rains could cause complete saturation of water in the ground which would make the water table level [Fig.25] coincide with the ground level surface (Smith and United States. National Park Service, 1984, p.14). Suction of water into porous building materials occurred both horizontally and vertically when the structure was built on ground that is damp. The moisture rising would stop when it reached equilibrium which was achieved when there was a “balance between the supply of moisture and its evaporation from exposed wall surfaces” (Smith and United States. National Park Service, 1984, p14). The highest point the moisture had reached was characterized by a tide mark left because of crystalized salts, called “efflorescence”, when the equilibrium had been reached. Condensation occurred when moist air was cooled to the point at which the water vapour turned from gas to liquid. It could happen on glass, at the bottom of cool walls, on the surface of some materials or within porous materials (Smith and United States. National Park Service, 1984, p16). This may be avoided by controlling air temperature and relative humidity. In impervious materials or heavybodied wall coverings, the condensation would occur on the surface, forming droplets.

It could be collected on windowsills or wooden baseboards and damage the paint or cause rot. On the contrary, in porous materials, it would occur within the material when temperature was low enough to produce a dew point (when the condensation occurs), and cause plaster, mortar or end of wooden joists or beams embedded in the wall to deteriorate (Smith and United States. National Park Service, 1984, p16). This phenomenon occurred more often in the northern climates during colder times when the outside walls were cooler. Interior activities could also cause condensation on the interior surface of the walls. The problem was aggravated when little ventilation took place or when the building was only heated during specific times of the day, which didn’t allow the external walls to warm up (Smith and United States. National Park Service, 1984, p16-18).

Fig 25: Water level table in the East coast of the UK (British Geological Survey, 2020)

Fig 26: Pciture showing humidity at the bottom of the wall (Freimanis et al., 2019)

24

Another point of water income was the roof of the building which produced moisture [Fig.28]. Excess of moisture could be caused by inadequate ventilation that happened when the sarking boards were employed without gap prevision for ventilation and air movement was absent. “Ventilation will also be restricted by insulation material being packed into the eaves” (Watt, 2011, p174). Moisture could also be caused by condensation forming at the bottom of the roofing which would cause dripping on the timber structure, the insulation, and the ceiling. Inadequate maintenance of gutters and missing counter-battens or use of undersized battens were also a cause of moisture, which resulted in reduced ventilation and probable condensation risk. Additionally, “presence of hygroscopic salts, leading to an increase moisture content of affected timbers” (Watt, 2011, p.174) provoked eye irritation and nasal passages, common diseases in the 1950s and 60s. This phenomenon caused cracking and spalling to beam and clinker flat roofs as the moisture penetrated through a defective roof finish and caused the clinker to expand and create pressure on the perimeter parapets and walls, which led to cracking and bulging (Watt, 2011, p.174).

Some techniques and materials used as weathering [Fig.29] and flashings were abutment flashing that prevented water penetration at the wall-roof junction. It was employed in combination with soakers that were placed between double-lap slates or tiles. Furthermore, a secret gutter could have been used in addition where there was a risk of water penetration. Protective weathering could be applied to protect exposed masonry (cornices, parapets…) and to shed rainwater from those surfaces. Defects in flashing or weathering were caused by “inadequate depth of upstand, poorly secured flashing, excessive flashing length, loose, or missing wedges allowing water to come into the structure” (Watt, 2011, p.189). Additionally, they were caused by wind-lift or movement of the flashing due to inappropriate clipping of edges and absence of soakers or inadequate soakers fitted underneath the abutment flashing. Distortion of cover flashing could also be due to thermal movement.

Fig 27: Detail drawing of historical building foundations (Author’s own work, 2022)

As for the foundation construction, the techniques available at the time did not allow to excavate under the groundwater level, so closely spaced timber piles were driven into the weak ground in order to compact it, transfer load to deeper layers and make it more stable (Przewlocki et al., 2005). Timber elements were put under the lowest expected groundwater level as this material does not deteriorate with water. Oak, pine, alder, or beech with little or no treatment were used. Throughout the centuries, different types of timber construction were used. Before 16th century, short piles close to one another were in place (used until 18th century), then horizontal timber sleepers were placed lengthwise and width wise under the foundation, and finally a combination of both was employed.

During the 16th century, foundations were made of longer and thicker timber piles with a mixture of different types of grillages, as they realized it would allow to transfer loads to deeper layers of hard soil [Fig.27]. Finally, during the 19th century they found a way to connect the adjacent highly loaded parts of the building and the less loaded foundations through continual transition in thicknesses and inverted arches in order to save material and create a regular pressure transfer. Of course, the timber piles technique from earlier centuries were still in use but in a thicker and more spread way (Przewlocki et al., 2005).

As we can see, no waterproof layer was being used to prevent the water rising from the ground or to prevent the rain to reach the sides of the building.

Fig 28: Picture showing walter infiltration from the roof (Gendron, 2018)

Abutment flashing

Soaker

Secret gutter

Fig 29: Skecthes of different techniques used as weathering (Author’s own work, 2022)

25

26

9. Roof covering (e.g. clay tiles) 8. Loadbearing layer for roof covering 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1

7. Ventilation cavity/counter battens 6. Sealing layer (secondary waterproofing/covering layer 5. Loadbearing layer for sealing layer 4. Thermal insulation 3. Vapour barrier/airtgight membrane 2. Loadbearing layer for vapour barrier 1. Loadbearing construction

Fig 30: Detail drawing of new materials roof (Author’s own work, 2022)

When it comes to the roof of the house, specifically, plastic can be found in three materials that make up the roof. Thermal insulation made of plastic foam boards (PU + PS), usually of a 120-millimetre thickness. The sealing layer that acts as a secondary waterproof layer which is made out, among other things, of a special plastic sheeting, vapour-permeable, of 0.2 millimetre. Finally, the vapour barrier and airtight membrane are also made of plastic: PE and PVC sheeting of approximately 0.2 millimetre (Deplazes, 2018, p.213) [Fig.30].

To solve the problem of water income, a waterproof membrane was created. It is basically formed of plastic materials, usually thermoplastics or synthetic rubber modified bitumen. The most well-known are ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber (EPDM), thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO), poly vinyl chloride (PVC), good chemical and oil resistant, built-up roofing (BUR), modified bitumen, liquid-applied membrane, and metal roofing (Nafici, 2012). “Rubber pond liner (EPDM) is the most waterproof and durable material, and the most common choice due to proven performance, but it’s also very expensive and made from nasty petro-chemicals” (Geiger, 2010).

For the foundations, the damp proof course is made to prevent rising damp and moisture creation. It has to be placed at a minimum of 150mm above ground level (in external cavity wall it has to extend at least 225mm below the damp proof course) (Richardson & Starling, 2019) [Fig.31].

PVC waterproofing membrane is the most commonly used material for damp proof courses. It is a single-ply sheet material that only needs one layer of the membrane to act to its full potential. This material is very cost effective when it comes to remediation, repairs, maintenance, or replacement, and provides long-term waterproofing protection.

It can also be installed over damp substrates because of the vapour transmission properties that the product has and does not need curing time which allows finishes to be applied directly on them (Projex, 2021). It is highly resistant to mould and bacteria, can hold ponding and excessive accumulation of water (positive falls to outlets should be included in the substrate), and does not risk combustion when installing as it self-extinguishes. It is manufactured without cadmium or lead stabilisers and can stand exceptional range of service temperature that allows it to be used in cold and warm climates (Projex, 2021).

Polyethylene geomembrane is another known material with a thickness that can vary between 0.08 mm to 2.5 mm and width between 2 to 7 meters. It has excellent stress resistance, excellent performance of chemical erosion resistance and can be used in a large scope of temperatures. The only downside is that it is produced by three-layer coextrusion process at 2000ºC which makes it very complicated to produce (C. Desai et al., 2015).

2 5

7

6 4

7. Timber flooring 2

6. Counter battens

3

5. Pressure streated 38mmx38mm cap strip 4. Concrete floor slab 3. 0.25mm polysterene moisture barrier

2

2. Extruded polysterene insulation 1. Concrete foundation

1

Fig 31: Detail drawing of new materials foundation (Author’s own work, 2022)

27

28

Windows A typical window form started being unglazed masonry windows (narrow openings cut through wall for light and ventilation) that existed from the 11th to the 13th century. Then it evolved to unglazed timber windows, that had squared oak mullions set diagonally into the frame with internal sliding shutters. Finally, around the 17th century, vertical sliding sash windows appeared which were “counterbalanced single or double-hung sliding sashes… Seventeenth century sashes held small panes of glass in thick glazing bars, with thinner bars used in the eighteenth century and larger panes of plate glass being held in the nineteenth century” [Fig.34] (Watt, 2011, p.255). Talking about glass, it is a material that has also evolved a lot over the years. Late 16th century secular windows were protected by shutters or had a transparent material like oiled cloth to protect them. Early glazing was limited to diamond-shaped and, as it evolved, developed into rectangular quarries of blown cylinder glass held by iron or timber frames. From the 18th century on, plate glass became available, and during the early 19th century, broad or sheet glass was developed.

(Watt, 2011, p.255).

Some of the signs that windows were not acting the way they should by letting air or water come into the building were moisture affecting the performance of the timber and breaking down the glue, which caused difficulties in use [Fig.32]. The penetration could be caused by failure of the mortar to fill the junction between the frame and reveal by drips on the sills that caused water to run down the walls into the masonry joints, by inadequate weathering of filling surfaces, or by exposed joints. Additionally, fungal attack was due to failure of protection within wrongly ventilated shutter boxes or condensation forming on the inside face of the glass which caused an increase of fungus on the surface.

Malfunction of the timber frame due to the “absence of lintel imposing load on to frame”, and additional loads that may have produced cracking and localized distortion, which eventually caused distortion of the frame in general, was also a sign of defect as the movement produced by the overloading of the frames caused further water penetration and consequently, timber decay. Finally, entry of rain generated by the blown wind through the joints could be originated by failure of bedding compounds or through junctions with timber surrounds, and in turn affected the correct operation of the window.

In the late 20th century, uPVC windows appeared [Fig.33]. uPVC is a strong, durable plastic that provides good foundations for double glazed windows and door units.

It is weather-resistant (wind, rain, rust, rot, and chemical erosion), easy to maintain, long-lasting (it can remain intact around 25 years), and energy efficient (it is a fantastic insulator allowing the inside of a room to be cool in summer and warm in winter). It does not conduct heat (no high temperatures coming inside during hottest months), and when combined with double glazing creates a stability in temperature without the need for additional energy to keep the temperature of the house to the correct level (Energy Efficient Windows Australia, 2019). AIS Windows is an example of a company specialised in construction materials that produces uPVC windows that are engineered to lower the electricity consumption to save up to 35-40% on energy bills. Their windows allow for proper drainage (shutters and built-in drainage systems), keep water from being stagnant and leaking inside the house during rains. They are also very durable as the material used is lasting and has an additional coating that protects it from UV rays. Finally, the robust and resilient built makes it highly resistant to tensile stress, and its ability to endure corrosion, rot, and termites makes it last longer (AIS Windows, 2021).

29

Fig 32: Window malfunction (Park, 1996) Fig 33: Picture of uPVC window (AIS Windows, 2021) Fig 34: Picture of sash window (Collins Cobuild, 2020)

As seen through this section, plastic has helped fix the problems that could be found in a historical building envelope and has made the inside of the building more comfortable and suitable for human inhabitants. It has cooperated to keep buildings dry and to improve building comfort, but it is not the most ideal material when it comes to the inhabitant’s long term health quality or the environment’s impact. As mentioned in the previous chapter, plastic is a really toxic material that releases chemicals that have bad repercussions on humans such as cancer, inflammation, heart diseases (Alonso-Magdalena et al., 2009). “Some health professionals consider that the chronic uptake of these products, such as resin vapor, fiberglass, plastics, even at very low levels, may be contributing to kidney, liver, nervous and immune system damage, cancer, asthma, and various behavior disorders” (Goudie, 2014). Additionally, it has a really negative impact on the environment, whether due to landfill, the gases it emits into the atmosphere, or its impact on life on the planet. That is why there should be further investigations on how this material can be removed from our lives, beginning with how it can be removed from the buildings that we live in.

30

PART III: SOLUTIONS TOWARDS PLASTIC FREE HOUSES As mentioned previously, we must try and find a way to remove plastic materials from our building envelopes to ensure a safer living for the generations to come. Following the same four different parts as the previous chapter, this section will explore different alternatives to plastic-based materials that can achieve the same purposes.

Insulation Nowadays insulations made from natural materials are comparable with standard plastic insulating materials. There have been several studies to understand the behavior of these materials once installed in a particular house. Natural buildings can positively impact human health as they regulate internal air humidity, and their odour beneficially acts on the human psyche (Korjenic et al., 2011).

To optimize the performance of natural insulation it must, whenever possible, be kept dry, as moisture decreases effectiveness, it must be protected from animals using it as nesting material and must be carefully enclosed and treated to be fire resistant (Kennedy, 2010, p.102). The materials with the highest thermal effectiveness are wool and cellulose fibers (comparable to fiberglass insulation which is currently placed in houses) (Kennedy, 2010, p.102). Some possible materials are straw, as when the bales are installed tight together, with cracks carefully stuffed to avoid heat leakage, the walls become highly insulated. A study carried out in Germany proved that straw bales-built houses “provide good qualities to achieve excellent living conditions” (Ashour et al., 2011). Additionally, straw bale is often combined with clay to make it more resistant to fire, mold, and rodents. Next, there is the possibility of using recycled cotton as it also has a similar insulation capacity as fiberglass. It is a material that is made 100% from post-industrial denim and cotton fiber that is treated with boron (Ashour et al., 2011). It produces no chemical outgassing or airborne particles which is a must to preserve the health of the inhabitants. Then there is cellulose, which is an inexpensive, non-toxic material, made 85% of recycled paper, most of it being post-consumer waste papers like newspapers (Mohamed et al., 2016). It is blown dry into the wall or roof cavity, which results in a more stable material. Finally, expanded minerals such as perlite and vermiculite (heat-expanded minerals) can be used as they are good water and fire resistant, but are more expensive than others material, which might not make it a suitable alternative to plastic insulation.

Wool, which is the material with the highest thermal effectiveness, as mentioned above, might be the best material to use, e.g., in the United Kingdom, due to the high number of rainy days throughout the year as it is the only one that can still insulate while wet (Kennedy, 2010, p.102) [Fig.35].

