paul ebbs (2012) retrofitting to the enerphit (passivhaus) standard - an irish context

‘An Analysis of the Benefits and

Limitations of Applying the EnerPHit

Standard in an Irish context’

Final Report

(Submission date 17th

April 2012)

DT117

B.Sc. in Construction Management

Paul Ebbs

D07114168

Mr Sean McCarthy

Abstract

i

ABSTRACT

This thesis seeks to explore the principles associated with passive house retrofit and the

benefits and limitations of applying these principles to existing dwellings in Ireland. Through

a critical assessment of the literature, and primary research by means of an in depth

questionnaire, the subject matter of this thesis is deliberated in great detail throughout this

report.

The content of this document has relevance to the homeowner, tradesmen and construction

professionals, wishing to embark on low energy or passive house retrofit. Ill thought out

retrofits can potentially cause more harm than good, especially where levels of air tightness

below 5 air changes per hour (ach-1

) are achieved.

Drawing on the findings from this research, the potential problems that can be encountered

during low energy retrofitting, as well as the best practices associated with deep low energy

retrofits, will be outlined for the reader.

The purpose of this research is two-fold; firstly, to assist the homeowner, construction

professionals and tradesmen, in securing the future of the existing housing stock by

highlighting the fundamental requirements connected with low energy design, construction

and product selection. Secondly, with fuel prices and fuel poverty continuing to rise in

Ireland, as well as stiff financial penalties set to be in place under the Kyoto agreement by

2020, the need to upgrade the existing stock is real.

Declaration

ii

DECLARATION

I certify that this final year project, which I now submit to Dublin Institute of Technology

(DIT), Bolton St. for assessment leading to the award of B.Sc. (Hons) in Construction

Management, is entirely my own work.

This final year project was researched, investigated and prepared according to the regulations

of DIT. Where any work of others is used, that such work has been cited and acknowledged

within the text of my own work. This final year project has not been submitted in whole or in

part for an award in any other institute or university.

Signed: _______________________ Date: ______________________

Paul Ebbs

Acknowledgements

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The preceding questionnaire to this report, and without doubt this subsequent document,

would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. Firstly, I would like to

thank my Supervisor, Mr Sean McCarthy, who has been very gracious with his time and help

from start to finish. Sean, you were always there when I needed some guidance and steering

in the right direction. Thanks for your time and help, I really appreciate it.

Secondly, I would like to thank all the staff and Lecturers in the Department of Construction

Management. I come away from my studies with the tools I require, to hopefully secure a job

in the industry that I love. Thank you for your teachings, they will be invaluable to me.

Many thanks, to Lloyd Scott and Kevin Furlong, for all your help and guidance. Your weekly

classes were excellent sources of information.

My deepest gratitude goes to Darren O’Gorman and Paul Cushen of Target Zero, for allowing

me attend the Institute of Passive House Training, Certified Passive House Designer course,

to broaden my knowledge on the subject.

Many thanks also to my previous employer Glenman Corporation Ltd who gave me the time

off once a week, to allow me to complete my Higher Certificate in Construction Technology.

The experience I gained on site has also been invaluable to my dissertation this year and last.

To all the 101 respondents to the questionnaire; I am most grateful. Without your input, I

could not have made my findings. Some very useful and interesting comments and

information was shared. This has helped me to identify some future areas of research.

Additionally, I would like to thank all the people who took my phone calls/emails and advised

me on matters along the way; Archie O’Donnell, Mel Reynolds, Anthony Fagan, Niall

Crosson, Pat Murphy and Paul Dykes. For those omitted my apologies.

My thanks also go to my Mother, Sister, and Brother and to my extended family and friends,

for their constant support over this period. I cannot thank my family enough for the financial

support they provided; enabling the completion of my studies. Thanks, I love you all very

much.

Finally, without forgetting the most important people in my life, I have to thank my dearest

wife Geri. Since September, and undeniably over the last five years in college, thanks for all

the love and support you gave me. I love you to bits.

Table of Contents

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT I

DECLARATION II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS III

LIST OF TABLES VIII

LIST OF FIGURES IX

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS XI

1.0 CHAPTER ONE 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.1.1 Context of Research 1

1.1.2 Rationale for Research 2

1.2 Summary of Chapters 2

1.2.1 Summary of Appendices 4

1.3 Research Goals 4

1.3.1 Aims 5

1.3.2 Objectives 5

2.0 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.0.1 Introduction 7

2.1 What is a Passivhaus (Passive House)? 7

2.2 History of Passivhaus 8

Table of Contents

ii

2.2.1 Where it All Began 8

2.2.2 The Founders of Modern Day Passivhaus 9

2.2.3 The First Passivhaus 9

2.2.4 Passivhaus Institute (PHI) 9

2.2.5 Landmark Developments 10

2.2.6 CEPHEUS 10

2.3 Evolution of Passivhaus in Ireland 10

2.3.1 Passivhaus Projects to Date in Ireland 11

2.3.2 Existing Housing Stock 11

2.3.3 SEAI Better Homes Energy Scheme 12

2.4 Passivhaus Requirements 12

2.5 The EnerPHit Standard 14

2.6 Building Regulations: Technical Guidance Document L 15

2.6.1 Air Permeability 16

2.6.2 Space Heating Demand 16

2.7 Quality Control 17

2.8 Economics 17

2.9 Heating 18

2.10 Windows 21

2.10.1 Window Installation 22

2.10.2 Thermal Comfort 23

2.10.3 Shading 24

2.11 Air Tightness 26

2.11.1 Improved Sound Insulation 27

Table of Contents

iii

2.11.2 Air Tightness and Insulation 27

2.11.3 Air Tightness and Wind Resistance 28

2.11.4 Vapour Resistance 29

2.11.5 Air Tightness and Ventilation 29

2.12 Thermal Bridging 32

2.12.1 Knock on Effects of Thermal Bridging 32

2.12.2 Common Types of Thermal Bridges 33

2.13 Insulation Strategies 34

2.13.1 Moisture Transfer 36

2.14 Ventilation 36

2.14.1 Mechanical Heat Recovery Ventilation 37

2.14.2 Benefits of Mechanical Ventilation 38

2.14.3 Potential Problems 39

2.14.4 MHRV Operation 40

3.0 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES 42

3.1 Scope of Research 42

3.2 Literature review 42

3.3 Research Strategies 42

3.3.1 Data Collection Approaches 43

3.3.2 Questionnaire Design 44

3.3.3 Likert and Rating Scales 45

3.3.4 Pilot Questionnaire 45

3.3.5 Target Sample 46

3.3.5 Conclusion to Research Methodologies 46

Table of Contents

iv

4.0 CHAPTER FOUR: QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS & ANALYSIS 48

4.1 Professions & Group Categories 48

4.2 Experience & Place of Residence 50

4.3 Section 1: Understanding of PH, EnerPHit & TGD L 51

4.4 Section 2: Building Regulations & Control 53

4.5 Section 3: Existing Knowledge and Experience 61

4.6 Section 4: Problems in existing residential stock 62

4.7 Section 5: Tendering & Procurement Methods 64

4.8 Section 6: Education of PH Principles 67

4.9 Section 7: Government Financial Assistance 68

4.10 Section 8: Mechanical Heat Recovery Ventilation 69

4.11 Section 9: Air Tightness & Best Practices 73

4.12 Section 10: Future Research 76

5.0 CHAPTER FIVE: GOALS, FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS &

CONCLUSIONS 78

5.0.1 Introduction 78

5.1 Research Goals 78

5.1.1 Benefits of Retrofitting to the PH Standard 78

5.1.2 Limitations of Retrofitting to the EnerPHit Standard 79

5.2 Research Objectives 79

5.2.1 Limitations of Research 81

Table of Contents

v

5.3 Findings & Recommendations 82

5.3.1 Level of understanding of PH, EnerPHit & TGD L 82

5.3.2 Building Regulations & Control 83

5.3.3 Existing Knowledge & Experience 83

5.3.4 Problems in existing residential stock 84

5.3.5 Tendering & Procurement Methods 84

5.3.6 Education of PH Principles to 2nd, 3rd Level Students and Apprentices 85

5.3.7 Government Financial Assistance 86

5.3.8 Mechanical Heat Recovery Ventilation 86

5.3.9 Air Tightness & Best Practices 87

5.3.10 Future research 88

5.4 Conclusions 89

5.4.1 The Need for Retrofit 90

5.4.2 Why not demolish and start again? 90

5.4.3 Approaches to Retrofit 91

5.4.4 Retrofitting the Existing Housing Stock 91

6.0. REFERENCES 94

7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 100

APPENDIX A: ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE 103

APPENDIX B: SURVEY RESULTS 117

APPENDIX C: QUALITATIVE SURVEY COMMENTS 149

APPENDIX D: DORMER ROOF ISSUES-LINKEDIN DISCUSSION 157

Table of Contents

vi

APPENDIX E: CASE STUDY 175

Air Tightness & Saving Money 176

Drawing No: 01/02/2012 - Front Elevation 177

Drawing No: 02/02/2012 - Side Elevation 177

Drawing No: 03/02/2012 - Side Elevation Sections 2.1 & 2.2 178

Drawing No: 04/02/2012 - Rear Elevation 178

Drawing No: 05/02/2012 - Party Wall Sectional Elevation 178

Drawing No: 06/02/2012 - Party Wall Elevation Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 & 5.5 179

Drawing No: 07/02/2012 - Side Elevation Sectional 179

Drawing No: 08/02/2012 - Side Elevation Sections 7.1 & 7.2 180

Drawing No: 09/02/2012 - Ground Floor Plan 180

Drawing No: 10/02/2012 - Ground Floor Sections 9.1, 9.2 & 9.3 181

Drawing No: 11/02/2012 - First Floor Plan 181

Drawing No: 01/02/2012 – Front Elevation 182

Drawing No: 02/02/2012 – Side Elevation 183

Drawing No: 03/02/2012 – Side Elevation Sections 2.1 & 2.2 184

Drawing No: 04/02/2012 – Rear Elevation 185

Drawing No: 05/02/2012 – Party Wall Sectional Elevation 186

Drawing No: 06/02/2012 - Party Wall Elevation Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 & 5.5 187

Drawing No: 07/02/2012 – Side Elevation Sectional 188

Drawing No: 08/02/2012 – Side Elevation Sections 7.1 & 7.2 189

Drawing No: 09/02/2012 – Ground Floor Plan 190

Drawing No: 10/02/2012 – Ground Floor Sections 9.1, 9.2 & 9.3 191

Table of Contents

vii

Drawing No: 11/02/2012 – First Floor Plan 192

List of Tables

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: PH component requirements 12

Table 2: U-value comparison chart 13

Table 3: Estimated lifespan of construction components 14

Table 4: PH v EnerPHit standard evaluation criteria 15

Table 5: Variance of air permeability rates across Europe 26

Table 6: Application of various types of insulation 34

Table 7: Make up of questionnaire respondents (n=101) 48

Table 8: Survey groups 49

Table 9: Q1, Q2 & Q3. Mean group answers 52

Table 10: Q20. Groups X, Y and Z 70

Table 11: Q21. Breakdown of problems reported with MHRV 72

Table 12:Q22 & Q23. Best and worst air tightness test results 73

Table 13: Q24. Mean preferred no. of air tests required during retrofitting 74

Table 14: Q25. Stages and comments regarding the timing of air tests 75

List of Figures

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Research ship 'Fram ' 1

Figure 2: Front elevation of case study house L/H/S 3

Figure 3: Rear elevation of case study house 4

Figure 4: Comparison of yearly energy consumption rates 16

Figure 5: Legends for Figure 6 19

Figure 6: 'Out of the Blue' average temperatures Jan '06 to Nov '07 20

Figure 7: Carrigline PH. Co. Cork 21

Figure 8: Elliott Drive EnerPHit project PH window installation details 22

Figure 9: 'Out of the Blue' front door - Site visit 2007 24

Figure 10: ‘Out of the Blue’ - Standalone balcony south face shading 25

Figure 11: ‘Out of the Blue’ - Roof overhang providing shading to south facing bedrooms 25

Figure 12: AVASH survey results 30

Figure 13: Statistics from Joseph Little's air tightness survey. Results are from 207 private air

tests 31

Figure 14: Thermal bridge calculations PHPP software 33

Figure 15: Rathangan PH MHRV unit - Site visit November 2011 38

Figure 16: Factor 10 existing dwelling v retrofit comparison 38

Figure 17: Rathangan Co. Kildare certified PH. Used (left) and new filters for MHRV unit Nov

2011 40

Figure 18: Experience of respondents 50

Figure 19: Place of residence 50

Figure 20: Q1, Q2 & Q3. Individual responses of familiarity with PH, EnerPHit and TGD L 51

Figure 21: Q1, Q2 & Q3. Groups’ 1-11 average scores regarding familiarity of PH, EnerPHit and

TGD L 52

Figure 22: Q4. Overall responses 53

Figure 23: Q4. Group A responses (65 people) 54

Figure 24: Q4. Group B responses (36 people) 54

List of Figures

x

Figure 25: Q5A - Q5E. Groups A & B opinions regarding inclusion in TGD L 55

Figure 26: Q5. Group A responses only (65%) 56

Figure 27: Q5. Group B responses (35% of sample) 56

Figure 28: Q6. Building Control 58

Figure 29: Q7. Implementation of PH into TGD L 59

Figure 30: Q8. When PH may be implemented into TGD L 60

Figure 31: Q9 & Q10. 101 individual opinions 61

Figure 32: Q11A - Q11G. 101 respondents’ opinions on some problems that may be present in the

existing housing stock 62

Figure 33: Q12. Preferred tendering methods 64

Figure 34: Q13. Preferred procurement methods 65

Figure 35: Q14. Opinions of the % of trades & professionals 100% familiar with PH 66

Figure 36: Q15-Q17. Respondents views whether PH principles should be a dedicated module 67

Figure 37: Q18. Government led financial aid 68

Figure 38: Q19. Percentage of respondents with experience of MHRV 69

Figure 39: Q20. Experience with MHRV (58%) 69

Figure 40: Q20. No experience with MHRV (42%) 70

Figure 41: Q20. Groups X answers 71

Figure 42: Q20. Group Y answers 71

Figure 43: Q21. Percentage of respondents that had problems with MHRV 72

Figure 44: Q24. No. of air tests for retrofit 74

Figure 45: Q26. Future areas of research 76

Figure 46: Case study - Sloped ceiling u-value calculation (PHPP software) 175

Figure 47: Case study - Flat dormer u-value calculation (PHPP software) 175

Figure 48: Case study – Front elevation u-value calculation (PHPP software) 176

Figure 49: Case study – Side & rear elevation u-value calculation (PHPP software) 176

List of Abbreviations

xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACD’s- Approved Construction Details

ach-1

- Air changes per hour

A/V- Area/Volume

AVASH- Advanced Ventilation Approaches for Social Housing

BER- Building Energy Rating

CEPHEUS- Cost Efficient Passive Houses as European Standard

CIF- Construction Industry Federation

CO2- Carbon Dioxide

CPD- Continuous Professional Development

CPHD- Certified Passive House Designer

D&B- Design & Build

DEAP- Dwelling Energy Assessment Procedure

DIT- Dublin Institute of Technology

DHW- Domestic Hot Water

EPBD- European Performance of Buildings Directive

H&S- Health & Safety

IAQ- Internal Air Quality

IEE- Intelligent Energy Europe

IPHT- Institute of Passive House Training

KSF- Key Success Factor

kWh/m2/yr- Kilowatt hours per square meter of floor area per year

L/H/S- Left Hand Side

LLCC- Lowest Life Cycle Cost

M&E- Mechanical & Electrical

MHRV- Mechanical Heat Recovery Ventilation

List of Abbreviations

xii

m3/h/m

2- meters cubed per hour per square meter

Mt- Mega ton

Pa- Pascal

PC- Practical Completion

PH- Passive House

PHA- Passive House Academy

PHI - Passivhaus Institute

PHPP - Passive House Planning Package

REIO- Renewable Energy Information Office

SEI- Sustainable Energy Ireland

SEAI- Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland

SPF- Specific Fan Power

TGD- Technical Guidance Document

TGD L- Technical Guidance Document Part L (Irish Building Regulations)

TRV- Thermostatic Radiator Valve

UCD- University College Dublin

UK- United Kingdom

USA- United States of America

VCL- Vapour Control Layer

W/m2K - U-value (the rate at which heats flows through building fabric)

WUFI - Wärme und Feuchte Instationär (Transient Heat and Moisture) (Dynamic moisture

simulation software)

Figure 1: Research ship 'Fram ' (Source: Passipedia, 2012a)

The sides of the ship were lined with tarred felt, then came a space with cork

padding, next a deal panelling, then a thick layer of felt, next air-tight linoleum, and

last of all an inner panelling. The ceiling of the saloon and cabins… Gave a total

thickness of about 15 inches… The skylight which was most exposed to the cold was

protected by three panes of glass one within the other, and in various ways… The

Fram is a comfortable abode. Whether the thermometer stands at 22o above zero or

at 22o below it, we have no fire in the stove. The ventilation is excellent, especially

since we rigged up the air sail, which sends a whole winter’s cold through the

ventilator, yet in spite of this we sit here warm and comfortable, with only a lamp

burning. I am thinking of having the stove removed altogether; it is the only way… At

least, as far as our protection from the winter cold is concerned, my calculations

have turned out well. Neither do we suffer much from damp. It does collect and drop

a little from the roof in one or two places, especially astern in the four-man cabins,

but nothing in comparison with what is common in other ships; and if we lighted the

stove it would disappear altogether. When I have burned a lamp for quite a short

time in my cabin every trace of damp is gone.

(Source: Nansen, 1897, p.104)

Chapter One

Chapter One: Introduction

1

1.0 CHAPTER ONE

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This thesis aims to illustrate to the reader the benefits and limitations of applying the

‘EnerPHit’ standard to existing dwellings. The EnerPHit standard is a relaxation of the

Passive House (PH) standard and is aimed specifically at retrofitting existing dwellings.

However, design and construction principles remain the same. A fabric first approach is taken

with both standards; the main goal is to retain the heat that is generated.

The differences between PH and EnerPHit standard will be highlighted and discussed in

greater detail in Chapter Two. For the purpose of this thesis, and herein, where reference is

made to either Passivhaus (PH) or EnerPHit standard it will be referred to as the ‘PH’

standard.

1.1.1 CONTEXT OF RESEARCH

This document has been compiled with a number of factors under consideration. These are as

follows;

The Kyoto Protocol requires Ireland to limit CO2 emissions. Failure to do so will

result in financial implications to the State. Alternatively, this money could be

productively invested into the existing housing stock;

The condition of the existing residential building stock is a key factor; will this hinder

retrofitting to the PH or a low energy standard? If so, what are the factors that warrant

future research and what are the key elements that will have to be addressed during

retrofit?

Building control and regulations may need to be tightened to successfully apply the

PH standard to the existing housing stock. Therefore, the views, opinions and likely

behaviours of a range of construction professionals and students have been

ascertained in relation to the possible implementation of PH and other regulations

into Technical Guidance Document (TGD) Part L of the Irish Building Regulations;

With regard to the homeowner, quality and PH are closely associated. Consequently,

the research questionnaire has addressed issues in relation to quality and the possible

future education of the PH standard to 2nd and 3rd level construction students and

apprenticeships; and

The existing stock may be subject to some problems, which can be remedied or

exacerbated during retrofit works. Typical problems associated with existing

dwellings have been addressed through both primary and secondary research.


2

1.1.2 RATIONALE FOR RESEARCH

The Kyoto Protocol has laid down strict targets regarding CO2 emissions by 2020. Heavy

fines are set to be in place this year and further on to 2020. Non-compliance with the Protocol

will result in heavy fines for Ireland and other member countries, where CO2 emissions are

not restricted to 1990 levels. Ireland’s baseline has been set at 1990 emission levels of 53.7

Mt (Mega ton) CO2 equivalent, plus 13% allowance by 2012 (63.2 Mt). The 13% allowed for

the exceptional rate of growth that was evident in past years in Ireland. In 2005, Ireland’s

emissions were 25% above 1990 levels (67.1Mt) (Ireland, Department of Environment,

Heritage and Local Government, 2007 p.5).

In contrast, by 2020 Ireland intends to cut emissions on a pro rata basis by 20% of 1990

levels, limiting emission levels to approximately 54.7 Mt. Reducing this to a 30% cut; the

emission figure would be reduced to 48Mt (Ireland, Department of Environment, Heritage

and Local Government, 2007 p.18). According to Grian (2005) if these figures are not met,

penalties of €25 per tonne of CO2 will be enforced, e.g. 10Mt excess emissions will cost €250

million every year.

These figures are highly relevant to this thesis due to the fact that the existing residential

building stock contributes to 23% of Ireland’s total energy usage (SEI Renewable Energy

Information Office and MosArt Architecture, 2009, p.3).

Bearing this in mind, there is a huge opportunity to embark on deep low energy retrofits and

secure the future of existing homes. However, this needs to be done with care as badly

executed retrofits can do more harm than good. There are many reasons for this and they will

be dealt with in more detail throughout this document. Hazucha (2009, p.1) cited Ernst

Heiduk noteing:

It’s important to realize that adopting insufficiently ambitious energy efficiency

targets or applying only partial measures is worse than taking no measures at all.

Unambitious and partially applied solutions potentially squander ‘once in a lifetime’

funds and represent a permanently missed opportunity to invest responsibly for the

long term.

1.2 SUMMARY OF CHAPTERS

Chapter One contains the outline contents of this document, the context this research is based

on, the rationale for the research and the aims and objectives of the research.

A comprehensive literature review is included in Chapter Two. The key issues in relation to

the PH standard have been critically analysed and assessed. These include the history and


3

evolution of the PH standard, building regulations and quality control. Furthermore, the exact

requirements to meet the PH standard, namely heating, windows, air tightness, thermal

bridging, insulation strategies, moisture transfer and ventilation are discussed in great detail.

Research methodologies will be outlined in Chapter Three. The qualitative and quantitative

research methods used throughout this research will be reviewed, along with their relevance

to the framework of this study. Primary and secondary data collection methods will also be

examined.

The primary data received from 101 respondents to the online questionnaire will be

deliberated in Chapter Four. The overall results, as well as those from groups manufactured

by the author, will be outlined, discussed and compared with one another. In addition, reasons

for their answers will be suggested.

Goals, Conclusions, Findings and Recommendations bring the report to a close in Chapter

Five. Here, the key findings from the research are examined, summarised and

recommendations will be made. In addition, the future areas of research that have been

identified will be discussed.

Figure 2: Front elevation of case study house L/H/S


4

1.2.1 SUMMARY OF APPENDICES

The online questionnaire is located in Appendix A, while Appendix B contains the survey

results and the professions of the respondents who completed the online questionnaire. The

respondents are listed in Groups 1 to 12. However, Group 12 is not included in any

subsequent analysis as the replies were received after the answers of the 101 respondents had

been evaluated. All of the qualitative comments to the survey and a detailed discussion from

LinkedIn regarding dormer roof issues can be found in Appendix C and D respectively.

A case study including detailed construction drawings showing the major elements of work

required to up-grade an existing semi-detached dwelling up to the PH standard is located in

Appendix E. Where reference is made to this dwelling during the course of this report it will

be known as the ‘case study’. The front (southeast) and rear (northwest) elevations of the

case study house, a three bed semi-detached dormer bungalow built in 2004 is illustrated in

Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Figure 3: Rear elevation of case study house

1.3 RESEARCH GOALS

The aims and objectives outlined overleaf will be discussed throughout this report in the

chapters most relevant to each particular objective. The first objective has been achieved by


5

researching the literature and also by participating in a Certified Passive House Designer

Course (CPHD) run by the Institute of Passive House Training (IPHT). Further reference and

discussion to objective one is also found in Appendix E: Case Study.

The second objective will also be dealt with in Appendix E. Here, all the major stages of work

required to upgrade the case study to the PH standard will be outlined and addressed.

Objectives three, four and five have been addressed in the primary research questionnaire.

Commentary of same is found in Chapter Four: Questionnaire Results and Analysis.

The penultimate objective and overall aim from this research is discussed in Chapter Five:

Goals, Findings, Recommendations and Conclusions. Here, how the aims and objectives were

achieved is illustrated and all of the primary, secondary and tertiary research will be critically

analysed and recommendations regarding the outcomes of this study will be put forward.

The final objective regarding the software required to deliver quality passive houses is

reviewed and discussed throughout the report and also in Appendix E: Case Study.

1.3.1 AIMS

The main goal of this research was to highlight and discuss the benefits and limitations of

applying the ‘EnerPHit Standard’ to an existing dwelling.

1.3.2 OBJECTIVES

The main objectives for this research are to:

1. Indicate the key areas of a domestic building envelope that contribute to heat loss and

ascertain the crucial thermal bridging points of existing semi-detached dwellings;

2. Outline the costs of all major stages of works required to retrofit to ‘EnerPHit

Standard’;

3. Identify the best construction methods and practices associated with passive design

and construction;

4. Establish what level of knowledge construction professionals have in relation to the

‘Passivhaus and EnerPHit Standard’;

5. Gain a greater degree of knowledge on the subject matter and identify future areas of

research within the framework of this thesis;

6. Assess the benefits passive can bring to the homeowner and identify the limitations of

retrofitting existing dwellings to the ‘EnerPHit Standard’; and

7. Research and investigate the software required to calculate different elements

associated with PH calculations these include: climate data, moisture transfer and

thermal bridge software.

Chapter Two

Chapter Two: Literature Review

7

2.0 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter seeks to research and investigate the main elements relating to the Passive House

(PH) Standard. The (PH) concept is relatively new and quite complex and required extensive

research. The definitions of the concept, the history and the evolution of the PH standard in

Europe and Ireland to date and the fundamental requirements a dwelling must conform to in

order to reach the PH standard will be analysed and appraised herein. This includes issues in

regard to insulation, thermal bridging, airtightness, solar gain/shading, heating and

ventilation.

In addition, the criteria existing dwellings must comply with to reach the EnerPHit or PH

standard will be outlined and compared with each other and also with Part L of the Irish

Building Regulations. The key differences between the standards will be highlighted.

2.1 WHAT IS A PASSIVHAUS (PASSIVE HOUSE)?

Waltjen (2009, p.14) defines a Passive House (PH) precisely as ‘a building in which thermal

comfort is solely guaranteed by-reheating (or re-cooling) the volume of fresh air that is

required for satisfactory air quality – without using circulation air’.

There is a clear emphasis in this definition on thermal comfort and re-heating of fresh

controlled air. Uncontrolled air leakage can also be defined as un-designed air leakage which

occurs through small holes and cracks in the building envelope.

Adamson (1987) and Feist (1988) defined a passive house, on the Passive House Institute

website, as ‘a building in which the comfortable interior climate can be maintained without

the need for active heating and cooling systems’ (Passive House Institute, 2011a).

Evidently this definition highlights the comfortable interior climate and the need for an active

heating or cooling system is eliminated. Similarly, other definitions follow suit - Sustainable

Energy Ireland (SEI), Renewable Energy Information Office and MosArt Architecture (2009,

p.1) defined a PH as ‘an energy-efficient building with all round comfort and good indoor

environmental conditions, without the use of active space heating or cooling systems.’

It is evident from these three definitions that, the need for a conventional heating or cooling

system has been eradicated – hence, ‘passive’ - by a combination of highly energy-efficient

design, optimising the usage of ‘free’ passive internal and solar gains available and the use of

renewable energy sources. However, a superfluous auxiliary heat source is required to boost


8

internal temperatures when needed (e.g. cloudy days). The success of a PH would therefore

seem to be dependent on:

The correct installation of thermal insulation, fitted to the highest standard and

offering a high level of heat protection;

Elimination or mitigation of thermal bridges to an acceptable level;

Excellent airtight performance of the building;

A highly efficient Mechanical Heat Recovery Ventilation (MHRV) system;

High performance triple glazed windows complete with insulated frames; and

Optimum use of any ‘free’ passive gains, either solar gains through the windows or

internal gains from appliances and people.

The same approach can be taken in a retrofit situation. However, existing details may only be

improved, rather than implementing wholesale design changes. (Hazucha, 2009 p.12)

2.2 HISTORY OF PASSIVHAUS

Passivhaus (PH) has evolved over many years but the principles have remained the same.

They are underlined by three key elements (Ford et al., 2007a p.4):

Limiting energy usage (heating and cooling);

High thermal comfort requirements; and

A clear set of favoured components, which in combination with each other, facilitate

economic construction, whilst at the same time future proofing against increases in

energy costs.

Through some careful consideration, thermal performance of building elements and systems

can be maximised. This results in the substantial reduction of heat losses in winter and heat

gains in summer. Furthermore, the design of a PH is adaptable to any construction method

(block, timber or steel frame etc.) and is flexible in nature once all the requirements can be

met. Once the building envelope has been substantially improved, the need for a traditional

complex heating system is eliminated. Instead a simplistic singular heat source, in

conjunction with MHRV suffices. This leads to improved Internal Air Quality (IAQ) and also

reduced ventilation losses.

2.2.1 WHERE IT ALL BEGAN

Passivhaus theory stretches way back to 1893 to a research ship called ‘Fram’, illustrated in

Figure 1 at the start of this report. It was built with the specific purpose of being lodged in a

travelling pack of ice heading for the North Pole. It was the first ship of its kind, intentionally

built for polar exploration and also to help the crewmen survive the sub-zero temperatures.


9

When the ship had dropped anchor and was set into the pack of ice, a giant windmill was

erected. The twelve feet in diameter canvas sail was excellent in lighting up the saloon.

(Coolantartica.com, 2012).

It was not conceived as a PH; the description however, in the opening quote is very close to it.

Hindsight has proven this ship used innovative methods, in relation to both energy

conservation and generation.

2.2.2 THE FOUNDERS OF MODERN DAY PASSIVHAUS

The PH standard was born in 1988, when Dr Wolfgang Feist of the Institute of Housing and

the Environment, Germany and Professor Bo Adamson of the University of Lund, Sweden

collaborated. Through research, their concept matured before being tested on the first live

project (Mosart Architecture et al., 2008). This was a four-family row of terraced houses in

Darmstadt, Germany in 1991. The main objective of the development was to set the stage as a

model low energy home suitable to the German Climate, that could be constructed at

reasonable costs (Ford et al., 2007a).

2.2.3 THE FIRST PASSIVHAUS

Defining this standard for use in low energy homes has been credited as one of the chief

motives behind the explosion of the low energy construction standard in Germany. The first

PH in Darmstadt has been under constant monitoring and has illustrated a very practical

example of how easily it could be heated. During one of its coldest winters 1996/1997,

outside temperatures were as low as -14oC. The heating needed to supply the four apartments

was minimal, to the extent that two typical 75W light bulbs would have been sufficient to heat

a living space circa 20m2. Furthermore, the average temperatures in the complex were

constantly over 20oC during daytime hours. (Waltjen, 2009)

Other points to note in relation to the first PH are that (Passivehouse.com, 2012):

The maximum temperature recorded on the top floor never exceeds 26oC even when

temperatures outside are up to 35oC; and

At -10oC outside temperature, the heating system is not required.

2.2.4 PASSIVHAUS INSTITUTE (PHI)

In 1996 Dr Wolfgang Feist established the PHI in Darmstadt, Germany. Since then the PHI

has been leading the PH movement in Germany and indeed throughout the world. (Mosart

Architecture et al., 2008)


10

2.2.5 LANDMARK DEVELOPMENTS

Between 1998 and 2001 a Europe wide project began totalling 221 new PH’s in fourteen

developments over five different European countries. The project was named CEPHEUS.

2.2.6 CEPHEUS

The ‘Cost Efficient Passive Houses as European Standards’ (CEPHEUS) project was

supported by the European Commission and was aimed at improving the energy efficiency of

the housing stock throughout Europe. The occupant’s behaviour and satisfaction levels were

monitored. (Mosart Architecture et al., 2008)

Feist, Schinders, Dorer and Haas (2005 p.1190) reported that mean indoor temperatures in the

project ranged from 20oC to 20.8

oC. It was also noted that as the indoor temperature

increased, the heat demand followed suit. This expressed cultural and behavioural differences

between the different individuals and households and highlights how thermal comfort is

perceived by various individuals when comparing like with like.

Satisfaction in relation to thermal comfort was rated at good to very good in both single

family houses and apartments. There was a substantial difference in the average temperature

of the dwellings during summer, ranging from 21.8oC to about 27.8

oC; reflecting individual

preferences and behaviours. In addition, there was also a strong correlation between the units

that had high summer and winter time temperatures, and vice versa with cold (Feist et al.,

2005 p.1191).

2.3 EVOLUTION OF PASSIVHAUS IN IRELAND

Swedish architect Hans Eek introduced the PH standard to Ireland in June 2002, at the ‘See

the Light’ conference hosted by SEI. A delegate at the conference Tomás O’Leary was so

inspired by the presentation given by Mr Eek, he rang his wife that afternoon, told her that

they were selling up (their townhouse) and would be buying a plot of land to build a PH. By

the spring of 2005 the O’Leary Family were living in Ireland’s first certified PH. (MosArt

Architecture et al., 2008)

The house was aptly named ‘Out of the Blue’ as the sky provides the bulk of the heat demand

for the house. On foot of an invitation to visit the house following the ‘See the light’

conference in Croke Park October 2007, a site visit took place to the house in November

2007. It was a cold but sunny winter’s day of approximately 8oC and there was no heating on

that day, nor was it required. Tomás maintained at the time, that it cost merely €250 to heat

the 4000ft2 dwelling the previous heating season which was achieved through an 80/20 wood


11

pellet stove (80% hot water, 20% heat). Final construction costs were in the region of

€100/ft2 (O’Leary, 2007).

2.3.1 PASSIVHAUS PROJECTS TO DATE IN IRELAND

At the time of writing, Ireland has nine PH projects certified by the PHI; seven detached

dwellings, one school (University College Dublin, Roebuck Student Residences) and one

commercial development (Passivhausprojekte.de, 2012). However, approximately fifty

projects so far (new-build and retrofit) have been completed in Ireland. Therefore, roughly

forty projects are uncertified (Dykes, 2012).

Figure 3: 'Out of the Blue' Irelands first certified PH - Site visit 2007

2.3.2 EXISTING HOUSING STOCK

SEI Renewable Energy Information Office and MosArt Architecture (2009 p.7) reviewed the

existing stock in Ireland and found that at the end of 2006, the most common type of house in

Ireland was detached (42.8%), followed by semi-detached (27.2%). Terraced houses (17.6%)

were third with the remainder made up of flats, apartments and unstated. It was estimated that

930,000 houses were built before the introduction of building regulations in 1991 and

1,000,000 homes before the 1996 regulations. Furthermore, three quarters of the predicted

housing stock needed in the UK by 2050 has already been built (Hazucha, 2009 p.87).


12

2.3.3 SEAI BETTER HOMES ENERGY SCHEME

SEAI (2012) indicated on their website that over €115m of financial aid has been given to

homeowners, in relation to 270,000 energy efficient upgrades in 110,000 homes. A downward

trend was noted to the typical price of works, especially in the case of wall insulation. This

leaves a significant amount of homes in need of upgrade.

2.4 PASSIVHAUS REQUIREMENTS

A summary of the basic requirements are listed in Table 1 below.

Retrofit Solution PH Standard

1. Super insulation

Walls, roof, floors – Overall u-value ≤ 0.15 W/m2K

Windows – Overall u-value ≤ 0.8 W/m2K

Cold bridges – Linear heat coefficient (Ψ) ≤ 0.01W/mK

Air permeability – n50 ≤ 0.6 ach-1

(EnerPHit 1.0 ach-1

)

Area/Volume ratio – Between 0.5 and 0.6

2. Heat recovery/IAQ –

MHRV – Heat recovery efficiency ≥ 75 %

Fresh air requirements – Min 0.4ach-1

or 30m3/per/h

3. Ducts & pipes to be insulated –

DHW pipes – 2 x diameter

Ventilation ducts – 60-100mm

4. Passive gains (solar) –

Orientation of glazing and shading – Site specific

Solar transmittance of window glazing – g-value ≤ 50%

DHW through renewables – Solar panels or in conjunction with MHRV

Envelopes thermal mass – Assists in regulating summer/winter heat

5. Electrical efficiency –

Appliances – AA+ or as energy efficient as possible

– Hot water connections to

dishwashers/washing machines

Lighting – Compact Fluorescent Lighting (CFL’s)

SFP (Specific Fan Power): MHRV efficiency of

fans

– ≤0.45 W/(m3/h) (transported air)

Table 1: PH component requirements (Source: Promotion of European Passive Houses, 2006 p.8)


13

One of the fundamental benefits of the PH standard is the ability of the building to retain the

heat it has generated. This is achieved by the highly insulated airtight jacket wrapped around

the entire building in conjunction with free solar/internal gains and MHRV. However, for one

reason or another, retrofitting existing buildings to the PH standard with reasonable effort can

be an extremely difficult challenge (Passipedia, 2012a). The main barriers are the target air

change rate of ≤ 0.6ach-1

and eliminating or reducing the thermal bridges.

PH’s are most efficient when the A/V ratio (A: area of building envelope surface, V: volume

of the building) is kept between 0.5 and 0.6 (Passive House Institute, 2009a). Therefore, this

will inevitably pose one of the biggest challenges in retrofitting, where design changes are not

feasible.

A theoretical example demonstrated by the PHI, showed the heating demand of a typical

compact detached house, built with PH components, to be circa 16kWh/m2/y. The

comparative heating demand for the same sized dwelling built in a block of apartments with

the same components, was 8kWh/m2/y; illustrating the impact the A/V ratio has on energy

usage (Passive House Institute, 2009b).

Table 2: U-value comparison chart (Source: MosArt Architecture et al, 2008, p.12)

Table 2: U-value comparison chart

Option Ext. Wall Roof Floor Windows/

Doors

Annual Space

Heating

Requirement

1 0.10 W/(m2K) 0.10 W/(m

2K) 0.10 W/(m

2K) 0.80 W/(m

2K) 7 kWh/ m

2 /yr

2 0.15 W/(m2K) 0.15 W/(m

2K) 0.15 W/(m

2K) 0.80 W/(m

2K) 12 kWh/ m

2 /yr

3 0.175 W/(m2K) 0.15 W/(m

2K) 0.15 W/(m

2K) 0.80 W/(m

2K) 13 kWh/ m

2 /yr

4 0.10 W/(m2K) 0.10 W/(m

2K) 0.10 W/(m

2K) 1.50 W/(m

2K) 20 kWh/ m

2 /yr

5 0.27 W/(m2K) 0.16 W/(m

2K) 0.25 W/(m

2K) 0.80 W/(m

2K) 20 kWh/ m

2 /yr

‘EnerPHit Standard’ 25 kWh/ m2/yr

6 0.10 W/(m2K) 0.10 W/(m

2K) 0.10 W/(m

2K) 2.00 W/(m

2K) 31 kWh/ m

2 /yr

7 0.15 W/(m2K) 0.15 W/(m

2K) 0.15 W/(m

2K) 2.00 W/(m

2K) 37 kWh/ m

2 /yr

8 0.27 W/(m2K) 0.16 W/(m

2K) 0.25 W/(m

2K) 2.00 W/(m

2K) 48 kWh/ m

2 /yr


14

Table 2 illustrated the guidelines for thermal transmittance values (u-value or the rate of heat

flow through a building material), that individual building elements are required to meet to

achieve PH standard. A total space heating requirement of less than 15.499 kWh/m2/yr

(option 1 -3); will suffice to achieve the standard. The official figure is 15kWh/m2/yr; the

PHPP software however, rounds off the results to the nearest kWh. The figure of

25kWh/m2/yr is required for a renovation to qualify on performance criteria of the ‘EnerPHit’

standard.

2.5 THE ENERPHIT STANDARD

The ‘EnerPHit’ standard can only be applied to refurbished projects, where the effort required

to bring the building up to PH standard, outweighs the cost savings over the life cycle of the

materials used (Passive House Institute, 2010). ‘EnerPHit’ allows buildings to meet more

realistic criteria compared to the PH standard. Certification can be achieved based on

performance criteria or on individual components.

The life cycle of materials will vary depending on the product and its application. However,

for economic calculations, the Energieinstitute website has assumed the details listed in Table

3 below for its own economic calculations (Intelligent Energy Europe, 2012a):

Building Component Estimated Lifespan

Insulation: 40 years

Windows: 25 years

Heating / DHW systems: 20 years

Ventilation systems: 20 years

Table 3: Estimated lifespan of construction components (Source: Intelligent Energy Europe, 2012a)

One of the key benefits of applying the PH standard is the provision of ‘round the clock’

thermal comfort at greatly reduced energy consumption (SEI Renewable Energy Information

Office and MosArt Architecture, 2009 p.2). In reality, the cost of heating a traditional home to

the same level of thermal comfort is beyond the pockets of most.

A building certified to the ‘EnerPHit’ standard will be certified by the Passivhaus Institute as

‘Quality Approved Retrofit with Passive House Components’. Whereas, a building meeting

the criteria set out in the PH standard (new build or retrofit) can be certified as ‘Quality

Approved Passive House’ (Passive House Institute, 2009c). Table 4 overleaf outlines the


15

specific requirements an existing dwelling must reach to achieve the EnerPHit standard.

Clearly, the targets are still extreme and are only a slight relaxation of the PH standard.

The EnerPHit standard has made an allowance for the transfer of moisture through

components in renovated buildings, denoted by the water activity on interior surfaces in Table

4 overleaf. The relative humidity of the surrounding air is determined by the free water

content present in solid matter. Once this ratio is kept below 80% the likelihood of mould

growth is negligible. Careful planning and implementation of all standard sections and

construction details is essential to ensure that there is no excessive moisture build up on

interior surfaces or within building components. (Passive House Institute 2010)

The Passive House Institute (2010, p.3) notes:

The water activity of a building material is ideal as a criterion for the probability of

mould growth. The aw value provides information about the water which is not

chemically bound. It is defined as the equilibrium moisture content occurring in an

enclosed space that consists of a smaller amount of air in proportion to solid matter.

In such a space the free water present in the solid matter determines the relative

humidity of the surrounding air. The water activity can range from 0 (0 % relative

humidity) to 1 (100 % relative humidity). If the aw-value is less than 0.8, the

probability of mould growth even on contaminated old plaster is small.

Criteria ‘Passivhaus Standard’ ‘EnerPHit

Standard’

Maximum Space Heating Demand 15kWh/m2/yr 25kWh/m

2/yr

Maximum Heating Load 10W/m2 10W/m

2

Maximum Air Pressurisation Test Result

(n50)

0.6 ach-1

1.0 ach-1

Maximum Entire Primary Energy

Demand (Inc. domestic electricity)

120kWh/m2/yr 120kWh/m

2/yr +

[(25kWh/m2/yr -

15kWh/m2/yr) x 1.2]

Maximum frequency of overheating

(summer time)

> 25oC ≤ 10% year > 25

oC ≤ 10% year

Water activity on interior surfaces N/A aw ≤ 80%

Table 4: PH v EnerPHit standard evaluation criteria. (Source: Passivhaus Institute 2009/2010)

2.6 BUILDING REGULATIONS: TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT L

Technical Guidance Document (TGD) L of the Irish Building Regulations (2011, p.7) revised

2007 version, is quoted as being the next step in ‘the overall aim to achieve carbon neutral

dwellings at the earliest practicable date’. The new regulations have significantly improved


16

the u-values in relation to new build construction. However, subsequent primary research

revealed concerns among construction professionals regarding certain aspects. This will be

discussed in more detail in Chapter Four.

2.6.1 AIR PERMEABILITY

There are different methods of expressing the air permeability of buildings; m3/h/m

2 or ach

-1.

Both figures are similar. However, the first refers to an absolute flow rate (m3/h @50Pa),

while the latter relates to the air change rate of the building in relation to its volume. In

addition, there are two test methods Method A and Method B. The results can vary anything

up to 15%, depending on the method chosen (O'Shea, 2011).

Thorpe (2010, p. 42) noted that, unless the building is an unusual shape, there is little

difference between the two; 20m3/h/m

2 @50Pa equates to approximately 18ach

-1. For the

purpose of this report, the air change rate (ach-1

) will be used to describe air leakage.

Under the new regulations, air permeability rates have been reduced from 10ach-1

to 7ach-1

.

Part L suggests air permeability rates less than 5ach-1

are required, where Mechanical Heat

Recovery Ventilation (MHRV) is specified. However, many manufacturers call for rates

below 4ach-1

, and recommend below 2ach-1

are achieved to maintain efficiencies (Murphy,

2012). This is still twice the EnerPHit standard, 1.0ach-1

, or three times the PH standard,

0.6ach-1

.

2.6.2 SPACE HEATING DEMAND

Figure 4: Comparison of yearly energy consumption rates (Source: SEAI/MosArt Architecture, 2008 &

Passive House Institute 2010)


17

A recent publication by Sustainable Energy Ireland (SEI, 2008) compared the energy usage of

dwellings built to the requirements of Building Regulations (TGD) Part L 2005/2007 and the

PH Standard. The energy consumption of the same dwelling built to these three standards

were 75 kWh/m2/yr, 40-50 kWh/m

2/yr and 15 kWh/m

2/yr respectively as illustrated in Figure

4. The ‘EnerPHit’ standard is 25kWh/m2/yr.

2.7 QUALITY CONTROL

MosArt Architecture et al. (2008) suggest that high levels of quality control are required in

order to reach the PH standard envisaged by the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP)

software. Hazucha (2009, p.10) agrees and noted it is ‘better to do less with higher quality

than to do more with lower...in addition, it is necessary to choose a proved company with

experienced and proven references’.

With specific regard to quality control, many authors suggest that it is not possible to build to

PH standard without it. SEI Renewable Energy Information Office and MosArt Architecture

(2009, p.25) maintain that the homeowner requires experienced consultants and contractors,

when undertaking complex low energy retrofits.

They also stated: ‘there is a rather high margin for error in retrofitting to the Passivhaus

Standard and care should be taken at every step of the way.’

2.8 ECONOMICS

Andrea Sonderegger is quoted on the Intelligent Energy Europe website (2012b) stating

‘passive house and passive house retrofit are the best retirement provision!’ However, passive

house retrofit comes at a premium and will be illustrated below.

Renovating to the PH standard is a relatively new concept in Ireland, UK and abroad. Elliott

Drive and Grove Cottage are two recent UK EnerPHit projects that are discussed in this

report. Both are semi-detached houses.

Elliott Drive is the most recent of the EnerPHit projects and is very near completion at

present. The EnerPHit retrofit was commissioned on behalf of the Orbit Housing Association.

The adjoining property was brought up to a low energy standard, while the EnerPHit project

was completely refurbished (this included a new ground floor). Estimated EnerPHit costs are

in the region of £100,000, while the neighbouring low energy property is expected to cost

£40,000 which is still a significant amount of money. (Price, 2012)

Grove Cottage is another example. The original floor area was 97m2 and was increased to

137m2 with the addition of an extension and loft conversation. Final costs were estimated at


18

£125,000. This included a discount of circa £15,000 on materials and products. No other

grants were available. However, as a result of working towards the PH standard/CarbonLite

Step 2, a ‘C’ change mortgage was obtained through the Ecology Building Society. The rate

was discounted by 1% (Hazucha, 2009, p.64).

It is clear from both examples that EnerPHit does not come cheaply. The reality of payback

seems distant at these prices. An additional cost to consider is the certification of a dwelling

to the PH standard. A figure between €2000 and €3000 is likely to cover the costs

(O’Donnell, 2012). This will depend on the level of work required, which includes detailed

as-built drawings, photos, product manufacturers’ certificates, on site measurement of MHRV

ductwork and verification of the PHPP software by a registered PH certifier (Passive House

Academy (PHA) in Ireland).

2.9 HEATING

Traditionally, heat losses in a dwelling must be replaced by heat gains and this remains true

for a PH. However, super-insulation, air-tightness and MHRV mitigate the need for a

conventional heating system. Therefore, the actual heating system can be achieved by

implementing a three phase strategy (Ford et al., 2007b p.5):

Reduce fabric losses and increase air tightness;

Maximise solar gains; and

Encouraging pre-heating of ventilated air (casual research has found this unpopular in

Ireland)

In a PH, the occupants of the dwelling contribute significantly to its heating load. The average

human emits 0.1kW of heat when stationary. A family of five therefore emit approximately

0.5kW of heat. A retrofit case study, undertaken by SEAI, found 0.5kW was two thirds of the

space heat load required for that particular dwelling (SEI Renewable Energy Information

Office and MosArt Architecture, 2009, p.13).

In the same study, the annual space heat requirement was reduced from 214kWh/m2/yr to

15kWh/m2/yr. However, after the losses were calculated, the final energy demand was 30

kWh/m2/yr, heat load (the daily mean power to maintain indoor temperatures) was reduced

from 80W/m2 to 9W/m

2; significant savings in both nonetheless. A conclusion from this case

study found that without a MHRV unit, the insulation levels that would have compensated for

the extra energy losses would have been neither cost effective nor viable. (SEI Renewable

Energy Information Office and MosArt Architecture, 2009, p.p.14-18)


19

In another study, PH standard heating performance of 15kWh/m2/yr could be achieved

without MHRV, providing that the following elements were applied (Ford et al., 2007b):

Improved air tightness;

Controlled natural ventilation;

Thermal buffering and improvements to the thermal envelope; and

Solar control.

However, extreme weather conditions or future climatic scenarios were not taken into account

in the simulations. Once the heat loss and heat demand have been reduced, the heating system

must follow suit; otherwise, the energy savings will not be maximised. Consequently, by

regulating the heating system at a lower temperature gradient, distribution losses are

substantially reduced. Thermostatic Radiator Valves (TRV’s) can be fitted; to help regulate

the flow to the required temperature. Increasing the insulation on heating and Domestic Hot

Water (DHW) pipes to 2 x diameter is best practice (Hazucha, 2009, p.27).

Figure 6 overleaf illustrates the mean indoor temperatures recorded by the University College

Dublin (UCD) Energy Group in Ireland’s first certified PH ‘Out of the Blue’. The legends

relating to the graph in Figure 6 are noted in Figure 5 below.

Note the variance in temperature in Figure 6 during the drying out period and also the first

summer (when the balcony shading was not in place on the south face, see Figure 10,p.24)

compared to the second year,. The variance may also be down to the users of the building

getting used to a new way of living, old habits die hard…

Figure 5: Legends for Figure 6

Another example of consistent indoor temperatures is noted in Grove Cottage UK. Here,

measured results showed average indoor temperature of 20.8°C, while the average

temperature outdoors was 8°C. Furthermore, the average relative humidity (RH) outdoors was

78.3 % with an indoor average RH of 48.9 % (Hazucha, 2009, p71).

Additionally, the daily mean external temperatures are

substantially below the dwelling temperatures. The

greatest attribute of a PH is its ability to harness the sun’s

energy on cold sunny days and maintain these free gains

through MHRV. For every cloudy day a 0.1-0.2oC per day

temperature drop is recorded (Passive House Institute,

2011b). The heating season of a PH is significantly

reduced to a point, where a single source of heat is

sufficient to top up passive gains.


20

Figure 6: 'Out of the Blue' average temperatures Jan '06 to Nov '07. (Source: MosArt Architecture et al,

2008 p.26)


21

2.10 WINDOWS

The ideal distribution of glazing is not always possible during retrofit. As a result, SEI

Renewable Energy Information Office and MosArt Architecture (2009, p.12) maintain that

achieving maximum solar gain is either very challenging or just not possible. There was a

very good point made in the questionnaire (self-builder, DEAP and PHPP expert) regarding

retrofitting or building to the PH standard in towns and villages. Dwellings may be designed

to the PH standard and achieve same. However, if your neighbour erects an extension or

allows trees to grow, this may reduce your solar gain in the years to come; therefore reducing

the free gains. In relation to Figure 7 illustrated below he stated:

It shows the challenge of PH – the same house located in Carrigline which is then

moved around the house and the heat demand determined. Just around Cork there is

a 50% variation – moving this into a national standard would be difficult. Think about

the effect in a town – passive one moment until your neighbour puts up an extension

and blocks out 50% of your afternoon sunlight. Suddenly you are no longer passive.

Figure 7: Carrigline PH. Co. Cork (Source: Clauson and Morehead, 2012)

Figure 7 above illustrates the variance in heat demand as the same house is moved around the

country and subject to site specific climate data. This demonstrates that no one rule will

produce a PH, other than designing it in accordance with the PHPP software which accounts

for climatic data.


22

2.10.1 WINDOW INSTALLATION

The PHI require the use of certified triple glazed windows with high performance glass; warm

edge spacers (as opposed to aluminium used in traditional glazing elements) and superior

insulated thermally broken frames. Typical u-values range between 0.8W/m2K and

0.5W/m2K, the latter applying to fixed window units. Thermal bridges are avoided in the

installation by positioning the frame on the external façade resting on a timber beam or the

like. The window now sits within the insulation layer and the external insulation will cover as

much of the frame as possible (Hazucha, 2009 p.19). An additional benefit associated with

this technique is the minimal amount of frame on show, hence, more solar gain through the

glazing and therefore more free gains.

Figure 8: Elliott Drive EnerPHit project PH window installation details (Source: Encraft, 2012a)

When retrofitting, if the windows are relatively new or simply beyond the budget of the

homeowners at the time of insulating the dwelling, it is still good practice to move the

windows into the insulation layer. A make piece of insulation should be inserted around the

reveal, so that the façade will receive little damage when the windows are eventually replaced

(Hazucha, 2009). This could then be done on a phased basis, if or when the homeowners

could afford to upgrade their windows. If a PH window, u-value 0.8W/m2K is installed out of


23

the insulation layer, the installed u-value will increase to 1.2W/m2K (Passive House Institute,

2011a).

2.10.2 THERMAL COMFORT

Thermal comfort is defined in British Standard BS EN ISO 7730 (2005, p.10) as: ‘that

condition of mind which expresses satisfaction with the thermal environment.’ The thermal

balance of the body relates to the thermal sensation a human feels. This depends on the

activity and clothing levels of individuals, as well as other environmental factors such as air

temperature, radiant temperature, air velocity and humidity. Factors that contribute to this

include radiant temperature asymmetry, draughts, vertical air temperature difference and cold

or warm floors. The Passivhaustagung.de website (2012) noted:

A passive house is a building, for which thermal comfort (ISO7730) can be achieved

solely by post-heating or post cooling of the fresh air mass, which is required to fulfil

sufficient indoor air quality conditions (DIN 1946) - without a need for recirculated

air.

Thermal comfort in a PH is significantly increased due to the negligible variance in room

temperature between the interior room and the inside face of the glass. Therefore, natural

convection is reduced, cold air flows are mitigated and thermal comfort is increased. Typical

double low-e glazed units have radiant temperature asymmetry (temperature stratification) of

5.5oC. In comparison, PH windows have radiant temperature asymmetry of 2.5

oC, easily

meeting the required maximum temperature difference of 4.2oC (Passive House Institute,

2009a). A typical PH window/door is shown in Figure 9 overleaf. It is approximately twice

the width of a regular unit and is a quality approved PH product.

However, it must be noted that passive windows alone will not provide all the benefits listed

previously. In order to reap maximum rewards, air tightness, cold bridging, insulation levels

and MHRV must accompany the high performance windows. The combination of these

elements, leads to exceptional performance and a positive energy balance. In essence, the

windows are acting as a part of the heating system as they absorb more energy into the

building than they let out. (Waltjen, 2009 p.16)

An added benefit of high performance passive windows is the reduction of draughts, due to

the high level of detail associated with the windows. While traditional double glazed units

typically only have one gasket, triple glazed have two. The double gaskets not only assist in

air tightness, but also with regard to sound insulation properties. (MosArt Architecture et al.

2008)


24

Figure 9: 'Out of the Blue' front door - Site visit 2007

2.10.3 SHADING

A PH is designed so that solar radiation will heat the house. Therefore, shading is required

during the summer months to prevent overheating (Feist et al., 2005). The shading for ‘Out of

the Blue’ is illustrated in Figures 10 and 11 overleaf. During its first summer in operation, the

house overheated on several occasions. However, when the balcony was installed in

anticipation of the second summer, the frequency of overheating was significantly reduced

and was not considered a problem (MosArt Architecture et al. 2008, p.17). The balcony is

independent of the main structure with minimal localised fixings and therefore minimised

cold bridges.

Shading can be realised by various methods other than the balcony. Roller shutters can be

installed at ground floor level and can be manually or automatically operated by the

occupants to limit the solar gain. However, automatically controlled shutters will consume

energy. This is not in line with passive principles (Waltjen, 2009, p.17).


25

Figure 10: ‘Out of the Blue’ - Standalone balcony south face shading

Figure 11: ‘Out of the Blue’ - Roof overhang providing shading to south facing bedrooms


26

2.11 AIR TIGHTNESS

Airtight construction is a prerequisite to PH design. The air permeability of a building is

recorded by an air pressure test (blower door test). Achieving high levels of air tightness

eliminates cold draughts and increases thermal comfort (SEI Renewable Energy Information

Office and MosArt Architecture, 2009, p.13). TGD L has reduced air tightness levels in new

builds to 7ach-1

(7m3/h/m

2); nonetheless this is substantial by comparison to the PH standard

at 0.6ach-1

or the EnerPHit standard at 1.0ach-1

. However, there are no regulations with regard

to retrofit. Table 5 shows the common practice air tightness (n50) levels used in other

European countries (Promotion of European Passive Houses, 2006, p.19):

Country Air tightness (n50)

Austria: 1 ach-1

Belgium: 7.8 ach-1

Denmark: 2.3 ach-1

Germany: 1.5 to 3.0 ach-1

Netherlands: 2.32 ach-1

Norway: 2 ach-1

UK: 4 ach-1

Table 5: Variance of air permeability rates across Europe (Source: Promotion of European Passive Houses,

2006, p.19)

There is a common uncertainty among house builders in the UK regarding the requirements

for airtight houses and MHRV (Ford et al., 2007a, p.9). This has been assumed in part due to

the apparent difficulty in achieving low air permeability rates and also the milder climate.

Jaggs and Scivyer, (2006, p.1) maintain that in a well-insulated building, uncontrolled air

leakage can account for up to 30% of heat loss as the cold air replaces the warm air

(infiltration). This can be exacerbated by the elevation or exposed nature of a site.

Exfiltration on the other hand, is defined as the movement of warm air to cold air through

leaky construction joints. The difference in wind pressure, combined with temperature

difference, influences the amount of air exchange in a traditional dwelling by both infiltration

and exfiltration. This will inevitably lead to interstitial condensation or mould growth and the

possible deterioration of the structure (Waltjen, 2009).

Warm air exfiltrates through the leaky construction joints (there is considerably more water

vapour in warm air as opposed to cold) and when it meets the cold air, it condensates in the

structure releasing free water content in the air. Freeze/thaw actions will occur during winter

months, resulting in structural damage over time.


27

There is a common perception in Ireland and UK that airtight houses are not suitable to this

climate. Waltjen (2009) maintains this is due to the flawed belief that leaky construction

joints assure the supply of fresh air into the dwelling. Feist (1995) (cited by Waltjen, 2009,

p.21) asserts that the exchange of air through these joints and through natural permanent

ventilation (traditional hole in the wall) varies greatly, due to the inconsistencies of wind

pressure and temperature differences. This also holds true under clement weather and serene

winds in very permeable dwellings with intense drafts. Therefore, adequate ventilation

requirements of 25-30m3/h/person cannot be guaranteed (SEI Renewable Energy Information

Office and MosArt Architecture, 2009, p.13).

Air tightness can be assured to desired levels by the following procedures outlined below

(Hazucha, 2009):

The existing structure should be assessed and leakages identified and localised;

A detailed air tightness plan should follow suit;

Materials suitable for sealing must be used - boards, tapes, intelligent membranes or

similar;

Make air tightness levels part of Practical Completion (PC) and retention monies; and

Preform air-tests as the work proceeds and show the tradesmen where the leaks are,

so that future quality of work can be increased.

Additional benefits from extreme levels of air tightness below 1.0 ach-1

were detailed in

Grove Cottage (UK EnerPHit project). Noxious gases, resulting from sewage leaking into the

basement, were prevented from passing into the living areas due to high levels of air

tightness. (Hazucha et al. 2009)

2.11.1 IMPROVED SOUND INSULATION

The transfer of sound, - a common problem experienced by many terraced and semi-detached

households in Ireland - can be mitigated by high levels of air tightness as sound frequency

waves are airborne. Good sound insulation is obtained where high levels of air tightness have

been achieved, a prerequisite of the PH. (Waltjen, 2009)

2.11.2 AIR TIGHTNESS AND INSULATION

Insulation performance can be reduced if moisture vapour is allowed to pass through the

component and reach due point, thus condensing in the structure. This can be exacerbated in a

PH due to the high levels of insulation. The thermal conductivity of the insulation is

significantly increased as it gets wet; the spaces which were previously filled with air are now


28

filled with water. This has a similar effect of a thermal bridge and allows the heat to pass

through the insulation with ease. (Waltjen, 2009)

Furthermore, if the airtight layer is not intact, ventilation losses will increase. The

effectiveness of the MHRV unit is therefore reduced as the infiltrated external air is not

passing through the heat exchanger and is in effect acting as an independent ventilation

system. Heat losses, through either infiltration or exfiltration, are approximately seven times

higher than when the air passes via the installed ventilation system. (Waltjen, 2009)

2.11.3 AIR TIGHTNESS AND WIND RESISTANCE

Although there is no allowance for wind-tightness in building regulation’s many authors

suggest there is a need, to allow thermal insulation to function as intended. Feist (1997), cited

by Waltjen, (2009 p. 21) stated that ‘the wind currents insulation must withstand, leads to

impaired insulation functionality and thus higher energy consumption levels.’

Thorpe (2010, p45) described this as ‘wind washing’ due to the fact that at relatively low

wind speeds, the heat can be drawn out of the insulation. This was proven by thermal imaging

cameras, where the same building illustrated completely different colour patterns (cool blue

and greens changing to warm reds and oranges) under different wind conditions.

Additionally, if cold air passes through the Vapour Control Layer (VCL), the temperature is

lowered, resulting in the warmer air cooling down as it touches the VCL. Potentially, mould,

condensation and damage will follow.

A summary of a study undertaken in Austria in relation to wind-tightness stated (Bednar and

Deseyve, 2005, p1):

It was clearly shown by measurements that there is an air flow through the

construction of the pitched roof in such a way that the effect of the thermal insulation

is lost. Especially the wind induced ventilation due to leaky eave or ridge details and

unsealed underlay caused a tenfold increase of the heat flux nearby the eaves. The in-

situ measurements show further a clear relation between rising wind speed, wind

direction and the increasing heat flux as well as the decreasing surface temperatures.

Furthermore, in another experiment noted by Thorpe (2010, p.70), there was an increase of

660% on the u-value of loft insulation to 2.5W/m2K, when wind speed reached 7m/s. In

another study (Silerbsein et al, 1991, cited by Thorpe, 2010, p. 70), at 4m/s the u-value

deteriorated by 39%.


29

2.11.4 VAPOUR RESISTANCE

Building materials can be airtight but at the same time allow vapour to diffuse inside. This is

of particular importance in older building structures or timber frame, where the construction

components are required to breathe. Composite wood boards such as Oriented Strand Board

(OSB), chipboard and plywood panels, loam plasters and gypsum panels are some common

examples of this (Waltjen, 2009, p.22). However Thorpe, (2010 p.44) noted:

OSB boards and foam such as EPS are not intrinsically airtight. To meet the

Canadian standard, sheet materials of adequate vapour resistance and thickness with

permanently sealed joints between boards would be needed instead of a fully sealed

airtight membrane.

Crosson (2012) agrees and states:

There is increasing evidence based on research and first-hand experience on building

sites that OSB isn’t a dependable air tightness layer to meet the stringent levels

required to attain Passive House approval. Some EU OSB producers are now stating

a leakage rate for their boards. For example, one producer is stating an air

permeability of 0.14m³ per m² per hour @ 50Pa for their boards. In the longer term I

would envisage that all OSB board producers will eventually have to confirm their air

tightness to: BS EN 12114:2000 Thermal performance of buildings: Air permeability

of building components and building elements; or some equivalent standard.

In response to this issue, Crosson added ‘some companies manufacturing such boards are now

manufacturing pre-lined airtight boards to meet the demanding requirements of PH.’

2.11.5 AIR TIGHTNESS AND VENTILATION

However, according to Little (2011), the air tightness and natural ventilation must be given

serious consideration. As air tightness increases, the minimum requirements set out in TGD F

(Ventilation) will become increasingly inadequate. In addition, where cross ventilation is

required, a typical wall vent cannot adequately extract humidity from a bathroom even with

poor air tightness levels. An intermittent fan, will not work below 5ach-1

(5m3/h/m

2). Little

(2011) illustrated a very practical example of compliance with TGD F 2009, in relation to air

permeability levels.

A typical Irish bungalow circa 126m2 floor area, achieving air permeability rates > 5ach

-1,

requires background ventilation in the region of 75,000mm2 (30,000 mm

2 + 8 x 5,000 mm

2 +

5,000 mm2). However, when < 5ach

-1 is achieved, the background ventilation must be

increased by 40% to 105,000mm2. This equates to 18.1 vents (9”x9” vents with 5,800mm

2

free area). (Little, 2011)

Designing extra natural ventilation into a dwelling, while at the same time trying to be energy

efficient, is neither in line with PH principles nor will it be economically viable. Figure 12


30

illustrates the results from an air tightness survey of thirty two existing social houses; average

results were 9.45ach-1

. The study was titled: Advanced Ventilation Approaches for Social

Housing (AVASH). Where refurbishment was undertaken and internal insulation (dry lining)

was applied, the mean jumped to 13.3ach-1

(Sedlak and Sheward, 2008, p.132). This figure is

in line with the air test results from the case study house which is ‘dry lined’.

The houses in Ballyfermot, on the right of Figure 12, were built in 1950’s with solid wet

plastered walls (wet plaster is airtight). The windows were extremely leaky and there was a

minimum of two open fireplaces in each house. The dwellings tested in Parkview and Easton

Mews were both new developments. However, special attention was paid to air tightness in

Easton Mews.

Figure 12: AVASH survey results. (Source: Sedlak et. al, 2008, p.132)

0

5

10

15

20

25

ach

-1 @

50

Pa

AVASH Survey


31

Figure 13: Statistics from Joseph Little's air tightness survey. Results are from 207 private air tests.

(Source: Little, 2011)


32

2.12 THERMAL BRIDGING

The linear thermal transmittance (Ψ) is the quantity associated with a thermal bridge (cold

bridge). The rate of heat flow per degree per unit length of bridge or Ψ -value (W/mK) is

used, where the u-value of the plain element containing the cold bridge has not been

accounted for.

The DEAP software calculates a thermal bridge in W/m2K, while the PHPP software

calculates them in W/mK. The PHPP software is more specific and calculates thermal bridges

linearly. Therefore, the value used to describe the heat loss is W/mK, as opposed to heat loss

through the plane opaque element, which is measured in W/m2K.

The DEAP software defaults thermal bridges of buildings built before TGD L 2005 at

0.15W/m2K, while buildings built to TGD L 2005 can default at 0.11W/m

2K. Dwellings

constructed to TGD L 2008 and 2011 can default at 0.8W/m2K (SEAI, 2011 p.76). The figure

of ≤ 0.01W/mK (calculated linearly) is the cold bridging limit required by PHI in order to

meet the PH standard (Feist et al., 2007, p.97).

To avoid negative heat loss, the PHPP software requires outside dimensions to be taken for

energy balancing (Feist et al., 2007, p.38). This is in contrast to the DEAP software, where

internal measurements are used (SEAI, 2011, p.11). External dimensions lead to negative

coefficients and allow other components to be used where Ψ ≤ 0.01W/mK. As the geometric

thermal bridges already accounted for are usually negative, the remaining connections are

considered thermal bridge free (Waltjen, 2009, p.16).

An article by architect Joseph Little, entitled ‘Breaking the Mould III’ (2010), discussed the

energy impact of externally insulating a dwelling. Fundamentally, the article compared the

energy loss through plane opaque elements and those through thermal bridges at junctions. To

allow a direct comparison, both elements were brought to the same units (W/mK), thus

proving that in relation to cold bridging at junctions, the Ψ-value trebled in size after the

initial retrofit. Little and Aggegi (2011, p.1), stated:

Perversely insulating the plane elements more and more without carefully dealing

with junctions can lead to a significant increase in thermal bridging heat loss. This is

often more significant in poorly thought-out energy-focused retrofits than in existing

or new buildings.

2.12.1 KNOCK ON EFFECTS OF THERMAL BRIDGING

Consequently, by virtue of their nature, thermal bridges warrant special attention for a number

of significant reasons. Firstly, the interior surface temperatures of components will be lower,


33

as the thermal conductivity of the products will be significantly reduced. The knock on effect

from this can lead to mould growth, condensation and ultimately interstitial condensation.

Secondly, heat losses will also increase where the heat is effectively drawn to the weakest

point in the structure as this is the easiest path of escape (Waltjen, 2009, p.16; MosArt

Architecture et al., 2008, p.14). The effects of this may go unnoticed until it is too late. Costly

structural damage may have already happened. Hazucha (2009, p.15) maintains:

The occasional presence of thermal bridges causes the local decrease of interior

surface temperature which might result in the water vapour condensation on cool

spots and the consequential mould growth with further construction damage.

2.12.2 COMMON TYPES OF THERMAL BRIDGES

SEI Renewable Energy Information Office and MosArt Architecture, (2009 p.22), note two

types of cold bridges, which warrant special attention - repeating and linear. Typical examples

of repeating thermal bridges include wall ties, stud work for internal dry-lining, and rafters.

These elements are accounted for within the regular u-values of their associated elements.

They are calculated in the PHPP by entering the percentage of the insulation layer that the

cold bridge occupies as circled below in a screen shot from the u-value section of the PHPP.

Figure 14: Thermal bridge calculations PHPP software

Linear thermal bridges on the other hand are found at wall to floor junctions, eaves where

there is limited space for insulation and cavity closers at wall plate level/around the openings

of windows and doors. Calculation will usually require the help of a specialist and values

must be certified to EN ISO 10211. However, default values for certified products can be

obtained from the PHI website. Ryan (2012) demonstrated that manual calculation of each


34

individual thermal bridge can reduce the calculated heat demand of a dwelling in excess of

2kWh/m2/yr. In one particular PH project he worked on, manually calculating the thermal

bridges, meant the calculated space heat demand was below the threshold of 15kWh/m2/y; PH

certification was achieved. This highlights the fact that the PHPP software is therefore not

specific enough if the net space heat demand is to be accurately calculated.

2.13 INSULATION STRATEGIES

The level of insulation required to achieve PH standard is determined by a number of factors

which include location, climatic data, orientation and shading of the building. Wrapping the

entire dwelling in an unbroken layer of insulation is the single most effective means of

reducing heat loss (SEI Renewable Energy Information Office and MosArt Architecture,

2009 p.18). This is echoed by the Promotion of European Passive Houses (2006 p.10):

The thermal envelope of a Passive House is the most prominent measure required to

meet the Passive House criteria. Super insulation and maximal air tightness minimize

the heat loss through the envelope.

It is of vital importance to use the insulating material most suitable for the purpose, i.e. a floor

slab requires high density ridged insulation rather than a material that may compress and also

absorb moisture. Conversely, ridged insulation has to be snuggly cut to fit in between the

rafters to avoid cold bridging or thermal leakages. Sheep wool or fibreglass is more

appropriate in this case as it is flexible (MosArt Architecture et al. 2008 p.11). Table 6 below

illustrates the insulation products most suitable to each application.

Table 6: Application of various types of insulation (Source: SEI Renewable Energy Information Office and

MosArt Architecture, 2009, p.18).


35

BINE Informationdienst, (2007, p.1) maintain that ‘unprofessional and physically flawed

renovation of buildings can cause serious damage’. Therefore, insulation strategies must be

given serious consideration, as the risk of interstitial condensation could remove any other

benefits that internal ‘dry lining’ could bring. Many modern building components do not

allow an existing structure to breathe and when they are applied internally, problems such as

mould growth or corrosion can occur to the structure through interstitial condensation.

SEI Renewable Energy Information Office and MosArt Architecture (2009, p.19) concur

stating:

In every case, it is critically important that the retrofit designer makes sure that the

proposed insulation strategy will not cause more interstitial condensation in the

structure that can be evaporated to the exterior over the course of one year.

Interstitial condensation occurs within the building structure as warm air containing water

vapour passes through and condenses within the structure, once the air reaches dew point

temperature. By definition, interstitial condensation is hidden. Therefore, the affects may go

unnoticed until it’s too late. Meanwhile, the thermal performance of the insulating material

will deteriorate; structural defects may be occurring and health risks will increase as a result

of the mould growth. McMullan and Seeley, (2007 p.88) maintain that ‘the dampness caused

by interstitial condensation can damage important structural materials such as steelwork, and

can make insulating materials less effective.’

Waltjen (2009 p.17) noted that structures with high levels of insulation not only significantly

reduce heat loss during the summer months, but also have ‘high temperature amplitude

absorption, even with low mass’; e.g. double gypsum plasterboard panels used in timber and

steel frame construction. As a result, temperature fluctuations can be managed with ease in a

PH, allowing windows to be opened at night to cool the building and for daytime

temperatures to remain relatively constant. However, the solar gain has to be limited, as

overheating can occur and some level of shading will be required.

SEI Renewable Energy Information Office and MosArt Architecture (2009 p.12) maintain

that the most effective way to reduce heat loss is to wrap a continuous layer of insulation

around the dwelling. However, this is more challenging in a retrofit situation as opposed to a

new builds. Dr Wolfgang Feist (2007) compared a PH to a pot of coffee:

There are two options, either place the pot of coffee on a low but constant heat; this will

ensure the coffee temperature remains constant; nonetheless, it will have consumed energy.

Or else; raise the coffee up to the desired temperature and completely wrap the pot of coffee

in a highly insulated airtight container. The combination of the insulation and air tightness


36

eliminates the need for a constant energy source to maintain the desired temperature. The

same concept is applied to a PH but with the addition of MHRV.

2.13.1 MOISTURE TRANSFER

At present there is a vast amount of information available in relation to this, which can be

used as the basis of future planning and design. An example of this is WUFI (Wärme und

Feuchte Instationär - Transient Heat and Moisture). It was developed by the Fraunhofer

Institute in Germany. The movement of moisture through the wall can be dynamically

modelled over a number of years. The Fraunhofer Institute website (2012) notes it offers

‘realistic calculation of the transient hygrothermal behaviour of multi-layer building

components exposed to natural climate conditions’.

Furthermore, SEI Renewable Energy Information Office and MosArt Architecture (2009,

p.29) strongly suggest that:

For all parts of the thermal envelope, the risks of interstitial condensation have to be

calculated and verified. Furthermore, there may be other issues such as structural

stability and fire safety considerations to be considered.

Retrofitting projects are particularly vulnerable to mould and condensation problems, when

insufficient natural ventilation, combined with airtight windows results in increased humidity

levels, which in turn leads to condensation on cool spots. MHRV in conjunction with high

quality correctly installed windows can help eliminate this problem. (Hazucha, 2009)

2.14 VENTILATION

The need for permanent natural ventilation in a PH is removed by replacing this with

mechanical ventilation, preferably combined with heat recovery. It has been referenced

throughout this document as Mechanical Heat Recovery Ventilation (MHRV). In conjunction

with good air tightness levels (≤ 0.6ach-1

new build/≤ 1.0ach-1

retrofit), this will lead to

significantly reduced ventilation heat loss.

Space heat demand is lowered by making the dwelling airtight. However, care needs to be

taken, as this can also lead to increased humidity levels, if the correct amount of fresh air is

not available (Hazucha, 2009 p.14). This will inevitably lead to mould growth and possible

health problems. However, one does not need to worry in a PH about mould growth as the

humidity is ventilated continually. McMullan and Seeley (2007 p.89) maintain, ‘it is

theoretically possible to avoid all condensation by adequate ventilation, but as the ventilation

rate increases the heat loss in the discarded air also increases.’


37

2.14.1 MECHANICAL HEAT RECOVERY VENTILATION

Living areas are supplied with fresh air only and not recirculated air. The addition of heat

recovery to the ventilation system represents minor superfluous effort and is therefore a good

energy saving measure. Waltjen (2009 p.17) suggests that the heat recovered can equal 8 – 15

times the sum of electricity spent by the ventilation system, therefore, substantially reducing

the space heat demand.

The PH standard allows for the distribution of heat via the ventilation system, but it is not a

fundamental requirement, as other sources of heat are perfectly acceptable (Feist et al., 2005

p.1187). Duct insulation is typically between 60-100mm and where possible kept within the

thermal envelope. SEI Renewable Energy Information Office and MosArt Architecture (2009

p.23) agrees and adds a factor of around 0.5 diameter of DHW pipes for insulation. Feist et

al. (2005 p.1186) maintains;

In the case of a ventilation system with heat recovery, but without heating function,

only warm ducts leading through unheated areas and cold ducts leading through

heated areas have to be insulated. A duct of 5 m length without insulation delivers

about one-third of the heat through the duct casing, and only two-thirds are available

at the end of the duct. If a metal duct casing with 1 cm insulation is used instead, the

heat delivery through the duct casing is approximately halved.

For a MHRV system to qualify under the PH standard, the efficiency must be in excess of

75% and be independently tested by the PHI institute as a certified component. It is possible

to use uncertified systems, however, the PHI insists on reducing such elements by a factor of

12% (Feist et al., 2007 p.30). This factor was increased in January 2012 to 18%.

Alternatively, the efficiency of the system can be monitored for a year after installation and

certified after compliance is independently verified (Ryan, 2012).

The retrofitted case study illustrated by SEI Renewable Energy Information Office and

MosArt Architecture (2009 p.14) reduced the heat load demand from 80W/m2 to 9W/m

2,

almost a factor of ten. This approach was mirrored by Hazucha (2009 p.7). Figure 16 overleaf

illustrates factor ten applied to retrofitted existing dwellings and the energy consumption of

appliances, MHRV, DHW and heating. It is clearly visible why a conventional heating system

is not required.


38

Figure 15: Rathangan PH MHRV unit - Site visit November 2011

Figure 16: Factor 10 existing dwelling v retrofit comparison (Source: Hazucha, 2009 p.7)

2.14.2 BENEFITS OF MECHANICAL VENTILATION

The air quality in PH is superior and can have great benefits for the occupiers, in particular

people suffering from allergies (hay fever) and conditions which affect the lungs. Those in


39

charge of cleaning will also feel the benefit (Hazucha, 2009 p.14). As the windows do not

have to be opened, the pollen can be filtered before entering the ventilation system, ensuring a

comfortable indoor environment for sufferers. In addition, where opening the windows is

restricted due to noisy or frosty conditions, the ventilation system eliminates this need. Other

benefits include:

Building materials, carpets, furniture and other general household items release

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s) as they age, these along with excessive

moisture/humidity levels and stale air containing biological pollutants and unwanted

smells are removed from the air (Promotion of European Passive Houses, 2006 p.27);

The walls of a PH also have high surface temperatures and under normal residential

conditions, in conjunction with the MHRV, air-moisture related damage to

construction components (interstitial condensation) can be eliminated (Waltjen,

2009).

Constant supply of the required amount of fresh air to each location; reducing CO2

levels and removing the cause of stiffness and tiredness;

Multifunctional filters ensure air impurities are cleansed and the heat exchanger is not

congested with other substances, ensuring the MHRV will not have to work harder

than is required; and

Fungus and mould do not thrive in low humidity environments and dust mite levels

decrease. (MosArt Architecture et al., 2008)

2.14.3 POTENTIAL PROBLEMS

There have been some drawbacks, however, which have been identified through primary and

secondary research. Changing filters or more appropriately the lack of changing

filters/maintenance has been identified as the most common reoccurring problem in this

research. Figure 17 overleaf is a comparison of a new and used filter, taken during a site visit

to a PH in Rathangan Co. Kildare in November 2011. The need for regular changing is

highlighted by the dust evident on the left hand side filter.

Other potential problems in regard to the ventilation system that have been identified through

primary research are discussed in Chapters Four and Five.


40

Figure 17: Rathangan Co. Kildare certified PH. Used (left) and new filters for MHRV unit Nov 2011

2.14.4 MHRV OPERATION

MosArt Architecture et al. (2008) maintain that the cooker hood can be connected to the

ventilation system. However, they suggest that a top quality product suitable for use should be

used; ensuring grease cannot build up inside the ventilation ductwork, which could potentially

become a fire hazard.

The MHRV system can be equipped with a bypass or summer mode (where the heat recovery

is turned off) if required during the summer. For a few cents a day this option may be

preferred if some of the occupants suffer from allergies. Alternatively, the ventilation system

can be turned off (decommissioned as per manufacturer’s instructions) for the summer season

and the house can be ventilated naturally through cross ventilation. (Waltjen, 2009 p.15)

This method is preferred where possible, otherwise increased energy consumption ensues and

this is not in line with passive principles. Passive cooling strategies should be employed to

minimise overheating (MosArt Architecture et al. 2008 p.17). However, cross ventilation may

not be possible when retrofitting and depending on site specifics, the MHRV may be required

all year round. This would have to be assessed on a case by case basis by the PH designer.

Chapter Three

Chapter Three: Research Methodologies

42

3.0 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES

3.1 SCOPE OF RESEARCH

The following chapter illustrates how the primary and secondary data was obtained and

researched for the purpose of this report. Fellows and Liu, (1997 p.21) defined research

methodologies, as ‘the principles and procedures of logical thought process which are applied

to scientific investigation’. The methodology is the process where the information can be

gathered and analysed, which will eventually lead to conclusions.

The bulk of the primary data has been acquired through the questionnaire and is illustrated in

Chapter Four. It is predominantly made up of quantitative research questions with a limited

amount of qualitative.

The research for this thesis was based on a number of sources. Initially secondary research

was gathered from books, electronic journals, conference papers and the internet.

Subsequently, once the review of initial literature was complete, the basis of many of the

questions outlined in the questionnaire was established. These were compiled over a number

of months in a notepad specific to this research, which was championed by Scott (2011).

