Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




  1.  
    A vacuum glass south wall/roof (for the Wolly Louseworth effect) to eliminate heating and HRV?
      Wolly Louseworth.jpg
    • CommentAuthorcjard
    • CommentTimeJun 3rd 2023
     
    "I also just spotted this write-up of a passivhaus barn conversion project. Page 38 onwards. Sounds exactly like what you want to do"

    What I want to know is, how come a 12kW heat source was fitted to a passivhaus!?

    Shame they didn't reveal how much they spent
  2.  
    Is anyone on here willing to put our plans through PHPP?

    I assumed, perhaps wrongly that they needed to be in CAD format to do this, but now I believe it is modelled in 3D in SketchUp which can be scaled off a PDF as long it is accurate?

    whisper me your contact details if you can do this (I will pay of course)

    Thanks,
    Dominic.
    • CommentAuthorMike1
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2024
     
    PHPP does have an addon for 3D models that can be used, but the basic PHPP package is a spreadsheet (though one that takes some work to complete correctly). There's therefore no need for CAD or a 3D model.

    Provided you have building construction knowledge (and probably a copy of the The Passivhaus Designers Manual or similar), you could buy PHPP and do it yourself, if you don't find a volunteer.
  3.  
    Posted By: Mike1you could buy PHPP and do it yourself


    Yes I have considered this but I do think the 3D modelling in SketchUp would be useful because there is a building close by either side (east and west) causing shading and I have never got round to committing to learn SketchUp (still on my wishlist!)
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2024
     
    Posted By: Dominic Cooneythere is a building close by either side (east and west) causing shading
    East and west shading can be helpful, because it's more difficult to design into a building.
    • CommentAuthorGareth J
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2024
     
    Thoughts;
    Roof; you're taking the old cement fibre off, to be replaced by what? What about the purlins? Will they be replace too? If so, are the steels specced to carry the designed load+ snow load? If they're staying, will the designed roof be able to cope with the considerable sag they will be showing by now and the flex they will exhibit in use? Whatever roof design you have the sheets are coming off anyway, it's a relatively small job to remove the purlins and steels that are just bolted together, so you can have a clearer site for groundworks.

    Upright steels;
    May as well stay put if they're well secured and not in the way. But if they are in the way, for foundations, to mitigate thermal bridges etc, you can just cut them off, plate the bottoms and bolt them back in as part of the cladding.

    Slab;
    Are you confident about its structure? In an agricultural building it could be anything with or without mesh and as you'll at least need to cut areas up for sewerage etc so opportunities to check. It might have value as a slab below insulation if a decent construction and level enough? Are you going to have to dig foundations?

    Cladding;
    That 6x1 tantalised board is cheap. It does a good job and can outlast the nails it's hung up with but it'll disintegrate without more care/time than the value of new if you try to remove it. Costs nothing to reusing it a go but probably best budget for new.

    All in all, I'd get rid of the lot, barring the slab if it's good, build a new building to appropriate standards with tin roof and use the steels to replicate the aesthetics. You could even cut the web of the steels so you don't have to use the full depth of them.
  4.  
    Posted By: Gareth JI'd get rid of the lot


    sorry, not allowed due to planning - it has to be a conversion not a rebuild.

    I appreciate the rest of your thoughts though. The slab will come out and be crushed so that we can dig out for insulation, then most of the crushed will go back in for a hardcore base under the insulation. It's not level at all, sloping in towards the centre and then out through the door (for agricultural drainage purposes - it was a cowshed!)

    The roof sheets will be repaced with modern cement fibre, so the same, but with no Asbestos.
    • CommentAuthorGareth J
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2024
     
    Fair enough. In that case, I would think that figuring out how your domestic roof is going to integrate with the portal frame and cement fibre without overstressing the steelwork or purlins or creating massive cold bridges is a priority. Hopefully not too complicated or expensive.

    Though, unlike an old stone barn, dismantling and rebuilding is a quick option that is not going to alter the character of the building. Probably pushing it to suggest bolting the flats of the vertical I-beams to the outside of a finished house and expecting planners to be happy though.
    • CommentAuthorSimon Still
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2024 edited
     
    Sorry - a bit late to this thread.

    Some friends of mine built and live here - a very similar project in concept and planning restrictions.
    https://studiobark.co.uk/projects/twin-barn-farm

    They basically stripped the barn down to its steel frame, excavated down to rebuild an insulated slab. There's then a highly insulated timber frame building standing inside, and separate from, the steel structure. Then a roof and rain screen outer shell was built onto the steel frame.

    I particularly like the sliding screens, which I think allowed them to get some large glazed areas though planning (and gives shade when desirable)
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2024 edited
     
    Posted By: Dominic Cooney
    Posted By: Gareth JI'd get rid of the lot
    sorry, not allowed due to planning - it has to be a conversion not a rebuild.
    Are you sure? I've caught suggestions, but have not in the end had need to find out definitively, that tho Planning relies on the building being still in 'convertable' state (i.e. not a rotten/roofless wreck which is considered to be no longer a building or even a footprint), yet once consented, you can in fact propose more drastic rebuilding, maybe as a supplementary application on visual appearance, but with conversion established in principle.
  5.  
    See my example above. They were *just* outside the development area for the village so first applied for a demolition and new build (I think on 'para 79 https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/using-paragraph-79-to-design-innovative-country-houses), which the site next door had obtained (but had not built at that point) but were either turned down or told at pre-app that they'd not get another alongside the existing approval.

