Energy Efficient Social Housing for One Manchester

444
ARCH734 Sustainable Environmental Design
Meeradevi Kathaliyil 201577234 | Harshini Rajagopal 201385107 | Mark Alegbe 201452669
Social Housing
by one manchester

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 3
Case studies
1.Knight’s place, Exeter - 4
2.Killynure Green, Carryduff, Northern Ireland - 6
3.EMH Homes, Town Street, Sandiacre, Northern
Ireland - 8
4.Goldsmith street, Norwich - 10
Summary – Values for reference - 12
Conclusions - 13
Standards - 14
Site Analysis - 18
Climate Analysis
Manchester current climate analysis - 21
Weather data comparison - 23
Psychrometric chart comparison - 24
Wind data comparison - 25
Shading requirement comparison - 26
Design development
Initial design plan - 27
Justifications - 28
Design strategies - 29
Social Housing study - 30
Floor plans – Option appraisal - 31
Energy analysis - 36
Floor plans
Unit plans - 40
Overall scheme - 41
2 bedroom – Convertible options - 42
Elevations - 43
Site plan - 44
2 Bedroom units
Energy Analysis – Effect of partitions - 45
Energy Analysis – Overheating - 46
Energy Analysis – Window optimisation - 47
Energy Analysis – Effect of overhang - 48
Final model – Energy performance - 50
Daylighting - 51
Studio Units – East units
Window Optimisation - 52
Energy Analysis - 53
Studio Units – West units
Window Optimisation - 54
Energy Analysis - 55
1 Bedroom units - East
Energy Analysis – Overheating - 56
Energy Analysis – Window Optimisation - 57
Other units - 58
Site – External CFD Analysis - 59
Shading Analysis - 61
Heating and Hot water system – Option Appraisal – 62
Sustainability strategies – summary – 63
Construction details and materials – 64
LCA Analysis - 66
Solar panel calculations - 68
Rendered Views - 69
Conclusions - 72
List of References - 73

Project 444 is a sustainable social housing scheme designed for One Manchester. The scheme consists of individual rep-
licable rows each consisting of 4 Studio Apartments, 4 1-Bedroom Apartments, and 4 2-Bedroom duplex homes, all ar-
ranged within a terraced housing format.
The housing sector alone is responsible for 17% of the UK's carbon emissions. The operational carbon of buildings highly
contributes to global warming. The aim of this project is to design compact and energy efficient homes. The embodied
carbon and cost of the project was also considered. The sustainability strategy includes the creation of a comfortable
and healthy environment within the houses by using efficient technology solutions and renewable sources of energy in
order to achieve high building energy efficiency. The energy demand was reduced by the use of passive strategies, and
an increase in the energy efficiency of facilities and use of renewable resources available on site.
This report begins will examination of case studies to learn from previous sustainable social housing schemes. The site,
which is located in the Bradford district of East Manchester, is evaluated. The site analysis will be followed by a thor-
ough analysis of the climatic conditions of Manchester currently along with an evaluation of Manchester’s future cli-
matic conditions for 2030, 2050, and 2080 based on RCP4.5 (Representation Concentration Pathway) Scenario.
The design development section is a detailed account of all the design deliberations based on qualitative research and
quantitative investigation and calculations based on data from Design Builder. The final plans for the project were de-
veloped with the optimum form, shape, and floor plans. The windows and shading were optimised to maximise solar
gain and day lighting while limiting overheating, for which a detailed study was carried out. Further, the materials used
were evaluated and a brief overview of building construction details were drafted.
The Life Cycle analysis of the building was carried out to help ascertain the embodied carbon and life cycle cost of the
building followed by calculations for solar panels. The sustainability strategies implemented in this building along with
the efficient fabric and form makes this a Carbon Negative building which was designed meticulously with not only
environmental aspect sustainability in mind but also the social and economic aspect. This scheme would help create up
to 24 comfortable, healthy, and harmonious community to live in for many decades to come.
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT BRIEF | ABSTRACT | AIMS & OBJECTIVES

CASE STUDIES
1. KNIGHT’S PLACE - EXETER
Client: Exeter City Council
Architect: Gale and Snowden
The holistic design strategy allows the units to be operated without a conventional heating system.
At the same time, it will avoid overheating in the summer and aims to have a minimal environmental
impact. The quality of materials, design and landscaping offers residents a sense of place with a dis-
tinctive modern character which they can take pride in over the long term.
• Building design is based on the Passivhaus method.
• Designed to meet future climate change.
• Designed to meet code 4 of the CSH
• Fully compliant with lifetime home standards.
• Private gardens designed using permaculture principles.
• Solar panels serving each individual units.
• Designed to meet best practice daylight levels.
• 100% energy efficient light fittings throughout.
• Independently assessed under the building for life standard with a final score of 18.5 out of 20.
• Using low water use fittings, the water consumption was reduced to less than 80 litres/person/day
• Fuel Poverty
• Energy Sustainability
• Future Climate Change
• Low Maintenance
• Downsizing
• Healthy Buildings
• 18 Units
• 15-month construction programme
Project Summary
Project Drivers
Energy Performance
SITE LAYOUT PLAN
Treated Floor Area
= 492.1 m2
Annual heating demand
= 11.90 kwh/m2a
Heating load
= 10 w/m2
Primary Energy
= 111.5 kwh/m2a
Airtightness
(Pressurization test result)
= 0.6 1/h

KEY LES
� Need for gre
collaboration
� Simplistic de
� Future users
Source:
PowerPoint Presentation (
Passive House Buil
Knight's Place Pres
Issuu
Design Considerations - Wellbeing
• Non-toxic (VOC) materials.
• High quality ventilation.
• High levels of natural daylight.
• Thermal comfort.
• Avoidance of dust mites by design strategies
and materials selection.
• User control initiative.
• Radial wiring to reduce low frequency electro
magnetic fields.
• Non-PVC materials specified.
• Emphasis on integrated design using
permaculture principles.
• Working with natural system not against it.
• Shared garden spaces
• Use of local labour and apprentices.
SYSTEMS AND ENERGY PERFORMANCE
Roof
= 400mm insulation U<0.11W/m2
Floor
Air Barrier
Internal plaster, structural screed, vapour check
in roof.
Windows and Doors
U<0.85W/m2k
MVHR
> 92% efficiency
Optimized Solar Orientation and Compact
Building Form
Energy Consumption – left: Comparison, Right: heating load (passive vs non-pas
Walls
= 250mm EIFS U<0.12W/m2k
Energy and Comfort analysis
C02 monitoring during winter period from
November to March shows a mean average of
600-710 ppm (parts per million), measured in the
bedroom and kitchen as sown above.
Below, the graph shows results of the
temperature during the 2013 heat wave. Only
0.45% of the recorded temperature is above 26-
degree c.
Temperature ran
“I have never felt unco
moving in”
(Tenant)
Design Considerations
Systems and Energy Performance
Energy and Comfort Analysis
Key Lessons
Strengths
Weaknesses
• Avoidance of dust mites by design strategies and
materials selection.
• Radial wiring to reduce low frequency electro mag-
netic fields.
• Emphasis on integrated design using permaculture
principles.
Shared garden spaces
Use of local labour and apprentices.
Walls
Roof
Floor
Air Barrier
Internal plaster, structural screed, vapour check in
roof.
Windows and Doors
U<0.85W/m2k
MVHR
> 92% efficiency
Optimized Solar Orientation and Compact Building
Form
KEY LESSONS
� Need for greater contr
collaboration.
� Simplistic design as ke
� Future users' involvem
Source:
High levels of natural daylight.
Thermal comfort.
Avoidance of dust mites by design strategies
User control initiative.
Radial wiring to reduce low frequency electro
magnetic fields.
Non-PVC materials specified.
Emphasis on integrated design using
Working with natural system not against it.
Shared garden spaces
Use of local labour and apprentices.
STEMS AND ENERGY PERFORMANCE
of
400mm insulation U<0.11W/m2
oor
250mm insulation U<0.10W/m2
r Barrier
ernal plaster, structural screed, vapour check
roof.
ndows and Doors
0.85W/m2k
VHR
92% efficiency
ptimized Solar Orientation and Compact
Energy Consumption – left: Comparison, Right: heating load (passive vs non-passive)
alls
250mm EIFS U<0.12W/m2k
degree c.
Temperature range
“I have never felt uncomfortably hot
moving in”
(Tenant)
KEY LESSONS
� Need for greater contractor-designer
collaboration.
� Simplistic design as key element.
� Future users' involvement and training
Source:
PowerPoint Presentation (ukphc.org.uk)
Passive House Buildings (passivehouse-database.org)
Knight's Place Presentation by Jonathan Barattini -
Issuu
magnetic fields.
Roof
Floor
Air Barrier
in roof.
Windows and Doors
U<0.85W/m2k
MVHR
> 92% efficiency
Building Form
Walls
degree c.
Temperature range
“I have never felt uncomfortably hot or cold a single day since
moving in”
(Tenant)
KEY LESSONS
� Need for greater contracto
collaboration.
� Simplistic design as key el
� Future users' involvement
Source:
Passive House Buildings (passivehou
Knight's Place Presentation by Jonat
Issuu
magnetic fields.
Roof
Floor
Air Barrier
in roof.
Windows and Doors
U<0.85W/m2k
MVHR
> 92% efficiency
Building Form
Walls
degree c.
Temperature range
“I have never felt uncomfortably hot or cold
moving in”
(Tenant)
KEY LESSONS
� Need for greater contractor-designer
collaboration.
� Simplistic design as key element.
� Future users' involvement and training
Source:
Passive House Buildings (passivehouse-database.org)
Knight's Place Presentation by Jonathan Barattini -
Issuu
magnetic fields.
Roof
Floor
Air Barrier
in roof.
Windows and Doors
U<0.85W/m2k
MVHR
> 92% efficiency
Building Form
Walls
degree c.
Temperature range
“I have never felt uncomfortably hot or cold a single day since
moving in”
(Tenant)
600-710 ppm (parts per million), measured in
the bedroom and kitchen as sown above.
Below, the graph shows results of the temperat-
ure during the 2013 heat wave. Only 0.45% of
the recorded temperature is above 26-degree c.
• Need for greater contractor-designer collab-
oration.
• Simplistic design as key element.
• Future users’ involvement and training
“I have never felt uncomfortably hot or cold a single day
since moving in”
(Tenant)
• No conventional heating system
• Sense of place combined with modern char-
acter
• Private gardens
• Low maintenance facilities
• Permaculture principles in landscaping
• Low water use fittings
• Poor orientation for block 2, potential ex-
cess solar gains
• Solar panels serving each unit may increase
installation and maintenance costs
• Roof intersection patterns, though aesthet-
ically pleasing are huge concerns for thermal
bridges