3.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The subsequent data collection for this thesis was based on the literature review. What others

have written regarding the subject matter was critically appraised and a greater deal of

understanding towards the Passive House (PH) concept and philosophies was gained. This

was pivotal in the development of the primary research strategy and allowed the contribution

of others to be critically appraised and compared with previous writings. The review also

highlighted the problem areas, which would be addressed in the questionnaire.

Naoum (2007 p.21) maintained that the most accurate source of information is gained from

primary literature, which includes academic research journals, referenced conferences, theses

and reports/occasional papers. Secondary and tertiary literature includes textbooks, trade

journals, newspapers and magazines. All of these sources of literature were used extensively

in Chapter Two.

3.3 RESEARCH STRATEGIES

Once the literature had been reviewed and appraised, the basis for the research design and

methodology was formed. A mixed approach was taken and encompassed both qualitative

and quantitative methods.


43

Quantitative research is used where social or human problems are investigated based on a

number of facts stated by the author. It is used where the facts, questions or attributes relative

to the research are required or where a relationship between a different set of variables and

the facts is needed to test a particular hypothesis. Quantitative is therefore objective in nature.

(Naoum, 2007, p.37; Fellows and Liu, 1997, p.19)

On the other hand qualitative research is subjective. It is more difficult to analyse as different

opinions are expressed. The researcher has to decipher the information and has to make a

judgment call on similar or indifferent responses. Qualitative is classified into two categories;

exploratory and attitudinal.

Exploratory is used where there is a distinct lack of knowledge on the topic, while attitudinal

techniques are employed where the ‘opinions, views or perceptions of a person towards a

particular ‘object’ are required. ‘Objects’ include attributes, variables, factors or indeed a

question. (Naoum, 2007 p.41)

Qualitative research expresses emotions and feelings in relation to the object and may need

verification by quantitative means. Fellows and Liu (1997, p.19) maintains this approach;

‘seeks to gain insights and to understand people’s perceptions of “the world” – whether as

individuals or groups.’

3.3.1 DATA COLLECTION APPROACHES

The bulk of the primary research was carried out through an online questionnaire. LinkedIn,

the professional networking site, along with other construction professionals known to the

author formed the basis of the respondents. In addition, current and past peers from Dublin

Institute of Technology (DIT) (DT117 and DT134) were asked to take part in the survey.

As a result, the respondents were worldwide (Canada, Germany, Ireland, USA and the UK)

and therefore the online questionnaire was deemed most appropriate and feasible. Naoum

(2007 p.62) noted ‘if your study seeks the opinion of top contractors operating in London

postal questionnaires will be more appropriate and feasible than interviews’. Likewise,

Denscombe (2007 p.154) agreed by highlighting the fact that both postal and internet

questionnaires are most beneficial, when a large numbers of respondents in many locations

are expected.

As the link to the questionnaire was posted online and anonymity was provided, the response

rate to the questionnaire could not be calculated; nonetheless, the findings of this report are

based on 101 respondents. After the data was analysed, eight more individuals (seven from


44

the UK, one from Ireland) completed the survey. These were not included in the analysis,

however their answers can be found at the end of Appendix B in Group 12.

3.3.2 QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN

The subject matter discussed in this thesis is relatively new and extensive therefore an online

questionnaire was deemed the most appropriate way of obtaining data considering the variety

of issues that needed to be addressed. These included:

The level of understanding of PH, EnerPHit and Technical Guidance Document L;

Matters in regard to current Building Regulations and Control;

Whether there is enough knowledge and experience to retrofit to PH standard at

present;

What problems that may be present in the existing housing stock;

The best suited tendering and procurement methods to the PH standard;

The education of PH principles to all future construction industry stakeholders;

If government financial aid should be proportionate to the extent of retrofit works;

Positive and negative issues regarding the use of mechanical heat recovery ventilation

in retrofits;

Best practices in relation to the number of air tests required during retrofit and when

they should be carried out; and

Identifying future areas of research from this current study.

Due to the broad nature of the subject matter an online questionnaire was created using

Google Documents. The pilot questionnaire followed suit and after some amendments’ to the

original draft the link to the questionnaire was emailed to roughly 150 individuals that

included past and present peers, and construction industry colleagues and contacts.

Furthermore, the link to the survey was posted on a number of groups on LinkedIn, details of

which can be found on page 46.

The questionnaire begins with some exploratory questions seeking the professions, the level

of experience and country of residence from the respondents. The purpose of the initial

filtering was to allow the responses to the subsequent twenty eight questions in the

questionnaire to be analysed in greater detail in the next chapter.

Naoum, (2007); Fellows and Liu, (1997); and Denscombe (2007) explained the different

methods of research at the disposal of the author and all were extremely helpful in compiling

the layout of the questionnaire. Naoum (2007 p.63) stated that ‘whatever questions you need

to ask they should not be arbitrary and need to be based on your literature review.’ In addition


45

Denscombe (2007 p.153) added that in order to qualify as a research questionnaire ‘it should

be designed to collect information which can be used subsequently for data analysis’.

Questionnaires can be either open (qualitative), where the respondent can answer in full or

closed (quantitative). However, for the purpose of this research, a mixture of both has been

used, with an emphasis on closed questions due to two main reasons.

Firstly, a strong response rate was expected; therefore, analysing bulk qualitative data

was beyond the scope of this research; and

Secondly, the literature review highlighted some major issues that needed to be

addressed. Thus the questionnaire was quite large, so a mixture of the rating and

Likert scale would suit best to ensure that the questionnaire would not take up too

much of the respondents’ time.

3.3.3 LIKERT AND RATING SCALES

To get a measure of the majority of the answers, the Likert scale was used. This is a scale to

gauge attitudinal statements about the subject matter and this worked out favourably in the

corresponding questionnaire. As a general rule the questions were rated in five categories;

strongly agree, agree, not sure, disagree and finally strongly disagree. Not sure was an

addition after the pilot survey which is discussed overleaf.

The Rating scale was also used so that the answers to some of the questions could be analysed

in greater detail and is discussed further in the next chapter. The majority of the questions

were answered in the manner intended. However there were some exceptions and these are

discussed in the relevant questions.

3.3.4 PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire and covering letter attached to same were compiled and edited several

times before the pilot survey was carried out. Both Saunders et al. (2007) and Naoum (2007)

identified this as being a Key Success Factor (KSF) of a questionnaire. A number of people,

all with many years’ experience in the industry, were chosen to complete the pilot

questionnaire. They volunteered some of their valuable time to not only complete the

questionnaire, but also provide some quality feedback on how they interpreted the questions

and covering letter.

A small few unclear questions were dropped from the pilot survey or amended after the

feedback on same. The ‘not sure’ box was added for the benefit of those not too familiar with

the content, so that a firmer viewpoint could be gained. The feedback and amendments


46

received gave the assurance needed to produce the final draft and proceed to send it out to

possible stakeholders.

3.3.5 TARGET SAMPLE

In order to maximise responses it was imperative the questionnaire was sent out at the

beginning of the week, as this would give a higher response rate than at the end. This turned

out to be Sunday evening 19th February 2012. A covering letter was attached to each

email/LinkedIn post. This gave some background information on the topic and included the

title and key research goals. Depending on the intended recipient, the cover letter

(email/LinkedIn post) was amended accordingly. Approximately 150 individuals of various

disciplines were emailed while also posting the link on the following groups within LinkedIn:

Passive House Designers & Consultants Passive House Tradesman

Target Zero & Institute of Passive House Training Low Energy Buildings Forum

EnerPHit - Retrofit to Passive House Standard Retrofit in Ireland

Passive House- the new construction standard Passive House Association

CIOB (Chartered Institute Of Building)

As a result, due to the strong emphasis on PH groups, the results from the questionnaire may

be slightly skewed. The members of these groups have had some passionate debates on

construction and design related issues. An example of this is found in Appendix D, where

issues’ directly relating to retrofitting a dormer bungalow, and the subject matter addressed in

this thesis, is discussed.

3.3.5 CONCLUSION TO RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES

Comments to the questionnaire were generally good. However, some felt it was closed and

simplistic and that some questions could have done with an ‘other’ box so that views could be

expressed on some of the statements. In hindsight, this may be true, but this was not

highlighted in the pilot survey and it was too late to amend the subsequent questionnaire.

Additionally, Q11 was not worded correctly and assumed that there are problems present in

the existing housing stock. One respondent pointed out that the noun ‘quality’ was

insufficient to answer parts A, B and C of the question. Quality is subjective and individual

opinion will differ on the issue. The responses to Q11 are illustrated in the next chapter, but

no findings have been made in relation to the answers.

Chapter Four

Chapter Four: Questionnaire Results & Analysis

48

4.0 CHAPTER FOUR: QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS & ANALYSIS

The following chapter details the results and analysis of the responses by 101 individuals to

an online questionnaire. The questionnaire encompassed twenty eight questions dealing with

key issues relating to low energy retrofitting. In the main the questionnaire is closed and

quantitative in nature however some questions allowed qualitative comments which will be

discussed further into this chapter and the next. The original online questionnaire is located in

Appendix A.

Table 7 below illustrates the range of professions that completed the online survey totalling

101 people. The opening this section of the survey allowed multiple boxes to be ticked and as

a result, each individual has been assigned to a particular group, that the author felt was most

relevant to their professions. The purpose of the groups is to analyse the collected data in

greater detail. Table 8 overleaf outlines the make-up of Groups 1-11 which will be referred to

during some of the analysis.

A complete list of the respondents, their groups, professions and answers can be found in

Appendix B and a full list of the qualitative comments to the questionnaire is illustrated in

Appendix C.

4.1 PROFESSIONS & GROUP CATEGORIES

Make up of Questionnaire Respondents

People Profession People Profession

14 no. Architect 6no. M & E Engineer/Consultant

9 no. Architectural Technician 6no. Product Supplier

3 no. Certified Passive House Designer (CPHD) 11no. Main Contractor Employee

6 no. Certified Passive House Consultant 3no. Passive House Builder

2 no. Certified Passive House Trainer 4no. General Builder

6 no. CPHD student 12no. BER Assessor

12 no. Construction Manager 1no. LEED AP

7 no. QS/Estimator 17no. Energy Consultant

8 no. Tradesman 8no. DT117 Classmate

10 no. Structural/Civil/Site Engineer 6no. DT134 Classmate

2 no. External Insulation Contractor 16no. Other

Table 7: Make up of questionnaire respondents (n=101)


49

Make up of survey groups

Group No. of people Description

1 15 Architects & Architectural Technicians

2 17 CPHD course experience

3 18 BER Assessors & Energy Consultants

4 11 Construction Managers

5 3 PH Builders

6 8 Classmates

7 6 M&E Consultants & Product Suppliers

8 4 QS/Estimators

9 6 Structural/Civil/Site Engineers

10 6 Tradesmen/General Builders

11 7 Mixed

TOTAL 101

Table 8: Survey groups


50

4.2 EXPERIENCE & PLACE OF RESIDENCE

Figure 18: Experience of respondents

Figure 19: Place of residence

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1-9 years 10-19 years 20-29 years 30+ years N/A

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Experience of Survey Sample

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Canada Germany Ireland UK USA

No

. of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Place of Residence


51

4.3 SECTION 1: UNDERSTANDING OF PH, ENERPHIT & TGD L

Q1: Please scale between 1 and 5 your level of understanding of the ‘Passivhaus

standard’? I.e. space heating demand, heating load, air permeability and thermal

bridging limit

Q2: Please scale between 1 and 5 your level of understanding of the ‘EnerPHit

standard’?

Q3: Please scale from 1-5 your level of understanding of the Building Regulations Part L

'Conservation of Fuel & Energy' (TGD L) 2008 & 2011?

Figure 20: Q1, Q2 & Q3. Individual responses of familiarity with PH, EnerPHit and TGD L

It is clear from the responses in Figure 20 there is a lesser degree of understanding of the

EnerPHit standard in comparison to the PH standard and TGD L; this is likely to be due to the

fact the EnerPHit standard is relatively new. Two additional groups were formed based on

the answers supplied to Q1, Q2 and Q3. These are; Group A (65%), those who scored 4 or 5

to Q1, Q2 or Q3; and Group B (35%), those scoring 3 or less to the same questions and will

be referred to in other questions.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5-Very Familiar 4 3 2 1-Not Familiar

No

. of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Familiarity with PH, EnerPHit & TGD L

Q1 Q2 Q3


52

Figure 21: Q1, Q2 & Q3. Groups’ 1-11 average scores regarding familiarity of PH, EnerPHit and TGD L

Highlighted in Table 9 below are the groups who scored above the average to the first three

questions. The mean answers are illustrated in green at the bottom of Table 9.

Group Q1 mean Q2 mean Q3 mean

1: (15) Architects & Architectural Technician (box only ticked) 3.27 1.47 3.33

2: (17) Individuals who have experience of CPHD course 4.71 3.65 3.82

3: (18) BER Assessors & Energy Consultants 4.00 2.72 4.28

4: (11) Construction Managers 2.25 1.75 2.50

5: (3) PH Builders 4.67 3.33 3.33

6: (8) Classmates current & past (box only ticked) 2.38 1.38 2.25

7: (6) M&E Consultants & Product Suppliers 4.00 2.17 4.33

8: (4) QS/Estimators 3.00 1.25 3.25

9: (6) Structural/Civil/Site Engineers 2.83 1.50 2.83

10: (6) Tradesmen/General Builders 2.83 2.17 2.17

11: (7) Mixed 2.71 1.38 2.57

Average of 101 individuals 3.46 2.24 3.34

Table 9: Q1, Q2 & Q3. Mean group answers.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Ave

rage

Gro

up

Sco

res

Group Numbers

Groups 1-11 Average Scores

Q1 Q2 Q3


53

4.4 SECTION 2: BUILDING REGULATIONS & CONTROL

Q4: TGD L 2011 has sufficiently addressed all of the key issues in relation to the

Passivhaus standard and low energy retrofitting?

Figure 22: Q4. Overall responses

The results from Q4 may be slightly skewed due to the fact that TGD L has not made any

specific allowance regarding retrofitting. However, material alteration (extensions) was

addressed. The answers may only be taken as an indication that there was room to include a

specific note regarding retrofitting existing dwellings. In addition, the PH standard is

voluntary and is not a requirement to any regulations, so the question is a little misleading. In

hindsight, the question should have been worded to reflect the fact that, there was no specific

mention of retrofitting in TGD L.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree

% o

f R

esp

on

de

nts

Combined Group A & B Answers


54

Figure 23: Q4. Group A responses (65 people)

Figure 23 above illustrates the responses from Group A; 54% disagreed that all key issues in

relation to PH standard and low energy retrofitting were addressed in TGD L 2011.

Additionally, the opinions from Group A, ranged across the five categories which indicates a

stronger view on the subject matter. Conversely, in Group B the answers remained within

three categories; the majority of which were unsure (81%).

Figure 24: Q4. Group B responses (36 people)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


% o

f R

esp

on

de

nts

Group A Answers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


% o

f R

esp

on

de

nts

Group B Answers


55

Q5: The following items (A to E) should form part of TGD L?

Q5A: Mandatory thermographic surveys before & after retrofit?

Q5B: Air leakage tests before & after retrofit works?

Q5C: Compulsory air leakage tests for every dwelling in a new development?

Q5D: Cold bridging assessments or similar dynamic moisture simulations (WUFI) should be

a requirement in the planning documents?

Q5E: There should be an allowance for wind tightness and its effect on thermal insulation

properties?

Figure 25: Q5A - Q5E. Groups A & B opinions regarding inclusion in TGD L

There is a common theme from the results illustrated above in Q5 and there seems to be a

paradigm shift towards more stringent building regulations. The results outlined from

statements A-E in Figure 25 above, and also Figures 26 and 27 overleaf, highlight some

worthy points of note.

Q5A: Overall, 80% of the respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that thermal imaging

should form part of TGD L before and after retrofit works; 9% were in disagreement. The

results indicate future inclusion of thermal imaging surveys would in the main be welcomed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Stronglydisagree

No

. of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Items for Inclusion in TGD L

Q5A Q5B Q5C Q5D Q5E


56

by the majority of respondents. Figures 26 and 27 below illustrate the responses from Groups

A and B in relation to the Q5A – Q5E.

Figure 26: Q5. Group A responses only (65%)

Q5B: Eighty-five per cent were in agreement overall that an air leakage test should be

performed before and after retrofit works, while 5% were in disagreement. Nonetheless, the

figure in agreement rises to 89% with Group A; disagreement dropped to 4%. Again this

suggests the majority feel there is a clear need to include this item in TGD L.

Figure 27: Q5. Group B responses (35% of sample)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


No

. of

resp

on

de

nts

Group A Answers

Q5A Q5B Q5C Q5D Q5E

0

5

10

15

20

25


No

. of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Group B Answers

Q5A Q5B Q5C Q5D Q5E


57

Q5C: While this is not relevant to this thesis, it was a question worth asking. Overall 90%

agreed that blower door tests should be performed on every dwelling in a new development.

Uncontrolled air movement leads to significant heat loss and also moisture transfer and this

cannot be quantified and remedied without measurement. Additionally, this statement had the

highest proportion of individuals who strongly agreed with any statement Q5A – Q5E

inclusive.

Q5D: Approved Construction Details (ACD’s) have been in place since TGD L 2005.

Contractors are required to use these details or where these have been changed, thermal

bridging assessments are required. Little and Aggegi (2011), argued that ACD’s are both

insufficient and flawed. They also identified weak points in these designs.

Compulsory cold bridging assessments in planning applications could eliminate potential

future problems, as they would be highlighted on the drawing board rather than at the

interface. 68% have agreed with the statement and 17% were unsure. The remaining 15%

disagreed; this was the highest proportion of any part of Q5. An architect with over 30 years’

experience noted that ‘thermal bridging assessments should be somewhere, but not in

planning applications.’

Q5E: Presently, wind tightness is not part of TGD L; however, it is evident from the overall

results (78% agreed or strongly agreed) that there should be some degree of an allowance. In

contrast with the results of Group A; 85% of those more familiar with PH, EnerPHit and TGD

L standards were in agreement with just 5% disagreeing, nobody strongly disagreed.


58

Q6: The level of building control at present is adequate to apply the Passivhaus

standard successfully?

Figure 28: Q6. Building Control

Fifteen per cent of those surveyed believed that the level of building control at present is

adequate to apply the PH standard with success. The question is worded clearly and there are

a substantial amount of professionals, who have strongly disagreed (32%). This indicates

strong views on the content of Q6.

Strongly Agree 9% Agree

6%

Not Sure 13%

Disagree 40%

Strongly Disagree 32%

Building Control is Adequate to Apply PH Standard


59

Q7: The Passivhaus standard will become part of TGD L in the future?

Figure 29: Q7. Implementation of PH into TGD L

There is a trend in Q7 to suggest that PH will become part of TGD L in the future. One

respondent to the questionnaire, who claimed to be in touch with building regulation officials,

noted that TGD L may never be fully implemented due to the fact that it was a private

standard.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


No

. of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

PH will be Included in TGD L


60

Q8: If you agree with the statement above, when do you see the Passivhaus standard

being fully implemented into the building regulations?

Figure 30: Q8. When PH may be implemented into TGD L

The results of Q8 may not be accurate as the question was intended to be an optional answer.

However, by accident the question was a requirement, until attention was brought to it

approximately half way through the survey. The results are not definitive; approximately 42%

believe PH will be part of TGD L in the next five years.

2013 2% 2015

19%

2017 21%

2019+ 15%

Not Sure 43%

Q8: Implementation of PH into TGD L


61

4.5 SECTION 3: EXISTING KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE

Q9: Construction professionals & tradesmen have enough knowledge & experience at

present to retrofit existing dwellings to the EnerPHit standard?

Q10: Homeowners would benefit by having a list of certified Passivhaus tradesmen to

choose from?

Figure 31: Q9 & Q10. 101 individual opinions

Chapter Two focused on the fundamental requirements to build to the PH standard. In order

to turn this concept into a reality, Q9 has suggested that construction professionals and

tradesmen must up skill to reach this standard. There is a large proportion (30%) who strongly

disagreed, 43% disagreed, 23% were not sure, 5% agreed while 0% strongly agreed. This

indicates strong views on the subject matter. Generally, the respondents do not believe there

is enough experience and knowledge at present to retrofit to the PH standard.

In addition, the strong response in agreement to Q10 indicates that the public would benefit

from a list of certified tradesmen to choose from.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


No

. of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Existing Knowledge & Experience

Q9 Q10


62

4.6 SECTION 4: PROBLEMS IN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STOCK

Q11: Please state your opinion of the following statements (A to G) which relate to some

of the problems present in the existing housing stock?

Q11A: Poor quality construction?

Q11B: Poor quality design?

Q11C: Poor quality construction components?

Q11D: Problems with damp and condensation?

Q11E: Non-airtight leaky construction?

Q11F: Difficult thermal bridges to design out?

Q11G: Radon barrier not fitted correctly?

Figure 32: Q11A - Q11G. 101 respondents’ opinions on some problems that may be present in the existing

housing stock

In hindsight, this question has not been worded correctly and it has assumed that there are

problems present in the existing housing stock; this may not be the case. Consequently, there

will be no findings arising from these results. Commentary only, is provided overleaf.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65


No

. of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Problems in Existing Residential Housing

Q11A Q11B Q11C Q11D Q11E Q11F Q11G


63

Q11A, Q11B and Q11C do not reflect a definitive problem due to the use of the term

‘quality’. It is subjective as is thermal comfort; one person may be hot and the other cold.

Also a trained eye over an untrained eye will ascertain quality on different levels.

Additionally, personality and observations by each individual will differ and this will be

reflected in their views. Nonetheless, note the proportion of the survey who strongly agreed

differs greatly with those who strongly disagreed across all parts of Q11.

The evidence suggests that a large proportion of those surveyed have a negative view on the

quality of the design (83%) and construction (87%) of dwellings in Ireland. In excess of 30%

strongly agreed to Q11A and Q11B. This could be skewed nonetheless, as the survey was

posted on numerous groups associated with PH on LinkedIn. Therefore, there may be some

bias by those who are more educated on the design and construction PH, as opposed to the

more traditional approach.

The quality of construction components (Q11C) in the existing stock was deemed as poor

quality by 62% of those surveyed. In total, 78% agreed that there are problems with damp and

condensation (Q11D); 12% disagreed. This is a key area that will have to be addressed in

complex retrofits.

The results from Q11E (90% agreed), together with findings of the Advanced Ventilation

Approaches for Social Housing (AVASH) report together with Joseph Little’s air tightness

surveys discussed in Chapter Two, indicate high levels of air leakage in existing dwellings in

Ireland. Care must be taken when addressing air tightness issues during deep retrofits. The

new measures must not adversely affect the existing structure; especially regarding older

dwellings that need to breathe.

Q11F focused on the difficulty of designing thermal bridges out of retrofit situations. Sixty

six per cent agreed that some of the thermal bridges present would be difficult to design out.

However, 14% did not see this as a problem. Dealing with complex cold bridges will vary

with individuals, depending on their level of experience; this may be reflected in the answers

given.

There was a wide range of opinions recorded to Q11G. Fitting the radon barrier correctly is

not only a requirement under the building regulations, but is also fundamental to ensure no

radon gases enter the dwelling through the sub floor. The only true measure to establish the

validity of these results would be to test the levels of radon present in a wide range of

dwellings constructed over the last fifteen years.

However, the application of PH principles to any problem stock could help to mitigate radon

risks. Feist (2004, cited by Waltjen, 2009 p.21) argues that ‘the improvement of air tightness


64

in relation to the basement or the ground is the most important radon preventative measure.’

This, in conjunction with controlled ventilation, ensures that if the radon does enter the

building, it can be quickly and confidently removed.

4.7 SECTION 5: TENDERING & PROCUREMENT METHODS

Q12: What type of tendering method is best suited to the Passivhaus standard?

Figure 33: Q12. Preferred tendering methods

The majority of the respondents (61%) believed selective tendering with 6-8 contractors is the

best of the options in Q12. Negotiation was second and this may suggest some people believe

that PH quality may not be attainable through traditional open tendering. Previous experience

of building to PH standard is something that may be of preference in the method of tendering.

Open 13%

Negotiation 20%

Selective 6-8 61%

Other 6%

Best Tendering Methods for PH standard


65

Q13: What type of procurement strategy is best suited to Passivhaus standard?

Figure 34: Q13. Preferred procurement methods

Design and Build (D&B) at 53%, is the preferred procurement method in the limited options

of Q13. Those surveyed have suggested the integration of design and construction teams

would be a preferred construction procurement route. Partnering (17%) by definition requires

close and regular contact; this too is suited to PH design and construction. PH can be designed

on paper, but unless the construction is verified to match the design; it cannot be certified.

D & B

53%

Partnering

17%

Traditional

27%

Not Sure

3%

Best Procurement Methods for PH

Standard


66

Q14: In your opinion what % of construction professionals and tradesmen are 100%

familiar with the Passivhaus standard?

Figure 35: Q14. Opinions of the % of trades & professionals 100% familiar with PH

PH standard is voluntary and is not a requirement under any Irish law or energy upgrade

finance scheme. It is therefore unnecessary for the industry to be concerned about it, unless it

is of interest to them. This seems to explain the results indicated in Figure 35 above where

77% (41% + 24% + 12%) of those surveyed believed the level of knowledge among

tradesmen and professionals is below 29%. Furthermore, the concept is relatively new.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0-9% 10-19% 20-29% 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79%

% o

f R

esp

on

de

nts

% of Tradesmen and Professionals 100% Familiar with PH Standard


67

4.8 SECTION 6: EDUCATION OF PH PRINCIPLES

Q15: Passivhaus principles should be a dedicated module on all 3rd level Architecture,

Engineering, Economics & Management programmes?

Q16: Passivhaus principles should be taught to all 2nd level construction studies

students?

Q17: Passivhaus principles should form part of all construction related apprenticeship

studies?

Figure 36: Q15-Q17. Respondents views whether PH principles should be a dedicated module

There is a clear indication in the questions above that PH principles should be a dedicated

module in future stakeholders’ education. The sway in favour of good construction practices

would be a welcome marketing tool, when the construction industry is functioning at full tilt

again. The principles, whether adopted in full or part, lead to energy efficient design and high

quality construction and could form a sound basis of future construction standards.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree

Should PH be a Dedicated Module?

Q15: 3rd Level Q16: 2nd Level Q17: Apprenticeship studies


68

4.9 SECTION 7: GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Q18: The Government should offer increased financial incentives/tax relief

proportionate to the extent of the retrofit. I.e. the more the homeowner tries to reach the

EnerPHit/low energy standard during a retrofit the more financial aid they receive?

Figure 37: Q18. Government led financial aid

The results illustrated in Figure 37 are clearly in favour of a subsidy scheme that encourages

the household to retrofit deeper and more energy efficient. Six per cent of the respondents

disagreed with the proposal while 77% agreed it would be of benefit. The high proportion

who strongly agreed may be due to the lack of construction work at present and this may be

seen as an opportunity to generate some revenue, by some of the respondents.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


No

. of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Level of Government Aid Should be Proportionate to the Works?


69

4.10 SECTION 8: MECHANICAL HEAT RECOVERY VENTILATION

Q19: Have you had any experience with Mechanical Heat Recovery Ventilation

(MHRV) to date?

Figure 38: Q19. Percentage of respondents with experience of MHRV

Q20: MHRV is the best ventilation solution for low energy/EnerPHit standard

retrofitting?

Figure 39: Q20. Experience with MHRV (58%)

Yes 58%

No 42%

Experience with MHRV

Strongly Agree 30%

Agree 44%

Not Sure 19%

Disagree 7%


Yes to Q19: MHRV Best Solution for Retrofit?


