Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 77

7th and 8th November 2012

East Midlands Conference Centre, The University of Nottingham

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

ukpassivhausconference.org.uk

Proceedings Editor Lucelia Rodrigues, University of Nottingham

Conference Steering Committee Mark Gillot, Conference Chair, University of Nottingham Jon Bootland, Passivhaus Trust Frances Bradshaw, Anne Thorne Architects Bill Butcher, Green Building Store Nick Grant, Passivhaus Trust Christina Hopfe, Cardiff University John Lefever, Hastoe Housing Association Sarah Lewis, bere:architects Henrietta Lynch, University College London Kym Mead, BRE Sofie Pelsmakers, University College London Robert Prewett, Prewett Bizley Architects Lucelia Rodrigues, University of Nottingham Melissa Taylor, Passivhaus Trust Anne Thomas, sustainableBYdesign Paul Tuohy, University of Strathclyde

Proceedings of the UK Passivhaus Conference 2012 | Version 2 - 06.11.12 BRE & Passivhaus Trust

Disclaimer None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators or anyone else connected with the BRE, the Passivhaus Trust, the University of Nottingham or the conference steering committee can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libellous information, or for your use of the information contained in these pages. The BRE and the Passivhaus Trust disclaim liability for any loss which may arise from any person acting in reliance upon the contents of this document. Front Page Image: Wimbish Passivhaus, courtesy of Parsons + Whittley

ABOUT THE CONFERENCE


Passivhaus buildings provide a high level of occupant comfort while using very little energy for heating and cooling. They are built with meticulous attention to detail and rigorous design and construction according to principles developed by the Passivhaus Institute in Germany, and can be certified through an exacting quality assurance process. Over 30,000 Passivhaus buildings have been built in Europe and interest in Passivhaus is growing in the UK, with at least 150 units either certified or in progress. The conference exists to spread learning between all those who are interested in the field of low energy building design in the UK. It includes case studies, site visits, workshops, debate, an exhibition of Passivhaus products and numerous networking opportunities. The conference offers a comprehensive review of the uptake of Passivhaus in the UK covering the standard, its suitability in the UK, leading edge case studies and practical delivery of the first Passivhaus projects in the UK. The conference will focus on themes such as retrofit, local economic added-value, residential and non-residential buildings and occupant comfort/measured performance. The first day will examine policy, regulations and projects, including talks from leading national and international speakers. The second day will focus on technical seminars covering costs, procurement, design, supply chain and other important issues. The UK Passivhaus Conference 2012 was organised by the Passivhaus Trust and BRE, together with their supporting partners and affiliates.

CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
The first day examines policy, regulations and projects, including talks from leading national and international speakers. The second day focus on technical workshops and seminars covering costs, procurement, design, supply chain and other important issues.

Day One - Wednesday, 7 09:00 09:30 09:50 11:30 14:00 Registration

th

November 2012

Chair's welcome and opening address Session 1: Plenary- Passivhaus & Policy Session 2: Plenary- Passivhaus - Learning Journeys Session 3: Breakouts- Detailed Case Studies a. Large scale residential b. Non-residential c. Self-build & Refurbishment d. Tour of Saint Gobain Nottingham H.O.U.S.E

16:10

Session 4: Breakouts- Process a. Technical detailing 1 b. Evidence & feedback c. Supply chain

17:40 18:30 20:00

Debate: 'Passivhaus & Design creativity' Drinks & Networking - Start of the Spot the Difference - Live! experiment Conference Dinner
th

Day Two - Thursday, 8 November 2012 09:00 09:30 09:50 11:30 Registration Chair's welcome Session 1: Plenary- Key UK Research Session 2: Breakouts a. Detailing 1 b. Software, modelling & PHPP c. Retrofit case studies & feedback 13:45 Session 3: Breakouts a. Technical Detailing 2 b. Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) c. Domestic new-build case studies & feedback d. Tour of Saint Gobain Nottingham H.O.U.S.E 15:30 Session 4: Breakouts a. Climate & weather data b. Performance monitoring c. Larger scale case studies 17:00 17:45 18:00 Final Plenary Session: What have we learnt that will help to deliver Passivhaus at standard costs? Results of the Spot the Difference - Live! experiment Close

18:30 Private view of exhibition: Prototyping Architecture at the Energy Technologies Building, University of Nottingham Innovation Park

TABLE OF CONTENTS
The contents of the proceedings have been organised in alphabetic order by author surname. All extended abstract received were added to this document, which may be updated in due course. ABOUT THE CONFERENCE ............................................................................................................................................. 3 CONFERENCE PROGRAMME .......................................................................................................................................... 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................... 5 SPECIAL FEATURES ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Spot The Difference Live! ..................................................................................................................................... 8 The Saint Gobain Nottingham H.O.U.S.E. ................................................................................................................ 9 EXTENDED ABSTRACTS ...............................................................................................................................................11 Alex Amato, Simon Law, John Bryant, And Ahmad Al-Abdulla............................................................................. 12 James Anwyl, Nina Mader ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Marion Baeli, Jean Pierre Wack ............................................................................................................................. 16 Jane Barnes, John Lefever ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Justin Bere ............................................................................................................................................................. 20 Daniel Boughton .................................................................................................................................................... 22 Helen Brown .......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Helen Brown .......................................................................................................................................................... 26 Alan Budden .......................................................................................................................................................... 28 Elrond Burrell......................................................................................................................................................... 30 Toby Cambray........................................................................................................................................................ 32 Michael Crilly, Mark Lemon ................................................................................................................................... 34 Tom Dollard ........................................................................................................................................................... 36 Richard Dudzicki .................................................................................................................................................... 38 Mila Durdev ........................................................................................................................................................... 40 Lee Fordham, Nick Grant ....................................................................................................................................... 42 David Gale, Tomas Grtner ................................................................................................................................... 44 Tomas Grtner ....................................................................................................................................................... 46 Jonathan Hines, Lars Carlsson ............................................................................................................................... 48 Ben Hopkins ........................................................................................................................................................... 50 Martin Ingham ....................................................................................................................................................... 52 Simon Jesson ......................................................................................................................................................... 54 Haniyeh Mohammadpourkarbasi, Steve Sharples ................................................................................................ 56 Sarah Lewis ............................................................................................................................................................ 58 George Mikurcik And Jonathan Hines ................................................................................................................... 60 Francis Moran, Sukumar Natarajan, Andy Shea .................................................................................................... 62 Johnathan Nea....................................................................................................................................................... 64 John Pratley, Paul Smyth ....................................................................................................................................... 66 Jim Shaw ................................................................................................................................................................ 68 Mark Siddall, David Johnston ................................................................................................................................ 70 Ruth Sutton, Chris Herring..................................................................................................................................... 72 Kim Williams .......................................................................................................................................................... 74 Andrew Yeats......................................................................................................................................................... 76 CONFERENCE DELEGATES ............................................................................................................................................78

SPECIAL FEATURES
7

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE LIVE!


How does the performance of a Passivhaus building compare to one built to Part L building regs in reality? Church Lukas, Saint Gobain, Factory Homes and GB Building Solutions, with the support of University of Nottingham, have come together to demonstrate just that. We have built 2 student bedrooms - one to Part L 2006 specifications and the other as close as possible to the Passivhaus standard. Over the 2 days of the conference, volunteers will live in these bedrooms and the energy consumption of the rooms will be tested. The results of which will be shared at the final session of the conference.

Church Lukas were selected as market leaders in student accommodation to design the two pods due to their experience with offsite construction and knowledge of sustainable student accommodation. The two rooms are designed to replicate one of the rooms in an innovative new student townhouse model. Saint-Gobain was chosen to supply the construction materials for the pods due to the quality and breadth of its product range. The comprehensive nature of its offer is illustrated by its ability to supply all the solutions needed to construct the pods, with their performance and efficiency demonstrating how sustainable living can be achieved using products and systems that are commercially available today. Factory Homes were selected due to their industry leading manufacturing skills. The two rooms were constructed entirely in their factory allowing extra care and attention over the details of the Passivhaus room in order to ensure maximum possible performance. The two rooms were then transported to site highlighting the ability of offsite construction to minimise the time needed on site and perform within tight programmes. GB Building Solutions were chosen due to their experience and reputation of delivering high quality sustainable student schemes. They are the only contractors in the world to achieve a BREEAM outstanding student scheme. The project is supported by the University of Nottingham who will be carrying out the testing and analysis of the two rooms during the conference and presenting the results on the final day in order to assess the performance difference in reality between the two standards.

Contacts: Thomas Simmons (thomass@churchlukas.com), Russell Davison (russell.davison@promodular.co.uk) Lucelia Rodrigues (Lucelia.Rodrigues@nottingham.ac.uk) and Lindsey Walker (Lindsey.Walker@saint-gobain.com)

THE SAINT GOBAIN NOTTINGHAM H.O.U.S.E.


The Saint Gobain Nottingham H.O.U.S.E (Home Optimising the Use of Solar Energy), designed and built by students at the Department of Architecture and Built Environment at the University of Nottingham, was the only UK entry competing against nineteen other Universities from around the globe at the final of the International Solar Decathlon Europe Competition, held in Madrid during June 2010. In Madrid the HOUSE picked up the prestigious Sustainability Award. The international jury commended the team for designing a truly sustainable house that is market-ready and market-appropriate. Just before that, in March 2010, it was exhibited at Ecobuild, London, the worlds biggest event for sustainable design, construction and built environment, where it won the Timber at Ecobuild Award. The home is now in its final place at the Green Close on the University Park campus, as part of the Creative Energy Homes project.

Delegates have the opportunity to go on guided tours of the HOUSE during both days of the conference. Contacts: Mark Gillott (Mark.Gillott@nottingham.ac.uk), Lucelia Rodrigues (Lucelia.Rodrigues@nottingham.ac.uk) and Lindsey Walker (Lindsey.Walker@saint-gobain.com) Find out more at www.creative-energy-homes.co.uk or www.facebook.com/CreativeEnergyHomes

EXTENDED ABSTRACTS
11

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

THE DESIGN AND MODELLING OF QATARS FIRST CASE STUDY PASSIVHAUS


The influence of a hot arid climate on the concept of the Passivhaus building envelope ALEX AMATO, SIMON LAW, JOHN BRYANT, AND AHMAD AL-ABDULLA
Head of Sustainability, Qatar Green Building Council; aamato@qf.org.qa +974 6688 6040 Associate Director Building Engineering AECOM UK. simon.law@aecom.com +44 (0) 1727 535947 Associate Professor, Texas A&M University - Qatar Campus john.bryant@qatar.tamu.edu +974 4423 0133 Deputy Group CEO, Barwa Real Estate , Qatar Ahmad.AlAbdulla@barwa.com.qa +974 4499 0876

Background Barwa Real Estate (BRE) are constructing the first Qatar Case Study Passivhaus, which is scheduled to be completed in time for the COP 18 UNFCCC conference, in Doha late November early December this year. Barwa are one of the major developers in Qatar involved in all types of development, both within and outside of Qatar, and are keen to redefine the standard Qatar villa along much more sustainable lines. Directly along side the Passivhaus a similar house is being constructed to act as a business as usual control for the experiment. The energy and water consumption, together with the comfort conditions (temperature, relative humidity and air movement) within each house will be monitored over at least a year during which the houses wil be inhabited by a three or four person family. BRE are seeking to limit the anticipated increase in capex of the Passivhaus to less than 15%. Climate Qatars climate is often considered to be the antithesis of the UKs climate. Hot arid, versus cool and damp climatic conditions sum up these countries respective climates, but this does mask some interesting similarities, especially so for residential new build where the preeminent building typologies of both the UK and Qatar are very similar in form - two storey detached villas and houses. Moreover, for residential new build, villas and houses it is external climatic conditions that drive the Passivhaus design in both countries rather than internal heat loads. Both countries also experience a period of three to four months when the climatic conditions are sufficiently clement that little or no energy input is required to maintain internal comfort conditions. Although, the method of achieving internal comfort for the majority of the year in each country is diametrically different, cooling in Qatar and heating in the UK, it is interesting to conjecture that the energy loads devoted to maintaining internal comfort in each country might be very similar. If so it would demonstrate the robustness and wide global applicability of the Passivhaus concept while potentially revealing what the most effective universal technical strategies are. The climate in Doha, Qatars capital and largest city can be considered an extreme hot arid climate. There are however periods in the late summer when the humidity can be extremely high; this coupled with high ambient temperatures makes the external conditions particularly uncomfortable. Here are some notable points of Dohas climate. Peak dry-bulb temperatures of ~45C 50% of the time the external dry-bulb is greater than 26.5C 15% of the time the external dry-bulb is greater than 35.0C Natural ventilation only feasible for around 4 months of the year During summer months (June to September) average external dry-bulb temperature is around 33.5C while relative humidity averages around 43% Annual global solar irradiance is almost double that of the UK.

12

Engineered Solution It was therefore essential to apply the core Passivhaus principles of super insulated envelope (external insulation to minimise thermal bridging) and minimising the air permeability, so as to de-couple the internal environment from the extreme climate outside. The very low air permeability of the envelope requires the use of a wholehouse mechanical ventilation system with heat recovery, where air is supplied to the bedrooms and living space, then extracted out of the bathrooms and kitchens. Solar gain is also minimised by the use of triple glazing with high performance solar control glass (BS EN 410 g-values of around 0.2). As the energy to condition incoming fresh air is substantial, the fresh air supply rate is kept to minimum levels recommended by ASHRAE (~50 l/s based on continuous ventilation). In addition, the whole house mechanical ventilation system has efficient heat recovery of around 90%.

Figure 1: Annual Range of Temperature and Humidity in Doha, Qatar

In practice cooling is required for at least 80% of the year, so in order to minimise and simplify the controls, the cooling system and ventilation system runs continuously. This works in synergy with the exposed thermal mass, to minimise the capacity of the cooling plant required. Cooling is provided by two DX units, one serving the living space which is open plan and includes the kitchen, while the other is ducted to the bedrooms with return air via the shared hallway. The total cooling capacity required for the house is around 7.5kW based on continuously operation. Ideally the cooling and ventilation would be provided by a single central air handling unit, but due to the small capacities required, there is currently no off-the-shelf equipment that would meet the requirements, which is why cooling is provided by DX units. Conclusion Building to the Passivhaus specification means that for Qatar there is no requirement for space heating, and the key issue is dealing with the cooling load caused by internal and solar gains. To meet the challenge of building in extremely hot/humid climates, Passivhaus have introduced a new limit which takes into account the latent requirements of the local climate, which for Qatar takes the cooling limit from 15 to around 23 (kWh/m per year). Detailed simulation of the proposed house has shown that this limit is within reach provided performance of the envelope, HVAC, and lighting systems is pushed to the limits of what is currently readily available.

13

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

COMPARISON OF LIFE CYCLE RESULTS OF PASSIVHAUS BUILDINGS WITH DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION METHODS
JAMES ANWYL, NINA MADER
Eurobuild, j.anwyl@eurobuilduk.com, Eurobuild, n.mader@eurobuilduk.com
nd

In January 2012, Eurobuild were awarded 2 place in the BRE UK Passivhaus design competition and Commended for Innovation. Eurobuild were project partners on the technical and production side to AH3 architects and the competition required Eurobuild to carry out a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) on the design. Subsequently, the carbon footprint of a residential Passivhaus building was assessed, and the impact of the following construction types were compared: a) Imported closed timber frame panels (typical Austrian construction) b) Open timber frame (typical UK construction) c) Masonry (traditional UK brick & block construction) The functional unit was defined as the lifecycle of a two-unit house built to Passivhaus standard. The building has a 2 total treated floor area of 239.9 m over 3 storeys. Each unit occupies 1.5 storeys of the building. The location of the building is BRE Watford. The assessment was carried out using PAS2050: 2008, with a focus on the five key principles established in the standard: relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy and transparency. The full lifecycle of the building cradle to cradle is included within the system boundary. A screening LCA was used to identify key emissions sources and also identify processes that have low materiality and so can be excluded. Data were selected using a data quality scoring process, considering time-coverage, geographical specificity, technology-coverage, accuracy and precision. Full sources for all data used can be made available on request. The building envelopes of the imported Passivhaus and the standard timber frame structures are made predominantly of wood or wood-based materials, and even in the masonry version, there are timber-based materials included, e.g. the roof structure. As such, there is a carbon credit for the absorption and storage of carbon in the materials. Any subsequent release of this stored biogenic carbon, once the building has been demolished, is assumed to be outside of this product system because the organic material can be recycled or used in a waste-for-energy process in a new product system. However, in order to assess the potential impact of any timber and paper sent to landfill, an alternative scenario was also taken into account. This is based on current recycling figures in demolition projects as a worst-case scenario, that recycling methods wont change at all within the next 60 years. Based on current DEFRA statistics, a split between recycled material to material sent to landfill in demolition projects can be assumed to be 74%:26%. Hence, in the alternative scenario, 26% of paper insulation and timber are sent to landfill and produce greenhouse gases in the decaying process. This greenhouse gas has been taken into account. Four different end-of-life scenarios were developed during the course of this study: 1) Timber for UK from Sweden, 74% timber & paper insulation recycled 2) Timber for UK from Latvia, 74% timber & paper insulation recycled 3) Timber for UK from Sweden, 100% timber & paper insulation recycled 4) Timber for UK from Latvia, 100% timber & paper insulation recycled

14

The main focus is on the first two scenarios as they represent worst case; scenarios 3 and 4 have been completed as well as they are believed to be the more likely scenarios. The GHG benefit of using wood-based materials is clear, particularly in the imported Passivhaus and traditional timber frame model, from the large negative raw material number. This carbon is stored in the building over its 60-year lifetime. The model assumes two scenarios: either the wood is then re-used or burned in a waste-to-energy converter. In this case, the negative impact of the stored carbon returning to the atmosphere does not feature in this product system (scenarios 3 and 4); or the timber and paper based materials are only partially recycled (scenarios 1 and 2). The origin of the timber used in the timber frame and roof construction for the traditional models (i.e. either Sweden or Latvia) has a very minor impact on the results. With the timber coming from Latvia, the overall carbon footprint only rises by less than 1% compared to the Swedish example. Therefore, further analysis focuses on the results relating to Swedish timber examples, scenarios 1 and 3. Raw materials transportation is small but relevant. For the imported Passivhaus structure, the main part of this is transport of the building envelope from Austria, whereas for the timber frame model, the main part is for the timber transport from abroad. Transport from local suppliers is 9% of the total transport for these models, and makes up 35% for the masonry model. Transportation of the boiler and MVHR from Germany is negligible. In construction, electricity use in site tools is the main emissions source making up about 50%, with the other 50% originated from diesel use in the telehandler, crane and welfare unit, as well as team transport to site. This is the same picture for all three construction methods. The overall carbon footprint is dominated by the use phase. The use phase itself consists of natural gas use and electricity demand from the building. Electricity grids are expected to decarbonise over the next 20 years, thus electricity use in maintenance and demolition will increasingly be zero carbon. This means that the emissions relating to the demolition of the building in year 60 is negligible. Transportation of the waste materials postdemolition is accounted for but also small, in the context of the overall footprint. Despite being imported from Austria, the closed panel Passivhaus structure is calculated to have the lowest resulting carbon footprint, 12% less than a traditional UK timber frame building of the same size and shape and 36% less than a masonry version of the same building. This is mainly due to the carbon storage of a system that is almost exclusively timber, with less metal in assembly and smaller concrete foundations required in construction. This carbon benefit is large enough to compensate for the whole impact of transport, construction and demolition.

