Dissertation: Thermal Retrofit of 19th Century Building

DT175a Dissertation Retrofit of a 19th Century Building
~A strategy for the thermal retrofit of Cuiln House~
(Submission date 11th May 2012)

DT175a Module: ARCH4258 Final Year Dissertation
~ Conor Sweeney ~ C08731136 Supervisor: Cathy Prunty
Total Words: 11,612 Main Body: 8,200
Abstract
This dissertation contrasts two retrofit proposals to be applied to an historic protected structure in some disrepair. The first using synthetic materials and minimalist interventions to the existing fabric, the second with a more rounded and intensive thermal retrofit sensitively tailored to the intricacies of a19th century buildings dynamics. A strategy for renovation with a mind towards both conservation and thermal efficiency upgrading is put forward and evaluated against the baseline proposal, and evaluated from breathability and conservation perspectives, as well as a detailed analysis of the overall effect both approaches have on the thermal efficiency of the structure.
Declaration
I hereby declare that the work described in this dissertation is, except where otherwise stated, entirely my own work and has not been submitted as an exercise for a degree at this or any other university.
_________________________ Student Name 2012
ii
Acknowledgements
Id like to thank Sima, Sarah, Dave and all the Studio Staff for their encouragement, interest and expertise this year, my thesis supervisor Cathy Prunty for her unerring eye and appreciation for detail, the staff and students of the School of Architecture, for an interesting, engaging, fun and incredibly busy 4 (or more) years and lastly and most of all my family for all their support and help, and for giving me the swift kick up the backside I needed to get my act together to get to this point.
iii
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction................................................................................................ 9 1.1 Preamble & Context ............................................................................................ 9 1.2 Aims of the Research ........................................................................................ 10 1.3 Objectives........................................................................................................... 10 1.4 Cuiln House ..................................................................................................... 11 1.5 Initial Unit 01 Proposal .................................................................................... 12 1.6 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 14 Chapter 2 Literature Review ................................................................................. 15 2.1 Traditional Buildings - General ....................................................................... 15 2.1.1 Traditional Solid Walls ............................................................................... 15 2.1.1 Timber Sash Windows ................................................................................ 17 Chapter 3 Fabric Retrofit & Refurbishment ....................................................... 19 3.1 External Walls................................................................................................... 19 3.1.1 Current Condition ....................................................................................... 19 3.1.2 Condensation Risk Analysis ....................................................................... 19 3.1.3 Breathable Construction.............................................................................. 21 3.1.4 Insulation Selection ..................................................................................... 22 3.1.5 Proposed Intervention ................................................................................. 24 3.1.6 Resultant Wall U-Value .............................................................................. 26 3.2 Replacement Ground Floor .............................................................................. 27 3.2.1 Current Condition ....................................................................................... 27 3.2.2 Initial Unit 01 Proposal ............................................................................... 27 3.2.3 Proposed Intervention ................................................................................. 28 3.2.3 Resultant U-Value ....................................................................................... 30 3.3 Existing Cut-Timber Collar Roof ..................................................................... 31 3.3.1 Current Condition ....................................................................................... 31 3.3.3 Initial Unit 01 Proposal ............................................................................... 32 3.3.3 Proposed Intervention ................................................................................. 32 3.3.4 Resultant U-Value ....................................................................................... 34 3.4 Existing Timber Sash Windows........................................................................ 35 3.4.1 Current Condition ...................................................................................... 35 3.4.2 Initial Unit 01 Proposal ............................................................................... 35 3.4.3 Proposed Intervention ................................................................................. 35 3.4.4 Resultant U-Value ....................................................................................... 37 Chapter 4 New Construction ................................................................................ 38 4.1 Circulation Atrium ............................................................................................ 38 4.1.1 Atrium Structural Glass Walls & Roof ....................................................... 38 4.1.2 Radiant Concrete Floor ............................................................................... 39 iv
Chapter 5 Thermal Comparison ........................................................................... 40 5.1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 40 5.1.1 General ........................................................................................................ 40 5.1.2 Heat Losses Generally ................................................................................ 40 5.1.3 Steady State Heat Loss Calculation ............................................................ 41 5.2 Total Transmission Heat Loss .......................................................................... 44 5.3 Total Ventilation Heat Loss .............................................................................. 46 5.4 Total Heat Loss & Demand .............................................................................. 47 Chapter 6 - Conclusion .............................................................................................. 48 Appendix A U Value Calculations ......................................................................... 51 Unit 01 External Wall Proposal .......................................................................... 52 Rebuilt Suspended Ground Floor ........................................................................ 52 Thermal Retrofit of External Wall ....................................................................... 53 Unit 01 Proposed Roof Refurb ............................................................................. 54 Retrofitted Cut Timber Roof................................................................................ 55 Internal Wall Type 1 (450 Solid Brickwork) ........................................................ 56 Appendix B BuildDesk Condensation Analyses ................................................... 57 Appendix C Fabric Heat Loss Calculations ......................................................... 60 Appendix D Overall Unit 01 Proposal .................................................................. 66
Table of Tables
Table 1: U-Value Calculation of Unit 01 Wall Proposal Table 2: U-Value Calculation of Proposed Suspended Timber Floor Table 3: U-Value Calculation for Proposed Roof Retrofit 24 30 34
Table 4: Possible Actions for thermal upgrade of traditional sash windows and their resultant U-Value. Table 5: U-Value Calculation for New-Build Concrete Floor @ Atrium Table 6: Summary of Element U-Values. Table 7: Design Internal & External Temperatures Table 8: Example Heat Loss Calculation for external wall in one room. Table 9: Transmission Heat Loss by Space Unit 01 Table 10: Transmission Heat Losses by Space Deep Retrofit Table 11: Calculation Table of Ventilation Heat Losses Shallow Retrofit Table 12: Calculation Table of Ventilation Heat Losses Deep Retrofit Table 13: Total Heat Losses 37 39 40 43 44 44 45 46 46 47
vi
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Cuiln House and surrounding structures ................................................11 Figure 2: Roof Plan of Cuiln House Existing ..........................................................13 Figure 3: Roof Plan Showing Alterations ...............................................................13 Figure 4: Section Showing Existing Arrangement ..................................................13 Figure 5: Section Showing New Arrangement .......................................................13 Figure 6: Existing Wall Inner Face: Unplastered section.........................................19 Figure 7: Sketch of insulation board & external wall dabbing ................................19 Figure 8: Wool Strand Diagram.............................................................................22 Figure 9: The principle of insulation performing a hygroscopic buffering function, storing and diffusing moisture from vapour ingress. .....................................23 Figure 10: The problems associated with introducing vapour control principles to a traditional solid wall. ....................................................................................23 Figure 11: Diagram of Retrofit Wall Buildup. ........................................................24 Figure 12: Fractional Areas of Bridging through the insulation and batten plane. ..26 Figure 13: Existing Floor boards ............................................................................27 Figure 14: Missing Floor boards and exposed subfloor / dwarf walls .....................27 Figure 15: Unit 01s Floor Build-Up Proposal .........................................................27 Figure 16: Joists and Dwarf Wall separated from External Wall .............................28 Figure 17: Proposed Floor Construction through Joists .......................................28 Figure 18: Proposed Floor Construction through Dwarf Wall ..............................28 Figure 19: Proposed Retrofit Subfloor Vents & External French Drain ...................29 Figure 20: Section of Upper Storey .......................................................................31 Figure 21: Existing Roof Rafters & Collars exposed internally ................................31 Figure 22: 3-D showing existing eaves and roof build-up .......................................32 Figure 23: Section showing existing eaves arrangement .......................................32 Figure 24: Proposed extension of eaves to allow soffit ventilation ........................32 Figure 25: Section through proposed roof construction ........................................33 Figure 26: Section through Joists ..........................................................................33 Figure 27: Recessed window with architrave and panelling ..................................35
vii
Figure 28: Flush Sash Window ..............................................................................35 Figure 29: Draughtproofing measures for sash windows .......................................35 Figure 30: Jamb detail: flush window with secondary glazing................................36 Figure 31: Jamb detail: recessed window with secondary glazing ..........................36 Figure 32: Heat Camera Image showing the heat lost through traditional sash window (right) and one with secondary glazing (left). ...................................36 Figure 33: Traditional Sash ...................................................................................37 Figure 34: 3D of Atrium siting within Cuilin House ................................................38 Figure 35: Triple paned structural glass ................................................................38 Figure 36: New Build Atrium Floor........................................................................39 Figure 37: First Floor Plan with internal ................................................................43 Figure 38: Ground Floor Plan with internal ...........................................................43 Figure 39: Fractional Areas of materials in the cross-battened wall/roof ...............51
viii
Introduction
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Preamble & Context
Energy efficiency in our existing building stock is becoming more and more a concern as European Union member states commit themselves to newer and ever more ambitious energy saving and emission reduction targets. By 2020 Ireland is required under the EUs Europe 2020 Strategy, as one of its five key aims, to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20% and to achieve a 20% increase in energy efficiency over the whole economy compared to 1990 levels. Europe uses 40% of its energy in heating and cooling its buildings, as such it is an obvious and necessary goal to approach new refurbishment and restoration projects with a goal to improving thermal efficiency. Department of the Environment statistics indicate that over 10 per cent of the existing dwelling stock in Ireland was constructed pre-1919, and thus fall far below modern standards of thermal efficiency and thus consume more energy to heat. As the greenest building is one that has already been built, in terms of embodied energy, retrofitting historic and traditional buildings to a higher standard of thermal efficiency is an exercise in sustainability and conservation, as the best way to ensure the comfort required for their continued use and thus survival. That being said an appropriate balance must be maintained between building conservation and energy conservation, due respect must be given to the traditional elements of older construction and their particular dynamic in any intervention, the approach taken must balance these aims. The interventions proposed for this protected building are directly informed by the quality and extent of remaining historical features in their original positions and are intended as a guide for protected buildings in a similar state of degradation and historical erosion.
Introduction
1.2 Aims of the Research

