Critical Report on a Low Energy Housing Retrofit Assignment | Essay Help Services

Coursework – Module EEE – Low Energy Housing Retrofit
Module Leader: Dr Rokia Raslan
______________________________________________________________________________
C/w 19: Critical Report on a Low Energy Housing Retrofit
_______________________________________________________________________
Approximately 75-85% of the housing stock that will exist in 2050 already exists today , and to meet its emissions target, the UK must roll out the retrofit of these properties. However retrofit is often a complex process , where a number of aspects must be considered and the impacts of retrofit on the wider context should also be understood.
The main objectives of the coursework are for you to demonstrate:
• a sound understanding of the issues surrounding the retrofit of housing, including Passivhaus and EnerPHit standards and requirements.
• the ability to critically assess a PHPP model of a low energy retrofit project.
• the cost benefit over several timescales, short term, medium term, and long term of the various strategies used and to suggest and test the effectiveness of the alternative strategies below and perhaps any strategies proposed by yourself.
• an understanding and the interconnection of the unintended consequences of the main case study interventions, or any of the adaptations you propose, by using for example the STBA/DECC Responsible Retrofit Guidance Wheel – http://responsible-retrofit.org/wheel/
• the arguments required to persuade a client to carry out the retrofit.
• You may wish to consider embodied energy of materials used; this page could be useful: http://www.leema.eu/Objectives.aspx
Introduction & the brief
You will choose one from the 4 Retrofit for the Future case-study projects which have been retrofitted and made available to you via MOODLE. You will be given a PHPP excel spreadsheet and associated drawings for a case study house.
Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) is an easy to use planning tool for energy efficiency for the use of architects and planning experts. You will be provided with a PHPP software programme and a printed manual, which not only clarifies the calculation methods used in the PHPP but also explains other important key points in the construction of Passive Houses. Using PHPP you will return the house to its pre-refurbishment state (using sensible assumptions), then with this base model we would like you to consider the principal effects of AT LEAST ONE of the following measures being applied to your case study house:
– Compare performance and implications of internally wall insulation (IWI) and external wall insulation (EWI) to exposed elevations. Use the STBA Responsible Retrofit tool to understand and critically discuss some of the implications of EWI versus IWI. (http://responsible-retrofit.org/wheel/ )
– A change from the original floor construction (probably a ventilated, suspended wooden floor) to a floor construction that meets PassivHaus/EnerPhit standards, this might be an insulated suspended wooden or a solid floor construction. Use the STBA Responsible Retrofit tool to understand some of the implications of this. (http://responsible-retrofit.org/wheel/ )
– From original naturally ventilated house to full MVHR or MEV (Continuous mechanical extract ventilation, (can be centralised or decentralised). To do this you will need to ensure
UCL Institute for Environmental Design &
Engineering
airtightness levels are appropriate. Discuss benefits or drawbacks for each of the different background ventilation methods.
– Consider options to replace the original single glazed windows and low energy efficiency doors. You might consider options such as those found on this page
http://www.greenbuildingstore.co.uk/information-hub/thermally-efficient-windows-doors/
You may decide to combine triple/double glazed windows depending on façade orientation/conservation issues, more detailed glazing options may be needed for the warmer climate options.
You might choose to cover all of the above with a broad approach, OR to tackle fewer aspects in more detail.
You also need to consider overheating in summer both in the current climate file for the case study and how to cope with a change in climate. To do this we want you to change the existing climate [Manchester or London] to the much warmer climate of Lisbon, Portugal, [Climate Data Sheet, Region Europe S, Climate PT-Lisboa].
In the warmer case you will use PHPP to try and reduce overheating hours to an acceptable level. This may involve any or all of the following: small design changes, questioning the use of PassivHaus/EnerPHit Standard in a warm climate (including the 25ºC overheating threshold), balancing of winter space heat demand and summer overheating, realistically optimising ventilation and night-cooling and finally, when all passive options are explored, only then consider the use of cooling systems.
Main points for discussion:
Discuss the principal effects of the case study’s retrofit and any changes you make. Principal effects could include: cost implications, thermal comfort implications, energy consumption, carbon emissions, embodied carbon, maintenance aspects, unintended consequences and usability; planning impacts , constraints and considerations- you may think of further effects.
You might choose to argue for the existing case study as it is, rather than for any proposed changes, depending on: the case study you have, the PHPP results you get, or even personal conviction (backed up by appropriately referenced articles).
A successful coursework will be a coherent argument for why the case study building should be refurbished in the way you suggest. It is likely you will consider each of the measures above and discuss the merits or otherwise of the existing case study and the proposed changes. It is likely you will also consider; cost benefit, embodied energy, thermal comfort. You might also include construction details of particular features of interest.