CASE STUDIES
2. KILLYNURE GREEN, CARRYDUFF, NORTHERN IRELAND
Client: Choice House Association
Architect: PDP London
The buildings are carefully positioned to follow the nat-
ural undulations of the site, with short housing terraces
tiered across the existing site levels and contours. The
design sought to take advantage of the sloping site by
spacing the dwellings to maximise daylight and collec-
tion.
The developments was designed to meet minimum code
5 of the Code of Sustainable homes, utilizing modern
methods of construction. It was to be the first Code Level
5 scheme in Northern Ireland and one of the largest in the
UK.
Located in the urban area of Carryduff and along a busy
commuter road, this brownfield site required significant
cut and fill ground works along with the installation of
multiple retaining structures. The aim of this project was
to provide thermally efficient homes that would lead the
way for future developments.
By combining a fabric first approach, complimented with
sustainable technologies, each home was designed to
achieve an improvement of 60% more on current build-
ing regulations.
Social and Affordable Zero Carbon Housing Scheme.
CIBSE project of the year award 2018.
Description
Overview
Design, Construction and Delivery process
Special Features
Topography Influence
• Fabric first approach was adopted to reduce energy consumption.
• Prefabricated structural system was utilized to achieve high levels of thermal
insulation and airtightness.
• Timber framed winter gardens was designed as a passive solution, an insu-
lated buffer for the residents from outside conditions.
• Airtightness tests were carried out at an early stage as a quality check and the
wintergardens were modelled in IES at design stage to ensure optimum solar
gain.

Products and systems
Windows
Air tightness
Building Services
Space and Domestic Hot Water
(DHW)
Ventilation
Overheating Strategy and
Renewables
External Walls
• Kingspan Ultima Timber Frame System
• Timber prefabricated panels with 40mm Kooltherm K12, 120mm
Kooltherm K12, 50mm cavity with rendered masonry external leaf
Roof and Intermediate Floors
• Kingspan prefabricated cassette panels
• Pitched roof incorporating 120mm Kooltherm K12 between rafters,
50mm Kooltherm K12 to underside rafters
Floor
Screed over 175mm insulation on concrete slab
• Timber prefabricated panels with 40mm Kooltherm K12,
120mm Kooltherm K12, 50mm cavity with rendered
masonry external leaf
PRODUCTS AND SYSTEMS
External Walls
• Pitched roof incorporating 120mm Kooltherm K12
between rafters, 50mm Kooltherm K12 to underside
rafters
• Screed over 175mm insulation on concrete slab
Floor
• Triple glazed throughout to achieve a
minimum complete window. U-value of
0.9w/m2k
Windows
• Between 1.6 - 3m3/h/m2@50pa
Airtightness
• MVHR system with a summer bypass
facility.
• Gas combination boiler for space heating
and hot water
• Rainwater harvesting
Building services
NOTE: Energy efficiency was measured based on Heat Loss
Parameter (HLP) rather than the Fabric Energy Efficiency (FEE).
Heat Loss Parameter
0.69 - 1.13 W/m2K
Walls
0.13 W/m2K
Roof
0.13 W/m2K
Windows
0.9 W/m2K
Triple Glazed
Total Carbon Emissions Range
3.38 kg/m2/yr – 10.11 kg/m2/yr
• The radiators are supplied by a highly
efficient gas combi boiler system. Hot water
supply is also from the gas combi boilers.
Space and Domestic Hot Water (DHW)
• A highly efficient Mechanical Ventilation with
Heat Recovery (MVHR) system is in use in
all the houses. It includes a summer bypass
facility to supply fresh air to the building
without any heat being recovered when not
required.
Ventilation
• Designed to maximize natural daylight.
• winter solar gain.
• Tenants controlled ventilation
• Water butts integrated into the roof canopy
to collect rainwater utilising a simple “chain
drain” detail along with rainwater harvesting
for reuse in WCs.
Overheating Strategy and Renewables
KEY LESSONS
� Energy efficient approach to meet Code 5
for sustainable homes.
� Decarbonization was in focus from the
onset.
� Innovative products and systems to
achieve high levels of thermal insulation
and airtightness.
� Factory fitted structural systems and
components for high level accuracy in
assembling.
� Low embodied energy materials with low
U values.
Source:
Case study: Killynure Green low energy housing – CIBSE
Journal
Profile-KillynureGreen.pdf (zerocarbonhub.org)
Killynure Green wins Action Renewable Award | Choice...
• MVHR system with a summer bypass facility.
• Gas combination boiler for space heating and hot
water
• Water butts integrated into the roof canopy to
collect rainwater utilising a simple “chain drain”
detail along with rainwater harvesting for reuse
in WCs.
A highly efficient Mechanical Ventilation with Heat
Recovery (MVHR) system is in use in all the houses.
It includes a summer bypass facility to supply fresh
air to the building without any heat being recovered
when not required.
• The radiators are supplied by a highly efficient
gas combi boiler system.
• Hot water supply is also from the gas combi boil-
ers.
Between 1.6 - 3m3/h/m2@50pa
Triple glazed throughout to achieve a minimum complete window. U-
value of 0.9w/m2k
External Walls
rafters
Floor
0.9w/m2k
Windows
Airtightness
facility.
and hot water
Building services
Heat Loss Parameter
0.69 - 1.13 W/m2K
Walls
0.13 W/m2K
Roof
0.13 W/m2K
Windows
0.9 W/m2K
Triple Glazed
3.38 kg/m2/yr – 10.11 kg/m2/yr
required.
Ventilation
for reuse in WCs.
KEY LESSONS
onset.
and airtightness.
assembling.
U values.
Source:
Journal
(choice-housing.org)
External Walls
rafters
Floor
0.9w/m2k
Windows
Airtightness
facility.
and hot water
Building services
Heat Loss Parameter
0.69 - 1.13 W/m2K
Walls
0.13 W/m2K
Roof
0.13 W/m2K
Windows
0.9 W/m2K
Triple Glazed
3.38 kg/m2/yr – 10.11 kg/m2/yr
required.
Ventilation
for reuse in WCs.
KEY LESSONS
onset.
and airtightness.
assembling.
U values.
Source:
Journal
(choice-housing.org)
Strengths
Key Lessons Weaknesses
NOTE: Energy efficiency was measured based on Heat Loss Parameter
(HLP) rather than the Fabric Energy Efficiency (FEE)
• Energy efficient approach to meet Code 5 for sus-
tainable homes.
• Decarbonization was in focus from the onset.
• Innovative products and systems to achieve high
levels of thermal insulation and airtightness.
• Factory fitted structural systems and compon-
ents for high level accuracy in assembling.
• Low embodied energy materials with low U val-
ues.
• Phased construction
• Prefabricated structural systems (high insu-
lation and airtightness)
• Timber framed garden
• Designed to suit site topography
• Low u-value materials
• Controlled ventilation
• Concrete floor slabs could increase co2
emissions

CASE STUDIES
3. EMH HOMES, TOWN STREET, SANDIACRE, NORTHERN IRELAND
Client: Choice House Association
Architect: EMH London
Building Services
Overview
Special Features
Project Challenge
Social and Affordable passive housing with extremely
low energy bills. One of the first passivhaus projects in
the UK
This development at Town street, Sandiacre consists
of thirty-six houses and four flats all to the same
passivhaus fabric specification. Four of these are
passivhaus certified, while the rest have been con-
structed to the same specification.
The project team included a passivhaus consultant, an
architect and a housebuilder and timber frame supplier.
By engaging the supply chain early within the project,
both product and process improvements have been
used to deliver highly energy efficient homes at a cost
viable for social housing providers.
One of the central challenges was to work with the se-
lected manufacturer of a conventional timber framed
housing system to raise its energy efficiency perform-
ance to passivhaus standard. This represented a design
challenge for both architects and consultants. There
was also and up-skilling challenge for the contractor to
deliver a robust strategy for the delivery of airtight con-
struction.
Cost of radiators in all house types was reduced by us-
ing the ventilation system to distribute the minimal
amount of heat required.
The option to achieve Code for Sustainable Homes
Level 4 was a major challenge.
• Option 1- Fabric First energy demand
reductions
• Option 2- Technology first low and zero
carbon energy generating systems.
• Fabric first approach in the form of
passivhaus specification was adopted. It was
a more robust, long-term solution for the
development.
• Standard timber frame construction
• High insulation and airtightness levels
• No thermal bridges, thermal by-pass or air
leakages.
Delivery Process and Considerations
Ground Floor Plan
First Floor Plan
Building Services
• Gas condensing boiler to provide
space and domestic hot water
• Radiator system significantly
reduced to only upper and ground
floor bathrooms
• Mechanical ventilation with heat
recovery MVHR systems.
• Timber Frame with 140mm mineral
wool, 100mm PIR, 50mm cavity
with brick or block outer leaf
External walls
• 400mm ceiling level low density
glass mineral wool insulation
Roof
• Screed over 170mm PIR insulation
board
Floor
• Energy efficient approach to meet Code 5 for sus-
tainable homes.
• Innovative products and systems to achieve high
levels of thermal insulation and airtightness.
• Factory fitted structural systems and components
for high level accuracy in assembling.
• Low embodied energy materials with low U val-
ues.
Key Lessons
reductions
development.
leakages.
Ground Floor Plan
Building Services
floor bathrooms
External walls
Roof
Floor
reductions
development.
leakages.
Ground Floor Plan
First Floor Plan
Building Services
floor bathrooms
External walls
Roof
board
Floor
• Gas condensing boiler to provide space and
domestic hot water
• Radiator system significantly reduced to
only upper and ground floor bathrooms
• Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery
MVHR systems.
External walls
Timber Frame with 140mm mineral wool,
100mm PIR, 50mm cavity with brick or block
outer leaf
Roof
400mm ceiling level low density glass mineral
wool insulation
Floor
Screed over 170mm PIR insulation board
Windows
Passivhaus certified triple glazed windows
throughout.
Products and systems
reductions
development.
leakages.
Ground Floor Plan
First Floor Plan
Building Services
floor bathrooms
External walls
Roof
board
Floor

• Airtightness between 0.49 – 1.5
m3/h/m2@50pa
• The MHVR system included an automatic
summer bypass function plus inline
electrical post heater.
• Timer button “boost” function in Kitchen and
bathrooms
• Acoustic attenuation within the pre-insulated
rigid circular ductwork system
• Maintenance system.
Airtightness and Ventilation
NOTE: Energy efficiency was measured based on
Fabric Energy Efficiency (FEE).
KEY LESSONS
� Energy efficient approach to meet Code 4 for sustai
� Decarbonization was in focus from the onset.
� Innovative products and systems to achieve high lev
� Low embodied energy materials with low U values.
� Integration and maintenance of natural vegetation, l
existing roads into the project.
Source:
Sandiacre Passivhaus affordable housing scheme - labm (labmonline.c
ZCH-Profile-TownStreet.pdf (zerocarbonhub.org)
HLP Architects - Town Street, Sandiacre (hlpdesign.com)
• Passivhaus certified triple glazed
windows throughout.
Windows
PRODUCTS AND SYSTEMS (Cont’d)
PART L 2010
Fabric Energy Efficiency
Achieved 29kwh/m2/yr
PROJECT DELIVERY
PART L 2010
Carbon Emissions
Achieved 12.5 kgco2/m2/yr
Timber Frame Wall Construction
(OSB3 Boarding as the primary air barrier)
External wall construction.
m3/h/m2@50pa
bathrooms
KEY LESSONS
� Energy efficient approach to meet Code 4 fo
� Decarbonization was in focus from the onse
� Innovative products and systems to achieve
� Low embodied energy materials with low U v
� Integration and maintenance of natural vege
Source:
Sandiacre Passivhaus affordable housing scheme - labm (lab
Passivhaus certified triple glazed
windows throughout.
ndows
ART L 2010
abric Energy Efficiency
chieved 29kwh/m2/yr
ROJECT DELIVERY
ART L 2010
arbon Emissions
chieved 12.5 kgco2/m2/yr
mber Frame Wall Construction
SB3 Boarding as the primary air barrier)
m3/h/m2@50pa
bathrooms
KEY LESSONS
� Energy efficient approach to meet Code 4 for sustainable
� Decarbonization was in focus from the onset.
� Innovative products and systems to achieve high levels o
� Low embodied energy materials with low U values.
� Integration and maintenance of natural vegetation, lands
Source:
Sandiacre Passivhaus affordable housing scheme - labm (labmonline.co.uk)
• Passivhaus certified triple glazed
windows throughout.
Windows
PRODUCTS AND SYSTEMS (Cont’d)
PART L 2010
PROJECT DELIVERY
PART L 2010
Carbon Emissions
NOTE: Energy efficiency was measured based on Fabric Energy
Efficiency (FEE).
PART L 2010
PART L 2010
Carbon Emissions
• Airtightness between 0.49 – 1.5 m3/h/m2@50pa
• The MHVR system included an automatic summer bypass
function plus inline electrical post heater.
• Timer button “boost” function in Kitchen and bathrooms
• Acoustic attenuation within the pre-insulated rigid circular
ductwork system
Project Delivery
• Energy efficient approach to meet Code 4 for sustainable
homes.
• Innovative products and systems to achieve high levels of
thermal insulation and airtightness.
• Low embodied energy materials with low U values.
• Integration and maintenance of natural vegetation, landscape
and existing roads into the project.
Key Lessons
Strengths
Weaknesses
• Timber frames
• Low energy use intensity EUI of 29kwh/m2/yr. Impressively
below LETI and RIBA targets
• Timer buttons and systems control in kitchen and bathrooms
• Thermal bridges likely at roof above entrance doors

CASE STUDIES
4. GOLDSMITH STREET, NORWICH
Narrow streets, carefully considered window placement, and cleverly slope
EARLY CONSIDERATIONS
SITE LAYOUT PLAN
SITE SECTION:
Cost savings were made early
in the design process by making
significant alterations to the
brickwork, roof and foundation
packages, which didn’t affect
energy performance.
Contemporary materials include
black glazed pantiles traversing
from roof to wall, contrasting
light coloured brick and
perforated metal brise soleil.
ENERGY PERFORMANCE
Thermal Energy Demand
= 12.3 kwh/m2/yr
Thermal Energy Load
= 10w/m2
Primary Energy Demand
= 109kwh/m2/yr
SITE LAYOUT PLAN
ly
king
on
t
= 12.3 kwh/m2/yr
Thermal Energy Load
= 10w/m2
LY CONSIDERATIONS
SITE LAYOUT PLAN
savings were made early
e design process by making
ficant alterations to the
work, roof and foundation
ages, which didn’t affect
gy performance.
emporary materials include
k glazed pantiles traversing
roof to wall, contrasting
coloured brick and
= 12.3 kwh/m2/yr
Thermal Energy Load
= 10w/m2
= 109kwh/m2/yr
Narrow streets, carefully considered window placement, and cleverly sloped roofs
RLY CONSIDERATIONS
SITE LAYOUT PLAN
SITE SECTION:
st savings were made early
he design process by making
nificant alterations to the
kwork, roof and foundation
kages, which didn’t affect
ergy performance.
ntemporary materials include
ck glazed pantiles traversing
m roof to wall, contrasting
t coloured brick and
forated metal brise soleil.
ERGY PERFORMANCE
= 12.3 kwh/m2/yr
Thermal Energy Load
= 10w/m2
= 109kwh/m2/yr
Narrow streets, carefully considered window placement, and cleverly sloped roofs
maximize daylight into a dense development that does not feel oppressive or unsafe.
Parking has been pushed to the perimeter to help maintain openness.
EARLY CONSIDERATIONS
SITE LAYOUT PLAN
SITE SECTION:
Cost savings were made early
in the design process by making
significant alterations to the
brickwork, roof and foundation
packages, which didn’t affect
energy performance.
Contemporary materials include
black glazed pantiles traversing
from roof to wall, contrasting
light coloured brick and
perforated metal brise soleil.
ENERGY PERFORMANCE
Airtightness
= 0.56 ACH@50pascals
= 12.3 kwh/m2/yr
Thermal Energy Load
= 10w/m2
= 109kwh/m2/yr
Client:Norwich City Council
Architect: Mikhail Riches
Goldsmith Street in Norwich, the winner of the 2019 Stirling price is a 100% social housing de-
velopment for Norwich City Council. It comprises of 93 Passivhaus homes spread across 7 blocks
aligned in 4 simple rows on a traditional street pattern.
Description
Early Considerations
Cost savings were made early in the
design process by making significant al-
terations to the brickwork, roof and
foundation packages, which didn’t af-
fect energy performance.
Contemporary materials include black
glazed pantiles traversing from roof to
wall, contrasting light coloured brick
and perforated metal brise soleil.
ENERGY PERFORMANCE
Airtightness
= 0.56 ACH@50pascals

• Building layout is a simple series of seven terrace blocks ar-
ranged in four lines.
• 14m setback between blocks
• Asymmetric roof profile.
• Careful design of windows to minimize overlooking.
• Parking pushed to the perimeter, so the streets feel safe and
“owned” by pedestrians rather than cars.
• Backstreet has gardens and a pathway down the centre that has
been fully landscaped.
• Mechanical ventilation Heat recovery (MVHR) was used in the
interiors with intelligently controlled services.
• Timber frame construction.
• Street level front door on all properties.
• Shared communal area for playing.
• Passivhaus standards with provision of sunny, light-filled
homes with less fuel bills.
• South facing terrace for solar gains.
• Timber insulated panels manufactured offsite.
• Timber frames with less materials use.
• Building thermal envelop allowed more room for insulation.
• 90% of the trades employed on the site were located within 40-
mile radius, adding value to economy and reducing travel time.
Design Considerations
KEY LESSONS
� Passivhaus aspirations and considerations should be t
from the onset.
� Solar gains and overshadowing managed carefully.
� Early service co-ordination essential to integrate into d
� Careful selection of construction method- to ensure rep
Source:
Goldsmith Street – MikhailRiches
Goldsmith Street (woodforgood.com)
Goldsmith Street – Mikhail Riches
Project Gallery (passivhaustrust.org.uk)
Passivhaus News (passivhaustrust.org.uk)
Stirling Work - The passive social housing scheme that won British archite
award - passivehouseplus.ie
• Passivhaus standards with provision of sunny, light-
filled homes with less fuel bills.
• Building thermal envelop allowed more room for
insulation.
• 90% of the trades employed on the site were
located within 40-mile radius, adding value to
economy and reducing travel time.
• Building layout is a simple series of seven terrace
blocks arranged in four lines.
• Parking pushed to the perimeter, so the streets feel
safe and “owned” by pedestrians rather than cars.
• Backstreet has gardens and a pathway down the
centre that has been fully landscaped.
• Mechanical ventilation Heat recovery (MVHR) was
used in the interiors with intelligently controlled
services.
Wall Construction.
KEY LESSONS
� Passivhaus aspirations and considerations should be thought out
from the onset.
� Solar gains and overshadowing managed carefully.
� Early service co-ordination essential to integrate into design.
� Careful selection of construction method- to ensure repeatability.
Source:
Goldsmith Street – MikhailRiches
Goldsmith Street (woodforgood.com)
Goldsmith Street – Mikhail Riches
Project Gallery (passivhaustrust.org.uk)
Passivhaus News (passivhaustrust.org.uk)
Stirling Work - The passivesocial housing scheme that won British architecture’s top
award - passivehouseplus.ie
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND DESCRIPTION
• Timber frame construction.
• Passivhaus standards with provision of sunny, light-
filled homes with less fuel bills.
• Building thermal envelop allowed more room for
insulation.
• 90% of the trades employed on the site were
located within 40-mile radius, adding value to
economy and reducing travel time.
• Building layout is a simple series of seven terrace
blocks arranged in four lines.
• Parking pushed to the perimeter, so the streets feel
safe and “owned” by pedestrians rather than cars.
• Backstreet has gardens and a pathway down the
centre that has been fully landscaped.
• Mechanical ventilation Heat recovery (MVHR) was
used in the interiors with intelligently controlled
services.
Wall Construction.
Strengths
Key Lessons
Weaknesses
• Passivhaus aspirations and considerations should be thought out from the on-
set.
• Solar gains and overshadowing managed carefully.
• Early service co-ordination essential to integrate into design.
• Careful selection of construction method- to ensure repeatability.
• Potentially a poor form factor with a combination of 3 and 2 floors in a block.
(This was not ascertained or calculated)
• Dual aspect (all units have windows on opposite sides)
• No single facing aspect (right to light by users in all units)
• Single frame glazing (no transoms or mullions)
• All 106 units are south facing
• Phased construction for repeatability and improvement
• Social cohesion in design (2 beds and 1 bed options)
• Timber construction to reduce emissions
• Street level front door (key requirement in Manchester standard)
• Offsite manufacturing
• No overshadowing (right to light)
• Pedestrian movement emphasized