Fig 36: Graph showing the relationship between relative humidity of a room and the amount of water the material retains (Florea and Manea, 2019)

A study carried out by the Technical University of Cluj-Napoca analyses the thermo-insulating properties of building materials based on natural fibres, among which we can find a study on sheep wool. It states that it is an excellent heat protection during summer because of its latent heat storage effect and has a high capacity of diffusion which provides a humidity control and improved indoor climate quality, which consequently has positive impact on the health of the inhabitant. Stabilizing the room humidity is achieved by absorption when it increases, which produces an increase in the surface of the material, and desorption when it decreases. The following graph [Fig.36] exemplifies the relationship between relative humidity of a room and the amount of water the material retains. “The coarser the wool, the better thermoinsualtion properties, and the finer it is, the easier its technological properties” (Florea and Manea, 2019). This justifies the use of thicker wool (as it has several air spaces inside the fibre and lowers the conductivity of the material) to achieve a better insulation material. In the study, they achieve a thermal conductivity (U-value) of 0,046 W/mK for the wool composite studied. For a layer to be considered an insulating layer, it must have a thermal conductivity lower than 0.065 W/mK (Beevet, 2012), which this composite has, thus making it a good insulating material to use in buildings. The study also states that it is possible to manufacture this specific material as a rigid board which avoids the thermal bridging created by the wood boxes used as mattresses for the sheep wool.

Fig 35: Sheep wool insulation (Robert, 2019)

31

32

Foundation When it comes to foundations [Fig.37], “The ideal waterproofing membrane is resistant to weather conditions, possesses ultimate elongation properties (to move with the building), is certified resistant to root penetrations (green roof and planter boxes, etc.), UV stable (if exposed) and has a long service life” (Projex, 2021).

Different natural building materials options are available to construct the foundations. Stone is one of the materials. It is heavy, strong, extremely resistant to weathering, and available in many areas (Kennedy, 2010, p.107). Sedimentary stones are easier to build with than hard, irregularly shaped stones, as for example round river stones which, because of their shape, are difficult to stack solidly. That is why traditional foundations are usually built with mortar. Unreinforced stone masonry is held together mainly by gravity which can be an inconvenience for the foundations when facing earthquakes. To make the foundations more resistant, steel reinforcing can be embedded in the cement mortar between the courses of stone (Kennedy, 2010, p.107). Another strategy is to cast a concrete bond beam above and/or below the masonry part.

The inconvenience with these techniques is the amount of skill and time required to produce this stone masonry, which makes it a very difficult foundation material to use.

Wood is another material. It can be used in two ways: the most common is to raise the entire building on wooden posts, often done in hot, humid places. It is made in order to get the main structure away from the wet, heat-retaining earth and be placed into the cool breezes. Modern buildings sometimes are set on “post and pier” foundations where wood is placed on concrete footings to spread the loads or completely replaced by concrete or steel (Kennedy, 2010, p.108). The other way of using it is by building with heavy beams on the ground. It brings the building in contact with the earth which is more appropriate for buildings that are focused on passive solar design. Finally, other available materials are earthbags. Burlap or woven polypropylene bags filled with rammed earth are an easy-to-build, inexpensive foundation system. In rainy conditions, the bags should be placed atop a rubble trench. Strands of barbed wire are used between courses of bags as a type of “Velcro mortar” (Kennedy, 2010, p.109). This is not the most ideal material as, even though it has natural materials in it, the bags that surround the earth are made of plastic, which goes against the purpose of eliminating all plastic-based material from the building envelope.

The materials mentioned above are not particularly known for their waterproof quality. That is why it is important to add a layer that prevents water from raising up the ground and create moisture or cracks. To solve the problem of creating cracks, Rubble Trench Foundations exist [Fig.38]. They are a good solution to the freeze/thaw problem (when frozen water volumetrically expands 9 times and creates a pressure of 150 tons (2100MPsc)) (Kennedy, 2010, p.111). They consist of a trench dug lower than the frost line; filled with clean stone ballast in which drainage tile has been embedded to ensure positive drainage.

Compacted stones bear solidly against each other and transmit building loads to the supporting earth below. The voids between stones provide space for any water that may be collected to expand freely. It works in most soils whose bearing capacity exceeds 2.000 pounds per 100 cm2 (Kennedy, 2010, p.111). To build these trenches first the topsoil around the building footprint needs to be peeled away. The foundation perimeter firstly needs to be laid out and then the trench can be dug, always keeping the line in the centre. The footings are usually twice the size of the wall thickness. The shallowest part of trench needs to be dug below frost line and sloped from there to the outlet of the trench, at lower part of the building footprint. They should be sloped at least 1 centimetre per meter horizontal run. The bottom of the trenches is flat, free of loose debris and properly sloped to the outlets. It is filled with washed stone to provide a firm bed for a 10-centimetre perforated drainage tile. Then, the trench is filled with washed stone (38 millimetres). Drain tiles are included and only require 100cm2 or so of stone around it (Kennedy, 2010, p.112).

To prevent fine soil particles from washing down and clogging the void between the stones, a filter of landscape fabric is added to the whole (asphalt-impregnated felt or burlap should be laid over the stone before backfilling). The outlet end of the drain should be capped with stout, corrosion-resistant mesh to keep critters out. To solve the problem of water filtering and coming up from the ground, a recent material has been developed that can replace toxic-based waterproof membrane materials. Two researchers of the Department of Jute and Fibre Technology of the University of Calcutta have invented a “cotton-jute fabric with a waterproof coating that can substitute non-biodegradable PVC-coated polyester” (Glover, 2019) [Fig.39]. It is biodegradable and suitable for outdoor use as a screening material. The natural fibre has the required fire-retardancy qualities for a membrane and grants the transfer of moisture to avoid the accumulation of humidity in between other layers, while remaining waterproof.

This material does not contain any toxic chemical components such as carcinogenic plasticizer, toxic formaldehyde-based adhesion promoter or non-biodegradable fabric components (Glover, 2019).

Fig 38: Rubble Trench Foundation sketch for a cold climate (Author’s own work, 2022)

Fig 39: Cotton-jute membrane (Drochytka and Dvorakova, 2017)

Fig 37: Natural building foundation; a stone foundation (This Cobe House, 2015) 33

34

Roofs When it comes to roofs, we must think of possible materials for the structure, the waterproofing membrane, and the tiles on top of this one. For structure, the most common material is wood because it is easy to work with, lightweight, and strong in tension and compression (Kennedy, 2010, p.208). Long spans can require lumber dimensions that are only possible by milling large trees. Small dimension lumber trusses or engineered wood products can reduce pressure on the forests and are often more convenient. The second most used material is bamboo, a very strong material that grows very quickly and provides a strong renewable material for building (Kennedy, 2010, p.209).

Once the structure is set, a sheathing layer is required to connect structural elements, spread loads, and provide attachment for the waterproof and protective layers.

Nowadays, highly toxic plywood is usually used but natural elements have become more and more available such as bamboo, natural boards, or small-diameter saplings that are less aggressive to the environment (Kennedy, 2010, p.209).

The tricky part is waterproofing. Ancestors used birch bark [Fig.40], reed thatch, slate, and ceramic tiles. Traditional Scandinavian roofs are a perfect example of roofs that are successfully insulated from water and cold/warmth. Until late 19th century the most common type of roof on houses in Norway and Scandinavia was the “sod or turf roof”. Sod is quite an efficient material when it comes to insulation, and the birch bark placed under it ensures the waterproofing of the roof. Additionally, the materials can be found worldwide, and they are very cost effective which makes these types of roofs quite successful. Most specifically, birch bark works pretty well as a waterproof membrane material as it is a strong, water-resistant, and soil-resistant material that can last for generations without the need of renewing it (Arne et al. 1998). By removing the outer bark of the tree (the material needed in the roof layer), it will not cause the tree to die as a new coarser bark will replace the one taken previously, which does not contribute to the destruction of the ecosystem. The birch bark “layer is placed directly onto the roof boards without any nails or other means of fastening … the friction alone will hold the layers of birch bark in place … they must be weighted down with a heavier material to prevent them from curling or blowing away” (Vreim, 1948), which is why the sod is used to keep the material in place, and it additionally adds further insulation. Six layers are considered adequate to achieve its purpose. The first layers project about 8cm along the eaves where they will curve down to form a throating [Fig.41].