This dissertation aims to propose a thermal retrofit strategy for Cuiln House that will balance the concerns around the conservation of a culturally significant building, and the desire for thermal and thus energy efficiency. This paper will explore and analyse the considerations involved in retrofitting and refurbishing a 19th century building and to suggest appropriate interventions, informed by best practice. These interventions will be designed to improve thermal performance without disrupting or damaging the integrity of the existing fabric, and preserving the buildings historic features.
1.3 Objectives
This paper will explore the issues and possible problems involved in executing a thermal intervention to an historic building by; Reviewing existing guidance documents on the subject Applying thermal retrofit interventions through detail design to the study building, informed by guidelines and best practice. Suggesting technological solutions to improving thermal performance while maintaining fabric integrity and that of historical features. Comparing the finished project to an earlier retrofit proposal of the building in terms of thermal performance.
10
Introduction
1.4 Cuiln House

The sample older building used in this study is Cuiln House, located off Hampstead Avenue in the mature wooded surrounds of the old Albert College in Glasnevin Dublin 9. The building was originally constructed to house the operator of the model farm in that location, which served as an educational institution from the early 19th century until the latter half of the 20th. The model farm was among the first of its kind in Europe and attracted visitors as notable as Prince Albert of the United Kingdom, for whom the college is named, and the son of Napoleon I of France, as it was seen as a new departure in the education of farmers and farm workers. The House itself has been the subject of a number of extensions and demolitions to both its core arrangement and surrounding structures and is currently at the south-west corner of a quadrangle of outbuildings of varying ages and levels of use. Today the complex is used by the Dublin City Council (DCC) Parks Department; however the house itself is currently in a state of disuse and considerable disrepair. It is a protected structure not for its intrinsic architectural merit, but for the social and cultural importance it attained in its role as a pathfinder in the realm of agricultural education in Ireland and Europe.
Figure 1: Cuiln House and surrounding structures
11
Introduction
1.5 Initial Unit 01 Proposal

The proposed demolitions and extensions contained and used in this study are a result of the development project undertaken by myself and my colleagues in Unit 01, as part of our Technical Design Studio thesis project in our final year. I have isolated the original 1830s house proper for the purposes of this study and disregarded works to the ancillary buildings. The works proposed by this earlier project for the main house include the demolition of lean-to single story concrete structure at the rear (east elevation) of the main house, and the front porch (west elevation), both of which are later additions to the building. The largest proposed changes involved the removal of the central part of the east faade facing into the quadrangle and replacing it with a glazed atrium to perform as a circulation area, in terms of this study a new modern intervention interacting with a much older surrounding building. The overall use of Cuiln House will change to that of office space for the DCC at ground level and the provision of an exhibition space and office accommodation at first floor level for use of the community. Full details and explanatory drawings of Unit 01s proposals are to be found in Appendix
12
Introduction
Figure 2: Roof Plan of Cuiln House Existing
Figure 3: Roof Plan Showing Alterations
Figure 4: Section Showing Existing Arrangement
Figure 5: Section Showing New Arrangement
13
Introduction
1.6 Methodology
The structure of this dissertation is relatively straightforward reading and comparing texts such as guidance notes, case studies and other research to inform an approach to detailing specific elements of the fabric of the building. In summation, the methodology applied to compiling this paper is as follows: Secondary Research: Reading guideline texts and prior research into the areas directly related to the applications (i.e. case studies and best practice documents in the field of solid wall insulation.) Secondary Research: Reading papers around the concepts and philosophy underlying the interventions chosen (i.e. the concept and dynamic of breathability in construction) Primary Research: Use of computer programmes for evaluation Primary Research: Adapting and applying technologies informed by secondary research reading to details of prior survey of building. Primary Research: Evaluation of proposals through attaching thermal values to their buildip (i.e. U-Valuation) Primary Research: Evaluating the dissertation hypothetical interventions values to those of the baseline Unit 01refurbishment proposal using an empirical model of comparison (i.e. the heat loss calculation).
14
Literature Review
Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1 Traditional Buildings - General
2.1.1 Traditional Solid Walls
Traditional solid walls are inherently different creatures when it comes to the addition of internal or external insulation. Condensation risk and interrupting their natural dynamic is a huge issue in any consideration. There are a number of guidelines and studies that deal with the complications around internally insulating walls of this nature. Guidance from English Heritage (2010) holds that in a traditional wall, the build-up often contains a variety of materials with different performance characteristics and the presence of voids, irregular bonding patterns and concealed timbers can complicate any understanding of how energy and moisture interact with the structure. The guide warns against the reliability of modern theoretical calculations and analytical computer programmes in the design of a thermal upgrade, and if such a method is used then performance should be closely monitored after installation in case of problems occurring. This guide strongly warns against the use of modern synthetic insulation materials, as the natural materials in the walls are designed to breathe, or exchange moisture vapour between outside and in. Vapour barriers and other impermeable materials are to be avoided as they may trap and hold moisture in the wall. The UKs Energy Saving Trust guidelines on the refurbishment of solid-walled houses (2006) maintains that best practice is to take a U-Value of 0.3W/m2K to be the goal of internally insulating. However this source seems to deal with more modern brick and concrete solid walls and much of the guidance is around the idea of a vapour control layers and synthetic materials, contravening the guidance above. An article on the subject of breathing in Self Builds online edition (Morgan, 2008) expands on the traditional concept of the breathing building versus the modern idea of we dare not let moisture into the fabric of our buildings. Traditional walls of stone and brick permitted the movement of moisture through and around them and, the 15
Literature Review author states, experience has taught us modern responses based on blocking the passage of moisture where it suits us it tends not to work. Morgan also warns against synthetic insulants in favour of hygroscopic materials to effectively store and buffer moisture in its vapour form - both managing wall moisture content and passively controlling internal humidity. Expanding on the role of the wall regulating damp and moisture, the Department of the Environments Guide to Energy Efficiency in Historic Buildings (2010) describes the way traditional wall materials porosity allowed moisture to be absorbed, stored and later released, echoing other sources. Actual water from rain was absorbed but owing to the thickness of the wall never made it directly through, where moisture vapour passed through depending on pressure either side. Repointing may be necessary and measures taken to avoid rising damp. The guide also pointed out that chemical DPCs are unreliable in any rubble filled wall, as the presence of voids can negate its effects. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, in their Control of Damp publication (SPAB, 2009) mentions sheeps wool and cellulose as effective natural hygroscopic materials that can help reduce existing condensation issues, as well as improving thermal performance. This was the first evidence Id encountered of internal insulation having a directly positive effect condensation risk as opposed to merely being designed so as not to have a negative effect. Since the opinion seems to be that modelling software cannot be relied upon, it will be important to design the retrofit with a high level of tolerance to any negative condensation effects. Significantly, one of the only studies that aims to refute the claims made around the importance of breathability as a consideration in insulation comes from a white paper produced by Cambridge Architectural Research (2009) commissioned by a synthetic insulation manufacturer, Kingspan. In the study, they aver that ventilation accounts for 95% of the vapour transfer from a house with breathable walls and thus the breathability of insulation products is at best a side show,in reality a complete red herring. The study claims that as long as the air changes in a volume are above 0.5/h, condensation (on surfaces) cannot occur, and that all but the most airtight buildings exceed this. However, Neil May of Natural Building Co. in his direct rebuttal of the Kingspan paper (May, 2009) explains that the paper did not deal with the two areas where breathability is vital: in the case of fabric health where there are building faults, and 16
Literature Review human health through the prevention of moulds and the buffering of internal humidity. These would seem to be the most directly related issues with this project and thus confirms the previous sources in that it would be wisest to go with a natural breathable insulant product with a hygroscopic buffering or storage ability to compensate.
2.1.1 Timber Sash Windows