CO2 emissions Air tightness levels Energy demands Walls – U values Floor – U values Roofs – U values Glazing – U values Thermal Bridging
Fabric energy
efficiency
Standings Court social
housing development -
Passivhaus and CSH
level 4 standards
DER = 10.23 kg/m2
/year < 0.6 ACH < 120 kWh per /m2
/year 0.11W/m2
K 0.08 W/m2
K 0.10 W/m2
K 0.9-1.0 W/m2
K
Standings Court social
housing development –
CSH Level 5
DER: -0.2 kg/m2
/year, Net
CO2
emmisions: 9.7 kg/
m2
/year
0.25 ACH 1,270.7 kWh/year/dwelling 0.14W/m2
K 0.1W/m2
K 0.1W/m2
K 0.9 - 1.0W/m2
K
EMH Homes –
Townstreet, Sandiacre
To be passivhaus
certified
12.5 kg/m2
/year 0.49 – 1.5 m3
/hm2 Space Heat Demand = 11
kWh/m² per year
Peak Heat Load = 10W/m²
0.11 W/m2K 0.12 W/m2K 0.10 W/m2K
0.84 W/m2K
G = 0.61 – Tripple glazed
Y < 0.07 W/m2K (average) 29 kWh/m2
/year
Knights place – Rowan
house, Exeter City
Council
Passivhaus and CSH
level 4 standards
< 0.6 ACH < 0.12 W/m2K < 0.10 W/m2K < 0.11 W/m2K < 0.85 W/m2K Thermal bridge free
Killynure Green low
energy housing
CSH level 5
3.38 to 10.11 kg/m2
/year 1 – 3 m3
/hm2
35 kWh per /m2
0.13 W/m2K 0.13 W/m2K 0.9 W/m2K Y = 0.04 W/m2K
Wimbish Passivhaus –
Saffron Walden, Essex
Passivhaus and CSH
Peaks are no more than
1200 ppm
0.45 ACH average
104÷111 kWh/m2a ( < 120
kWh/m2a PassivHaus) ,
Heat demand - - South
facing = 12 kWh/m2a ( < 15
kWh/m2a PassivHaus)
- North facing = 19 kWh/
m2a
0.09 W/m2K 0.07 W/m2K 0.08 W/m2K
Windows – 0.77 W/m2K
Doors – 0.80 W/m2K
Lisnahull terrace,
dungannon
Passivhaus and CSH
level 4 standards
< 0.6 ACH < 120 kWh per /m2
/year 0.125 W/m2K 0.143W/m2K 0.133W/m2K
Connell Gardens
Manchester City
Council’s regeneration
plan for the Gorton area
Good Homes Alliance
One Brighton
Retrofit
2/85m3 /h/m2 at 50 Pa,
better than the target of
5m3 /h/m2 at 50 Pa.
un-bridged U-values of
0.21 W/ m2 K and bridged
U-values of 0.25 W/ m2 K
U-value - 0.19 W/m2 K
U-value - 0.80 W/m2 K.
g-value - 0.46
triple glazed and low-E
coated
Camden passivhaus
London’s first certified
passivhaus building
≤0.6 ACH at 50Pa 99 kWh/(m2 a)
Lower 0.125W/m2 K,
Upper 0.116W/m2 K
0.103 W/m2 K
Flat roof 0.067 W/m2 K,
Sloping roof 0.116W/m2 K
Terrace 0.139W/m2 K
U-value: windows 0.76
W/m2 K
U-value: doors 0.78 W/m2
K
Virido
Code for Sustainable
Homes Level 5
Zero carbon (operational) 1.5 m³/h/m²@50Pa
(FEES): 39 and 46 kWh/
m²/yr
Energy Use Intensity
(EUI): 70 kWh/m²/yr
(RIBA 2025)
0.12 W/m²K 0.1 W/m²K 0.1 W/m²K
Door – 0.62 W/m²K
Windows – 0.9 W/m²K
average
Passive fishermen's
cottages on Norfolk
coast
Code for Sustainable
Homes Level 4
0.60 ACH 108 kWh/m2/yr
Brick-clad walls - 0.096
W/m²K
Timber clad walls: 0.104
W/m²K
0.078 W/m²K
Main roof: 0.079 W/m²K
Pitched roof, sloping
ceilings: 0.079 W/m²K
0.85W/m²K
CASE STUDIES
SUMMARY - VALUES FOR REFERENCE

CASE STUDIES
CONCLUSIONS
Case Study Similarities Summary of Design Strategies
SITE
BUILDING ORIENTATION
BUILDING FABRIC
LIGHTING
VERTICAL MOVEMENT
COOLING
VENTILATION
CARBON
ENERGY USE AND EFFICIENCY
• Timber construction
• MVHR systems
• Fabric first approach emphasized
• Low u-value materials
• Natural ventilation prioritized
• Compact buildings, low form factor
• Dual aspect considerations
• Avoidance of single aspect facing units
• Phased construction
• Maximum of three floors
• Avoidance of overshadowing
• Careful selection of construction method- to ensure re-
peatability.
The strategies used in this proposal for a social housing at
Manchester include a combination of environmental, social, and
economic factors aim at improving social inclusiveness, cohesion,
and integration. These factors are generally outlined in the consid-
erations given below.
• South facing façade and gardens
• Permaculture landscaping principles
• Parking in front of building
• East-west orientation
• Sizing windows for solar gains
• Ventilation prioritized
• Entrance door from streets
• No overshadowing with adjacent building on site
• View to parking
• Fabric first approach principles
• Thermally efficient building fabric, low embodied carbon ma-
terials
• Simple building form for improved form factor
• Low maintenance
• Locally sourced materials
• Less transoms and mullions in windows
• Demountable partition
• Performance target for energy consumption
• PV panels integration with grid
• Air source heat pumps
• Metering devices
• Electric vehicle integration powered using solar panels.
• WATER
• greywater reuse/recycling
• Energy efficient systems
• Energy saving features like daylight sensors, absence detection
• Natural lighting prioritized
• Energy efficient systems
• Energy saving features like daylight sensors, absence detection
• Cycle routes and footpaths for reduced emissions from use of
vehicles
• low embodied carbon materials use
• access to public transport route
• biodiversity promoted through landscaping
• EV Charging spots provided
• Tree planting
• Renewable energy generation
• Staircase prioritized over mechanical lifts
• Site landscaping aids
• Shading devices
• Recessed balconies
• Natural ventilation
• Roof overhangs
• Setpoints cooling system installation
• Mixed mode ventilation system. Combines Natural and mech-
anical
• Low room height
• Airtightness of 3m3/m2h@50pa

LETI
Manchester
standard
Passivhaus
standard
Future homes standard
UKGBC Net Zero
Whole life carbon
AECB Building
Standard
RIBA Standards
(notional
building)
(dwelling built
with a heat pump)
Fabric values
Walls 0.13-0.15
External walls 0.13-0.15 0.18 0.18
Semi-exposed
walls
0.18 0.18
Party walls 0.16-0.18 (eg.dwelling/
corridor)
0 (refer table) 0 (refer table)
Floor 0.08-0.10 0.08 - 0.10 (GF) 0.13 0.13
Roof 0.10-0.12
Flat roof - 0.10 - 0.12,
Pitched roof -
0.10-0.12
0.11 0.11
Roof windows 1.2 (when in vertical
position)
1.2 (when in vertical
position)
Roof lights 1.7 1.7
Exposed ceiling/ floors 0.13-0.18
0.13-0.15 (exposed
soffit)
Windows 0.80 (Tripple glazing)
≤ 0.80 W/m2K
(Window installed U
value ≤ 0.85 W/m2K)
Tripple glazed (0.8-1)
Doors 1 ≤ 0.80 W/m2K
Opaque door 1 (<30% glazing area) 1 (<30% glazing area)
Semi-glazed door 1 (30-60% glazing
area)
1 (30-60% glazing
area)
Efficiency measures
Air tightness <1 (m3/h.m2) @ 50 Pa ≤ 0.6 ac/h (n50) 5 m3/(h.m2) @ 50 Pa 5 m3/(h.m2) @ 50 Pa ≤ 1.5 h -1
(≤ 3 h -1
)
Thermal bridging 0.04 (y value) psi ≤0.01 W/mK
Psi external <0.01
W/mK (Calculated if >
0.01 W/mK
G value of glass 0.6 - 0.5 ≥ 0.5
Ventilation system
MVHR - 90%
efficiency - ≤ 2 m
(duct length from
until to external wall)
MVHR - heat recovery
efficiency - ≥ 75%,
electrical efficiency ≤
0.45 Wh/m3
Natural ventilation
with intermittent
extract fans
Natural ventilation
with intermittent
extract fans
STANDARDS
SUMMARY
Each of the projects discussed in the case studies, have followed various stands. Hence it was necessary to make a detailed study of these stands and make a comparison so that while designing, each of
the aspects could be bench marked. Table shows the summary of comparison of various standards.