Fig 40: Birch bark material (Sagaan, 2020)

35

Fig 41: Roof detail (Author’s own work, 2022)

Fig 42: Wooden frame windows (Everest, 2021)

Windows Finally, for the windows, wood frames are the best option to replace plastic frames of the uPVC windows [Fig.42]. Wood has a bad conduction of heat which makes it a good insulator and the best choice of material for now, as it will keep the interior of the house warm in winter and cool in summer. It is also a material not prone to rust and good at keeping odors and sounds out of the building (Kennedy, 2010, p.197). Unfortunately, it is a material that attracts insects but if coated with the correct paint, it can resist.A good paint that could be used is Corion Repel®, a Enstudio Italia tested special water paint that repels insects, preventing them to stand or walk on the painted surface.

If we compare this proposed material to the uPVC window frames that are sold currently, we can see that the overall environment impact is lower for wood than uPVC. It is carbon negative, saving an estimated 160kg of CO2e over its lifetime and is naturally renewable.

It is a material that lasts twice as long as uPVC windows and only needs maintenance (recoating) every 8 years. Additionally, it has a lower LCA (Life-Cycle Assessment) impact than uPVC. While the “uPVC frame impact indexed at 100, the timber frame has an index of 2 human toxicity and 3 for freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity” (The Wood Window Alliance, 2017). Finally, the wood used for the frames can come directly from the tree or from reused pieces of wood which makes the product even more sustainable and environmentally friendly.

Regrettably, when it comes to replacing that material that allows the complete isolation of the window, the rubber, no solution exists as of today to prevent air to filtrate inside of the room. The only alternative is instead of using plastic-based rubber, installing plant-based rubber around the glass which would reduce the chemical leaking and persistence of plastic in the environment.

36

PART IV: CASE STUDY DESIGN STUDIO UNIT E The research developed during this dissertation was then applied to the first semester design project of Unit E in order to get a more in depth understanding on how the materials would interact once placed on a building.

Unit E is a unit focused on how the design of a particular building can respond to the shifting landscape of its location (Yorkshire, England) and on building sustainably, especially with wood. The first part of the project established for the first semester was to analyse a chosen chalet from the Humberston Fitties Holiday Park in the Yorkshire coastline [Fig.43], produce plans and sections and physically model the house, to understand how the building was constructed, what materials where used and how the building was posteriorly used. The end goal was to itemize the building components of the house that we had “taken apart” and produce a “kit of parts” which would be used in the following step of the project. The second part of the project was to design a small temporary and dis-mountable structure to respond to local environmental concerns, using the “kit of parts” of the house from the previous part of the project. This is a process that is beneficial to this investigation because, as Gaspar and Santos said in a study conducted in 2015, refurbishing existing buildings is less environmentally impacting than building new ones, which follows the aim of reducing the impact of the building industry.

Bedrooms Kitchen Bathroom Living/Dinning area Corridor

-

Zoning diagram

+

Privacy diagram

Fig 44: Zoning diagram (Author’s own work, 2021)

Fig 43: Shifting landscapes (Barrington-Leach, 2021)

37

My specific take on the brief was to design a house that could be adaptable to the family that was inhabiting it.

The concept consisted of having three main different levels separated with some steps. The levels were: the “public” (living room and dining area), the “semi-public” (kitchen, bathroom and connecting corridors), and the “private” (master bedroom and secondary bedroom). In these levels some other partitions were created with the help of steps, curtains or even sliding panels [Fig.44]. The internal rooms were also divided by a central core that acted as the main load bearing element which allowed the suppression of internal bearing walls.

Additionally, the chalet studied in the first part of the project was focused for the senior residents of the Humberston Fitties, who were especially fond of gardening. That is why for the second part of the project I decided to design a house for a family, which would bring a bit more of age variety to the region, that had a very straightforward indoor-outdoor relationship which would enhance the relationship with the surrounding nature. To manage this, a combination of sliding panels and big sliding windows surround the house to allow a free arrangement of the walls depending on the use of the room.

38

Since we are reusing the materials from the chalet studied in the first part of the project, we had to identify which materials were used for its construction [Fig.45].

Wall plaster (10) 150 x 200 x 2430m

Fig 45: Kit of parts of the existing house (Author’s own work, 2021) Corrugated roof sheets (44) 1750 x 914mm

Windows (9)

Windows (9)

Wall plaster (22) 150 x 200 x 2160m

Wall plaster (9) 150 x 200 x 2160m

Horizontal floor timber batons (18) 85 x 85 x 1000mm

Windows (2) 150 x 200 x 2240m

Timber foundation beams (20) 150 x 200 x 2160mm

Floor finish plaster

Wall plaster (22) 150 x 200 x 2160m

Rafters (16) 150 x 47 x 3500mm

Windows (2) 150 x 200 x 2430m

Floor finish plaster

Internal wall timber batons (38) 150 x 47 x 3500m

Purlins (17) 200 x 63 x 1500mm

Windows (3) 150 x 200 x 2160m

Exterior wall timber batons (10) Used as columns 150 x 200 x 2500mm

Timber foundation beams (20) 150 x 200 x 2160mm

External cladding batons (160) 150 x 200 x 2160m Rafters (10) 150 x 47 x 3500mm

Purlins (16) 200 x 63 x 1500mm

Corrugated roof sheets (30) 1750 x 914mm

External cladding batons (160) Used as floor batons 150 x 200 x 2160m

Fig 46: Kit of parts of the proposed house (Author’s own work, 2021)

Internal wall timber batons (24) 150 x 47 x 3500m

39

Horiontal wall timber batons (114) 85 x 85 x 1000mm

Exterior wall timber batons (17) 150 x 200 x 2500mm

Once that was set, I calculated the materials that would be needed to construct the new house [Fig.46]. Obviously, the previous house did not take into consideration the materials used in relation with the environment, which is why we could find plastic materials in it. To eliminate them from the building envelope, I applied the research done in this dissertation.

40

6

I decided to raise the entire building on wooden posts, a technique often done in humid places, in order to get the main structure away from the wet, heat-retaining earth and be placed into the cool breezes. Additionally, as the building is located on the Yorkshire coast and the floor is already suffering from the coastal erosion, by elevating it on piles, it had a less aggressive impact on the ground and this one was submitted to less stress. Raising the floor allowed me to omit the step of building a Rubble Trench Foundation, as no water would be splashing the bottom of the walls and no ponds would form around them.

I decided to use piles that were made from wood, as this material does not deteriorate with water (Przewlocki et al., 2005), but I still had to find a way to prevent the water rising from the ground or filtering into the floor. Thus, an additional a layer of cotton-jute fabric was added on the floors to completely waterproof the bottom part of the house. As for the roof, the structure was made from wood as it is easy to work with, lightweight, and strong in tension and compression (Kennedy, 2010, p.208). For the sheathing board, a layer of wood was added to strengthen the assembly and provide a surface for other materials to be applied (the reused corrugated sheets from the previous house) and indirectly, to give some weathering. The main waterproof element is inspired by the “sod or turf roof” from the traditional Scandinavian houses.

I used birch bark, which is added on top of the insulation, and instead of using sod, which is mostly used for green roofs, I added the sheathing board on top to prevent it from curling or moving. Finally, wooden frames with a bit of rubber is applied to the windows to prevent the air coming through when it is not desired. For the insulation of the house, sheep wool insulation is used in the sliding panels, the floor, and the roof to ensure a complete insulated coverage.

The building is very porous for two main reasons: the need to make the sliding panels as light as possible to be able to move them manually, which is why the walls cannot be thicker than what they are (100mm), and the sliding elements can cause a possible airflow through the building. Therefore, the insulation in the roof and the floor needs to be thicker to compensate the possible air that can come into the building [Fig.47].

If we look at the availability of this material, sheep wool is “regenerated annually …” and “… commercialized globally”. “The production of wool in the United Kingdom (UK) peaked in 2019, with a yield of 70.5 thousand tons of wool” (Shahbandeh, 2021). Combed wool and fine hair reached a peak where it was valued for more than 80 million pounds, which accordingly made the sales volume increase a great deal. “In 2019, the production of greasy wool in the UK amounted to approximately 70.5 thousand tons. The volume of wool production in the UK amounted to 65.5 thousand tons in 2010” (Shahbandeh, 2021). So, as we can see, wool is an easy to find material in the United Kingdom and does not have an extremely high selling cost, which makes it a suitable material to use as insulation for a building.

5

1

2

3

Floor plan of proposed house

4

11 4 11

7 8 9

13

12

4 14 10

Fig 47: Detail drawing of propsed house (Author’s own work, 2022) 41

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Corrugated steel shits Timber batons 50mm plaster board shits Wool insulation Birch bark waterproof membrane Compressed plastic walls Timber floor finishing Timber batons 100mm plaster board shits Cotton-jute waterproof membrane 10mm plaster board shits 100mm timber floor beam 100mm timber piles Timber foundations

42

To make sure that the building had the proper thermal comfort, I calculated the U-Value of the floor, roof, and wall. The closer the U-value is to 0, the better the element insulates and protects from external temperature, the closer it is to 1 the less efficient it is. As we can see, the floor and the roof have U-Values that are close to 0 (find calculations bellow), which means they will keep the inside of the house at a suitable temperature and will allow an appropriate atmosphere. When it comes to the walls, as mentioned before, because of their required thinness, the U-Value is a bit closer to 1, but the result is not alarming, as it remains in a suitable range that is not too high.

Fig 49: Process of making the plastic bricks (Author’s own work, 2022)

Fig 50: Connecting the bricks together (Author’s own work, 2022)

Fig 48: Picture of the central core walls (Author’s own work, 2021)

43

In the specific case of the task set out by Unit E, as we are designing with elements from a previously existing house, some materials contain plastic. When replacing them with natural materials, in order not to landfill them and continue contributing to the plastic pollution, they were shredded into small pieces to incorporate them into the central core of the house [Fig.48]. The first step of the process is cutting the plastic materials into two or more pieces (the smaller the pieces of plastic, the more regular their shape, which will help in the next steps of the process) to feed them to a shredding machine for further cutting (Sarang, 2019) to form small little pieces. The materials that were used were the ones that formed the envelope of the previous building, but also any kind of plastic waste that is produced on site, such as plastic bottles or plastic packaging. This will help to reduce even more the amount of plastic that needs to be recycled once the construction process is over.

Once the plastic is shredded, it is incorporated into a mold of the desired shape and put into a “precious plastic V4 extruder” (Chun, 2020) machine which, while heating the plastic up, produces 10Bar pressure on it. The molds are usually made from metal as the plastic doesn’t stick to it and it is a durable and heat resistant material. The bricks usually take up to 4 minutes to be made, need to be cooled for 30 seconds into cold water, and need to be put on a timber base to prevent them from shrinking while cooling (Chun, 2020) [Fig.49]. Byfusion is a company that is currently specialized on making plastic bricks. They produce bricks, called ByBlock®, that are 396mm width, 198mm height, and 227mm depth. They have an integrated reinforcement channel, usually a 18mm threaded rebar, to ensure a higher strength. They are lighter and stronger than normal bricks and are an excellent sound insulator which will allow to have more privacy in the kitchen/bathroom areas. Furthermore, they are an outstanding thermal insulator which will help with the undesired possible airflow that was mentioned before (Chun, 2020). The method followed to produce these bricks is going to be applied to my project and they will be stacked together, thanks to the interlocking pins, to create the central core. This central core has all the services in it, including the plumbing and electric cords. Additionally, as it is made of a mixture between compressed plastic and resin, it gives the possibility of playing with the opacities of the walls. The ones located in the most private part of the house would be opaquer, to allow a more intimate atmosphere inside the space, and as we go up to the more “public” part of the house, the walls would become less opaque to give a more open ambience.

44

CONCLUSION A common belief by the people when it comes to applying the natural building method of construction, is that the end result will have a very vernacular aesthetic because of the materials used.

However, this is not true as “many natural buildings are virtually indistinguishable at a glance from normal construction; they have flat walls, distinct corners, normal roofs” (Piepkorn, 2005). Apart from allowing a modern aesthetic, this type of building has a very particular ethos that benefits the well-being of the inhabitant. Firstly, “it turns out that natural materials such as wood … actually breathe, allowing an interchange between the outside environment and the inside environment” (Goudie, 2014), which makes the house more human.

Secondly, it creates an intimate relationship with the materials as they have been meaningfully selected to achieve the purpose of reducing the aggressivity buildings subject to the environment.

This dissertation has exposed the main stressed that historic buildings where under, thermal bridging, water penetration, excess moisture and consequently growth of fungi and other unwanted organisms. It has displayed the new elements based on plastic materials created to solve the problems mentioned above, plastic insulation which has a much higher thermal resistance than the ones used in previous centuries, waterproof membranes, and rubber materials to prevent unwanted water income. Finally, it has demonstrated that all those elements can easily be replaced by thought through materials that, when placed, used, and treated correctly, can achieve the same goals as the materials used nowadays. The conclusions have been applied to a specific design and have showed that the same thermal comfort and impermeability than any modern building can be reached with plastic-based materials. Additionally, using these elements make the house very long lasting, and the construction process is not that time consuming.

Hence, it is fair to conclude that this dissertation has given us a leap of faith as we have proven that building with natural materials is feasible and will still have the same performance as a house made of plastic-based materials. It gives us the confidence to say that the building industry can stop being the second biggest consumer of plastic and become a more environmentally friendly sector, which will help reduce the plastic pollution and become a little closer to the end goal of saving the planet and the life within it.

Fig 51: Render image of final design (Author’s own work, 2021) 45

Word count: 10974 46

BIBLIOGRAPHY A Plastic Ocean. Directed by Craig Leeson, Netflix, 2016.

Aciu, Claudiu, et al. “Recycling of Plastic Waste Materials in the Composition of Ecological Mortars.” Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 22, 2018, pp. 274–279, www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S2351978918303366, 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.042. Accessed 18 Sept.

2019.

“Adverse Health Effects of Plastics | Ecology Center.” Ecologycenter.org, 2019, ecologycenter.org/factsheets/adverse-health-effects-of-plastics/. Accessed 29 Aug. 2021.

AIS Windows. “UPVC Windows — a Comprehensive Guide.” AIS Windows, 8 Apr. 2021, www.aiswindows.com/upvc-windows-comprehensive-guide/. Accessed 19 Dec. 2021.

Alonso-Magdalena, Paloma, et al. “The Estrogenic Effect of Bisphenol a Disrupts Pancreatic β-Cell Function in Vivo and Induces Insulin Resistance.” Web.archive.org, 19 Jan. 2009, web.archive.org/web/20090119022220/www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/8451/ abstract.html. Accessed 22 Dec. 2021.

Amirah, Nur, et al. “The Potential of Polyurethane Foam Insulation in Roof Maintenance.”

2018.

Arne, Berg, et al. Norske Tømmerhus Frå Mellomalderen. Oslo, Landbruksforlaget, 1998.

C. Desai, Poorvi, et al. “Polyethylene Geomembrane for Waterproofing in Building Walls to Increase the Life of Buildings.” Www.plastemart.com, 2015, www.plastemart.com/plastictechnical-articles/polyethylene-geomembrane-for-waterproofing-in-building-walls-toincrease-the-life-of-buildings/1640.

Chun, Yeoh Yeong. “Reblocks || Using Recycled Plastic to Make Bricks.” Www.youtube.com, 3 Nov. 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4079seLmd0. Accessed 2 Jan. 2022.

Concu, Giovanna. “Introductory Chapter: Timber and Sustainability in Construction.”

Timber Buildings and Sustainability, by Giovanna Concu, IntechOpen, 4 Dec. 2019, www. intechopen.com/chapters/69988. Accessed 29 Aug. 2021.

Corinaldesi, Valeria, et al. “Lightweight Plasters Containing Plastic Waste for Sustainable and Energy-Efficient Building.” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 94, Sept. 2015, pp.

337–345, 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.069. Accessed 30 Nov. 2019.

Deplazes, Andrea. Constructing Architecture : Materials, Processes, Structures : A Handbook. Basel, Birkhäuser, 2018.

ASBP. “Introductory Q&a Guide.” Plastics in Construction, 21 Apr. 2020, asbp.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2015/12/Intro-guide-v2-April-21.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug. 2021.

Energy Efficient Windows Australia. “What Is UPVC and Why Is It Used for Doors and Windows?” Energy Efficient Windows Australia, 19 Feb. 2019, www.eewindows.com.au/ what-is-upvc-and-why-is-it-used-for-doors-and-windows/. Accessed 19 Dec. 2021.

Ashour, Taha, et al. “Performance of Straw Bale Wall: A Case of Study.” Energy and Buildings, vol. 43, no. 8, Aug. 2011, pp. 1960–1967, 10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.04.001. Accessed 1 Nov. 2019.

Engelsmann, Stephan, et al. Plastics : In Architecture and Construction. Basel, Birkhäuser, 2010.

Barras, Colin. “Oceans Swallowed 13 Million Tonnes of Plastic in 2010.” New Scientist, 15 Feb. 2015, www.newscientist.com/article/dn26958-oceans-swallowed-13-milliontonnes-of-plastic-in-2010/. Accessed 19 Dec. 2021.

Beevet. “Thermal Insulation → Thermal Insulation Materials - BEE-VET.” Bee-Vet, 2012, beevet.eu/course/topic-1/lessons/classification-of-thermal-insulation-according-todifferent-aspects/. Accessed 22 Dec. 2021.

Biswas, Beethika. Aluminium in Building and Construction: A Modern Alternative to Steel.

14 Nov. 2012, blog.alcircle.com/2012/11/14/aluminium-in-building-and-construction-amodern-alternative-to-steel/. Accessed 29 Aug. 2021.

Bottino-Leone, Dario, et al. “Evaluation of Natural-Based Internal Insulation Systems in Historic Buildings through a Holistic Approach.” Energy, vol. 181, no. 0360-5442, Aug. 2019, pp. 521–531, 10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.139. Accessed 11 Oct. 2020.

Bozsaky, Dávid. “The Historical Development of Thermal Insulation Materials.” Periodica Polytechnica Architecture, vol. 41, no. 2, 2010, p. 49, pp.bme.hu/ar/article/view/12, 10.3311/ pp.ar.2010-2.02. Accessed 19 Dec. 2021.

47

Bucknall, David G. “Plastics as a Materials System in a Circular Economy.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society a Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol.

378, no. 2176, July 2020.

Erickson, Alexa. “6 Things to Know about Sheep’s Wool Insulation.” Bob Vila, 24 Jan. 2021, www.bobvila.com/articles/sheeps-wool-insulation/. Accessed 1 Jan. 2022.

Florea, Iacob, and Daniela Lucia Manea. “Analysis of Thermal Insulation Building Materials Based on Natural Fibers.” Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 32, 2019, pp. 230–235, 10.1016/j. promfg.2019.02.207.

Forsyth, Michael. Materials & Skills for Historic Building Conservation Forsyth/Materials.

Oxford, Uk Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008.

Gaspar, Pedro Lima, and António Lobato Santos. “Embodied Energy on Refurbishment vs.

Demolition: A Southern Europe Case Study.” Energy and Buildings, vol. 87, Jan. 2015, pp.

386–394, 10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.11.040. Accessed 17 Nov. 2021.

Geiger, Owen. “Alternative Waterproof Membranes for Living Roofs.” Natural Building Blog, 13 July 2010, www.naturalbuildingblog.com/alternative-waterproof-membranesfor-living-roofs/. Accessed 24 Dec. 2021.

48

Geyer, Roland, et al. “Production, Use, and Fate of All Plastics Ever Made.” Science Advances, vol. 3, no. 7, 19 July 2017, plasticoceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Production_use_ and_fate_of_all_plastics_ever_made.pdf, 10.1126/sciadv.1700782. Accessed 18 Oct. 2021.

Glover, Simon. “Award for Biodegradable Waterproof Cotton-Jute Fabric.” Ecotextile News, 22 Nov. 2019, www.ecotextile.com/2019112225322/materials-production-news/ award-for-biodegradable-waterproof-cotton-jute-fabric.html. Accessed 24 Dec. 2021.

Gong, Meng. “Lumber-Based Mass Timber Products in Construction.” Timber Buildings and Sustainability, by Giovanna Concu, IntechOpen, 4 Dec. 2019, www.intechopen.com/ chapters/66693. Accessed 29 Aug. 2021.

Goudie, Ian. “Natural vs. Green Building.” The Independent, 20 June 2014, theindependent. ca/commentary/off-the-grid-in-newfoundland/natural-vs-green-building/. Accessed 29 Dec. 2021.

Green Square Accord. “Accord Aims to Become First Housing Association in UK to Build Plastic Free Houses.” Accord Aims to Become First Housing Association in UK to Build Plastic Free Houses, 13 Aug. 2019, accordgroup.org.uk/news/2019-08-13/accord-aimsto-become-first-housing-association-in-uk-to-build-plastic-free-houses. Accessed 26 Nov. 2021.

Gross, Michael. “Oceans of Plastic Waste.” Current Biology, vol. 25, no. 3, Feb. 2015, pp.

R93–R96, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982215000706, 10.1016/j. cub.2015.01.038. Accessed 19 Dec. 2021.

Hahladakis, John N., et al. “An Overview of Chemical Additives Present in Plastics: Migration, Release, Fate and Environmental Impact during Their Use, Disposal and Recycling.” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 344, no. 179-199, Feb. 2018, pp. 179–199, www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S030438941730763X, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.10.014.

Häkkinen, Tarja, et al. Plastics in Buildings: A Study of Finnish Blocks of Flats and Daycare Centres. 2019.

Halliday, Sandy. Sustainable Construction. London New York Routledge, 2019.