Traditional timber sash windows, originally developed in France, Holland and England in the 17th century, were the most common window type in Ireland for almost 300 years, up to the mid-20th century. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Governments Conservation Guidelines for Windows (DoEHLG, 1996) warn against well-intentioned but poorly executed replacement windows in refurbishment projects and in cases were a replacement is necessary, the advice is to copy another window in the building, or from another building of the same age, as the design and profile of items like the glazing bars and the presence of horns changed over time. The guidelines warn against sealing windows hermetically, as condensation is sure to occur. The guidelines strongly favour the concept of secondary windows as the most satisfactory solution to thermal performance, but suggest the members be painted a dark colour and placed so as to be concealed behind glazing bars and meeting rail. English Heritages Framing Opinions: 7 Timber Sash Windows (English
Heritage , 1997) states that the reason for the continuing integrity of centuries old windows lies in the fact the wood is from the heart of the tree, whereas 60s and 70s windows were sapwood, which is permeable and attractive to fungi. The paper advices anyone looking to maintain or upgrade their sash windows to look for key points; signs of structural movement deforming the opening and damaging the window, evidence that the pointing of the frame to the wall reveal is cracked, loose or missing, exposing the sash box to moisture, difficulty opening the sash could be caused by overpainting, broken sash cords, seized up wheels a full health check is required. Framing Opinions:1: Draughtproofing and Secondary Glazing (English Heritage, 1994) somewhat disagrees with the guidance from the DOE around secondary glazing 17
Literature Review and double glazing stating that only about 20% of a buildings heat is lost trhough windows and most of this through infiltration from improper draught proofing. This paper seems to be out of date though, only describing secondary glazing as a screen one can remove when not wanted. This guide comes with valuable drawings on how to detail a weather proofing intervention to a timber sash. Guidance on historic windows from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIA, 2010) also mentions the English Heritage finding that 90% of window heat loss is due to draught and finds therefore that draughtproofing is the most effective form of insulating historic windows, ruling that double glazing is unneccessary. The booklet states that higher again insulation from sound and cold can be provided with secondary glazing and counsels that should rot be found, it may only be localised and the affected areas removed and spliced with healthy members. In regard to secondary glazing, the concept of reversibility is important, that the unit can be removed if desired at a later date. Historic Scotlands Sash & Case Windows guidance document (Historic Scotland, 2008) recommends against fitting proprietary trickle vents into slots cut in the rails of sash windows, and instead suggests the chamfering the outside edge of the top sash and insertion of an adjustable grille on the inside and a fixed grilled on the outside to allow ventilation over the top. Historic Scotlands guidelines for Energy Efficiency in Traditional Homes (Curtis, 2008) gives tables on a range of options for improving the thermal performance of sash windows, giving resultant U-values gained through laboratory testing.
18
Fabric Retrofit & Refurb
Chapter 3 Fabric Retrofit & Refurbishment

3.1 External Walls
3.1.1 Current Condition
The walls currently appear to be in good condition externally, aside from needing some repointing work; they are faced in cut limestone. Internally the plaster is missing in many areas exposing the brick inner facing. As has been said, the internal composition is in some doubt over whether or not there is a rubble core, however the thickness of 470-550 would imply its presence.
Figure 6: Existing Wall Inner Face: Unplastered section
3.1.2 Condensation Risk Analysis

Despite the guidance around condensation risk analysis computer programmes being unsuitable, I put this to test and was immediately aware that I was dealing with a lot of unknowns re: the internal makeup of the walls. The software, Builddesk U calculates condensation risk based on
methodology in BS EN ISO 13788:2002, which is only reliable for constructions containing solely homogeneous layers
(unbridged layers) this immediately ruled out this project due to first and ground floor joists being embedded in the wall. More from a curiosity and illustrative point of view I ran a number of simulations around
Figure 7: Sketch of insulation board & external wall dabbing
19
Fabric Retrofit & Refurb installing a synthetic non-breathable insulant (polyurethane board) internally with a plasterboard finish (full results in Appendix B). The results showed that a 20mm layer of polyurethane board would pass the assessment, but with the proviso that although condensation occurs, the condensate is expected to evaporate during the summer months. Anything thicker than 20mm resulted in a fail, as condensate would not completely evaporate and degradation could occur. As 20mm would only provide a U-value of 0.79W/mK, this was insufficient. Predictably the addition of a vapour barrier (0.6mm polyethylene) on the insulations warm side or a foil backing to the plasterboard mitigated this problem - allowing levels of the insulation beyond 100mm. While this is potentially possible in a new build where joints, bridges and perforations are under a measure of control, it is wholly inappropriate for a retrofit to an existing building. As Chris Morgan for SelfBuild writes, It is common, if not ubiquitous that vapour barriers are penetrated dozens if not hundreds of times on each build (Morgan, 2008), these would constitute pinch-points for interstitial condensation, where the areas around the breach would bear proportionately much more moisture than the rest of the wall which is protected. The embedded joists and adjoining internal walls would undoubtedly experience this increased moisture load too, potentially leading to a structural failure (May, 2005). This experiment demonstrates that applying modern doctrines of vapour-impermeable material and constructions with no thought to the existing walls dynamics could lead to serious structural and performance issues later.
20
3.1.3 Breathable Construction

The actual construction of Cuiln Houses is unclear, but the consensus among the teams surveying was that it was most probably a limestone faced, rubble-cored construction with a brick inner face. The quality of the stonework and protected nature of the building prohibits the use of external insulation solutions and internally insulating a traditional solid wall requires many considerations around disruption of moisture movement and risks exacerbating surface and interstitial condensation problems. The approach taken in this research is one of breathability, using a natural insulation material capable of buffering the moisture in the wall in its vapour form and in the form of condensate, storing it for when weather conditions permit evaporation. Breathability means that a wall of such thickness working as intended has the ability to dry and keep itself damp free, the thickness is such that actual water does not penetrate all the way through the structure, but soaks through the external limestone layer, particularly through the porous lime mortar, wherefrom it in turn evaporates. The rubble core acts as a buffer, intending water to pass down its length rather than passing directly into the internal spaces. Breathability in the context of external walls is something of a misnomer as it sounds like it implies air-permeability, a more accurate term would be that the wall sweats moisture vapour a sweating wall (Morgan, 2008). The concept is that warm air or heat will always seek to balance itself and the occupied internal environment of a building will more often than not contain more moisture vapour than the colder outside air. This creates an out-flowing dynamic that moisture vapour will tend towards the low pressure outside through a vapour-open wall. Should interstitial condensation or other damp-related problems (a retrofit DPC is impractical) occur, the intervention to the wall will be so designed as to absorb and store the moisture until evaporation conditions area reached once again.
21
3.1.4 Insulation Selection

The prime actor in this concept of buffering internal moisture until conditions permit its release into the atmosphere will be the internal insulation lining. The material will be required to act as a hygroscopic buffer, absorbing excess moisture and releasing it when the time is right, as well as allowing moisture vapour from both inner and external environments pass through it to maintain internal environmental balance. In this context, I have specified Sheeps Wool as the sole insulating product for use in the project wall, floor and roof. Recommended for use in traditional solid walled interventions (SPAB, 2009), wool is a naturally hygroscopic material. The exterior layer of a wool fibre is water resistant, while its inner layer is hydrophilic (water-loving), meaning the material can absorb up to 30% of its weight in moisture without feeling damp to the touch, and up to 40% of its dry mass its Significantly without thermal though,
Figure 8: Wool Strand Diagram
compromising performance.
when wool absorbs absorbs moisture from the air, it generates a small amount of heat, known as the heat of sorption (Irish Eco Homes, 2010) this warmth, while not noticeable inside the building, maintains the temperature above dew-point in damp conditions preventing interstitial condensation from occuring. These characteristics make sheeps wool an appropriate choice for this project, as it assists moisture and vapour transit through the fabric, rather than attempting to disrupt and contain it, restricting the walls existing breathable dynamic.
22
Figure 10: The problems associated with introducing vapour control principles to a traditional solid wall.
Figure 9: The principle of insulation performing a hygroscopic buffering function, storing and diffusing moisture from vapour ingress.
23
3.1.5 Proposed Intervention

The baseline model of comparison, the works proposed in the Unit 01 project, specified the walls to be repointed externally, internally stripped of remaining plaster and thoroughly cleaned and re-finished in new lime plaster. This resulted in a UValue of 1.44W/mK.
Unit 01 Proposed Wall U-Value Layer Thickness (m) Internal Surface Plaster 0.018 Clay Brick 0.21 Limestone 0.29 External Surface -
Conductivity 0.8 0.77 1.26 -
Resistance 0.13 0.02 0.27 0.23 0.04 0.70 1.44
Total Element U-Value:
Table 1: U-Value Calculation of Unit 01 Wall Proposal
Repointing of Lime Mortar Before mixing it is important that the colour of sand matches the original as much as practicable and that the mix contains as high an amount of lime as necessary to achieve the level of permeability to affect evaporation of moisture from the wall.
Figure 11: Diagram of Retrofit Wall Buildup.
24
Fabric Retrofit & Refurb 1. Internal Lime Plaster The internal brickwork surface of the wall is to be re-finished in a lime mortar for the Unit 01 project and I decided to retain this element for my retrofit proposal, so as to ensure an even surface for battening. Also from a conservation perspective, a lime plaster will be a beneficial remnant should the thermal component of the retrofit require reversing. The plaster is to be 2-coat as the brick surface is relatively flat. The first coat is an 810mm haired mix of ratio 1:2.5 lime and sand to be scoured and dried for up to three weeks. Atop this is an 8mm devil or nail coat, performed with a trowel with projecting nails at each corner to form a key for the finish, which is a thin 2mm 1:1 mix lime:sand to be skimmed smooth. 2. Insulating & Battening: A batten and counter battening layer is specified to hold the insulation layer composed of a vertical series of 50x50mm battens at 400 centres screwed through the plaster into the brickwork using appropriate sized rawl plugs at 250mm centres. The counter battening is a horizontal series of 50x50mm battens at 400 screwed to the vertical. Between each series of battens a 50mm batt of sheeps wool is tension fitted ensuring no gaps or room for sagging. 3. Diffusion Membrane: A polyethylene copolymer membrane is taped to internal face of the battening, this membrane is a humidity variable diffusion material, regulating the maximum amount of water vapour that can be transmitted through to the wall at times of high internal humidity, while still allowing the structure to breath within tolerances its porosity is selected to match that of the sheeps wool. 4. Plasterboard: 12.5 Gypsum plasterboard is fixed to the internal battens with 40mm roundhead galvanised steel plasterboard nails at 150mm centres, to be skimmed and painted using strictly water-based paint (there is some debate over the use of matt and emulsion paints and their vapour openness (May, 2005).)
25
3.1.6 Resultant Wall U-Value