LETI Manchester standard Passivhaus standard
UKGBC Net Zero
Whole life carbon
AECB Building
Standard
RIBA Standards
(notional building)
(dwelling built with a
heat pump)
Window to wall area
ratio
Same as for actual
dwelling not exceeding a
total area of openings of
25% of total floor area
Same as for actual
dwelling not exceeding a
total area of openings of
25% of total floor area
North 10-15 % 10-15 %
East 10-15 % 10-20 %
South 20-25 % 20-30 %
West 10-15 % 10-20 %
Orientation Within 30deg of due
south
Daylighting >2% av.daylight factor, 0.4
uniformity
Energy consumption
35 KWh/m2/yr
<60 KWh/m2/yr <35
KWh/m2/yr (future
uplift)
≤ 120 KWh/m2/yr
Passivhaus Classic - ≤60
KWh/m2/yr
Passivhaus Plus - ≤45
KWh/m2/yr
Passivhaus Premium - ≤30
KWh/m2/yr
35-40 KWh/m2/yr (From
2025 - Regulated +
Unregulated)
Varies KWh/(m2.a)
Operational energy
Business as usual – 120
KWh/m2/yr
2025 targets - <60 KWh/
m2/yr
2030 targets - <35 KWh/
m2/yr (min 50%
reduction from current
business-as-usual
baseline figures)
Current good practice
(2021) – 60 KWh.m2/y
(GIA) no gas boilers
Space heating demand
15 KWh/m2/yr 15 KWh/m2/yr 15 KWh/m2/yr
≤ 40 KWh/(m2.a) -
Delivered Heat and
cooling
Space cooling demand
15 KWh/m2/yr none none
Renewable energy
100%
2021-2025 - 20% of GF
space 2025 - PV
installation 40% GF space
Passivhaus Premium - ≥
120 KWh/(m2 ground*a)
Passivhaus Plus - ≥60
KWh/(m2 ground*a)
PV system: KWp= 40% of
GF area including
unheated spacces/ 6.5
none
2.6 KW PV installation
on 80 % of new homes
from 2020-2050
≤ 75 KWh/(m2.a)
Form factor
1.7 to 2.5 (refer table)
≤ 3 Area to
Volume ratio ≤ 0.7m²/ m³
Embodied carbon
<500 KgCO2/m2
<500 KgCO2e/m2 <300
KgCO2e/m2 (from 2028)
Business as usual – 1200
KgCO2e/m2
2025 targets - <800
KgCO2e/m2
2030 targets - <625
KgCO2e/m2
(2021) - LETI Band D
1000 KgCO2e/m2
STANDARDS
SUMMARY

LETI Manchester standard Passivhaus standard
UKGBC Net Zero
Whole life carbon
AECB Building
Standard
RIBA Standards
(notional building)
heat pump)
Heating and hot water
Fuel Fossil fuel free Fossil fuel free Mains gas Mains gas
Low carbon heating
systems
Heating 10 w/m2 peak heat loss
(including ventilation)
Specific Peak load ≤ 10
w/m2
Boiler and radiators ,
Central heating pump
2013 or later, in heated
space, Design flow
temperature = 55 deg C
Air source heat pump and
radiators, Design flow
temperature = 45 deg C,
Space heating efficiency =
250%
low carbon heating (eg:
heat pumps or
connections to non-fossil
fuel district heat
networks
Hot water Max dead leg of 1 l for
hotwater pipework
20% demand reduction
(compared to Part L 2013)
Heated by boiler (regular
or combi), separate time
control for space and
water heating. Boiler
efficiencey SEDBUK 2009
= 89.5%
Water heating efficiency =
250 % .Stored hot water
in cylinder, heated by air
source heat pummp with
back-up immersion
heating. separate time
control for space and
water heating.
DHW
peak
6 w/m2
Waste
Water
heat
recovery
(WWHR)
All showers connected to
WWHR, including
showers over baths.
Instantaneous WWHR
with 36% recovery
efficiency utilisation of
0.98
None
Potable water use Business as usual – 125 l/
p/day (Building
regulations England and
Wales)
2025 targets - <95 l/p/day
2030 targets - <75 l/p/day
(2021) – 110 l/p/day
Summer overheating
>25 deg C ≤10% of year
(recommended <5%)
< 10% (<5% recommended)
25-28 oC maximum for
1% of occupied hours
CO2 levels
<900 ppm
VOCs
<0.3 mg/m3
Formaldehyde
<0.1 mg/m3
STANDARDS
SUMMARY

LETI
Manchester
standard
Passivhaus
standard
UKGBC Net Zero Whole life
carbon
AECB Building
Standard
RIBA Standards
(notional building)
heat pump)
Materials • 20% reduction in material
usage through design efficiency
by 2050
• 10% reduction in material
demand by 2040 through
increased material reuse
Site emissions • 80% reduction in
construction site emissions by
2050
• 50% reduction in
construction material
transportation emissions by 2050
Lighting Fixed lighting capacity (lm)
= 185 x total floor area,
Efficacy of all fixed lighting
= 80 lm/w
Fixed lighting capacity (lm) =
185 x total floor area, Efficacy
of all fixed lighting = 80 lm/w
Acoustic comfort criteria
Maximum sound from
MVHR unit
35 dB(A)
Maximum transfer sound in
occupied rooms
25 dB(A)
STANDARDS
SUMMARY

The buildings around the site are mostly lowrise residential row houses. The site has plenty of ve-
getation and is located opposite Bradford park. The site is located in Bradford, 2.5 km from
Manchester Piccadilly Station. It is well connected to the rest of the city due to its close proxmity
to the Ethihad Statdium.
Historically, the district of Bradford was a forested area which bloomed during the industrial re-
volution. The area had coal pits which is the main energy source that powered iron mills, brick-
works, cotton mills, and chemical works. During the industrial revolution, many terraced houses
were built in this area. The construction of the Ethihad station along with the Natural Cycling
Centre veledrome and the Asda Superstore has helped regenerate Bradford which was previously
derelict. Bradford would be perfect for the development of a social housing community as it is an up
and coming area and has great potential for growth.
Predominant winds flow from the South West which is also the area most prone to excessive solar
gain from the afternoon sun. The West facade must be appropriately shaded and well insulated to
prevent overheating during the summer.
SITE ANALYSIS
Location
Sunpath and Wind direction

SITE ANALYSIS
The site is flanked by residential terrace houses on the East and West whereas the South side, where
the main entrance to the site faces Bradford Park.
The site is mostly flat, it slopes gently by approximately 2 meters from East to West.
Topography Views out

SITE ANALYSIS
Most of the buildings around the site are residential terrace houses clad in different
types of brick, some which have concrete walls. The grey panels and glass from the
Stadium os also visible from the site.
ETHIHAD STADIUM
BRADFORD PARK
The site has tree cover on the West and the South-East. The trees are deciduous and
shed their leaves in the Winter which will allow solar gain.
Since the trees are well developed, they will provide protection form winds
throughout the year.
Although the entrance to the site is on a minor road, the site is located close to many primary and main roads that
connect to the rest of the city. There are many bus stops and stations around the site. Velopark Train station is a short
12 minute walk from the site.
The Ethihad stadium, the Townley Pub, and the Bradford Park have potential to
produce loud noises but on the other hand, the site is surrounded by trees which are
noise buffers.
The site is located far
away from any potential
flood zones and hence is
not at risk. The site has
plenty of green spaces
that improve drainage.
Permeable pavements
and a rainwater harvest-
ing system will be incor-
porated to further im-
prove drainage and
future proof the site
against flooding.
Sound
Access
Materials
Vegetation
Flood risk

Temperature range Monthly diurnal averages
Illumination
Radiation range
Temperatures in this region fluctuate between 10°C to 29°C in the summers and 15°C to -3°C in the
winters. Variation in diurnal temperature is relatively low (between 5°C to 10°C). The building will
require mechanical heating for during winter and will need to be highly insulated.
Both temperatures and solar radiation are quite low in this region. The house will need to maximize
solar gain during winter months. There is a significant difference in diurnal temperarures hence
thermal mass may prove useful to help regulate temperature in the microclimate.
There is an opportunity to decrease the heating load by increase solar gain by through exposure to the
South during the winter months.
Illumination is quite low in this region, esecially during the winter months. Large windows and
skylights would help maximize daylighting.
CLIMATE ANALYSIS
MANCHESTER CURRENT CLIMATE ANALYSIS

Wind Data
Shading Chart
JAN
The south facade receives most radiation due to the high latitude of this region. Solar gain through
the south facade and the west facade must be maximized during colder months but shading will be
required to prevent overheating
Predominant winds blow from the South-West with occasional cold winds from the North. Windows and
openings in the South-West must be avoided to prevent heat loss. Additional insulation in the South -West of
the building may help regulate temperatures during summer and winter.
FEB MARCH
APRIL MAY JUNE
JULY AUG SEPT
OCT NOV DEC
DEC 21 -
JUNE 21
JUNE 21 -
DEC 21
CLIMATE ANALYSIS
MANCHESTER CURRENT CLIMATE ANALYSIS

CLIMATE ANALYSIS
WEATHER DATA COMPARISON
2020 2030
2050 2080
Average Annual Temperature: 11°C
Highest Temperature: 29°C Lowest Temperature: -3.5°C
Average Annual Temperature: 11.5°C
Highest Temperature: 30°C Lowest Temperature: -3°C
Highest Temperature: 30.5°C Lowest Temperature: -3°C
Highest Temperature: 31°C Lowest Temperature: -2°C

CLIMATE ANALYSIS
PSYCHROMETRIC CHART DATA COMPARISON
2020 2030
2050 2080
There is a gradual increase in comfort hours from 4.6% of hours to 8.3% from 2020 to 2080 and requirement for shading is also shown to increase. The number of hours that a building can maintain a
comfortable indoor temperature based on internal heat gains alone is shown to increase from 32% of hours to 38%. The demand for heating is set to decrease from 51.4% to 42% by 2080 which also results
in an increased need for cooling. Passive solar gain will significantly reduce the requirement for mechanical heating.

CLIMATE ANALYSIS
WIND DATA COMPARISON
2020 2030
2050 2080
The wind direction remains the same but the magnitude of winds arriving from the South-West increases which may make winters highly cold and uncomfortable. Increasing insulation along the South
West will help control internal temperatures during the winter and also help decrease overheating during the summer.

CLIMATE ANALYSIS
SHADING REQUIREMENT COMPARISON
2020 2030
2050 2080
These climate data projections are based on the RCP 4.5 pathway scenario. There will be a general increase in temperatures and wind. Buildings in Manchester will require shading in the summer along
with other strategies to mitigate heat. Winters will be much milder.