Heriot-Watt University. “Ban on Plastics Could Increase Damage to Planet.” HeriotWatt University, 30 Nov. 2018, www.hw.ac.uk/news/articles/2018/a-plastic-ban-couldincrease-damage-to.htm. Accessed 19 Dec. 2021.

Jeffrey, Cara, and Lara Webster. “Wool Back in the Black for Five-Week Streak.” Www. abc.net.au, 22 June 2021, www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-22/wool-market-on-therise/100233382. Accessed 22 Dec. 2021.

49

Nafici. “The Role and Function of Thermal Insulation in Architecture.” Journal Design + Built, vol. Volume 4, no. 1985-6881, 2012.

Parker, Laura. “Plastic Pollution Facts and Information.” National Geographic, National Geographic, 7 June 2019, www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/plasticpollution. Accessed 25 Aug. 2021. permahome. “Traditional Scandinavian Sod (Turf) Roof with Birch Bark.” YouTube, 23 July 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXt6P-2qrHE. Accessed 25 Oct. 2021.

Petter Jelle, Bjorn. Traditional, State-of-The-Art and Future Thermal Building Insulation Materials and Solutions - Properties, Requirements and Possibilities. 2011.

Piepkorn, Mark. “The Natural Building Movement.” BuildingGreen, 1 May 2005, www. buildinggreen.com/feature/natural-building-movement. Accessed 29 Dec. 2021.

“Plastic Health Coalition.” Plastic Health Coalition, 2018, www.plastichealthcoalition.org/.

Accessed 25 Aug. 2021.

Projex. “Reasons Why You Should Choose PVC Waterproofing Membranes.” Projex, 4 Aug. 2021, www.projex.com.au/blog/reasons-why-you-should-choose-pvc-waterproofingmembranes/. Accessed 19 Dec. 2021.

Przewlocki, J., et al. “Review of Historical Building’s Foundations.” Géotechnique, vol. 55, no. 5, 2005.

Richardson & Starling. “What Is a Damp Proof Course? Different Types of DPC’s Explained.”

Richardson & Starling, 23 Oct. 2019, www.richardsonandstarling.co.uk/blog/what-isdamp-proof-course/. Accessed 19 Dec. 2021.

Rogers, Tony. “Everything You Need to Know about Polyethylene (PE).” Creativemechanisms. com, 2015, www.creativemechanisms.com/blog/polyethylene-pe-for-prototypes-3dprinting-and-cnc. Accessed 19 Dec. 2021.

Sarang, Goutham. “Shredded Plastic - an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics.” Www. sciencedirect.com, 2019, www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/shredded-plastic.

Accessed 2 Jan. 2022.

Science History Institute. “The History and Future of Plastics.” Science History Institute, 20 Dec. 2016, www.sciencehistory.org/the-history-and-future-of-plastics. Accessed 20 Dec. 2021.

Scott, Andrew, et al. Phasing out Plastics. Sept. 2020.

Kennedy, Joseph F. The Art of Natural Building : Design, Construction, Resources. Gabriola Island, Bc, New Society Publishers, 2010.

Shahbandeh, M. “Topic: Uk Wool Industry.” Statista, 24 Mar. 2021, www.statista.com/ topics/7630/uk-wool-industry/. Accessed 22 Dec. 2021.

Korjenic, Azra, et al. “Development and Performance Evaluation of Natural ThermalInsulation Materials Composed of Renewable Resources.” Energy and Buildings, vol. 43, no. 9, Sept. 2011, pp. 2518–2523, 10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.06.012. Accessed 8 May 2019.

Sikra, Sonya. “How Does Construction Impact the Environment? | GoContractor.”

GoContractor, 24 Apr. 2019, gocontractor.com/blog/how-does-construction-impact-theenvironment/.

Mohamed, Mohamad Azuwa, et al. “The Utilization of Recycled Newspaper in the Production of Cellulose Microfiber.” Advanced Materials Research, vol. 1133, no. 644, Jan. 2016.

SloActive. “Plastic Pollution Guide - Ocean Pollution Facts & Figures.” SLO Active, 2016, sloactive.com/plastic-pollution/. Accessed 1 Sept. 2021.

50

Smith, Baird M, and United States. National Park Service. Moisture Problems in Historic Masonry Walls : Diagnosis and Treatment . Washington, D.C., Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, 1984.

FIGURE REFERENCES

Stone Federation Great Britain. Natural Stone the Oldest Sustainable Material. Mar. 2011.

Fig. 1: Author’s own work. Triptic of proposed house. 2021.

Teuten, Emma L., et al. “Transport and Release of Chemicals from Plastics to the Environment and to Wildlife.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 364, no. 1526, 27 July 2009, pp. 2027–2045, 10.1098/rstb.2008.0284.

Fig. 2: A Plastic Ocean. Directed by Craig Leeson, Netflix, 2016. (min. 83:90)

The Wood Window Alliance. A Briefing on the Environmental Performance of PVCu vs.

Wood Windows, according to Recent Research, from the Wood Window Alliance. May 2017, www.bwf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/WWA_WWF_A-clear-choice-WWA-10.5.17.pdf.

Accessed 24 Dec. 2021.

Fig. 3: Malena Martus. Plastic camouflaged in the sand. 2021 Fig. 4: Malena Martus. Dead wildlife because of plastic. 2021 Fig. 5: A Plastic Ocean. Directed by Craig Leeson, Netflix, 2016 (min. 53)

Tran Le, A.D., et al. “Transient Hygrothermal Behaviour of a Hemp Concrete Building Envelope.” Energy and Buildings, vol. 42, no. 10, Oct. 2010, pp. 1797–1806, 10.1016/j. enbuild.2010.05.016.

Fig. 6: A Plastic Ocean. Directed by Craig Leeson, Netflix, 2016. (min 54:50)

University of the West of England. “Evolution of Building Elements.” Uwe.ac.uk, 2009, fet. uwe.ac.uk/conweb/house_ages/elements/print.htm. Accessed 19 Dec. 2021.

Fig. 8: Bonells, Jose Elias. “¿El Primer Jardín Vertical de Barcelona?” Jardines Sin Fronteras, 12 July 2017, jardinessinfronteras.com/2017/07/12/el-primer-jardin-vertical-de-barcelona/. Accessed 8 Jan. 2022.

Vrachovska, Merilin. “Why Is It Important to Reduce Plastic Waste? - Almost Zero Waste.”

Https://Www.almostzerowaste.com/, www.almostzerowaste.com/reduce-plasticwaste/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021.

Fig. 7: A Plastic Ocean. Directed by Craig Leeson, Netflix, 2016. (min. 80:49)

Vreim, Halvor. Laftehus : Tømring Og Torvtekking. Oslo, 1948.

Fig. 9: Hart, Kelly. “Unique Mud Home in Kerala, India.” Natural Building Blog, 2 May 2019, www.naturalbuildingblog.com/unique-mud-home-in-kerala-india/#:~:text=This%20 modern%2C%20eco%2Dfriendly%20home. Accessed 10 Jan. 2022.

Watt, David. Surveying Historic Buildings. Shaftsbury, Dorset England ; Kimball, Mi, Donhead Pub, 2011.

Fig. 10: Marina Vella. “Oficina de Arquitectura Y Urbanismo En Lima, Perú.” Marina Vella Arquitectura, 2020, marinavella.com/#/casa-traversa/. Accessed 10 Jan. 2022.