It should be noted that there is a health warning around U-valuating such an old wall, as assuming homogenous layers and no air gaps is unreliable. However the contrast from the Unit 01 proposal to existing forms a basis from which to make before and after comparisons.
The U-value calculation took into account the bridging from both sets of battens by using fractional areas, a result of 0.33W/mK was found, above the Part L requirement of 0.27W/mK but well below the requirements for a material change of use of 0.6W/mK and an 80% improvement on the Unit 01 proposal.
Figure 12: Fractional Areas of Bridging through the insulation and batten plane.
26
3.2 Replacement Ground Floor

The existing suspended timber ground floor is heavily decayed and entirely missing in some areas of the house. As was common in the early 19th century, the subfloor was ventilated by the internal spaces, as opposed to external vents, and consisted of exposed earth (DOE, 2010). It is proposed to completely replace the entire floor.
3.2.2 Initial Unit 01 Proposal

The specified replacement floor in the Unit 01 project consisted of an entirely new heavily synthetically insulated radiant concrete floor. While this had high thermal performance
Figure 13: Existing Floor boards
credentials (0.14W/mK), it was at variance with the traditional breathable nature of the
Figure 14: Missing Floor boards and exposed subfloor / dwarf walls
surrounding structure. It is highly probably that the subfloor, while only ventilated from the
internal spaces, performed a drying function on the external wall and it was therefore my judgement an upgraded ventilated suspended timber floor system was more appropriate for this project.
Figure 15: Unit 01s Floor Build-Up Proposal
27

The overall deteriorated state of the existing floor presents an opportunity to eliminate a cold bridge; by using new brick honeycombed dwarf walls to set the new floor timbers back from the wall surface. This will protect the timber from moisture damage and allow the wall insulation and floor insulation to meet and provide a more complete envelope. Sheeps wool is specified to be packed between joists and around the perimeter.
Figure 16: Joists and Dwarf Wall separated from External Wall
Figure 18: Proposed Floor Construction through Dwarf Wall
Figure 17: Proposed Floor Construction through Joists
1. Retrofit Subfloor & Drainage The exposed earth subfloor was excavated to a level of approximately 400mm below original subfloor height, lined in well compacted hardcore and a 100mm concrete subfloor slab was poured. As this brought the subfloor level to below that of the external ground level, a French trench drain has been specified. 300mm wide, the depth is determined by the depth of the foundations so as not to jeopardise
foundation stability, the bottom of the trench cannot go below a figurative 45 line drawn from the top of the foundation (SPAB, 2009).
28
Figure 19: Proposed Retrofit Subfloor Vents & External French Drain
2. Subfloor Ventilation As stated, the original earthen subfloor was unventilated, which is not uncommon in older buildings. As the potential for ventilating from the internal space is lost by adding insulation between the joists, retrofit vents have been specified. Measuring 100mmx200mm each, fronted with a stainless steel grill, with an internal insect repellent mesh, they are installed 600mm from the corners of the walls, and at 2 metre centres thereafter (Timber Queensland , 2004).
3. Dwarf Walls The new floor joists are set on honeycombed brick dwarf walls, set a minimum of 100mm from the external walls, allowing the joists to be isolated from forming a thermal bridge. The honeycomb pattern of the bricks allows ventilation through the walls. Two courses of brick and a 75x100mm timber wallplate, separated by a DPC.
4. Joists & Insulation The floor joists are skew nailed atop the wallplate and are to be 50x225 C22 timber at 400 centres as per Eurocode 5. A layer of steel mesh is moulded around the joists to form a support for the insulation batts between, this mesh to be fixed to the external wall behind pads of timber to support edge insulation. Between the joists, supported by the steel mesh is fitted 225mm batts of sheeps wool insulation, tightly packed. 29
Fabric Retrofit & Refurb 5. Fibreboard and Floor Boards 25mm fibreboard sheathing is nailed atop the joists to prevent any draughts from below, surviving floorboards are cleaned and re-treated, to be supplemented by new boards from reclaimed sources where practicable.
3.2.3 Resultant U-Value

The U-value for this construction was calculated as 0.2W/mK. While this is above the value of 0.14W/mK in the original Unit 01 proposal, it is well below the Part L requirement for buildings other than dwellings of 0.25W/mK, and I feel far more appropriate as it does not rule out a drying function being performed on the wall from the inner side.
Rebuilt Suspended Ground Floor (Through Joists - 12.5%) Layer Internal Surface Floorboards Fibreboard Deck 225x50 C22 Joists External Surface Total Resistance: U-Value (Through Joists - 87.5%) Layer Internal Surface Floorboards Fibreboard Deck Sheep's Wool External Surface Total Resistance U-Value 0.03 0.03 0.23 Thickness (m) Conductivity 0.18 0.13 0.04 Resistance 0.13 0.14 0.19 5.77 0.04 6.27 0.16 0.03 0.03 0.23 Thickness (m) Conductivity 0.18 0.13 0.13 Resistance 0.13 0.14 0.19 1.73 0.04 2.23 0.45
Total Element U-Value: 0.20 Table 2: U-Value Calculation of Proposed Suspended Timber Floor
30
3.3 Existing Cut-Timber Collar Roof

The first floor of the building is more or less a halfstory, in that at present the rafters and collar constitute the ceiling. Currently the roof is an uninsulated cut rafter & collar construction with sarking felt and boarding above, there is no ceiling board so timber members are exposed internally, leaving only the sarking and roof tiles as protection from the elements. There is a high degree of wind gaps through the structure and the sarking and boarding is in bad repair. Structural surveys undertaken prior to our own suggest the rafters and collar joists to be in good structural condition so it is my intention to clean, re-treat and re-use these members as far as practicable. The initial survey of the building and historical research indicated the roof has been replaced since construction, as the pitch is higher in historical drawings. In addition, the slates are of cement fibre and certainly not original I have specified these be disposed of and natural slate reinstated throughout. In insulating the roof there was a requirement to ventilate the rafter space and above the ceiling collar. In its current state this is impossible as the eaves overhang is approximately 50mm with the fascia board flush against the external wall, precluding soffit vents.
Figure 20: Section of Upper Storey Figure 21: Existing Roof Rafters & Collars exposed internally
31
Figure 23: Section showing existing eaves arrangement Figure 22: 3-D showing existing eaves and roof build-up

The proposal in the Unit 01 project was minimalist to clean and reuse the existing slates, install batts of sheeps wool between the joists and collar and to plasterboard beneath which gave a u-value of 0.25W/mK.

As with the floor, I have determined that it is unwise to close off the loft space to ventilation through insulating the roof, however it would be unconscionable to leave the joists uninsulated as more than 25% of heat loss occurs through the roof. A possible solution to this is to retrofit more substantial eaves. By bolting lengths of timber to the sides of the rafter ends, I have extended their length creating an overhang of 200mm - while this is below the
Figure 24: Proposed extension of eaves to allow soffit ventilation
recommended 300mm, I felt an extension of
the eaves of that size would overly change the external appearance of the building. With the new eaves, soffit vents can be fitted.
32
Figure 25: Section through proposed roof construction
Figure 26: Section through Joists
1. Slates. As stated, the existing fibre cement slates were disposed of, and new natural slates installed, preferably from reclaimed sources.
2. Battens. 50x50 treated timber battens are nailed along the top of the rafters to create ventilation space between top of ventilation and the underside of slates, atop these 50x35mm slating battens are counter-fixed.
3. Breather membrane This is lapped and taped between the tops of the rafters and the bottom of the battens.
4. Rafters & Insulation The rafters and collar joists are to be cleaned and retreated after being inspected for structural integrity. Spaces in between the joists are tension packed with 150mm sheeps wool.
5. Insulated Service Cavity & Ceiling Below the rafters, 50x50 counter battens are fixed at 400 centres to allow a service cavity and also a second layer of insulation infilled with 50mm batts of sheeps wool, and finished in a 12.5mm plasterboard ceiling. 33

The U-Value calculation, performed to take account of the fractional areas of bridging, resulted in a value of 0.2W/m - an improvement on the Unit 01 proposal of 0.25, exactly the requirement for Existing Buildings other than Dwellings in Part L 2008 and substantially less than the requirement for material change of use in Part L, 35W/m2K.
(Through 50mm Insulation/150mm Insulation - 76.6%) Layer Internal Surface Plasterboard Sheeps Wool Sheeps Wool Fibreboard Ventilated Cavity Fibre Cement Slates External Surface Thickness (m) 0.013 0.05 0.15 0.025 0.01 Total R: U: (Through 50mm Insulation/ 150mm Joists - 21.8%) Internal Surface Plasterboard Sheeps Wool Timber Joists Fibreboard Ventilated Cavity Fibre Cement Slates External Surface 0.013 0.05 0.15 0.025 0.01 Total R: U: (Through 50mm Battens/ 150mm Joists - 1.6%) Internal Surface Plasterboard Timber Battens Timber Joists Fibreboard Ventilated Cavity Fibre Cement Slates External Surface 0.013 0.05 0.15 0.025 0.01 Total R: U: Total Element U-Value: Table 3: U-Value Calculation for Proposed Roof Retrofit 0.25 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.45 0.13 0.05 0.38 1.15 0.19 0.34 0.02 0.04 2.31 0.43 0.20 0.25 0.039 0.13 0.13 0.45 0.13 0.05 1.28 1.15 0.19 0.34 0.02 0.04 3.21 0.31 Conductivity 0.25 0.039 0.039 0.13 0.45 Resistance 0.13 0.05 1.28 3.85 0.19 0.34 0.02 0.04 5.90 0.17
34
3.4 Existing Timber Sash Windows

The existing windows are the original timber frame single glazed sliding sashes of varying sizes. Overall the windows appear to be in good condition, the paintwork is heavily degraded but there is no sign of any faults with the actual timbers. There are a number of panes of glass missing. A number of windows have their original timber panelling and architraving, most are recessed with angled reveals, and some are flush with the wall.
Figure 27: Recessed window with architrave and panelling

The initial proposal was to restore the timberwork and draught proof the windows. As this does not affect the U-Value the laboratory tested U-Value for a traditional timber single glazed sash window is 5.2W/mK (Mitchell, 2008).
Figure 28: Flush Sash Window

Restoration & Draught Proofing The deteriorated paint is to be removed and the timbers inspected, defective areas are to be spliced with new timbers, and the window repainted. Missing or damaged glazing panes are to be removed and replaced where necessary. Draught proofing is performed through
installation of draught strips and beads with incorporated draught brushes.