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
INITIAL DESIGN PLAN
Large shaded windows to maximize daylighting but also limit
overheating during the summer months
Garden and living spaces oriented towards the south
CASE STUDY INFERENCE SITE PLAN
50m
52m
The site has a community centre which is still used by the community. The memorial garden, community centre and the parking
spaces that come with it will be retained.
The 50m by 52m area located on the South-West corner of the plot will be used for the construction of two rows of terraced houses
consisting of 1-Bedroom flats and individual duplex 2-Bedroom house.
Terraced houses with compact floorplans
Fabric first approach
Increase thermal efficiency of the building to reduce energy con-
sumption
BUILDING DESIGN
PASSIVE SYSTEMS
Use of prefabricated units
Use of locally sourced, sustainable materials with low embodied
carbon
Low water use fittings to reduce water consumption
OTHER SYSTEMS
MVHR system for heating and ventilation
Solar panels for energy production
Rainwater collection
Construction should be carried out in an efficient and systematic
manner using many. Prefabricated components that could easily
be put together on site, ensures repeatability.
Airtightness tests and thermal scans and other post consttruction
evaulations should be carried out to ensure envelop efficiency.
CONSTRUCTION AND POST CONSTRUCTION
REDUCING EMBODIED CARBON

To avoid elevators
WHY HOUSING AND NOT APARTMENTS? WHY DIFFERENT FROM TRADITIONAL FACE
TO FACE LAYOUT?
Area calculations
Can accommodate more number of units with 1500 m2, if it is a
housing scheme.
To take advantages of the south exposure of site. Splitting as 2 blocks
allows south exposure to all buildings. Whereas in an apartment
scheme orientation of some of the units will be compromised. (Single
aspect North facing unit).Scheme also allows better ventilation.
Dual aspect units are difficult to achieve in apartmet scheme.
More number of floors need more structural elements and stronger
foundations. Limiting the floor numbers could help reduce structural
loads.
Splitting as 2 blocks allows having garden for all units. Social housing
is known to be inflexible and is traditionally meant for individuals or
families with younger kids. Individual row houses gives families room
to grow.
Elevators increases the energy consumption. Adoption of a housing
scheme helps in avoiding lifts, therby reducing energy consumption.
Surrounding buildings in the area are mostly of residential character
and building rarely exceed 2 floors. Introducing a apartment block of
3 to 4 floors might be out of context.
Initially one block could be constructed and tenants could move in to
generate income. Lessons learnt from this block could be applied to
the next block.
In an apartment, lot of spaces within 1500 m2 is lost as circulation
spaces. Whereas housing scheme will have units only in the whole
1500 m2.
Save circulation spaces
Orientation & Ventilation
Reduce structural loads Placemaking
No Overshadowing
Better ventilation
Right to light - South facing garden for all
units
More gaps between buildings
Privacy
Visibility to parked cars
Garden for all units Phasing advantages

Design
Strategies Affordability
Fabric first
Simple design
Compact design
Repeatability
Prefabricated
modules
Fabric efficiency
Less
maintenance
Ellimination of
thermal bridges
Efficient form
factors
Effective
ventilation
Passive solar gain
Reduce
embodied carbon
Minimum
maintenance
Air tightness

What is Social Housing?
Social homes are provided by housing associations (not-
for-profit organisations that own, let, and manage rented
housing) or a local council. As a social tenant, you rent
your home from the housing association or council, who
act as landlord.
Social housing is also sometimes referred to as council
housing, although these types of homes are slightly differ-
ent in terms of the type of tenancy agreement you sign,
and the rights you have to property as a result.
The idea behind social housing is that it:
is more affordable than private renting
usually provides a more secure, long-term tenancy
This gives social renters better rights, more control over
their homes, and the chance to put down roots.
17% of households in England live in social housing as a
whole
Types of Rent
Social Rent (SR)
Target rents are determined through the national rent re-
gime.
Affordable Rent (AR)
Where the rent to be paid by tenants can be no more than
80% of the market value for the property.
Rent to Buy (RB)
Where a discount of up to 20% of all market rent is ap-
plied for a single rental period between 6 months and 5
years. During and after that period, the tenant is offered
first chance to purchase the property (either shared own-
ership or outright) at full market value.
Source:
https://england.shelter.org.uk/support_us/campaigns/what_is_social_housing
Statistical Release: Social Housing Lettings: April to September 2020, England Ministry of Housing, communities & Local Government
SOCIAL HOUSING STUDY
How Social Housing Works
Affordability
Social homes are the only type of housing where rents
are linked to local incomes, making these the most af-
fordable homes in most areas across the country.
Rents for social homes are significantly lower than
private rents. Rent increases are also limited by the gov-
ernment, which means homes should stay affordable
long-term so people aren’t priced out of their communit-
ies by rising rents.
While the way social rents are set isn’t perfect, we be-
lieve they should always be affordable to local people, in-
cluding people on low incomes.
Quality-controlled
On average, social homes are more likely to meet the
standard for ‘decent’ housing. They are better insulated,
more energy efficient, and more likely to have working
smoke alarms than other types of housing.
Over the years, investment in maintaining and improv-
ing homes has been patchy, and social housing today is
far from perfect. That’s why we will keep fighting until
the country has enough decent homes for all.
Stability
People in social housing usually have secure tenancies, giving them much greater
protection from eviction and enhanced rights compared to those renting
privately. This means families can put down roots, plan for the future and make
their house a home.
A social home can provide the foundation people need to get on in life. While
some recent governments have taken steps to reduce the security of social tenan-
cies, Shelter will continue to fight for all renters to have the security they need.
It’s there for people who need it
Social housing should be there for anyone who needs it. At present, the law states
who is entitled to social housing, and should get preference on the waiting list.
But councils have lots of flexibility on who qualifies locally and social landlords
can refuse to let to people if they choose to.
There are over a million households currently on social housing waiting lists in
England. Unfortunately, the current chronic shortage of social homes means
there aren't even enough for people who urgently need it, such as street homeless
people and homeless families.
We believe that good-quality social housing should be there for anyone who
needs it, including homeless families and individuals, struggling private renters,
and others who can’t find a suitable home.
Household Composition
Over three quarters of households in new social housing lettings in 2020/21 (Apr- Sep) were led by single adults whilst a third of households
contain children
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

FLOOR PLANS - OPTION APPRAISAL
IDENTIFICATION - BEST ORIENTATION AND FORM
Based on the analysis from the study on social housing, it was identified that the highest number of needy
population is constituted by single adults, followed by single adult and children, couples, couple and
children. Hence it was decided to include, studio, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units in this development.
To start with the most energy efficient layouts, few options of the floor plans were made to identify the best
form and orientations. 2 bedrooms will comprise the maximum area in the development and hence the study
began by analyzing various possible options for 2 bedrooms. The floor plans were categorized as shown in
the images. Simulations were run for each of these options. Based on the figures from these
simulations, final layout was chosen and developed further. Default templates in Design
Builder were used for simulations
NB: Floor plans shown in this study are not final options and is just a modified versions of the
zoning. They were solely developed for analytical purposes.
Long side exposed to south and north. Buffer spaces alligned to north in 1 option and on either sides in next option.
1a
3a
4
3b
2a 2b
1b 1c
Square layouts. Equal exposure to all
sides. Buffer spaces aligned to north in
one option and to side in other option.
This option considers the effect of having courtyard in this
climate. Courtyard is introduced in between 2 narrow vertical
units to increase ventilation.
In these options, the shorter sides are exposed to north and south. In
one option the zones are divided by partitions and in the other an
open layout is followed to analyze which of these performs better.
Narrow Horizontal
Narrow Vertical
Square
Courtyard Option

Floor Plan - Type 1 a Floor Plan - Type 1 b Floor Plan - Type 1 c
Scale 1:75 @ A3

Floor Plan - Type 2 a Floor Plan - Type 2 b
Scale 1:75 @ A3

Floor Plan - Type 3 a Floor Plan - Type 3 b
Scale 1:75 @ A3

Floor Plan - Type 4
Scale 1:75 @ A3

TOTAL ENERGY (KWh/M2) WITH COOLING OFF (KWh/M2) COOLING ENERGY
Current Diff 2030 Diff 2050 Diff 2080 Current Diff 2030 Diff 2050 Diff 2080 Current 2030 2050 2080
Bldg 1a 69.96 2.86 72.82 2.06 74.88 -0.61 74.27 Bldg 1a 55.78 0.07 55.85 0.04 55.89 -1.26 54.63 Bldg 1a 14.18 16.97 18.99 19.64
Bldg 1b 71.63 3.32 74.95 2.15 77.1 -0.68 76.42 Bldg 1b 55.48 0.2 55.68 -0.11 55.57 -1.46 54.11 Bldg 1b 16.15 19.27 21.53 22.31
Bldg 1c 72.24 -1.42 70.82 2.15 72.97 0 72.97 Bldg 1c 52.85 1.45 54.3 -0.04 54.26 0 54.26 Bldg 1c 19.39 16.52 18.71 18.71
Bldg 2a 66.97 2.27 69.24 1.21 70.45 -1.14 69.31 Bldg 2a 58.58 0.23 58.81 -0.24 58.57 -1.64 56.93 Bldg 2a 8.39 10.43 11.88 12.38
Bldg 4 69.62 1.14 70.76 0.39 71.15 -1.43 69.72 Bldg 4 67.21 -0.1 67.11 -0.68 66.43 -1.59 64.84 Bldg 4 2.41 3.65 4.72 4.88
The table above shows the summary of simulations run for all the floor plans shown in the previous
pages. Generally Manchester is a heating dominated region and houses have only heating facilities.
Currently due to climate change buildings may need air conditioning in future. Hence, Annual
energy (Kwh/m2/yr), Annual energy if the building is not cooled and Energy required for cooling
was separately noted to make analysis from these values. The results of the analysis are given in the
following pages