    Then used the agricultural conversion (which was clearly imagined as a way of making it easier to preserve old stone barns rather than convert pig houses and modern sheds). The planning restrictions were that external dimensions couldn't change and appearance (from the lane) had to be substantially the same (so no large glazing on that side and window screens)
      Screenshot 2024-01-10 at 11.20.37.jpg
  6.  
    You are both right of course, and I am dealing with applications under Class Q of Permitted Development every day at work, along with follow-up applications for Full Planning permission for works that are outside of the Class Q criteria (extensions, external insulation, outbuildings, larger curtilage, etc etc).

    But for our project at home, it is very much a conversion, with the exterior retained as it is (due to aesthetic preference of my other half)

    At the moment the consensus seems to be a building within a building, so that the existing steel frame, blockwork, cladding and entire roof structure and sheeting are all outside the thermal envelope and therefore just a visual and rain/UV screen.

    I-joists for walls and roof (of the internal building) are looking favourable, but I haven't costed it up yet.
    Then what to insulate with? Blown cellulose? Blown graphite EPS beads? slabs of rockwool? slabs of Graphite EPS?
  7.  
    Also undecided about the interface between the internal building and the blockwork shell; whether to leave a drained cavity, or to apply tanking slurry to the blockwork on the inside and StormDry to the exterior (leaving no cavity)
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2024
     
    Posted By: Dominic CooneyI-joists for walls and roof (of the internal building) are looking favourable, but I haven't costed it up yet.
    Then what to insulate with? Blown cellulose? Blown graphite EPS beads? slabs of rockwool? slabs of Graphite EPS?
    I-joists are good, or you can make your own Larsen trusses. I don't know how the relative costs/convenience work out. Blown cellulose works well from my own experience. Slabs of EPS might give you fitting problems to ensure no gaps between slabs or onto the I-joists. Rockwool would be easier but needs holding up as it is fitted. Dunno about EPS beads.

    Also undecided about the interface between the internal building and the blockwork shell; whether to leave a drained cavity, or to apply tanking slurry to the blockwork on the inside and StormDry to the exterior (leaving no cavity)
    I would leave a narrow drainage cavity, and maybe tanking and/or stormdry as well. Belt and braces.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2024
     
    Posted By: djhyou can make your own Larsen trusses
    I would, but people (incl on here) keep saying that glue can't be relied upon structurally unless done on certified factory conditiions?
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2024
     
    Posted By: fostertom
    Posted By: djhyou can make your own Larsen trusses
    I would, but people (incl on here) keep saying that glue can't be relied upon structurally unless done on certified factory conditiions?
    So use some nails as well?
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJan 11th 2024
     
    Hmm - see what the Bldg Insp says, in the absence of certification, Agrement or whatever.
  8.  
    Posted By: djhI-joists are good, or you can make your own Larsen trusses. I don't know how the relative costs/convenience work out.


    I've only done the former but would say don't underestimate the labour costs involved in making the larsen trusses compared to an off the shelf product with structural tables etc. that an engineer can plug into their calculations.

    In relative cost terms, the capital cost of the trusses* was outweighed by the carpenter rates and engineer's fees. If these both had to reckon with building from scratch, I think that difference would only be exacerbated.

    *caveat to say this was in 2018 so before the cost of materials went through the roof, but I think it would probably still hold true as workmen rates and professional fees have also increased in that time.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2024
     
    I'm currently specifying home-made I-beams (the client doing the work) with top and bottom members of half-round fence posts, because that''s what we need so that boarding which crosses the trusses at extreme and varying angles can find tangential seatings. But these are not being used as beams, just as spacers with blown-in cellulose each side, and in fact are installed in short lengths so incapable of beam action. So, running a groove down the flat CL of the half-round and gluing in a ply web, all in a jig to make it quick, should be crude but adequate.
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeJan 20th 2024
     
    I've just become aware that there is an add-on for PHPP called 'designPH' that will import sketchup drawings into PHPP. It costs £350. So there is that possibility.
  9.  
    Posted By: djhI've just become aware that there is an add-on for PHPP called 'designPH' that will import sketchup drawings into PHPP. It costs £350. So there is that possibility.


    I've only dabbled with it, but wanted to clarify your point about the Sketchup drawings in designPH. You generally need to re-draw everything from scratch before it can properly recognise the correct parameters, as the software is constrained by the underlying Sketchup code.

    So yes, it imports Sketchup models, but probably not a model that was already made for other design purposes.

    Generally a great addition to the PHPP workflow though.
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeJan 22nd 2024
     
    Thanks for the caveat!
    • CommentAuthorcjard
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2024
     
    > people (incl on here) keep saying that glue can't be relied upon structurally

    Er.. I thought Larsen Trusses couldn't be relied upon structurally!
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeJan 30th 2024
     
    Correct, but I-beams can - but prob, Bldg Insp-wise, only if factory-certified, for various 'reasons' but prob mainly because of glue-bond reliability. Tho you have to dig deep to find those 'reasons' stated - even the 'reason' that certification covers backsides.
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press