70

Figure 39 illustrates the responses to Q20 of those with experience of MHRV (58%), whilst

Figure 40 below, represents the views of those who did not have any experience (42%).

Clearly those with experience of MHRV favour its application to low energy retrofitting.

Analysing Figure 39 (Group Yes), 74% of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed

that MHRV is the best solution for low energy retrofitting, 19% were unsure, 7% disagreed.

Contrasting this to those without any experience with MHRV, only 25% agreed or strongly

agreed, 71% were unsure, 4% disagreed. None of the 101 respondents strongly disagreed.

Figure 40: Q20. No experience with MHRV (42%)

Make up of Survey Groups for Further Analysis

Group Label Group

No

No. of people Description

X 2, 3 & 5 38 CPHD course experience; BER Assessors &

Energy Consultants; PH Builders

Y 1, 4, 6, 8-

11

57 Architects & Architectural Technicians;

Construction Managers; Classmates;

QS/Estimators; Structural/Civil/Site Engineers;

Tradesmen/General Builders; Mixed

Z 7 6 M&E Consultants & Product Suppliers

Table 10: Q20. Groups X, Y and Z

Strongly Agree 9% Agree

16%

Not Sure 71%

Disagree 4%


No to Q19: MHRV Best Solution for Retrofit?


71

Table 10 illustrated the make-up of the Groups X, Y and Z. All of the respondents to Group Z

(Group 7: M&E Consultants and Product Suppliers) were in favour of MHRV for retrofit and

they have been excluded from Figures 41 and 42. There is a significant percentage in

agreement to Q20 in Group X (79%) over Group Y (30%).

Figure 41: Q20. Groups X answers

Figure 42: Q20. Group Y answers

Strongly Agree 40%

Agree 39%

Not Sure 13%

Disagree 8%


MHRV Best Solution for Retrofit? Group X

Strongly Agree, 9%

Agree, 21%

Not Sure, 65%

Disagree, 5% Strongly Disagree,

0%

MHRV Best Solution for retrofit? Group Y


72

Q21: Have you or any of your clients experienced any problems with MHRV?

Figure 43: Q21. Percentage of respondents that had problems with MHRV

The qualitative aspect of this question looked the any problems encountered with MHRV. A

summary of comments is listed below (see Appendix C for the full list of the comments):

Problem Description

Noise – Leading it to be turned off in some instances (social housing)

– Not suitable for social housing

Filters – Not changed as required leading to inefficiency and dust issues

– mould developing on filters – Mould on filters

Ducting – Not designed properly

– Condensation & mould build up inside the ductwork

– Moisture build up in cold attics (PHI recommend installation in warm attics)

– Decentralised versions without ducts have less problems

– Return air temperatures too low with ducted versions

Maintenance – Systems not balanced or commissioned properly

– Lack of maintenance, broken belt on the rotary wheel

– End users not educated sufficiently on maintenance issues

Installation – Poor not proprietary components used

– Condensate drip blocked

Design – Poor design

– Humidity level too low due to air flow/over drying of air affecting IAQ

Economics – System will never pay for themselves

– No grants available for MHRV

Table 11: Q21. Breakdown of problems reported with MHRV

Yes 22%

No 78%

Problems with MHRV?


73

4.11 SECTION 9: AIR TIGHTNESS & BEST PRACTICES

Q22 & Q23: Could you please indicate the best and worst air tightness test result of any

retrofitting projects you have been involved in?

Q22: Best (ach-1

) Q23: Worst (ach-1

)

0.25

0.8 2.0

1.0

1.5 2.6

0.24 2.8

0.8

0.38

n50 0.99

n50 27

q50 1.04 q50 24

0.3 0.6

0.25 1.5

0.8

3.0 15.0

1.1 7.0

0.6 12.0

3.2 8.7

7.5

0.2 7.0

Table 12:Q22 & Q23. Best and worst air tightness test results

Table 12 demonstrates the best and worst blower door test results of those that were surveyed.

The question was specifically asked bearing retrofitting in mind; however, there are eight test

results that are ≤ 0.6ach-1

, which may indicate new build test results. The literature review

indicated the EnerPHit standard to be ≤ 1.0ach-1

. Grove Cottage, a model EnerPHit project in

the UK, achieved test results of 0.97ach-1

. One year post occupation, another test showed

results of 0.82ach-1

(Hazucha, 2009, pp.66-68). A recently completed EnerPHit project in the

UK (Elliott Drive) had a final air test result of 0.57ach-1

(Encraft, 2012b). A current EnerPHit

project in Dublin recorded a result of 1.07ach-1

(see Appendix D). However, works are not yet

complete on this dwelling yet and the result should improve.


74

Q24: If you had a choice, how many air tests would you perform on low energy

retrofits?

Group

No. of people Description Q24 Mean air tests

1

15 Architects & Architectural Technicians 2.66

2

17 CPHD course experience 2.71

3 18 BER Assessors & Energy Consultants 2.44

4

11 Construction Managers 1.57

5

3 PH Builders 2.33

6

8 Classmates 2.38

7

6 M&E Consultants & Product Suppliers 2.66

8

5 QS/Estimators 2.00

9

9 Structural/Civil/Site Engineers 2.33

10

6 Tradesmen/General Builders 1.83

11

7 Mixed 2.29

Total 102 Average 2.45

Table 13: Q24. Mean preferred no. of air tests required during retrofitting

Figure 44: Q24. No. of air tests for retrofit

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5 4 3 2 1

No.

of

Res

pon

den

ts

No.of Air tests

No. of Air Tests for Retrofit


75

Q25: At what stages would you carry out the air tests?

A summary of the comments to Q25 are listed below in Table 14 (see Appendix C for full list

of comments):

Stage Comments

Before works commence – Sets the benchmark for the project

– Establishes the extent of air tightness works required

and problem areas

– Prior to the design stage After window installation – As soon as air tight layer somewhat complete so

tradesmen can experience the leaks

First fix – Upon completion and again after problems are

remedied

Second fix – Before and after M&E fit out

Insulation – Before and after fitting

– Prior to any slabbing

Post airtight layer – After internal/external rendering

– Where it is still possible to get at any potential

problems

– Before membrane covered over with additional

building material

Before internal finishes – Before paint and trim installed

Continuously – Repeated as needed

Practical Completion – To form part of snagging

Post-handover – Values ranged from three months to a year

Table 14: Q25. Stages and comments regarding the timing of air tests


76

4.12 SECTION 10: FUTURE RESEARCH

Q26: Could you please indicate which area of research listed below you would deem

most appropriate to future Passivhaus research?

Figure 45: Q26. Future areas of research

The most popular choice was the funding of a national PH retrofit scheme at 39%, followed

by thermal bridge free design (22%), ventilation strategies (17%) and the transfer of moisture

through construction components (14%). ‘Other’ options made up the rest at 8%; this

included items regarding:

Traditional and sustainable materials;

Public policy research to promote energy related retrofit;

Integrated ways of achieving airtight design;

The effects hot and dry atmospheres can have on human health; and

The education of the public and tradesmen on the benefits of PH.

All of the items aforementioned are worthy of further research and will give the author food

for thought over the coming months. This document is intended to form the basis of a future

Research Masters.

Funding a National Passivhaus

Retrofit Scheme 39%

The Transfer of Moisture Through

Construction Components

14%

Thermal Bridge Free Design

22%

Ventilation Strategies

17% Other

8%

Future Research

Chapter Five

Chapter Five: Goals, Findings, Recommendations & Conclusions

78

5.0 CHAPTER FIVE: GOALS, FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS &

CONCLUSIONS

5.0.1 INTRODUCTION

The extensive amount of subject matter discussed throughout this document was necessary to

research and investigate the benefits and limitations of applying the PH standard to an

existing dwelling. The literature review encompassed the key elements required to build to

PH standard, while the questionnaire addressed many of the key issues highlighted in the

literature review.

The final chapter of this thesis reflects on the primary goals and objectives of this research

and will illustrate how they were achieved. Findings and recommendations arising from the

literature review and online questionnaire will also be discussed as well as the concluding

thoughts resulting from this research.

5.1 RESEARCH GOALS

The main goal of this research was to highlight and discuss the benefits and limitations of

applying the ‘EnerPHit Standard’ to an existing semi-detached dwelling. The benefits and

limitations were assessed through a mixture of primary, secondary and tertiary research and

are summarised below:

5.1.1 BENEFITS OF RETROFITTING TO THE PH STANDARD

Cleaner air;

Less dependency on fossil fuels;

Less dependency on rising fuel costs;

Less dependency on natural light;

Warm internal walls;

Better learning environment;

No variance in temperature summer or winter or temperature stratification;

Elimination of cold draughts and cold feet;

Warm feeling of 17oC beside window;

Mouldy damp conditions are eliminated; and

Extending the durability of dwellings, contribute to the households’ credit and make

the dwelling more competitive on the real estate market.


79

5.1.2 LIMITATIONS OF RETROFITTING TO THE ENERPHIT STANDARD

High costs;

The majority of the construction industry’s tradesmen and professionals not being

100% familiar with the standard;

Eliminating or mitigating all of the cold bridges;

Air tightness detailing;

Running the HRV ducts through the existing structure and the maintenance of the

systems;

Achieving insulation wrap around, without stripping roof slates and rising the rafters;

ESB/Gas service box to be removed and fixed to anchorage dowels in external

insulation;

The need for certified products to be used;

The price of certification - €2,000 to €3,000 (O’Donnell, 2012). These costs will not

payback. However, it could be reflected in the market value;

Substantial cold bridges at party wall junctions, chimney, floor to wall and roof to

wall junctions will need thermal modelling by experts, adding costs;

Changing cultures and lifetime habits of opening windows, lighting open fires;

The existing shape, structure and orientation of the dwelling (Area/Volume ratio);

Changing the ventilation filters, lack of education or awareness of the homeowner;

Government grants have decreased and anecdotal evidence suggests further decreases

in the next budget before being phased out in completely in 2013; and

External insulation contractors have to abide by ‘acceptable practice’ rules. U-values

of 0.27W/m2K are acceptable (PHI require below 0.15W/m

2K, new builds to TGD L

require 0.21W/m2K).

5.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The main objectives for this research were as follows:

1. Indicate the key areas of a domestic building envelope that contribute to heat

loss and ascertain the crucial thermal bridging points of existing dwellings.

Unless a structure can be wrapped in a continuous layer of insulation, thermal bridges will

occur and ultimately heat loss. Wherever the insulation cannot wrap the component (wall

footings for example) a thermal bridge is found. There will also be other occurrences at


80

junctions of walls, floors, roofs, chimney breasts, projections and around the openings of

windows and doors.

2. Outline the costs of all major stages of works required to retrofit to EnerPHit

standard.

The major stages of work, detailed in the literature review focused on retaining the heat that

has been generated. The PH philosophy is to retain the free heat that is generated before

renewables are considered. Therefore, three key elements must be considered; insulation,

ventilation and windows. External insulation was priced between €95-€150/m2

(Intelligent

Energy Europe, 2012c).

The ventilation will have to be tackled on two fronts; air tightness and installation of a

MHRV unit. The air tightness is difficult to price however guideline figures of €8-

€10m2/Treated Floor Area (TFA) give an indication of the costs (Intelligent Energy Europe,

2012d). O’Leary (2011) noted costs of €8,000 to achieve the desired levels of air tightness on

a recent 150m2 detached EnerPHit project in Co. Wexford.

Supplying and installing a PHI certified MHRV unit will cost in the region of €6,000; running

costs, servicing and filter changing will be an additional cost (Murphy, 2012).

PHI certified windows vary greatly in price however Smartwin (Irish manufacturer) quoted

guide prices of €325/m2 installed (O’Rielly, 2011).

3. To identify the best construction methods and practices associated with passive

design and construction.

The literature review detailed the low levels of air tightness and u-values required to build to

the PH standard. Quality control is paramount in achieving this. Furthermore, placing the

windows out onto the front façade or into the insulation layer is essential in achieving the low

u-values required for certification. Other best practices regarding air tightness were also

highlighted in the online questionnaire.

4. To establish what level of knowledge construction professionals have in relation

to the Passivhaus and EnerPHit standard.

This objective was addressed in the online questionnaire in Q1, Q2 and Q9. It is evident from

Q1 and Q2 that there is a greater understanding of the PH standard over the EnerPHit

standard; possibly down to the EnerPHit standard being relatively new. The respondents to

the survey averaged 3.46 out of 5; however, the average was increased by the more


81

experienced individuals in this field noted in Groups 2, 3, 5 and 7 (see Appendix B for a

complete list of the groups and survey results).

5. Gain a greater degree of knowledge on the subject matter and identify future

areas of research within the framework of this thesis.

The author’s knowledge on the subject matter has been greatly enhanced by this research.

Education and research is central to improving one’s knowledge. The focal point of the

research was based around the Certified Passive House Designer (CPHD) course run by the

Institute of Passive House Training (IPHT). It was fundamental in broadening the

understanding of the topic, and helped to identify the relevant literature. The transfer of

moisture through construction components and the dangers associated with thermal bridges

are two very significant items highlighted as a result of this research. Other items such as

integrated air tightness and ventilation strategies as well as funding a national PH retrofit

scheme were also identified as possible further areas of research.

6. Assess the benefits passive can bring to the homeowner and identify the

limitations of retrofitting existing dwellings to the ‘EnerPHit Standard’.

Objective Six has been tackled throughout this report and through the online questionnaire. A

summary of these findings was detailed previously in section 5.1.1 and 5.1.2.

7. To research and investigate the software required to calculate different elements

associated with PH calculations including moisture transfer and thermal bridge

software.

There is a range of software available to achieve the PH standard. However the Passive House

Planning Package (PHPP) software is the only fundamental requirement. Once PH guidelines

are followed, thermal bridge software (THERM) or moisture transfer software (WUFI) does

not have to be used. Nonetheless, it is good practice to use THERM and WUFI or similar

software packages. THERM was used in Grove Cottage UK and resulted in a cheaper

insulation option being implemented on site. In addition, Ryan (2012) demonstrated that the

calculated heat losses were reduced below the threshold of 15kWh/m2/y on a project and

achieved certification without further building work and associated costs when each thermal

bridge was manually calculated using such software.

5.2.1 LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH

Low energy retrofitting is a large complex topic while also being relatively new. The depth of

this piece of research was restricted due to word count and time constraints. However, due to


82

the substantial amount of information gathered, permission to exceed the guideline word

count limit for this document was granted by the Supervisor of this thesis Mr Sean McCarthy.

Further research into the subject matter is required regarding a Research Masters Thesis.

5.3 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Initially, the literature was reviewed. As a consequence, the online questionnaire was

compiled to address some of the major issues identified in the literature review. The issues are

broken up into ten sections which are listed below:

1. Level of understanding of PH, EnerPHit & TGD L

2. Building Regulations & Control

3. Existing Knowledge & Experience

4. Problems in existing residential stock

5. Tendering & Procurement Methods

6. Education of PH Principles to 2nd

and 3rd

Level Students and Apprentices

7. Government Financial Assistance

8. Mechanical Heat Recovery Ventilation

9. Air Tightness & Best Practices

10. Future areas of research

5.3.1 LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF PH, ENERPHIT & TGD L

5.3.1.1 Findings

A large number of the respondents (65%) scored 4 or above to Q1, Q2 or Q3 (Group A).

However, these results may be skewed somewhat. The online survey was posted onto a

number of groups connected with PH and low energy design and construction. However, the

survey revealed that Groups 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 (Architects & Architectural Technicians,

Construction Managers, Classmates Current & Past, QS/Estimators, Structural/Civil/Site

Engineers and Tradesmen/General Builders), will need to increase their level of knowledge in

relation to PH and TGD L if PH principles are to be successfully applied en mass to

retrofitting.


83

5.3.1.2 Recommendations

The need to up-skill is clear, especially among the groups listed above. They will be heavily

involved in the design and construction of PH’s and will therefore be vital to its success. An

industry wide training scheme, where best practices are demonstrated to pertinent

stakeholders will be required.

5.3.2 BUILDING REGULATIONS & CONTROL

5.3.2.1 Findings

The vast majority of those surveyed were of the opinion, that the items suggested for

inclusion in TGD L in Q5 (thermal imaging, air tightness tests, dynamic moisture simulations

and wind tightness measures), would be welcome in the building regulations.

The results of the survey indicate that building control is inadequate at present to apply the

EnerPHit standard successfully to existing dwellings. The majority (73%) disagreed with Q6,

that the level of control at present is sufficient to apply PH standard in retrofit. This sentiment

is reflected in Appendix D by a group of professionals in a discussion relating to dormer roof

issues.


The items in Q5 should be included into the building regulations. A focus group made up of

experienced, qualified and respected individuals who have first-hand knowledge and

experience designing and constructing to PH or low energy standard would be welcome. They

could help implement and co-ordinate the application of these items into the main stream

regulations.

Additionally, if the construction industry is to move forward, stringent building control must

be brought into legislation. The lack of building control has been evident of late with Priory

Hall and Belmayne developments in Dublin under close media scrutiny. The true extent of

self-regulation during the boom years may not have appeared yet.

5.3.3 EXISTING KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCE

5.3.3.1 Findings

Construction professionals and tradesmen do not have enough knowledge at present to retrofit

to the PH standard; merely 5% agreed with Q9.


84


At present, both the Institute of Passive House Training (IPHT) and Passive House Academy

(PHA) run PHI certified PH designer and tradesmen courses. However, these courses are

voluntary and are not a requirement under Irish law. Nonetheless, successful candidates are

listed on a central PHI database to which the public has access. This was identified as a

possible benefit in Q10, where 85% of those surveyed believed homeowners would benefit by

having a list of certified Passivhaus tradesmen to choose from.

An industry wide, government led training programme, in association with the Construction

Industry Federation (CIF), FÁS, IPHT and PHA is required. This will benefit the construction

industry and also give a greater degree of protection to the public from rogue construction

professionals, builders and tradesmen.

5.3.4 PROBLEMS IN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STOCK

No findings or recommendations regarding Q11.

5.3.5 TENDERING & PROCUREMENT METHODS

5.3.5.1 Findings

Selective tendering methods with 6-8 contractors (62%) followed by negotiation (19%) made

up the majority of the answers to Q12. There is a clear shift away from traditional

procurement methods in Q13. Design and Build (D&B) (52%), traditional (27%) and

partnering (17%) made up the bulk of the answers. Q14 indicated 77% of the respondents

believe under 29% of construction professionals and tradesmen are 100% familiar with PH.

Forty one per cent were of the opinion, that under 9% were familiar with the standard.


Experienced and qualified tradesmen are required to design and build to the PH standard.

Selective tendering will only work under the condition that those tendering are suitably

qualified and experienced with PH design and construction. Negotiation should ensure the

right designers and contractors are on board from the conception phase. Long term value and

the Lowest Life Cycle Cost (LLCC) must be considered by the client; not just the cheapest

price.

Design and Build (D&B) procurement, ensures closer collaboration between designer and

contractor and can reduce problems at the interface, this would marry well with the PH

standard. Similarly, partnering requires close collaboration between the disciplines. The

efficiencies gained over a series of projects could make either of these two procurement


85

options compensate towards renovation costs. PH workshops in conjunction with Continuous

Professional Development (CPD) points and the need to up skill the workforce, could set a

platform and benchmark for the rejuvenation of Ireland’s construction industry. Hazucha

(2009 p.34) stressed the importance of choosing trained and experienced professionals to

build to the PH standard by stating:

The complex renovations require not just the precise planning but also the high-

quality construction works, which cannot be realised by “amateurs”. So make sure

that all the works are realised by the qualified company with the appropriate

experiences and quality warranty. Careful construction company selection, which is

able to provide the building site logistics, supervision, first-class realisation and the

quality assurance (Blower-door test, thermal imaging) is utmost important.

5.3.6 EDUCATION OF PH PRINCIPLES TO 2ND, 3RD LEVEL STUDENTS AND

APPRENTICES

5.3.6.1 Findings

In the main, the results from Q15, Q16 and Q17, suggest there is room to include a dedicated

PH module on all construction related 2nd

/3rd

level and apprentice studies. A huge emphasis

has been placed on H&S in the workplace and on construction sites over the last decade. PH

design and construction will need the same prominence, if the building industry is to move

forward with this standard.


There is no doubt, that low energy design (PH or other methods) is growing in popularity.

Some view the targets as extreme; others view them as the way forward. If the PH standard is

to be realised, the education of the country’s future designers, engineers, construction

managers and tradesmen is a must.

The PH standard may need an adjustment to suit the Irish climate as there is no ‘one fits all’

solution - demonstrated by the heat demand of the Carrigline Co. Cork PH in Figure 7.

However, the PH standard would make a sound basis to improve construction standards on. If

the principles are followed, either in full or part, it can only lead to a higher quality design

and construction. This would be a very welcome development for the Irish construction

industry and the future of the building stock.


86

5.3.7 GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

5.3.7.1 Findings

A large proportion of those surveyed (77%), agreed the level of financial aid should be

proportionate to the up-grade works. At present, the reality of this happening does not seem

too likely. Government cutbacks have forced the closure of SEAI’s Renewable Energy

Information Office (REIO) office (REIO, 2012). This office has been at the forefront of

spreading the PH movement in Ireland, with a series of conferences titled ‘See the Light’.

With regard to insulation grants, it seems they may not last either.


Although there is currently a subsidiary scheme assisting households to energy upgrade their

dwellings, the amount of aid does not increase in proportion to the retrofit. This is in contrast

to the Czech Republic, which presently offers increased financial incentives in proportion to

the extent of the retrofit. The subsidy scheme supports the renovations of multifamily and

blocks of flats. There are two levels of support (Hazucha et al., 2009) p32;

If the annual energy demand for heating is under 30kWh/m2/y, the height of

maximum support is €60/m2;

If the annual energy demand is under 55kWh/m2/y, the maximum support drops to

€42/m2.

In contrast to the Irish grant scheme, the subsidy scheme in the Czech Republic encourages

the use of PH principles. They are listed in part B of the programme. Furthermore, as a result

of the initiative, CO2 emissions savings of 1.1Mt are expected by 2012, the creation or

retention of 30,000 jobs and for the 250,000 households receiving the support; improved

living conditions (Zelená úsporám, 2012).

5.3.8 MECHANICAL HEAT RECOVERY VENTILATION

5.3.8.1 Findings

Fifty eight per cent of the cohort had experience with Mechanical Heat Recovery Ventilation

(MHRV). A total of 74% agreed it was the best ventilation solution for low energy/EnerPHit

standard retrofitting. This figure was in contrast to the group without experience of MHRV;

25% agreed and 71% were unsure. Therefore, experienced advice suggests MHRV may be

the best approach to ventilation into the future.


87

Nonetheless, there were a number of MHRV issues documented in the questionnaire. Noise,

filters, design and maintenance issues, were some of the problems reported in the

questionnaire. See Appendix C for a full list of the comments.


MHRV is generally required to qualify a building to the PH standard. However, if the system

is not designed, installed or maintained correctly, problems will ensue. Homeowners looking

to install a MHRV unit should ensure a suitably qualified and experienced individual designs

and installs the system in their house.

A reputable contractor should ensure that the required regular maintenance is carried out. In

addition, the contractor should inform his/her client of all the necessary procedures to monitor

and run the system successfully. Hazucha (2009, p.23) noted, ‘the choosing of right

ventilation system has to be left on professionals with experiences of designing the systems

for passive houses.’

5.3.9 AIR TIGHTNESS & BEST PRACTICES

5.3.9.1 Findings

The mean number of air tests those surveyed would perform on low energy retrofits was 2.45.

There were many comments regarding the timing of the tests. In the main, the comments were

before works and after works (see Appendix C for full list of comments). Nine per cent of

those surveyed ticked four or five tests, while another noted continuously. It was noted by one

individual, that a test should be carried out ‘as soon as the airtight layer is somewhat complete

- so tradesmen can experience the leaks!’


At present there is no regulation governing air tightness testing of retrofits. TGD L requires

new builds to achieve 7.0ach-1

(7 times EnerPHit at 1.0ach-1

). Although this may seem like an

added expense (this point was raised by an architect), an experienced builder should be testing

as they go, so that problem areas can be rectified while it is easy to do so. The homeowner

should insist on this. However, reputable contractors should have this as part of their strategy.

If air tests are not part of the building regulations, then the homeowner needs to make them

part of the contract. Exfiltration, through leaky construction joints, will not only increase

ventilation losses but can lead to interstitial condensation and other problems associated with

moisture transfer. Choosing experienced professionals and making air tightness results part of


88

the contract, should ensure the end result is favourable, and will remain airtight over the life

cycle of the products used.

If air test results and furthermore, thermal image surveys, are part of Practical Completion

(PC) and retention monies, the builder will have no choice but provide a quality service; or

else it will cost them money. Little (2011) stated ‘an air test should be performed before the

completion of the services cavity; ideally have three formal tests. Make Practical Completion

contingent in achieving the result.’

5.3.10 FUTURE RESEARCH

5.3.10.1 Findings

There were several areas of future research identified in this document. These included the

funding of a national PH retrofit scheme (39%), thermal bridge free design (22%), ventilation

strategies (17%) and the transfer of moisture through construction components (14%); others

made up the balance (8%).


Further research regarding funding a national PH retrofit scheme, could focus on a cost

benefit analysis of retrofitting the existing stock en mass. The DEAP manual lists nine types

of dwelling for BER assessment. They are as follows: ground-floor, mid-floor top-floor

apartment. Mid- terrace, semi-detached, detached or end of terrace house, maisonette, and

basement apartment.

A detailed case study of each type of property is required, complete with full bills of

quantities and definitive payback periods. In addition to data from existing projects (if the

stakeholders would share the information), a true cost benefit analysis of retrofitting to the PH

standard could be carried out. The works could be broken up into different stages and

delivered in bulk; if this could reduce the cost. However, the delivery of a mass retrofit

scheme would have to be accompanied by stringent control, to ensure the works is done to the

highest standard.

The lack of funding or availability of credit at present, coupled with the possibility of further

grant cuts, suggest firm evidence is needed from multiple PH and EnerPHit projects in Ireland

that proves payback, in a reasonable time frame. To date, approximately fifty projects have

been realised in Ireland yet only nine of these are certified by the PHI. The cost of certifying

the project seems to be a stumbling block towards this. O’Donnell (2012) estimates this at

between €2,000 and €3,000. The amount would differ depending on the work required.


89

5.4 CONCLUSIONS

Whether dwellings are built new to the PH standard, or retrofitted to the EnerPHit standard,

the exact requirements do not differ greatly. This report has outlined the criteria, on which a

dwelling is evaluated on, to qualify under the PH or EnerPHit standard. A dwelling built to

the ‘EnerPHit’ standard, will be certified by the PHI as; ‘Quality Approved Retrofit with

Passive House Components’. Whereas, a building meeting the criteria set out in the PH

standard (new build or retrofit), can be certified as; ‘Quality Approved Passive House’

(Passive House Institute, 2009c).

Differences between the PH and EnerPHit standards, lie in their respective maximum space

heat demands of 15kWh/m2/yr and 25kWh/m

2/yr, maximum blower-door test results (n50) of

≤ 0.6ach-1

and ≤ 1.0ach-1

, and the maximum primary energy demand of 120kWh/m2/yr and

132kWh/m2/yr respectively. With specific regard to the EnerPHit standard, the relative

humidity of the surrounding air ratio must be kept below 80% to reduce the likelihood of

mould growth (Passive House Institute, 2010).