Figure 29: Draughtproofing measures for sash windows
35
Fabric Retrofit & Refurb Secondary Glazing In cases of a recessed window, the fixing frame of the secondary glazing system can be bolted into the ope wall where the windows are more flush with the wall, 100x50mm studs on each side of the ope have been used to fix the units timber fixing frame. Both solutions are reversible. In all cases existing timber panelling and architraving surrounds are to be removed, cleaned and restored for reinstatement around the secondary glazing frame.
Figure 31: Jamb detail: recessed window with secondary glazing
Figure 30: Jamb detail: flush window with secondary glazing
The glazing system specified is designed to be very discreet, the entire depth of the frame is less than 40mm and is so designed that the meeting rail is in line with that of the existing window rendering it concealed from outside, from inside its thin profile and white finish does not provide a contrast to the existing. The optimum distance between secondary glass and primary glass is attained, at 150mm, this ensures optimum thermal and acoustic performance. (RMIT University, 2005)
Figure 32: Heat Camera Image showing the heat lost through traditional sash window (right) and one with secondary glazing (left).
36
Figure 33: Traditional Sash Window with slimline discreet aluminium framed secondary glazing unit.

The table below shows the U-value attainable by performing the listed actions on the window A minority of the windows do have slender timber shutters, however I determined that to insulate these would be a damaging act. As the table shows, and independently laboratory tested (Mitchell, 2008), the resultant U-Value for traditional sash windows with secondary glazing is 1.6W/mK while draught proofing can reduce air infiltration by up to 80%.
Table 4: Possible Actions for thermal upgrade of traditional sash windows and their resultant U-Value.
37
New Construction
Chapter 4 New Construction

4.1 Circulation Atrium
As previously mentioned, the Unit 01 project proposal included the demolition of the central core of the House, constructing a new double height circulation area clad entirely in glass to house the stairwell and lift and to provide public access to the house. As this is included in the thermal efficiency comparison, this chapter deals with the elements involved and their Uvalue.
Figure 34: 3D of Atrium siting within Cuilin House
4.1.1 Atrium Structural Glass Walls & Roof

The walls and roof of the atrium are frameless glass mounted on spider fixings fixed to internal steel columns/beams. I have specified a low emissivity argon-filled glazing system. The outer pane is 6mm glass with a low-emissivity coating,
Figure 35: Triple paned structural glass
permitting the transmission of the suns short wave radiation at a higher rate than the
long wave radiation generated by the buildings heating system, also reducing glare. A 12mm argon-filled cavity separates the outer pane from the centre pane of 6mm glass, and a further 12mm cavity separates the centre pane from the inner pane of 10mm heat soaked toughened glass. The manufacturers U Value rating for this arrangement is 0.8W/m2K. Potential overheating will be mitigated by the installation of thermostat connected to automated louvered glass vents at eaves level. 38
New Construction
4.1.2 Radiant Concrete Floor

The steel frame of the new atrium space is supported on a 200mm concrete slab foundation (thickened to 450mm at edges). Atop this is 30mm sand blinding, a DPC/Radon barrier and 150mm polyurethane board insulation. A 100mm concrete floor deck supports the 50mm screed floor, to be finished in granite tile. The substantial thickness of the slab and screed is to facilitate thermal storage of solar gains and from the water-based geothermal under floor heating system. The U-Value for this construction is 0.13W/mK, in compliance with requirements in Part L of the Building Regulations.
Figure 36: New Build Atrium Floor
Concrete Floor @ Atrium

Layer Internal Surface Granite Tile Screed Concrete Polyurethane Sand Blinding External Surface Thickness (m) 0.025 0.5 0.1 0.15 0.03 Conductivity 2.2 0.41 1.15 0.025 0.15 Resistance 0.17 0.01 1.22 0.09 6.00 0.20
0.04
Element U-Value:
7.73 0.13
Table 5: U-Value Calculation for New-Build Concrete Floor @ Atrium
39
Thermal Comparison
Chapter 5 Thermal Comparison

5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 General
This section aims to calculate the total heat loss from the building under the conditions in the Unit 01 proposal project, and those demonstrated herein, contrasting the difference in thermal efficiency between the more conservative refurbishment proposal and this papers proposed thermal retrofit. Below is a table recapping the uvalues of the existing elements associated with both strategies;
Element External Wall Ground Floor Roof Windows First Floor (Joists packed with Sheeps Wool) Internal Walls (Solid Brick, 12.5 plasterboard) Baseline Refurb (Unit 01 Proposal) 1.44 0.14 0.25 5.2 0.2 Study Retrofit (Thermal Retrofit) 0.33 0.2 0.2 1.6 0.2
1.46 Table 6: Summary of Element U-Values.
1.46
5.1.2 Heat Losses Generally

Total heat loss for a building is derived from total transmission or fabric losses added to ventilation and infiltration losses for each space in the building. These values determine the sizing of the heating appliance in each room, and thus the overall energy load required to heat the building. There are a number of methods used to calculate this loss used by engineers, The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) in the UK use a number of increasingly complex methodologies as a project progresses from outline through design to implementation stage: Concept Stage: Rules of Thumb methods Design Stage: Steady State Calculation Final Design: Dynamic Transient Method
40
Thermal Comparison The approach taken in this paper is the Steady State method, whereby transmission and ventilation losses are calculated with a pre-determined design external temperature, design internal temperature, design air change rate.
5.1.3 Steady State Heat Loss Calculation

In this method, also known as the manual-method, calculation of transmission heat losses is arrived at by multiplying the element area of a particular building element within the space, by its u-value, by the design temperature difference, repeating for all fabric elements in the space being evaluated. Transmission of heat from one internal space to another where there is a design temperature difference is included, but naturally this balances itself out as the transmission heat loss from one is a transmission heat gain in the other. Calculating ventilation heat loss is performed by multiplying the space volume by the design temperature difference, by the design air changes per hour, by the specific heat capacity of air. In a traditional building the target air changes per hour after draughtproofing measures are undertaken is 0.8ac/h (English Heritage, 2010) I have used this value for this studys retrofit, and a higher rate of 1ac/h for the shallow retrofit to reflect a less intensive upgrade. The variables used in the calculation are as follows: Internal Design Temperature: The temperature level recommended by engineering and plumbing industry bodies to maintain comfort, determined by the purpose of the space (e.g. Internal design temperature for a small office = 20C). External Design Temperature: Based on the location of the building, the external design temperature or heating dry-bulb temperature is not the lowest temperature expected, but rather close to lowest. The following calculations use the 99% design temperature for Dublin, Ireland tabulated by ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers), which means a low temperature that will be exceeded, statistically speaking, for 88 hours in a typical year. Design Temperature Difference: Or delta-t is the difference in temperature between the internal design temperature and the external design temperature.
41
Thermal Comparison U-Value: a measure of the heat transmission through a building part such as a wall or roof, with a varied build-up of materials and levels of conductivity, with lower numbers indicating better insulating properties. Element Area: Tabulated by measuring the area of external wall or roof within the space being calculated taken from the internal dimensions. Space Volume: The internal volume of the room, from internal dimensions. Air Changes / per Hour: A measure of how many times the air within a space is replaced due to ventilation and infiltration a design value is applied, taking into account desired and recommended ventilation levels and the control of infiltration through new wall linings and draught seals. Specific Heat Capacity: In this case, of air, it is the measurable physical quantity that characterizes the amount of heat required to raise air temperature by a given amount. For heating calculations the value of 0.33 is always applied. Total Transmission Heat Loss: The total heat that is lost from internal spaces through the fabric of the building in Watts per Hour Total Ventilation Heat Loss: The total heat that is lost from the internal spaces through ventilation and infiltration in Watts per Hour Total Design Heat Loss: The sum of transmission and ventilation heat losses, that occur over a steady state. Assumptions used in Design Heat Loss Calculation: Assumed to occur at night, where no solar loads act on building Building is treated as unoccupied (no internal loads) Equipment and appliances are not in operation. Lights are off Moisture loads ignored Heat flow is analysed using static conditions, meaning stable temperatures over the defined period of time (one hour) Heat storage in the fabric is discounted.
42
Thermal Comparison The following is a summary of the inputs required to calculate:
Design Temperatures
Internal (Watkins, 2011): Space Type Office Storage Circulation Exhibition Plant Entrance Hall External (ASHRAE, 1981) Heating Dry Bulb Temperature for Dublin, Ireland: -1C
Table 7: Design Internal & External Temperatures
Temp 20C 18C 16C 18C 15C 15C
Figure 38: Ground Floor Plan with internal and external design temperatures.
Figure 37: First Floor Plan with internal and external design temperatures.
43
Thermal Comparison
5.2 Total Transmission Heat Loss

