Title of Dissertation:

“Retrofit strategies for the Victorian dwellings (pre-1919) in the UΚ to

provide better environmental performance and low carbon emissions.”

Number of words: 13,940

Master of Science in Advanced Sustainable Design

Edinburgh School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH 2016-2017
 AUGUST 2017

2
 AUGUST 2017

ABSTRACT
The British housing stock is one of the oldest in Europe, and is considered to be one
of the largest contributors to energy and CO2 emissions. The Victorian houses are
recognised as the most “energy hungry” type of dwellings (Baeli, 2013). 80% of the
buildings today will continue to exist until 2050 (Palmer et al., 2006). Energy efficient
retrofit is thus a solution that promises considerable environmental gains and carbon
reductions, which are capable of achieving the UK government’s energy targets.

Having high energy reduction expectations, the process of retrofit has to be carefully
planned. A crucial consideration is the targets which should be set. Furthermore, the
retrofit can begin by applying the fabric-first approach, which reflects the potential
of the fabric to maintain the comfort inside the building. In order to create a
guideline for the retrofit strategy for Victorian houses, a Victorian terraced house
was studied using IES VE software and different retrofit measures were tested. The
objectives set were to achieve certain levels of thermal comfort by testing different
retrofit agendas; the PassivHaus for building elements, the L1B for renovations, and
L1A building regulations for new buildings. The energy and carbon emission results
were compared with the cost of each measure. Heat loss for the existing building
usually occurs from the external walls, roof and floors. Insulating these elements
leads to an almost 50% reduction of the initial energy consumption and CO 2
emissions, without even replacing the heating system with a new one. Nevertheless,
an installation of PV panels on the pitched roof is also tested and the results show a
58% reduction compared with the pre-retrofit model.

Overall, the calculation of the cost for the retrofit and the comparison among the
results of the models lead to unexpected conclusions. More specifically, the standard
that was proven to be the most economically viable was the relaxed one; the L1B.
The results raise questions regarding whether or not the PassivHaus targets should
be pursued, as the retrofit findings reveal similar energy savings while spending less
money. Further research could include the installation of heating systems and the
analyzing of the results for future climates.

Keywords:

Victorian house, UK housing stock, Fabric-first approach, Retrofit standards.

3
 AUGUST 2017

Table of Contents
1. Introduction...........................................................................................................9
1.1 Aims and objectives of the research ...............................................................9
1.2 The role of the Built Environment .................................................................10
1.3 The current housing stock in the UK..............................................................12
2. Literature Review ................................................................................................14
2.1 Old building vs. New building ........................................................................14
2.2 Climate change and buildings ........................................................................16
2.3 Retrofit strategies ..........................................................................................17
2.4 Economics in building retrofits ......................................................................19
2.5 Construction of Victorian house buildings ....................................................21
2.6 Case studies of retrofitted buildings of this period in the UK .......................23
3. Methodology .......................................................................................................27
3.1 Introduction and Overview of the methods ..................................................27
3.2 The retrofit standards ....................................................................................28
3.3 Tools used in the study (IES VE software) .....................................................31
3.4 Case study building ........................................................................................32
3.5 Setting up the simulation...............................................................................35
4. Results and Analysis ............................................................................................40
4.1 Initial results of the case study building ........................................................40
4.2 Testing retrofit solutions ...............................................................................40
4.2.1 The selection of insulation materials......................................................41
4.2.2 The construction based on PassivHaus standards..................................43
4.2.3 The construction based on L1B standards..............................................46
4.2.4 The construction based on L1A standards .............................................48
4.3 Results of the tests (Energy and CO2 savings) ...............................................51
4.4 Considering the cost of retrofit .....................................................................53
4.5 Applying renewable energy system ...............................................................56
4.6 Final cost and savings ....................................................................................57
5. Discussion ............................................................................................................60
5.1 Recommendations for the researched Victorian house................................60
5.2 General recommendations ............................................................................60
5.3 Limitations of the study .................................................................................61
6. Conclusions ..........................................................................................................63
References ................................................................................................................65
APPENDIX A- Plans, sections and construction of the house .................................71
APPENDIX B- Energy calculations ............................................................................81
APPENDIX C- Cost calculations ................................................................................82
APPENDIX D- Savings calculations...........................................................................88
APPENDIX E- Declaration of my own work .............................................................89

4
EVDOKIA ANGELI AUGUST 2017

List of Figures
Fig. 1.1: The percentage of UK CO2 emissions for each category (Source: CIBSE, 2012)
.....................................................................................................................................11
Fig. 2.1: The embodied CO2 of the materials. Bulk materials such as concrete and
steel have high embodied CO2 and thus are not normally replaced in retrofits (Source:
Baker, 2009) ................................................................................................................15
Fig. 2.2: Recommended improvements (Source: Energy Saving Trust, 2007) ............18
Fig. 2.3: The percentage of a typical domestic use in 2009 (Source: McCloghnrie,
2009) ...........................................................................................................................18
Fig. 2.4: The number of CO2 emissions produced by the processes of demolition,
refurbishment and new build over the years (Source: Baker, 2009) ..........................20
Fig. 2.5: Results from a retrofit applied to a 3-bedroom semi-detached house (Source:
Dowson et al., 2012) ...................................................................................................21
Figure 3.1: Front and back facade of the Victorian terraced house and the one
researched ...................................................................................................................33
Figure 3.2: Ground and first floor plan organization ..................................................34
Figure 3.3: Section of the Victorian terraced house ...................................................34
Figure 3.4: The IES VE model as it was designed ........................................................35
Figure 3.5: The Methodology showing the order of the different steps/tests for this
research.......................................................................................................................37
Figure 3.6: Pitched roof detail ....................................................................................39
Figure 3.7: Internal ceiling detail ................................................................................39
Figure 3.8: Wall detail.................................................................................................39
Figure 3.9: Ground floor .............................................................................................39
Figure 4.1.: PassivHaus wall .......................................................................................44
Figure 4.2: PassivHaus ground floor detail .................................................................44
Figure 4.3: PassivHaus internal ceiling detail .............................................................45
Figure 4.4: PassivHaus pitched roof details ................................................................45
Figure 4.5: L1B standard wall detail ...........................................................................46
Figure 4.6: L1B standard ground floor detail..............................................................47
Figure 4.7: L1B standard internal ceiling detail ..........................................................47
Figure 4.8: L1B standard pitched roof detail ..............................................................48
Figure 4.9: L1A standard wall detail ...........................................................................49
Figure 4.10: L1A standard ground floor detail ...........................................................49
Figure 4.11: L1A standard internal ceiling detail ........................................................50
Figure 4.12: L1A standard pitched roof detail ............................................................50
Figure 4.13: The percentages of heat loss for an un-insulated house (Source:
McMullan, 2007) .........................................................................................................52
Figure 4.14: The results of the energy consumption reduction for every standard ...52
Figure 4.15: The results of the carbon emission reduction for every standard ..........53

5
 AUGUST 2017

Figure 4.16: The results of calculating the cost of retrofit using the different
standards ....................................................................................................................54
Figure 4.17: The results total thickness for insulation used in each standard ...........54
Figure 4.18: Comparisons between the results of the different tests ........................57
Figure 4.19: Comparisons between the final carbon savings .....................................57
Figure 4.20: Economical overview of the L1B model ..................................................59

6
 AUGUST 2017

List of Tables

Table 1.1: The number of the British hard-to-treat dwellings (Source: Dowson et al.,
2012) ...........................................................................................................................12
Table 3.1: PassivHaus Standard/EnerPHit Standard certification requirements
(Source: PHI,2015).......................................................................................................29
Table. 3.2: Building standards (Source: PHI,2015; HM Government ,2016a and
2016b) .........................................................................................................................30
Table 3.3: The existing construction of the elements, as applied to the IES VE model ..
.....................................................................................................................................38
Table 4.1: The energy and carbon emission results from the existing house testing.....
.....................................................................................................................................40
Table 4.2: Comparison between different insulation materials (Berge, 2009) ..........42
Table 4.3: PassivHaus wall construction.....................................................................44
Table 4.4: PassivHaus wall construction.....................................................................44
Table 4.5: PassivHaus internal ceiling construction ...................................................45
Table 4.6: PassivHaus pitched roof construction ........................................................45
Table 4.7: PassivHaus windows and doors constructions ..........................................46
Table 4.8: L1B standard wall construction. ................................................................46
Table 4.9: L1B standard ground floor construction ....................................................47
Table 4.10: L1B standard internal ceiling construction ..............................................47
Table 4.11: L1B standard pitched roof construction ..................................................48
Table 4.12: L1B standard windows and doors construction.......................................48
Table 4.13: L1A standard wall construction ...............................................................49
Table 4.14: L1A standard ground floor construction ..................................................49
Table 4.15: L1A standard internal ceiling construction ..............................................50
Table 4.16 L1A standard pitched roof construction ...................................................50
Table 4.17: L1A standard windows and doors roof construction ...............................51
Table 4.18: Percentages of the improvements in energy and carbon emissions
reduction of every test ................................................................................................51
Table 4.19: Comparisons between the results of different tests ................................55
Table 4.20: Comparisons between the final carbon savings ......................................58

7
 AUGUST 2017

“A change that is not an improvement is a degradation.”

Adolf Loos

8
 AUGUST 2017

1. Introduction

1.1 Aims and objectives of the research

The motivation for researching retrofit strategies came from an interest in

deepening the knowledge of treatments used to improve the energy performance of
existing buildings. Having researched this issue, it appeared that there are significant
differences between the methods used for working on a new building, as opposed to
converting. Designing and building a new house requires making decisions from
scratch, whereas retrofitting an existing dwelling requires adaption in order to create
solutions. Regarding adaption, the basic design decisions, such as the orientation,
plan organization, and so forth, have been already resolved.

When aiming to provide a more geographically broad definition for the term
“retrofit”, it was the Modern Movement that forced people to dissociate themselves
from the building stock (Fisch et al., 2009). The result was the erection of new
houses, new towns, and eventually new societies. Additionally, World War 2 assisted
in making new towns viable all over the Europe. Noticeable was the fact that if
societies continued following this path, they would run the risk of losing traits from
their past (Fisch et al., 2009).

In the UK, there is a significant amount of housing stock which is reflective of the
country’s culture and history. The importance of retaining the existing buildings,
especially the most characteristic ones, is undeniable. Initially, working on the
building stock demands an understanding of it, through identifying and assessing its’
structure and position (Fisch et al., 2009). By doing this, it is possible for the designer
to apply their personal attitude towards the building, which is an essential step in
structuring the design approach. This position should be related to the modern
standards, based on the present political and social happenings, costs, constructions
and environmental issues (Fisch et al., 2009).

This study focuses on the identification of the parameters used for sustainable
retrofit of Victorian dwellings in the UK, aiming to address reducing their energy
consumption and CO2 emissions. The main point of interest is the specification of the
environmentally friendly alterations that should occur in order to improve
occupant’s comfort, while maintaining the aesthetic value of cities and helping their
future existence. A research of a Victorian terraced- house is adopted, examining the
relationship that the fabric-first approach has with the reduction of its energy
consumption and CO2 emissions.

9
 AUGUST 2017

The main objectives of this research are:

 To examine several retrofit alternatives by testing solutions based on

different standards, seeking which combination is the most worthwhile
overall solution.

 To reveal the potential benefit that retrofit of the Victorian house will have
on energy consumption, CO2 emissions and thermal comfort, and estimate
the economic viability of the retrofit project.

 To identify robust solutions that outline the specific needs which Victorian
houses have, and the potential levels which they can reach.

1.2 The role of the Built Environment

Some of the most significant challenges of the 21rst century are the climate change
phenomenon and its consequences, in combination with a growing population
leading to increases in energy demand. There are many sectors that are responsible
for high energy consumption. The built environment is recognised as a major
contributor, while the amount of energy consumed during the construction and
operation of the building has been presented as the largest globally. According to
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014, buildings consumed 32% of
global energy in 2010 (Carbon Trust, 2012). In the UK, the building sector contributes
to 45% of the total energy consumption (Roberts, 2008b).

The total energy consumption by the domestic sector is crucial. The National
statistics for energy consumption in the UK, as reported in 2015 by the department
of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, showed that the domestic sector
consumed 29% of the total energy, second only to transportation which accounted
for 40% (BEIS, 2017). Moreover, domestic sector emitted the 26% of the UK carbon
emissions (Fig.1.1). The domestic sector was reported as being most susceptible to
temperature fluctuations, as both space and water heating recorded roughly 80% of
the final energy consumption (BEIS, 2017).

10
 AUGUST 2017

UK carbon emissions
1%
Transportation
4%
Domestic buildings
14%
33%
Industrial process

Commercial and Public

22%
buildings
Industrial buildings
26%
Agriculture

Fig. 1.1: The percentage of UK CO2 emissions for each category (Source: CIBSE, 2012).

A legally binding Act of Parliament, introduced in 2008, aimed to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions. More specifically, it set a target of a 34% reduction by 2020 and at
least 80% reduction by 2050 (Baeli, 2013). Τhe UK Department of Energy and Climate
Change (DECC) identified that in 2009, 38% of the UK’s total CO2 emissions came
from “buildings in use” and, more relevantly, that 28% are directly associated with
“residential building in use” (Palmer et al., 2011).

Of the homes that people will inhabit in 2050, roughly four out of five will inhabit the
same home as they do now (Palmer et al., 2006). In the UK, there are around 24
million homes and it is expected that at least 22 million will still stand in 2050, were
the highest estimated demolition rate of two million over a 40 year period to occur
(Power, 2008). Also, a building rate of 200,000 homes per year may potentially add
nine million homes by 2050 (Power, 2008). Thus, 70% of homes will already be built
by this time, which may result in reduced energy efficiency as the building stock is
older (Power, 2008).

There is evidence that it is possible to improve the energy performance of existing

homes, which would reach the high standards of a new build. This entails a reduction
of energy in use by more than 60% (SDC, 2007). The data, discussed in “Review of
the Sustainability of Existing Buildings” (DCLG, 2006) showed that in the UK, 6.1
million homes lacked an adequate thickness of insulation, 8.5 million homes had
cavity walls that were un-insulated, and that there was the potential to insulate 7.5
million homes which have solid external walls. Overall, these three measures alone
have the potential to save 8.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year (Thorpe,
2010). With the need to make cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, processes such as
low-carbon retrofitting have a long, but absolutely necessary, way to go.

11
 AUGUST 2017

1.3 The current housing stock in the UK

The housing stock in the UK is quite recognizable as it presents a strong identity and
also cultural significance for both British people and people across the world (Baeli,
2013). More than half (55%) the number of existing dwellings in the UK date from
before 1960 (Baeli, 2013) (Table 1.1). The construction of the existing buildings
proves the beliefs that people had. More specifically, it is obvious that they were
built at a time when the use of fossil fuels, emitting greenhouse gases, and the
expectation of climate change were not taken into consideration across the planet.
Thus, there was no concern of retaining heat efficiently well when designing the
building fabric of these houses (Baeli, 2013). A characteristic example of this was
shown in the UK during the 1970s. An average indoor temperature of 120C during
winter months saw occupants adapt to the low temperatures by adjusting their
clothes, in order to avoid paying high energy costs (Palmer et al., 2011). This was
before gas powered central heating systems were introduced (Roberts, 2008a).

England Scotland Wales N. Ireland Total

(m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
Total number 21 2.3 1.3 0.7 25.3
of dwellings
Solid walls 6.5 0.7 0.1 0.1 7.5
No loft space 1.5 unknown unknown unknown ~2
High rise 0.4 0.5 unknown unknown ~1.5
Off gas grid 2.7 0.3 0.5 0.5 2.7
Total 9 0.7 0.5 0.5 ~10.3
hard-to-treat
dwellings

Table 1.1: The number of the British hard-to-treat dwellings (Source: Dowson et al., 2012).

Nowadays, a comfort preference range of roughly 23-250C exists. Also, the amount
of activities which consume energy in the built environment have drastically
changed. Rising levels of greenhouses gases, mainly being CO2, have increasingly
becoming a concern for most of the worlds’ governments. The UK government has
recognised this concern and actions have been taken. The UK building regulations
handle issues such as the thermal efficiency of the building stock. Although the first
mandatory building regulations were introduced across the UK between 1964 and
1967, they mainly referred to public health issues. Later, after the energy crisis in
1973, these standards were revised in order to limit heat losses through walls, roofs
and floors in new homes (Dowson et al., 2012).

12
 AUGUST 2017

The British housing stock is considered as one of the oldest in Europe (Baeli, 2013).
The stock includes 13 million dwellings built before 1960, of which 4.7 million were
built before 1919, and they are the least energy-efficient housing types of all (Baeli,
2013). There are huge differences between the energy consumption of 480 kWh/
m2/yr for a Victorian house, for example, compared with the most recent post-1990
dwellings which are almost half this figure (DCLG, 2009). This comparison can be
easily explained by the fact that designers obtained a better understanding
throughout the years, through becoming familiar with building physics. Furthermore,
this deepening knowledge lead to alterations occurring when constructing walls, as
well as a gradual need for limitations on the energy efficiency of buildings thermal
envelopes being introduced (Baeli, 2013).

13
 AUGUST 2017

2. Literature Review

2.1 Old building vs. New building

The decision between retrofitting an existing building or demolishing it and building

a new one is quite crucial. The term “retrofit of a building” refers to the process of
adapting it in order to meet the current standards (Fisch et al., 2009). This can be
either due to changes occurred in users’ needs or new technical regulations (Fisch et
al., 2009). The process of the retrofitting requires the understanding of both the
current and historical building methods. The main point of focus is the technical side
of the building and not the architectural interpretation. This opinion can easily be
explained by the fact that the major part of the architecture has been completed
(Fisch et al., 2009). At this time, the task of the planner is mainly to apply the
suitable techniques in order to either reduce or solve the technical problems of the
existing building (Fisch et al., 2009). Furthermore, other responsibilities focus on the
continuing use of the building; ensuring the financial investment to avoid
dilapidation and to ensure that they are still representative of the British cultural
identity (Baeli, 2013). Also of significant importance is the need to provide an
adequate level of indoor comfort and quality of life to the 18% of all householders
falling into fuel poverty, most of whom live in the least efficient housing stock (Baeli,
2013).

When it comes to creating a new building or retrofitting an existing one there are
many arguments for both sides (Thorpe, 2010). This dilemma does not have a clear-
cut answer, as there are many parameters that play a significant role. These are the
quality and efficiency of the replacement building, its embodied carbon level and the
cost of energy in the future, amongst others (Baeli, 2013). Nevertheless, the overall
balance seems to lean towards retrofitting as being considered a preferable option
than demolish-and-rebuild for a number of reasons that are presented below.

First of all, judging the situation from a social point of view, retrofit is definitely
considered to be a more acceptable strategy than a complete rebuild. This is
especially true in cases where a complete relocation is likely to be of paramount
importance (Power, 2008). By focusing on problems and addressing every issue “in
situ”, a boost could be provided for existing communities to adapt revitalisation
schemes that are highly needed. Moreover, this helps people to deal with the
increasing fuel prices. The effects on their health are therefore limited, due to a
better standard of living assisting them in avoiding adverse fuel poverty scenarios. A
household is considered to be in fuel poverty if its’ occupants have to spend more
than 10% of their income on necessary services such as heating, lighting and cooking

14
 AUGUST 2017

(Dowson et al., 2012). In the UK, more than 66% of the “hard-to-treat” households
are suffering from fuel poverty (Beaumont, 2007).

Furthermore, from an environmental aspect, retrofits are proven to have a lower

impact. All the materials carry an embodied energy and the replacement of them can
cause an increase in carbon emissions (Thorpe, 2010). In parallel, the process of
demolition and waste disposal themselves create carbon emissions and other types
of waste disposal impacts (Fig. 2.1). By not requiring the energy which is associated
with new build materials and construction, retrofitting could assist in an initial saving
of 35 tonnes of CO2 per property (Thorpe, 2010). This number can easily be
explained by the fact that new homes are each responsible for 50 tonnes of CO2 ,
while the retrofitted ones account for just 15 tonnes (Thorpe, 2010).

Fig. 2.1: The embodied CO2 of the materials. Bulk materials such as concrete and steel have high
embodied CO2 and thus are not normally replaced in retrofits (Source: Baker, 2009).

Moreover, it could also help address the increasing scarcity of materials and
pressure on land availability across the country (Power, 2008). Some of the biggest
environmental phenomena today are the demolition and the exhaustion of available
landfill sites. Around 30% of the total waste by volume occurs by demolition and
building (Power, 2008). In addition, creating a new building has other environmental
consequences such as the transportation impact that the huge volume of materials
asserts, the use of toxic materials, and the overall pollution (Power, 2008).

Another consideration presents that encouraging the industry to improve the

necessary skills and technologies to support the retrofits, it creates a long-term
employment (Baker, 2009). This social benefit exists as retrofit shows a higher
proportion of labour costs than a rebuild. Since retrofit refers to repairing the

15
 AUGUST 2017

structure of the building, the available money will go to tradesmen and not concrete
and steel manufactures (Baker, 2009).

From a cultural point of view, some of the existing properties in protected traditional
streets and homes are part of the wider target of preserving the built environment, a
process known as “characterization” (English Heritage, 2006). The role of English
Heritage is to preserve, renovate and restore the older properties (Power, 2008).
There is great upgrading potential for older buildings, where their significance
consists of the necessity to maintain them through the ages.

From a communal point of view, the demand of higher density leads to creating
smaller households so that population density falls (Power, 2008). However, smaller
houses consume more energy and occupy more space, thus leading to an increase in
their environmental impact (Office of Climate Change, 2007). By leading people to
occupy houses, such as the existing terraced ones which go beyond this density,
there are many privileges for both the individuals and local communities. Many of
these are to do with the social integration, the minimization of isolation by the
supporting mixed uses, the encouragement of local shopping, and the reduction of
energy use in transport (Power, 2008).

The aforementioned aspects consider the major social, economic and environmental
benefits of the retrofit of an existing house, compared to demolition and rebuild. It
appears that dealing with the inefficiency of the building stock by providing more
adequate and responsible living spaces seems to be a significant part in achieving the
CO2 emission reduction. However, this is not only a matter of limiting damage from
the adverse effects of climate change, but it is also a much wider opportunity for the
society to become more sustainable as a whole (Baeli, 2013). Despite the fact that
many of the arguments remain unclear, the overall balance suggests that retrofit
achieves significantly more than demolition, in terms of time, cost, and the
prevention of sprawl by protecting the existing communities and reusing the existing
infrastructure (Power, 2008).

2.2 Climate Change and buildings

An unanswered question exists regarding whether buildings can afford the future
impact that climate change will have or not. Even where current or near future
conditions are concerned, many of the houses that are recently constructed are
considered as being unsuitable to be occupied, and possible alterations can have a
significantly high cost (Power, 2008). An examination over 20 years presented
records which showed that the construction and the materials used in pre-1970
properties were more resistant to damage that the newer ones (Power, 2008). This
suggests the possibilities which can occur during retrofitting of such dwellings, since

16
 AUGUST 2017

their materials proved to be long lasting and more reliably able to cope with extreme
weather conditions (Roaf et al., 2005).

Looking to the future, climate change will possibly cause alterations in people’s
thermal comfort needs. Nowadays, little attention is given to phenomena such as
the impacts of overheating in the older buildings, since the expectation is that higher
temperatures will be in need of cooling. Predictions assume that it will be a
requirement to install active cooling systems in the buildings, and this will create a
higher overall energy expenditure (Holmes et al., 2007). Nevertheless, since
everything is based on predictions, it is quite difficult to quantify the requirement
(Ravetz, 2008; Roberts, 2008b).

2.3 Retrofitted Strategies

Before analysing the retrofitted strategies, it is important to clarify the term

“retrofit”. This is usually connected with terms such as renovations and
refurbishments, but retrofit has a more constructional approach which involves the
introduction of new materials, products, and equipment in a building targeting to
reduce its energy use (Baeli, 2013). On the other hand, the terms “renovation” and
“refurbishment” are referring to the acts of repairing and aesthetically enhancing a
building (Baeli, 2013).

When it comes to retrofit, there is no one size fits to all solution. Different retrofit
approaches can be applied for different countries according to a variety of
circumstances such as housing type, ownership pattern, energy mix and climate
(Thorpe, 2010). In the UK, where the energy supply mix has a high level of built-in
carbon, low carbon criteria are presented as being a priority in building regulations
(Thorpe, 2010).

In order to provide suitable strategies for turning an energy-hungry dwelling into an

efficient home, it is quite important to look at the source of energy that every house
uses. The total energy used throughout the lifetime of a building comprises of:
 Energy used in construction
 Energy used to refurbish and maintain a building
 Energy used to run and live in the building
Energy used to dispose of the building at the end of its useful life (Thorpe,
2010)

17
 AUGUST 2017

In a typical house, the source that requires the most energy is heating, which
represents approximately 58% of the total energy use (McCloghrie, 2009) (Fig. 2.3).
Thus, in order to be more effective, a retrofit strategy should set reducing the
space/heating demand as the prime target, by implementing a plan which increases
the capacity of the building fabric and services to retain the heat in the building
more efficiently. This is achieved by retrofitting low heat transfer elements which are
capable of stopping heat from escaping. Essentially, this happens by applying
insulation layers on external walls, ground floors and roofs, as well as by upgrading
the windows and doors, paying extra attention to the air-tightness to limit draughts
and heat loss (Fig. 2.2.). This approach is known as “fabric-first”. Were these
measures to be applied properly in regards to all the buildings’ structural elements,
then retrofit can achieve better results than a new build (Power, 2008).

Typical Domestic use

3%

16%
Space heating

Water heating

23% 58% Lighting and appliances

Cooking

Fig. 2.3: The percentage of a typical domestic use in 2009 (Source: McCloghnrie, 2009).

Fig. 2.2: Recommended improvements (Source: Energy Saving Trust, 2007).

18
 AUGUST 2017

A study by the Building Research Establishment (Shorrock et al., 2005), aiming to

analyse the CO2 reduction within existing UK houses, presented some measures that
appeared more beneficial than others. More specifically, the outcomes showed that
insulated solid walls performed far better than insulated cavity ones (Dowson et al.,
2012). This result is logical since the U-value of the former is comparably lower, and
there are no restrictions on the thickness of the insulation, as opposed to cavity
walls (Dowson et al., 2012). Furthermore, Roberts (2008a) claims that by insulating
the cavity wall, a reduction of 40% of heat loss can be achieved. A 50-80% reduction
can be attained through insulating roofs and walls of an older, un-insulated building.
For both cases, in order to count the real savings, there is a need to know the actual
heat that was lost through the fabric (Dowson et al., 2012).

In general terms, although retrofitting approaches vary, it is necessary to understand

that the science of climate change is not precise and the future climate is uncertain.
Every solution should be “durable, reliable and holistic” (Thorpe, 2010). The homes
need not only be redesigned to reduce their carbon impact, but also to protect
themselves from future climate extremes (flooding, hotter or cold weather etc.) and
provide a comfortable living to occupants (Thorpe, 2010).

2.4 Economics in building retrofits

As far as the economical aspect of retrofit is concerned, it is considered that by

changing the insulation and glazing of an existing building, it can easily achieve a
reduction of 30-40% for heating/cooling energy use in many buildings (Thorpe,
2010). In addition, with extra effort, savings of 80% can also be achieved (Thorpe,
2010). Nevertheless, while retrofitting is about reducing the energy consumption, it
is noticeable that sometimes after a low energy retrofit is carried out the expected
lower energy consumption is not found, and bills continue to be quite high. A
justification for this is the fact that residents cannot change their habits easily and
they continue turning on the heating to enjoy high levels of thermal comfort
(Thorpe, 2010).

Talking about savings, it is often argued that the energy performance of a new
building is higher than a retrofitted building, and it is possible that it will have less of
an environmental impact during its lifetime (Fig. 2.4). Retrofitting homes with the
aim of achieving the 80% CO2 reduction would cost approximately £30,000 to
£100,000, depending on the property (Thorpe, 2010). This money may not be
available immediately. Furthermore, if a house is unoccupied, it can be gutted and a
whole retrofit can be easily completed. If it remains habitated, limited work can be
done, but the key point is that any work should not exclude future work, plans
should keep this in mind and help realise them (Thorpe, 2010).

19
 AUGUST 2017

Fig. 2.4: The number of CO2 emissions produced by the processes of demolition, refurbishment and
newbuild over the years (Source: Baker, 2009).

Since retrofit is an overall effective solution, there should be strong motivations to

encourage people to take up retrofitting processes for their homes. Loan schemes,
known as “pay-as-you-save”, aim to entice people into retrofitting. This is achieved
by offering money that may be repaid from the resulting savings. These are shown as
being quite risky, however, as the savings from alterations may not be substantial
enough to meet loan repayments (Baeli, 2013). Thus, it is necessary to alter the
method of calculating the benefit of thermal insulation since the economic value of
insulation is usually characterized by the payback it has. This relationship is not linear
if somebody considers increasing insulation gradually. The running costs are reduced
but the capital costs increase (Baeli, 2013). In the Figure 2.5 (Dowson et al., 2012),
the capital cost of different retrofitted methods is compared to the estimated energy
savings, derived from a reduced heating bill the (Shorrock et al., 2005). Finally, the
Cost Efficient Passive Houses as European Standards (CEPHEUS) supports that once a
certain standard is achieved, lifetime operational costs fall while there is no extra
heating demand, and the heating system will no longer be required (Thorpe, 2010).

20
 AUGUST 2017

Fig. 2.5: Results from a retrofit applied to a 3-bedroom semi-detached house (Source: Dowson et al.,
2012).

2.5 Construction of the Victorian house buildings

19th century Britain saw a period where the construction of houses flourished
(Johnson, 1984). It is considered that at least one third of UK dwellings were erected
before 1919 (Baeli, 2013). The period between 1801 and 1911 saw 6 million houses
being erected and, from them, more than 2.5 million were built between the years
1870 and 1911 (Johnson, 1984). Victorian houses were the style erected between
1837 and 1901. While the construction techniques for domestic houses did not show
a significant alteration before the end of the World War I, all the houses built
between 1837 and 1919 are considered as ‘Victorian’ (Johnson, 1984). A radical
alteration in the materials and the methods used in the construction of the houses
occurred after 1919 (Johnson, 1984).

Although Victorian buildings are easily identifiable, huge varieties have shown
different forms of construction. The reason for this is that during the period there
was a mass production and transportation of different building materials which
encouraged builders to try a number of different techniques (Johnson, 1984).
Moreover, developments in construction were shown in terms of the sanitation,
natural lighting and ventilation of the Victorian homes. Although, there is plenty of
different styles that are characterised as Victorian buildings (Vernacular, Gothic
Revival, Italianate, Arts and Crafts, etc.), most of these buildings seem to have a
square, solid look (Johnson, 1984).

For the construction of Victorian houses, the use of brick was mainly shown as the
ultimate material choice. However, there are cases, such as in the city of Bath, where
local stone was used in order to provide an aesthetic harmony with the older
buildings (Buildingsurveying.info, 2017). The front elevation of Victorian buildings
21
 AUGUST 2017

was commonly built in red brick and with a great amount of decoration. The wall
construction of many Victorian buildings is solid, and cavity walls which use cast iron
wall ties were also created at this time (Buildingsurveying.info, 2017). The use of
damp proofing became mandatory in the 1870s. This was achieved by using slate or
sackcloth soaked in bitumen, which resulted in varying effectiveness. As far as the
windows are concerned, the production of plate glass helped in creating larger sizes.
This benefitted through lighting the houses naturally and also providing ventilation
(Building surveying, 2017). In the early years, heating was achieved by the use of coal
fires, and the introduction and use of heating systems came quite a while later
(Building surveying, 2017).

Across the UK, the Victorian housing stock is considered to be the most energy-
hungry (Baeli, 2013). Opinions vary on the future of this type of building. According
to Boardman (2007), in order to reach the 2050 CO2 reduction target, more than
800,000 of the most ‘leaky’ pre-1919 homes must be removed. On the contrary,
Ravetz (2008) claims that the older and worst performing building stock should not
be immediately characterised as inefficient, as there is great potential to
improvements through retrofitting processes. This can easily be understood by the
fact that a Victorian terraced house with a small footprint can have a lower heat loss
factor than a detached bungalow from the 1960s (Dowson et al., 2012). This means
that the Victorian house will need lower thickness of insulation for the same total
heat loss (Baeli, 2013).

Nevertheless, where retrofitting is considered, it is quite significant to treat the

houses of this period with care, as removing or hiding the characteristics of the
Victorian features impoverishes the general environment and the interest of the
individual householder wishing to preserve his property (Johnson, 1984). According
to Beaumont (2007) although it seems possible to insulate all British solid walled
homes, when it comes to external insulation there are restrictions for its application,
either in listed dwellings or those in conservation areas. Since 300,000 British
dwellings are listed as protected, and a further 1.2 million are placed in conservation
areas, consisting almost a quarter of all pre- 1919 dwellings, their retrofit processes
is considered crucial (Beaumont, 2007; Boardman et al., 2005).

22
 AUGUST 2017

2.6 Case studies of retrofitted buildings of this period in the UK

Examples of retrofitted houses within the UK can provide valuable information about
the lessons learnt, based on the most suitable strategies and techniques for each
case. The post- occupancy evaluation method of retrofitted houses is crucial as it
provides feedback to the designers about successes and failures of projects,
highlighting what must be avoided or what works better. Furthermore, by evaluating
retrofit projects, designers could specify the techniques of how to deal with every
type of house, construction and location.

The case studies below present four pre-1919 houses from the UK, and show
strategies dealing with different conditions and needs of the houses. In the
‘Residential Retrofit’ (Baeli, 2013), there are many examples of retrofit houses within
the UK, categorized by date and type. Some of them (where insulation is placed
internally due to restrictions of being in an area of conservation) are used as the
exemplar buildings. The investigation wishes to judge the effectiveness of their
retrofit process based on the materials proposed, the targets set, the limitation of
space and the economical aspect of every case. The cases that see the retrofit issues
being successfully handled will be used further in the research of this dissertation.

PassivHaus retrofit
Location: Princedale Road in Holland Park, West London

This house was certified as the UK’s first domestic PassivHaus retrofit (EnerPHit did
not exist) (Dowson et al., 2012). The property was a typical mid- 19th century London
terraced house and was in need of significant update as the state of repair was very
poor. The strategy used mainly implemented techniques such an introducing internal
insulation with an air-tight barrier, triple glazed windows, a MVHR system, an
exhaust air heat pump, and hot water storage and solar thermal panels. The
retrofitted property had no gas boiler or radiators (Dowson et al., 2012).

Located in a conservation area, there were restrictions about the external insulation
and new glazing. The rethinking of the windows was quite critical since the new
windows should have been as similar as possible to the old Victorian single-glazed
sash windows, in order not to not change the homogeneity of the street and also
achieve the PassivHaus targets (Baeli, 2013). Since there were no windows like
these, the contractor of the project and the client agreed on producing them (Baeli,
2013).

23
 AUGUST 2017

The whole fabric strategy was focused on the internal insulation continuity and the
air-tightness layer. This focus led to the removal of the internal floors and chimney
breasts, which are areas that run the risk of creating thermal bridge effects in the
joist ends and avoiding both insulation and air-tightness to create an unbroken layer
in the whole building (Baeli, 2013). This was undeniably a necessary move in order to
achieve the PassivHaus criteria of free thermal bridge design, airtight envelope and
low space heat demand (Baeli, 2013).

From the energy metrics and the post-occupancy evaluation of the retrofitted
building, it was found that the energy decreased to 128kWh/m2/yr, which was
almost half of its pre-retrofitted energy (Baeli, 2013). It also achieved all the targets
that were set for air-tightness, heat demand, and CO2 emissions. This project was
part of a programme that looked at Victorian houses that have similar layouts but
were constructed differently, and are located very close to each other. The post-
occupancy evaluation of these dwellings showed that the PassivHaus had a final
energy of 63 kWh/m2/yr and the typical house (no insulation, single glazing) had 366
kWh/m2/yr. This proves that the PassivHaus consumed 83% less final energy than a
typical one (Baeli, 2013).

Limitation of the internal area/ not interrupting occupants

Location: The Shaftesbury Park Estate, London Borough of Wandsworth

This L-shaped mid-terraced property dates from the 1870’s and it is placed in a
conservation area (Baeli, 2013). It was constructed with a solid brick wall and a
pitched roof. The strategy for the retrofit was to reduce heat demand by placing
insulation internally in the front and applying a mix of internal and external
insulation at the rear, roof and floor insulation, solar thermal panels and an exhaust
air heat pump system (Baeli, 2013).

One of the main characteristics of this case study was the request of the occupants
to remain in situ while the retrofitting was carried out. This led in finding solutions in
insulating the suspended ground floor without removing the existing floorboards
(Baeli, 2013). The solution for this was to fill the void of the floor with polystyrene
beads, an insulation material with very good thermal conductivity (0.038 W/m*K).

Considering insulation materials for the walls, the front façade was insulated
internally with aerogel (Baeli, 2013). This material was selected due to its low
thermal conductivity number (0.013 W/mK) and thus the room area would not be
minimized by much. Nevertheless the cost for this material was quite high. The new
windows were double-glazed at the front of the house, and triple-glazed at the rear.
Both types had trickle ventilators within them in order to provide natural ventilation

24
 AUGUST 2017

internally (Baeli, 2013). The difference in the types of windows used occurred due to
the need to satisfy planning restrictions for the triple-glazed windows, since they
would otherwise have changed the view of the building.

Although the MVHR unit was initially considered, finally the idea was rejected as the
unit would have minimized the internal area of the house and there were
considerations that the airtightness levels would not be sufficient to justify the cost
of the system (Baeli, 2013). The existing boiler of the house was retained and
embodied with the heat store system, with the latter being heated by solar thermal
panels.

The targets of this retrofit were successfully achieved. This project created solutions
in order to justify both the request of the client and also to address the specific
issues by providing economical and comfortable housing (Baeli, 2013). The solutions
provided the house with a significant extension of life, for another 100 years (Baeli,
2013).

Natural insulation materials

Location: Hawthorn Road, North London

The aim of the mid-terraced Edwardian house was to test different retrofitted
strategies and reduce the CO2 emissions by 80%. The modeling of the house helped
the architects understand from an early stage the property’s limitations in achieving
the full EnerPHit criteria as in many cases the solutions were neither practical nor
economical (Baeli, 2013). The strategies used included installing insulation either
internally or externally, triple-glazed windows, MVHR system and Rotex
“GasSolarUnit” system providing hot water (Baeli, 2013).

One of the main considerations for this retrofitted project was the selection of
natural and breathable materials. The reason behind this decision was the fact that
these materials are able to sequester carbon, they have low embodied energy, and
they are better at dealing with moisture (Baeli, 2013). More specifically, the front
walls were insulated with two layers of sheep wool within a timber frame structure.
Aiming to minimize the thermal bridging, a wood fibre board was placed in front of
the timber structure. This decision came at a cost while the room area was
significally minimized (Baeli, 2013). The rear facades were insulated externally with
EPS boards.

The primary energy for this retrofitted project failed to reach the target but this
probably happened due to the occupant’s post- retrofitted behaviour (Baeli, 2013).
Generally, the main issues addressed extensively in this project were the thermal

25
EVDOKIA ANGELI AUGUST 2017

bridging effects. Architects of this project used THERM modelling software to design
problematic structures in detail to minimize the cold bridging (Baeli, 2013).

Addressing the issue of minimizing the internal space

Location: Highfields, Leicester

The aim of the retrofit of the Victorian house was to reduce its high energy
consumption and to improve its thermal comfort. The fabric-first approach was
followed on the inside, since there were restrictions imposed due to being inside a
conservation area. This would result in minimizing the internal area of the house and
thus the team proposed extending the roof to enlarge the area, a decision that
added more value to the house (Baeli, 2013). The strategies followed in this retrofit
included internal insulation, triple-glazed windows, a small MVHR unit, and roof solar
panels.

Since the traditional construction of the loft space would have face many difficulties,
such as a probable four to five weeks’ work in uncertain weather conditions, a pre-
fabricated solution seemed to be the best option (Baeli, 2013). The only visible
difference of the new roof was the addition of a small window in order to provide
daylight and hopefully reduce the overheating phenomena. The ability of creating an
off-site solution under factory conditions helped in the precision of this project,
especially in terms of air-tightness and a reduction of the cold bridging phenomena
(Baeli, 2013). Furthermore, another benefit was the reduction in time spent
installing the new roof on the house, an action significant for the occupant’s comfort
throughout the whole retrofit process.

The results of this strategy showed the overall success of the project. The cost of the
retrofit was quite high however. This was reported as potentially being reducible
were more cost-saving attention given during the process. Nevertheless, creating a
solution off-site proved to be very accurate and beneficial in terms of the quality of
the retrofit and the occupants comfort during the process (Baeli, 2013).

26
EVDOKIA ANGELI AUGUST 2017

3. Methodology

3.1 Introduction and Overview of the methods

When retrofit process is considered for a home, there are many criteria that need to
be assessed before it starts. These criteria can include the reduction of the energy
demand and consumption, CO2 emissions saving, the amount of money that should
be spent, the health of the occupants depending on the materials chosen, the careful
organization of the retrofit process in order for people not to be disturbed, and the
possible alterations to architectural heritage. All of these issues present the multiple
approaches that retrofit can have. Further research on retrofit case studies has
shown outstanding results that designers have to take into consideration. An
example is the research done by Dr Stirling Howieson (2014), who has deeply
investigated links among indoor air quality, diseases and energy efficiency of
retrofitted homes.

Opinions vary when it comes to which targets retrofits should aim to improve. Many
people in the industry consider that retrofits should target a 60% carbon emission
reduction, while the remaining should count on the decarbonisation of the national
grid in order to reach the desired 80% total (Thorpe, 2010). On the other hand, there
are also those who wish for the CO2 targets to be replaced by an energy target
measured in kWh/m2/yr (Power, 2008). Regarding the cost of retrofitting, it is all a
matter of scale, and a rolling out on a larger scale will bring costs down (Baeli, 2013).
Finally, concerning the choices of low energy measurements for architectural
heritage buildings, many projects presented difficulties because of the restrictions
faced due to conservation area limitations (Baeli, 2013).

In this research, the criteria that would be further assessed are the energy saving
that has an immediate response to the reduction of the occupants’ heating bills. In
addition, it is presumably easy to notice that reducing the energy demand of the
house has an impact on the reduction of CO2 emissions too. The energy consumption
is dependent on the people’s comfort levels at home. Although there are many
factors that create comfort levels, in the research these will rely on the temperature
rates within the house. The change in energy consumption will happen by adapting
the ‘fabric-first approach’ and thus adding layers of insulation to the building
elements, in order for heat to be maintained internally.

Among the different types of Victorian homes (detached, semi-detached, terraced),

terraced houses are considered by the author as most likely to achieve the optimum
results. This derives from the geometry of the specific home as it has only two small
sides exposed to the outside environment and the longest are shared with the

27
 AUGUST 2017

adjoining houses. Thus, the amount of heat loss is limited compared to the other
building types. Moreover, as it is already mentioned in the literature review, there
are two different constructions of Victorian house walls, the cavity wall and the solid
wall. The biggest potential is presented on the solid wall construction (Dowson et al.,
2012), while there is no limitation for the thickness of the insulation (and possibly
the selection of the materials), the research will test solid walls.

3.2 The Retrofit Standards

Before starting to schedule the retrofit, it is significant to set the targets and make
decisions by following standards. Knowing the correct standards to follow is an
essential step, as it is the way that will lead to a successful retrofit. Otherwise, a
imprecise schedule can lead to unjustified expenditure without reaching the desired
results. There are many recommendations for which standard works best, either
from the government’s building regulations or the PassivHaus. Nevertheless, they
are proven to be very general, referring to every type of house despite its
construction.

Many retrofits across the UK use the PassivHaus standard as there is already a large
amount of experience with it, stemming from use in the German market (Dowson et
al., 2012). The basic PassivHaus principles are based on the creation of a super
insulated and airtight fabric with the use of whole house mechanical ventilation with
a heat recovery system. By using this approach there is minimum heat loss from the
fabric, while there is always fresh air and regulated humidity within the building
(Dowson et al., 2012). Most of the criteria that are presented by this standard are
referring to comfort rather than only energy demand (Dowson et al., 2012). The
“fabric-first” approach that is applied in the retrofits is set via these PassivHaus
standard criteria.

By understanding the difficulty that many projects face when trying to reach the
PassivHaus standard, a new energy performance standard was created for building
retrofits and launched in May 2011. This is known as the “EnerPHit Standard-Quality
Approved Energy Retrofit with Passive House Components” (Cotterell, Dadeby,
2012). The new standard provides targets and strategies that improve the thermal
comfort, the energy requirements, the cost-effectiveness and the structural
longevity of old buildings that cannot achieve the PassivHaus certification (PHI, 2013)
(Table 3.1). The PassivHaus/EnerPHit requirements can be achieved through the
implementation of the five design principles: quality insulation, superior windows,
free thermal bridge design, airtight construction, mechanical ventilation with heat
recovery system (PHI, 2013).

28
 AUGUST 2017

PassivHaus Standard EnerPHit Standard

Requirement Criterion Criterion
2
Specific Heating Demand ≤ 15 kWh/m /yr ≤ 25 kWh/m2/ yr
Specific Heating Load ≤ 10 W/m2/yr ≤ 10 W/m2/yr
Specific Cooling Demand ≤ 15kWh/m2/yr ≤ 25kWh/m2 /yr
Specific Primary Energy ≤ 120 kWh/m2/yr ≤ 120 kWh/m2/yr
Demand
Air Changes per Hour ≤ 0.6 @ 50 Pa ≤ 1.0 @ 50 Pa
Thermal Comfort ≤ 10% overheating hours/yr ≤ 10% overheating
hours/yr

Table 3.1: PassivHaus Standard/EnerPHit Standard certification requirements (Source: PHI,2015).

Another target can be set based on the UK basis of the “Retrofit for the Future”
programme. The ‘Retrofit for the Future’ is a programme funded by the government
that is aiming to achieve an 80% reduction on CO2 emissions when compared with
the 1990 standards (Technology Strategy Board, 2014). The space heating
requirements and all targets are set by comparing the findings based on
investigating retrofitted houses which are representatives of the UK existing
buildings stock (Technology Strategy Board, 2014).

Nevertheless, PassivHaus/EnerPHit is the standard that many retrofits are aiming to

achieve or at least approach. Compared to other standards such as the target of an
80% reduction (Retrofit for the Future), the PassivHaus standard is presented as an
absolute rather than a relative one (Thorpe, 2010). The 80% targeted reduction of
carbon does not consist of any baseline amount, so it can vary from property to
property (Thorpe, 2010). On the other hand, the PassivHaus standard presents a
measurable quantity of energy used per square metre which is quite practical
(Thorpe, 2010). Cases where PassivHaus reached its limit are due to the material
choices and the contextual criteria (Thorpe, 2010).

Moreover, government building regulations L1B and L1A have created baseline for
either building a new house or renovating an old one. The guidelines for the
construction of a new house (Building Regulations L1A) are becoming very strict in
recent years, and they are almost similar to those of the PassivHaus standard (Fig.
3.2). The L1A standards are emphasised in the roof and floor construction, proposing
an U-value lower than the PassivHaus, whereas the glazing components and the
doors are proposed with a bigger U-value. Concerning the Building Regulation L1b
for a renovated house, the proposed standards are quite higher regarding the
elements. This leads to questions about the level of energy and carbon emissions
which are saved, and also those which can be achieved through using the retrofit
standards as a guideline.

29
 AUGUST 2017

PassivHaus EnerPHit Standard Building Building

Standard Standards L1A Standards L1B
Design Limiting Value Limiting Value Limiting Value Limiting Value
Component
Walls ≤ 0.15 ≤ 0.15 (W/m2K) ≤ 0.30 (W/m2K) ≤ 0.18 (W/m2K)
(U-value) (W/m2K) external insulation external insulation
≤ 0.35 (W/m2K)
internal insulation
Roof- Floor ≤ 0.15 ≤ 0.15 (W/m2K) ≤ 0.18 (W/m2K) ≤ 0.13 (W/m2K)
(U-value) (W/m2K) roof
≤ 0.25 (W/m2K)
floor
Installed ≤ 0.85 ≤ 0.85 (W/m2K) ≤ 1.6 (W/m2K) ≤ 1.4 (W/m2K)
glazing (W/m2K)
Doors ≤ 0.8 (W/m2K) ≤ 0.8 (W/m2K) ≤ 1.8 (W/m2K) ≤ 1.0 (W/m2K)

Table. 3.2: Building standards (Source: PHI, 2015;HM Government ,2016a and 2016b).

Although many consider PassivHaus retrofit as being the best choice as far as the
final energy savings is concerned, the process is quite expensive to be carried out
without being interrupted and, moreover, in many cases it is impossible to be
achieved, including in EnerPHit standard. Since there are no specific requirements
for the Victorian houses, and additionally this type of house is the most energy
hungry, this research will test whether these levels can be achieved or not.

This dissertation will be based on changing thicknesses of materials and building

elements such as walls, roofs or floors (each viewed in isolation), and will show
connections with the impact on the limitation of discomfort hours and also to the
energy usage and CO2 emissions. The changes can only be considered for the inside
of the house, as external alternations or changes, such as changes in the sizes of
windows, would alter the form of the characteristic clay brick façade, leading
Victorian house to disappear from the urban landscape (Fisch et al., 2009). The
targets for this dissertation would be to achieve different U-values on the retrofitted
building elements, as they are proposed through the building regulations for existing
houses (L1B), the building regulations for new house (L1A) and the PassivHaus (Fig.
3.2). The same Victorian terraced house will be tested with the three different
standards, and after this comparisons will be drawn from the results, providing an
economical interpretation of the retrofit. The first changes which occur in the
external walls, ground floor, ceiling and roof are very basic steps for a successful
retrofit, and thus it should be designed very carefully.

30
 AUGUST 2017

3.3 Tools used in the study (IES VE software)

Dynamic Simulation is an essential tool in retrofit projects as presents a number of

different factors which can affect the researched models. In more detail, the
software provides data about how the building elements are responding to both
internal and external conditions (Jankovic, 2012).

IES VE software, which will be the tool for this research, is used worldwide as
simulation software which deals with the complexity of different measures on a
simplified 3D model. One prominent example of this is the fact that solar energy is
considered when calculating the internal gain of the building, giving a broad
approach to the results. Comparing this with other metric methods, PHP has no 3D
model capability and SAP is only suitable for existing UK dwellings. On the other
hand there are some drawbacks, as the software fails to provide numbers for the
embodied energy of the construction. Furthermore, it is not able to model thermal
bridging, phase change materials, evaporative cooling, and so forth (Jankovic, 2012).
For this research, the inability to model thermal bridging is the only one that can
have a negative impact in the accuracy of the results.

The main focus of this research is to judge the interaction between the different
insulation thicknesses and materials with the reduction of the energy consumption
and the associated cost implications. It is already known that lower U-values provide
better performances for the building. Aiming to reach low U-values means using
thicker layers of materials, and thus the cost of the construction is increased. At a
later stage, the economical investment of the retrofit will be compared to the cost of
retrofit, the money saved by the energy reductions, and the payback period. The
intention of the conclusions is to look at all tests in a broad way and use this analysis
to advice about the most suitable retrofit target for Victorian houses.

31
 AUGUST 2017

3.4 Case study building

The case study building is a 170 m2 Victorian-terraced house. The design and the
construction of the house present one which is typical of that with 2 floors and a
small yard in the back next to the kitchen. In the initial construction, no insulation is
placed on the 400mm masonry wall, floors or roof. The construction and the
dimensions of the building and the windows are considered by researching the
construction of Victorian buildings presented in the book “How to Restore Your
Victorian House” (Johnson, 1984) and also through looking at examples of retrofitted
Victorian terraced houses. The purpose of the design was to test a “typical terraced
house”. This term, used by the author, refers to the aim of testing the most basic
characteristics that the Victorian houses have, despite the variety of different forms
shown.

In order to create conditions and specify the external weather, the house is judged
as one typical of Edinburgh. Its orientation is set so that the front façade faces the
east, and so the duration for which the house will experience sunlight is optimal. This
leads to the highest solar energy gains from both facades during the day. Moreover,
it is significant to mention that Victorian houses used coal fires as the source of
heating and later most of them have updated by installing condensing boiler
radiators (Building surveying, 2017). In this case, the heating source for the research
is set as using a condensing boiler which consumes natural gas.

32
 AUGUST 2017

Figure 3.1: Front and back facade of the Victorian terraced house and the one researched

33
 AUGUST 2017

Figure 3.2: Ground and first floor plan organization.

wc Bedroom 2 Bedroom 1

Kitchen Living room

Figure 3.3: Section of the Victorian terraced house.

34
 AUGUST 2017

3.5 Setting up the simulation

Methods used in this research

After designing the test house directly in the IES VE (Fig. 3.4), there was need to
create profiles for the windows, occupancy, heating system, natural ventilation,
constructions and internal gains. Different constructions can be designed and
applied to different building elements. At this point, it is significant to specify that
the characteristic profiles, which all results that the simulation show, shall be based
on these initial settings.

Figure 3.4: The IES VE model as it was designed.

The profiles are set as follows below:

 Heating system: Condensing Boiler Radiator with an efficiency of 80%, set
point temperature of 170C
 Internal gains: For the set of the occupation profile for the room, domestic
guides for IES VE are used. Lighting: 10.76 Wm2 and with a profile used to
turn on the lights from 17:00-00:00 in an attempt to be as possible with the
total number of hours, Equipment: 4.31 Wm2 and the number of people is 5.
 Ventilation profiles: for the natural ventilation profiles it is considered that all
of the external windows are able to open when the internal conditions of the
room become unhealthy for the occupants. The unhealthy environment is
specified as temperature levels more than 240C or CO2 levels of more than
1000 ppm.

35
 AUGUST 2017

 Infiltration number: 0.25 ACH for the first test (old building) and then 0.05
ACH when a new construction is applied (new building).

After applying the profiles and running the first test, the simulation model would be
split into three different models testing different standards, based on U-values of the
PassivHaus and the Building Regulations L1B for renovations and L1A for new
houses. The approach will focus on the materials applied in the inside of the existing
Victorian house and the heating system and ventilation profiles will be the same as
the initial model standard for all the tests. This decision helps in creating more
reliable comparisons among the results. The organisation of carrying out this
research is presented through more detail in the graph below:

36
 AUGUST 2017

Figure 3.5: The Methodology showing the order of the different steps/tests for this research.

37
 AUGUST 2017

The existing construction of the walls, floors, ground floor and roof

First of all, it is important to specify the construction of the Victorian terraced house
in order to design it as being as accurate as possible. All the building elements are
shown initially as being un-insulated, and the windows are designed to be single-
glazed. The table below presents the construction in more detail, specifying the U-
value and the thickness of every building element.

Thickness Conductivity U-value

Existing Construction Materials
(mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m2*K)
External wall (fig. 3) Brick (1) 400 0.84 1.5475
Partition between
Brick 400 0.84 1.3583
houses
Plaster
Internal partition 30 0.16 0.9085
(lightweight)
Plywood Sheating 20 0.14
Cavity 100 -
Plywood Sheating 20 0.14
Plaster
30 0.16
(lightweight)

Internal ceiling/ Timber flooring (1) 25 0.14 1.3566

floor(fig. 2)
Cavity (2) 250 -
Timber flooring (3) 25 0.14
Ground/ exposed
London clay (1) 750 1.41 0.7344
floor (fig. 4)
Concrete ground
250 1.13
layer (2)
Cavity (3) 150 -
Timber flooring (4) 25 0.14
Pitched roof (fig. 1) Clay tile (1) 20 0.84 2.3167
Cavity (2) 10 -
Roofing felt (3) 5 0.19
Timber board (4) 25 0.165
Glazed Single glass 7 1.06 4.769
Doors Door construction 40 0.14 2.1944

Table 3.3: The existing construction of the elements, as applied to the IES VE model.

38
 AUGUST 2017

1
2
3
4

Figure 3.6: Pitched roof detail.

1
2
3

Figure 3.7: Internal ceiling detail.

1
Figure 3.8: Wall detail.

4
3

Figure 3.9: Ground floor

39
 AUGUST 2017

4. Results and Analysis

4.1 Initial results of the case study building

Energy Consumption System energy CO2 emissions

kWh/m2/yr consumption kWh/m2/yr kgCO2/m2/yr
Baseline 380.72 319.4 109.93

Table 4.1: The energy and carbon emission results from the existing house testing.

The outcomes of the first test constitute the baseline for the comparisons among the
tests. The above results present the poor condition which the house is in, and the
need for retrofit. Due to the high U-values of the building components, these
numbers were expected. More specifically, it is shown that the energy consumption
for the system is 319.4kWh/m2/yr which represents the 84% of the total energy
consumption. The remaining 61 kWh/m2/yr is due to the appliances and the lighting.
As expected by the high energy consumption levels, the CO2 emissions are also quite
high and account for almost 110kgCO2/m2/yr.

At this point, it is essential to evaluate the accuracy of the results. Case studies of
retrofits present various energy performances with a huge gap between their energy
consumptions. The average data from 2007 (DCLG, 2009) presents the energy
consumption of Victorian houses as being 480 kWh/m2/yr and, although this number
is quite high, it also takes into account other types of houses such as detached and
semi-detached and thus it is unable to accurately represent the terraced house.

4.2 Testing retrofit solutions

In order to achieve a successful retrofit, sophisticated solutions should be applied

based on the needs that the house has. Foreseeing the possible problems before
they actually happen is a significant skill for every successful designer. This skill can
be developed by looking at other case studies and trying to adapt the strategies
which were successful. The four case studies presented in the literature review were
the main source that inspired the solutions for the researched house.

Trying to organise the tests, a deep research was carried out before any alteration
applied. The background research deepened in specifying the material layers that
would be added internally to the external wall, ground floor, internal floor and
ceiling. The need to understanding the order of the layers as well as the selection of
the materials comes next. Extra attention was paid to the selection of the insulation
materials in order to choose the appropriate one for the specific Victorian house.
Both the limited internal space of the house and the understanding that the extra

40
 AUGUST 2017

insulation layers internally will minimize it even more, lead to insulating the pitched
roof instead of the ceiling. 3 out of the 4 case studies presented in the literature
review show insulating the ceiling of the roof because either the height of the roof
space was too limited to be used, or in an effort to lower cost. Nevertheless, while
the height of the specific tested roof is adequate for creating an extra room for
storage in the future, the pitched roof is going to be insulated in order to be a
flexible solution for the occupants. In “Guide to Making Retrofit Work” (Technology
Strategy Board, 2014) the significance of considering access and storage is also
mentioned when specifying the roof insulation, especially in homes where storage
space is necessary.

Despite the basic tests that are presented, more tests were carried out during all the
retrofit simulations. These tests included the insulation of the partition walls
between houses, the internal partition walls, and so forth. Since there were no
important differences, and most of the time the energy and CO2 results got worse,
they are not considered or referred to in the research.

4.2.1 The selection of insulation materials

When it comes to retrofitting and minimizing the heat loss of the building, insulation
is vital. The continuity of the insulation, focusing on the connections, is of great
importance to reducing thermal bridging effects and more specifically it can reduce
heat loss by 25% in the retrofitted building (RIBA, 2009). The air-tightness describes
the ability that the building has to avoid the penetration of the air to its inner layer,
which has an effect in reducing the heat loss. Nevertheless, when it comes to air
tight buildings, extra attention should be taken to ensure that the building is
properly ventilated. This has the adverse result of causing high levels of humidity and
carbon dioxide concentration in the building. When this layer is placed, it is
important to be in contact with thermal insulation in order to avoid thermal bypass
(Stafford et al., 2011).

The insulating materials create thermal comfort in the building, due to their ability to
either reflect heat or have a high thermal capacity. When selecting the suitable
insulating material, some factors are usually considered. These are generally these
are thermal conductivity, the weight, the hydroscopic quality and the air resistance.
Another factor to be considered when adding insulation is the thermal lag of the
plane, which means that elements can work as heating sources (Mahlia et al., 2007).
Moreover, another factor considered is the vapour permeability of the insulating
material. This shows the ability of the construction to breathe and has a positive
effect on the internal environment while it reduces humidity. When vapour barriers

41
 AUGUST 2017

are used, water remains within the building and this has an effect on the creation of
mould, mites, bacteria and viruses, and thus the health of the people.

When it comes to choosing the insulation materials, the factors that the author is
assessing in this dissertation are mainly based on their efficiency and their
environmental profile. This selection can be specified by their embodied energy and
their conductivity. While the wall insulation in the specific Victorian house is placed
on the inside, the density of the construction, and specifically insulation, plays an
important role. Insulation is the main material for lowering the existing U-value. By
applying more insulation, the thickness of the wall becomes bigger and thus the
available area of the house minimises. It is presumably easier to understand that
insulating materials with a lower conductivity number (the lower the better) need
less depth compared to others with a higher thermal conductivity. Furthermore, the
relationship between thermal conductivity and the best thickness of the insulating
material is not linear and additional thickness of insulation material is not cost
effective after a certain level (Mahlia et al., 2007).

Most of the insulation materials have almost the same number of thermal
conductivity as shown in the charts below (Table 4.2), and a lifespan of 50 years
(Berge, 2009). Only straw bales need to be renewed in this period, but this also the
insulation material with the high thermal conductivity and thus it requires more
thickness. This means that the form and the embodied energy will play a significant
role when choosing the appropriate insulating material.

Insulation Thermal Embodied Density Type

material conductivity (W/Mk) energy (MJ/kg) (kg/m^3)
Glass wool 0.038 28 20 batts/rolls
Mineral wool 0.038 37 1000-1500 batts/rolls

Foam 0.035 88.6 15-30 boards

polystyrine
(EPS)
Polyurethane 0.028 101.5 30-40 foam/boards
Mineral/Wood 0.039 10.8 160 boards
fibre
Straw 0.052 0.91 110 Bale
Cellulose 0.042 4 27-65 batts/sprayed
Wool 0.038 6 23 batts/rolls

Table 4.2: Comparison between different insulation materials (Berge, 2009).

42
 AUGUST 2017

The choice of materials of insulation can mainly be categorized by the availability of

the space, the breathability, and the cost (Baeli, 2013). The fact that in this case the
insulation is placed in the inside of the building helps in designing a construction for
which insulation can be in the form of a roll and placed on a timber construction. The
insulation material that is chosen for the research will be natural. Materials such as
mineral or wood fibre and wool insulation are both breathable and have low
embodied energy. Despite the positive aspects that they have, it is expected to
present an extra thickness and a less performance, compared to most of the used
foam insulation boards (Baeli, 2013). In the UK, natural materials such as hemp,
sheep’s wool and flax are becoming more common types of materials used for
insulation (Mark et al., 2017). IES VE contains only wool in its material library so the
testing will be conducted using this.

The materials for the research will be chosen by the comparison in the table and the
construction is based on the effectiveness of the case studies (Greenspec). While the
tests aim to achieve different U-value targets, the same construction will be applied
in all models. The only difference will occur in the thickness of the insulation, which
will have impact on the cost calculation. Each test changes just one building element
construction every time. Firstly, alterations happen to walls, followed by the floors
and roof, and finally the windows and doors in order to spot which has the biggest
change. According to RIBA (2009), roofs are considered to cause the biggest amount
of heat loss.

4.2.2 The construction based on PassivHaus standards

The PassivHaus (or EnerPHit) standard for the building fabric are presented as being
the strictest when comparing to the other two targets. Retrofitting the external walls
with the PassivHaus U-value standard of 0.15 W/m2*K demands 170mm of
insulation. The impact of this to the internal house area is significantly minimized by
more than 7m2, which is an important amount for small houses such as this. Despite
the fact that insulation was also added to the floors, the internal height is not
changed since the material was added in the void between the timber battens.

43
 AUGUST 2017

External wall

2 layers of sheep’s wool insulation fitted

between 2 layers of timber battens

Airthight memebrane to wall protected

behind mineral fibre insulation

Mineral fibre slab insulation to minimize

thermal bridging of timber battens and
and also provide the service zone

Figure 4.1.: PassivHaus wall.

New Construction Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value

(mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m^2*K)
External wall Brick 400 0.84 0.1478
Breathing Membrane 12 0.19
Wool 170 0.04
Airtight Membrane 12 0.19
Mineral Fibre Slab 60 0.035
Plasterboard (lime finish) 15 0.16
Total Thickness (mm) 669
Table 4.3: PassivHaus wall construction.

Ground floor
2 layers of wool insulation between
timber joints, laid over breather
membrane
Timber battens create cavity to the
ground floor in order to maintain sub-
floor ventilation

Figure 4.2: PassivHaus ground floor detail.

New Construction Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value

(mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m^2*K)
Ground/ exposed London clay 750 1.41 0.1498
floor
Cast concrete 250 1.13
Cavity 150 -
Breathing Membrane 12 0.19
Wool 210 0.04
Timber Flooring 25 0.14
Total Thickness (mm) 1397
Table 4.4: PassivHaus wall construction.

44
 AUGUST 2017

Internal ceiling/floor

Wool insulation is placed between

existing timber battens, providing also
sound insulation between floors.

Figure 4.3: PassivHaus internal ceiling detail.

New Construction Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value
(mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m^2*K)
Internal ceiling/ floor Timber Flooring 25 0.14 0.1469
Wool 250 0.04
Timber Flooring 25 25
Total thickness (mm) 300
Table 4.5: PassivHaus internal ceiling construction.

Pitched roof

Insulation placed between

existing battens

An additional insulation
layer is placed in a new
timber construction in
order to reach the
recommended insulation
thickness.

Figure 4.4: PassivHaus pitched roof details.

New Construction Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value
(mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m^2*K)
Pitched roof Clay tile 20 0.84 0.1529
Cavity 10 -
Roofing felt 12 0.19
Timber Board 25 0.165
Wool 250 0.04
Vapour Membrane 12 0.19
Timber Board 25 0.165
Total thickness (mm) 354
Table 4.6: PassivHaus pitched roof construction.

45
 AUGUST 2017

Windows and doors

New Construction Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value

(mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m^2*K)
Triple external outer pane (hardwood) 19 1.06 0.8799
windows
cavity 18 -
inner pane (hardwood) 19 1.06
cavity 18 -
inner pane (hardwood) 19 1.06
new external door pine 150 0.14 0.8055
Table 4.7: PassivHaus windows and doors constructions.

4.2.3 The construction based on L1B standards

Since the L1B standards recommend U-values which are quite relaxed compared to
the PassivHaus and the L1A standards, the energy savings are going to increase and
have the impact of reducing the total cost for the retrofit. U-values that are higher
than the PassivHaus ones reduce the need of installing thick layers of insulation and
also minimize the initial internal area by 3m2.

External wall

1 layer of sheep’s wool insulation

Airthight memebrane to wall protected

behind mineral fibre insulation

Mineral fibre slab insulation to minimize

thermal bridging of timber battens and
and also provide the service zone

Figure 4.5: L1B standard wall detail.

New Construction Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value
(mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m^2*K)
External wall Brick 400 0.84 0.2932
Breathing Membrane 12 0.19
Wool 70 0.04
Airtight Membrane 12 0.19
Mineral Fibre Slab 30 0.035
Plasterboard (lime 15 0.16
finish)
Total thickness (mm) 527
Table 4.8: L1B standard wall construction.

46
 AUGUST 2017

Ground floor
1 layer of wool insulation between timber
joints, laid over breather membrane

Timber battens create cavity to the

ground floor in order to maintain sub-
floor ventilation

Figure 4.6: L1B standard ground floor detail.

New Construction Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value
(mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m^2*K)
Ground/ exposed London clay 750 1.41 0.2548
floor
Cast concrete 250 1.13
Cavity 150 -
Breathing 12 0.19
Membrane
Wool 100 0.04
Timber Flooring 25 0.14
Total thickness (mm) 1287
Table 4.9: L1B standard ground floor construction.

Internal ceiling

Wool insulation is placed between

existing timber battens, providing also
sound insulation between floors.

Figure 4.7: L1B standard internal ceiling detail.

New Construction Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value
(mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m^2*K)
Internal ceiling/ floor Timber Flooring 25 0.14 0.2465
Wool 140 0.04
Timber Flooring 25 25
Total thickness (mm) 190
Table 4.10: L1B standard internal ceiling construction.

47
 AUGUST 2017

Pitched roof

Insulation placed between

existing battens

Figure 4.8: L1B standard pitched roof detail.

New Construction Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value

(mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m^2*K)
Pitched roof Clay tile 20 0.84 0.176
Cavity 10 -
Roofing felt 12 0.19
Timber Board 25 0.165
Wool 200 0.04
Vapour Membrane 12 0.19
Timber Board 25 0.165
Total thickness (mm) 304
Table 4.11: L1B standard pitched roof construction.

Windows and doors

New Construction Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value

(mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m^2*K)
Double external outer pane 6 1.06 1.6
windows
cavity 12 -
inner pane 6 1.06
new external door pine 55 0.14 1.7766
Table 4.12: L1B standard windows and doors construction.

4.2.4 The construction based on L1A standards

The L1A standard and construction is quite similar to PassivHaus. The main
differences spotted concerns the lower U-value of the roof and floors, which adds
more layers of insulation to them. This reduces the height of the rooms. Initially, the
authors believed that this would have a positive result in the overall energy
performance, rather than an un-insulated roof which was known as allowing a
quarter of the heat to escape (Energy Saving Trust).

48
 AUGUST 2017

External wall
2 layers of sheep’s wool insulation fitted
between 2 layers of timber battens

Airthight memebrane to wall protected

behind mineral fibre insulation

Mineral fibre slab insulation to minimize

thermal bridging of timber battens and
and also provide the service zone
Figure 4.9: L1A standard wall detail.

New Construction Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value

(mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m^2*K)
External wall Brick 400 0.84 0.1812
Breathing Membrane 12 0.19
Wool 120 0.04
Airtight Membrane 12 0.19
Mineral Fibre Slab 60 0.035
Plasterboard 15 0.16
(lime finish)
Total thickness(mm) 607
Table 4.13: L1A standard wall construction.

Ground floor

2 layers of wool insulation, laid over

breather membrane
Timber battens create cavity to the
ground floor in order to maintain sub-
floor ventilation

Figure 4.10: L1A standard ground floor detail.

New Construction Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value
(mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m^2*K)
Ground/ exposed London clay 750 1.41 0.1303
floor
Cast concrete 250 1.13
Cavity 150 -
Breathing Membrane 12 0.19
Wool 250 0.04
Timber Flooring 25 0.14
Total thickness (mm) 1437
Table 4.14: L1A standard ground floor construction.

49
 AUGUST 2017

Internal ceiling

2 layers of Wool insulation are placed

between timber battens, providing
also sound insulation between floors.

Figure 4.11: L1A standard internal ceiling detail.

New Construction Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value
(mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m^2*K)
Internal ceiling/ floor Timber Flooring 25 0.14 0.1281
Wool 290 0.04
Timber Flooring 25 25
Total thickness (mm) 340
Table 4.15: L1A standard internal ceiling construction.

Pitched roof

Insulation placed between

existing battens

An additional insulation
layer is placed in a new
timber construction in
order to reach the
recommended insulation
thickness.

Figure 4.12: L1A standard pitched roof detail.

New Construction Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value
(mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m^2*K)
Pitched roof Clay tile 20 0.84 0.1302
Cavity 10 -
Roofing felt 12 0.19
Timber Board 25 0.165
Wool 280 0.04
Vapour 12 0.19
Membrane
Timber Board 25 0.165
Total thickness (mm) 384
Table 4.16: L1A standard pitched roof construction.

50
 AUGUST 2017

Windows and doors

New Construction Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value

(mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m^2*K)
Double external outer pane 19 1.06 1.397
windows
cavity 12 -
inner pane 19 1.06
new external door pine 110 0.14 1.0463
Table 4.17: L1A standard windows and doors roof construction.

4.3 Results of the tests (Energy and CO2 saving)

The results of applying the above group of constructions in the simulated model are
summarized below. Applying the fabric-first approach to the Victorian terraced
house shows an important reduction for the energy consumption and the CO2
emissions. Out of all the tests that were presented, the biggest reductions occurred
when the roof and floors were insulated. This result was expected as the internal hot
air tends to rise up and thus a good insulated roof maintains the heat inside the
building. Moreover, another noticeable outcome is that the energy improvement
percentages alter when the construction of the walls, windows and doors change.
Comparing table 4.17 and figure 4.13, it is found that the results of the energy
reduction are similar, except in the case of the walls. This can be justified by the fact
that the wall area of the Victorian house is quite small. Moreover, although the area
that the windows cover is limited compared to the wall area, the results in energy
saving are quite similar. The significance of upgrading the quality of the windows
from a single-glazed to a double or triple-glazed is highlighted, despite possible
restrictions from the authorities when houses are within conservation areas.

Average reduction Changing Changing ground Changing doors and Total

external floor/internal windows
walls floor/ roof
Energy 11% 36% 9% 57%
consumption
Carbon emissions 9% 31% 6% 46%

Table 4.18: Percentages of the improvements in energy and carbon emissions reduction of every test.

51
 AUGUST 2017

Figure 4.13: The percentages of heat loss for an un-insulated house (Source: McMullan, 2007)

Giving a more detailed approach in the performance of the tests, it is noticed that
the three final results are quite similar. The three tests have presented a reduction
equal to almost half of the initial energy consumption (Fig. 4.14). Although the
thickness of insulations in the tests was doubled, in some cases the results are
shown to be the same. This provides some initial thoughts about the level of energy
efficiency that the Victorian terraced house can reach, without applying any further
mechanical system. The cost of the retrofit compared to the economical approach of
the savings is quite interesting in giving the best solution for the house.

Energy consumption KWh/ m2/yr

PassivHaus Standards L1B Standards L1A Standards
380.72
380.72 380.72 336.44
337.28 335.29

217.99
191.64 213.06 201.74
191.64 193.33

Baseline 1rst change: 2nd change: 3rd change:

New External walls New ground floor, New external doors
internal floor, roof and windows

Figure 4.14: The results of the energy consumption reduction for every standard.

52
 AUGUST 2017

Similar to the energy results, the CO2 emissions of the house have been reduced to
almost half (Fig. 4.15). This outcome was expected and it can be easily explained. By
reducing the energy demand, it is logical for CO2 emissions to be minimised. A
further CO2 reduction is expected to occur when renewable sources of energy would
be applied to the house. Despite the success of the results, the retrofit is by itself a
CO2 conscious process and further sensibility has shown by applying materials with
low embodied energy.

Carbon emissions kgCO2/ m2/yr

PassivHaus Standards L1B Standards L1A Standards
109.94
109.94 109.94 100.04
100.31 99.85

69.78 68.59 66.19

68.95 63.83 64.18

Baseline 1rst change: 2nd change: 3rd change:

New External walls New ground floor, New external doors
internal floor, roof and windows

Figure 4.15: The results of the carbon emission reduction for every standard.

To sum up the results, tests where the PassivHaus U-values were applied presented
the biggest savings. Although strict U-values had a positive effect, the differences
between the results of the three approaches are not substantial. Thus, it is
significant not only to take decisions based on the effectiveness of the strategy, but
also take other factors into consideration. Availability of the internal space and costs
are also factors that are necessary to be taken into account. The results motivated
the author to research the cost of the retrofit and the money savings, and make
comparisons in order to discover the best method. The strategy of testing the same
constructions with different thicknesses of the same materials would be quite
helpful in order to make these comparisons.

4.4 Considering the cost of the retrofit

Calculating the cost of the retrofit, all the materials existing in the house were
considered to be in a good condition and not in need of change. The costs consider
only the new materials and constructions for the house. The thickness of insulating
material was the basic source of showing different costs (Fig 4.17). Another source
was spotted between double-glazed and triple-glazed windows. The costs are

53
 AUGUST 2017

calculated based on the prices of the materials and the labour costs, where available.
The source of price data was mainly the “Spon’s Architects’ and Builders’ Price Book”
(Aecom, 2006). This research considers the prices as remaining stable, not changed
within the one-year period.