ENERGY (COOLING EXCLUDED) (KWh/M2)
Current Diff 2030 Diff 2050 Diff 2080
Bldg 1c 52.85 1.45 54.3 -0.04 54.26 0 54.26
Bldg 3a 54.09 0.12 54.21 -0.04 54.17 -1.32 52.85
Bldg 3b 54.82 0.19 55.01 -0.17 54.84 -1.46 53.38
Bldg 1b 55.48 0.2 55.68 -0.11 55.57 -1.46 54.11
Bldg 1a 55.78 0.07 55.85 0.04 55.89 -1.26 54.63
Bldg 2a 58.58 0.23 58.81 -0.24 58.57 -1.64 56.93
Bldg 4 67.21 -0.1 67.11 -0.68 66.43 -1.59 64.84
Bldg 2b 67.39 0.27 67.66 -0.27 67.39 -1.3 66.09
Annual Energy - When building is not cooled
-1.8
-1.7
-1.6
-1.5
-1.4
-1.3
-1.2
-1.1
-1
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
2030 2050 2080
Energy
(KWh/m2)
Differences in energy between years
Bldg 1c Bldg 3a Bldg 3b Bldg 1b Bldg 1a Bldg 2a Bldg 4 Bldg 2b
The results shows the annual energy required for the
building when cooling loads are not considered. So,
generally which means that these results contain the
energy required for heating, lighting and others. It is
noted that, in all the buildings, except in building 1c and
4, there is slight increase in the energy by 2030 and then
slightly reduces by 2050 and then again reduces by 2080.
This shows that buildings need less energy for heating as
the temperature rises up and many more hours will fall
under comfort zone.
It is found that building 1c with more south exposure
performs best, then square shaped ones followed by
other long narrow horizontal layouts. Narrow vertical
ones does not perform well in terms of heating.
Courtyard option and plan with open layout performs
worst in terms of heating. This shows that more
compartmentalized plans performs better in efficiently
heating the spaces.
For building 4 (courtyard option), it can be seen that the
temperature consistently reduces over years. This shows
that the effectiveness of well ventilated buildings in
reducing the overall energy when the temperature rises
up.
A different trend form other buildings is shown by
building 1c. For this building, the temperature reduces
far more than other buildings, in 2030 and then rises by
2050 and again slightly increases by 2080. This building
has more south exposure and hence the building gets
overheated and so the increase of the energies in 2050
and 2080 is justified. However, the reason for the
building to become lot more cooler than all other
buildings was not understood. The only probable reason
assumed was the presence of long north facing windows
in the corridor in first floor, which makes this space
cooler and further helps to keep the whole building cool.
The difference in trend of building 1c can be clearly seen
from the graph on left side that only plots the differences
in energy over years.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Bldg 1c Bldg 3a Bldg 3b Bldg 1b Bldg 1a Bldg 2a Bldg 4 Bldg 2b
Energy
(KWh/m2)
Energy without cooling (KWh/m2)
Current 2030 2050 2080

Energy required to cool the building
COOLING ENERGY
Current 2030 2050 2080
Bldg 4 2.41 3.65 4.72 4.88
Bldg 2b 7.87 9.66 10.98 11.42
Bldg 2a 8.39 10.43 11.88 12.38
Bldg 3b 11.13 12.49 14.07 14.55
Bldg 3a 11.86 14.18 15.9 16.32
Bldg 1a 14.18 16.97 18.99 19.64
Bldg 1b 16.15 19.27 21.53 22.31
Bldg 1c 19.39 16.52 18.71 18.71
Generally it can be seen that the options that performed best in heating the building, performs
worst in cooling the building. Option 4 (Courtyard) performs the best of all. The long narrow
vertical buildings also need very less energy to cool the building. Out of that the one with open
partitions performs better than the ones with closed partitions. Square shaped layouts comes in the
middle. Narrow horizontal ones performs the worst in terms of cooling energy.
The difference in the trend of building 1c can be clearly observed from the graph above. It can be
noted that the cooling demand of all the buildings increases over years. Rate of increase is more till
2050 and then there is a reduction in the rate of increase.
From the heating and cooling energy graphs, it can be noted that the compact and
compartmentalized planning is best for retaining heat inside building, where as for cooling, more
open plan layouts are preferred. Manchester is a heating dominated region, so compact
compartmentalized layouts were traditionally adopted in the region. However, due to the climate
change the temperatures are rising up and this points out to the need of considering cooling
energies as well. The buildings that were historically designed giving prominence to heating energy
now need to consider reducing cooling loads as well.
So a layout that can balance both heating and cooling energy is preferred.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Bldg 4 Bldg 2b Bldg 2a Bldg 3b Bldg 3a Bldg 1a Bldg 1b Bldg 1c
Energy
(KWh/m2)
Cooling Energy
Current 2030 2050 2080

TOTAL ENERGY (KWh/M2) WITH COOLING OFF (KWh/M2) COOLING ENERGY
Current Diff 2030 Diff 2050 Diff 2080 Current Diff 2030 Diff 2050 Diff 2080 Current 2030 2050 2080
Bldg 4 69.62 1.14 70.76 0.39 71.15 -1.43 69.72 Bldg 4 67.21 -0.1 67.11 -0.68 66.43 -1.59 64.84 Bldg 4 2.41 3.65 4.72 4.88
Bldg 1a 69.96 2.86 72.82 2.06 74.88 -0.61 74.27 Bldg 1a 55.78 0.07 55.85 0.04 55.89 -1.26 54.63 Bldg 1a 14.18 16.97 18.99 19.64
Bldg 1c 72.24 -1.42 70.82 2.15 72.97 0 72.97 Bldg 1c 52.85 1.45 54.3 -0.04 54.26 0 54.26 Bldg 1c 19.39 16.52 18.71 18.71
Annual energy
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
Bldg 3b Bldg 3a Bldg 2a Bldg 4 Bldg 1a Bldg 1b Bldg 1c Bldg 2b
Energy
(KWh/m2)
Annual Energy Performance (KWh/m2)
Current 2030 2050 2080
Sorting the buildings according to the annual energy
consumption in all years shows that building 3b
performs the best of all. The square shaped plans were
found to be performing best annually. Narrow
horizontal ones were not found to be performing best
annually though they performs better in terms of heating
Not the best performers in the heating and cooling
energies becomes the best performers annually. A
balanced plan performs better annually. Square shape
that has equal exposure to all directions, with ample
exposure to south and north, with buffer spaces in the
sides performs better. This also shows that aligning the
buffer spaces like toilets, store etc completely to the
north side may not be good in a cold temperate zone like
Manchester though it may work well with extreme cold
climates. Following are summary of analysis.
• Open plan needs less energy to cool the house, but
comparatively needs high energy to heat as well.
• Buildings with less exposure to north and south requires
less energy to cool.
• Buildings square shape – requires optimum energy for
cooling
• Buildings with long exposure to south and north needs
high energy to cool.
• Building with court requires high energy to cool – (check)
• The energy required for cooling slightly increases over
years
• Square plans and plans with more southern exposure
need the least energy to heat the house
• Plan with court requires high energy to heat the house
• Narrow plan with less exposure to north and south
requires high energy to heat the house
• Open plan requires highest energy to heat
• The energy required for heating slightly decreases over
years

FLOOR PLANS
2 BEDROOM , 1 BEDROOM, STUDIO
Based on analysis from the study on
social housing, energy analysis for
orientation and form study, it was
decided that scheme will have 2 blocks
and each block will have 4 units of 2
bedrooms, 4 units of 1 bedroom and 4
units of studio rooms. That is why the
project is named as 444 by One
Manchester.
2 studio units each are placed on
either sides of 2 bedrooms.
Every studio units gets access to
private south facing gardens.
Entry to the block is from north
side. There is common stair way
that leads to first and second
floors.
As per the inferences from energy
analysis, square layout was chosen for 2
bedroom units. Entry to the unit is from
north side. A foyer space has been given
as buffer space. All the buffer spaces like
foyer, stair well, store room and toilet has
been aligned to the side. In between
living dining and kitchen, solid sliding
folding doors have been provided. In
winter doors can be kept closed to
prevent air flow and and in summer these
doors can be kept open to allow cross
ventilation. A pocket door has been
provided at the stair area. In winter this
can be closed whereas in summer, it can
be kept open. All the gardens are south
facing and can be accessed from dining
area.
Every 1 bedrooms units have a
balcony as these units don’t
have access to private gardens. 2
units of 1 bedroom units are
places on either sides of 2
bedroom units, above studio
units.
Planning Studios
2 Bedroom 1 Bedroom
Scale 1:75 @ A3

FLOOR PLANS
OVERALL SCHEME
Scale 1:150 @ A3

FLOOR PLANS
2 BEDROOM - CONVERTIBLE OPTIONS
Scale 1:75 @ A3
Option 1 Option 2
The proposed scheme consist of four 2-
bedroom units, four 1-bedroom units and
four studio units. However, for the families
living in 2 bedrooms, they might need
separate rooms for kids when they grow up.
In that case it won’t be affordable for them
to move to a new place. So, considering
social sustainability in long term, alternate
convertible layouts of 2 bedrooms are also
proposed. In these layouts, it is easier for
the tenants to convert the existing 2
bedroom to 3 bedroom with minimal
interventions (adding partitions).
Developer can choose between the 3
options of 2 bedrooms available.

Scale 1:200 @ A3
ELEVATIONS
NORTH, EAST, WEST, SOUTH

2 BEDROOM UNITS
ENERGY ANALYSIS - EFFECT OF PARTITIONS
Overall performance
Current
(KWh/m2)
2030 (KWh/
m2)
2050 (KWh/
m2)
2080 (KWh/
m2)
Annual
Energy per total building
area
44.75 46.12 47.25 46.61
Energy per conditioned
building area
46.24 47.66 48.83 48.17
Summer
area
21.12 22.33 23.43 23.52
building area
21.82 23.08 24.21 24.31
Winter
area
23.75 23.76 23.78 23.12
building area
24.55 24.55 24.58 23.89
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Open partition Closed patition Glass partition
Energy
(KWh/m2)
Annual Performance
After giving right U values for the
fabric, glazing and choosing
appropriate lighting and hvac
system, the units were analyzed
invidually to see how it performed
and how can they be further
improved.
The effect of seasonal open and
closed partitions, were clearly
understood from the previous
energy analysis. However, for
further simulations, the building
an hav either closed or open
partition. So simulations were
done to see which of these
performed better annually. It was
found that annually open
partitions performed better.
Foldable doors can be kept closed
during the winter period to reduce
the heating energy, and those
doors can be kept open to foster
cross ventillation during the
summer periods. This will help in
reducing the cooling loads.
Annual simulations were run to check the effects of open partitions, closed walls
and glass partitions. Open partitions performed better annually and hence
further analysis were done with open partitions. This exercise was done not to
quantify the effect of these partitions, but instead just to identify one model that
could be used for further simulations.
44.75
46.24
21.12
21.82
23.75
24.55
46.12
47.66
22.33
23.08
23.76
24.55
47.25
48.83
23.43
24.21
23.78
24.58
46.61
48.17
23.52
24.31
23.12
23.89
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
area
building area
area
building area
area
building area
Annual Summer Winter
energy
(kwh/m2)
With open partitions
Current (KWh/m2) 2030 (KWh/m2) 2050 (KWh/m2) 2080 (KWh/m2)
Open partition Closed partition Glass partition
Annual 45.73 56.12 53.97