Both standards are voluntary and a range of construction techniques can be used. Certified

windows are the only fundamental requirement for certification, however, the recent increase

from a 12% to a 18% reduction in efficiency of a Mechanical Heat Recovery Ventilation

(MHRV) unit, effectively means a certified unit is needed, unless the manufacturer’s

efficiency is in excess of 93%. Alternatively, the efficiency of the MHRV unit can be

monitored for a period of one year, to achieve certification. PH standard focuses on retaining

the heat that has been generated by passive means (internal and solar gains). Renewable

energy generation is welcome, although it is not a fundamental requirement and has not been

addressed in this report.

The PHPP software, used to evaluate the energy usage of a dwelling, is site specific and takes

local climatic data into consideration. If the dwelling is being sold or rented, legal

requirements must be met. This is achieved by employing a registered BER assessor to survey

the building through the Dwelling Energy Assessment Procedure (DEAP) software. However,

the software is generic by nature and is used to simply enforce conformity with TGD L. The

PHPP can therefore only be used as a design tool; the BER meeting the legal requirement.

The PH standard does not account for the embodied energy in construction materials. This is

a drawback to the PH standard nonetheless. The standard does not require any materials to be

sourced locally and concentrates on the energy consumption and preservation. Previously,


90

certified windows had to be imported into Ireland. However, they are now manufactured in

Ireland, at reasonable costs (Smartwin and Munster Joinery).

5.4.1 THE NEED FOR RETROFIT

The DKM report on the construction industry 2009 outlook to 2010-2012, made bleak

reading. The predicted house completions in 2010 were in the region of 8,500, reducing to

merely 7,500, for 2011. This is in stark contrast with the estimated completions of 97,000+ in

2006. In 2012, demand was expected to increase back to 8,500 per annum. In the following

four year period, residential construction is expected to grow back to more sustainable levels

of 31,500 units per year. However, this is just a forecast and latent demand may be dampened

by fiscal policies of the Government, EU and IMF.

Bearing these facts and figures in mind, it is conceivable that the immediate future growth

prospects of the Irish construction industry will lie in the retrofitting market. This is where the

‘EnerPHit’ standard can come to the fore. By definition, it can help reduce carbon emissions,

make economical savings to the homeowner (payback), and ultimately provide a healthier,

more comfortable living environment. However, this comes at a premium, and is beyond the

pockets of most. Costs in the region of £100,000 were quoted for a recent EnerPHit semi-

detached conversion in the UK (Elliott Drive), while £125,000 was spent bringing Grove

Cottage up to EnerPHit standard.

Notwithstanding this, the PH standard is voluntary at present. Without the necessary

legislation and control to implement and regulate it, the future quality of the building stock

will remain undecided. Whether the PH Standard will become the new construction standard

or not, is uncertain, and only time will tell. On top of this, new build construction is almost at

a standstill, compared to boom times in Ireland. The retrofit market could be a key driver for

Ireland’s construction industry.

5.4.2 WHY NOT DEMOLISH AND START AGAIN?

Reconstructing is more economical for a start. High costs are associated with demolition, and

also the removal of spoil. In addition, retrofitting to PH standard is estimated at 30-80% of

new build costs, in most cases the homeowners will not need to move out – depending on the

level of works required. Hazucha (2009, p.14) noted that:

From the economical point of view it is efficient to do all the measures at one go. But

the advantage is that the renovation can be held even with a limited budget with the

building in process. It’s absolutely essential to divide the works into appropriate

stages, where the logical continuity of the steps is kept.


91

5.4.3 APPROACHES TO RETROFIT

The staged approach seems logical. Breakdown down the works into stages, and do each one

to the PH standard. However, major works will be required to achieve the extreme levels of

air tightness below 1.0 ach-1

and this may prove challenging on a room by room basis in some

dwellings. Additionally low energy retrofits achieving air permeability below 5ach-1

will

require 40% more ventilation to comply with TGD F. This effectively means controlled

ventilation will be required - adding a further cost.

PH philosophy basics, is to keep the energy that has been generated by passive or mechanical

means, focusing on three key areas; super insulation, high performance windows and extreme

levels of air tightness. In essence, it is the coffee pot effect as Feist described in the literature

review.

The literature review highlighted how poor insulation detailing at junctions can lead to further

problems down the line. The importance of carrying out retrofit works to a standard where

future problems are eliminated cannot be stressed enough. The biggest challenges seem to be

the lack of building control and supervision of the quality required.

Contractors are hungry for work at present and homeowners want the best value. Quality can

be compromised in these situations. Proper regulated building control would help ensure that

the standard that is set is implemented in full by contractors. This may also help regulate the

price of work as homeowners could compare quotations like for like in the knowledge that the

work was going to be inspected by a Building Control Officer and conforms to regulations.

5.4.4 RETROFITTING THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK

A good starting point would be a mass countrywide insulation scheme; externally insulating

where it is feasible. An architect alluded to this proposal in the questionnaire. However, one

would think more stringent building control would be a fundamental requirement to the long-

term success of any national scheme. The self-regulation present in the construction industry

has got to change; otherwise a construction industry committed to top quality is required.

Enforced regulation could guarantee the quality required, albeit it at more expense.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the downward trend in prices is having an effect of quality.

However, ‘best value’ is not always the lowest cost and as the old saying goes ‘you pay for

what you get’. The devil is in the detail and this does not come at the cheapest price. This is

referred to in the discussion in Appendix D. Many construction professionals would welcome

more stringent building control. Some builders are being priced out of work, simply because


92

they do not cut corners and they want to provide a quality (long lasting) service to their

clients. Tighter regulation of the building industry is therefore a must to secure the future of

the existing stock.

References

References

94

6.0. REFERENCES

BEDNAR, T. & DESEYVE, C. 2005. Increased thermal losses caused by ventilation through

compact pitched roof constructions-in situ measurements. Seventh Nordic Symposium on

Building Physics, Reykjavik. [Online]. Available: http://www.viking-

house.ie/downloads/Wind%20Chill%20-%20Roof.pdf [Accessed 12th March].

BINE INFORMATIONDIENST 2007. Material Data for energy-orientated refurbishment of

old buildings. In: BERLIN, F. M. O. E. T. B. D.-. (ed.). Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen: FIZ

karlsrube.

BSI. 2005. BS EN ISO 7730:2005. ‘Ergonomics of the thermal environment — Analytical

determination and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD

indices and local thermal comfort criteria’, BSI, London.

BSI. 2007. BS EN ISO 1021:2007. ‘Thermal bridges in building construction – Heat flows

and surface temperatures – Detailed calculations (ISO 10211: 2007)’, BSI, London.

CLAUSON, F. & MOREHEAD, J. 2012. Self-Builder and Architect, Climatic data image by

Wain Morehead Architects, unpublished, Email to Paul Ebbs, 27th February 2012.

COOLANTARTICA.COM. 2012. Fram, Ships of the Antarctic explorers [Online]. Available:

http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/History/antarctic_ships/fram.htm

[Accessed 6th February 2012].

CROSSON, N. 2012. Technical Engineer at Ecological Building Systems, Email to Paul

Ebbs, 12th April.

DENSCOMBE, M. 2007. The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects,

Maidenhead, England; New York, Open University Press.

DKM ECONOMIC CONSULTANTS, 2010. Review of the Construction Industry 2009 and

Outlook 2010–2012 [Online] Available:

http://www.dkm.ie/uploads/pdf/reports/2010%2010%20CIRO%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

DYKES, P. 2012. Manager SEAI Renewable Energy Information Office, E-mail to Paul Ebbs,

7th March.

ENCRAFT. 2012a. ‘Elliott Drive Photos – 8th Aug, window trial fit and internal wall’ Sarah

Price Blog, 28th October 2011, Available at:

http://encraftpassivhaus.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/elliott-drive-photos-august-8th/#wpcom-

carousel-316 [Accessed 23rd January].

ENCRAFT. 2012b. ‘Elliott Drive FINAL Air Tightness Test!’ Sarah Price Blog, 27th March,

Available at: http://encraftpassivhaus.wordpress.com/photo-diary/ (Accessed 13th April

2012)

FEIST, W. 2007, See the Light Conference, Croke Park, Dublin, 31st October 2007.

FEIST, W., SCHNIEDERS, J., DORER, V. & HAAS, A. 2005. Re-inventing air heating:

Convenient and comfortable within the frame of the Passive House concept. Energy and

Buildings, 37, 1186-1203.

FEIST, W., PFLUGER, R., KAUFMANN, B., SCHNIEDERS, J. & KAH, O. 2007. Passive

House Planning Package 2007. Requirements for Quality-Approved Passive Houses. 2nd

revised edition ed. Darmstadt: Passive House Institute.

FELLOWS, R. F. & LIU, A. 1997. Research methods for construction, Oxford, Blackwell

Science.

References

95

FORD, B., SCHIANO-PHAN, R. & ZHONGCHENG, D. 2007a. The Passivhaus Standard in

European warm climates: Design Guidelines for Comfortable Low Energy Homes. Part 1: A

review of comfortable low energy homes. Passive-On: EC Funded Project: University of

Nottingham School of the Built Environment.

FORD, B., SCHIANO-PHAN, R. & ZHONGCHENG, D. 2007b. The Passivhaus Standard in

European warm climates: Design guidelines for comfortable low energy homes. Part 2:

National proposals in detail: Passivhaus UK. Passive-On: EC Funded Project: University of

Nottingham School of the Built Environment.

FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE. 2012. IBP / Software / WUFI [Online]. Available:

http://www.wufi-pro.com/ [Accessed 19th March 2012].

GRIAN. 2005. Irish KYOTO commitments and possible penalties for 2012 [Online].

Available:

http://www.grian.ie/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=108[Accessed 14th

March 2012].

HAZUCHA, J. 2009. Refurbishment of social housing – Guidelines for implementing whole

building energy efficiency measures. Centrum pasivního domu, Czech Republic

INTELLIGENT ENERGY EUROPE. 2012a. Passive House Retrofit Kit: Economics

[Online]. Available:

http://www.energieinstitut.at/retrofit/?to=1&forward=ECONOMY&id=09c4327aaf3afca4fcf2

dcf104a63343&dmy=cd6df9b602746c9040cc29d69faab881 [Accessed 29th March 2012].

INTELLIGENT ENERGY EUROPE. 2012b. Passive House Retrofit Kit [Online]. Available:

http://www.energieinstitut.at/retrofit/?to=0&forward=S_19&id=09c4327aaf3afca4fcf2dcf104

a63343&dmy=152eedc088d1cd4de6530445b7f90ead [Accessed 31st March 2012].

INTELLIGENT ENERGY EUROPE. 2012c. Passive House Retrofit Kit-External Insulation

& Plaster [Online]. Available:

http://www.energieinstitut.at/retrofit/?to=2&forward=MEASURE_1&id=09c4327aaf3afca4fc

f2dcf104a63343&dmy=1320b25e1b19ec06a43cbba9bc423730[Accessed 29th March 2012]

INTELLIGENT ENERGY EUROPE. 2012d. Passive House Retrofit Kit-Air tightness


http://www.energieinstitut.at/retrofit/?to=2&forward=MEASURE_15&id=09c4327aaf3afca4f

cf2dcf104a63343&dmy=1dd1929f1dd97ae4cb12bce872570813 [Accessed 29th March 2012].

IRELAND, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT COMMUNITY AND LOCAL

GOVERNMENT. 2011. Technical Guidance Document L - Conservation of Fuel and Energy

- Dwellings. Dublin: The Stationary Office.

IRELAND, DEPARTMENT OF HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. 2007. Ireland

National Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012. Dublin 1: Stationary Office.

IRELAND, ENVIRONMENT COMMUNITY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. 2011.

Technical Guidance Document L - Conservation of Fuel and Energy - Dwellings. Dublin:

Stationary Office.

JAGGS, M. & SCIVYER, C. 2006. Achieving air tightness - General principles. In:

ENVIRONMENT, B. (ed.) Good Building Guide 67 Part 1. Watford: BRE Press.

LITTLE, J. 2010a. Breaking the Mould – Part III. Construct Ireland, vol 4, issue 8 [Online].

Available at:

http://www.josephlittlearchitects.com/documents/Breaking_the_Mould_3_Construct_Ireland_

Issue_8_Vol_4.pdf [Accessed: 23rd

December].

References

96

LITTLE, J. 2011, Quantifying the Value of Air Tightness in Ecological and Energy Efficient

Buildings. Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland 'See the Light' Passive House Conference,

The Memorial Hall, UCD School of Architecture, Richview, UCD, Dublin, 13th October

[Online], Available at:

http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/REIO/SEAI_REIO_2011_Events/See_The_Light_2011/Quali

fy_the_value_of_air tightness,_Joe_Little.pdf [Accessed 12th February].

LITTLE, J. & AGGEGI, B. 2011. Thermal Bridging: Understanding its critical role in

energy efficiency. Construct Ireland [Online], 5. Available:

http://www.josephlittlearchitects.com/documents/Thermal_Bridging_Construct_Ireland_Issue

_6_Vol_5.pdf [Accessed 23rd December 2011].

MCMULLAN, R. & SEELEY, I. H. 2007. Environmental science in building, Basingstoke,

Palgrave Macmillan.

MOSART ARCHITECTURE, UCD ENERGY RESEARCH GROUP & SEI RENEWABLE

ENERGY INFORMATION OFFICE 2008. Passive Homes: Guidelines for the Design and

Construction of Passive House Dwellings in Ireland. Cork, Ireland. Sustainable Energy

Ireland.

MURPHY, P. 2012. Director Smartheat Ltd, Email to Paul Ebbs, 29th January.

NANSEN. 2012. Online Reader - Project Gutenberg (Farthest North) [Online]. Available:

http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=1888884&pageno=105 [Accessed

22nd March 2012].

NAOUM, S. G. 2007. Dissertation research and writing for construction students, Oxford ;

Burlington, MA, Butterworth-Heinemann.

O’DONNELL, A. 2012. Owner of Integrated Energy, Telephone interview, 27th March

O'LEARY, C. 2011. Getting the balance right. Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland 'See

the Light' Passive House Conference, The Memorial Hall, UCD School of Architecture,

Richview, UCD, Dublin, 13th October, [Online], Available at:

http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/REIO/SEAI_REIO_2011_Events/See_The_Light_2011/Ener

PHit,_Cathal_O'Leary,_OLS.pdf [Accessed 18th January]

O’LEARY, T. 2007. Co-Founder of the Passive House Academy, Passive House Open Day.

Out of the Blue. Co. Wicklow, 8th November 2007.

O’RIELLY, T. 2011. Owner of Smartwin Ireland and UK, Certified Passive House Designer

Course. Louis Fitzgerald Hotel, Clondalkin, Dublin 22, 11th November.

O'SHEA, G. 2011. Guidelines for Blower Door Testing of Passive Houses. Greenbuild.

PASSIPEDIA. 2012a. The Passive House – historical review - passipedia.org [Online]. and

Copyright. Available: http://www.passipedia.org/passipedia_en/basics/the_passive_house_-

_historical_review [Accessed 25th March 2012].

PASSIPEDIA. 2012ba. EnerPHit – the Passive House Certificate for old buildings -

passipedia.org [Online]. and Copyright. Available:

http://passipedia.passiv.de/passipedia_en/certification/enerphit [Accessed 19th January 2012].

PASSIVHAUSPROJEKTE.DE. 2012. Passive House Buildings (Ireland) [Online]. Available:

http://www.passivhausprojekte.de/projekte.php?search=2 [Accessed 12th March].

PASSIVHAUSTAGUNG.DE. 2012. Definition of Passive Houses [Online]. Available:

http://www.passivhaustagung.de/Passive_House_E/passivehouse_definition.html [Accessed

8th March].

References

97

PASSIVEHOUSE.COM. 2012. Passivhaus Institut - Passivhaus Darmstadt-Kranichstein

[Online]. Available: http://www.passivehouse.com/English/Kranichstein.HTM [Accessed 6th

March].

PASSIVE HOUSE INSTITUTE 2009a. A.1 The Passive House Standard. Certified Passive

House Designer course notes.

PASSIVE HOUSE INSTITUTE 2009b. B.1 Passive House building envelope - types of

construction

PASSIVE HOUSE INSTITUTE 2009c. Certification as "Quality Approved Passive House".

Criteria for Residential-Use Passive Houses. In: FEIST (ed.).

PASSIVE HOUSE INSTITUTE 2010. EnerPHit – Certification as "Quality-Approved

Energy Retrofit with Passive House Components". Criteria for Residential-Use Refurbished

Buildings. Darmstadt: and Copyright.

PASSIVE HOUSE INSTITUTE. 2011a. Passivhaus Institut - What is a Passive House?

[Online]. Available: http://www.passivehouse.com/English/PassiveH.HTM [Accessed 28th

October 2011].

PASSIVE HOUSE INSTITUTE 2011b. Class notes. In: O'GORMAN, D. (ed.) Certified

Passive House Designer Course Notes.

PASSIVE HOUSE INSTITUTE. 2012. Passive House Definition Independent of Climate


http://www.passivhaustagung.de/Passive_House_E/passivehouse_definition.html [Accessed

17th March 2012].

PRICE, S. 2012. Certified Passive House Consultant Elliott Drive, Telephone interview 22nd

Februray.

PROMOTION OF EUROPEAN PASSIVE HOUSES 2006. Passive House Solutions.

European Commission.

REIO, 2012. Renewable Energy Information Office, Email to Paul Ebbs, 14th April 2010.

RYAN. R. 2012. Passive House Planning Package Workshop, Beweley’s Hotel, Dublin 4,

14th February.

SAUNDERS, M., LEWIS, P. & THORNHILL, A. 2007. Research methods for business

students, Harlow, England ; New York, Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

SCOTT, L. 2011. Final Project Class Notes, BSc. Construction Management, at Dublin

Institute of Technology, Bolton Street, Dublin, September 27, 2011.

SEAI. 2012. SEAI - Better Energy Homes [Online]. Available:

http://www.seai.ie/Grants/Better_energy_homes/ [Accessed 6th March 2012].

SEAI. 2011. Dwelling Energy Assessment Procedure. Irish official method for calculating

and rating the energy performance of dwellings. Wilton Park House, Wilton Place, Dublin 2.:

The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland.

SEAI. 2012. SEAI - What grants are available? [Online]. Available:

http://www.seai.ie/Grants/Better_energy_homes/homeowner/What_Grants_Are_Available/[A

ccessed 6th March 2012].

SEDLAK, P. & SHEWARD, N. 2008. Advanced Ventilation Approaches for Social Housing

(AVASH) Irish Sampling & Survey Report. 2012. Available:

http://www.brighton.ac.uk/avash/downloads/iresampsurv/iresampsurvweb.pdf. [Accessed 10th

March].

References

98

SEI RENEWABLE ENERGY INFORMATION OFFICE & MOSART ARCHITECTURE

2009. Retrofitted Passive Homes: Guidelines for Upgrading Existing Dwellings in Ireland to

the Passivhaus Standard. Cork, Ireland.

THORPE, D. 2010. Sustainable Home Refurbishment : the Earthscan expert guide to

retrofitting homes for efficiency, London ; Washington, DC, Earthscan.

WALTJEN, T. 2009. Passivhaus-Bauteilkatalog : Ökologisch bewertete Konstruktionen =

Details for passive houses : a catalogue of ecologically rated constructions, Wien ; New

York, Springer Verlag Wien.

ZELENÁ ÚSPORÁM. 2012. Zelená úsporám - About The Green Savings programme

[Online]. Available: http://www.zelenausporam.cz/sekce/582/about-the-green-savings-

programme/ [Accessed 18th March 2012].

Bibliography

Bibliography

100

7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

AUDENAERT, A. & DE CLEYN, S., H. 2010. Cost Benefit analysis of Passive Houses and

Low-Energy Houses compared to Standard Houses. International Journal of Energy, 4, 7.

AUDENAERT, A., DE CLEYN, S. H. & VANKERCKHOVE, B. 2008. Economic analysis

of passive houses and low-energy houses compared with standard houses. Energy Policy, 36,

47-55.

BSI BRITISH STANDARDS. 2001. BS EN 13829:2001 Thermal performance of buildings-

Determination of air permeability for buildings-Fan pressurisation method [Online].

Available: http://0-www.ihsti.com.ditlib.dit.ie/tempimg/43B1257-CIS888614800251757.pdf

[Accessed 17th March 2012].

EJOT. 2012. Mechanical fixing external insulation [Online]. Available:

http://www.ejot.de/ejot.de/ejotherm_STR_U--154.htm [Accessed 29th March 2012].

ENERGY SAVING TRUST. 2011. Refurbishment Case Study: Grove Cottage. Available:

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Publications2/Housing-

professionals/Refurbishment/Grove-Cottage-An-advanced-refurbishment-case-study-2011-

edition.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 2002. Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. Official

Journal of the European Communities L1, 66-71.

FORD, B., SCHIANO-PHAN, R. & ZHONGCHENG, D. 2007. The Passivhaus Standard in

European warm climates: Design guidelines for comfortable low energy homes. Part 3.

Comfort, climate and passive strategies. Passive-On: EC Funded Project.

GÚNTER, LANG & I. 2010. House projects in Europe Period of documentation 2007 – 2009

In: EURPOE, I. E. (ed.). Vienna.

JAGGS, M. & SCIVYER, C. 2006. Achieving air tightness: Practical guidance on

techniques: floors, walls and roofs. In: BRE ENVIRONMENT (ed.) Good Building Guide 67

Part 2. Watford: BRE Press.

KRALER, A. 2011. Passive House Principles. Workshop 1-2011 Wood Structures

Symposium [Online]. Available: http://www.woodstructuressymposium.com/wp-

content/uploads/2011/06/Kraler_Anton_Passive_house_principles.pdf

LITTLE, J. 2009a. Breaking the Mould - A study of condensation in single leaf concrete wall

upgrades. Construct Ireland. vol 4, issue 6 [Online]. Available at:


Issue_6_Vol_4.pdf

LITTLE, J. 2009b. Breaking the Mould: part two – An analysis of single leaf insulation

upgrades. Construct Ireland. vol 4, issue 7 [Online]. Available at:


Issue_7_Vol_4.pdf

LITTLE, J. 2010b. Breaking the Mould: part IV - Condensation risk analysis – the standards

and the issues. Construct Ireland. vol 4, issue 11 [Online]. Available at:


Issue_11_Vol_4.pdf

LITTLE, J. 2010c. Breaking the Mould: part V – Comparative simulations or internal

insulation systems. Construct Ireland. vol 4, issue 6 [Online]. Available at:

Bibliography

101


Issue_12_Vol_4.pdf

LOMAS, K., J. 2009. Carbon Reduction in Existing Buildings: A Transdisciplinary Approach

Building Research and Information [Online].

MLAKAR, J. & ŠTRANCAR, J. 2011. Overheating in residential passive house: Solution

strategies revealed and confirmed through data analysis and simulations. Energy and

Buildings, 43, 1443-1451.

MOSART. 2011. MosArt Architecture - Landscape - Urban Design. Passive energy. eco

homes green. design [Online]. Available: http://mosart.ie/passive-house/out-of-the-blue.html

[Accessed 29th October 2011].

STUART, J. 2009. Delivering Housing Solutions for a New Era-Sustainable Energy

Strategies. Irish Council for Social Housing,

VERSELE, A., VANMAELE, B., BREESCH, R., KLEIN, R. & WAUMAN, B. 2009. Total

Cost Analysis for Passive Houses.

Appendix A

Appendix A: Online Questionnaire

103

APPENDIX A: ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE

Passivhaus Research Questionnaire

Thank you for taking the time to complete the questionnaire, I am very grateful. Should you

have any queries or if I can be of any assistance to you please feel free to contact me on any

of the contact details listed below. Please feel free to leave any comments in the box provided

at the end of the questionnaire. All information will be kept in the strictest confidence.

Thanking you. Kind regards Paul Ebbs 087 9209969 [email protected]

[email protected]

________________________________________

* Required

Could you please indicate the titles most relevant to your profession please? * Tick multiple

boxes if they apply

• Architect

• Architectural Technician

• Certified Passive House Designer

• Certified Passive House Consultant

• Certified Passive House Trainer

• CPHD student

• Construction Manager

• QS/Estimator

• Tradesman

• Structural/Civil/Site Engineer

• External Insulation Contractor

• M & E Engineer/Consultant

• Product Supplier

• Main Contractor Employee


104

• Passive House Builder

• General Builder

• BER Assessor

• LEED AP

• Energy Consultant

• DT117 Classmate

• DT134 Classmate

• Other:

Could you please indicate your level of experience in the industry? *

• 1-9 years

• 10-19 years

• 20-29 years

• 30+ years

• N/A

Could you please indicate the country you reside in? *

• Ireland

• UK

• USA

• Canada

• Germany

• Austria

• Sweden

• Other:


105

Q1: Please scale between 1 and 5 your level of understanding of the ‘Passivhaus standard’?

I.e. space heating demand, heating load, air permeability and thermal bridging limit *

1 2 3 4 5

Not familiar Very familiar

Q2: Please scale between 1 and 5 your level of understanding of the ‘EnerPHit standard’? *

1 2 3 4 5


Q3: Please scale from 1-5 your level of understanding of the Building Regulations Part L

'Conservation of Fuel & Energy' (TGD L) 2008 & 2011? * If you live outside Ireland please

scale from 1-5 your level of understanding of the equivalent building regulations in your

country regarding 'Conservation of Fuel & Energy'

1 2 3 4 5


Q4: TGD L 2011 has sufficiently addressed all of the key issues in relation to the Passivhaus

standard and low energy retrofitting? *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree

• Strongly disagree


106

Q5: The following items (A to E) should form part of TGD L?

A: Mandatory thermographic surveys before & after retrofit *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree


B: Air leakage tests before & after retrofit works *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree


C: Compulsory air leakage tests for every dwelling in a new development *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree



107

D: Cold bridging assessments or similar dynamic moisture simulations (WUFI) should be a

requirement in the planning documents *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree


E: There should be an allowance for wind-tightness and its effect on thermal insulation

properties *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree


Q6: The level of building control at present is adequate to apply the Passivhaus standard

successfully? *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree



108

Q7: The Passivhaus standard will become part of TGD L in the future? *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree


Q8: If you agree with the statement above, when do you see the Passivhaus standard being

fully implemented into the building regulations? *

• 2013

• 2015

• 2017

• 2019+

• Not sure

Q9: Construction professionals & tradesmen have enough knowledge & experience at present

to retrofit existing dwellings to the EnerPHit standard? *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree



109

Q10: Homeowners would benefit by having a list of certified Passivhaus tradesmen to choose

from? *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree


Q11: Please state your opinion of the following statements (A to G) which relate to some of

the problems present in the existing housing stock?

A: Poor quality construction *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree


B: Poor quality design *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree



110

C: Poor quality construction components *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree


D: Problems with damp and condensation *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree


E: Non-airtight leaky construction *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree


F: Difficult thermal bridges to design out *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree



111

G: Radon barrier not fitted correctly *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree


Q12: What type of tendering method is best suited to the Passivhaus standard? *

• Open

• Selective (6-8 contractors)

• Negotiation

• Other:

Q13: What type of procurement strategy is best suited to Passivhaus standard? *

• Design & Build

• Traditional

• Partnering

• Other:


112

Q14: In your opinion what % of construction professionals and tradesmen are 100% familiar

with the Passivhaus standard? *

• 0-9%

• 10-19%

• 20-29%

• 30-39%

• 40-49%

• 50-59%

• 60-69%

• 70-79%

• 80-89%

• 90-100%

Q15: Passivhaus principles should be a dedicated module on all 3rd level Architecture,

Engineering, Economics & Management programmes? *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree


Q16: Passivhaus principles should be taught to all 2nd level construction studies students? *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree



113

Q17: Passivhaus principles should form part of all construction related apprenticeship

studies? *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree


Q18: The Government should offer increased financial incentives/tax relief proportionate to

the extent of the retrofit. I.e. the more the homeowner tries to reach the EnerPHit/low energy

standard during a retrofit the more financial aid they receive? *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree


Q19: Have you had any experience with Mechanical Heat Recovery Ventilation (MHRV) to

date? *

• Yes

• No


114

Q20: MHRV is the best ventilation solution for low energy/EnerPHit standard retrofitting? *

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Not sure

• Disagree


Q21: Have you or any of your clients experienced any problems with MHRV? *

• Yes

• No

If your answer was yes to Q21 could you please elaborate on the problems?

