Sustainable Homes Team - Andrew Eagles and Maeve AdamsHousing with solar panelsResident engagement on climate changeAdaptation to climate changeEnergy efficiency - Smart Meterscode for sustainable homespassivhaus trust founder

Subscribe via E-mail

Your email:

get-recent-updates-on-the-code-for-susta

textformat-leading2p-alignleft

Posts by keyword

Follow Me

Wimbish Blog

Sustainable Homes Articles

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

‘Fabric first’: The best approach when building to high levels of the CfSH

  
  
  

code level 4 homeJenny Smith Andrews at H+H, offers her views on why getting a home’s envelope built as airtight and thermally efficient as possible is the best foundation for building to high levels of the CfSH. 

Using the correct methods, we believe it is more than possible to build cost effectively to level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH) with minimal or even no use of renewable technologies. We also believe that this can be done without entirely rethinking the way houses are designed and built. Only small tweaks are required in fact, not the radical departures that some advocate.

Putting as much effort as possible into the fabric of a home makes sense in many ways. In contrast to renewable technologies, a building’s fabric can’t be meddled with by tenants, in any significant way. Built correctly it will continue to perform as intended for decades and easily have other technologies added in future if required.

Compare that with how complicated some renewable technologies are, especially their control interfaces. Most people can work a simple thermostat dial but give them a complicated control, of which there are many, for any ground or air source heat pump, micro CHP or biomass boiler and it’s a different ball game.

It means either you have to spend time and money, as some local authorities have done, educating and training tenants how to use the equipment. Or, tenants use the technology incorrectly, turn it off, or worse, resulting in a home running in anything but an energy efficient capacity.

Such technologies also advance at frightening pace. In ten years what’s to say that technology installed now will not be inefficient and need upgrading? All this adds long term costs that can be unforeseen when costs to build an airtight and thermally efficient building envelope can be factored in from day one.

Ashford Council is just one example of a local authority building to level 4 of the CfSH using a fabric first approach. They had a clear objective to build high quality houses that will last for decades, being able to withstand the rigours of a number of different tenant families over time. The homes also had to be easy and comfortable to live in, delivering excellent U-values and airtightness in the process.

The chosen solution was the H+H Rå Build method of construction. This uses the H+H Thinthin joint system Joint masonry system with either solid wall or fully filled cavity walls using aircrete blockwork.

Airtightness is perhaps the most challenging aspect of building to level 4 and above of the CfSH. However, it was the substantial benefit in reducing heat loss that was the single most significant factor in the decision to use Rå Build. 

In designing the wall structure, the use of aircrete’s very low psi values, based on Accredited Construction Details, allowed a halving of the y-value from 0.08 to o.04W/m2K. This is used to calculate the impact of linear thermal bridging within SAP 2005. The 0.04 y-value is achieved by virtue of the thermal efficiency of aircrete and has a similar effect on all external elements.

For the Ashford development cavity external walls were used with high performance full-fill cavity wall insulation manufactured by Superglass was used in the 125mm cavity. The structural width of the whole cavity wall was no more than 325mm with a U-value of 0.19W/m2K using two Thin Jointed leaves of 2.6N/mm2 aircrete. However, taking into account the 0.04 reduction in the y-value meant that the walls effectively provided a U-value of 0.15W/m2K.

To complete the energy efficiency of the build, solar PV panels were used on the roof of the dwellings. It was necessary to include some renewables in this project to achieve Code Level 4, but the contractors did note that the very thermally efficient structure significantly reduced the PV requirement.

Renewables are not the only answer to building to higher levels of the Code. H+H is involvedliving roof with an initiative to understand how houses can be built to Code Level 4 without using any sources of renewable energy.

AIMC4 is funded by the Technology Strategy Board and represents a unique collaboration between housebuilders, designers and product manufacturers to produce standard house designs that meet the demands of Code Level 4 purely through the efficiency of the fabric of the building. This must be the most sustainable answer – providing structures that are inherently efficient throughout the lifetime of the building.

AIMC4 is also taking into account the cost of highly efficiency building fabric and an objective at the outset was to achieve Code 4 at little or no additional cost over Code 3.

Our involvement with these pioneering projects demonstrates that aircrete, building on familiar design formats and UK site practice, represents a future proofed building fabric solution.

H+H Ltd is a corporate partner of the sustainability best practise group SHIFT. For more information on the programme please see here.

learn-about-our-passivhausone-day-tra

 

Comments

Fabric first is definitely the way to go. I would not use renewables on a project if there was an alternative. 
Having said that, this rarely happens...it would seem that this site is a rare one, there are not many Local Authorities out there that do not ask for 10%/15%/20% renewables as part of planning. If the developer was forced to put renewables on the building, do you think the same amount of effort would have still been put into the fabric?
Posted @ Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:08 AM by Jason Page
Fabric First 
 
…is the only way forward, I agree; as the term per se is an unknown term and a new approach for British construction industry which will take some time to be understood and accepted we should put the context in order as well; just three examples: 
 
Please omit the word cavity; we overcame caves a while ago but a “fully filled cavity” is “no cavity” and I hope there isn’t anybody out there that wants to tell me that British construction industry now designs and builds cavities only to fill them afterwards... 
 