Figure 1: Closed timber frame wall panel produced in Austrian factory

15

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

PASSIVHAUS VS. DECENT HOME PLUS AND STANDARD UK HOUSE POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION
MARION BAELI, JEAN PIERRE WACK
Paul Davis + Partners m.baeli@pauldavisandpartners.com

This paper will present a comparative monitoring data results for three similar Victorian houses in the same street. One that has been retrofitted to PassivHaus standard (1st fully certified in the UK), one to Decent Homes Plus standard (50mm insulation and secondary glazing) and one where no energy savings measures have been installed at all called Standard UK.. All three houses are in the same street, were built at the same time and made of the same materials. They are also of very similar layout overall. The PassivHaus and Decent Homes Plus are adjacent and facing West-East while the Standard UK is facing East-West on the opposite side of the Road. The monitoring data analysed in this paper is for a whole year of post occupancy and is looking at energy consumption, internal temperatures, relative humidity and CO2 concentration. All three properties are the ownership of Octavia Housing who have kindly supported this monitoring programme. Final Energy Demand The monitoring analysis of Final Energy Demand in the three houses highlighted huge savings for both the PassivHaus and the Decent Home Plus compared to the Standard UK house (not retrofitted). The Final Energy demand (i.e. energy that is supplied to the consumer for all final energy uses) for the PassivHaus added up to 63 2 2 2 kWh/m /year as against 198 kWh/m /year for the Decent Home Plus and 366 kWh/m /year for the typical scheme. This yields a 83% reduction for the PassivHaus and 46% for the Decent Home Plus compared to the Standard UK house. The Princedale PassivHaus considerably exceeds the PassivHaus standard for Final Energy Demand, set at 2 120 kWh/m /yr. During the most energy intensive month (February 2012), Final Energy savings reached 88% for the PassivHaus and 52% for the Decent Home Plus, due to dramatic increase in the typical scheme space heating demand. Those results demonstrate the very good performance of the PassivHaus building envelope in terms of energy efficiency through a both very low and stable Final Energy consumption. Due to unexpected monitoring problems, the Space Heating Demand share was not monitored during this first year of occupancy. However, it is 2 likely to considerably overcome the maximum PassivHaus requirement of 15 kWh/m /yr. The reduction in CO2 emissions resulting from the building energy consumption for overall operations and services is 70% for the PassivHaus (which sizeable despite the fact that the dwelling only uses electricity, which is more carbon intensive than main gas, used for space and water heating in the two other monitored properties) and 37% for the Decent Home Plus compared to the Standard UK house baseline. Reduction of Final Energy Demand also enable the families to reduce the risk of finding themselves in a situation of fuel poverty, from which 4 millions households (particularly in social housing) suffered in 2010. The yearly energy bills add up to 770 per year in the PassivHaus while the Decent Home tenants are charged 1,470 per year. Year monetary savings as a consequence of energy efficiency measure are 1,255 per year in the PassivHaus as a direct, and 550 per year for the Decent Home Plus. In addition, the family have been given advices to be able to further reduce its energy bills by another 150 by changing payment method to Monthly Direct Debit, and potentially switching to the cheapest energy supplier of Princedale Road. The payback period is the estimated time required to recover from the upfront cost invested in the energy efficiency measure on site through savings in energy bills only. The total cost of energy saving measure for the 88 2 m PassivHaus was 87,478 and 13,074 for the Decent Home Plus, which explains the gap in the expected payback period. Assuming a 10% yearly increase in fuel prices as a reasonable assumption based on the Department of Energy and Climate Change fuel prices statistics, the payback period is expected to be 28 years for

16

the PassivHaus and 16 years for the Decent Home Plus. However, monetary payback of the PassivHaus project is expected to overcome those of the Decent Home Plus in only 33 years time. Thermal Comfort and Indoor Air Quality. The sizeable costs of energy efficiency measure in the PassivHaus also yields considerable improvements in terms of thermal comfort and Indoor Air Quality. The yearly average temperatures in occupied rooms is 22.1C in the PassivHaus living room and 19.4C in the typical scheme living room. The improvements in thermal comfort are even more sticking during the peak winter week in February 2012, during which the average temperature in the PassivHaus is 20.8C, which is 4.4C more than in the typical scheme living room. Moreover, this level of thermal comfort is achieved using 88% less energy. Those results hold, to a lesser extent, for the Decent Home Plus. The PassivHaus presents good levels of Indoor Air Quality (CO2 concentration of 620 ppm and 50% Relative Humidity). Peaks in CO2 concentration and relative humidity are controlled much more efficiently in the PassivHaus that in the two other schemes. For instance, relative humidity peak (when % RH goes above 60%) is 3 times more frequent in the Decent Home than in the PassivHaus. Moreover, CO2 concentration and relative humidity regulation in the typical scheme living room is only achieved by natural ventilation and air infiltration, which sizeably contributes to the building heat loss. On the other hand, MVRH provides good CO2 regulation in the PassivHaus, while both contributing to heating the house in the winter and providing cooling in the summer. Other monitoring results, suggest that living in a PassivHaus (and to a lesser extent in a Decent Home Plus) encourages the occupants to actually live in a more sustainable way, beyond the main objectives regarding Final Energy Demand, Thermal Comfort and Indoor Air Quality. For instance, water consumption is the PassivHaus is 85 Litres per person and per day, against 200 Litres in the Standard UK house.
Summary of Key results Primary Energy Demand (kWh/m2/year) % reduction vs. Typical scheme CO2 emissions (tons/year) % reduction vs. Typical scheme Expected Energy Bills (/year) Savings vs. Typical Scheme Cost of energy efficiency measures Payback Period Average Temerature in the living rooms Average C02 concentration (ppm) Average % relative humidity (%) Water consumption (Litres/person/day) Typical Scheme 366 7.8 2,026 19.4C 650 53% 195 Decent Home Plus 198 46% 4.5 37% 1,468 559 13,074 16 years 20.2C N/A 56% 137 Passivhaus 63 83% 2.3 70% 772 1,255 87,478 28 years 21.1C 620 50% 85

Figure 1: Princedale Road view of the PassivHaus and Decent Home Plus (nex

17

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

PASSIVHAUS LEARNING JOURNEYS


Learning from Large Scale Residential Developments JANE BARNES, JOHN LEFEVER
Davis Langdon, An AECOM Company, Jane.Barnes@davislangdon.com Hastoe Housing Association, Jlefever@hastoe.com

Passivhaus remains a relatively new concept within the UK construction industry, particularly its use on larger scale residential developments; as such, harnessing lessons learnt from those projects which have been through the process and achieved the standard is imperative to encouraging the use of Passivhaus on a larger scale within the UK construction industry. Hastoe Housing Association and Davis Langdon have worked together to successfully deliver two residential Passivhaus developments in South East England; Wimbish Passivhaus and Ditchingham. Wimbish is fully accredited by the Passivhaus Institute and Ditchingham is completed with an application for accreditation currently being prepared. This presentation discusses the key lessons learned through experiences on both projects but refers primarily to the Wimbish scheme, focussing on design, procurement, construction, on site management, occupation and maintenance. The intent of the presentation is to share knowledge and experiences to inform Passivhaus development moving forward and for the benefit of other Passivhaus developers, designers and contractors. The primary learning point derived from the design stage of the Wimbish project was the importance of developing the design holistically, considering architectural, structural and mechanical and electrical designs in conjunction with each other thus ensuring the whole house could be modelled in the Passivhaus Planning Package software as the design was developed. This gave the team the comfort that the detailed design would achieve the Passivhaus standards. A key component of this process was the requirement for all team members to fully understand and believe in the concept, and that the end goal of Passivhaus accreditation was at the forefront of all decisions. Procurement of both projects was challenging given the level of design detail required and the limited experience of UK contractors in Passivhaus construction. Hastoes approach was to use a bespoke design and build route whereby their design consultants developed the detailed design to Stage F, following which the project was tendered using a multi-stage process. The Wimbish project benefited from Hastoe retaining their design consultants to monitor the works post-contract whereas consultants were novated on the Ditchingham scheme. The experience of both approaches has resulted in Hastoes preference to retain their consultants on projects moving forward. Construction presented many challenges and the presentation focuses on the main issues and how these were overcome, as well as what worked well. Subcontractor training and the ability to maintain a fully trained workforce throughout the duration of the project were problematic and detailed consideration of both issues during early engagement with the contractor proved essential. The Wimbish project benefitted from the installation of monitoring equipment (funded by the TSB) and a two year monitoring programme, undertaken by the University of East Anglia (UEA). To date, the findings of this study have proved invaluable to analysing how the dwellings perform when occupied and how resident behaviours influence dwelling performance. The overall conclusion is that residents are happy with their new homes and have benefited from reduced space heating bills. There are lessons to be learnt in relation to resident and maintenance team support / education as well as the potential for dwellings to overheat which could suggest alternative orientations to North-South may be better suited to the UK climate.

18

One of the main barriers preventing the construction of Passivhaus developments on a larger scale, particularly for large commercial house builders is that there is no uplift in the value of the property to reflect the inherent benefits of Passivhaus dwellings (reduced running costs etc.). This, coupled with the fact that there is still a cost premium associated with the standard, gives commercial developers little incentive to construct to Passivhaus. The link between value and benefits associated with highly sustainable, energy efficient buildings needs to strengthen to encourage development of Passivhaus on a larger scale.

Figure 1: The Wimbish Passivhaus development, Essex

19

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

THE PASSIVHAUS COST PROJECT (PHPP)


A project update JUSTIN BERE
bere:architects, Mildmay Centre, Woodville Road, London N16 8NA, tel: +44 (0)20 7241 1064

Introduction The Passivhaus Cost Project is a collaborative research project lead by bere:architects. It was launched in September 2011 with the purpose of establishing a standard cost reporting protocol; sharing cost information amongst the collaborators; and establishing a blueprint for affordable passivhaus homes. The project has a particular focus on rented social housing. The project aims to widen the debate about affordability by differentiating between capital and whole life costs and it aims to establish economical but high quality methods that will enable housing providers to deliver all the benefits of the passivhaus standard.

Method (1) Research and document the cost-models used by the established Private for Sale (PFS) house builders in building their minimum-standard building regulation houses. (2) Ditto, but adjusting the housebuilders designs to meet the 2016 zero carbon compliance standard. (3) Consider the potential to reduce both capital costs and whole-life costs in a basic passivhaus home of equivalent size. (4) For each of the above, investigate the capital and whole life costs as one-offs and at scale.

Results A standard detailed cost reporting protocol has been produced and will be presented for discussion. Commercial sensitivity about true costs continues to hinder the collection and publication of useful figures, and a great deal of work remains to be done, but the author suggests that when the cost of building materials is separated from the cost of labour, it is easy to imagine the potential for reducing capital costs by increasing workforce skills and integration. Modern tendering methods have been inclined to create contracting methods which prioritise the search for the lowest subcontract prices. This has a tendency to run counter to a culture of building quality and retaining skills. Perhaps it is now time for clients and design teams to re-consider the commercial, capital and lifetime cost benefits of delivering modern methods of construction by collaborating with traditional contractors who build and retain skills, from apprentice to site manager, within a valued and directly employed, integrated, collaborative labour-force? Perhaps by this means, passivhaus teams can bring together the advantages of increased build quality and lower construction costs?

20

21

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

STANDARDS & PERFORMANCE RELATING TO ROOFLIGHTS FOR PASSIVHAUS PROJECTS


Passivhaus certified phA roof glazing components DANIEL BOUGHTON
Daylight & Ventilation Solutions Ltd, dboughton@dvsltd.co.uk, 01284 749051

Passivhaus represents one of the most stringent standards in energy efficiency in modern construction. It is regarded as the worlds chief energy efficiency standard for new buildings and building refurbishments. This is because passive houses dispense with separate heating systems and make use of existing energy in buildings to provide heating instead. In order to comply with this requirement, Passivhaus planners rely on high-grade, energyefficient quality construction materials which retain the maximum possible amount of energy inside buildings and provide an extremely airtight building envelope, thanks to their certified insulation properties. Lamilux has just been provided with conclusive proof that its glass roof structure CI System Glass Architecture PR 60 (PR60) features such characteristics. This glass and aluminium system has recently been certified by the Passivhaus Institute in Darmstadt, Germany, as the first sloped glazing component suitable for passive houses. The aesthetically pleasing daylight system with its customisable shape achieved top marks and was assigned to the Advanced Component phA category. In accordance with Passivhaus requirements, the technical conditions provided in the newly certified system consistently allow glazing to be used which comprises three panes with Argon gas filled cavities. Two of these glass panes feature a low-e coating. The warm edge with Super Spacer forms a spacer system. The U value, or heat transmittance coefficient, in the 52mm glazing specification (Ug) is 0.72 W/(mK) when installed in an inclined position. Figure 1 shows the newly developed insulation system for mullion and transoms, consisting of a combined impermeable core which unites the insulation block and the insulation web in a single component. The material used in the system makes the supporting structure twice as energy efficient. The heavy load from the glazing elements is absorbed by the glazing support, aided by glazing fastening bolts, while mullion and transoms feature very low heat transmittance coefficients of 0.79 W/mK. The Passivhaus Institute in Darmstadt established a UCwi value of 0.8 W/(mK) for the daylight system as a whole. A good heat transmittance coefficient is one of the main criteria for successful certification and must be under 1.00 W/(mK) for sloped installation in roofs. Assessors attach great importance to other aspects when it comes to assuring compliance with Passivhaus requirements with hygiene playing a significant role. In order to prevent condensation and mould growth, the 12.6C isothermal line must consistently lie within structures at an outside temperature of -5C, an indoor temperature of +20C and a relative humidity of 50 per cent. The PR60 complies with this requirement. Heat loss is another factor; this is calculated for the frame system and the warm edge, and expressed by the coefficient opak. The lower this value is, the higher the efficiency class. In the case of PR60, the coefficient is lower than the maximum value of 0.110 W/(mK) for PassivHaus classification in the phA Advanced Component class. With its PR60, Lamilux has managed to bring onto the market the first mullion and transom system in the Inclined Glazing category, state assessors at the Darmstadt-based Passive House Institute. This provides energy and costconscious architects and planners with the first ever glass roof solution which is not only suitable for Passivhaus constructions, but also complies with requirements for the top Passivhaus efficiency class phA.

22

Figure 1: The PR60 has an innovative insulation system making the system twice as energy efficient.

23

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

A DETAILED REVIEW OF AIR BARRIER DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION IN DOMESTIC RETROFIT


58 Elliott Drive, Orbit Heart of England, the 2nd certified EnerPHit project in the UK HELEN BROWN
Encraft, helen.brown@encraft.co.uk, 01926 312159

The air tightness target is a particular challenge for Passivhaus retrofit projects and in recognition of this the -1 -1 EnerPHit requirement for the pressure test result is relaxed slightly from <0.6h to <1h at 50Pa. Although slightly easier, the target is demanding and surpasses the requirements for new build projects under current UK Building -1 2 3 Regulations. Placing the emphasis on the N50 (units h ), rather than the Q50 (units m /(m h)) means that the target is especially challenging for buildings with a high surface area to volume ratio i.e. very small buildings such as social housing, or buildings with an inefficient shape or form factor. The approach to air barrier design and implementation at 58 Elliott Drive, the 2 certified EnerPHit project in the UK was comprehensive. A detailed air tightness strategy and specification document was developed during the early stages of the design. This was a collaborative effort between the architect and Passivhaus consultant and it was issued alongside the tender specification and architectural drawings through contract instruction to the main contractor. The document contained information on strategies chosen for the air barrier including drawings and detailed descriptions. Details were fully developed for potential weak points including junctions between building elements and penetrations from service pipes etc. The intention was to provide guidance to site operatives responsible for quality control or site supervision, and a direct reference for those responsible for implementing the details. Products were specified explicitly, along with guidance on sequencing. Also in the document, the target pressure test was clearly stated as were the requirements for pressure testing, including interim testing and leak detection recommended to check progress. The project was fortunate to benefit from the experience of two site operatives (Chris and Steve) who had previously worked on another Passivhaus-inspired retrofit project by Orbit Heart of England; Foleshill Road in -1 Coventry. The pressure test result at Foleshill Road was around 1.5h which made Chris and Steve determined to achieve a better result at Elliott Drive. The experience they took from Foleshill Road meant that they were familiar with the approach and products and were able to suggest improvements and revisions to the strategy and specifications, using their preferred choice of product where appropriate. They were also able to communicate the importance of maintaining the integrity of the air barrier to other members of their team and also to subcontractors. Although not formally nominated as such, they were air tightness champions in the truest sense of the word. The property was pressure tested before work commenced onsite and achieved N50 = 8h . This was a relatively good starting point, exceeding the current regulatory requirements for new buildings in the UK. It was thought that the solid ground floor, together with the internal plaster finish and external cement render to walls, all contributed to the relative air tightness of the pre-retrofit building. A decision was made early on to utilise the internal plaster finish as the air barrier in the walls. This was considered to be the easiest, most cost effective solution to implement, utilising a traditional skill-set and hopefully ensuring longevity in the lifetime of the air barrier. The existing plaster layer was retained where possible, however there were many areas requiring repair that were identified using a leak detection kit. There were also areas requiring treatment that had not been plastered previously, such as the strips hidden behind internal walls or behind joists in the intermediate floor and areas in the attic which was brought inside the thermal envelope following the addition of a new attic truss warm roof. The plaster layer had to be joined to the air barrier in the new ground floor
-1 nd

24

slab which was the DPM underneath the insulation layer, and the air barrier in the new roof, which was the membrane on the external side above the insulation layer. A useful product, half tape and half mesh was used to aid implementation of these joins where the mesh side was embedded in the plaster layer to ensure integrity and longevity in the join. This tape-mesh was also used around the window and door installations to seal frames into the wet plaster in the internal reveals. Possibly the greatest challenge for Chris and Steve was to bring membranes past timbers, both in the roof at the rafters close to the eaves and around the intermediate floor where joists were supported on the party and gable walls. This work was awkward and time consuming as each and every joist was sealed to the membrane with tape. The leak detection kit identified a particularly weak point in the gap between a double joist in the intermediate floor. The new attic truss roof was implemented by a specialist contractor with no experience of aiming for Passivhaus air tightness standards. A double sided butyl tape was applied along the length and on top of each roof rafter prior to the application of the membrane. This enabled an air tight seal formation around each of the many nail penetrations required to fix battens on top of the membrane. Leak detection was carried out soon after as there were some concerns about the number of nail penetrations and uncertainty as to whether the butyl tape would seal adequately. However almost no leaks were detected which is a good testament to the performance of this particular product. Other products which performed well were the rubber grommets used for the cable and service pipe penetrations. Once the project neared completion a full pressure test was carried out, achieving N50 = 0.98h . A great result all considered and just within the limiting target for EnerPHit. However, the criteria for certification requires that leak -1 -1 detection and remedial work is carried out when the value N50 = 0.6h is exceeded, even if <1h is achieved first time around. Therefore, following leak detection and remedial work the subsequent and final pressure test result -1 was N50 = 0.53h , surpassing even the requirements for new build and leading to confirmation of the EnerPHit certification for this successful project.
-1

Figure 1: 58 Elliott Drive Wellesbourne, the 2nd certified EnerPHit in the UK, a collaborative project with Orbit Heart of England Housing Association (client), Encraft (Passivhaus consultant), ID Partnership (architect) and Property Matters (main contractor)

25

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THERMAL BRIDGES, DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION IN DOMESTIC RETROFIT


58 Elliott Drive, Orbit Heart of England, the 2nd certified EnerPHit project in the UK HELEN BROWN
Encraft, helen.brown@encraft.co.uk, 01926 312159

Detailed analysis of thermal bridges is necessary for all EnerPHit projects in order to ensure accuracy in the thermal model. Additionally the adoption of thermal bridge-free design principles is a criterion of EnerPHit certification. In order to comply, the thermal building envelope should have no linear thermal bridges with > +0.01 W/(mK), or punctiform thermal bridges with > +0.04 W/K. However in retrofit projects it is often uneconomical and/or impracticable to implement thermal bridge-free detail formation and instead the approach must be to diminish the thermal bridge as far as possible. The aim is to provide both thermal and moisture protection by the elimination of cold temperatures on interior surfaces of the thermal envelope. Fifteen thermal bridge coefficients were included in the final thermal model (PHPP) of 58 Elliott Drive in nd Wellesbourne, the 2 certified EnerPHit project in the UK, two of which were punctiform. Four out of the fifteen did not comply with the requirements of thermal bridge-free detail formation, despite being diminished as far as practicably possible. However, other coefficients exceeded the requirements which in a way compensated for those that could not be diminished sufficiently. Results from thermal bridge calculations fluctuate with changes to insulating materials and thicknesses. Any seemingly small change to a detail could have a significant effect on the end result and it could take time to remodel the revision. In recognition of this, the approach taken at Elliott Drive was to design around an assumed value for the contribution towards the total building heat loss of all thermal bridges (excluding the window and door installation, treated separately). This made it possible to define the final specification for the retrofit before thermal bridge coefficients were fully calculated. During the early stages of the design, time was invested in reviewing each thermal bridge qualitatively (without modelling) with a view to diminishing each as far as possible, usually using extra flanking insulation to cloak any area where there was a break in the insulation layer. A strategy for each detail was developed collaboratively by the architect and Passivhaus consultant. Nevertheless there were a number of modifications as the project progressed. Some changes arose because of practical issues, raised by operatives once onsite. Others because the initial sketch drawings were based on approximated dimensions rather than accurate measurements. Recalculation of some thermal bridge coefficients was therefore unavoidable. Some aspects of the thermal bridge analysis seemed counterintuitive. Linear thermal bridges which appeared insignificant made more of an impact on building energy performance than first expected when they were applied over a long length. This was especially true for thermal bridges around the perimeter and the window and door installations. Conversely, punctiform thermal bridges are dimensionless and had limited impact. Thermal bridges associated with the ground floor slab are particularly difficult to understand intuitively due to complexities in the thermal model of the ground. And measures considered involving internal wall insulation reduced the treated floor area, increasing specific space heating demands, despite a diminished thermal bridge. For the case of the window and door installation, the default value in the PHPP of = 0.04W/(mK) was assumed. The default can be used if it is clear from the drawing that it is thermal bridge free. The window manufacturer assisted with the detailed design, where windows and doors were positioned inside the insulation layer using a timber bearer at the base (and at door jambs) and metal straps at the head and the jambs. The window

26

manufacturer also provided some accurate calculations for the thermal bridge coefficients which indicated an average of = 0.004W/(mK) was likely with the implemented detail. However, these calculations were not in the format required by the certifier for verification. In the end this was not critical because the building still complied with the EnerPHit criteria even with the default assumed. Had the calculated coefficient been used instead, the 2 specific space heating demand would have been reduced by 1kWh/(m a) or 4% of the target. By comparison, the initial proposal drawn up by the architect included aluminium flashing, which is often a standard detail in traditional construction with external wall insulation. If this detail had been adopted the thermal bridge coefficient would have been closer to = 0.4W/(mK) and this would have increased the specific space heating demand by 2 22kWh/(m a) or 88% of the target. Other thermal bridges of interest were in the ground floor slab at the junctions between load bearing internal and party walls. The existing floor was excavated to make room for an insulated slab and the internal wall removed at ground floor level to enable insertion of a load bearing thermal break before the wall was rebuilt. This approach was not possible for the party wall, however, the adjoining dwelling was retrofitted at the same time to a lesser extent and here the original solid ground floor slab was retained with no insulation. The resulting model indicated that heat was being transferred to the EnerPHit property from the adjoining dwelling via the thermal bridge in the ground floor slab at the party wall. The PHPP thermal model is based on a degree day analysis using u-values and areas derived from external measurements. The inclusion of calculated thermal bridge coefficients fine-tunes the model, making it more accurate. When external measurements are used for areas there will be sections (e.g. at corners) that are double counted and here the calculated thermal bridge coefficients will be negative (i.e. they will reduce the calculated heat loss), assuming thermal bridge-free design principles have been adopted. In the final thermal model of Elliott Drive the summed contribution towards total building heat loss of all thermal bridges was negative. This means that the fine-tuning in the model due to the inclusion of thermal bridge coefficients actually served to reduce the calculated heating demand from what it would have been if all coefficients had been omitted. This is the situation one would expect for a new build project and thus demonstrates the success of the approach taken.

Figure 1: 58 Elliott Drive Wellesbourne, the 2nd certified EnerPHit in the UK, a collaborative project with Orbit Heart of England Housing Association (client), Encraft (Passivhaus consultant), ID Partnership (architect) and Property Matters (main contractor)

27

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

HOW WE ACHIEVED PROBABLY THE MOST AIRTIGHTNESS HOUSE IN THE UK


(N50= 0.07 h-1 @ 50 Pa) ALAN BUDDEN
Eco Design Consultants, alan@ecodeisgnconsultants.co.uk

Airtightness is a vital component of the Passivhaus strategy with a requirement of 0.6 Air changes per hour at 50 Pascals, the average taken from both a positive and negative tests (blow & suck). This requirement though measurable is the most difficult to achieve as it relies on onsite workmanship, and quality of almost all trades. The recently completed Howe Park Wood Passive House, and certified Passivhaus on the edge of Howe Park Wood in Milton Keynes achieved an airtightness of N50= 0.07 h-1 @ 50 Pa. This we believe is the most airtight house in the UK. The house is timber framed with an internal air barrier formed of 18mm OSB3 and Pro clima tapes, but also has an air barrier on the outside formed with Agipan T&G DWG boards, a breathable wood fibre board with wax coating and sealed with butyrub a non setting mastic. The Airtightness strategy started with simple detailing and keeping the air tightness layer as simple as possible. The Howe Park Project used traditional platform construction and so to join the OSB airtightness layer on the ground floor to the first floor walls a pro clima air tightness membrane was used rapping around the first floor joists. Forming the airtightness layer on the outside is an easy option as the boards are easily accessible to ensure good joins and the risk of damage from internal fit out is eliminated. However careful consideration of moisture through the structure is needed as the internal airtightness membrane often also acts as a vapour check membrane to ensure that the structure remains dry and condensation free. It is important that the vapour check is continuous and well sealed. Tests have shown with a 1m x 1m piece of insulated wall with a vapour check installed when a 1mm by 1m slit is made in the vapour membrane the U value reduces by 4.8 times. These gaps in the vapour check not only reduce the thermal performance but also allowing moisture into the structure. It is therefore advisable that the airtightness layer is installed on the warm side of the insulation, acting also as the vapour check. As this is probably the most airtight buildings in the country, the question of what happens if the MVHR breaks down has been raised and how long will it take for the occupants to suffocate. The Loss of Oxygen is not the problem; the more dangerous outcome is that the CO2 levels may increase to dangerous levels. This however will not happen if the windows are opened. The air will become stuffy and the occupants will wish to open a window. It is widely recognised that only when CO2 concentration of over 5% is toxic to health. At 2% it becomes noticeable with symptoms of a heavy chest or increased breathing (20,000 parts per million). At 5% breathing will be 4 times normal rate, at 7.5% headache, dizziness, sweating, restlessness and disorientation will occur at and only over 20% deaths have occurred. However, if we assume that the house is completely airtight and no air changes are taking place, the volume of the air in the house is approximately 490m3 and the maximum occupancy is 9, that is 54m3 per person. To take the worst case scenario and the person is doing heavy work/ exercise the bodys carbon dioxide emissions are upto 0.038m3/h so in 1 hour the concentration of C02 could rise by 0.07% so after 24 hours that would be an increase of 1.7% which may be noticeable by the occupant, and they would probably wish to open the window or go outside! If all the occupants were working at this rate constantly for over 2 days then the levels could rise above the 5% but the chances of this and the occupants not noticing that the MVHR is not working and not going outside

28

or opening a window are remote. If however you do have a concern CO2 meter/ alarms can be purchased that sound an alarm when the CO2 levels increase and so action can be taken. The airtightness strategy, used on the project included red line drawings, showing where the air barrier was, which could be the OSB, concrete slab, window or airtightness tapes. It is important that site inductions are given to all operatives working on site so that they all understand the need for airtightness, where the barrier is and how it functions. A no blame culture is also encourage, if a hole is made in the air barrier by mistake, if it is bought to the attention of the supervisor then it can be taped up, and put right, a hole left however could be difficult to find later. Using as simple as possible details is also useful in ensuring that airtightness tapes can be easily fitted and are functional particular at difficult junctions at the first floor level, foundations, eaves, window & door openings and service penetrations. In conclusion, a high airtightness is good for reducing energy consumption, is not a health risk and is best achieved with an airtightness layer on the inside of the insulation, to reduce moisture risk in the structure. To achieve a good level of airtightness attention to detail is need by all involved.

Figure 1: Howe Park Passive House, Milton Keynes by Eco Design Consultants Ltd.

29

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

BUILDING INFORMATION MODELLING FOR PASSIVHAUS


ELROND BURRELL
Architype Ltd, elrond.burrell@architype.co.uk

This presentation will address the following questions - What is BIM and why does it matter? How can BIM be used in the passivhaus design process and what are the benefits? Building Information Modelling "BIM", variously understood to be Building Information Model, Building Information Modelling or Building information Management, has become a buzz phrase in the UK construction industry, since last years Government Construction Strategy mandated fully collaborative 3D BIM (aka Level 2 BIM) as a minimum on all government projects by 2016. This is primarily because the government sees BIM as a way to achieve a 20% reduction in both cost and carbon emissions. Building Information Modeling is the process of generating and managing information about a built asset over its whole life. Cabinet Office BIM is about developing and interrogating an information-rich 3-dimensional building model, coordinated between different disciplines, so that the right information is available at the right point in the delivery process theoretically from design and construction through to facilities management, maintenance, future alterations or refurbishment, etc. This 3-dimensional collaborative process facilitates better resolution of potential construction issues at the design stage, reducing cost, waste, and reworking, and it helps to close the gap between design and performance. It is, in a sense, a design led quality assurance process. For a design consultant, this means getting into more sophisticated modeling software than 2D or 3D CAD. In BIM software a virtual building is created with construction components, elements and materials and specification information all included. The 2-dimensional drawing outputs are then cut from the 3-dimensional model, so that live geometry and material/specification information is displayed. This often appears to result in an increased pursuit of whimsical, complex, difficult to build forms, an increased production of seductive digital imagery and an increased reliance on reassuring numbers that appear as if by magic from the inaccessible depths of the software (or more recently the cloud.) However, these outputs are mostly a distraction from the rigorous passivhaus design process. BIM for Passivhaus Architype have been developing the use of BIM in the design process using Autodesk Revit software for over 5 years. As Architype increasingly design buildings to the Passivhaus standard and used PHPP as a design tool they have focussed on developed techniques to utilize BIM to support the rigorous Passivhaus design process. The key areas that Architype have focussed on are visual interrogation of the building information model and efficient production of accurate numerical data. In terms of the former, Architype have focussed on techniques to use the 3d model to analyse the thermal envelope, the airtight line, the total heat loss area and inter-disciplinary model coordination. (Using models from the structural & M&E consultants.) In terms of the latter, Architype have focused on techniques to produce accurate live numerical data for Treated Floor Area, ventilation volumes, total building volume, heat loss areas and window opening areas. The key benefits of utilising BIM in the Passivhaus design process have been through greater understanding and resolution of designs, a reduction in duplicate working, and greater productivity. Demonstration

30

The second part of the presentation will compromise a demonstration of the techniques discussed above on a small project using Autodesk Revit BIM software.

Figure 1: Using a 3d model to analysing the thermal and airtight line

31

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

A COMPARISON OF PHPP AND TAS DYNAMIC SIMULATION SOFTWARE


TOBY CAMBRAY
Greengauge Building Energy Consultants toby@greengaugebuildingenergy.co.uk 07709170008

Questions are often raised regarding the comparison of PHPP, a steady-state building energy simulation tool, with dynamic simulation tools such as TAS. Contrasts can be made between the detail of input, the assumptions underlying the methodology and the ease, or skill necessary to produce reliable results. This paper compared these two tools, in terms of input requirements, calculation methodology, results obtained and type of outputs. The key differences in the tools were discussed, and a simple rectilinear building was simulated in both and the results compared. Finally, the results from a live project were compared. The methodology of TAS has some interesting differences with that of PHPP. As a dynamic simulation tool, it calculates a heat balance for each zone, for each hour of the year, compared to PHPP which considers the building as one zone, and calculates a heat balance for each month. The inputs to TAS for the simulation such as weather, occupancy patterns and thermostat settings, are defined for each hour of the year. A significant difference between TAS and PHPP is that the former can take into account zones within the building, which may have different exposure to solar gain and internal gains from equipment etc. As such TAS is better equipped to estimate how buildings with a variety of different activities will perform in terms of comfort conditions. Finally, TAS can allow the temperature to float up and down (and calculate this temperature), whereas PHPP assumes a constant temperature, usually of 20C. As such, TAS is able to produce more sophisticated outputs. Virtually any heat flow to or from a zone can be extracted from the results, and information such as temperature profiles and overheating frequencies can be produced. It is however important not to confuse this precision with accuracy. TAS has not been validated against real-world projects in the same extensive way as PHPP. Also, a high level of understanding is required for the user to avoid silly mistakes and it could be argued that in this respect PHPP is more robust. One of the key selling points of TAS is that it is certified by the DCLG for producing Part L2 calculations and EPCs. In the modelling exercise, the inputs were aligned in the two tools as closely as possible in order to draw a valid comparison. Weather is one of the most significant variables in the performance of buildings in both simulation and reality. For the purpose of this exercise data sets, compatible with each piece of software, were derived from the same source. At each stage, the outputs of the tools were compared, by manipulating the TAS outputs to match those of PHPP. The annual heating consumption including a heat balance breakdown, and the peak load were presented for both models. Reasons for any discrepancies were discussed and where possible attributed to particular technical points in the methodologies. The issues investigated included: Single versus multi-zone models. Depending on how a building is zoned, i.e. what activities take place in each space, and how evenly the solar gains are distributed, each room may perform differently. Windows including shading device and overshadowing objects. For Passivhaus, fenestration design is crucial to performance. PHPP uses simple geometric relationships to describe shading, and the shading effect is derived from dynamic simulations. TAS undertakes 3D shading calculations, and may be more accurate for more extreme shading geometries. PHPP arguably has a more robust Internal gains are also very important to the performance of most modern buildings. Both PHPP and TAS have default inputs used for certification purposes, but accept alternative inputs for design purposes. In both cases,

32

care is needed to ensure non-standard standard inputs are accurate and appropriate to achieve the desired results. Two approaches were explored; firstly steady state internal conditions were generated for TAS (i.e. the same every hour), equivalent to the internal conditions assumed in PHPP. Secondly, variable conditions (i.e. including diurnal and weekend variations etc) were applied, but with the same net heat input to the building as for the PHPP standard conditions. Ventilation and infiltration. The sensitivity of both models to changes in ventilation and infiltration rate were investigated. Thermal mass. PHPP accounts for thermal mass with a similar methodology to the shading; it uses a relatively simple calculation derived empirically from the results of dyna dynamic mic simulation. In contrast, TAS calculates the heat flows into and out of each building element (in both external and internal directions). The results for the live project were also presented and results from both packages compared. The project was a 2 200m , craft workshop in the south of England, due to begin construction early in 2013, and the design team hope to achieve Passivhaus certification. For this building, a comparison will be made of the following results: PHPP TAS using PHPP equivalent inp inputs TAS using dynamic inputs closely reflecting the anticipated use TAS using inputs for Regulatory purposes (I.e. NCM inputs for Part L and EPC calculations).

Fundamentally, PHPP and TAS are two quite different tools, each with its distinct limitations limitation and strengths. In some respects the comparison is therefore purely an academic exercise. It has however, demonstrated that on one hand, within certain constraints, PHPP produces results comparable with TAS, despite being a much simpler methodology. On the e other hand, TAS is capable, with appropriate skill, of modelling more unusual building features with greater accuracy. Passivhaus purists may argue that avoiding the necessity for such unusual features is one of the benefits of the Passivhaus method.