Full calculation tables are provided in Appendix B, an example calculation is demonstrated below:
U-Value x Area of Element x Temperature Difference = Heat Loss through that element Example: Component External Wall UValue(W/m2) 0.33 Element (m2) 32.30 Temp. Diff. (Int-Ext) 21.00 Heat Loss (W/hr) 223.84
Table 8: Example Heat Loss Calculation for external wall in one room.
The resulting heat loss is given in Watts per Hour under the design conditions mentioned previously. Repeated for each element (e.g. external wall, floor, roof) in each space and added together, the result is the total heat loss under steady state analysis experienced by the building. The following table is a summary of results in both the Unit 01 refurb proposal, and the thermal retrofit proposal herein, by space and in total.
Unit 01 Proposal:
Space Conference Room Reception Entrance Hall Office1 Office 2 Plant Exhibition Space Exhib. Reception Lobby Office 3 Office 4 Glazed Atrium Total Transmission Heat Loss Heat Loss (W/hr) 1808.83 546.94 -13.63 1528.36 846.08 468.34 2012.84 580.20 110.38 1363.67 755.44 2566.32 12573.78
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Table 9: Transmission Heat Loss by Space Unit 01
The result of the calculation was a total transmission heat loss of 12,500 watts per hour, or 12.5 Kilowatts per hour (KW/hr).
44
Thermal Comparison Thermal Retrofit:

Heat Loss (W/hr) 667.50 246.42 -9.78 530.81 262.76 92.17 664.62 263.01 -54.16 474.36 233.86 2566.32 5937.89
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Space Conference Room Reception Entrance Hall Office1 Office 2 Plant Exhibition Space Exhib. Reception Lobby Office 3 Office 4 Glazed Atrium Total Transmission Heat Loss
Table 10: Transmission Heat Losses by Space Deep Retrofit
The result of the calculation was a total transmission heatloss of 6,000 watts per hour, or 6 Kilowatts per hour (KW/hr) : A 53% improvement on the Unit 01 Proposal
45
Thermal Comparison
5.3 Total Ventilation Heat Loss

As stated in 3.1.3, the only different variable in the ventilation heat loss calculation for both retrofit models is the air change rate full calculations of ventilation heat loss are set out below: Unit 01 Proposal:
Space 1.Conference 2. Reception 3. Entrance 4. Office 1 5. Office 2 6. Plant 7. Exhibition 8. Ex. Reception 9. Lobby 10. Office 3 11. Office 4 12. Atrium Vol (m3) 120 44.63 22.3 60.2 41.8 58.2 159.57 38.78 19.4 52.4 36.87 384 Delta T 21 21 17 21 21 16 19 21 17 21 21 17 AC/H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sp. Ht. Cap. 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Ground Floor: 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 First Floor: 0.33 Total (W) 831.60 309.29 125.10 417.19 289.67 307.30 2280.14 1000.50 268.75 108.83 363.13 255.51 1996.72 2154.24 Watts Watts
Ventilation Losses: 6431.11 Watts Table 11: Calculation Table of Ventilation Heat Losses Shallow Retrofit
Thermal Retrofit:
Space 1.Conference 2. Reception 3. Entrance 4. Office 1 5. Office 2 6. Plant 7. Exhibition 8. Ex. Reception 9. Lobby 10. Office 3 11. Office 4 12. Atrium Vol (m3) 120 44.63 22.3 60.2 41.8 58.2 159.57 38.78 19.4 52.4 36.87 384 Delta T 21 21 17 21 21 16 19 21 17 21 21 17 AC/H 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Sp. Ht. Cap. 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Ground Floor: 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 First Floor: 0.33 Total (W) 665.28 247.43 100.08 333.75 231.74 245.84 1824.12 800.40 215.00 87.07 290.51 204.41 1597.38 1723.39 Watts Watts Watts
Infiltration Losses: 5144.89 Table 12: Calculation Table of Ventilation Heat Losses Deep Retrofit
46
Thermal Comparison
The Unit 01 entails a ventilation heat loss / load of 6400 watts per hour, or 6.4 Kilowatts per hour (KW/hr), where the thermal retrofit carries a loss of 5100 watts per hour or 5.1KW/hr, or a 20% improvement on the Unit 01 proposal.
5.4 Total Heat Loss & Demand

Total heat loss is the sum of transmission and ventilation heat loss:
Deep Retrofit
Transmission Losses Ventilation Losses Total (W/hr) Total (KW/hr) 5937.89W/hr 5144.89W/hr 11082 W/hr 11.1 KW/hr
Table 13: Total Heat Losses
Shallow Retrofit
13085.31W/hr 6431.11W/hr 19516W/hr 19.5 KW/hr
Overall, the thermal retrofit outlined in this paper constitutes a 43 percent improvement in thermal efficiency on the original Unit 01 thesis proposal, without compromising the natural balance traditional constructions exist in.
47
Conclusion
Chapter 6 Conclusion
To recap, this dissertation set out to explore and analyse the considerations involved in thermally retrofitting an historic building, while balancing the considerations around conservation principles and the requirements of traditional constructions. The paper has set out a strategy that aims to do the least harm, if not aid the building fabric in its moisture regulation and thermal functions. Using best practice recommendations and guidance from prime actors in the area of conservation and thermal comfort, it has sought to apply the principles learned to the existing fabric of Cuiln House. The attaching of u-values to the hypothesised construction, and the comparison to the base line model through use of the Steady State Heat Loss Method have demonstrated that the proposal achieved a 53% thermal efficiency increase, while interventions to the floors, (such as the addition of a trench drain and subfloor ventilation), and walls, (such as the hygroscopically active insulation) could actually benefit their moisture control function. Further, conservation principles were satisfied in that with all but the replacement suspended floor, every intervention is reversible and by the retention of what limited window architraving, moulding and panelling remained, the internal character has been somewhat restored. I believe this is a sensitive, non-obtrusive retrofit strategy, it preserves the character of the traditional windows and the traditional materials throughout, while significantly improving the prospects for thermal comfort, and thus those of the continued survival of the building as a used space the ultimate goal in conservation. In conclusion, from the perspective of modern architectural technology, where there is a lot of emphasis on moisture eradication and airtightness, dealing with older walls requires a shift in thinking, to one of control and regulation of moisture and allowing the building to breath as it has always done what seems simple and old often has hidden qualities and controls.
48
References
References / Bibliography Bibliography

ASHRAE. (1981). Design Conditions for Selected Locations. In ASHRAE Handbook (p. Appendix ). Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers. Cambridge Architectural Research. (2009). Breathability A White Paper. Cambridge: Kingspan Insulation Ltd. . Cambridge University. (2005). Potential for Microgeneration - Study and Analysis. Cambridge: The Energy Saving Trust. Curtis, R. (2008). Energy Efficiency in Traditional Homes. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland. Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. (1996). Conservation Guidelines - Windows. Dublin: Government of Ireland. Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government. (2010). Energy Efficiency in Traditional Buildings. Dublin: Government of Ireland. Eco Warriors Solar (UK) Ltd. . (2010). How it works: Solar Photovoltaics For Your Home. Retrieved April 18, 2012, from E-W-Solar: http://www.e-wsolar.com/solarPvHowItWorks.shtml Energy Saving Trust. (2006). Practical Refurbishment of Solid-Walled Houses. London: Energy Saving Trust. English Heritage . (1997). Framing Opinions 5: Timber Sash Windows. Swindon: English Heritage. English Heritage. (1994). Framing Opinions 1: Draught Proofing and Secondary Glazing . Swindon: English Heritage. English Heritage. (2010). Energy Efficiency in Historic Buildings - Draught Proofing Windows and Doors. London: English Heritage. English Heritage. (2010). Energy Efficiency in Historic Buildings - Insulating solid walls. London: English Heritage. Historic Scotland. (2008). Sash & Case Windows: A Short Guide for Homeowners. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland.
49
References Irish Eco Homes. (2010). Sheeps Wool. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from Irish Eco Homes: http://www.irishecohomes.ie/ May, N. (2005). Breathability: the Key to Building Performance. London: Natural Building Co. May, N. (2009). Breathability Matters: Why the Kingspan White Paper is seriously misleading . London: Natural Building Co. Mitchell, D. S. (2008). Energy Efficiency in Traditional Homes. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland . Morgan, C. (2008). Breathing Buildings. Dunblane: SelfBuild.ie - Extend & Renovate Ireland. Northern Ireland Environment Agency. (2010). Windows: A Guidance Booklet on Openings . Belfast: Northern Ireland Environment Agency. RMIT University. (2005). Sound Insulation for Windows. Melbourne: City of Melbourne. Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. (2009). Technical Q&A 19 : French Drains. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from SPAB: http://www.spab.org.uk/advice/technical-qas/technical-qa-19-french-drains/ Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. (2009). The Need for Old Buildings to Breathe. London: SPAB. Timber Queensland . (2004). Technical Data Sheet 14 - Sub-floor Ventilation. Brisbane: Timber Queensland. Watkins, D. E. (2011). Heating Services in Buildings. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. .
50
Appendix
Appendix A U Value Calculations