2 BEDROOMS UNITS
ENERGY ANALYSIS - OVERHEATING
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Current 2030 2050 2080
%
of
hours
Ground floor - Living spaces
25 deg 28 deg
0
5
10
15
20
25
Current 2030 2050 2080
%
of
hours
FF - South Bedroom
25 deg 26 deg 28 deg
0
1
2
Current 2030 2050 2080
%
of
hours
FF - North Bedroom
Overheating Ground floor First floor
One Manchester follows CIBSE guidance, which
states that overheating is deemed to occur:
• For living areas, if more than 1% of the occupied
hours are over 28ºC.
• For bedrooms, if more than 1% of the occupied
hours are over a temperature of 26ºC.
• The best practice summer indoor comfort
temperature is 25ºC.
Hence the temperatures of all these zones were
analyzed to see if there is overheating. Zones with
overheating needs further changes in design to
limit the number of overheated hours
As open partitions are
used dining kitchen and
living room, Design
Builder treats these zones
as merged zones. Hence
results are same for all
areas.
Risk assessments were
done for living areas in the
ground floor and South
and North bedrooms in
first floor. Percentage of
hours above the threshold
were calculated to identify
overheated spaces
Technically as there is no hours that goes above 28 deg in any of
the years, this space has no risk of overheating. However, more
than 5% of hours goes above 25 deg and hence design details
should try to limit these hours.
As more than 1% of the hours goes above 25, 26 and 28 degrees in
all the years, this space is at the risk of overheating. Window
sizes must be optimized and shading to be introduced to bring
the temperatures into comfort band.
As the number of overheated hours are very low, this zone is not
under the risk of overheating and hence no further interventions
need to be done.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
25 deg 26 deg 27 deg 28 deg 29 deg 30 deg 31 deg 32 deg
Hours
exceeded
First floor - North Bedroom
Current 2030 2050 2080
425.5
210.5
129
82.5
36.5
8.5
0
0
629
358
221.5
111.5
48.5
26.5
9
2
879.5
502
306
195.5
107
40
13.5
4.5
837.5
460.5
291.5
192
97.5
34.5
7.5
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
HOURS
EXCEEDED
TEMPERATURE
First Floor - South Bedroom
Current 2030 2050 2080
235
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
364
18.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
440.5
34.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
493.5
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Hours
exceeded
Temperature
Ground floor - Living Kitchen & Dining
Current 2030 2050 2080

2 BEDROOMS UNITS
BEFORE
OPTIONS
AFTER
ENERGY ANALYSIS - WINDOWS OPTIMIZATIONS
In order to limit the number of overheated hours inside the building, several window options were tried.
Different shapes and sizes were tried out during simulations to identify which of them performs better.
Separate simulations were run for ground floor and first floor windows. All the options tried are shown in
the left side and the finalized option is shown above.

2 BEDROOMS UNITS
ENERGY ANALYSIS - EFFECT OF OVERHANG
Calculation of Shading
Effect of Overhang
Current 2030
50°
Overhang Overhang
50°
2050 2080
As per the charts in climate consultant, there no
much effect for overhangs in the current climate.
However, as years pass by there are more
uncomfortable hours and hence the shading becomes
important. The effect of shading is more in the future
years. When calculating the degrees as per climate
consultant, it is seen that the horizontal angle varies
between 48-55 degrees. When calculating the
overhangs based on these angles, it varies between 1 -
1.8 m. This distance is difficult to shade.
Two options were tried. Only
with overhang and with
overhangs and fins. Simulations
were done with different lengths
of overhang. When the length of
overhangs increases beyond a
limit, it effects daylight. Hence
0.7 m overhang which keeps a
balance between energies was
chosen.
From the graphs it is clear
that, there is reduction in the
overall energy demand with
the introduction of overhangs.
Plotting the differences it
makes over years shows that
overhangs become more
effective in the future climate
scenarios. However the
reduction energy in energy is
only a small figure.
The effect of overhangs in the
overall energy is analyzed. But
the most important function
is provide comfort
temperatures inside building.
So, the effect of overhangs on
the number of overheated
hours need to be quantified to
assess its complete effect.
43.61
45.06
44.4
45.88
44.98
46.48
44.18
45.66
43.5
44.95
44.02
45.5
44.36
45.85
43.49
44.95
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Per total building
area
Per conditioned
building area
Per total building
area
Per conditioned
building area
Per total building
area
Per conditioned
building area
Per total building
area
Per conditioned
building area
Current 2030 2050 2080
Energy
(KWh/m2)
Annual Energy
Without overhang With overhang
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Per
total
building
area
Per
conditioned
building
area
Per
total
building
area
Per
conditioned
building
area
Per
total
building
area
Per
conditioned
building
area
Per
total
building
area
Per
conditioned
building
area
Current 2030 2050 2080
Energy
(KWh/m2)
Effect of overhang

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
With
overhang
Without
overhang
With
overhang
Without
overhang
With
overhang
Without
overhang
With
overhang
Without
overhang
Current 2030 2050 2080
Hours
exceeded
Ground floor - Effect of overhang
25 deg 26 deg
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Hours
exceeded
FF South bedroom - Without overhang
Current 2030 2050 2080
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Hours
exceeded
FF South bedroom - With overhang
Current 2030 2050 2080
2 BEDROOMS UNITS
ENERGY ANALYSIS - EFFECT OF OVERHANG
With overhang only
With overhang and fins
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
With
overhang
With
overhang
and fins
With
overhang
With
overhang
and fins
With
overhang
With
overhang
and fins
With
overhang
With
overhang
and fins
Current 2030 2050 2080
Hours
exceeded
Ground floor - Overhangs
25 deg 26 deg
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
With
overhang
With
overhang and
fins
With
overhang
With
overhang and
fins
With
overhang
With
overhang and
fins
With
overhang
With
overhang and
fins
Current 2030 2050 2080
Hours
exceeded
First floor - Overhangs
25 deg 26 deg 27 deg 28 deg 29 deg 30 deg
Graphs clearly demonstrates the effect of
overhang. Both in ground and first floor the
number of overheated hours drastically reduces
when overhangs are introduced. In ground floor,
with the introduction of overhangs more hours
fall within comfortable band. In the first floor,
the % of hours more than 26 degree is greater
than 1% in all the scenario. With the
introduction of overhangs, the percentage of
hours above 26 degree can be bought down in
current and 2030 scenario. However, there are
still overheating problems in 2050 and 2080. The
percentage of hours above 28 degrees have been
effectively reduced by overhangs. Further steps
need to be taken to avoid overheating that will
probably occur in 2050 and 2080.
Though climate consultant
charts does not show the fins
to be really effective in this
sccenario, to limit the number
of overheated hours, fins were
also added along with
overhang. In ground floor some
more hours comes under
comfortable band. Whereas in
first floor, the % of hours above
26 degree comes down below
1% in all the scenarios with the
addition of fins. So both
overhangs and fins together
helps to reduce overheated
hours of this unit.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
With
overhang
With
overhang
and fins
With
overhang
With
overhang
and fins
With
overhang
With
overhang
and fins
With
overhang
With
overhang
and fins
Current 2030 2050 2080
%
of
hours
FF - % of hours
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
With
overhang
With
overhang
and fins
With
overhang
With
overhang
and fins
With
overhang
With
overhang
and fins
With
overhang
With
overhang
and fins
Current 2030 2050 2080
%
of
hours
GF - % of hours
25 deg 26 28
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
With
overhang
Without
overhang
With
overhang
Without
overhang
With
overhang
Without
overhang
With
overhang
Without
overhang
Current 2030 2050 2080
%
of
hours
GF - % of hours
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Without
overhang
With overhang Without
overhang
overhang
overhang
With overhang
Current 2030 2050 2080
%
of
hours
FF - % of hours

2 BEDROOMS UNITS
FINAL MODEL - ENERGY PERFORMANCE
BEFORE WINDOW OPTIMISATION
AFTER WINDOW OPTIMISATION

2 BEDROOMS UNITS
DAYLIGHTING
ILLUMINANCE
ANNUAL DAYLIGHTING
The priority of this project was to minimize the operational energy of the building. Windows and shadings were optimized taking that into consideration. This is the effect it has on day lighting .

STUDIO UNITS
WINDOW OPTIMIZATION
East side studios
6°
Current 2030 2050 2080
The building is 6 degrees
rotated from cardinal south
direction and hence the
south east corner gets a lot
exposed to sun. Hence the
chances of overheating are
more in this zone. Climate
consultant charts below
shows that horizontal
overhangs though not fully
effective can cut few of the
overheated hours.
However, operable louvers
can be more effective in east
side. All the window
shapes and sizes of
windows tried out for each
sides are shown in the
images below.
Several window options were simulated to see which of them
performs best. Initial design had windows on both south and
east facades. However , there were lot of overheated hours
inside the rooms and hence as part of reducing overheated hours
only kitchen window in the east facade could be retained. Final
option of the windows are shown above

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Current 2030 2050 2080
Energy
(KWh/m2)
East Studios - Annual Energy
Annual Energy per total building area Annual Energy per conditioned building area
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Current 2030 2050 2080
Hours
exceeded
East studio 1 - Liv/bed room
26 deg 27 deg
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Current 2030 2050 2080
Hours
exceeded
East studio 2 - Liv/bed room
26 deg 27 deg
STUDIO UNITS
ENERGY ANALYSIS
East side studios
Graph shows that once the windows are optimized, there are no
overheating problems in the unit

STUDIO UNITS
WINDOW OPTIMIZATION
West side studios
6°
Current 2030 2050 2080
As the building is 6 degrees
rotated from cardinal south
direction, West side is more
oriented towards north. So
the zones in this side
performs much better than
south east side. Which
allows to have some
windows in the west side.
Though 1 bedroom units
could have windows on this
side, in studio unit, adding
windows leads to
overheating and hence it was
avoided. The options tried
on west side is shown below.
The elevation to south side
was maintained same as east
side for symmetry.
Final option of the windows for the west side are shown above.
Climate consultant charts below shows that these windows
cannot be effectively shaded by horizontal overhangs so louvers
are the best to shade these windows.

West side studios
STUDIO UNITS
ENERGY ANALYSIS
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Current 2030 2050 2080
Hours
exceeded
West Studio 1 - Liv/bed
26 deg 27 deg
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Current 2030 2050 2080
Hours
exceeded
West Studio 2 - liv/bed
26 deg 27 deg
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Current 2030 2050 2080
Energy
(KWh/m2)
West Studios - Annual Energy
Annual Energy per total building area Annual Energy per conditioned building area
Graph shows that once the windows are optimized, there are no
overheating problems in the unit

Energy Efficient Social Housing for One Manchester

Energy Efficient Social Housing for One Manchester

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Energy Efficient Social Housing for One Manchester

Similar to Energy Efficient Social Housing for One Manchester (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Energy Efficient Social Housing for One Manchester