Q22: Could you please indicate the best air tightness test result of any retrofitting projects you

have been involved in? Please leave blank if this does not apply

Q23: Could you please indicate the worst air tightness test result of any retrofitting projects

you have been involved in? Please leave blank if this does not apply

Q24: If you had a choice, how many air tests would you perform on low energy retrofits? *

• 1

• 2

• 3

• 4

• 5


115

Q25: At what stages would you carry out the air tests?

Q26: Could you please indicate which area of research listed below you would deem most

appropriate to future Passivhaus research? * Other suggestions are very welcome! Thanks.

• Thermal bridge free design

• The transfer of moisture through construction components

• Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme

• Ventilation strategies

• Other:

Q27: Can I contact you to elaborate on any of the answers provided?

• Yes

• No

Q28: Would you like to receive a copy of the results from this research?

• Yes

• No

If your answer was yes to Q27 or Q28 please provide your name and contact details

Once again, I would like to thank you for taking the time to complete this survey, I am most

grateful. I would like to remind you that all information will be kept in the strictest

confidence. If you would like to leave any comments on the survey below, I would really

appreciate your thoughts. Thanks again. Paul.

Appendix B

Appendix B: Survey Results

Group 1: Architects & Architectural TechniciansTitle Experience Reside

1 Architect 1-9 years Ireland2 Architect 10-19 years Ireland3 Architect 1-9 years Ireland4 Architect 1-9 years Ireland5 Architect 30+ years Ireland6 Architect 1-9 years Ireland7 Architect 30+ years Ireland8 Architect 20-29 years Ireland9 Architect 20-29 years Ireland

10 Architect 1-9 years Ireland11 Architect 30+ years Ireland12 Architectural Technician 20-29 years Ireland13 Architectural Technician 1-9 years Ireland14 Architectural Technician, DT134 Classmate 1-9 years Ireland15 Architect, CPHD student 20-29 years Ireland

Group 2: CPHD course experienceTitle Experience Reside

16 Building Physics Consultant 30+ years Canada17 Certified Passive House Consultant 1-9 years USA

18Certified Passive House Consultant, BER Assessor, Energy Consultant, airtightness tester, thermographer 1-9 years Ireland

19 Certified Passive House Consultant, Energy Consultant 1-9 years USA

20Certified Passive House Consultant, M & E Engineer/Consultant, Energy Consultant 1-9 years Ireland

21Certified Passive House Designer, Certified Passive House Consultant, CPHD student, Structural/Civil/Site Engineer 1-9 years Germany

22 Certified Passive House Trainer 20-29 years Ireland23 CPHD student, Energy Consultant 1-9 years UK

24 CPHD student, Tradesman, BER Assessor, Energy Consultant, Student 20-29 years Ireland

25CPHD student, Construction Manager, Structural/Civil/Site Engineer, General Builder, Energy Consultant 10-19 years Ireland

26Student CIT- Sustainable Energy Engineering - doing thesis on Passive house - 1-9 years Ireland

27 self builder - DEAP & PHPP expert N/A Ireland28 Architect, Certified Passive House Consultant 30+ years USA29 Architect, Certified Passive House Designer 1-9 years Ireland30 Architect, Certified Passive House Designer, Energy Consultant 10-19 years Germany

31Architectural Technician, Certified Passive House Trainer, Construction Manager 10-19 years Ireland

32 Architectural Technician, CPHD student 10-19 years Ireland

Group 3: BER Assessors & Energy ConsultantsTitle Experience Reside

33 Architectural Technician, BER Assessor 10-19 years Ireland34 Architectural Technician, BER Assessor 20-29 years Ireland35 Architectural Technician, Energy Consultant 10-19 years Ireland

1


36Architectural Technician, M & E Engineer/Consultant, BER Assessor, Energy Consultant 10-19 years Ireland

37 BER Assessor 1-9 years Ireland38 Architect, BER Assessor 10-19 years Ireland39 Energy Consultant 1-9 years Ireland40 Energy Consultant 1-9 years Ireland41 Energy Consultant 10-19 years Ireland42 Energy Consultant 10-19 years Ireland43 Energy Consultant 1-9 years Ireland44 Energy Consultant 10-19 years UK45 MSc. Sustainable Energy Engineering Student 1-9 years Ireland46 Product Supplier, BER Assessor, Energy Consultant 10-19 years Ireland47 QS/Estimator, BER Assessor 20-29 years Ireland

48 QS/Estimator, Product Supplier, BER Assessor, DT134 Classmate 10-19 years Ireland49 Tradesman, BER Assessor 1-9 years Ireland

50Structural/Civil/Site Engineer, BER Assessor, MSc in Energy Management 10-19 years Ireland

Group 4: Construction ManagersTitle Experience Reside

51 Construction consultant 30+ years UK52 Construction Manager 1-9 years Ireland53 Construction Manager 1-9 years Ireland54 Construction Manager 10-19 years Ireland55 Construction Manager 1-9 years Ireland56 Construction Manager 1-9 years Ireland57 Construction Manager, DT117 Classmate 20-29 years Ireland58 Construction Manager, External Insulation Contractor 20-29 years Ireland59 Construction Manager, QS/Estimator, DT117 Classmate 1-9 years Ireland60 Construction Manager, Structural/Civil/Site Engineer 30+ years USA

61 Construction Manager, LEED AP 30+ years USA

Group 5: PH BuildersTitle Experience Reside

62Construction Manager, External Insulation Contractor, Product Supplier, Passive House Builder 10-19 years Ireland

63Tradesman, Passive House Builder, Energy Consultant, energy conservation tech 20-29 years USA

64 Passive House Builder, General Builder 20-29 years UK

Group 6: ClassmatesTitle Experience Reside

65 Classmate 1-9 years Ireland66 DT117 Classmate 1-9 years Ireland67 DT117 Classmate 1-9 years Ireland68 DT117 Classmate N/A Ireland69 DT117 Classmate 1-9 years Ireland

2


70 DT117 Classmate N/A Ireland71 DT134 Classmate 1-9 years Ireland72 DT134 Classmate 1-9 years Ireland

Group 7: M&E Consultants & Product SuppliersTitle Experience Reside

73 M & E Engineer/Consultant 20-29 years UK74 M & E Engineer/Consultant 10-19 years Ireland75 M & E Engineer/Consultant 10-19 years Ireland76 M & E Engineer/Consultant, Product Supplier 10-19 years Ireland77 Product Supplier 1-9 years Germany78 Product Supplier 10-19 years USA

Group 8:QS/EstimatorsTitle Experience Reside

79 QS/Estimator 1-9 years Ireland80 QS/Estimator 1-9 years Ireland81 QS/Estimator 10-19 years Ireland82 QS/Estimator, DT134 Classmate 10-19 years Ireland

Group 9: Structural/Civil/Site EngineersTitle Experience Reside

83 Structural/Civil/Site Engineer 10-19 years Ireland84 Structural/Civil/Site Engineer 1-9 years Ireland85 Structural/Civil/Site Engineer 10-19 years Ireland86 Structural/Civil/Site Engineer 10-19 years Ireland87 Structural/Civil/Site Engineer 10-19 years Ireland88 Structural/Civil/Site Engineer 10-19 years Ireland

Group 10:Tradesmen/General BuildersTitle Experience Reside

89 Tradesman 1-9 years Ireland90 Tradesman 10-19 years Ireland91 General Builder 10-19 years Ireland92 Tradesman 1-9 years Ireland93 Tradesman, DT134 Classmate 10-19 years Ireland94 Tradesman, General Builder 30+ years Ireland

Group 11:MixedTitle Experience Reside

95 Self Builder 1-9 years Ireland96 Self Builder 1-9 years Ireland97 Inspector Planning 20-29 years Ireland98 Lecturer 10-19 years Ireland99 Library Staff N/A Ireland

100 Main Contractor Employee 1-9 years Ireland101 Property owner N/A Ireland

3


Group 12: Not Included in AnalysisTitle Experience Reside

102 QS/Estimator 1-9 years UK103 Construction Manager 10-19 years UK104 Architect 30+ years UK105 Main Contractor Employee 30+ years UK106 Construction Manager 20-29 years UK107 QS/Estimator 10-19 years UK108 Certified Passive House Consultant 1-9 years UK109 DT134 Classmate 1-9 years Ireland110 Architectural Technician, BER Assessor 10-19 years Ireland

4


Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5A Q5B Q5C1 4 2 5 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly agree2 4 3 3 Disagree Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree3 4 1 1 Not sure Agree Not sure Agree4 2 1 2 Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree5 2 1 4 Strongly disagree Not sure Agree Agree6 3 1 3 Not sure Agree Agree Agree7 5 1 4 Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree8 5 3 5 Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree9 2 1 4 Not sure Disagree Disagree Disagree

10 3 1 3 Not sure Agree Agree Agree11 4 2 4 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly agree12 3 1 3 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly agree13 4 2 4 Disagree Disagree Strongly agree Agree14 3 1 4 Agree Agree Agree Agree15 1 1 1 Disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree

3.27 1.47 3.33

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5A Q5B Q5C16 4 1 1 Not sure Strongly disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree17 5 4 3 Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree

18 4 4 4 Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree19 5 4 3 Disagree Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree

20 4 3 3 Disagree Agree Agree Agree

21 5 4 3 Not sure Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree22 5 5 5 Disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree23 5 5 4 Disagree Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree

24 5 5 5 Disagree Disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree

25 4 2 4 Disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly agree

26 5 4 5 Agree Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree27 5 4 5 Disagree Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree28 4 1 3 Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree29 5 4 4 Disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree30 5 3 4 Not sure Disagree Agree Agree

31 5 5 4 Disagree Agree Agree Agree32 5 4 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree

4.71 3.65 3.82

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5A Q5B Q5C33 1 1 3 Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree34 1 1 3 Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree35 5 2 5 Disagree Agree Not sure Strongly disagree

Group 3: BER Assessors & Energy Consultants

Group 1: Architects & Architectural Technicians

Group 2: CPHD course experience

5


36 4 1 4 Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree37 4 3 5 Disagree Agree Agree Agree38 4 1 4 Agree Agree Agree Agree39 4 3 3 Disagree Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree40 5 5 5 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly agree41 5 4 5 Agree Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree42 5 4 5 Disagree Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree43 4 2 4 Disagree Agree Strongly agree Agree44 5 5 3 Disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree45 5 5 5 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly agree46 4 3 5 Disagree Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree47 3 2 4 Not sure Agree Agree Agree

48 3 1 4 Not sure Agree Agree Agree49 5 1 5 Disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree

50 5 5 5 Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree4.00 2.72 4.28

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5A Q5B Q5C51 2 1 4 Disagree Agree Agree Agree52 2 1 1 Not sure Agree Agree Agree53 3 3 4 Not sure Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree54 1 1 2 Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree55 2 1 1 Not sure Not sure Agree Agree56 1 1 2 Not sure Agree Agree Strongly agree57 3 1 1 Not sure Not sure Not sure Agree58 5 5 5 Strongly disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree59 2 2 3 Not sure Agree Agree Agree60 2 2 3 Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Not sure

61 4 3 4 Not sure Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree2.25 1.75 2.5

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5A Q5B Q5C

62 5 5 5 Not sure Agree Agree Agree

63 4 1 1 Not sure Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree64 5 4 4 Disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree

4.67 3.33 3.33

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5A Q5B Q5C65 1 1 2 Agree Agree Agree66 3 2 4 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly agree67 1 1 1 Not sure Not sure Not sure Not sure68 2 1 2 Not sure Not sure Not sure Not sure69 4 1 3 Not sure Not sure Not sure Not sure

Group 5: PH Builders

Group 6: Classmates

Group 4: Construction Managers

6


70 2 1 1 Not sure Agree Agree Agree71 3 1 3 Not sure Agree Agree Disagree72 3 3 2 Not sure Agree Strongly agree Agree

2.38 1.38 2.25

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5A Q5B Q5C73 3 1 5 Disagree Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree74 4 2 5 Disagree Agree Agree Agree75 3 1 5 Disagree Agree Disagree Agree76 5 3 5 Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree77 4 2 5 Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree78 5 4 1 Not sure Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree

4.00 2.17 4.33

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5A Q5B Q5C79 4 2 4 Not sure Agree Agree Agree80 3 1 4 Strongly agree Not sure Agree Agree81 2 1 2 Not sure Agree Agree Agree82 3 1 3 Not sure Agree Agree Agree

3 1.25 3.25

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5A Q5B Q5C83 3 1 3 Not sure Agree Not sure Disagree84 2 1 2 Not sure Agree Agree Agree85 4 2 5 Agree Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree86 3 2 3 Disagree Agree Agree Strongly agree87 3 1 2 Not sure Not sure Agree Agree88 2 2 2 Not sure Agree Not sure Agree

2.83 1.50 2.83

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5A Q5B Q5C89 3 1 2 Not sure Agree Disagree Agree90 4 4 5 Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree91 3 3 3 Agree Agree Strongly agree Disagree92 2 2 1 Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Disagree93 3 1 1 Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree94 2 2 1 Not sure Agree Agree Agree

2.83 2.17 2.17

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5A Q5B Q5C95 3 2 3 Disagree Disagree Not sure Agree96 4 1 2 Disagree Agree Agree Agree97 3 3 4 Agree Agree Agree98 5 1 4 Not sure Agree Agree Strongly agree99 1 1 1 Not sure Not sure Not sure Agree

100 1 1 3 Not sure Agree Agree Agree101 2 2 1 Not sure Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree

2.71 1.38 2.57

Group 9: Structural/Civil/Site Engineers

Group 10:Tradesmen/General Builders

Group 11:Mixed

Group 7: M&E Consultants & Product Suppliers

Group 8:QS/Estimators

7


Group 12: Not Included in AnalysisQ1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5A Q5B Q5C

102 1 1 2 Not sure Agree Agree Agree103 1 1 3 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Agree104 4 1 4 Not sure Not sure Agree Not sure105 1 1 1 Disagree Disagree Disagree Not sure106 4 1 4 Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Not sure107 2 1 3 Not sure Not sure Agree Not sure108 5 3 4 Disagree Agree Agree Not sure109 3 1 4 Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Not sure110 4 3 4 Agree Agree Strongly Agree Not sure

2.778 1.444 3.222

8


Q5D Q5E Q6 Q7 Q81 Disagree Not sure Strongly agree Disagree Not sure2 Not sure Not sure Disagree Agree 20173 Agree Agree Not sure Agree 2019+4 Not sure Agree Strongly disagree Not sure Not sure5 Strongly disagree Agree Strongly disagree Disagree Not sure6 Agree Not sure Not sure Not sure Not sure7 Not sure Strongly agree Strongly disagree Agree 20178 Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree 20179 Strongly disagree Agree Disagree Disagree 2019+

10 Disagree Agree Disagree Not sure Not sure11 Disagree Agree Strongly agree Not sure Not sure12 Not sure Not sure Disagree Agree 201513 Disagree Not sure Strongly disagree Agree 201714 Not sure Not sure Not sure Not sure Not sure15 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly disagree Not sure

Q5D Q5E Q6 Q7 Q816 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree 201317 Strongly agree Strongly agree Disagree Strongly agree 2019+

18 Disagree Agree Strongly agree Not sure Not sure19 Not sure Disagree Strongly agree Disagree Not sure

20 Agree Agree Strongly disagree Agree 2019+

21 Agree Not sure Disagree Agree 201722 Not sure Agree Disagree Not sure Not sure23 Strongly agree Agree Disagree Not sure Not sure

24 Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree Agree Not sure

25 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly disagree Strongly agree 2015

26 Agree Agree Not sure Agree 201527 Agree Agree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Not sure28 Strongly agree Agree Strongly disagree Agree 2019+29 Not sure Agree Strongly disagree Agree 201530 Disagree Agree Strongly disagree Agree 2019+

31 Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree 201732 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly disagree Strongly agree 2015

Q5D Q5E Q6 Q7 Q833 Not sure Agree Strongly disagree Agree 201734 Disagree Strongly agree Strongly disagree Agree 201535 Agree Agree Disagree Strongly agree 2017




9


36 Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree Agree 201537 Agree Agree Strongly agree Agree 2019+38 Not sure Agree Disagree Strongly agree 201539 Agree Agree Strongly disagree Not sure Not sure40 Agree Agree Strongly disagree Agree 201741 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly disagree Agree 201742 Not sure Strongly agree Disagree Agree 201543 Not sure Not sure Strongly agree Agree 2019+44 Strongly agree Strongly agree Disagree Not sure Not sure45 Not sure Agree Disagree Strongly agree 201746 Agree Agree Strongly disagree Disagree Not sure47 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Not sure

48 Agree Not sure Strongly disagree Agree Not sure49 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly disagree Strongly agree 2015

50 Strongly agree Agree Strongly disagree Not sure Not sure

Q5D Q5E Q6 Q7 Q851 Agree Agree Disagree Not sure Not sure52 Agree Agree Disagree Agree 201553 Strongly agree Strongly agree Disagree Strongly agree 201754 Strongly agree Agree Strongly disagree Not sure Not sure55 Not sure Agree Not sure Not sure Not sure56 Agree Strongly agree Agree Not sure 2019+57 Agree Agree Disagree Not sure Not sure58 Strongly agree Agree Strongly disagree Not sure Not sure59 Agree Not sure Agree Agree 201560 Agree Agree Disagree Agree 2015

61 Disagree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure

Q5D Q5E Q6 Q7 Q8

62 Agree Agree Disagree Agree 2017

63 Agree Agree Agree Not sure Not sure64 Strongly agree Strongly agree Disagree Agree 2017

Q5D Q5E Q6 Q7 Q865 Agree Not sure Strongly disagree Agree 2019+66 Strongly agree Agree Disagree Disagree Not sure67 Not sure Not sure Not sure Agree 201768 Not sure Agree Disagree Agree 201569 Agree Agree Disagree Not sure 2013

Group 6: Classmates



10


70 Strongly agree Agree Not sure Not sure Not sure71 Disagree Agree Disagree Agree 2019+72 Disagree Agree Not sure Not sure 2019+

Q5D Q5E Q6 Q7 Q873 Strongly agree Strongly agree Disagree Not sure Not sure74 Agree Agree Strongly disagree Not sure Not sure75 Agree Agree Strongly disagree Agree 201776 Agree Agree Strongly disagree Not sure Not sure77 Agree Agree Not sure Disagree 2019+78 Agree Agree Agree Not sure Not sure

Q5D Q5E Q6 Q7 Q879 Agree Agree Disagree Agree 201780 Agree Agree Not sure Agree 201781 Agree Not sure Disagree Agree 201782 Strongly agree Not sure Strongly disagree Not sure Not sure

Q5D Q5E Q6 Q7 Q883 Agree Agree Disagree Not sure Not sure84 Agree Agree Disagree Agree Not sure85 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly disagree Not sure Not sure86 Agree Not sure Strongly disagree Strongly agree 201587 Not sure Agree Not sure Agree 201788 Strongly agree Agree Disagree Not sure Not sure

Q5D Q5E Q6 Q7 Q889 Agree Not sure Strongly disagree Agree 201590 Strongly agree Agree Not sure Agree Not sure91 Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree 201592 Strongly agree Agree Disagree Not sure Not sure93 Strongly agree Not sure Strongly disagree Agree 201794 Agree Not sure Disagree Not sure Not sure

Q5D Q5E Q6 Q7 Q895 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Not sure96 Agree Agree Disagree Agree 201597 Agree Agree Agree Agree Not sure98 Agree Agree Disagree Agree 201599 Agree Agree Not sure Not sure Not sure

100 Agree Agree Strongly disagree Agree 2019+101 Not sure Strongly agree Strongly disagree Not sure 2019+



Group 11:Mixed



11


Group 12: Not Included in AnalysisQ5D Q5E Q6 Q7 Q8

102 Agree Agree Not sure Not sure Not sure103 Agree Strongly agree Agree Agree 2017104 Agree Agree Not sure Not sure Not sure105 Agree Agree Disagree Agree 2019+106 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Not sure107 Not sure Agree Disagree Not sure 2015108 Agree Not sure Disagree Disagree Not sure109 Agree Agree Disagree Not sure 2017110 Not sure Not sure Strongly Disagree Agree 2013

12


Q9 Q10 Q11A Q11B Q11C1 Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree2 Disagree Strongly agree Not sure Not sure Not sure3 Not sure Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree4 Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree Agree Not sure5 Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree6 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree7 Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Not sure8 Disagree Agree Disagree Not sure Not sure9 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Strongly agree

10 Not sure Agree Agree Agree Not sure11 Strongly disagree Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree12 Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Agree Agree13 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Disagree14 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Not sure15 Strongly disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly agree

Q9 Q10 Q11A Q11B Q11C16 Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Disagree17 Strongly disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree Agree

18 Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree Agree Disagree19 Agree Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree Agree

20 Disagree Agree Agree Not sure Agree

21 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree22 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Disagree23 Strongly disagree Agree Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree

24 Strongly disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree

25 Strongly disagree Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree

26 Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree Not sure27 Not sure Strongly disagree Agree Not sure Strongly agree28 Disagree Strongly agree Agree Disagree Agree29 Disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree30 Strongly disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree

31 Strongly disagree Agree Agree Agree Disagree32 Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree

Q9 Q10 Q11A Q11B Q11C33 Strongly disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree34 Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree35 Not sure Agree Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree




13


36 Strongly disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree37 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Not sure38 Not sure Agree Agree Agree Not sure39 Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree Disagree Disagree40 Disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree41 Disagree Agree Strongly agree Agree Agree42 Disagree Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Not sure43 Disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree44 Strongly disagree Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree45 Not sure Disagree Agree Agree Agree46 Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree47 Not sure Agree Agree Agree Agree

48 Disagree Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree49 Disagree Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree

50 Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree

Q9 Q10 Q11A Q11B Q11C51 Strongly disagree Disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree52 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Strongly agree53 Disagree Strongly agree Agree Agree Agree54 Not sure Agree Agree Disagree Disagree55 Disagree Not sure Disagree Not sure Disagree56 Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree57 Disagree Strongly agree Agree Agree Agree58 Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Agree Agree59 Disagree Not sure Agree Not sure Disagree60 Not sure Not sure Agree Agree Agree

61 Strongly disagree Agree Not sure Not sure Not sure

Q9 Q10 Q11A Q11B Q11C

62 Not sure Agree Agree Agree Agree

63 Disagree Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree64 Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Agree Strongly agree

Q9 Q10 Q11A Q11B Q11C65 Strongly disagree Agree Strongly disagree Agree Agree66 Disagree Agree Strongly agree Agree Agree67 Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree Agree Agree68 Not sure Agree Agree Agree Agree69 Not sure Agree Not sure Agree Agree

Group 6: Classmates


14


70 Not sure Agree Agree Agree Agree71 Not sure Not sure Agree Agree Disagree72 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree

Q9 Q10 Q11A Q11B Q11C73 Strongly disagree Not sure Disagree Disagree Disagree74 Disagree Agree Agree Not sure Not sure75 Disagree Not sure Not sure Not sure Disagree76 Disagree Agree Strongly agree Agree Not sure77 Not sure Strongly agree Not sure Strongly agree Agree78 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Not sure

Q9 Q10 Q11A Q11B Q11C79 Not sure Agree Agree Agree Not sure80 Agree Not sure Disagree Not sure Disagree81 Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree Agree Agree82 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree

Q9 Q10 Q11A Q11B Q11C83 Disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree84 Strongly disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree85 Disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree86 Not sure Agree Agree Strongly agree Disagree87 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Not sure88 Disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree Disagree

Q9 Q10 Q11A Q11B Q11C89 Disagree Agree Strongly agree Disagree Not sure90 Disagree Strongly agree Agree Agree Agree91 Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree92 Strongly disagree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree93 Disagree Strongly agree Agree Agree Agree94 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Disagree

Q9 Q10 Q11A Q11B Q11C95 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Not sure96 Disagree Agree Agree Not sure Not sure97 Not sure Not sure Not sure Agree Not sure98 Disagree Not sure Agree Agree Agree99 Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree

100 Not sure Agree Agree Agree Disagree101 Not sure Agree Strongly agree Agree Disagree



Group 11:Mixed



15


Group 12: Not Included in AnalysisQ9 Q10 Q11A Q11B Q11C

102 Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly agree Agree103 Not sure Not sure Disagree Disagree Disagree104 Not sure Not sure Agree Agree Agree105 Strongly disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree106 Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree107 Not sure Not sure Agree Agree Strongly agree108 Disagree Agree Agree Agree Agree109 Disagree Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree110 Strongly disagree Agree Strongly agree Agree Disagree

16


Q11D Q11E Q11F Q11G1 Agree Strongly agree Agree Disagree2 Agree Agree Agree Not sure3 Agree Agree Disagree Not sure4 Agree Agree Not sure Not sure5 Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree Disagree6 Agree Agree Agree Not sure7 Agree Strongly agree Agree Agree8 Agree Agree Agree Disagree9 Agree Strongly agree Not sure Disagree

10 Not sure Agree Agree Not sure11 Agree Agree Agree Strongly agree12 Agree Agree Strongly agree Agree13 Agree Agree Agree Disagree14 Strongly agree Agree Disagree Agree15 Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree

Q11D Q11E Q11F Q11G16 Strongly disagree Agree Strongly disagree Not sure17 Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree Agree

18 Not sure Agree Agree Agree19 Agree Agree Not sure Disagree

20 Not sure Agree Agree Not sure

21 Agree Agree Agree Not sure22 Agree Agree Disagree Agree23 Agree Agree Strongly agree Not sure

24 Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree

25 Agree Strongly agree Disagree Disagree

26 Strongly agree Strongly agree Not sure Disagree27 Agree Strongly agree Agree Not sure28 Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree29 Agree Agree Agree Agree30 Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree Not sure

31 Agree Agree Agree Agree32 Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree

Q11D Q11E Q11F Q11G33 Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree34 Strongly agree Strongly agree Not sure Agree35 Agree Agree Agree Agree




17


36 Agree Agree Agree Not sure37 Agree Agree Not sure Not sure38 Not sure Agree Agree Not sure39 Agree Agree Agree Strongly agree40 Agree Strongly agree Agree Agree41 Strongly agree Agree Agree Agree42 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree43 Strongly agree Strongly agree Not sure Not sure44 Not sure Strongly agree Strongly agree Not sure45 Agree Strongly agree Agree Not sure46 Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree47 Agree Agree Not sure Agree

48 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree49 Agree Agree Agree Disagree