Notes on U-Value Calculations
In calculating the U-Value of the external wall there are a level of unknowns around the composition of the existing solid wall. The presence of voids / a rubble core is not accounted for and thus the result may be more valuable in a comparison of the effect of internal insulation compared to leaving the existing in place
The external wall insulation layer is composed of battens and counter battens with the wool packed between, thus U-values were taken through the batten-on-batten route, the batten on insulation and insulation on insulation layers and the values added according to their distribution throughout the wall. Similarly the roof is treated the same where battens run perpendicular along the underside of the joists.
Figure 39: Fractional Areas of materials in the cross-battened wall/roof
51
Appendix
Unit 01 External Wall Proposal

Through 50mm Batten/50mm Insulation (21.8%) Layer Internal Surface Plaster Clay Brick Limestone External Surface Thickness (m) 0.018 0.21 0.29 Conductivity 0.8 0.77 1.26 Resistance 0.13 0.02 0.27 0.23 0.04 0.70 Total Element U-Value: 1.44
Rebuilt Suspended Ground Floor

(Through Joists - 12.5%) Layer Internal Surface Floorboards Fibreboard Deck 225x50 C22 Joists External Surface Total Resistance: U-Value (Through Joists - 87.5%) Layer Internal Surface Floorboards Fibreboard Deck Sheep's Wool External Surface Total Resistance U-Value Total Element U-Value: 0.03 0.03 0.23 Thickness (m) Conductivity 0.18 0.13 0.04 Resistance 0.13 0.14 0.19 5.77 0.04 6.27 0.16 0.20 0.03 0.03 0.23 Thickness (m) Conductivity 0.18 0.13 0.13 Resistance 0.13 0.14 0.19 1.73 0.04 2.23 0.45
52
Appendix
Thermal Retrofit of External Wall

(Through 50mm Batten/50mm Insulation - 21.8%) Layer Internal Surface Plasterboard Sheeps Wool Timber Battens Lime Plaster Clay Brick Limestone External Surface Thickness (m) 0.015 0.05 0.05 0.018 0.21 0.29 Conductivity 0.25 0.039 0.13 0.43 0.77 1.26 Total R: U-Value: (Through 100mm Battens/Battens - 1.6%) Layer Internal Surface Plasterboard Timber Battens Timber Battens Lime Plaster Clay Brick Limestone External Surface Thickness (m) 0.015 0.05 0.05 0.018 0.21 0.29 Conductivity 0.25 0.13 0.13 0.43 0.77 1.26 Total R: U-Value: (Through 100mm Wool Batts/Wool Batts - 76.6%) Layer Internal Surface Plasterboard Sheeps Wool Sheeps Wool Lime Plaster Clay Brick Limestone External Surface Thickness (m) 0.015 0.05 0.05 0.018 0.21 0.29 Conductivity 0.25 0.039 0.039 0.43 0.77 1.26 Total R: U-Value: Total Element U-Value: Resistance 0.13 0.06 1.28 1.28 0.04 0.27 0.23 0.04 3.34 0.30 0.33 Resistance 0.13 0.06 0.38 0.38 0.04 0.27 0.23 0.04 1.54 0.65 Resistance 0.13 0.06 1.28 0.38 0.04 0.27 0.23 0.04 2.44 0.41
53
Appendix
Unit 01 Proposed Roof Refurb

(Through Insulation - 87.5%) Layer Internal Surface Plasterboard Sheeps Wool Fibreboard Ventilated Cavity Fibre Cement Slates External Surface Thickness (m) 0.013 0.15 0.025 0.01 Conductivity 0.25 0.039 0.13 0.45 Resistance 0.13 0.05 3.85 0.19 0.34 0.02 0.04 4.62 0.22 (Through Rafters - 12.5%) Layer Internal Surface Plasterboard Timber Rafters Fibreboard Ventilated Cavity Fibre Cement Slates External Surface Thickness (m) 0.013 0.15 0.025 0.01 Conductivity 0.25 0.13 0.13 0.45 Resistance 0.13 0.05 1.15 0.19 0.34 0.02 0.04 1.93 0.52 Total Element U-Value: 0.25
54
Appendix
Retrofitted Cut Timber Roof

(Through 50mm Insulation/150mm Insulation - 76.6%) Layer Internal Surface Plasterboard Sheeps Wool Sheeps Wool Fibreboard Ventilated Cavity Fibre Cement Slates External Surface Thickness (m) 0.013 0.05 0.15 0.025 0.01 Conductivity 0.25 0.039 0.039 0.13 0.45 Resistance 0.13 0.05 1.28 3.85 0.19 0.34 0.02 0.04 5.90 0.17 (Through 50mm Insulation/ 150mm Joists - 21.8%) Layer Internal Surface Plasterboard Sheeps Wool Timber Joists Fibreboard Ventilated Cavity Fibre Cement Slates External Surface Thickness (m) 0.013 0.05 0.15 0.025 0.01 Conductivity 0.25 0.039 0.13 0.13 0.45 Resistance 0.13 0.05 1.28 1.15 0.19 0.34 0.02 0.04 3.21 0.31 (Through 50mm Battens/ 150mm Joists - 1.6%) Layer Internal Surface Plasterboard Timber Battens Timber Joists Fibreboard Ventilated Cavity Fibre Cement Slates External Surface Thickness (m) 0.013 0.05 0.15 0.025 0.01 Conductivity 0.25 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.45 Resistance 0.13 0.05 0.38 1.15 0.19 0.34 0.02 0.04 2.31 0.43 Total Element U-Value: 0.20
55
Appendix
Internal Wall Type 1 (450 Solid Brickwork)

Layer Plasterboard Clay Brick Plasterboard Thickness (m) 0.013 0.450 0.013 Conductivity 0.25 0.77 0.25 Resistance 0.05 0.58 0.05 0.68 Total Element U-Value: 1.46
56
Appendix
Appendix B BuildDesk Condensation Analyses

As discussed in 3.1.2, I ran a number of demonstration simulations on refurbishing the external wall with a synthetic non-breathable insulant to highlight how inappropriate modern construction theory would be if applied to the walls. Firstly, determining that a thickness of 50mm insulation would be a good starting point, I ran an analysis using a solid wall of Limestone at 490mm thickness, polyurethane board mechanically fixed to the inner face with a dabbed plasterboard finish internally for a U-Value of 0.55W/mK, results as follows:
57
Appendix Reducing the thickness of the polyurethane by 10mm increments, at 20mm thickness the wall was deemed to have passed the test, in that condensation occurs during the summer months but was expected to fully evaporate, only giving a U-Value of 0.79W/mK:
58
Appendix Adding a foil backing to the plaster board (i.e. on the warm side of the insulation) ruled out the risk of interstitial condensation at any time with thicknesses up to 100mm and beyond and giving a U-Value of 0.42W/mK using 50mm polyurethane board layer:
My contention is that, aside from this tool not taking into account any bridging and assuming all homogenous layers, the success or failure of the use of synthetic insulants is wholly determined by the integrity of the vapour barrier or foil layer, and as it is common for these membranes to be punctured either during construction or later by occupants nailing through the plasterboard, it is wholly inappropriate to specify a vapour-barrier based system to the external walls in this case.
59
Appendix
Appendix C Fabric Heat Loss Calculations

Unit 01 Refurb - Fabric Heat Load :
1. Conference Component External Wall Windows Internal Walls Floor Ceiling U-Value(W/m2K 1.46 5.20 1.46 0.14 0.20 Element (m2) 32.30 5.70 13.20 44.50 44.50 Temp. Diff. 21.00 21.00 2.00 21.00 3.00 Fabric Heat Loss 2. Reception Component External Wall Windows Internal Wall Floor U-Value 1.46 5.20 1.46 0.14 Element (m2) 9.08 1.40 11.50 16.50 Temp. Diff. 21.00 21.00 4.00 21.00 Fabric Heat Loss 3. Entrance Component External Wall Floor Internal Walls U-Value 1.46 0.14 1.46 Element (m2) 5.20 8.26 27.80 Temp. Diff. 17.00 17.00 -4.00 Fabric Heat Loss 4. Office 1 Component External Wall Internal Wall Floor Windows U-Value 1.46 1.46 0.14 5.20 Element (m2) 23.82 11.55 22.30 6.09 Temp. Diff. 21.00 4.00 21.00 21.00 Fabric Heat Loss Heat Loss (W/hr) 730.32 67.45 65.56 665.03 Heat Loss (W/hr) 129.06 19.66 -162.35 Heat Loss (W/hr) 278.39 152.88 67.16 48.51 Heat Loss (W/hr) 990.32 622.44 38.54 130.83 26.70
1808.83
546.94
-13.63
1528.36
60
Appendix
5. Office 2 Component External Wall Floor Window U-Value 1.46 0.14 5.20 Element (m2) 19.68 15.69 1.80 Temp. Diff. 21.00 21.00 21.00 Fabric Heat Loss 6. Plant Component External Wall Internal Wall Windows Floor Ceiling U-Value 1.46 1.46 5.20 0.14 0.20 Element (m2) 17.49 13.20 1.40 21.55 21.55 Temp. Diff. 16.00 -5.00 16.00 16.00 -2.00 Fabric Heat Loss 7. Exhibit Space Component External Wall Windows Floor Roof Internal Wall U-Value 1.46 5.20 0.20 0.25 1.46 Element (m2) 39.20 6.38 67.80 73.90 9.87 Temp. Diff. 19.00 19.00 -2.00 19.00 -2.00 Fabric Heat Loss 8. Exhib. Reception Component External Wall Internal Wall Roof Window U-Value 1.46 1.46 1.46 0.25 5.20 Element (m2) 8.90 9.87 9.87 18.15 1.15 Temp. Diff. 21.00 2.00 4.00 21.00 21.00 Fabric Heat Loss 9. Lobby Component External Wall Internal Wall Roof Window U-Value 1.46 1.46 0.25 5.20 Element (m2) 4.50 24.24 9.08 1.15 Temp. Diff. 17.00 -4.00 17.00 17.00 Fabric Heat Heat Loss (W/hr) 111.69 -141.56 38.59 101.66 110.38 W Heat Loss (W/hr) 272.87 28.82 57.64 95.29 125.58 Heat Loss (W/hr) 1087.41 630.34 -27.12 351.03 -28.82 Heat Loss (W/hr) 408.57 -96.36 116.48 48.27 -8.62 Heat Loss (W/hr) 603.39 46.13 196.56
846.08
468.34
2012.84
580.20
61
Appendix
Loss 10. Office 3 Component External Wall Internal Wall Roof Window U-Value 1.46 1.46 0.25 5.20 Element (m2) 21.29 11.05 24.53 4.74 Temp. Diff. 21.00 4.00 21.00 21.00 Fabric Heat Loss 11. Office 4 Component External Wall Roof Window U-Value 1.46 0.25 5.20 Element (m2) 17.54 17.54 1.15 Temp. Diff. 21.00 21.00 21.00 Fabric Heat Loss 12. Atrium Component Glazed Wall Glazed Roof Concrete Floor U-Value 0.80 0.80 0.13 Element (m2) 114.30 64.00 64.00 Temp. Diff. 17.00 17.00 17.00 Fabric Heat Loss Heat Loss (W/hr) 1554.48 870.40 141.44 Heat Loss (W/hr) 537.78 92.09 125.58 Heat Loss (W/hr) 652.75 64.53 128.78 517.61
1363.67
755.44
2566.32
TOTAL TRANSMISSION LOSS:
12573.78
W/hr
62
Appendix
Dissertation Thermal Retrofit