Please be more precise when it comes to solar energy; is that solar HW or is that PV as in solar electricity? We can all guess, but guessing is not what efficiency is based on. 
 
Please, as soon as possible we should speak the same language so all trades and our customers understand what we are talking about; PassivHaus Standard has established itself as a term understood globally; this British code business nobody understands but worse, it is diluting the Fabric First approach and blending in secondary elements, in fact excuses, like water treatment and other recycling issues that per se have nothing to do with the performance of the envelope, the fabric. Recycling be it water, waste or other energy is a separate issue, an extremely important one but as it is still in its infancy (not only) in Britain it needs a serious and independent approach. 
 
As to renewables I agree; the more efficient the fabric, the envelope, the more inefficient the use of renewables becomes, especially taking the investment and the on-going maintenance into account. That is why, again, Fabric First, Second and Third… is most important and will lead us into building 100% controlled, secured and future-proof quality houses in just one go! 
 
caw 
Posted @ Thursday, February 02, 2012 3:43 AM by C.A.Wittke
Removing thermal bridging in cavity wall buildings is essential. Using a Litel GRP lintel will remove the thermal bridge, will be corrosion resistant and will tie the inner and outer skin together giving stability to the construction. The H+H thin joint system uses 2 independent steel lintels which give the same thermal break but dont tie the inner and outer skins together something traditional cavity lintels were designed and are used extensively for. Keystone have a hybrid lintel, steel on the inside heavily loaded block wall and GRP on the brick outside. This provides good thermal bridge properties and provides greater spans than GRP alone. 
http://keystonelintels.com/technical/grp_lintel/
Posted @ Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:10 AM by Chris Sullivan
I was supprised that there was no mention of windows in the article 
Surly one of the most important aspects .
Posted @ Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:26 AM by Tony o'neill
Thanks for the comments. 
 
The article shows that a Fabric First approach can provide a cost effective solution at higher code levels. 
 
If there is a Planning requirement for renewables then the fabric performance could be adjusted, but the idea is to reduce.  
 
 
 
In regards to terminology of cavity walls. There are various wall constructions. Basically there is a cavity that can be fully filled or partially filled and also a solid wall solution. We have used all three wall solutions on various affordable housing projects. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, February 02, 2012 9:41 AM by John Churchett
Good stuff here guys but what a shame it has taken so long for the penny to drop about a fabric first approach which is embodied in Passivhaus design principles and which has been proven to work for at least 20 years in Germany. 
 
Having been sidetracked by our corrupt and misguided Government into trying to generate more energy rather than using less, we have a lot of catching up to do. 
 
We need to ditch the Green Deal, CSH and all the other con-tricks contrived to make us think we are doing something useful on climate change. We need to ramp up the Building Regulations to Passivhaus standards NOW if we are to have any chance of making a significant impact on energy use by buildings. 
 
Of course none of this will happen while Ministers are promised directorships in energy companies and the construction industry bosses lobby those same Ministers furiously against any improvement in the pathetically inadequate building standards practised by our largely de-skilled workforce. 
 
A tiny number of enlightened and enthusiastic practitioners in design and construction are building some real low-energy projects using a fabric first ethos but the great unwashed masses have been hoodwinked into thinking that an eco-building has to have sparkly PV panels on the roof and a windmill in the garden. 
 
For a good dose of common sense on this matter, take a look at the various interviews with Dr Feist on YouTube. He is quite rightly baffled by our infatuation with renewables while our building fabrics, old and new, leak like a sieve
Posted @ Friday, February 03, 2012 8:47 AM by Philip Newbold
I agree a fabric first approach is the ideal, but to what degree and to what cost? I think a good balance is the key. No project is straight forward unfortunately we have the reality of planning and achieving the code for sustainable homes on a budget. It all falls on the developer to make this strategic decision but it’s all based on making a profit. The comment posted regarding tenants in affordable homes finding using renewables technologies as way to confusing is not fair and I disagree with this, as my father told me ‘’When UK homes were heated by coal and then switched to gas everyone was saying the same thing then about Gas back then’’ My company SolarTech have installed solar thermal in over 1000 affordable homes and as long as the tenants engaged at hand over stage the operating control complaints were virtually non-existent. Importantly the housing associations who allowed retro fitting of renewables under the LCBC recorded reduction in the ‘Tenants churn’ when renewables were installed on their own housing stock, case studies showed significant savings in tenants not moving as frequently . When the tenants were asked why they stayed for much longer in these properties most said they felt as they could physically see the solar panels on their roofs that they felt and believed they would enjoy lower fuel bills at that property and that the property was greener and energy efficient.
Posted @ Friday, February 24, 2012 9:23 AM by John Adorno
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics