|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Carl Dunlap
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 1
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:14 am Post subject: Thin Brick results in less CO2 into the atmosphere |
    |
|
| Energy to manufacture and ship is approx 70% lower than full size brick. The building foundation foot print is put to much better use when a 5 inch brick ledge is not incorporated. 70% less concrete to install the thin brick versus full size brick. The combination of insulated tiltup concrete panels and thin brick or insulated concrete forms with thin brick is a very green combination and requires no additional initial capital const expense. Supplemental green advantages are, lower HVCA tonnnage required to cool the structure, 60% lower elecrticity usage each month forever, little or no expense for steel shelf angles, lower fire insurance expense, no mold issues, significantly stronger during storms and such. Why does leed reward less optimal building solutons with more leed credits and Architects are not so willing to redraw plans to use it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
usarender
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How do your ideas compare with this posting of mine? ----->>>
Bricks stand the test of time. If used properly, they have unlimited potential. They have historic importance, structural and load bearing importance, serve in their ability as thermal mass, among many other applications. We cannot simply kill thousands of years of history and relinquish this treasured material to the heaps of past history.
Two's Company
Brick Bulletin's remit is to raise the standard of contemporary brickwork. This issue continues the theme and includes:
Feature 1 Woolf Architects' reinterpretation of the grand house; Feature 2 Feilden Clegg Bradley's Westfield Student Village at QMC; Feature 3 A neo-vernacular library by McMorran & Gatehouse. Viewpoint Bill Dunster explains why thermal mass is the new black. Technical the low-down on steel reinforcement in structural brickwork Plus news and more cutting edge buildings from continental Europe.
Two's Company
Mass uprising
Viewpoint
Proponents of lightweight construction have got it wrong,
says Bill Dunster of eco-practice ZEDfactory. High density
thermal mass is vital to balance energy supply and demand.
Durability is the missing ingredient in most discussions about how to build today.
Advocates of lightweight off-site manufactured building systems tailor their products to minimal environmental standards, without thinking through the resource shortages, weather changes and social change that are guaranteed over the next few decades.
Climate change will make passive cooling and affordable summer coolth as important as winter heating is today. Rising energy costs mean minimising electric demand will become one of the most important economic criteria in deciding whether a building is worth keeping.
For example, even the smallest reversible heat pump providing heating and cooling on a lightweight, structurally insulated £60k home will use about 3MWh a year. This will need 1.8kW peak output of solar electric panels and a 2.7m diameter roof-mounted wind turbine to meet its annual electric demand (and that excludes appliances, lighting and IT).
Without active cooling, lightweight homes will become almost uninhabitable, virtually guaranteeing reliance on a huge expansion of the nuclear energy program. With demand for fossil fuel exceeding supply,
most of the G8 economies are turning to a nuclear revival. This will put pressure on the limited stocks of uranium, which will rise in price and undergo the same supply problems as fossil fuels (see www.stormsmith.nl).
The fast breeder reactors that are supposed to reduce uranium consumption have never worked.
By 2020, nuclear demand will have outstripped supply and Prescott’s four million homes built using lightweight MMC could become the sink estates of the future. Potential delamination of structural insulated panel systems, concerns over indoor air pollution with toxic offgassing, and loss of insulation properties over time will compound public mistrust in new construction. We will find the real cost of construction has doubled or tripled due to rising fuel costs, and we can no longer afford to replace our social housing every 35 years – as effectively happened in the 20th century.
All this could have been avoided. The masonry industry could have lobbied English Partnerships and the government to raise thermal efficiency and airtightness to zero heating/zero cooling specification standards while increasing minimum requirements for high density internal radiant thermal mass.
This is a direct contrast to the low thermal mass aerated concrete products now marketed to volume housebuilders. Investing in building fabric with 300mm superinsulated wall cavities, two-part wall ties, durable brick outer skin, massive ground granulated blast slag concrete internal block, hollowcore plank floor slabs, plaster airbarriers, triple glazed low-E windows, wind-driven passive ventilation systems with heat recovery and good daylighting will future-proof almost all building types for more than 125 years.
If we designed a 3MWh a year renewable energy system into the roofscape of the new home or workplace, we could match electrical demand with building-integrated renewables.
We would not need to fight for fossil fuel or sink billions into a short-term nuclear revival that will leave a toxic waste legacy for thousands of years.
The cost of renewable energy is falling every year. The renewable system described would cost less than £10,000 installed in a three-bed home
(including solar thermal, PV, micro wind and biomass boiler district heating), and is a strategy suitable for up to 75 homes/ha. This compares to the cost of a kitchen or a car. A loan for the additional capital cost can be met from the savings made from not buying fossil fuel.
At this crossroads in national energy strategy, a proper debate is crucial. ZEDfactory does not side with any manufacturer or industry, we are simply a small architectural practice trying to do the right thing.
It seems to suggest hi-mass brick buildings still can do the trick.
Also, brick does not need to be fake. It can carry up to 50% of the loads of the structure, even in veneer systems.
Also, in this post, I have analyzed the process of cleaner brick production -->>
http://www.designcommunity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18672&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=90
and the post "Hertz is Trumps", a display of a very efficient low energy solution with red clay brick and roof tiles combined with a superinsulated hybrid timber structure -->>
http://www.brick.org.uk/bulletin/PDF/BB_Spring_2006.pdf
Herts is trumps
This striking, low energy house in south
Hertfordshire attempts to create a 21st century
vernacular by combining cutting edge
technologies with local crafts and skills. Architect
David Kirkland + Associates’ sustainable design
was inspired by natural forms.
Red clay brick and roof tiles clad a superinsulated
‘hybrid’ timber structure of both green
and dry English oak and larch. Low energy
solutions include passive solar design and a
ground source heat exchange system for
heating, as well as wood burning fires and backup
underfloor heating.
With walls achieving 0.15W/m2K and the roof
achieving 0.1W/m2K, it is calculated the
building’s CO2 heating emissions will be much
less than 9.9kg/m2 a year. A green roof and grey
water recycling system complete its ecological
credentials.
David Dexter and Associates was the
structural engineer and Ove Arup & Partners the
environmental engineer.
This thin brick cladding my have it's place, but nothing can substitute a well designed brick building, in my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
