Hyndland Tenements, Glasgow
Overview
The study aimed to provide typical Glasgow sandstone tenement flat dwellers with a guide to the most suitable carbon reduction measures to apply to their dwelling. In particular, it was intended to provide a cost per tonne of carbon dioxide saved comparison to demonstrate value for money for various retrofit options.
-
A typical tenement flat, located in Hyndland in Glasgow, was surveyed and the geometry, construction and services specification modelled in the dynamic computer model ESP-r by ESRU.
A 'shopping list' of potential energy and carbon saving interventions was created and the cost of each was identified. Items which could be upgraded include:windows
draft sealing
external walls
walls to common stair
heating system
roof and floors.
Improvement measures are suggested for each item and renewable technologies are discussed in the case study.
A modelling report from ESRU is also included in the download.
-
Pre- and post intervention U-value testing was undertaken by Edinburgh Napier University to quantify improvements in the thermal performance of the cottage.
In situ U-value measurements of the external walls, the floor and the ceiling weere undertaken using the standard heat flux plate and associated equipment. Relative humidity values for the void behind the existing lath and plaster was also tested. This allowed a pre-intervention baseline figure to be made in order to judge the effectiveness of the upgrade works.
Following the intervention works, a further range of measurements were taken to assess the thermal improvements made. In all areas there was a significant reduction in the U-value. The floor results were particularly encouraging and achieved with a simple new technique. Other interventions were less beneficial, notably the more modest reduction in U-value achieved with the aerogel blanket.
Ceiling
Pre-intervention U-value: 1.4 W/m²K
Post-intervention U-value: 0.2 W/m²K
Notes: Sheep’s wool, 280 mm
South Wall
Pre-intervention U-value: 1.4 W/m²K
Post-intervention U-value: 1.0 W/m²K
Notes: Aerogel behind plaster
East Wall (right of window)
Pre-intervention U-value: 1.3 W/m²K
Post-intervention U-value: 0.6 W/m²K
Notes: Blown cellulose behind lath and plaster
East Wall (left of window)
Pre-intervention U-value: 1.3 W/m²K
Post-intervention U-value: 0.8 W/m²K
Notes: Blown cellulose behind lath and plaster
North Wall
Pre-intervention U-value: 1.3 W/m²K
Post-intervention U-value: 0.7 W/m²K
Notes: Blown cellulose behind lath and plaster
Floor
Pre-intervention U-value: 2.4 W/m²K
Post-intervention U-value: 0.7 W/m²K
Notes: 80 mm wood fibre insulation batts
Window
Pre-intervention U-value: 5.4 W/m²K
Post-intervention U-value: 2.4 W/m²K
Notes: Secondary glazing – magnetised acrylic sheet
-
In terms of space and water heating a number of alternatives were suggested by looking at more efficient devices that can lower the demand for electricity or can use alternative energy sources, for example, renewables or natural gas. These alternatives were explored together with their pros and cons in the specific context of implementation at the site in question.
A community heating system would be an appealing and worthy venture as it would supply low cost energy to each of the apartments.
The principal recommendation from this study is that the first step in any further work should focus on the building fabric and interventions to improve its performance. When a more detailed study of that aspect has been concluded the various alternatives for improving the heating systems or introducing new energy sources, as set out above, can then be considered.
-