Figure 1: A screenshot from TAS dynamic simulation software showing the craft workshop discussed

33

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

PREFABHAUS MMC AND LOW CARBON HOUSING


Modern methods appropriate for hybrid construction MICHAEL CRILLY, MARK LEMON
Studio UrbanArea LLP, michael@urbanarea.co.uk Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development, De Montfort University, mlemon@dmu.ac.uk

Quality control throughout the entire construction process is critical to the performance of properties seeking to achieve Passivhaus standard, particularly in regard to air tightness and the avoidance of thermal bridging. In practice, many errors arise from a misunderstanding of the entire building systems and the integrated nature of fabric performance with the optimization of services. As buildings get adapted and extended in response to changing uses and requirements, they also become more complex hybrid structures where standard solutions and products for typology based retrofitting are not always suitable. When these concerns are combined with the challenge to mainstream the Passivhaus concept for a diversity of both new and retrofitting projects, quality control has to be achieved quickly, easily and perhaps most importantly cost effectively. One possible way of ensuring the appropriate levels of quality and reduction in errors due to on-site management, damage and control is the use of modern methods of construction (MMC). MMC is more than simply off-site manufacturing, it is a means to innovate within the design and construction process. As a process, it has the potential to deliver flexible specialization fabric elements as mass production components and provide possible responses for new built, retrofitting and hybrid structures in a continuum from new construction products suitable for Passivhaus certification through to entire fabric systems that can be utilized for one-off elements or larger new build and retrofitting developments. Where MMC has traditionally been thought of as suitable for whole and completed structure solutions, the authors suggest that when thinking of properties as evolving hybrid structures; particularly when you are also being asked to think about adaptation strategies for future climate change; this begins to significantly blur any distinction between new build and retrofit projects and the use of MMC elements. In exploring the use of innovative process using modern methods of construction in the delivery of Passivhaus retrofit projects in Leicester and Newcastle (figures 1-4) together with proposals for new build CSH6 / Passivhaus projects in the East of England and the East Midlands, there are common lessons for innovation in the design process and working collaboratively with the extended supply and fabrication chain, the property owners and occupants. Using examples from a number of different proof of concept projects, we will discuss the potential use of MMC to produce specific building components, such as modular roof pods, bay window frames and entrance pods as well as whole frame and structure systems. We will also highlight some of the potential concerns around professional trust and technical competencies within the construction industry that emerged in working with nonstandard buildings methods and products. These examples will be set within a wider context of process innovation supported by procedural and management measures, where we have found that the use of modern methods of construction (both timber and metal frame products) can bring measurable benefits in speed of delivery, reduced disturbance to occupants and of impact and assurances on quality. These are included with our reflections on the motivations for housing associations and other large-scale housing developers currently considering responses to the provision for low carbon housing. Comparison will be made between the predicted and actual performance of the individual building elements and the whole house performances from a mix of diagnostic testing, and monitored results. We will provide an analysis of the performance achieved and cost differences arising form the choice of different off-site MMC systems; for both proof-of-concept units and larger roll out programmes; compared with traditional build techniques. We will also review some of the practical issues around successfully linking capital and revenue costs for both

34

development finance and on-going energy costs that could benefit the wider uptake of both MMC products and Passivhaus standards. This will discuss the concerns around trust and risks in the long-term technical performance of different MMC systems that result in fewer and less advantageous loan rates that can have the effect of canceling out the savings due to increased energy efficiency and lower bills. In discussing the linked concerns around trust, cost, speed and quality, we will provide some current examples of projects in Corby, Derby, Leicester and Middlesbrough where developments are beginning to consider the issues of scale and co-design customization of MMC elements and the potential in moving from a proof of concept to the benefits of a flying factory approach for Passivhaus and low carbon housing. We will also make the case for integrated design, working closely with the supply chain, financial institutions and the end-users, as an essential means of achieving the technical performance required in practice and in a cost effective way that meets the lifestyle requirements of the occupants.

Figures: (1) Bay Window Pod by Datum being installed at the YHN Greenford Road Retrofit for the Future site in Newcastle with (2) completed semi detached properties. (3) Roof Pod by Envirohomes Ltd being installed at the East Midlands Housing Association terraced property at (4) Cottesmore Road, Leicester.

35

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

NEW CONCORDIA WHARF: ENERPHIT REFURBISHMENT BY PTEA


TOM DOLLARD
Head of Sustainable Design at Pollard Thomas Edwards architects tom.dollard@ptea.co.uk

PTEa was asked to revisit one of their Victorian mill conversion projects from 1984. New Concordia Wharf is a Grade 2 listed flour mill and warehouse on the south bank of the Thames, and was converted to housing in the 1980s. The present owner of one of the penthouses instructed PTEa to refurbish their flat to the highest sustainability and quality standards. The team decided on ENERPHIT as the standard to which the penthouse fabric should be refurbished, and to supplement this target with various other sustainable design additions such as 6 KWp PV panels, grey water recycling, sustainable building products and natural insulation. PTEa worked with Green Tomato Energy to help procure this project to Enerphit certification. Green Tomato Energy used PHPP early on to model the various options available to us. We looked at Passivhaus as a standard but the restraints of having to match the existing windows meant this was not viable. The levels of insulation needed were becoming extreme and we felt that it would not be practical to attain the 15KWH/m2.yr standard. Although it required space heating, Enerphit provided a more realistic target that could reasonably be achieved with natural insulation as an option. Certification to Passivhaus standard could also have presented a problem, as the Passivhaus Institute requires entire buildings to be certified. However the clients main aim was to guarantee quality and performance, rather than the certificate itself. So it was decided to go ahead with the Enerphit target, and that the Passivhaus certification process of commissioning and monitoring would be followed to ensure quality. Listed buildings internal insulation As this building is listed, the only approach that English Heritage would accept was insulation on the inside face of the existing construction. The existing appearance could not be significantly altered. The construction is solid brick walls with steel and timber structure. The penthouse is a 1980s addition of steel and timber clad in zinc that covers six penthouse flats, and so the only option was to insulate between and under the rafters. With internal insulation, there is a risk of interstitial condensation, and so we needed to carefully model the movement of moisture through both the roof and wall. We found that natural, open cell insulations were better at this, and a vapour-open strategy was preferred. We examined the differences between natural insulation and phenolic insulation board, and it was agreed to use natural insulation because of its ability to deal with moisture movement. Wood fibre insulation was preferred because of its breathability and thermal mass. However, with a value=0.38, we needed 240mm thickness of wood fibre to achieve the 0.11 U value required. Spacetherm aerogel, a vapour-open highly insulating blanket, was proposed to limit cold bridging round the window reveals and some soffits where head height was an issue. Certification of Flats? The Passivhaus Institute advised that you cannot obtain certification for individual flats yet you can get certification for terrace houses. There seems to be a double standard here as the external surface area for a top floor flat is potentially more than a terraced house. Should we be allowing certification of individual flats to the Passivhaus standard? In this case study there are only two surfaces that are open to the outside climate the roof and one external wall. The other walls are party walls and floors with other flats or communal space. Generally,

36

this space is heated, and so there is a provision within PHPP to discount these walls from the calculation. However, if the neighbour goes on holiday in winter, there will be considerable heat loss through the party wall, and this should not be disregarded. For comfort reasons, we decided to insulate the party walls and floor. This results in a highly insulated individual flat which prevents heat flow across party walls. Should we be seeking to renovate more individual flats to this very high standard, or concentrate on carrying out good practice to whole buildings?

Figure 1: New Concordia Wharf Pollard Thomas Edwards Architects 1984 and 2012/3

37

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

STORIES MEWS
New build dwelling to PassivHaus standard in Camberwell, London RICHARD DUDZICKI
Director of Richard Dudzicki Associates: Chartered Architectural Practice.

The brief from the clients was to provide a flexible house and artists studio which could be used in multiple configurations. The development is located on the site of a former stable building on a mews to the rear of a sprawling Georgian house, the clients current residence. Both the clients are artists and occupy teaching positions at local institutions. With older children, they felt that the original house had become expensive to maintain and no longer accommodated their needs. The idea of developing a low energy mews house was suggested and the brief was further developed throughout the planning and conservation process. The original brief included a double height artists studio within a 2 bedroom mews house. Garage space was provided for a small electric vehicle or city car and for bicycle storage. The site is located in an area of historic value, the mews itself is privately owned, unpaved and served houses and former stables to the rear of properties on adjacent streets. This historical context presented a number of challenges in terms of achieving the approval of the design and conservation department at Southwark Council and the Camberwell society. The presiding view was that Stories Mews, had undergone a series of inappropriate developments. The council expectation, in the case of this project, was for a greater level of sensitivity in the treatment of the external elements. In response, the design was modified during planning to present an industrial aesthetic more akin to the former function of the area. Heritage materials were utilised for the exterior whilst a modern Structural Insulated Panel (SIPs) superstructure from Kingspan was employed to fulfil insulation and airtightness requirements. Refer to figure 1, indicating proposed street elevation. Prior to tender the brief was updated to accommodate an additional bedroom, modifying the studio into a single height space. The clients had decided to remain in their Georgian house on completion of the project and wished for a greater degree of flexibility to allow renting the new house whilst maintaining access to the studio. This decision brought its own set of inherent issues. In addition, the requirement to meet PassivHaus Standard was introduced. The project was developed to tender stage with particular attention to a number of PassivHaus specific issues. Our first challenge was achieving the necessary U-values. Using SIPs would provide a solid base for passing the airtightness requirement, but additional insulation was required to achieve the specific space heating demand. Kingspans initial proposals involved additional external insulation; this proved to be unworkable at the time due to issues with BBA certification. The decision was made to proceed with internal insulation and to undertake thermal bridging analysis on a number of difficult junctions to ascertain their performance. Restrictions on the overall building heights introduced challenges in accommodating ductwork for an MVHR system. Floor to ceiling heights prevented the inclusion of a separate services void. Instead the ductwork was located inline with the TGI joists with larger diameter silencers accommodated parallel to the joist runs to reduce penetration sizes. The garage was designed as a cold space and insulation was to be applied to the external side of the garage walls and ceilings. The door between the garage and the internal corridor also presented issues as an affordable, fire rated, PassivHaus certified unit could not be found. A door set was sourced from an alternative supplier with modifications to air seals to be made on site to improve performance.

38

The contract was implemented in three stages: The main contractor excavated the site and laid the slab foundations and below ground block walls. Concurrently the SIPs sub contractor fabricated the superstructure components. The SIPs subcontractor then delivered the components and assembled the superstructure. The main contractor then returned to site to complete the fit out and cladding. Once construction began, a number of additional issues became apparent. Areas of the foundation had to be modified to fit around existing obstructions. To compensate for lost fabric thickness, higher performance insulation was installed. The FoamGlas thermal breaks specified to the foundations was omitted in lieu of aircrete blocks as the product did not possess sufficient strength for the SIPs panel fixings. Detailed engineering design of the SIPs structure revealed that sections of the two boundary walls of the house would have to be formed in light timber framing as SIPs could not support the vertical loads in these areas. Internal airtightness membranes were installed to the timber framed wall and around the floor and roof plates to ensure the airtightness was not be compromised. On completion of the SIPs superstructure an air test was commissioned. It was intended that this would provide early warning of any issues and avoid any disputes between the main contractor and subcontractor. The initial air test result was 0.59 air changes per hour @ 50 pascals. This was considered to be quite good result given the lack of experience on the part of the contractors in PassivHaus construction. A later air test, undertaken once the windows and internal finishes were installed, repeated this result. The original proposal for satisfying the peak heating load, was to connect a system boiler to a post air heating unit in the MVHR system. After discussions with the Green Building Store, the decision was made to simplify the system in view of possible maintenance issues. The installed system consists of a combi boiler feeding two heated towel rails in the wet rooms and two narrow vertical radiators in the lounge and studio with the MVHR managing ventilation only. The overriding issues that lead to challenges experienced during the project planning and construction stages were clear from the outset: Namely the late stage adoption of the PassivHaus Standard and the appointment of contractors with no previous PassivHaus experience. The experience has proven the suitability of SIPs for PassivHaus construction and the adaptability of contractors to meet the PassivHaus stand with proper direction and some form of performance incentive.

Figure 1: Street elevation of Stories Mews

39

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FROM MAYVILLE COMMUNITY CENTRE


MILA DURDEV
bere:architects, Mildmay Centre, Woodville Road, London N16 8NA, tel: +44 (0)20 7241 1064

Introduction The Mayville Community Centre was built circa 1890 and is located within the Mayville estate in Islington which is ranked in the top 10% most deprived areas in London. In 2006, bere:architects were asked to refurbish and extend the rundown building. Through full upgrade of the fabric and systems, as well as onsite energy generation the building gained Passivhaus certification, thus becoming the first certified non-domestic retrofit in the UK. It also won multiple awards, including UK Passivhaus Awards 2012, Retrofit category. Bere:architects together with Roderic Bunn of BSRIA are currently undertaking a deep building performance evaluation study on the Mayville Community Centre which is funded by the Technology Strategy Board (TSB). This involves inspection of the performance of the building fabric by thermographic survey, monitoring of energy consumption, energy generation and internal environmental parameters (temperatures, relative humidity, CO2 concentration). Although complete annual building performance monitoring data is still not available, preliminary analysis of actual performance and comparison with design predictions indicates that the building is performing as predicted. However, optimisation of building performance and thermal comfort is continuing during the occupancy period. Formal handover to the occupants as well as informal meetings and discussions with them about building control, thermal comfort and energy use issues, allow for further improvements to be made. Fabric Performance Data During the thermographic survey of the building no thermal bridging or air tightness issues were discovered which confirmed very good thermal performance of building fabric. Airtightness was measured by the blower door test -1 -1 to be 0.42 ACH @50Pa thus surpassing Passivhaus requirement of 0.6 ACH @50Pa. In-use Data Detailed sub-metering data is available from June 2012, whereas for the 2011/2012 winter period only total energy consumption is available. Consequently, total energy consumption analysis was carried out for the winter season, whereas for the summer period more detailed thermal comfort analysis was possible. Winter season analysis and comparison of the total energy consumption for November - February 2011/12 period with corresponding PHPP estimates showed that actual consumption for the four months analysed is on average as much as 16% less than predicted. Further comparison of the same post-retrofit actual total energy consumption (November February 2011/12) with corresponding pre-retrofit consumption (November February 2010/11) which was based on gas and electricity bills indicated that refurbishment resulted in average total energy consumption reduction of 91%. However, it needs to be taken into consideration that during 2011/12 winter season not all the spaces were occupied, but most were heated. Consequently, these should be considered as preliminary results. Speaking of summer internal conditions, a comfortable internal environment is intended to be maintained using external blinds and natural ventilation, especially night purge and cooling of thermal mass. Thermal comfort analysis conducted for June 2012 indicated that the average overheating percentage (above 0 25 C) for all analysed spaces (office, kitchen, hall, IT suite) is 7.4% which is below the PHPP prediction as well as

40

below the PHPP maximum allowed for certification and could be considered as indicative of good performance. However, more detailed analysis showed that while in the kitchen and hall there is almost no overheating (0.5% 0 and 1.9% respectively), higher frequency of temperatures above 25 C was noted in some offices and the IT suite (9.3% and 26.9% respectively). This difference was considered acceptable due to difference in orientation, occupant density, internal heat gains and space use patterns. Although the percentage is relatively high, average 0 0 0 temperature during the overheating period is not much above 25 C (25.4 C) and maximum is 26.4 C. On the other 0 hand, external temperatures during that period were not very high (average 15. 4 C) with significant diurnal fluctuations which should provide significant cooling if night purge ventilation was used. However, minimal 0 0 internal temperatures ranged from 19.7 C to 21.9 C indicating that night ventilation was not being used. In a meeting with the occupants it was confirmed that most were reluctant to employ nigh ventilation due to security concerns or unawareness of its benefits as well as that blinds were not optimally used in all spaces. Although all these aspects were explained during the handover, once it was again confirmed that windows and doors are safe to be left tilted during night and that blinds should be actively used, users of the first floor office soon reported improvement of thermal comfort. Relative humidity in all spaces is within 40-60% range 94.8% of the time with average relative humidity ranging from 48.5% to 53.7% which is optimal in terms of user comfort. Interior air quality is high (<750ppm) almost 90% of time in the hall and more than 95% of time in the IT suite (assessed against approximate maximum sedentary CO2 concentrations associated with CEN indoor air quality standards (BS EN 13779)). Conclusion Preliminary results of monitoring data indicated that deep energy reductions through application of strict Passivhaus standard can be achieved even in the case of retrofitting a rundown exiting building. Although the next winter season will give a more complete picture, initial results are more than encouraging. Apart from being indicative of very good building performance, the results also suggest that PHPP provides a robust tool for design of low energy buildings. Furthermore, the performance evaluation process together with interaction with occupants proved to be very valuable as it helped establish that the building was not used as it was intended and thus performance optimisation and additional fine-tuning was possible. This process showed that, although for the design team some building use and control aspects can be considered as intuitive, the same might not be the case for the occupants and should thus be given more attention during the handover process in order to ensure optimal building use.