Fig. 11: Marina Vella. “Oficina de Arquitectura Y Urbanismo En Lima, Perú.” Marina Vella Arquitectura, 2020, marinavella.com/#/casa-traversa/. Accessed 10 Jan. 2022.

Fig. 12: Author’s own work. Plastic statistic diagram. 2021.

Fig. 13: Lewis, Justin, and Michelle Stauffer. “Update 10: The Sargasso Sea · a Documentary about Plastic Pollution in the Atlantic Ocean.” Kickstarter, 10 Nov. 2015, www.kickstarter.com/projects/1452100454/showing-the-real-face-of-plastic-pollution-in-our/ posts/472039. Accessed 4 Jan. 2022.

Fig. 14: Mariana. “Julho Sem Plástico: Desafiamos Você a Cumprir Uma de Nossas Dicas E Recusar Totalmente O Plástico Nessas Situações.” FTCMAG, 3 July 2018, followthecolours.com.br/style/julhosemplastico/. Accessed 10 Jan. 2022.

Fig. 15: Munro, Margaret. “Plastic Planet _ Declare Worst Offenders Hazardous.” Margaret Munro, 19 Feb. 2013, margaretmunro.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/plastic-planet-_-declare-worst-offenders-hazardous/. Accessed 10 Jan. 2022.

Fig. 16: Cultura Colectiva. “Descubren Que Tortugas Verdes Comen Plástico Porque Lo Confunden Con Su Comida.” News.culturacolectiva.com, 13 Aug. 2019, news.culturacolectiva.com/mundo/tortugas-verdes-comen-plastico-porque-lo-confunden-con-su-comida/. Accessed 10 Jan. 2022.

51

52

Fig. 17: Martin, Hannah. “Buckminster Fuller’s Geodesic Dome and Other Forward-Looking Architecture.” Architectural Digest, 12 Feb. 2016, www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/buckminster-fuller-architecture. Accessed 8 Jan. 2022.

Fig. 18: Hidden Architecture. “Monsanto House.” Hidden Architecture, 3 Apr. 2016, hiddenarchitecture.net/monsanto-house/. Accessed 10 Jan. 2022.

Fig. 19: Author’s own work. Plastic life-cycle diagram. 2022.

Fig. 20: Author’s own work. Plastic recycling cycle diagram. 2022.

Fig. 21: Green Square Accord. “Accord Aims to Become First Housing Association in UK to Build Plastic Free Houses.” Accord Aims to Become First Housing Association in UK to Build Plastic Free Houses, 13 Aug. 2019, accordgroup.org.uk/news/2019-08-13/accordaims-to-become-first-housing-association-in-uk-to-build-plastic-free-houses.

Accessed 26 Nov. 2021.

Fig. 22: Author’s own work. Detail drawing collage historical building wall. 2022.

Fig. 23: Net, Tomas. “Differences between Open Cell and Closed Cell Polyurethane Spray Foam.” Www.jm.com, 10 June 2020, www.jm.com/en/blog/2020/june/differences-between-open-cell-and-closed-cell-polyurethane-spray/. Accessed 8 Jan. 2022.

Fig. 24: Author’s own work. Detail drawing of modern materials wall. 2022.

Fig. 25: British Geological Survey. “Wetwang | British Geological Survey (BGS).” Www2.

Bgs.ac.uk, 2020, www2.bgs.ac.uk/groundwater/datainfo/levels/sites/Wetwang.html. Accessed 4 Jan. 2022.

Fig. 26: Freimanis, Ritvars, et al. “In-Situ Moisture Assessment in External Walls of Historic Building Using Non-Destructive Methods.” Sciendo, vol. 23, no. 1, Jan. 2019, www. researchgate.net/publication/334967047_In-Situ_Moisture_Assessment_in_External_ Walls_of_Historic_Building_using_Non-Destructive_Methods. Accessed 10 Jan. 2022.

Fig. 27: Author’s own work. Detail drawing of historical building foundations. 2022.

Fig. 28: Gendron, Luc. “What to Do If Water Infiltrates Your Roof.” Plani-Conseil, 14 Dec. 2018, www.planiconseil.com/en/water-infiltration-in-your-roof-during-the-winterwhat-should-you-do/. Accessed 10 Jan. 2022.

Fig. 29: Author’s own work. Sketches of different techniques used as weathering. 2022.

Fig. 30: Author’s own work. Detail drawing of modern materials roof. 2022.

Fig. 31: Author’s own work. Detail drawing of modern materials foundations. 2022.

Fig. 32: Park, Sharon C. “Preservation Brief 39: Holding the Line: Controlling Unwanted Moisture in Historic Buildings.” Www.nps.gov, Oct. 1996, www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/39-control-unwanted-moisture.htm. Accessed 10 Jan. 2022.

Fig. 33: AIS Windows. “UPVC Windows — a Comprehensive Guide.” AIS Windows, 8 Apr. 2021, www.aiswindows.com/upvc-windows-comprehensive-guide/. Accessed 19 Dec. 2021.

Fig. 34: Collins Cobuild. “Sash Window.” Collins Dictionary, 2020, www.collinsdictionary. com/es/diccionario/ingles/sash-window. Accessed 10 Jan. 2022.

Fig. 35: Robert, Tobias. “Insulating Homes with Sheep Wool.” Rise, 6 Dec. 2019, www.buildwithrise.com/stories/can-you-use-sheep-wool-to-insulate-your-home.

Fig. 36: Florea, Iacob, and Daniela Lucia Manea. “Analysis of Thermal Insulation Building Materials Based on Natural Fibers.” Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 32, 2019, pp. 230–235, 10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.207. Accessed 22 Oct. 2019.

Fig. 37: This Cobe House. Building a Stone Foundation | This Cob House. 18 Mar. 2015, www.thiscobhouse.com/building-a-stone-foundation/.

Fig. 38: Author’s own work. Rubble Trench Foundation sketch. 2022.

Fig. 39: Drochytka, Rostislav, and Michaela Dvorakova. “Performance Evaluation and Research of Alternative Thermal Insulation Based on Waste Polyester Fibers.” Procedia Engineering, vol. 195, no. 236-243, Dec. 2017, www.researchgate.net/publication/318575016_Performance_Evaluation_and_Research_of_Alternative_Thermal_Insulation_Based_on_Waste_Polyester_Fibers. Accessed 10 Jan. 2022.

Fig. 40: Sagaan. “Buy Birch Bark in Panels for Handiwork and Decoration Here.” Sagaan – Birchbark, 2020, sagaan.eu/shop/birch-bark-for-processing-and-decoration/handicraft/birch-bark-panels/. Accessed 10 Jan. 2022.

Fig. 41: Author’s own work. Roof detail. 2022.

Fig. 42: Everest. “Timber Windows | Wooden Double Glazed Windows & Frames for Sale | Everest.” Www.everest.co.uk, 2021, www.everest.co.uk/double-glazing-windows/timber/.

Fig. 43: Nichola Barrington-Leach. Shifting landscapes. 2021 Fig. 44: Author’s own work. Zoning diagram. 2021.

Fig. 45: Author’s own work. Kit of parts of the existing house. 2021.

Fig. 46: Author’s own work. Kit of parts of the proposed house. 2021.

Fig. 47: Author’s own work. Detail drawing of the proposed house. 2021.

Fig. 48: Author’s own work. Picture of the central core walls. 2021.

Fig. 49: Author’s own work. Process of making the plastic bricks. 2022.

Fig. 50: Author’s own work. Connecting the bricks together. 2022.

Fig. 51: Author’s own work. Render image of final design. 2021.