Submission
The finished report – limited to 3,000 words, should have the following sections:
Introduction combined with background/literature review: to (briefly) discuss reasons for retrofit in general with appropriate references, your chosen case-study pre-and post-retrofit and the areas of interest to you and those measures that you will investigate further and why.
Research methods: Sets out the research methods and tools you use to make the adaptations, including use of PHPP, STBA guidance wheel and where applicable: cost calculations, (embodied) carbon calculations etc.
Marking Scheme
Parts
Weight
Grades
Part 1
Basic aims of study
Part 1
10%
A
70 – 100
Part 2
Critical analysis and discussion of material
Part 2 – 4
B
60 – 69
Part 3
Clarity and range of discussion
80%
C
50 -59
Part 4
Conclusion
FAIL
0 – 49
Part 5
Structure of report
All parts
5%
Part 6
Presentation
All parts
5%
UCL Institute for Environmental Design &
Engineering
Results: what did you find out when you followed your methods. Clearly structure the results per adaptation/change made and whether changes made were individually or cumulatively applied. Use of appropriate graphs/diagrams or PHPP/STBA wheel results/screenshots etc.
Analysis: Concise, clear and critical analysis of results, alongside their principal effects and implications. Make sure any interconnections between measures are clearly stated. Include a clear statement of how results and implications have influenced your decision-making and any iterative changes.
Limitations: any modelling assumptions, or method limitations must be clearly stated.
Discussion: discuss how the results fit with the wider issues raised in your introduction
Conclusion: Final summing up, should be a clear argument of why the proposed retrofit should take place or remain as is.
You should make reference to any relevant papers, studies or reports. In total the main body of the report word limit is 3,000 words, and including diagrams, charts, etc, should be no more than 20 PAGES.
The report needs to be concise; try and only include information that is relevant – make good use of diagrams and tables to support text and illustrate the points you are making. Other supporting information can go in the appendix.
Note: you will need to submit an electronic (pdf) version of the report along with the final version of your PHPP spreadsheet. The process of submission will be emailed to you.
As a guide to the way this coursework will be marked, note that you are likely to receive a B if you complete the work competently, and include coherent content for all the sections as mentioned above.
If you make no mistakes, such as in the PHPP file and in reasoning, and if you have made a clear critique of your case study and have developed coherent alternative low energy strategies, and linked these with cost benefit analysis of your proposed plan to make a clear argument of why your strategies are better than the existing case study, and tried to apply your findings to the wider more general case, then you are likely to get an A.
If you miss out some of the above sections, if you make many mistakes, if you go beyond 20 pages you will have marks deducted. Please see below for details of late and word limit penalties.
A well structured report that links the sections well, will be marked higher than a less well structured one. To help with writing the report, you should read the paper on academic writing “Julienne Hanson Academic Writing Paper”.
When assessing written pieces of work, examiners will be using five criteria to award a mark. These are planning, research, analysis, communication and conclusion. Marks are not divided equally between the criteria (i.e. 20% for planning, 20% for research, etc.), but are used as approximate indicators for a grade. The following table provides a guide as to how the criteria are used by markers.
UCL Institute for Environmental Design &
Engineering
For a mark of 70% or above. (A grade)
For a mark of 60-69% (B Grade)
For a mark of 50-59% (C grade)
Planning
Clear aims and objectives; clear identification of key issues and precise questions to be answered with a strong methodology; possibly an original approach to the task
Aims and objectives not as clearly defined; concentration on less complex issues; sound methodology
Aims and objectives not well developed; lack of clear methodology
Research
Wide investigation of relevant resources, probably including items not recommended by staff
Good use of relevant resources
Limited review of resources available, drawing largely on set texts and classroom discussions
Analysis
Clear, logical and focussed reasoning to develop a coherent and to some extent original / independent argument; strong use of appropriate data to support arguments
A thorough investigation developing a coherent argument; some good use of relevant examples and data
An attempt to apply a method of analysis appropriate to the task; demonstration of a solid understanding of the basic concepts
Presentation
Well-structured presentation; appropriately formatted; no /few minor grammatical errors; narrative flows well; consistent and appropriate referencing and complete bibliography; clear and appropriate use of tables, figures and charts, labelled and titled well
Well-structured presentation; a few grammatical errors; narrative mainly flows well; referencing mainly consistent, with a few errors; appropriate use of tables, figures and charts, but not as clearly labelled and titled
Presentation structure not as clear; many minor or a few major grammatical errors; evidence of referencing and bibliography, although may be inconsistencies
Conclusion
Powerfully argued conclusions, answering aims of task well; implications provided for future research or application in the field
Several sound conclusions drawn but not necessarily carried through to implications for action
Some conclusions drawn from preceding analysis, but vague and lacking full awareness of their implications
UCL Institute for Environmental Design &
Engineering
Please note that there are penalties for submitting the coursework late and for exceeding the word or page