Figure 1: Mayville Community Centre

41

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

MONITORING AND DATA FROM PASSIVHAUS SCHOOLS


Soft Landings LEE FORDHAM, NICK GRANT
Architype Ltd, lee.fordham@architype.co.uk Elemental Solutions nick@elementalsolutions.co.uk

Two Certified Passivhaus primary schools in Wolverhampton have now been occupied for a year. Both buildings were designed by Architype and built by Thomas Vale Construction within standard budgets as described at last years conference [video of the presentation is available on the Passivhaus Trust website]. This presentation will describe the Soft Landings programme that was undertaken and will highlight key findings and lessons learnt. Now that teething problems have been sorted, both schools are performing largely as designed particularly in terms of comfort, air quality and heating demand. Soft Landings A Soft Landings programme was developed for the two projects and thought to be essential due to the unique status of the buildings within the UK. The process included a series of client engagement meetings, which have been held on a regular basis starting from the building hand over. These meetings were used as opportunities for the client to raise issues they had with their new building. This process also allowed the design team to learn from these experiences, thus amending subsequent projects. With the help of an engaged contractor (Thomas Vale) the issues were then attended to as quickly as possible. Running along side the engagement meetings, presentations to staff were organised to describe the principles behind Passivhaus and how the building was designed and most importantly how they should use the building. Simple diagrams indicating how to use the building were also left with the staff for reference. Pupil consultation was also seen as a fundamental process and as such presentations and practical engagements were completed, thus allowing the pupils to understand their new surroundings and making them aware of energy use and consumption. This process is still on going with positive reports from the clients. Comfort Air quality has been found to be good with anecdotal reports of pupils being more alert. Spot readings of CO2 confirm that ventilation is good. It is believed that any reports of stuffyness were actually due to higher temperatures rather than insufficient ventilation as discussed below. Early reports of overheating caused the design team some alarm given the light weight nature of the timber frame structures. This turned out to be due to a combination of control problems with the night ventilation and higher than required boiler flow temperatures. It soon became clear that many conventional assumptions about BMS operation are not appropriate for a Passivhaus building. For example the buildings experienced overheating in early spring. Unfortunately the BMS was preventing the secure night vents from opening because the outside air temperature was below a minimum set point so that the heat built up over a number of days. Changing the set point allowed the windows to open and temperatures dropped. The soft landings process has led to significant changes in window and ventilation design for the next project. Another problem resulted from the use of a conventional weather compensation algorithm that raises the boiler flow temperature as the outside air temperature drops. However a Passivhaus building has a very long time constant and makes good use of the high solar radiation that is typical of very cold weather with clear skies. The

42

problem was compounded by the fact that the installed boiler capacity was 130kW with a minimum output of 2 24kW compared to a design peak load of 26kW for a 2,200m building (figures from Oakmeadow). Kitchen overheating was a key concern at the design stage but was addressed by radically reducing gains rather than boosting ventilation rates. This has been extremely successful and the cooks are very happy with the induction hob that was key to this approach. The only day of overheating was when the frost coil came on due to low outside air temperatures. This was another unforeseen control issue and it is hoped that heating coils can be designed out of future projects as we do not believe they are required. Energy Early indications suggest that energy consumption for space heating is comfortably under the 15kWh/(m .a) design target and should come down even lower now that the weather compensation algorithm has been changed 2 (windows were being opened to dump heat). Hot water use for Oakmeadow is around 12kWh/(m .a) with about 60-65% losses despite considerable efforts to minimise the distribution pipe length and heat loss. The next school will use carefully placed local electric water heaters and no pumped circulation. Energy use for lighting is higher than expected at around 15kWh/(m .a) for oakmeadow and 14kWh/(m .a) for Bushbury. Again automatic controls seem to be the likely culprit and we suspect that simple switches might well deliver energy savings. Primary energy use for both schools is around 175kWh/(m .a) against the Passivhaus upper limit of 2 2 120kWh/(m .a). A significant 35kWh/(m .a) primary energy is due to frost protection in the sprinkler pump room which is un-insulated and must not drop below 10C, a serious oversight by all including Building Regulations. One years data will be available for the conference presentation but was not ready in time for this abstract. Main Lessons Interestingly most of the design changes that have been informed by the soft landings process should result in simplifications and cost reductions for future next projects. It is clear that the soft landings process is invaluable and needs to be factored into budgets. However it does rely on a having an engaged main contractor being proactive throughout the entire process.
2 2 2 2

Figure 1: Winter sun at Bushbury

43

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

KNIGHTS PLACE
Case study report on the monitoring and occupation of a large scale residential Passivhaus in the South West DAVID GALE, TOMAS GRTNER
Gale & Snowden Architects and Mechanical Engineers david.gale@ecodesign.co.uk, tomas.gartner@ecodesign.co.uk

This contribution is a case study report on the design, delivery and in-use monitoring of Knights Place and Rowan House, three blocks of Passivhaus flats in Exeter, Devon UK. When the client, Exeter City Council, was offered a funding opportunity by the HCA to develop the first council housing in Exeter since 20 years, it was decided to use this chance to provide exemplary, quality affordable housing, built to the highest standard of energy efficient construction with the aim to successfully target fuel poverty and combat climate change at the same time. In 2008, Gale & Snowden Architects, Mechanical Engineers and Landscape Architects were commissioned to develop designs for 12 brownfield sites throughout Exeter. A series of workshops were held with project stakeholders and the design team to review construction alternatives. From these workshops it was decided to adopt the Passivhaus Standard. Knights Place and its sister scheme Rowan House were the first of these sites to be built and together comprise of 21 flats in three buildings. Knights Place was completed in June 2011 and has been occupied for more than a year. Rowan House was completed in 2010 and has since been occupied. The detailing and material specification follows Building Biology best practice guidance to improve the health of the tenants. This includes the use of ceramic floor tiles to reduce dust mite infestation, minimal VOCs, PVC free, best practice daylight level and an electrical design that reduces electro and magnetic radiation. The Landscape was designed to meet key human needs of food, water, energy and shelter in a way that also enhances the natural environment by employing Permaculture design principles. It integrates the new development with its surroundings and creates a sense of ownership with its residents. By understanding how biological systems work in nature and applying them to human settlement design, these principles harness productive and biodiversity-rich environments that are low-maintenance and self-perpetuating. Benefits of ecological landscaping include: Lower energy inputs by reducing chemical and mechanical interventions Lower maintenance requirements and reduced running costs due to this reduction of inputs Lower water consumption Reduce wind chill factors onto buildings and moderate the microclimate Educational linking user input and output and providing a connection for people with the natural environment creating a sense of ownership Reduce transportation pollution by using bio-regional resources Enhance the ecology of a site Further key achievements include: Code 4 of the CSH Lifetime Homes Standards compliant Private Permaculture gardens for all residents Solar Panels will further reduce the energy demand for domestic hot water Best practice daylight levels throughout

44

100% energy efficient light fittings throughout Secured by Design compliant Independently assessed under the Building for Life standard with a final score of 18.5 out of 20 Low water strategy to reduce water demand to 80 litres/person/day The project received funding under the TSB Building Monitoring Programme. The main objective is to monitor the environmental and energy performance of 3 typical flats at Knights Place and 3 flats at Rowan House and compare their performance in use against the design intent. The project is carried out over 24 months covering 2 winters and 2 summer periods, and investigates the following elements: Review of SAP calculations and PHPP calculations. Review of the services installations and commissioning data in each of the 3 flats Main meter reading of electricity and water consumption through smarts meters and sub metering of main supplies to monitor electrical consumption associated with heating, lighting, cooking, ventilation, appliances etc. One of the solar panel systems will be monitored in one of the 3 flats. Flow and return temperatures and energy will be monitored. Air flows for the MVHR systems are retested against commissioned air flows. Temperature and humidity monitoring will consist of a sensor in all 4 ducts of the MVHR system in each flat. Temperature and humidity monitoring via the sensors shall be over 2 winters and one summer period. Space comfort monitoring in 2 main rooms in each flat. This involves monitoring temperature, humidity and C02 levels in 2 main rooms of each of the flats over 2 winter periods and during one summer period. External temperature and climatic monitoring via weather station. This involves installing an onsite weather station to record external climatic conditions such as temperature, humidity, wind speed, rainfall, solar irradiance. Initial preliminary occupant survey to all 18 flats to be narrowed down to 3 flats which will receive standardised questionnaire Interviews and walkthroughs with occupants. This will also include qualitative semi-structured interviews with occupants and will help determine controls issues, lifestyle etc 2 post construction air permeability test for all 3 flats In-situ Uvalue monitoring via dynamic flux method The monitoring results so far show that the buildings use a fraction of the energy of traditionally constructed new buildings and that on average the design intent was met. In all the monitored flats an optimum air quality was maintained and the occupants successfully managed internal summer comfort throughout the first year simply via natural ventilation.

Figure 1: Knights Place Exeter, completed June 201

45

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

ADAPT TO CHANGE
The use of probabilistic weather data in the PHPP to develop a climate change adaptation strategy for a residential extra care facility TOMAS GRTNER
Gale & Snowden Architects and Mechanical Engineers, tomas.gartner@ecodesign.co.uk

The climate is changing. Considering the life expectancy of our buildings this will particularly impact on the construction industry. The majority of buildings constructed today will still be in use in the second half of this century. Although there is a growing consensus amongst scientists that the climate will change, we still design and optimise our buildings based on past experience. Current climate trends already show, we will need to adapt our built environment, to deal with a climate that will be significantly different from that in which it evolved. During the heat wave in 2003 in France, there were 14,802 heat-related deaths mostly among the elderly (French National Institute of Health). Most people did not know how to react to very high temperatures and most residential facilities built in the last 50 years were not equipped to perform under these conditions. Projections prepared by the Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development (Oxford Brookes University) show that most homes in the UK will suffer from overheating in summer beyond 2050 and some from 2030. This contribution investigates the potential impacts of climate change on the design and performance of a residential extra care facility in Exeter (Devon, UK), to be built to Passivhaus Standard, using future probabilistic weather data in the PHPP with the aim to develop a climate change adaptation strategy. Residents are likely to be frail and the building design had to ensure the building's internal conditions remain comfortable and stable for this more vulnerable user group. The project received government funding under the TSB 'Design for Future Climate' programme in 2010. Construction is scheduled to start in 2012 and to be completed in 2013. Method The IPCC's fourth assessment report shows significant warming over land for different socio-economic projections of CO2 emissions. UKCP09, the latest climate projections based upon these emissions scenarios incorporate climate models from the Met Office and others. The projections are probabilistic in nature instead of deterministic so as to allow users to assess the level of risk. Using this data Exeter Universitys Prometheus Project developed a methodology for the creation of probabilistic future reference years compatible with common building simulation software and a methodology for estimating wind direction and speed. For this project these files were converted with help from the PHI for use in the PHPP. The project team visited Passivhaus care facilities in Germany that were built between 2000 and 2010 and interviewed designers, care providers and residents. A qualitative risk assessment was carried out to analyse the tolerance and exposure to climate change related risks, for both the building and the end users, followed by a quantitative analysis. Various shading, ventilation, landscaping and construction methods were modelled in PHPP and IES dynamic modelling using current and future weather data for the years 2030, 2050 and 2080 to develop an adaptation strategy. The various options were costed and a life-cycle-cost analysis was prepared to support the client in the decision making process.

46

Discussion and conclusions Under future UK weather scenarios, rising average temperatures and increased solar radiation caused by a reduction in cloud cover will increase the risk of overheating. Already there has been an increase in the average number of Cooling Degree Days (CDD) in all administrative regions of the UK as a whole, between 1961 and 2006. At the same time the average number of Heating Degree Days (HDD) in the UK has decreased between 1961 and 2006, and future UK weather scenarios indicate a further 30% decreased number of Heating Degree Days by 2080. These results are consistent with research carried out by the CIBSE. It could be argued that in the future super insulation and low energy design principles will be less important with the future UK climate becoming milder. However, according to data from the International Energy Agency fuel prices are expected to increase by 50% by 2050 (IEA 2009). Thus, even under future scenarios net heating costs are likely to increase making the principles behind the Passivhaus concept as economically viable as they are today. Furthermore, the modelling results from this project indicate that the same low energy design principles that help to reduce heat losses have proven to be equally successful to future proof a building against the risks of climate change and to reduce the frequency of overheating in summer as long as a successful ventilation strategy can be implemented. However, climate change requires a fundamental change in the way we think about design; changing from approaches that are based on past experience to those that are based on calculated projections of future climate. Some strategies more typical for Passivhaus buildings in Southern European climates could become applicable for the UK under future UK weather scenarios, A life cycle cost analysis, carried out for this project, showed that if these strategies are implemented subsequently together with the regular maintenance cycles the building can be future proofed against climate change at little extra costs with the economic benefit of extending the useful life of the building. Climate change adaptation is becoming a greater concern for clients. To ensure comfort and commercial viability designers need to assess the potential impacts from climate change from the outset. Practices with the skills to carry out climate change risk analyses, to develop solutions and to make adaptation recommendations have a key business opportunity. To enable designers to carry out climate change risk analyses, probabilistic climate data needs to be developed for the PHPP.

Figure 1: Visualisation of Exeter Extra Care Project

47

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

MAINSTREAMING PASSIVHAUS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN THE UK


JONATHAN HINES, LARS CARLSSON
ArchiHaus Ltd 01981 542111 info@archihaus.co.uk

Introduction ArchiHaus is a new company that has been formed, in partnership with architects, Architype, specifically to bring Passivhaus housing development into the UK mainstream at a competitive and affordable price ie at no extra cost. The key objective of the project is to bring the development of Passivhaus into the mainstream of housing development at a significant scale, and at a competitive and affordable cost. This will be achieved by rethinking the build process - specifically by optimising the design and construction of passivhaus housing from first principles as an innovative 'product' suitable for efficient manufacture in an offsite factory facility. Our first project, for an initial scheme costing 20million for 150 Passivhaus houses located in Herefordshire, is currently in the planning stage. Other sites are being developed for future roll out to sustain an ongoing programme, and we anticipate also supplying houses to other developers and architects. Our aim is to radically transform standards of construction in the UK. The challenge Frustration with the reluctance of housing developers to embrace Passivhaus in anything other than pilot projects, led us to develop a new strategy for delivering 100% Passivhaus housing at a price that is competitive with those mainstream developers, and an ambitious vision to transform the UK housing market. We are rethinking the design of a house as an optimised passivhaus house from first principles, to enable it to be prefabricated in a new house factory in order to achieve an efficiency of production that delivers passivhaus at the same or less cost that standard housing development, and instead of Code. The vision affordable Passivhaus Whereas most housing developers build to minimum standards of quality and sustainability, our vision is to achieve Passivhaus as our minimum standard, but constructed at the same price as a developer. Whereas some house developers will build to higher standards in one-off pilot projects, our vision is to make Passivhaus the affordable mainstream norm, that is, simply achieved as standard. This vision could not be achieved by tweaking or adding to the way houses are currently built. Instead this project is to completely rethink the design and build process. We are redesigning 'the house' from first principles, in order to optimise construction to achieve Passivhaus through 100% prefabrication. Specifically we have used PHPP as a design tool and driver, to optimise the form, shape, layout, fabric, window size and arrangement, of the houses, in order to maximise energy performance, simplify processes for factory prefabrication, and minimise construction cost. Alongside this Passivahus optimisation of the house design, we have undertaken a study of traditional vernacular forms and found fascinating synergies which have influenced the design development of our houses Houses will be manufactured in a house factory, which are common in Sweden and Germany, and realise impressive cost reductions whilst achieving higher quality. To date however most factories have seen passivhaus as an extra complication and cost, and we aim to challenge that.

48

Our site layout has taken a radical approach, quite different to that of a typical developer scheme, in order to optimise Passivhaus performance. Houses are all orientated within 15 degrees of south and spaced 21 metres apart to maximise winter solar gain, with all principle rooms located to the south side of the plan. An innovative landscape creates a rural rather than suburban feel, with swales and hedgerows creating privacy to houses with their south elevations facing public spaces. Our wider aims include: developing integrated partnerships with multiple suppliers from the earliest design stage through construction to achieve lower costs and reduced defects utlising fully integrated cross discipline BIM for design and production optimisation creating healthy internal environments by using natural materials and finishes in conjuction with MVHR for good air quality

The vision living communities Our initial projects are located within rural communities, where there is not only great housing need, but also serious economic and environmental challenges. Many rural communities have lost many of the facilities that they value, and are struggling to maintain the viability of those facilities that are remaining. Too often the shop or post office has suffered from a lack of business and closed down, the pub is struggling to stay open, the village school is under threat of closure due to lack of local children, and it is unsafe to walk along lanes where the car dominates. Our wider vision is to support and sustain living villages: with sufficient population to sustain basic and convenient services including shops, pub, church, village hall, school and bus services with facilities to support every age group -- young children, teenagers, families and older people including health and education services a place where people can walk or cycle around safely to get to those facilities with local employment opportunities with enough space for people to grow food individually in decent size gardens, or together in allotments or community orchards has houses that people can afford to buy or rent, that are designed and developed to suit their needs

We have developed an innovative architectural approach that is a contemporary re-interpretation of the traditional rural vernacular, set within a dynamic sustainable landscape with food growing, community orchards, wetlands and natural play. We are also currently applying the thinking we have developed, to the design of urban sites to create a more sustainable vision for urban, as well as rural housing. Next steps The planning application for our first scheme of 150 houses is due to be submitted in October 2012, and construction is anticipated to be commenced in 2013.

Figure 1: Site plan

Figure 2: Elevational stud

49

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

NOTTINGHAM H.O.U.S.E.: THE CHALLENGES OF A PORTABLE PASSIVHAUS


An experiment in modular passivhaus construction for mass-market contemporary sustainable housing BEN HOPKINS
ben.hopkins53@gmail.