1. Conference Component External Wall Windows Internal Walls Floor Ceiling UValue(W/m2K 0.33 1.60 1.46 0.20 0.20 Element (m2) 32.30 5.70 13.20 44.50 44.50 Temp. Diff. 21.00 21.00 2.00 21.00 3.00 Fabric Heat Loss 2. Reception Component External Wall Windows Internal Wall Floor U-Value 0.33 1.60 1.46 0.20 Element (m2) 9.08 1.40 11.50 16.50 Temp. Diff. 21.00 21.00 4.00 21.00 Fabric Heat Loss 3. Entrance Component External Wall Door Floor Internal Walls U-Value 0.33 3.00 0.20 1.46 Element (m2) 3.10 2.10 8.26 27.80 Temp. Diff. 17.00 17.00 17.00 -4.00 Fabric Heat Loss 4. Office 1 Component External Wall Internal Wall Floor Windows U-Value 0.33 1.46 0.20 1.60 Element (m2) 23.82 11.55 22.30 6.09 Temp. Diff. 21.00 4.00 21.00 21.00 Fabric Heat Loss 5. Office 2 Component External Wall Floor Window U-Value 0.33 0.20 1.60 Element (m2) 19.68 15.69 1.80 Temp. Diff. 21.00 21.00 21.00 Fabric Heat Loss Heat Loss (W/hr) 136.38 65.90 60.48 262.76 W Heat Loss (W/hr) 165.07 67.45 93.66 204.62 530.81 W Heat Loss (W/hr) 17.39 107.10 28.08 -162.35 -9.78 W Heat Loss (W/hr) 62.92 47.04 67.16 69.30 246.42 W Heat Loss (W/hr) 223.84 191.52 38.54 186.90 26.70 667.50 W
63
Appendix
6. Plant Component External Wall Internal Wall Windows Floor Ceiling U-Value 0.33 1.46 1.60 0.20 0.20 Element (m2) 17.49 13.20 1.40 21.55 21.55 Temp. Diff. 16.00 -5.00 16.00 16.00 -2.00 Fabric Heat Loss 7. Exhibit Space Component External Wall Windows Floor Roof Internal Wall U-Value 0.33 1.60 0.20 0.20 1.46 Element (m2) 39.20 6.38 67.80 73.90 9.87 Temp. Diff. 19.00 19.00 -2.00 19.00 -2.00 Fabric Heat Loss 8. Exhib. Reception Component External Wall Internal Wall Roof Window U-Value 0.33 1.46 1.46 0.20 1.60 Element (m2) 8.90 9.87 9.87 18.15 1.15 Temp. Diff. 21.00 2.00 4.00 21.00 21.00 Fabric Heat Loss 9. Lobby Component External Wall Internal Wall Roof Window U-Value 0.33 1.46 0.20 1.60 Element (m2) 4.50 24.24 9.08 1.15 Temp. Diff. 17.00 -4.00 17.00 17.00 Fabric Heat Loss 10. Office 3 Component External Wall Internal Wall Roof Window U-Value 0.33 1.46 0.20 1.60 Element (m2) 21.29 11.05 24.53 4.74 Temp. Diff. 21.00 4.00 21.00 21.00 Fabric Heat Loss Heat Loss (W/hr) 147.54 64.53 103.03 159.26 474.36 W Heat Loss (W/hr) 25.25 -141.56 30.87 31.28 -54.16 W Heat Loss (W/hr) 61.68 28.82 57.64 76.23 38.64 263.01 W Heat Loss (W/hr) 245.78 193.95 -27.12 280.82 -28.82 664.62 W Heat Loss (W/hr) 92.35 -96.36 35.84 68.96 -8.62 92.17 W
64
Appendix
11. Office 4 Component External Wall Roof Window U-Value 0.33 0.20 1.60 Element (m2) 17.54 17.54 1.15 Temp. Diff. 21.00 21.00 21.00 Fabric Heat Loss 12. Atrium Component Glazed Wall Glazed Roof Concrete Floor U-Value 0.80 0.80 0.13 Element (m2) 114.30 64.00 64.00 Temp. Diff. 17.00 17.00 17.00 Fabric Heat Loss Heat Loss (W/hr) 1554.48 870.40 141.44 2566.32 W Heat Loss (W/hr) 121.55 73.67 38.64 233.86 W
TOTAL TRANSMISSION LOSS:
5937.89
W/hr
65
Appendix
Appendix D Overall Unit 01 Proposal
To place the works proposed herein into context, the following are drawings from the Unit01 proposal for the overal redevelopment of Cuiln House.
66

Dissertation: Thermal Retrofit of 19th Century Building

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissertation: Thermal Retrofit of 19th Century Building

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DT175a Dissertation Retrofit of a 19th Century Building

~A strategy for the thermal retrofit of Cuiln House~

(Submission date 11th May 2012)

~ Conor Sweeney ~ C08731136 Supervisor: Cathy Prunty

Total Words: 11,612 Main Body: 8,200

_________________________ Student Name 2012

1.2 Aims of the Research

1.4 Cuiln House

Figure 1: Cuiln House and surrounding structures

1.5 Initial Unit 01 Proposal

Figure 2: Roof Plan of Cuiln House Existing

Figure 3: Roof Plan Showing Alterations

Figure 4: Section Showing Existing Arrangement

Figure 5: Section Showing New Arrangement

Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1.1 Timber Sash Windows

Fabric Retrofit & Refurb

Chapter 3 Fabric Retrofit & Refurbishment

3.1.2 Condensation Risk Analysis

Fabric Retrofit & Refurb

3.1.3 Breathable Construction

Fabric Retrofit & Refurb

3.1.4 Insulation Selection

Fabric Retrofit & Refurb

Fabric Retrofit & Refurb

3.1.5 Proposed Intervention

Conductivity 0.8 0.77 1.26 -

Resistance 0.13 0.02 0.27 0.23 0.04 0.70 1.44

Total Element U-Value:

Table 1: U-Value Calculation of Unit 01 Wall Proposal

Figure 11: Diagram of Retrofit Wall Buildup.

Fabric Retrofit & Refurb

3.1.6 Resultant Wall U-Value

Fabric Retrofit & Refurb

3.2 Replacement Ground Floor

3.2.2 Initial Unit 01 Proposal

Figure 15: Unit 01s Floor Build-Up Proposal

Fabric Retrofit & Refurb

3.2.3 Proposed Intervention

Figure 18: Proposed Floor Construction through Dwarf Wall

Figure 17: Proposed Floor Construction through Joists

Fabric Retrofit & Refurb

3.2.3 Resultant U-Value

Fabric Retrofit & Refurb

3.3 Existing Cut-Timber Collar Roof

Fabric Retrofit & Refurb

3.3.3 Initial Unit 01 Proposal

3.3.3 Proposed Intervention

recommended 300mm, I felt an extension of

Fabric Retrofit & Refurb

Figure 25: Section through proposed roof construction

Figure 26: Section through Joists

Fabric Retrofit & Refurb

3.3.4 Resultant U-Value

Fabric Retrofit & Refurb

3.4 Existing Timber Sash Windows

3.4.2 Initial Unit 01 Proposal

3.4.3 Proposed Intervention

installation of draught strips and beads with incorporated draught brushes.

Figure 31: Jamb detail: recessed window with secondary glazing

Figure 30: Jamb detail: flush window with secondary glazing

Fabric Retrofit & Refurb

3.4.4 Resultant U-Value

Chapter 4 New Construction