Cost of the retrofit £

L1A Standards L1B Standards PassivHaus Standards

19568.99
Total cost 14923.66
21570.34
6642.2
Windows and doors cost 6642.2
7982
3310.17
Roof cost 2435.04
3143.77
4904.17
Ground and internal floors cost 2009.77
4416.73
4712.47
External wall cost 3836.65
6027.85

Figure 4.16: The results of calculating the cost of retrofit using the different standards.

Thickness of insulation mm
350

300

250

200 PassivHaus

150 L1B
L1A
100

50

0
Walls Ground floor Internal Ceiling Roof

Figure 4.17: The results total thickness for insulation used in each standard.

Analysing the cost of retrofit and making comparisons with the energy savings leads
to clear conclusions. The cost of retrofitting the walls, floors, roofs, windows and
doors with the L1B standards presents an overall saving of £6,000 as opposed to
those gained from the PassivHaus standard (Fig. 4.16), making the retrofit a more
attractive solution.

54
 AUGUST 2017

The table 4.18 presents an overall conclusion about the performance of every
retrofitted model and the consequences that it will have on the occupant’s pockets
in the future. It is shown that the money saved annually by the energy reduction will
present a £30 difference, an amount which is not significant if considered over a
single year. Moreover, regarding the payback period, occupants preferred the L1B
standard as they will be able to pay off the retrofit costs by using the money saved
from the gas in a 16.5 year-period. This is a significant difference between standards
since and the PassivHaus and L1A models have an additional of 6.5 and 4.5 years
respectively. Looking at the economical aspect of occupying the retrofitted house, a
50-year period was chosen for the lifespan which the insulation has (Berge, 2009). It
is considered that the materials will work efficiently for 50 years, offering
approximately £25,000-30,000 of savings. Moreover, assuming that the performance
of the materials and the house will remain for 100 years, the money saved can be
doubled.

PassivHaus L1B L1A

Units
standards standards standards
House internal Area 164.27 167.84 165.64 m2
Energy saved 189.07 178.98 187.39 KWh/m2/yr
CO2 saved 46.1 43.74 45.75 kgCO2/m2/yr
Money saved annually
931.77 901.19 931.16 £/yr
(gas price 0.03 £/kWh)
Retrofit cost 21570.34 14923.66 19568.99 £
Payback period 23 16.5 21 Years
50-year period
25018.23 30135.69 26989.1 £
(retrofit costs excluded)

100-year period
71606.82 75195.04 73547.2 £
(retrofit costs excluded)
Table 4.19: Comparisons between the results of different tests .

The debate among the different standards ends up with the L1B standard proving as
the most cost efficient overall for the energy saving results. After a level of insulation
at the shell of the Victorian house it is shown that there is no significant impact on
the energy savings, due to the buildings being unable to reach further reductions.
This level of insulation is a combination of many factors such as energy saving,
implementation costs, internal area, and so forth, and its numeric value is the one
which is presented by the Government’s building standards for renovation. Further
reductions could be shown if the heating system was replaced by a new mechanical
ventilation system with heat exchange. It is assumed that this solution will be the
preferred option for retrofits where an additional area for installing the system is

55
 AUGUST 2017

available. The next step of the research is the testing of the existing system with the
application of PV panels on the roof. The test can also give a highly important
approach of the effectiveness of the renewable source of energy in the three
models, leading to conclusions about the most effective retrofit strategies for the
Victorian house.

4.5 Applying renewable energy systems

The main aim of installing PV panels on the pitched roof of the house is the
production of renewable energy and thus the reduction of the energy consumption.
It is a short term expenditure which is going to save money in the future, while the
renewable energy will replace the use of gas. A big step that impacts on the
effectiveness of the panels is the orientation that they will be placed. In the research
study, the roof has one side which is oriented to the east, and the other to the west.
Although solar energy fails to be a leading source of efficient energy within the UK
(due to its latitude and climate), it is a preferable solution for generating domestic
energy. The installation of the PV panels can normally be applied on the roof and
further application has to follow for the planning permissions in conservation areas
(Planning portal).

In the research, both sides of the pitched roof are totally covered by PV panels. This
is an area of 67 m2 in total. The inclination of the PV panels (set as monocrystalline
silicone) follows the same angle as the roof. The results of the tests are shown in the
figures below (Fig. 4.18, 4.19). Both the energy and the carbon emission
consumptions have shown an outstanding reduction. More specifically, regarding the
PassivHaus primary energy demand target of 120kWh/m2/yr, the results show the
potential to approach this target through potentially replacing the heating system
(even though water heating is not considered).

Compared to the previously presented retrofit results, the application of the PV

panels reduced the energy consumption by approximately 19%. This reduction,
except for the limitation associated with saving on the cost of gas, had an impact on
the carbon emissions. The new carbon emissions present a reduction of almost 29%
compared to the CO2 emission levels of the final retrofit test.

56
 AUGUST 2017

Final Energy Consumption kWh/m2/yr

PassivHaus standards L1B standards L1A standards
380.72 380.72 380.72

191.65 201.74 193.33

154.03 164.93 156.03

Baseline Retrofit without PV panels Retrofit with PV panels

Figure 4.18: Comparisons between the results of the different tests.

Final Carbon emissions kgCO2/m2/yr

PassivHaus standards L1B standards L1A standards
109.93 109.93 109.93

63.83 66.19 64.18

44.31 47.08 44.82

Baseline Retrofit without PV panels Retrofit with PV panels

Figure 4.19: Comparisons between the final carbon savings.

4.6 Final cost and savings

New calculations, derived after installing the PV panels, showed that both the energy
and the costs have changed. An expenditure of £14,000 was added in every
standard’s model, due to the cost of the panels. Moreover, while the energy was
reduced, there were improvements to the money saved. The results have also been
calculated for a 50-year and 100-year period. The three standards have equally
become efficient; nevertheless the L1B standard continues to be the most attractive
option in terms of the payback period and the costs.

57
 AUGUST 2017

The installation of the panels increased the total cost impacted the payback period.
It is necessary to find out if the final decision of placing panels is useful or not. The
comparison of the results will be shown for the L1B standard, model which was the
most attractive in both cases.

The payback period of the retrofit with the installation of PV panels is increased by
almost 10 years, in comparison to one without them. Nevertheless, as presented in
the figure 4.19, the 50- year time savings will be almost the same. This remains the
case even if the cost of the retrofit is reduced. This derives from the fact that after
27 years the retrofit cost will be covered (payback period) and the money saved will
be increased as renewable energy is generated by the panels. Furthermore, in
another 50 years (within a 100-year period) the money saved will be more than
tripled. Although it is a long period, it reveals the intensions of the economical
benefit for the people.

PassivHaus L1A
L1B standards Units
standards standards
New energy saved 226.69 215.79 224.69 KWh/m2/yr
New CO2 saved 65.63 62.85 65.11 kgCO2/m2/yr
Total retrofit cost 35570.34 28923.66 33568.99 £
Money saved 1117.14 1086.55 1116.53 £/yr
Payback period 31.84 26.6 30 Years
50-year period
(Retrofit cost + pv 20286.46 25403.98 22257.63 £
excluded)
100-year period
(Retrofit cost + pv 76143.28 79731.62 78084.25 £
excluded)

Table 4.20: Comparisons between the final carbon savings.

58
 AUGUST 2017

Economical overview of L1B model £

Retrofit without PV Retrofit with PV

79731.6
75195.04

28923.66 30135.69
25403.98
14923.66

Retrofit cost 50-year period savings 100-year period savings

(retrofit costs excluded) (retrofit costs excluded)

Figure 4.20: Economical overview of the L1B model.

In conclusion, based on the aforementioned reasons, the author encourages the

installation of PV panels, although this is a decision that should be made based on
the availability of money. Regarding the standards, the L1B is considered in every
step to offer the clearest benefit to the financial situation of the people (Fig. 4.20),
with results that are quite near to the PassivHaus and the L1A standards. Overall,
PassivHaus is proved to be an expensive solution that has shown quite disappointing
results. The L1A model performed similar to the PassivHaus standard and the costs
of retrofit were also quite high.

At this point, it would be challenging to test the amount of PV panels needed to

reduce the CO2 emissions to zero. By comparing the results before applying PV
panels and after, based on the difference between these amounts, it could be likely
that more than 100m2 should be placed. This is quite a large amount when
compared with the total area of the house, and these calculations ought not to be
researched further.

59
 AUGUST 2017

5. Discussion

5.1 Recommendations for the researched Victorian house

Overall, using the results of this research, the best solution for a Victorian terraced
house is proven to be the one retrofitted based on the L1B measures. This can be
easily justified in every aspect; economical, environmental and the overall more
practicality which can be achieved. Although the model tested with the L1B
measures presented the lower energy and CO2 compared to the L1A and PassivHaus
models, the difference between in the results is not remarkable when considered in
a year level. Moreover, the economical overview for the Victorian terraced house
saw the design based on the L1B U-values triumph, which cost less than the other
two options and also had the highest anticipated savings for the future.

Furthermore, it is significant to mention that trying to design in PassivHaus standards

usually costs more than the other standards, since receiving the recommended U-
values demand the use of thicker materials and technological systems. Although the
PassivHaus retrofits are basically focused on the technology and systems, which this
research has not tested, the results lead the author to conclude that the PassivHaus
energy consumptions and CO2 savings in the Victorian terraced house retrofits can
also be achieved by not using such demanding constructions. Thus, the money paid
can also be minimised, an idea that can attract more and more people to retrofit
their Victorian houses.

Aiming to conclude, the installation of renewable energy systems has to be

promoted as it leads to further energy and CO2 reductions. By installing PV panels on
the pitched roof, the research highlights the decrease in the CO2 emissions
throughout the whole life of the house. Moreover, the money saved by the
generation of energy is adequate to pay off the cost of solar energy system after t 50
year period, leading to profitable rates of return after that.

5.2 General recommendations

Searching for effective ways to achieve low energy retrofits demands by itself an
extended series of decisions that involve several retrofit variables and objectives.
The consideration of the energy savings, and the investigation of the retrofit
solutions which would also be economically feasible, constitutes a fundamental step
in order to form a solid understanding of optimal solutions.

PassivHaus targets are difficult to satisfy, and this inconvenience is reflected in the
results of this research. This is quite clear when retrofitting an old dwelling, as an

60
 AUGUST 2017

increased amount of investment is required. Of course, the outcome of this is a

higher total loss overall. Inversely, research outlines the simple fact that introducing
more achievable standards may be beneficial. Analysis shows that using more
relaxed measures can lead to energy efficiency with a reasonable initial cost, and
eventually economic viability of the investment. Furthermore, considering the future
potential for climate change when different standards are applied, such as lower
levels of insulation, more resilience to possible warmer climate is shown. Overall, the
importance of examining the individuals’ financial needs is appropriate when
determining which retrofit methods should be pursued.

Finally, it has to be mentioned that the results of this study, in terms of specific
values and costs, cannot be generalized for every domestic retrofit in the UK, since
every building operates differently. Nevertheless, there are outcomes and lessons to
learn from retrofits in each type of Victorian house, and building generally. One of
the main points of interest is the significance in understanding the needs which each
existing house has in order to create a unique strategy every time. This is a
requirement as there is no one-strategy-fits-all solution. The construction, the
orientation, the geometry, the openings, and the behaviour of the occupants are
always relevant factors of creating new needs and prioritizing different aspects in
every solution. The “better option” is mainly dependant on the needs and the
willingness of the occupants. Retrofitting is quite a broad issue, which can have
many dimensions on both economical and environmental aspects, but also on the
health of the occupants.

5.3 Limitations of this study

Case study model

When it comes to creating a new energy model, many uncertainties are faced in
relation to the accuracy of the results. This is due to the high level of difficulty in
modeling the performance of an existing building, combined with applying a series of
assumptions. For the studied model, due to the fact that it was formed by the typical
construction details, there was no available data for a real consumption metric of
building’s operation. Despite this, the research aimed to look at improving the
metric, so the precise metric of consumption for the baseline was not such
significant a point. Moreover, varying Victorian buildings operate differently and this
by itself proves the difficulty of being precise.

Further assumptions were made about the occupant’s behaviour and needs. These
were mainly in terms of the occupancy profiles, electrical devices, type of lights or
other designed details, such as using blinds on the windows. It is futile to consider all
these details precisely yet they lead to huge alterations within the results. Moreover,
due to the complexity of the model, the research considered only the space heating

61
 AUGUST 2017

system and not the water heating system. Including the water systems would have
resulted in higher results.

Financial Analysis
Calculating the retrofit’s profitability implied a range of assumptions and estimations
made. The price of energy is susceptible to change. Signs such as this can hamper the
accuracy of any economic calculations which are carried out. This may be coupled
with other issues. Future work may be necessary in order to maintain the efficiency
level of the structure. There are costs associated with repairs which are tough to
calculate. Additionally, the worth of currency may fluctuate and this is relevant when
sourcing materials from international suppliers. There is a risk that the price of goods
will increase due to the reduction of the home currency’s value, but this is too not
possible to predict. Moreover, uncertainties occurred in terms of the effectiveness of
materials which existed in the building’s construction and which are assumed as
being available to use in the retrofit. However, being the only way to have a cost
analysis, the same calculating techniques were implied in every test, providing
reliable comparisons between the testing models.

Tools used
Regarding the tool used, limitations were also faced. The inability of the IES VE
software to consider the air-tightness of the construction, and the lack of basic
materials from is libraries, are some important factors that could have a significant
impact on the results. In addition, the data that was used for the research was
implemented by the software. This data mainly refers to the current weather
conditions. Thus one of the first limitations of this study is the fact that the designed
solutions are based by testing only the current weather and not tested on possible
extreme weather conditions (weather years) in the future.

62
 AUGUST 2017

6. Conclusion

This study arranges a methodological framework to investigate the retrofit strategies

for the Victorian dwellings in the UK, which consist of a huge source of energy
consumption. A Victorian terraced house was used as a case study and tool of
further research. The retrofit measures that were examined were the fabric-first
approach, based on 3 different standards. These were the PassivHaus, the L1A and
L1B Building Regulations. All three of these have similar objectives, wishing to cause
a reduction in the energy consumption and the CO2 emissions of the house, as well
as aiming to improve the thermal comfort internally. The evaluation of the results
was made based on environmental, social and financial criteria. The cost of each
retrofit solution was a way to establish economic viability of the energy, in relation
to the measures which were applied. The main results obtained and conclusions
made are shown analytically below:

 Retrofitting in more relaxed standards such as the L1B building regulations is

presented as the preferred choice. The energy saving and CO2 emissions of
the tests were similar despite the additional layers of insulation that the
PassivHaus model had.

 When it comes to selecting materials for the retrofit, the embodied energy as
well as the thermal conductivity should be taken into consideration. By
choosing more natural insulation materials, the thickness of the walls
increases. The need to find additional space for storage is highlighted and
roof areas can be considered as an attractive solution.

 The differences in the costs of the retrofit models were based on the thick of
the layers of insulation, in order to reach the low U-values. After the
economic evaluation of each measure, it is concluded that the measure of
L1B standard appears as the most viable solution.

 The installation of PV panels on the pitched roof of the Victorian house lead
to a further reduction of its energy consumption and the CO2 emissions. The
economical overview of this step compared the cost of installing the panels
with the money saved. The outcome highlighted the significance of this step
in terms of the future money saved especially after a 50-year period.

 Economical overview of the retrofit process is essential when it comes to the

creation of the strategy that should be followed. Despite the assumptions
made when calculating the energy performance of the building, the costs of

63
 AUGUST 2017

the retrofit and the future money saved, the economical analysis of the
project reveals the overall intentions of its retrofit.

In conclusion, retrofitting has proven to be a solution that benefits in many ways.

The housing stock in the UK is old, and it should be retrofitted not only to improve
the energy performance, but also to cause a boost in thermal performance. It is
highly important to mention that achievement of thermal comfort should not be
based on the change of occupants’ behaviour, but should aim at designing what
works best with climate rather than against it. This is mainly achieved by using
predominantly passive means of reaching thermal comfort levels, rather than active
means. Derived from economical analysis, it is clear that a careful retrofit strategy
leads to lucrative rates of return from investment.

Further research
It is recommended that each case study be used as a baseline and researched even
further, since the retrofit process combines many factors. Results from evaluating
the “fabric first” approach can be tested, based on replacing the heating and
ventilation systems, the impact of the materials air quality to the occupant’s health,
the water heating strategy, and a combination of all.

Additionally, the case study energy model can be evaluated and possibly tested in
other packages of software available. The aim of upgrading and further validating
the model will allow the results to be more accurate in order to meet the real
conditions. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that since the final model has high
insulation levels, another point of research would probably look at the overheating
phenomena that are expected to occur during future Summers, and cannot be
neglected.

Finally, since the research examined the terraced type of Victorian houses, other
tests have to be done to show the effectiveness for the other types of houses and
general building constructions within the UK. The results can create the guidelines
for the UK residential retrofit and inform the current building regulations about the
cost effective strategies that should be followed.

64
 AUGUST 2017

References

Aecom (2016). Spon's architect's and builders' price book 2016. Place of publication
not identified: Productivity Press.

Baeli, M. (2013). Residential Retrofit: 20 case studies. London: RIBA Publishing.

Baker, N. (2009). The handbook of sustainable refurbishment. London: Earthscan co-

published with RIBA Publishing.

Beaumont, A. (2007). Hard-to-Treat homes in England. W07-Housing Regeneration

and Maintenance, International Conference 25th-28th June, Sustainable Urban Area,
Rotterdam 2007: Building Research Establishment, Watford, UK.

Berge, B. (2009). The Ecology of Building Materials. 2nd ed. Oxford: Architectural
Press.

Boardman, B., Darby, S., Killip, G., Hinnels, M., Jardine, C., Palmer, J. (2005). 40%
House, University of Oxford. Environmental Change Institute, Oxford, UK.

Boardman, B., (2007). Home Truths: A Low- Carbon Strategy to Reduce UK Housing
Emissions by 80% by 2050. University of Oxford, Environmental Change Institute,
Oxford, UK.

Booth, A. and Choudhary, R. (2013). Decision making under uncertainty in the

retrofit analysis of the UK housing stock: Implications for the Green Deal. Energy and
Buildings, 64, pp.292-308.

Booth, C., Hammond, F., Lamond, J. and Proverbs, D. (2012). Solutions to climate
change challenges in the built environment. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

BRE (Building Research Establishment), 2011. PASSIVHAUS: The Passivhaus Standard

[online] Available at: http://www.passivhaus.org.uk/standard.jsp?id=122

Brown, S., Marshall, Walmsley, Insight Media, & University of the West of England.
(2009). Victorian House Technology (Academic video online: premium). Bristol,
England: University of the West of England.

Buildingsurveying.info. (2017). Victorian Buildings – Building Surveying. [online]

Available at: http://www.buildingsurveying.info/?page_id=51 [Accessed 6 Aug.
2017].

65
 AUGUST 2017

Carbon Trust. (2012). Technology Innovation Needs Assessment: Domestic Buildings

Summary Report. Low Carbon Innovation Coordination Group.

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE). (2012). Guide F: Energy

Efficiency in Buildings. London: CIBSE Publication.

Cotterell, J. and Dadeby, A. (2012). The Passivhaus Handbook- A practical guide to

constructing and retrofitting buildings for ultra-low energy performance. 1st ed.
Totnes: Green Books.

Day, C. (2016). The eco-home design guide: Principles and practice for new-build and
retrofit. 1st ed. Cambridge: UIT Cambridge Ltd.

Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2009). English House

Condition Survey 2007- Annual report. [online] London: Communities and Local
Government Publications. Available at:
http://doc.ukdataservice.ac.uk/doc/6449/mrdoc/pdf/6449ehcs_annual_report_200
7.pdf [Accessed 6 Aug. 2017].

Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2006). Review of

Sustainability of the Existing Buildings. London.

Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) (2017). Energy

consumption in the UK- July 2017. [online] GOV.UK. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/63
3503/ECUK_2017.pdf [Accessed 1 Aug. 2017].

Dowson, M., Poole, A., Harrison, D. and Susman, G. (2012). Domestic UK retrofit
challenge: Barriers, incentives and current performance leading into the Green
Deal. Energy Policy, 50, pp.294-305.

Energy Saving Trust (2007). Energy- efficient refurbishment of existing housing.

[online] London: Energy Saving Trust. Available at:
http://www.efficiencynorth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/EST-Energy-Efficient-
Refurbishment-of-Existing-Housing.pdf [Accessed 11 Aug. 2017].

Energy Saving Trust. (n.d.). Roof and loft. [online] Available at:
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/home-insulation/roof-and-loft [Accessed 8
Aug. 2017].

English Heritage (2006). Heritage Counts: The State of England’s Historic

Environment. English Heritage, London.

66
 AUGUST 2017

Fisch, R., Krause, H., Lenz, B., Musso, F. and Rudolphi, A. (2009). Refurbishment
Manual. Basel: Institut fur internationale Architektur- Dokumentation GmbH & Co.
KG, Munich.

Graef, R. (2017). The British don't want to live in new-build homes. No wonder |
Roger Graef. [online] the Guardian. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/26/new-build-homes-
british [Accessed 6 Aug. 2017].

Greenspec. (n.d.). Insulation materials and their thermal properties. [online]

Available at: http://www.greenspec.co.uk/building-design/insulation-materials-
thermal-properties/ [Accessed 8 Aug. 2017].

Harland, E. and Roberts, D. (2002). Eco-renovation: The ecological home

improvement guide. Totnes, England: Green Books in association with the Ecology
Building Society.

HM Government (2016a). Approved Document L1A: Conservation of fuel and power

in new buildings. The Building Regulations 2010. [online] HM Government. Available
at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/54
0326/BR_PDF_AD__L1A__2013_with_2016_amendments.pdf [Accessed 4 Aug.
2017].

HM Government (2016b). Approved Document L1B: Conservation of fuel and power

in existing dwellings. The Building Regulations 2010. [online] HM Government.
Available at:
https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200135/approved_documents/74/part_l_-
_conservation_of_fuel_and_power/2 [Accessed 4 Aug. 2017].

Holmes, M. and Hacker, J. (2007). Climate change, thermal comfort and energy:
Meeting the design challenges of the 21st century. Energy and Buildings, 39(7),
pp.802-814.

Howieson, S. (2014). Are our homes making us ill? The impact of energy efficiency on
indoor air quality. Perspectives in Public Health, 134(6), pp.318-319.

Jankovic, L. (2012). Designing Zero Carbon Buildings Using Dynamic Simulation

Methods. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge.

67
 AUGUST 2017

Johnson, A. (1984). How to restore and improve your Victorian house. Newton Abbot,
Devon [u.a.]: David & Charles Inc.

KrartiI, M. (2017). Weatherization and Energy Efficiency improvement for existing

homes. [S.l.]: CRC PRESS.

Long, H. (2002). Victorian houses and their details. Oxford: Architectural Press.

Mahlia, T., Taufiq, B., Ismail and Masjuki, H. (2007). Correlation between thermal
conductivity and the thickness of selected insulation materials for building
wall. Energy and Buildings, 39(2), pp.182-187.

Mark, L., Braidwood, E., Braidwood, E. and Waite, R. (2017). Natural insulation
materials. [online] Architects Journal. Available at:
https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/specification/natural-insulation-
materials/8643176.article [Accessed 8 Aug. 2017].

McCloghrie, P. (2009). Energy Efficiency in the UK Housing Sector. Department of

Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

McMullan, R. (2007). Environmental Science in Building. 6th ed. Basingstoke:

PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.

Office of Climate Change (2007). Household Emissions Project: Final Report

Palmer, J., Boardman, B., Bottrill, C., Darby, S., Hinnells, M., Killip, G., Layberry, R.
and Lovell, H. (2006). Reducing the environmental impact of housing: Final report.
Environmental Change Institute: University of Oxford.

Palmer, J. and Cooper, I. (2011). Great Britain's housing energy fact file. [online]
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48
195/3224-great-britains-housing-energy-fact-file-2011.pdf [Accessed 1 Aug. 2017].

Pelsmakers, S. (2016). The environmental design pocketbook. 2nd ed. London: RIBA
Publishing.

PHI (Passivhaus Institute), 2015. About Passivhaus [online]. Available at:

http://passiv.de/en/02_informations/01_whatisapassivehouse/01_whatisapassiveho
use.htm [Accessed 3 Aug. 2017].

68
 AUGUST 2017

PHI (Passivhaus Institute), 2013. EnerPHit and EnerPHit. Certification Criteria for
Energy Retrofits with Passive House Components [online]. Available at:
http://www.passiv.de/downloads/03_certification_criteria_enerphit_en.pdf
[Accessed 3 Aug. 2017]

Planningportal.co.uk. (2017). Planning Permission: Solar equipment mounted on a

house or a block of flats or on a building within the curtilage | Solar panels | Planning
Portal. [online] Available at:
https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/51/solar_panels/
2 [Accessed 8 Aug. 2017].

Poverty.org.uk. (2017). UK: fuel poverty - The Poverty Site. [online] Available at:
http://www.poverty.org.uk/80/index.shtml [Accessed 6 Aug. 2017].

Power, A. (2008). Does demolition or refurbishment of old and inefficient homes

help to increase our environmental, social and economic viability?. Energy Policy,
36(12), pp.4487-4501.

Ravetz, J. (2008). State of the stock—What do we know about existing buildings and
their future prospects?. Energy Policy, 36(12), pp.4462-4470.

Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) (2009). Principles of Low Carbon Design
and Refurbishment. [online] London: Royal Institute of British Architects. Available
at:http://www.sadas-pea.gr/archive/2000-
2011/riba%20principals%20for%20low%20carbon.pdf [Accessed 5 Aug. 2017].

Roaf, S., Crichton, D., Nicol, F. (2005). Adapting Buildings and Cities for Climate
Change. Architecural Press, London, 361pp.

Roberts, S. (2008a). Altering existing buildings in the UK. Energy Policy, 36(12),
pp.4482-4486.

Roberts, S. (2008b). Effects of climate change on the built environment. Energy

Policy, 36(12), pp.4552-4557.

Stafford, A., Gorse, C. and Shao, L. (2011). The Retrofit Challenge: Delivering Low-
Carbon Buildings. [online] The Centre for Low Carbon Futures 2011. Available at:
http://www.superhomes.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2012/01/Retrofit_Challenge_2011.pdf [Accessed 6 Aug. 2017].

69
 AUGUST 2017

Strath.ac.uk. (2017). Dr Stirling Howieson | University of Strathclyde. [online]

Available at: https://www.strath.ac.uk/staff/howiesonstirlingdr/ [Accessed 7 Aug.
2017].

Sustainable Development Commision (SDC) (2007). Building Houses or Creating

Communities? A review of Government Progress on Sustainable Communities.
London: SDC.

Technology Strategy Board (2014). Retrofit for the future- Reducing energy use in
existing homes. Swindon: Technology Strategy Board.

The Greener Homes Price Guide. (n.d.). London: RICS.

Thorpe, D. (2010). Sustainable home refurbishment: The Earthscan expert guide to

retrofitting homes for efficiency. London: Earthscan.

70
APPENDIX A AUGUST 2017

Plans, sections and construction of the house

Fig. A.1:The elevations of the Victorian terraced houses

71
 AUGUST 2017

Fig. A.2: The elevations of the researched house

Fig. A.3: The ground floor and first floor plans of the researched house

72
 AUGUST 2017

WC Bedroom 2 Bedroom 1

Kitchen Living room

Fig. A.4: The section of the Victorian terraced house.

Building Elements Width Height No of Area (m^2) Area (m^2)

(m) (m) elements without
windows/doors
External walls 5.8 3.2 4 74.24
Extra external wall- 4.36 3.2 2 102.144 86.504
Total
Ground floor 58.24
Internal ceiling 53.56 55.9
Slopped roof 5.8 5.83124 2 67.642384
Common Windows 1 1.5 6 9
Biggest window 1.6 1.4 1 2.24
Doors 1 2.2 2 4.4

Table A.1: The areas of the building elements.

73
 AUGUST 2017

Existing Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value

Construction (mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m2*K)
External wall Brick 400 0.84 1.5475
Partition between Brick 400 0.84 1.3583
houses
Internal partition Plaster 30 0.16 0.9085
(lightweight)
Plywood 20 0.14
Sheating
Cavity 100 -
Plywood 20 0.14
Sheating
Plaster 30 0.16
(lightweight)
Internal ceiling/ Timber flooring 25 0.14 1.3566
floor
Cavity 250 -
Timber flooring 25 0.14
Ground/ exposed London clay 750 1.41 0.7344
floor
Concrete ground 250 1.13
layer
Cavity 150 -
Timber flooring 25 0.14
Sloping roof Clay tile 20 0.84 2.3167
Cavity 10 -
Roofing felt 5 0.19
Timber board 25 0.165
Glazed Single glass 7 1.06 4.769
Doors Door 40 0.14 2.1944
construction

Table A.2: The U-values of the existing construction

74
 AUGUST 2017

PassivHaus standard

New Construction Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value

(mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m^2*K)
External wall Brick 400 0.84 0.1478
Breathing 12 0.19 Total
Membrane thickness
(mm)
Wool 170 0.04 669
Airtight Membrane 12 0.19
Mineral Fibre Slab 60 0.035
Plasterboard (lime 15 0.16
finish)
Ground/ exposed London clay 750 1.41 0.1498
floor
Cast concrete 250 1.13 Total
thickness
(mm)
Cavity 150 - 1397
Breathing 12 0.19
Membrane
Wool 210 0.04
Timber Flooring 25 0.14
Internal ceiling/ floor Timber Flooring 25 0.14 0.1469
Wool 250 0.04 Total
thickness
(mm)
Timber Flooring 25 25 300
Slopping roof Clay tile 20 0.84 0.1529
Cavity 10 - Total
thickness
(mm)
Roofing felt 12 0.19 354
Timber Board 25 0.165
Wool 250 0.04
Vapour Membrane 12 0.19
Timber Board 25 0.165
Triple external outer pane 19 1.06 0.8799
windows (hardwood)
cavity 18 -
inner pane 19 1.06
(hardwood)
cavity 18 -
inner pane 19 1.06
(hardwood)
new external door pine 150 0.14 0.8055
Table A.3: The U-values of the PassivHaus standards construction

75
 AUGUST 2017

External Wall

Pitched roof

Internal floor

Ground floor

Fig. A.5: PassivHaus standards construction details

76
 AUGUST 2017

L1B standard

New Construction Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value (W/m^2*K)

(mm) (W/(m*K)
External wall Brick 400 0.84 0.2932
Breathing 12 0.19 Total thickness (mm)
Membrane
Wool 70 0.04 539
Airtight 12 0.19
Membrane
Mineral Fibre 30 0.035
Slab
Plasterboard 15 0.16
(lime finish)
Ground/ exposed London clay 750 1.41 0.2548
floor
Cast concrete 250 1.13 Total thickness (mm)
Cavity 150 - 1287
Breathing 12 0.19
Membrane
Wool 100 0.04
Timber Flooring 25 0.14
Internal ceiling/ Timber Flooring 25 0.14 0.2465
floor
Wool 140 0.04 Total thickness (mm)
Timber Flooring 25 25 190
Slopping roof Clay tile 20 0.84 0.176
Cavity 10 - Total thickness (mm)
Roofing felt 12 0.19 304
Timber Board 25 0.165
Wool 200 0.04
Vapour 12 0.19
Membrane
Timber Board 25 0.165
Double external outer pane 6 1.06 1.6
windows
cavity 12 -
inner pane 6 1.06
new external door pine 55 0.14 1.7766
Table A.4: The U-values of the L1B standard construction

77
 AUGUST 2017

External Wall

Pitched roof

Internal floor

Ground floor

Fig. A.6: L1B standard construction details

78
 AUGUST 2017

L1A standard

New Materials Thickness Conductivity U-value

Construction (mm) (W/(m*K) (W/m^2*K)
External wall Brick 400 0.84 0.1812
Breathing 12 0.19 Total thickness
Membrane (mm)
Wool 120 0.04 607
Airtight Membrane 12 0.19
Mineral Fibre Slab 60 0.035
Plasterboard (lime 15 0.16
finish)
Ground/ exposed London clay 750 1.41 0.1303
floor
Cast concrete 250 1.13 Total thickness
(mm)
Cavity 150 - 1437
Breathing 12 0.19
Membrane
Wool 250 0.04
Timber Flooring 25 0.14
Internal ceiling/ Timber Flooring 25 0.14 0.1281
floor
Wool 290 0.04 Total thickness
(mm)
Timber Flooring 25 25 340
Slopping roof Clay tile 20 0.84 0.1302
Cavity 10 - Total thickness
(mm)
Roofing felt 12 0.19 384
Timber Board 25 0.165
Wool 280 0.04
Vapour Membrane 12 0.19
Timber Board 25 0.165
Double external outer pane 19 1.06 1.397
windows
cavity 12 -
inner pane 19 1.06
new external pine 110 0.14 1.0463
door
Table A.5: The U-values of the L1A standard construction

79
 AUGUST 2017

External Wall

Pitched roof

Internal floor

Ground floor

Fig. A.7: L1A standard construction details

80
 APPENDIX B AUGUST 2017

Energy results from tests

Energy System CO2

consu Total energy emi CO2
Area of Total
mptio system consump ssio emissions
building Description Tests energy
n energy tion ns (kgCO2/m2
(m^2) (MWh)
(KWh/ (MWh) (KWh/m2 (kgC /yr)
m2/yr) /yr) 02)
171.393 Test 61.319 545 31.827418
no heating on 10.5098 - -
1 0 85477 5 96
171.393 Test 380.71 54.742 319.3996 188 109.93441
heating system on 65.2527
1 1 95272 9 724 42 39
PassivHaus Test 337.28 45.349 276.0659 164 100.30924
164.272 insulation ext. walls 55.4062
standards 2 32863 9 151 78 32
insulation gr floor/ Test 214.65 25.187 153.3267 113 68.958800
164.272 35.2622
internal/new roof 3 73975 3 995 28 04
new ext windows/ Test 191.64 21.407 130.3161 104 63.833154
164.272 31.4822
ext doors 4 67809 3 829 86 77
Test 154.03 15.228 92.70234 727 44.310655
164.272 PV panels 25.3033
5 29454 4 733 9 5
Building
167.841 Test 336.44 46.175 275.1161 167 100.04700
standards insulation ext. walls 56.4687
1 2 14318 8 664 92 87
L1B
167.841 insulation gr floor/ Test 217.98 26.294 156.6642 117 69.786244
36.5874
1 internal/new roof 3 83235 7 497 13 25
167.841 new ext windows/ Test 201.74 23.567 140.4179 111 66.193560
33.8607
1 ext doors 4 26006 9 31 10 46
167.841 Test 164.92 103.6039 790 47.086202
PV panels 27.6818 17.389
1 5 8614 444 3 37
Building
165.636 Test 335.28 45.378 273.9622 165 99.845022
standards insulation ext. walls 55.5361
7 2 86166 2 318 38 27
L1A
165.636 insulation gr floor/ Test 213.05 25.132 151.7302 113 68.589871
35.29
7 internal/new roof 3 66475 1 627 61 69
165.636 new ext windows/ Test 193.33 21.865 132.0069 106 64.182635
32.0231
7 ext doors 4 33615 2 767 31 85
165.636 Test 156.02 15.686 94.70304 742 44.820984
PV panels 25.8442
7 5 94307 3 588 4 72

Table B.1: The various tests and the energy and CO2emmisions results of the model.

81
 APPENDIX C AUGUST 2017

Cost calculations

PassivHaus standard retrofit

Building Material Area/ PC Labour Labour Materi Units Total £ Summed

element Metres £ Hours £ al total
Covered
External Thermafleece Sheep's 86.504 - - - 6.13 m^2 6.13 530.2695
wall Wool (100mm)
Timber Battens 300 - 0.14 2.67 1.91 m 4.58 1374
construction
(47*100mm)
Thermafleece Sheep's 86.504 - - - 4.61 m^2 4.61 398.7834
Wool (75mm)
Timber Battens 300 - 0.11 2.09 1.22 m 3.31 993
construction
(47*75mm)
Airtight Membrane 86.504 0.8 0.02 0.43 1.2 m^2 1.63 141.0015
1
Mineral Fibre Slab (50 86.504 1.6 0.09 1.32 1.98 m^2 3.3 285.4632
mm) 8
Plasterboard (12.5 86.504 - 0.16 2.95 3.93 m^2 6.88 595.1475
mm)
Limelite finish (13mm) 86.504 - - - - m^2 19.77 1710.184
Ground/ Breathing Membrane 58.24 - 0.1 2.78 3.48 m^2 6.26 364.5824
exposed
floor
Thermafleece Sheep's 58.24 - - - 8.59 m^2 8.59 500.2816
Wool (140mm)
Timber Battens 200 - 0.15 2.86 4.96 m 7.82 1564
construction
(75*140mm)
Thermafleece Sheep's 58.24 - - - 6.13 m^2 6.13 357.0112
Wool
(100mm)
Timber Battens 200 - 0.13 2.48 1.56 m 4.04 808
construction
(47*100mm)
Internal Thermafleece Sheep's 55.9 - - - 8.59 m^2 8.59 480.181
ceiling/ Wool
floor (140mm)
Thermafleece Sheep's 55.9 - - - 6.13 m^2 6.13 342.667
Wool
(100mm)
Table C.1: Cost of PassivHaus standard retrofit

82
 AUGUST 2017

Building Material Area/ PC £ Labour Labour Material Units Total Summed

element Metres Hours £ £ total
Covered
Slopping Thermafleece Sheep's 67.64 - - - 6.13 m^2 6.13 414.6332
roof Wool
(100mm)
Thermafleece Sheep's 67.64 - - - 6.13 m^2 6.13 414.6332
Wool
(100mm)
Thermafleece Sheep's 67.64 - - - 3.08 m^2 3.08 208.3312
Wool
(50mm)
Timber Battens 180 - 0.08 1.53 1.25 m 2.78 500.4
construction
(38*50mm)
Vapour Membrane 67.64 0.81 0.02 0.43 1.2 m^2 1.63 110.2532
Timber Board (25mm 67.64 - 0.62 11.81 10.3 m^2 22.11 1495.52
sloping)
Total 13588.34
new triple Triple glazed 6 740 4440
external (1000*1500mm)
windows
(hardwood)
Triple glazed 1 870 870
(1600*1400mm)
new External door 2 1336 2672
external
door
Total of 21570.3
construction
Table C.2: Cost of PassivHaus standard retrofit (continue)

83
 AUGUST 2017

L1B standard retrofit

Building Area PC Labour Labour Materi Summed

element Material Covered £ Hours £ al Units Total £ total
External Thermafleece Sheep's 398.7834
wall Wool (75mm) 86.504 - - - 4.61 m^2 4.61 4
Timber Battens
construction
(47*75mm) 300 - 0.08 1.53 1.06 m 2.59 777
0.8 141.0015
Airtight Membrane 86.504 1 0.02 0.43 1.2 m^2 1.63 2
Mineral Fibre Slab 1.0 214.5299
(25 mm) 86.504 2 0.08 1.17 1.31 m^2 2.48 2
Plasterboard 595.1475
(12.5 mm) 86.504 - 0.16 2.95 3.93 m^2 6.88 2
1710.184
Limelite finish (13mm) 86.504 - - - - m^2 19.77 08
Ground/
exposed
floor Breathing Membrane 58.24 - 0.1 2.78 3.48 m^2 6.26 364.5824
Thermafleece Sheep's
Wool (100mm) 58.24 - - - 6.13 m^2 6.13 357.0112
Timber Battens
construction
(47*100mm) 200 - 0.13 2.48 1.56 m 4.04 808
Internal
ceiling/ Thermafleece Sheep's
floor Wool (140mm) 55.9 - - - 8.59 m^2 8.59 480.181
Table C.3: Cost of L1B standard retrofit

84
 AUGUST 2017

Building Area PC Labour Labour Materi Summed

element Material Covered £ Hours £ al Units Total £ total
Thermafleece
Slopping Sheep's
roof Wool (100mm) 67.64 - - - 6.13 m^2 6.13 414.6332
Thermafleece
Sheep's
Wool (100mm) 67.64 - - - 6.13 m^2 6.13 414.6332
0.8
Vapour Membrane 67.64 1 0.02 0.43 1.2 m^2 1.63 110.2532
Timber Board 1495.520
(25mm sloping) 67.64 - 0.62 11.81 10.3 m^2 22.11 4
8281.461
Total 08
new
double
external Double glazed
windows (1000*1500mm) 6 616.7 3700.2
Double glazed
(1600*1400mm) 1 714 714
new
external
door External door 2 1114 2228
Total cost 14923.7
Table C.4: Cost of L1B standard retrofit (continue)

85
 AUGUST 2017

L1A standard retrofit

Building Area PC Labour Labour Materi Summed

element Material Covered £ Hours £ al Units Total £ total
External Thermafleece Sheep's 636.6694
wall Wool (120mm) 86.504 - - - 7.36 m^2 7.36 4
Timber Battens
construction
(47*120mm) 300 - 0.13 2.48 2 m 4.48 1344
0.8 141.0015
Airtight Membrane 86.504 1 0.02 0.43 1.2 m^2 1.63 2
Mineral Fibre Slab 1.6
(50 mm) 86.504 8 0.09 1.32 1.98 m^2 3.3 285.4632
Plasterboard 595.1475
(12.5 mm) 86.504 - 0.16 2.95 3.93 m^2 6.88 2
1710.184
Limelite finish (13mm) 86.504 - - - - m^2 19.77 08
Ground/
exposed
floor Breathing Membrane 58.24 - 0.1 2.78 3.48 m^2 6.26 364.5824
Thermafleece Sheep's
Wool (140mm) 58.24 - - - 8.59 m^2 8.59 500.2816
Timber Battens
construction
(75*140mm) 200 - 0.14 2.67 2.3 m 4.97 994
Thermafleece Sheep's
Wool (140mm) 58.24 - - - 8.59 m^2 8.59 500.2816
Timber Battens
construction
(75*140mm) 200 - 0.14 2.67 2.3 m 4.97 994
Internal
ceiling/ Thermafleece Sheep's
floor Wool (140mm) 55.9 - - - 8.59 m^2 8.59 480.181
Thermafleece Sheep's
Wool (100mm) 55.9 - - - 6.13 m^2 6.13 342.667
Thermafleece Sheep's
Wool (50mm) 55.9 - - - 3.08 m^2 3.08 172.172
Timber Battens
construction
(38*50mm) 200 - 0.08 1.53 1.25 m 2.78 556
Table C.5: Cost of L1A standard retrofit

86
 AUGUST 2017

Building Material Area/ PC Labour Labour Materi Units Total £ Summed

element Metres £ Hours £ al total
Covered

Slopping Thermafleece Sheep's

roof Wool (140mm) 67.64 - - - 8.59 m^2 8.59 581.0276
Thermafleece Sheep's
Wool (100mm) 67.64 - - - 6.13 m^2 6.13 414.6332
Thermafleece Sheep's
Wool (50mm) 67.64 - - - 3.08 m^2 3.08 208.3312
Timber Battens
construction
(38*50mm) 180 - 0.08 1.53 1.25 m 2.78 500.4
0.8
Vapour Membrane 67.64 1 0.02 0.43 1.2 m^2 1.63 110.2532
Timber Board (25mm 1495.520
sloping) 67.64 - 0.62 11.81 10.3 m^2 22.11 4
Total 12926.79
new
double
external
windows Double glazed
(glass) (1000*1500mm) 6 616.7 3700.2
Double glazed
(1600*1400mm) 1 714 714
new
external
door External door 2 1114 2228

Total cost 19568.99

Table C.6: Cost of L1A standard retrofit (continue)

87
 APPENDIX D AUGUST 2017
Saving calculations

PassvHaus L1B standards L1A standards Units

standards
Initial Energy Consumption 380.72 380.72 380.72 KWh/m^2/yr
Final Energy Consumption 191.6468 201.7426 193.3333 KWh/m^2/yr
Initial CO2 emissions 109.934 109.934 109.934 kgCO2/m^2/yr
Final CO2 emissions 63.8331 66.1935 64.1826 kgCO2/m^2/yr

Energy saved 189.0732 178.9774 187.3867 KWh/m^2/yr

CO2 saved 46.1009 43.7405 45.7514 kgCO2/m^2/yr

Retrofit cost 21570.3437 14923.661 19568.997 £

Area 164.27 167.84 165.64 m^2

Gas saved 31059.05456 30039.56682 31038.73299 kWh
Money saved (gas) 931.7716369 901.1870045 931.1619896 £/yr
Payback period 23.14981788 16.56000467 21.0156742 Years
50-year period 46588.58185 45059.35022 46558.09948 £
50-year period- retrofit cost 25018.23815 30135.68922 26989.10248 £
100-year period- Retrofit cost 71606.81999 75195.03945 73547.20196 £

Roof panels installation 14000 14000 14000 £

Final Energy consumption 154.033 164.9286 156.0294 KWh/m^2/yr
New energy saved 226.687 215.7914 224.6906 KWh/m^2/yr
Final CO2 emissions 44.3016 47.0862 44.821 kgCO2/m^2/yr
New CO2 saved 65.6324 62.8478 65.113 kgCO2/m^2/yr
Total retrofit cost 35570.3437 28923.661 33568.997 £
Gas saved 37237.87349 36218.42858 37217.75098 kWh
Money saved 1117.136205 1086.552857 1116.53253 £/yr
Payback period 31.84065072 26.6196539 30.0653999 Years
5-year period 5585.681024 5432.764286 5582.662648 £
50-year period 55856.81024 54327.64286 55826.62648 £
50-year period-Retrofit cost 20286.46654 25403.98186 22257.62948 £
(pv inc)
100-year period- Retrofit cost 76143.27677 79731.62473 78084.25595 £
(pv inc)
Table D.1: Comparisons between findings of the different standards.

88