In the summer of 2009 a team of students from the University of Nottinghams Department of the Built Environment arrived in Madrid and in 7 days assembled a functioning two bed house designed to meet both passivhaus and code for sustainable homes level 6. There, it formed part of the Solar Decathlon Europe 2010 competition, an international zero-energy housing competition started by the US government, during which it took second prize for sustainability as well as demonstrating to the thousands of visitors the benefits of simple passive design. The project had been designed a year earlier by a group of DipArch students and was then constructed by 2nd and 3rd year undergraduate students as a live project with the help of lecturers, local architects and consultants. Apart from the student design and build team, there were a number of factors that made the Nottingham HOUSE unusual. To begin with, the competition (and the HOUSEs exhibition at Ecobuild 2010) meant that construction on site was limited to a few days. The HOUSE also had to be designed to function passively in both northern and southern Europe. The student design team also added to the already large brief that it should be a mass-market strategy, aiming to show an affordable, low-energy housing prototype to housing in the UK. As a result of these criteria, a decision was made early on to construct the house off site, to allow for cheaper and more precise construction, and critically to allow for a streamlined site-based assembly. However, the nature of a passivhaus is very much contrary to a house with so many joints; as such the design team set to thinking how one makes a portable passivhaus. To make the house demountable, the team designed it in eight modules, dimensioned to standard haulage dimensions. These modules could be fully fitted out, with only the connections for services, airtightness, internal finishes and cladding to be applied on site. To achieve this idea the house was constructed from a base of prefabricated glulam frames in-filled with timber I studs, which are then made into cassettes after being filled with isover insulation and covered in high density plasterboard for both rigidity and thermal mass. Once ready, the panels were then assembled into their respective modules, which were fitted and clad within the factory. The plan was that, on site, each modules vario airtightness membrane is would lap together at the module joints on the external face, though in reality this junction was particularly difficult to maintain after numerous disassembles. The majority of the lessons learned during the process relate to these junctions; due the performance specification of the project, and the realities of dry construction, it was imperative that each part of the HOUSE fitted its neighbour perfectly, yet there were a number of junctions that required remedial work due to dimensional issues. To avoid these issues the project would have been better served considering processes closer to those seen in car manufacture, or even smaller scale product design, where construction is tested virtually or via smaller scale protoypes. Due to time and financial constraints the HOUSE had to become its own 1:1 prototype, with the modular construction allowing training for students, and testing of ideas on less critical modules. This allowed many issues to be resolved during the construction without losing build time, however, it did not allow for preplanning of project wide issues such as connections, and so it is clear that for any future project hoping to achieve the performance of the HOUSE a much longer lead in time should be given, to allow for much greater integration of systems, and to allow thorough BIM testing. It was considered that in future applications of a similar housing

50

type the system of construction could also be reconsidered, to allow for a simpler, even more prefabricated strategy which could incorporate the airtightness performance into the envelope without the need for a membrane, which was by far the most trying feature of making a passivhaus that can be disassembled. One of the greatest surprises of the competition was just how well the HOUSE performed compared to the many houses with significantly more funding and more high-tech services. Though systems issues meant that critical BMS systems were unavailable and therefore many of the 24 hour internal comfort targets were missed, the house performed far better than the majority of competitors, and without the need for mechanical systems during the day. Many of the more high tech entrants who had taken a more traditional passivhaus strategy failed to cope with the internal loads of visitors and the heat of summer-time Madrid, and required large amounts of renewables to offset the power consumption of their systems. The Nottingham HOUSE, however, managed to maintain comfortable temperatures throughout, without using power and therefore allowing the use of more realistic priced lower yield PVs. It is interesting to note that many of the visitors stated that they were far happier with the traditional window based ventilation system in use which was seen to be much simpler, as well as the other non-standard features of the HOUSE which were critical to its success, such as the L shape plan and the double height void, both of which were contrary to passivhaus practice, but allow for the house to function in a terrace configuration, and to provide spaces that improve on typical housing types. As such the HOUSE suggests that while passivhaus design is incredibly useful in providing low-energy solutions for contemporary mass-market housing, it must be a part of the design strategy and not the key driver.

Figure 1: A module being tested by students within the assembly hall

51

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

WIMBISH PASSIVHAUS BUILDING PERFORMANCE EVALUATION


Twelve months of monitoring MARTIN INGHAM
Associate, Centre for the Built Environment, Adapt Low Carbon Group, University of East Anglia m.ingham@uea.ac.uk

The Wimbish Passivhaus development derives from Hastoe Housing Associations record of accomplishment in sustainable housing, and their desire to tackle rural fuel poverty. Hastoe intend that Wimbish be the first of many Passivhaus developments, and were keen to confirm that the buildings are performing as anticipated. A bid to the Technology Strategy Board for an in-use performance and post-occupancy evaluation study was successfully made with UEA assistance. The evaluation is to study whether, in practice, the buildings meet the occupants needs, Hastoe expectations, and the Passivhaus design criteria. A rural exception scheme, with a mix of social and shared-ownership housing, the development has been designed to be cost-effective and replicable. As an approach that could be suitable for mass-market it is important that it be studied carefully to maximise learning. The award-winning development consists of 8 houses (two and three bedroom 76 and 88m ) and 6 one bed 2 (51m ) flats [see Figure 1]. The design was by Parsons+Whittley, and construction by Bramall Construction (now Keepmoat). The structure is essentially lightweight block-work with external insulation and render. The dwellings are triple-glazed, oriented east-west to enable larger south-facing windows to the main living accommodation, with solar control by brise-soleil, large overhangs and external blinds. A solar thermal system works with a small boiler to meet hot water needs, and to meet the minimal supplementary space heating demand, which is delivered through the ventilation system. This two year domestic new-build study, which started with handover end-June 2011, is looking at both the performance of the fabric and from the perspective of the occupants. The occupants are looking for low bills, and a comfortable environment; analysis of the first year of data indicates that the building scores highly on both fronts. The design and construction processes, including commissioning, were observed and are being reviewed for reporting to the Technology Strategy Board. All 14 units have been monitored for gas, electricity and water consumption, with electric sub-metering, and for temperature/humidity in their living rooms. Three units are monitored more extensively: temperature and humidity in multiple locations, carbon dioxide levels in living and bedroom space; along with the performance of the vital MVHR system. A University of East Anglia PhD Researcher has investigated occupant practices; in particular, how they influence energy consumption, and how they may be modified to reduce consumption. Living in a Passivhaus home to maximum advantage requires subtly different skills to those required in a more conventional house; for example how to benefit from solar gain without overheating; when to use the MVHR and when to open the windows; what to do if they feel a little hot, or a little cold. Guidance was provided for the occupants in a Tenant Handbook, and through pre-, during and post-handover support. The effectiveness of this guidance and support has been reviewed. The project has been supported by the EU Build with CaRe project, where UEA was a partner. Performance during the first winter has been analysed and reported as an interim report on www.buildwithcare.eu. The presentation to the Passivhaus Trust Conference will also report on the first full summer of occupation, along with twelve months of energy and comfort data.
2

52

Gas consumption for space and water heating aligns with Passivhaus (and PHPP) design expectations. Electricity use is a little higher than desirable for a Passivhaus, being closer to UK averages; the appliance audit is expected to confirm that old appliances, brought with them by the occupants, are a major factor in raising electricity use. The Building Use Studies survey conducted for TSB recorded high levels of occupant satisfaction; this is confirmed by the monitoring data and by interviews with the tenants. Most households chose to maintain quite high temperatures through the winter, and were delighted that they were able to achieve this with such low utility bills (which would have been even lower if energy companies did not penalise low usage). Continuing these behaviours into summer has led to temperature readings in some houses that would class as over-heating, yet it seems as though this may partly be by choice. Valuable lessons have been learned from the build process, and from the design, installation, commissioning and operation of the systems, especially the MVHR. Transferring knowledge to the occupants so that they can get the best out of the houses to suit their needs has not been easy, and feedback to them from the performance evaluation is planned to overcome any concerns they may have and hopefully improve performance even more. Overall, findings to date are that the occupants are very happy with their homes. This makes Hastoe and the designers happy too!

Figure 1: Wimbish Passivhaus Flats

53

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

SCALING UP: UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER NEW MEDICAL BUILDING


SIMON JESSON
Associated Architects, s.jesson@associated-architects.co.uk 0121 2336600

There is, perhaps, a perception that the applications of Passivhaus standards in the UK to date have been restricted to relatively small scale, often bespoke projects, such as residential buildings, schools and modest commercial office schemes. The team were keen to explore whether Passivhaus could be applied to larger scale projects, as are more commonplace in Europe, and to identify the challenges in the shift in scale? The University of Leicester set itself the target of reducing its estates CO2 emissions by 60% by 2020 and this will inevitably shape the design of new buildings. Associated Architects were commissioned to design a new medical Teaching Building, which accommodates 13,000sq.m of teaching space, academic offices and research facilities on a city centre site. The University and Design Team have chosen to design the building to meet the Passivhaus standard, in order to achieve the EPC A target set by the Universitys brief. The scheme is currently in the detail design stage but already the challenges of up scaling are apparent. Passivhaus requires that consideration of building orientation is essential and extensive and explanative consultation has had to be held with the planning authority so they could fully understand how proposed building massing and orientation had a significant impact on the environmental viability of the project, especially in the context of sensitive townscape context. Urban sites, with their inherent constraints of finite site size, background noise, air quality and overshadowing from neighbouring buildings present technical challenges to design development. The potential sole reliance on mechanical ventilation and cooling systems within sealed buildings runs against the Passivhaus objective of energy reduction. In scaling up, Passivhaus buildings have larger gross floor areas to accommodate the larger plant rooms and risers to accommodate the type of mechanical plant required. This inefficiency not only incurs additional capital costs in addition to the provision of Passivhaus certified materials and systems, but can also conflict with site constraints in terms of permitted buildings heights. Rooftop plant rooms being larger and displacing plant into or under the building, compounds the extra over capital cost issue further. The technical requirements for achieving the Passivhaus standard building must be economically achievable. The balance between capital cost versus life cycle costs and long term cost savings needed to be carefully considered and analysed. Working for a financially accountable organisation such as the University, required that the Design Teams component specification and procurement strategy, allow the demonstration of competitive purchasing. We were encountering challenges in sourcing commercially available and insurable Passivhaus certified components and construction techniques that are suitable for large scale projects with a contemporary aesthetic. The number of certified aluminium curtain-walling systems for example available in the UK is pretty much limited to Schuco. This could be said to be a monopoly. Large scale Passivhaus buildings are complex to operate and manage, and will require suitably trained FM teams to ensure they are managed to realise the energy savings. Without this, the buildings will be expensive white elephants. For the University, there was also the challenge of communicating the benefits and constraints of a Passivhaus building to 400 staff and 2000 students, who will have a limited understanding of construction and all of whom have a part to play in the long term success of the project by reducing their primary energy demands.

54

We are finding that there is a very real lack of Passivhaus knowledge and experience in delivering the standard amongst Main Contractors and their sub-contractors. The use of the Passivhaus brand and terminology has the ability to convey the low energy nature of the development, but contradictorily can increase the cost expectations, due to incorrect perceptions and the commercial imperative. The scheme is currently in its pretender procurement, and is due to complete in July 2015.

Figure 1: The New Medical Building for the University of Leicester, completion due 2015

55

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

CURRENT AND FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF A VICTORIAN TERRACED HOUSE REFURBISHED TO PASSIVHAUS STANDARDS
HANIYEH MOHAMMADPOURKARBASI, STEVE SHARPLES
School Of Architecture, University Of Liverpool, Abercromby Square, Liverpool L69 7zn, Uk hanimpk@liverpool.ac.uk steve.sharples@liverpool.ac.uk

Reducing energy demand in the existing residential building stock has been identified as a core aim of UK and EU energy policies to mitigate climate change and global warming trends. To achieve this aim a variety of different building codes, regulations and standards have been developed. Among them, the Passivhaus certification imposes the strictest criteria regarding heating demand. The vast majority of Passivhaus dwellings built to date have been new constructions. Given that 70% of all current homes in the UK will still be present in 2050 it is crucial to analyse the potential application of Passivhaus standards to the retrofitting of existing dwellings. Although, for older buildings, it is often difficult to achieve the Passivhaus standard, the use of Passivhaus technology for each building component in such buildings can make a significant improvement regarding comfort, energy requirements and CO2 emissions. The EnerPHit Standard has recently been developed as a good practice refurbishment guide for Passivhaus renovations. It has set a slightly different standard requirement to the full Passivhaus standard for new build, and an old building can receive a "EnerPHit Quality-Approved Modernisation with Passive House Components" certificate. This paper examines the possibility of reaching EnerPHit standards for a 19th century Victorian end terrace house in Liverpool, UK. The terrace was refurbished by the Plus Dane Group as part of the Retrofit for the Future programme with the aim of getting as close as possible to new-build Passivhaus standards on a 130-year old home. Since a retrofit Passivhaus standard was not in place at the time of starting the project the PHPP (Passivhaus Planning Package) program was used to certify the house based on new build Passivhaus standards. The house did achieve the standards for most aspects, with the main exception being the air tightness level achieved in the refurbished terrace. For the purpose of this research the thermal software DesignBuilder was used to simulate the terraces energy performance after refurbishment for different climate scenarios. Like PHPP, DesignBuilder includes energy calculations (R or U-values), sizing of the heating and domestic hot water (DHW) systems, calculations of auxiliary electricity and primary energy requirements. However, DesignBuilder is far more accurate as it can be detailed down to individual room/zone levels for different temperatures while PHPP uses an Excel spreadsheet that operates at a whole building level using monthly average temperatures. With PHPP it is possible to obtain a building certificate but there is no guarantee that this PHPP certified building will have acceptable thermal comfort levels in each zone of the building. The calculation procedure for estimating the energy impact of air-tightness is the same for both DesignBuilder and PHPP. However, DesignBuilder, in natural ventilation mode, can allow for the effects from changes in wind speed on the building instead of one continuous infiltration rate, as in PHPP. Simulation results indicate that Passivhaus standards are achievable in a refurbished Victorian terrace for current weather data in Liverpool regarding primary energy demand, CO2 reductions and summertime comfort. Although the houses heating demand went above the standards the criteria for individual building components were met. A 3 2 high level of air tightness (2.75m /hr/m ) was achieved after refurbishment. Predicted DesignBuilder results were then validated against measured data taken from an extensive long term monitoring programme in the terraced dwelling carried out by the Plus Dane Group. Having validated the program made it possible to investigate how the same refurbished terraced house might perform in the warmer climate of London for both current and future climate scenarios. Heating demand for London will meet EnerPHit criteria. Figure 1 compares heating demand for the house with and without refurbishment for different climate scenarios.

56

However, summer overheating and higher cooling energy demands are very likely to occur in this terrace house in London for both current and future weather in the second half of this century. Although the house meets the cooling demand and summertime comfort criteria for current weather data, it will surpass these benchmarks during its life based on predicted 2050 and 2080 London weather data. Simulation results indicate that the summer discomfort hours (over 25C) and cooling demand will be more than double their current levels by 2080. To deal with this overheating user-controlled shading has been suggested as the most effective adaptation measure for reducing annual overheating hours in the future climate of England. It can minimize overheating hours whilst, in the winter, maximising solar gain to reduce space heating energy use. However, in some cases, especially by the 2080s, the external temperature will be too high at times to be brought below the comfort level passively. In this case providing active cooling without surpassing the Passivhaus energy demand levels is a challenging task. In conclusion, comparison of results for heating demand suggests very little decline in heating demand in the future for the house with no refurbishment, while the PassivHaus refurbishment shows a sharp reduction in energy demands and CO2 emissions even after active cooling measures are integrated into the home. Space Heat Demand 180 160 140 120 kwh/m2.yr 100 80 60 40 20 0 pre-refurb London pre-refurb Liverpool refurbished refurbished London Liverpool EnerPHit PassivHaus current 2020 2050 2080

Figure 1: Comparison of space heat demand for the terraced house located in Liverpool and in London for different climate scenarios.

57

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CAMDEN PASSIVHAUS


Performance exceeds design targets! SARAH LEWIS
bere:architects, Mildmay Centre, Woodville Road, London N16 8NA, tel: +44 (0)20 7241 1064

Introduction Situated in the London Borough of Camden, the Camden Passivhaus achieves the UKs 2016 zero carbon compliance standard. It was bere:architects first certified passivhaus, and also Londons first passivhaus. Bere:architects used this project as a vehicle to learn about advanced, thermally-efficient European timber frame techniques; by means of an 18 month knowledge transfer exercise, with Matthias Kaufmann of Kaufmann Zimmerei who joined the office in 2008. The Camden Passivhaus acted as a test-bed for bere:architects Welshmade passivhaus social housing prototypes. Detailed monitoring of the Camden Passivhaus by University College London, has found that passivhaus techniques have resulted in a comfortable and healthy home for the clients young family, and is showing that the building is performing even better than designed. The Arup BUS occupant survey found it to have the highest user approval rating of any low energy house officially tested using the BUS methodology. This is all the more remarkable when one considers that the occupant did not commission the house and does not have any real interest in the passivhaus standard other than the comfort she enjoys and the health benefits she has experienced. The fabric and in-use performance of the Camden Passivhaus has been independently monitored in collaboration with University College London and funded by the UK Governments Technology Strategy Board. Fabric Performance Data The fabric performance of the house has been analysed with blower door air pressure tests, co-heating tests, tracer gas tests, in-situ U-value heat flux measurements, infra-red thermography, thermal bridge analysis and a forensic review of all of the building systems over the course of 2011. The blower door test result was 0.44h ACH @50Pa this surpassed the 0.6h ACH @50Pa which is the requirement -1 for Passivhaus projects. The tracer gas test (CO2 decay) calculated a value of 0.38 0.08h . The co-heating test result showed performance is even better than design. The total heat loss for both ventilation and fabric losses was measured to be 3515W/K, compared to a design target of 63.6W/K, although the weather conditions for the test were not ideal and it is hoped to repeat the test this winter. Heat flux sensors were placed on an interior wall and floor to measure the heat flux through the fabric and therefore measure the respective u-values. The flux measured on the ground slab was 0.0990.013 W/m2K, compared to a design target of 0.103W/m2K. The flux measured on the lower wall was 0.0970.020 W/m2K, compared to a design target of 0.122W/m2K. These tests all showed that the Passivhaus standard has delivered a building which has outperformed its design data, a fact that is unusual in the UK. bere:architects and their independent teams have measured similar results in all of their other Passivhuas projects. In-use Data The university monitoring began in July 2011 and is ongoing. It involves submetering of electric, gas and water utilities to analyse the energy use. The monitoring also looks at the efficiency of the heat recovery unit, air heating and solar hot water systems.
-1 -1

58

The monitoring shows that the maximum CO2 in the bedroom is <1500ppm, keeping within the max indoor CO2 concentration of 1600ppm quoted by CIBSE Guide A (table 4.2), and 1500ppm quoted by DIN 1946, while in the living room there were occasional peaks above 1000ppm. The average being 733ppm in the bedroom and 679ppm in the living room over the period October 2011-August 2012. From October 2011-August 2012 the average relative humidity range was 41.9% to 53.5%, indicating excellent internal conditions. During the first monitored winter in-use, October 2011 to March 2012 (second winter in occupation), the monitored data showed that the average internal temperature in the house was 21.3C. The PHPP tool assumes an indoor temperature of 20C. When the internal temperature was adjusted in the PHPP to match the actual in-use temperature, the software predicted higher gas consumption for the period October 2011 to March 2012, than the actual measured data, and this even remained the case at 20C. The Passivhaus requirements are for the Specific 2 Space Heat Demand of the house not to exceed 15kWh/(m a), our design target was more ambitious at 13.7kWh/(m2a) and the measured performance was 12.2kWh/(m2a) during the first fully monitored 12 month period, July 2011-July 2012. From the monitoring we know that the occupants are not always interacting with the building as we expected or planned, for example the external solar blinds are often left down in the winter reducing the useful solar gains, and the building is still performing better than the design targets. This proves that with a robust design methodology the building can accommodate varying user behaviours. The results show that the PHPP is a robust tool for predicting in-use performance. The monitoring will continue with funding from the Technology Strategy Board for a further full year, then bere:architects intend to support the continued monitoring of the house with the occupants agreement. Occupant Feedback: Mrs F Terry Its absolutely beautifully warm in here and zero degrees outside. And its always got that lovely sort of ambiance in here. It feels really warm and comfortable and fresh The house works in a very efficient manner because it requires very little heating even when its subzero out there. So it proves that the Passive House concept works - in reality! Conclusion The PHPP provides a robust design tool for accurately design and prediction of energy performance in the UK. The Passivhaus concept also provides a superior internal environment over minimum standard building regulations. The occupants of this house have high comfort demands, requiring an average internal temperature of 21.3C in winter; however the gas consumption is still below our 20C design predictions. The occupants say that they feel very comfortable in summer and winter and that they enjoy the high air quality.

Figure 1: The Camden Passivhaus

59

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

DESIGNING THE UKS FIRST PASSIVHAUS ARCHIVE BUILDING


GEORGE MIKURCIK AND JONATHAN HINES
Architype Ltd 01981 542111 george.mikurcik@architype.co.uk jonathan.hines@architype.co.uk

Introduction Commissioned by Herefordshire Council to design a new Archive and Records centre, Architype proposed Passivhaus as the best way to achieve the demanding environmental standards required by the British Standard for Archive Buildings. The technical challenge of designing this building were interesting, given the two very different functions of the main parts of the building: an archive store with rigorous and demanding standards in terms of set and constant temperature and humidity, as specified in British Standard BS 5454 an office and public areas, with standard office requirements and stringent requirements for spaces for viewing and restoration of sensitive documents.

We undertook research into recent precedents and found that many archive buildings relied on mechanical services equipment to moderate the internal environment. We felt that a passive approach would be more robust, more efficient and more economic in the longer term, and proposed to the client that the buildings should be designed to Passivhaus. Testing Passivhaus The client instructed two options to be fully designed and costed up to C stage BREEAM Very Good and Passivhaus. Using the fabric of the building to moderate the internal environment meant that the quantity of mechanical equipment could be reduced in the Passivhaus option. Avoiding the need for arbitrary renewables targets, further reduced the requirement for more expensive add on technologies. This exercise demonstrated that a Passivhaus building would cost 4.5% less to build, than a BREEAM Very good building, as well as delivering ongoing year on year energy savings. The client opted for the project to proceed as Passivhaus, as the most logical approach, and design has proceed on this basis. The project, which is costed at around 6million is currently in detailed design and is due on site early 2013, subject to political approvals, The two key parts of the building have very different technical requirements and this led to two different technical responses. This gave the building a distinctive architectural form, with the archive storage and office/public access functions conceived as separate forms, linked by an atrium and circulation space. The archive and records storage building The BS requirement of archive storage is for a constant temperature below 19 deg C and constant humidity of between 40 55% RH. We adopted a really simple, passive approach with a well insulated and airtight box separated from the office block via airlock lobbies. This building is effectively ground coupled to take advantage of relatively stable temperature of the ground to balance internal temperatures over the period of 12 months. There is minimal insulation below the ground slab, but good perimeter insulation to minimise heat losses.

60

Given the lower than standard required temperature and the difficulty in achieving a fully thermally broken foundation detail given the heavy loadings of an archive building, this approach was also a pragmatic and cost effective solution. The construction is concrete frame, with concrete block infill walls, with a parge coat on the outside to provide airtightness, which should be a very straightforward/ foolproof construction for this purpose. The concrete structure and walls are surrounded with a separate duvet layer - constructed with larsen trusses & filled with warmcel insulation, and is clad in cedar shingles to break down the scale of the building. This building has no external windows or doors to the outside. The wall between the archive building and the office building is insulated to a similar degree as external walls The aim is to keep the ventilation rates as low as possible, with a target of 0.5 - 1 ac/ day. There may need to be some form of moisture control incorporated into the system. Recirculated air keeps sufficient heat in the building whilst keeping moisture out of the archive areas. The office building The office building is designed as a standard passivhaus design, similar in construction to Architypes school projects. The foundations are designed to minimise thermal bridging and the construction is a loadbearing timber frame with a duvet layer made with a larsen truss and warmcel insulation. Generous glazed areas on south elevation provide visual connection with the ground but require additional shading by brise soleil designed to control solar gain in summer. Given the use of the building, occupancy levels will be very variable, so we have been careful not to overdesign and over ventilate in "base" mode. This is being dealt with by having two MVHR systems: one for general "background" mode and another one to serve public research spaces at their maximum occupancy. We also had further technical constraints to deal with - UV light must be blocked out, which means that we will have to apply UV film to all windows, which effectively reduces useful solar gain. Due to an adjacent busy road, all windows facing south need external acoustic louvers, which effectively reduce physical free areas. In summer mode most spaces are naturally ventilated with cross ventilation using the central full height atrium to draw air through using the stack effect. Conclusion This project demonstrates the relevance of Passivhaus in delivering specific and rigorous environmental requirements at an economic cost, in addition to the low energy and optimized comfort for which it is known.

Figure 1: Perspective of Herefordshire Archive and Records Office showing office and public access in foreground and main archive store to the rear

61

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

THE USE OF PASSIVE HOUSE PLANNING PACKAGE TO REDUCE ENERGY USE AND CO2 EMISSIONS IN HISTORIC DWELLINGS
FRANCIS MORAN, SUKUMAR NATARAJAN, ANDY SHEA
University of Bath fmoran@blueyonder.co.uk University of Bath

Since historic buildings constitute 25% of the European built environment they have a role to play in delivering CO2 emissions reduction targets along with the rest of the domestic stock. However, historic buildings have significant cultural value and were built with technologies and materials that promote fabric breathability to maintain moisture equilibrium. This demands solutions aligned to the hygroscopic nature of these dwellings to deliver enduring and radical energy efficiency savings and emissions reduction that while maintaining their heritage value are capable of district wide replication. Before embarking on wide scale retrofit adaptations, procedures to assess the potential for such measures to reduce CO2 emissions are of primary importance. Some measures will have an impact on both fabric and aesthetics. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the reductions in CO2 emissions from a set of proposed alterations are significantly higher than any perceived reduction in loss of built heritage. To achieve large scale market adoption an approach that is both straight forward and effective in assessing CO2 emissions savings from adopting energy efficiency measures is urgently required. This paper demonstrates the use of the Passive House Planning Package modelling tool to assess the potential for retrofit adaptation measures in three Georgian terrace dwellings in Bath, England, see Figure 1. It compares delivered against modelled energy use and then models energy savings following the introduction of a range of retrofit adaptations and Low and Zero Carbon technologies. Results indicate that the Passive House Planning Package can effectively assess total electrical energy use but requires adjustment for occupancy/heating pattern to accurately establish current heating energy consumption. The modelled results suggest retrofit adaptations in historic buildings could deliver energy savings and CO2 emissions savings between 47-79% when the thermal fabric is significantly improved. This confirms to some extent what we know, in that without improvement to thermal performance overall potential for CO2 reduction is reduced considerably. Given the large numbers of historic buildings, current emissions reduction targets are unlikely to be met without significantly reducing the CO2 emissions resulting from heating. In the absence of a low carbon heat source suitable for use at the urban scale, improvements to external wall thermal performance will be required if emission reduction targets are to be met by the historic buildings stock as a whole. PHPP presents challenges when attempting to predict current actual energy use. This may be asking too much of a model that relies on high levels of thermal insulation, low levels of infiltration and MVHR with a constant and evenly distributed internal temperature in the heating season and applying it to draughty, thermally inefficient and intermittently heated historic dwellings. Restrictions arsing from heritage status may mean a number of compromises in achieving full retrofit passive house certification. This short fall in desired performance highlights that establishing a realistic heating pattern is key to developing accurate energy and CO2 emissions savings; this applies to all dwelling types. The reality is that occupants have varying lifestyles and comfort levels. For modelling purposes a standard is defined to enable comparison. But there is a danger if the standard over estimates energy used for heating as monetary or carbon savings from retrofit measures may be seriously over estimated.

62

The case studies have shown that energy efficiency is not only solely dependent on the performance of the building, occupants play a vital role. One way to mitigate this effect is to collect empirical data on actual energy use to improve the accuracy of energy use software prediction. PHPP was developed over time analysing the results of as built performance against predicted results. Clearly more case study analysis will develop similar accuracy for retrofit in historic buildings. Although not strictly part of carbon emissions reduction in the current passive house orthodoxy, the use of PV was explored. This indicated that emissions savings from electricity could approach 80% depending on occupant 2 activity. Consequently, although exceeding the maximum heat demand of 15 kWh/m /a, two of the case studies used 25% less total primary energy that a Passivhaus complaint (EnerPHit) solution. PHPP has shown that as a model it can provide assessments of the benefits of retrofit adaptations in historic buildings. But more importantly and with regard to aligning the conservation of energy to the conservation of heritage, it can provide empirical data to evaluate the benefit of decisions that affect fabric and/or aesthetics.

Figure 1: Grade II listed buildings modelled using PHPP

63

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

REFURBISHING THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK USING PASSIVHAUS STANDARDS


JOHNATHAN NEA
Climate Change is affecting our environment and here in the UK we are trying to take a proactive approach to reducing CO2 emissions. The Climate Change Act was introduced in 2008 and CO2 reduction targets, which the UK must meet, have been set. The aim of the Act is to reduce the UK Carbon emissions by 80% on 1990 emission levels by 2050. To achieve the government aspirations, changes will be seen in every sector of the economy. The residential sector changes will affect everyone in the UK as some form of retrofit works will be required to everyones home. The greater driver for the majority of people will be to reduce their annual fuel bills. Fuel poverty has become a real problem in the UK and it is estimated there are approximately 3 million people affected in 2009 (DECC, 2012). The UK has a very diverse housing stock with 21% of dwellings built before 1919 and 16% between 1919 and 1945 (DCLG, 2010, p. 10). There are 20.1 million homes that could benefit from energy improvement works, recommended under the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) methodology. Orbit has carried out works that go beyond the EPC recommendations to a number of hard to treat properties. This presentation will look at how a number of different property types can be refurbished using Passivhaus principles, which will reduce fuel poverty and CO2 emissions. 277 Foleshill Road, Coventry The property is a Pre 1900s mid terrace house located in Coventry. This project was Orbits first passive refurbishment project. The aim was to improve the efficiency of the property, although no desired kWh/m2/yr. figure was set The purpose was to employ passivhaus principles to determine if it is a viable option to apply to a larger proportion of the stock.

56 & 58 Elliott Drive, Warwickshire The project consisted of two 1950s, wimpy no fines semi detached houses. Number 58 was refurbished to the Enerphit Standard which has a space heating demand of 25kWh/m2/yr. Whereas number 56 was refurbished to a more modest standard consisting of general void works plus thermal upgrades, a space heating demand of 100kWh/m2/yr. was set.

64

External insulation works to 90 Properties Orbit have taken advantage of CESP scheme (Community Energy Saving Programme) and externally insulated Pre 1900s properties. Where possible Passivhaus principles have been employed to improve the air tightmess of the buildings.

The three projects demonstrate different measures which employ passivhaus principles to improve the energy efficiency of the existing housing. The presentation will go into further detail on these three projects and the technologies installed, improvement in energy efficiency and CO2 emissions. Improving the energy efficiency of the UK housing stock using measures similar to the ones in Orbit project will reduce energy consumption, fuel poverty and carbon emissions. It is very difficult to adopt a one fit solution for all but the passivhaus standard offers a methodology that can be applied to a large porportion of properties. References DCLG. (2010). English housing Survey - Housing stock report. London: Department for Communities and Local Government. DECC. (2012). Hills Fuel Poverty Review. Retrieved September 13, 2012, from http://www.decc.gov.uk /en/content/cms/funding/Fuel_poverty/Hills_Review/Hills_Review.aspx

65

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

PASSIVHAUS RETROFIT OF A 1970S TOWER BLOCK IN HAVERING, EAST LONDON


JOHN PRATLEY, PAUL SMYTH
Sustainable By Design LLP, john.pratley@sustainablebydesign.co.uk Cocreate Consulting, paul.smyth@cocreateconsulting.com

In February 2012, Cocreate Consulting and Sustainable By Design LLP were commissioned by the Park View Estate Tenants & Residents Association (PETRA) to undertake a Feasibility Study of the energy efficient upgrade of three tower blocks at Park View Estate in Havering, East London. The tower blocks were in a reasonably good state of repair but had poor thermal performance and residents were reporting high heating bills and un-healthy living conditions within the 144 flats - including damp, draughts and condensation problems. At the time, PETRA was in discussion with the Local Authority and a number of Council-approved, independent green retrofit suppliers about different refurbishment options that could improve their living environment, but felt that the discussions were being progressed without a proper, holistic understanding of the energy performance or construction limitations of the tower blocks as a whole. Cocreate Consulting advised PETRA that the Passivhaus EnerPHit Standard is Europes leading energy performance criteria for building refurbishment and that the Passivhaus Planning Package (PHPP) would be the best totalbuilding energy modelling tool for predicting the tower blocks current operational energy demand. Cocreate Consulting and Sustainable By Design LLP therefore embarked on an overview of the existing building performance and proposed retrofit recommendations to achieve reductions in energy use to meet the EnerPHit Passivhaus Refurbishment space heating standard of less than 25 kWh/m2/yr. Our joint role was to provide initial PHPP modelling, technical construction sketches and an outline specification with suggested phased retrofit improvements. The purpose of the modelling exercise was to consider the practical issues of a whole building refurbishment, quantify potential energy savings and propose pragmatic and affordable recommendations for how the local Estate Tenants' & Residents' Association can improve their living environment. The overview of the existing construction included an initial visual survey of one of the existing towers, Park View House, and interviews with the existing residents, some of whom had lived in the tower block since it was first occupied forty years ago and therefore had a record of the buildings performance and maintenance over that time. The three, 13-storey tower blocks had been built in the early 1970s and are typical of their time: with a systembuild construction incorporating pre-cast concrete wall panels, in-situ concrete floor slabs with load-bearing brick cladding from floor to floor. All 48 flats per block are clustered around a central, vertical circulation core with steelframed, single-glazed windows, no insulation in the cavity behind the brick wall cladding and a failed mechanical ventilation and air-heating system which was in the process of being replaced by individual gas boilers and radiators with communal extract fans. From this initial investigation, measured drawings were produced with technical sketches and performance specification notes of the existing construction providing enough building and occupant information to allow for an initial PHPP model to be progressed, resulting in an existing space heating demand of over 200 kWh/m2/yr. This tallied with the high heating bills that were being reported by the residents. The Study focused on the following areas of construction and specification: Elevations/External Wall, Balconies, Ground Floor, Roof, Windows, Ventilation, Heating and Air Tightness.

66

Possible improvements to these areas were investigated including technical sketches and designs of typical details and improved performance specification notes, culminating in a completed PHPP model incorporating retrofit measures to achieve the EnerPHit standard of less than 25kWh/m2 space heating demand. Finally, the improved Outline EnerPHit Specification and technical sketches were then discussed with the independent Green Retrofit suppliers to create a set of Practical Retrofit Proposals to test for costing and programme consequences. The Feasibility Study concluded with a summary Outline Passivhaus EnerPHit Specification within an incremental, pragmatic Retrofit Phasing Programme - linked to PHPP predicted improvements in space heating demand and future funding requirements. PETRA, the local Estate Tenants' & Residents' Association, are now using this Study to inform their discussions with the Local Authority based on a pragmatic understanding of what effective retrofit measures are available, at which stage of refurbishment they are appropriate, and how these measures can improve the energy performance of each tower block as a whole potentially reducing each residents heating bills and giving them more comfortable, healthy living conditions.

Figure 1: Park View House, Havering, East London

67

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

CONSTRUCTION OF RICHMOND HILL PRIMARY SCHOOL


The UKs first Passivhaus on piled foundations JIM SHAW
Interserve Construction Limited jim.shaw@interserve.com

Richmond Hill Primary School is the largest Passivhaus building in the UK. Built to expand and replace the existing ageing buildings on the outskirts of Leeds city centre on a brownfield site, the project presented a number of challenges for the design and construction team. The Client, Leeds City Council, wished to reduce carbon emissions in their new buildings and Passivhaus was selected as the method to achieve this. However, the functional design and layout of the building remained their priority educational and access needs took precedence. The building is constructed over a former quarry, requiring a piled foundation to support the large steel-framed structure. Innovative use of high-strength insulation normally found in petrochemical installations minimised cold bridging at high load parts of the foundation. A number of braced bays for the steel frame could not be eliminated and these were taken straight to the pilecap with the cold bridge modelled. To compensate for this, exceptionally thick polystyrene insulation was used under the remainder of the suspended ground floor slab. These complex foundation solutions required attention to detail during construction to ensure that high installation standards were achieved. Utilising a steel frame ensured the design and layout flexibility met the Clients needs and assisted with the support of a SIP-based thermal envelope. Whilst the steel frame allowed the creation of the internal spaces needed, it introduced point loads to the foundation and also made air-sealing more complex. A variety of methods were employed to accomplish effective air sealing. With the design stage PHPP arriving right on the limit at 15.4kwh/m2/year, the team set about improving the component performance, remaining wary about reliance upon reducing the air-permeability to achieve certification. Improvement in thermal performance of key products was reviewed and enhanced, including the commissioning of bespoke testing to evidence the benefit. Achieving the air permeability required for Passivhaus certification substantially raises the bar in comparison with conventional UK building practice. The Interserve team were conscious of this significant construction-stage risk. A considerable effort was made by the Architect, _Space Group, and Interserves pre-construction team to ensure this was achievable, concentrating in great detail on the construction method, sequence and accessibility of membranes. Key suppliers where involved in the evolution of the project design and a genuine spirit of collaboration was fostered. The pre-construction design and planning was backed up on site by a thorough approach to monitoring and recording the works. The eventual air permeability of 0.25 a.c.h. reflects this forethought and the quality-focussed culture that had been engendered.

68

Figure 1: Richmond Hill Primary School by Interserve Construction Limited

69

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

BRIDGING THE THEORY: REALITY GAP


MARK SIDDALL, DAVID JOHNSTON
Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK and LEAP: low energy architectural practice (mark@LEAP4.it +44(0)7795031700) CeBE, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK

It has been increasingly recognised within the UK that buildings, as-constructed, are not performing in accordance with theory and that one of the reasons for this performance failure can be attributed to unaccounted thermal bypass (ZCH, 2010 and Stafford et al., 2012). The lead author has previously presented papers reporting upon the impact that Convective Thermal Bypass mechanisms can have on building performance (see Siddall, 2009 and 2011). In 2009, the author contended that constructing Passivhaus buildings without dedicating due care and attention to thermal bypass mechanisms could result in building performance failures. This paper discusses the results obtained from a small number of coheating tests that have recently been undertaken on Passivhaus dwellings. These results suggest that the Passivhaus standard, when complimented by an appreciation of the risks imposed by thermal bypass, is capable of closing this performance gap. Coheating Tests : Results A coheating test is a quasi-steady state method that can be used to measure the whole dwelling heat loss (both fabric and background ventilation) attributable to an unoccupied dwelling in W/K. The process involves using electric resistance heating to achieve a mean elevated indoor air temperature of approximately 25C for an extended period of time; in this case approximately 4 weeks. The daily amount of electrical energy that is used to heat the building is measured and then used to determine the heat input in Watts (W). By plotting the daily energy demand (W) against the daily mean temperature difference between inside and outside (T) the heat loss coefficient (HLC) may then be determined (W/K). Two dwellings that form part of the recently completed Passivhaus Racecourse development at Hutton Rise, Houghton-le-Spring, Sunderland have just recently undergone a coheating test. The results of the coheating tests (see Figures 1 and 2) have demonstrated a very high level of correlation between the as-designed performance and the as-built performance. Fig. 1 illustrates the results from regression analysis and serves to demonstrate that the measured and predicted heat loss coefficient for dwelling 1 are in very close agreement with one another (46.7W/K as opposed to the design of 43.4W/K), with the difference in heat loss coefficient being well within the range of the measurement error associated with the test (Johnston, 2012a). Fig. 2 compares Racecourse dwellings 1 and 2 (far right) with 22 dwellings from the Leeds Metropolitan University coheating database. It can be observed that the performance gap between predicted and measured performance has been closed significantly.
1400.00 Corrected data 1200.00 Predicted y = 46.646x R = 0.844
250.00 300.00

Predicted Measured

1000.00
200.00

Passivhaus Dwellings 1 & 2

Power (W)

800.00

Heat loss (W/K)

150.00

600.00

100.00

400.00

200.00

Data corrected for solar and wind. Wind added back in @ 2.9ms-1.

50.00

0.00

0.00 0.0 5.0 10.0 Delta T (K) 15.0 20.0 25.0

Fig 1: Solar and wind corrected heat loss data for dwelling 1

Fig 2: Measured versus predicted heat loss coefficients for 22 dwellings from the Leeds Met database

70

Coheating Tests : Contextualised From this very limited study at the Racecourse, it would appear that, with an adequate understanding and appreciation of thermal bypass mechanisms, and diligent accounting of the conductive and radiative heat losses that are addressed by PHPP, it is possible to deliver building envelopes that perform as predicted. The author is conscious that the positive results at Racecourse could be viewed as good fortune, rather a result of careful planning. In essence, this raises the question whether similar results can be achieved in diverse geographic locations with different clients, designers and construction teams. To begin to address this question, it is necessary to draw upon coheating tests that have been undertaken on other Passivhaus dwellings. It should be noted that these coheating test methodologies were undertaken by other parties and that the coheating methodologies have not yet been normalised, which could lead to uncertainty with regard to both the results and their interpretation. These matters notwithstanding, the author has complied data from coheating tests from other Passivhaus dwellings. Table 1 presents these results. Unfortunately treated floor area and form factor data were not available at the time of writing, and as a consequence it has not been possible to present, or analyse, the data as a heat loss parameter.
Predicted (W/K) Racecourse Dwelling 1 (Johnston, 2012a) Racecourse Dwelling 2 (Johnston, 2012a) Larch House (Tweed, 2011) Lime House (Tweed, 2011) Ford Close (Warm, 2012) Ranulf Road (Stamp, 2011) 43.4 36.6 57.6 37.2 45.6 63.6 Measured (W/K) 46.7 38.1 60 +/- 14 41 +/- 8 50.4 35 +/- 15 Error compared to target (W/K) +3.3 (+7.6%) +1.5 (+4.0%) 2.4 (+4.1%) 3.8 (+10.2%) 4.8 (+10.5%) -28.6 (-55%) Dwelling Type Terrace Terrace Detached Detached Terrace Terrace

Table 1: Coheating Test results for Passivhaus dwellings in the UK

The results from the Ranulf Road case study suggest that heat losses are half of those predicted; it is understood that the test results were compromised by high levels of solar gain and insufficient temperature difference (between inside and outside) being maintained for the duration of the test. For this reason, the results of that study are considered to be an outlier and should be excluded from the analysis. Whilst the availability of coheating data is currently limited, and due to lack of normalisation the comparability of the results questionable, a certain amount of confidence can be found within the studies presented. Should it be a concern that the heat loss is between 3.3% and 10.5% greater than expected? To answer this question a little context is required. The measured mean increase in heat loss from the Passivhaus dwellings is 3.16W/K. In contrast, the highest measured heat loss from any new-build dwelling contained within the Leeds Metropolitan University coheating test dataset was found to be some 282W/K against a predicted total heat loss of 225W/K (see left hand side of fig 2). Putting aside issues of form factor for a moment (which can influence the as-built whole house heat loss coefficient), it can be recognised that 3.16W/K is approximately 1% of the heat loss from the UK Building Regulations Part L 2006 compliant dwelling. In this context, it is contended that such minor errors may be considered trivial. Conclusions: Does the Passivhaus Standard guarantee performance? The UK Passivhaus projects that have undergone coheating tests have all considered the risks imposed by thermal bypass and have developed their design and construction processes accordingly. In this respect it cannot simply be stated that the Passivhaus Standard, as it stands, will guarantee performance. It can be concluded however, that Passivhaus Standards of quality assurance appear to work well when complimented by an appreciation of the potential impact of convective thermal bypass. Coheating is a useful means of deriving the measured value of the whole house heat loss (fabric and ventilation losses heat losses), though careful interpretation of the results is required in order to derive useful comparisons between dwellings and test conditions. A normalised method for undertaking coheating tests and analysing the results of such tests would be beneficial as this would aid comparability and reduce methodological differences, thus increasing certainty with regard to both measured results and analysis of data.

71

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS FROM THE DENBY DALE PASSIVHAUS


Examining two years monitoring data and occupant feedback RUTH SUTTON, CHRIS HERRING
Leeds Metropolitan University, r.m.sutton@leedsmet.ac.uk Green Building Store, chris@greenbuildingstore.co.uk

Energy consumption data, environmental data and interviews have been used to assess the performance of the Denby Dale Passivhaus which has been occupied for two years since its completion. The occupants have been keenly observing, monitoring and responding to the performance of the house over this period, during which contact has been maintained with the developers, Green Building Store (GBS). As the first passivhaus built by GBS, and one of only a few in the UK, there has been significant learning over this time which is presented here. In May 2010, the clients, moved into the house in Kirklees, West Yorkshire. Built by GBS to meet their requirements for ...a comfortable house, with low running costs, the project is a detached masonry cavity dwelling, certified to the Passivhaus standard. The dwelling is connected to mains gas and electricity which supplement the thermal and photovoltaic solar panels. Monthly gas and electricity consumption and readings from PV panels and solar thermal meters were collected by the householder, from May 2010 to May 2012. Environmental conditions were monitored at 10 minute intervals, from June 2010 to May 2012, by Leeds Metropolitan University (LMU). Tinytag sensors, measuring temperature and relative humidity were placed in the kitchen, lounge, study, bedroom and bathroom. Carbon dioxide was measured in the bedroom and lounge. External temperature and relative humidity data were also collected over this period. Discussions were held with the householder throughout the monitoring period about the management of the dwelling. At the end of the monitoring period, a meeting was between the researchers, the householders and GBS to discuss the householders experience over the two years and to explore some of the findings. The energy consumption and production of the dwelling is shown in the table below; it is noted that not all of the energy measured for the PV and the solar thermal will have been utilised by the household. Total consumption is close to the specific primary energy demand predicted by the Passivhaus planning package. It is estimated that 800-1500kWh of gas was used for cooking on the hob. Gas used for hot water, during the heating season is in the range 500-1000kWh. Some electricity consumption occurred outside of the thermal envelope and as such did not contribute to thermal gains; an electric heater and power tools were used in the garage for long periods throughout winter months. In December 2010/ January 2011, heating was used in the garage to defrost the MVHR condensate pipe during a particularly cold spell. Error! Not a valid link.There was no formal handover process but both GBS and the householders recognised that an informal handover has continued over an extended period. Through involvement in the design of the dwelling, the householders have developed an understanding of how the building works. This was reflected in their use of the dwelling. They were aware of the need to use blinds to prevent overheating during the summer, the impact of the large thermal mass in the dwelling on its responsiveness and the use of the summer bypass. It has taken time to learn how to maximise the comfort from the dwelling; although they were keen to emphasise that it is not a difficult home to manage. The MVHR system represented a new system to the householder. On moving into the dwelling, the occupants had read the manual but had found it difficult to digest, with information for installer and user mixed together. During the first heating season, the householder noted that they were suffering from low humidity levels, especially in the bedroom at night. Daily mean values of relative humidity were below 40% throughout December, with minimum

72

values identified below 35%. This dryness was combated by the ho householder useholder by using dampened towels over the back of the chair; later rereading of the MVHR manual identified that flow rates should be reduced during winter months. Conditions have not repeated in the second heating season. More clear information for the user u may have prevented the problem encountered in the first year. A key finding for GBS is with respect to the heating design. When options for the heating system were considered, GBS explored a number of alternatives. A number of factors were instrumenta instrumental l in deciding the final system, including: budgetary constraints; the clients wishes for a minimal number of radiators; and lack of off the shelf low capacity boilers available in the UK. The resulting compromise was an over over-capacity capacity (4.8 kW) condensing gas boiler serving a duct heater, 1 radiator and 2 towel rails, at very low water volume. As a result, problems were experienced in the first year leading to overheating, short cycling of the boiler, and decreased boiler efficiency. Air temperature throu throughout ghout the first heating season is characterised by a broad range of temperature across the dwelling. Maximum temperatures were found in the bathroom and the lounge, where radiators are located. The owners also reported finding it difficult to control temperatures tempe etc. In December 2011, a weather compensator was fitted to control boiler modulation which has delivered improved control of temperatures across the dwelling and is expected. However, mean temperatures remained above 21C indicating a preference by the householders for temperatures above that described by the Passivhaus model.

Conclusion
The Denby Dale Passivhaus is performing well and energy consumption is close to that predicted in Passivhaus planning package. Monitoring data from the first two y years ears habitation have illustrated that occupant behaviour is an important factor in Passivhaus performance. Passivhaus principles and MVHR systems may be unfamiliar to many UK householders and the project has illustrated that occupants need a reasonable level le of understanding of how the house and systems work in order to optimise comfort and performance. Formal handovers with clear instructions for occupants of Passivhaus buildings are required in cases where clients have no involvement in the design of the dwelling, Problems with the over-capacity capacity boiler have illustrated the importance of careful specification of heating systems in Passivhaus buildings.

Figure 1: The Denby Dale Passivhaus Energy consumption profile

73

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

THE UGLY DUCKLING (OR ENERPHIT PROJECT IN SLOVAKIA)


KIM WILLIAMS
Carbonreduction.eu, kim@carbonreduction.eu

In this project an abandoned family house located in Slovakia (Figure 1) was renovated to meet the EnerPHit criteria for residential-use refurbished buildings. The house was in extremely poor condition at the outset and the aim of the project was to gain practical experience in an EnerPHit refurbishment and the use of ground-air heat exchanger techniques. According to Royal Institute of British Architects in their Climate Change Toolkit (01 Climate Change Briefing, second edition, 2009) energy use in buildings accounts for almost half of all UK CO2 emissions. Energy use in housing accounts for more than half of these emissions, i.e. 27% of total UK emissions. The replacement rate of the existing housing stock is estimated to be <1% per year, thus emissions from the existing stock account for almost all of the emissions 99.7%. The briefing points out that at the existing rate of replacement 80% of existing dwellings will still exist in 2050, making it impossible for the UK to meet its carbon emissions reduction targets without an extensive programme of improvements to the energy efficiency of existing dwellings. Within the EU as a whole, the housing stock replacement rate is estimated to be between 1 1.5% In the UK space heating accounts for 60% of domestic energy consumption (Energy consumption in the United Kingdom: 2012, DECC). In Slovakia (where this EnerPHit project is located) heating represents 80% of total final energy consumption in the residential sector (Energy Charter Secretariat, 2009). The use of Passive House components in refurbishments of existing buildings leads to extensive improvements with reference to thermal comfort and a reduction of the heating demand by 90% was achieved in a large number of projects. (Passive House Institute, website). It is in this context that the EnerPHit standard for refurbishing existing buildings is of relevance. The building is of solid block construction with a full height basement. An external wall insulation system comprising 25cm EPS was installed (30cm EPS to roof). The ground around the house was excavated to foundation level and 30cm of EPS installed around the basement. The opportunity was taken to install a ground-air heat exchanger since there was minimal additional cost involved. A 10cm layer of EPS was laid above the heat exchanger pipe to simulate additional depth (thermal shadow) as described by Walter Jeffries in his article on Earth Air Tubes (Sept 2008, http://sugarmtnfarm.com/2008/09/05/earth-air-tubes/). Windows were replaced with high performance triple glazed UPVC units with insulated frames and a high efficiency (85%) MVHR unit was installed. The PHPP was used to determine the optimum insulation and glazing 2 combinations for meeting the maximum heat demand (25W/m /year). THERM was used to model construction details and the effects of different insulation thicknesses. The preliminary predicted energy performance is less than the 25W/m /year necessary to meet EnerPHit standard. The Slovak building energy rating system (EPC) classes a family house with annual energy consumption 2 of up to 54kWh/m /year as A (Passive House). On the other hand the UK EPC rating system rates dwellings on the basis of energy cost the SAP rating. The SAP rating is expressed as a number from 1 100 (divided into band A-G) and is based on the energy costs of space heating, water heating, ventilation and lighting minus cost savings from 2 energy generation technologies. Although the EPC certificate includes an estimate of annual energy use per m of floor area it is not comparable with the Slovak model.
2

74

Correct installation of the windows was the only major issue experienced. Although all parties involved in the buying process had nodded knowingly when the special needs of the installation were discussed it was soon evident on site that the window fitters had little idea of how to install a window properly. It was therefore decided to go hands on and take personal responsibility for installing the windows. The fitting of the external parapets raised questions about the thermal performance of the mechanical interface - this is being investigated.

Whilst the companies involved on the project had heard of Passive House they didnt have practical experience of working to the standards required to achieve the required air tightness. On the plus side the building team selected were very interested, researched the topic independently and made every effort to deliver on site. The window company selection was not so fortuitous the quality of the actual windows was very good but the suppliers proved totally incapable of making a good installation. Whilst a satisfactory installation appears to have been effected (the proof will be in the air test yet to be completed - and subsequent performance) this aspect could easily have gone very badly. In future projects it may be more prudent to procure the major items and their fitting through the main contractor who would then take responsibility for proper delivery and installation. A further (surprise) discovery was the difficulty in finding tools for calculating the potential energy benefits for the ground-air heat exchanger together with a lack of published user experiences with this particular technology. The little evidence available (i.e. found) and calculations on energy yield suggested the ground-air heat exchanger was not an economic option for this project; however, as the ground around the building was to be excavated in any case, it was decided to install the option and to implement a monitoring programme to report on the performance over time. There is no conclusion to this question (or the project as a whole) at the time of writing. The works should be completed in time for the winter period when energy and building performance can be measured and monitored.

Figure 1: The Ugly Duckling family house in Slovakia

75

7 t h and 8 t h of November 2012 EMCC, The University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

LANCASTER COHOUSING PROJECT - SMALL SCALE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING COSTS


ANDREW YEATS
Eco Arc Architects ecoarc@ecoarc.co.uk

Lancaster Cohousing Project is a certified Passivhaus / CSH Level 6 and Life Time Homes, affordable community housing project, which has evolved through a participatory design process with the individual householders and Eco Arc Architects.

Work is about to finish the largest certified Passivhaus Cohousing project in the UK with forty one individual households ranging from one bed flats to three bed family houses, all with shared community facilities. Lancaster Cohousing has created a new eco-community; small enough for everyone to know each other, yet big enough not to be claustrophobic. Crucially the size allows households to do a lot towards reducing their carbon footprint that would not be possible for a single family, or a scattered group of households.

The project has all the typical features of Cohousing, a way of living pioneered in Denmark but now growing in many countries. i.e. building small houses with extensive common facilities while designing the site to encourage a strong sense of community. Residents have been involved in the design process and will manage the site when they moved in. The design has grown to 41 households over the course of several years as an intergenerational community. The project includes shared facilities such as offices, guest bedrooms and laundry facilities, enabling many households to choose a smaller home than they would otherwise want. This reduces both energy in use and embodied energy. Residents are offered on site workspace at favourable rates to reduce the amount of commuting.

The householders that had joined the scheme spent a several years developing the designs with the project architect Andrew Yeats of Eco Arc and working with the specialist design team including Alan Clark, Nick Grant and Peter Warm on the Passivhaus design aspects and Eric Parks on the Code for Sustainable Homes & Life Time Homes aspects.

The new homes have been designed & built to meet the certified Passivhaus standard: Minimise heat loss super insulation, triple glazing, compact terrace built form. Minimise ventilation heat loss heat recovery ventilation and airtight construction, Optimise solar gain for winter heat.

Energy use for heating is less than 15kWh/m2 per year, achieved through very careful attention to airtightness and thermal bridging, and the use of an efficient ventilation system with heat recovery. Domestic hot water & hot water to feed a single radiator in each house is supplied via a centralised woodchip district heating boiler system, pre-heated using solar thermal panels. The fuel comes from managed woodlands in Lancashire and Cumbria.

76

Electricity is supplied via a private network from photovoltaic panels on the south facing roofs and a 220kW hydro turbine in the River Lune. This will easily make the project zero carbon, but it hasnt stopped the design doing everything possible to minimise demand.

Cohousing developments keep cars to the edge of the site. As transport is a significant proportion of most households carbon footprint an ambitious residential travel plan has been set up including a share scheme, with one car per three households. Initially the scheme will be run using members existing private cars, but these will be replaced by electric vehicles over time.

The Lancaster Cohousing project demonstrates a viable holistic option in which to deliver affordable Passivhaus designs in the UK, taking in to account wider sustainability and social community issues as well as PH standards re: personal comfort and low energy demand.

Figure 1: The Lancaster Cohousing Project by Eco Arc Architects, Alan Clark, Nick Grant & Whittle Construction Works In Progress: On Terrace A The First 6 Units Of 41 Houses To Be Handed Over To The Community Group Client.

77

Вам также может понравиться