50 Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree Not sure

Q11D Q11E Q11F Q11G51 Agree Agree Agree Agree52 Agree Agree Agree Not sure53 Disagree Agree Agree Not sure54 Agree Agree Disagree Disagree55 Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree56 Agree Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree57 Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree Not sure58 Agree Agree Not sure Not sure59 Disagree Agree Agree Not sure60 Agree Agree Agree Agree

61 Not sure Agree Agree Not sure

Q11D Q11E Q11F Q11G

62 Agree Agree Disagree Agree

63 Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree Agree64 Agree Strongly agree Agree Agree

Q11D Q11E Q11F Q11G65 Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Agree Strongly disagree66 Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree Agree67 Not sure Strongly agree Not sure Disagree68 Agree Agree Agree Not sure69 Agree Not sure Agree Agree

Group 6: Classmates



18


70 Agree Agree Agree Agree71 Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly agree72 Agree Not sure Not sure Not sure

Q11D Q11E Q11F Q11G73 Disagree Agree Agree Not sure74 Not sure Not sure Agree Disagree75 Agree Not sure Agree Not sure76 Agree Agree Agree Not sure77 Agree Agree Disagree Not sure78 Agree Strongly agree Disagree Disagree

Q11D Q11E Q11F Q11G79 Agree Agree Strongly agree Not sure80 Agree Disagree Not sure Not sure81 Agree Agree Not sure Disagree82 Agree Disagree Agree Not sure

Q11D Q11E Q11F Q11G83 Strongly agree Strongly agree Not sure Strongly agree84 Agree Agree Not sure Agree85 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Disagree86 Agree Agree Agree Disagree87 Disagree Strongly agree Not sure Not sure88 Agree Strongly agree Disagree Strongly agree

Q11D Q11E Q11F Q11G89 Agree Agree Disagree Not sure90 Strongly agree Agree Agree Not sure91 Disagree Not sure Disagree Disagree92 Disagree Strongly agree Agree Agree93 Disagree Agree Agree Agree94 Disagree Agree Agree Agree

Q11D Q11E Q11F Q11G95 Not sure Agree Not sure Not sure96 Agree Agree Disagree Not sure97 Agree Agree Not sure Not sure98 Disagree Not sure Agree Not sure99 Strongly agree Strongly agree Not sure Not sure

100 Agree Strongly agree Not sure Not sure101 Not sure Agree Agree Agree



Group 11:Mixed



19


Group 12: Not Included in AnalysisQ11D Q11E Q11F Q11G

102 Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly disagree103 Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree104 Agree Agree Agree Not sure105 Agree Disagree Disagree Not sure106 Agree Strongly agree Agree Agree107 Disagree Disagree Not sure Not sure108 Not sure Agree Agree Not sure109 Agree Agree Not sure Agree110 Strongly agree Strongly agree Disagree Not sure

20


Q12 Q13 Q14 Q151 Selective (6-8 contractors) Partnering 40-49% Agree2 Negotiation Traditional 0-9% Strongly agree3 Negotiation Traditional 0-9% Agree4 ? not sure Traditional 0-9% Agree5 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 0-9% Not sure6 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 0-9% Agree7 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 0-9% Agree8 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 0-9% Agree9 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 0-9% Agree

10 Selective (6-8 contractors) Partnering 10-19% Agree11 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 10-19% Strongly agree12 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 20-29% Strongly agree13 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 0-9% Agree14 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 40-49% Agree15 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 0-9% Strongly agree

Q12 Q13 Q14 Q1516 Negotiation Design & Build 0-9% Strongly agree17 Negotiation Design & Build 0-9% Strongly agree

18 Selective (6-8 contractors)don't understand qt fully - so many build routes 0-9% Agree

19 Negotiation Design & Build 0-9% Agree

20 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 20-29% Strongly agree

21 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 10-19% Strongly agree22 Negotiation Partnering 0-9% Strongly agree23 Selective (6-8 contractors) Partnering 0-9% Agree



26 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 10-19% Strongly agree27 Selective (6-8 contractors) Partnering 0-9% Agree28 Selective - 3-4 GC's Partnering 0-9% Strongly agree29 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 30-39% Agree30 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 0-9% Strongly agree

31 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 10-19% Strongly agree32 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 0-9% Strongly agree

Q12 Q13 Q14 Q1533 Open Design & Build 10-19% Strongly agree34 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 10-19% Strongly agree35 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 20-29% Agree




21


36 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 0-9% Strongly agree37 Open Traditional 10-19% Agree38 Selective (6-8 contractors) Partnering 20-29% Strongly agree39 Selective (6-8 contractors) Partnering 10-19% Agree40 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 20-29% Agree41 Open Traditional 10-19% Strongly agree42 Negotiation Partnering 0-9% Strongly agree43 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 0-9% Strongly agree44 Negotiation Partnering 0-9% Strongly agree45 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 20-29% Strongly agree46 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 10-19% Strongly agree47 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 20-29% Agree

48 Negotiation Design & Build 40-49% Agree49 Negotiation Traditional 50-59% Strongly agree


Q12 Q13 Q14 Q1551 Open Design & Build 10-19% Disagree52 Open Design & Build 10-19% Agree53 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 50-59% Strongly agree54 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 0-9% Agree55 Negotiation Design & Build 10-19% Not sure56 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 40-49% Agree57 Selective (6-8 contractors) Partnering 40-49% Strongly agree58 Negotiation Design & Build 0-9% Agree59 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 30-39% Agree60 Negotiation Design & Build 30-39% Strongly agree

61

This really depends on the knowledge and sophistication of the client.

This really depends on the knowledge and sophistication of the client. 0-9% Disagree

Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

62 Negotiation Partnering 10-19% Agree

63 Open Partnering 0-9% Strongly agree64 Negotiation Design & Build 0-9% Agree

Q12 Q13 Q14 Q1565 Selective (6-8 contractors) 0-9% Agree66 Selective (6-8 contractors) Partnering 10-19% Disagree67 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 10-19% Agree68 Nominated sub-contractors Design & Build 50-59% Agree69 Selective (6-8 contractors) Partnering 40-49% Strongly disagree



22


70 Negotiation Design & Build 20-29% Agree71 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 0-9% Strongly agree72 Open Design & Build 20-29% Agree

Q12 Q13 Q14 Q1573 Negotiation Traditional 0-9% Not sure74 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 10-19% Not sure75 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 0-9% Not sure76 Negotiation Design & Build 0-9% Strongly agree77 Open Partnering 0-9% Agree78 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 0-9% Not sure

Q12 Q13 Q14 Q1579 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 20-29% Not sure80 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 70-79% Agree81 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 0-9% Agree82 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 30-39% Disagree

Q12 Q13 Q14 Q1583 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 20-29% Agree84 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 10-19% Agree85 Open Design & Build 30-39% Agree86 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 30-39% Strongly agree87 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 10-19% Agree88 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 0-9% Strongly agree

Q12 Q13 Q14 Q1589 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 40-49% Agree90 Open Traditional 30-39% Strongly agree91 Negotiation Design & Build 50-59% Agree92 Open Traditional 10-19% Strongly agree93 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 20-29% Agree94 Open Design & Build 10-19% Agree

Q12 Q13 Q14 Q1595 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 0-9% Not sure96 Element Approach Design & Build 10-19% Strongly agree97 Negotiation 30-39% Not sure98 Open Design & Build 30-39% Agree99 Not sure Not sure 30-39% Agree

100 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 10-19% Strongly agree101 Selective (6-8 contractors) Partnering 0-9% Strongly agree



Group 11:Mixed



23


Group 12: Not Included in AnalysisQ12 Q13 Q14 Q15

102 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 10-19% Agree103 Open Design & Build 10-19% Agree104 Not sure if this is relevant Traditional 0-9% Not sure105 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 0-9% Agree106 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 10-19% Agree107 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 30-39% Disagree108 Negotiation Partnering 0-9% Agree109 Selective (6-8 contractors) Design & Build 40-49% Strongly agree110 Selective (6-8 contractors) Traditional 0-9% Strongly agree

24


Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q201 Agree Agree Not sure No Not sure2 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree No Not sure3 Agree Agree Strongly agree No Agree4 Agree Agree Agree No Disagree5 Not sure Not sure Agree Yes Not sure6 Agree Agree Agree Yes Not sure7 Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree Yes Strongly agree8 Agree Agree Agree Yes Agree9 Agree Agree Agree Yes Not sure

10 Agree Agree Agree Yes Agree11 Strongly agree Strongly agree Not sure Yes Disagree12 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree No Not sure13 Strongly agree Not sure Agree No Agree14 Not sure Agree Agree No Not sure15 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree No Strongly agree

Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q2016 Not sure Not sure Agree Yes Strongly agree17 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Yes Strongly agree

18 Strongly agree Agree Not sure Yes Agree19 Agree Not sure Agree Yes Strongly agree

20 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Yes Agree

21 Agree Strongly agree Agree Yes Strongly agree22 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Yes Agree23 Agree Strongly agree Disagree Yes Agree

24 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Yes Strongly agree

25 Strongly agree Strongly agree Not sure Yes Disagree

26 Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree No Strongly agree27 Agree Agree Strongly disagree Yes Disagree28 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Yes Strongly agree29 Not sure Agree Strongly agree Yes Agree30 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Yes Strongly agree

31 Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree Yes Agree32 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree

Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q2033 Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree No Agree34 Strongly disagree Strongly agree Agree No Agree35 Agree Agree Agree Yes Agree




25


36 Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree Yes Agree37 Agree Agree Strongly agree No Agree38 Agree Agree Strongly agree No Not sure39 Not sure Agree Agree No Agree40 Agree Agree Agree Yes Agree41 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Yes Agree42 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Yes Not sure43 Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree No Strongly agree44 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Yes Strongly agree45 Strongly agree Strongly agree Not sure Yes Not sure46 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Yes Strongly agree47 Agree Agree Agree No Not sure

48 Agree Agree Not sure Yes Disagree49 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree No Not sure

50 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Yes Strongly agree

Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q2051 Agree Agree Disagree Yes Not sure52 Agree Agree Agree Yes Agree53 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree No Not sure54 Agree Agree Strongly agree Yes Not sure55 Agree Not sure Agree No Not sure56 Agree Agree Agree No Not sure57 Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree No Not sure58 Agree Agree Strongly agree Yes Strongly agree59 Agree Agree Strongly agree Yes Not sure60 Strongly agree Strongly agree Not sure Yes Agree

61 Disagree Disagree Agree Not sure

Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20

62 Agree Agree Agree Yes Agree

63 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Yes Agree64 Agree Agree Strongly agree Yes Strongly agree

Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q2065 Strongly disagree Agree Agree No Not sure66 Disagree Disagree Not sure No Not sure67 Agree Disagree Agree No Not sure68 Agree Agree Agree No Not sure69 Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree No Not sure



26


70 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree No Not sure71 Agree Agree Disagree No Disagree72 Disagree Not sure Agree Yes Agree

Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q2073 Not sure Not sure Agree Yes Agree74 Agree Not sure Not sure Yes Agree75 Not sure Not sure Not sure Yes Strongly agree76 Agree Agree Agree Yes Agree77 Agree Not sure Strongly agree Yes Agree78 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Yes Strongly agree

Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q2079 Not sure Agree Agree Yes Agree80 Agree Agree Disagree Yes Strongly agree81 Not sure Agree Agree No Not sure82 Agree Agree Agree No Not sure

Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q2083 Disagree Agree Agree No Not sure84 Agree Agree Agree No Not sure85 Agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Yes Not sure86 Agree Strongly agree Not sure Yes Agree87 Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree Yes Not sure88 Agree Not sure Strongly agree No Not sure

Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q2089 Not sure Agree Agree No Not sure90 Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree Yes Agree91 Agree Agree Not sure Yes Not sure92 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree No Not sure93 Agree Agree Not sure No Not sure94 Agree Agree Strongly disagree No Not sure

Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q2095 Not sure Not sure Not sure No Agree96 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree Yes Strongly agree97 Not sure Not sure Agree Not sure98 Agree Agree Agree No Not sure99 Agree Agree Not sure No Not sure

100 Strongly agree Agree Strongly agree Yes Agree101 Agree Agree Not sure No Not sure



Group 11:Mixed



27


Group 12: Not Included in AnalysisQ16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20

102 Agree Agree Agree No Not sure103 Agree Agree Agree Yes Not sure104 Agree Not sure Agree Yes Not sure105 Agree Agree Agree Yes Not sure106 Agree Agree Agree Yes Not sure107 Not sure Not sure Not sure Yes Disagree108 Strongly agree Strongly agree Agree No Strongly agree109 Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree No Not sure110 Agree Agree Strongly agree Yes Not sure

28


Q21 Q24 Q26 Q27 Q28 1 No 3 Ventilation strategies No No2 No 3 Integrated ways of achieving airtight design Yes Yes3 No 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes4 No 3 Ventilation strategies Yes Yes5 Yes 3 Ventilation strategies Yes Yes6 No 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme No No7 No 3 Thermal bridge free design Yes Yes8 No 2 Thermal bridge free design Yes Yes9 No 2 The transfer of moisture through construction components No Yes

10 No 2 Thermal bridge free design No Yes11 Yes 4 Ventilation strategies Yes Yes12 No 3 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes13 No 3 Information re insitu traditional & sustainable building mat Yes Yes14 No 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes15 No 3 Thermal bridge free design No Yes

Q21 Q24 Q26 Q27 Q28 16 No 3 The transfer of moisture through construction components Yes Yes17 No 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes

18 Yes 2 Ventilation strategies Yes Yes19 Yes 4 The transfer of moisture through construction components No No

20 No 4 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes

21 No 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes22 No 3 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes23 No 3 The transfer of moisture through construction components Yes Yes


25 Yes 2 Ventilation strategies No No

26 No 3 Training of tradesmen and builders, and the education to theYes Yes27 Yes 3 The transfer of moisture through construction components Yes Yes28 No 2 The transfer of moisture through construction components Yes No29 Yes 3 Thermal bridge free design Yes Yes30 Yes 2 Ventilation strategies Yes Yes

31 No 3 Thermal bridge free design Yes Yes32 Yes 3 Also thermal bridge free design specifically for Irish buildinNo No

Q21 Q24 Q26 Q27 Q28 33 No 2 Thermal bridge free design Yes Yes34 No 3 Ventilation strategies No No35 No 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme No Yes




29


36 Yes 2 Thermal bridge free design Yes No37 No 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme No Yes38 No 1 Thermal bridge free design No No39 No 2 Thermal bridge free design Yes Yes40 No 3 The transfer of moisture through construction components No No41 Yes 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes42 Yes 3 Ventilation strategies Yes Yes43 No 2 Thermal bridge free design Yes Yes44 No 5 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes45 Yes 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme No No46 Yes 3 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes47 No 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes No

48 No 3 Thermal bridge free design Yes No49 No 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme No No


Q21 Q24 Q26 Q27 Q28 51 Yes 2 The effects on human health, as over hot and dry atmospherNo No52 No 1 Thermal bridge free design Yes Yes53 No 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes No54 No 3 Ventilation strategies Yes Yes55 No 1 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes No56 No 2 Thermal bridge free design Yes No57 No 3 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme No No58 No 3 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme No Yes59 No 2 Thermal bridge free design No No60 No 2 The transfer of moisture through construction components Yes No

61 No 1 All of the above plus public policy research to promote ene Yes Yes

Q21 Q24 Q26 Q27 Q28

62 Yes 1 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes

63 Yes 3 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes64 No 3 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes

Q21 Q24 Q26 Q27 Q28 65 Yes 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes66 No 1 Ventilation strategies Yes Yes67 No 2 Thermal bridge free design No No68 No 3 Thermal bridge free design No No69 No 5 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme No No



30


70 No 3 Thermal bridge free design Yes No71 No 2 Ventilation strategies Yes Yes72 No 1 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes

Q21 Q24 Q26 Q27 Q28 73 Yes 5 Ventilation strategies Yes Yes74 Yes 1 Thermal bridge free design Yes Yes75 Yes 1 Ventilation strategies Yes Yes76 No 4 The transfer of moisture through construction components Yes Yes77 No 1 The transfer of moisture through construction components Yes Yes78 Yes 4 The transfer of moisture through construction components No Yes

Q21 Q24 Q26 Q27 Q28 79 No 3 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme No No80 No 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes81 No 1 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes82 No 2 Thermal bridge free design No No

Q21 Q24 Q26 Q27 Q28 83 No 3 Ventilation strategies Yes Yes84 No 3 Ventilation strategies Yes Yes85 No 3 The transfer of moisture through construction components86 No 2 The transfer of moisture through construction components No Yes87 No 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme No No88 No 1 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes No

Q21 Q24 Q26 Q27 Q28 89 No 1 Thermal bridge free design No No90 No 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes91 No 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes92 No 1 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme No No93 No 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme No No94 No 3 Thermal bridge free design No No

Q21 Q24 Q26 Q27 Q28 95 No 1 No particular opinion No No96 No 2 The transfer of moisture through construction components Yes Yes97 No 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme Yes Yes98 No 3 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme No No99 No 1 Don't know Yes Yes

100 No 2 Thermal bridge free design Yes101 No 5 Ventilation strategies Yes Yes



Group 11:Mixed



31


Group 12: Not Included in AnalysisQ21 Q24 Q26 Q27 Q28

102 No 2 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme No No103 No 2 Thermal bridge free design No No104 Yes 1 Ventilation strategies No No105 No 1 Funding of a national Passivhaus retrofit scheme No No106 No 1 Ventilation strategies No No107 No 1 The transfer of moisture through construction components No No108 No 1 Thermal bridge free design No No109 No 3 The transfer of moisture through construction components Yes Yes110 Yes 3 Ventilation strategies Yes Yes

32

Appendix C

Appendix C: Qualitative Survey Comments

149

APPENDIX C: QUALITATIVE SURVEY COMMENTS

Q21: HAVE YOU OR ANY OF YOUR CLIENTS EXPERIENCED ANY PROBLEMS

WITH MHRV? IF YOU ANSWERED YES COULD YOU PLEASE ELABORATE?

o I answered no but have no experience of MHRV or had clients who have used it.

o The scheme is new (3 months). Complaints that it is noisy, leading to it being turned off

in one or two cases.

o only issues I have been made aware of is users forget to change filters Ducts not designed

properly, condensation in ducts, system not properly balanced, filters not changed,

outlandish claims by champions; MHRV is not suitable as the only heating system for

Irish usage, MHRV not suitable for social housing.

o Moisture build up in cold attics.

o Issues with poor installation, poor components (non-proprietary ductwork being used for

example), systems not being designed or maintained.

o Mould On filters.

o Maintenance and broken belt on the rotary wheel.

o Incorrect fitting.

o Return air temperatures are too low with ducted HRV systems.

o Poorly installed. End user not trained in its operation; Windows open, system on, etc., etc.

o Not understanding how to use equipment, getting units serviced and cleaning/changing

filters.

o Servicing of systems installed non-existent.

o The client was not aware of the maintenance requirement of changing the air filters. A

problem that went on for over a year. This led to a decrease in efficiency and poorer air

quality.

o We have fitted and are fitting them in some building but not enough time has gone by to

see if we have problem. The big problem with some of these systems is the initial cost;

they will never pay for themselves.

o Poorly installed, considered or designed - by others!

o Condensation in metal casing of MVHR. MVHR connected to too much ducting.

o Condensation in older units. Question marks over mould growth within ducting.

o Disbalanced system, fans malfunctioning - customer service was great though and

problems fixed....might have been a lemon.


150

o Noise issues.

o In Q20 - I think we need to be very careful insisting on MHRV unless we bring in the

same controls we have for boilers and Heating e.g. a OTEC certified person - you can do

more damage to people health with MHRV than you can do with a boiler (well at least

equal).

o Over-drying of indoor air, mitigated by running the HRV less or slower.

o Squeezing it in.

o When wet trades are working in closed environments there can be an excessive built up of

moisture as there are no wall vents and the MHRV is not commissioned.

Q25: AT WHAT STAGES WOULD YOU CARRY OUT THE AIR TESTS?

o After insulation has been fitted and Pre-handover.

o Before, 1st fix and on completion.

o Before, first fix completion.

o Before and after retrofit.

o One before start of work.

o After first fix and on completion / handover of project.

o Post internal render / post completion.

o Prior to design.

o End stages.

o Completion of the air barrier, and second test to see if leaks have been remedied (third

and on test if not resolved with the first remedy.

o Initially, before any works start on site.

o One before retrofit.

o One prior to commencing.

o Before.

o When the house is said to be airtight, and once more to make sure.

o House 'sealed'.

o Plastering complete - ready for second fix (twice).

o One before any work commences, one when the external building fabric has been sealed

and one at building completion.

o DESIGN AND PRACTICAL COMPLETION - TO FORM PART OF SNAGGING.

o Before plasterboard and near completion.


151

o Before and after Retrofit.

o During construction, before trim and finish and dry walling, separating main part of the

building.

o Before drywall but after windows and doors and after drywall.

o Before work.

o I would do a negative & positive test after the airtight barrier is installed by setting test

equipment in the main door & window (because the main door is known to be one of the

main areas to leak. Then this testing will be repeated on final completion.

o I would carry out the test after the airtight layer has been installed. When there is still

access to any points which may need attention.

o Before.

o Two during construction and 1 when finished.

o Prior to slabbing and plastering and after completion.

o Before work commences to establish worst areas,

o One after full structural completion and one after full completion along with mechanical

fit out.

o I believe an air test is only necessary once a building is complete.

o Beginning, mid stage and end (like a good book).

o First.

o Before, during and after construction.

o Before and after retro fitting.

o When the project is completed.

o Start.

o Upon completion of construction prior to fit out.

o Before work.

o After work completed.

o One before the works.

o On completion then again some months later to review.....

o Before job starts, after installation of barrier and after job complete.

o One at the end is sufficient when you use our methods.

o Beginning of project and upon completion.

o Final installation.

o At completion.

o One -Before construction to determine if air tightness work is required. 2- Before air

tightness membrane is covered over with additional building envelope material.


152

o Initial for bench mark and after completion to record result after works.

o Before, during and after.

o Just at windows fitted and first fix.

o Before.

o Prior to internal and external plastering.

o Continually.

o Before and After.

o Before and after, all depends on the design.

o Second Fix.

o Before, during & after.

o End of first fix, before final finishes and after.

o Completion.

o After Alteration.

o One completion of air tight layer.

o Delivery.

o As soon as the airtight layer is somewhat complete - so tradesmen can experience the

leaks!

o Before works commence.

o Before and after.

o Practical completions.

o Post retrofit.

o Post retrofit.

o Prior to second fix and practical completion.

o Before, after, 3 months after handover.

o Before Electrical and Plumbing fixes.

o Not sure - but beginning and end at least.

o Pre-Construction, at 75-80% completion and on completion.

o Partial completion.

o At end.

o Before retrofit.

o Before work begins and upon completion

o Completion.

o Before, during, after.

o Before sheetrock at a stage appropriate to accessing leaks inside building cavities.

o One pre start.


153

o After close up of internal partitions and on final completion.

o As works complete.

o Post-decs.

o Before Retro Work. After Retro Work. 3 months after as a double check after work

settles.

o Beginning, after air tightness measures are installed and after completion.

Q26: COULD YOU PLEASE INDICATE WHICH AREA OF RESEARCH LISTED

BELOW, YOU WOULD DEEM MOST APPROPRIATE TO FUTURE PASSIVHAUS

RESEARCH?

o All of the above plus public policy research to promote energy related retrofit.

o Also thermal bridge free design specifically for Irish building methods/practices.

o Don't know.

o Information re in-situ traditional & sustainable building materials, i.e. mud wall, stone

wall, hempcreat, thatch, etc

o Integrated ways of achieving airtight design.

o No particular opinion.

o The effects on human health, as over hot and dry atmosphere cause problems.

o Training of tradesmen and builders, and the education to the public of the benefit.

GENERAL COMMENTS AT END OF SURVEY

o As far as I know, TGD L does not apply to retrofit? q4.

o Existing building stock that is deficient with respect to part L may also be well built under

the construction regulations that were in force at the time. There was a time when

standard slab insulation was recommended around perimeter only as this was most cost-

effective. EnerPHit is still too stringent (air tightness in particular) and one problem with

passivhaus and EnerPHit is the omission of benefits of thermal mass from models. I

suspect upgrading many traditional structures with external insulation alone would have a

dramatic effect on energy consumption. 2016 regulations should seek to have existing

energy usage for pre 2005 houses reduced by 60% and give tax breaks for appropriate

upgrades that achieve this.


154

o Re-skilling of building professionals across all disciplines is key to consistently providing

successful building energy upgrades. With a more informed construction industry we

would be more able to better capitalise on our existing building stock.

o Paul, this is better a survey than most, but some qts that didn't have an 'other box' to fill

in, could have done with them.

o Currently doing my FYP on investigating the benefits (economic, comfort,

environmental) on upgrading from building a building to just complying with regulations

(TGD 2011) to passive standard and also zero energy buildings..... tgdL 2011 is certainly

after taking a big leap towards passive!!! and about time!

o Roll on the end of the recession so we can actually build a house or two.

o I believe you are doing a great job which will be a service to future retrofits and

construction. I am an old man now and was involved mostly before we were too

concerned about energy and its management and conservation but I believe it is essential

and I praise you for getting involved.

o I believe that when new system and standards are been made they should be try and tested

first and I mean not just in a lab or in theory, also cost should be looked at. I believe the

air tightness is a very good system, but some designer need to make the build more

compatible so as to reduce cost.

o I would like to hear of anyone's experience of air tightness testing on retrofits and what

the remedial works consisted of. We have yet to persuade anyone to undertake one,

despite presenting them with the figures which show the substantial differences in the

resulting steady state heat loss calculations.

o Please check Q8, it doesn't allow for blank answer.

o I do not think Passive house should be the Irish standard - I believe that the national

certification bodies should be used (and told to improve) their certification processes.

o It does not seem likely that the Passivhaus principle is going to be embraced any time

soon in this country. Even just the insulation grants have been cut and are now depending

on property type. Some companies are trying to get work in by pointing out that the

grants will be further cut by half next year (have not researched this, but it is madness).

Also the upgrades done seem to be just the bare minimum of 100mm of external

insulation with no MHRV (as there is no grant available, and ventilation is still through

the "holes in the wall" system.

o My experience in Oregon with Energy Star, PTCS, and Earth Advantage is that

certification schemes (tradesmen, verifiers, designers, builders) generally fail to really

improve the quality or efficiency of homes or systems. Motivated people do good things;


155

unmotivated people can drag down well-intended programs. Let participants prove their

abilities to be in any PH program, and don't let certification be a barrier to good people

getting in, or bad people leaving.

Appendix D

Appendix D: Dormer Roof Issues

157

APPENDIX D: DORMER ROOF ISSUES-LINKEDIN

DISCUSSION

JM-

Today I found myself in the same situation I have been in many times before, called in to a

‘dormer roof’ house to help the Householder understand why there are rooms which are

difficult to heat , coupled with high fuel costs.

I am a level 2 qualified Thermographer, and so use Thermal Imaging in my surveys which

along with Air tightness Testing I teach the Irish certified courses for the XXXXX. I also

have more than 35 years of practical building experience behind me. All of this wealth of

background however was not needed today & seldom is, the causes of the issues with the

construction are plain to see.

And this is what worries me! Let me explain.

The householder has had 2 ‘professional’ builders undertake remedial insulation works to the

house since it was constructed in 1999. The exposed detached house is of a typical double

block construction with some stone facing & with a ‘dormer’ roof. The ground floor has very

few issues other than some readily fixable air leakage under & around skirting boards of a

suspended floor. The 1st floor however is a different story. I have lost count of the number of

essentially ‘room in the roof’ cold roof constructions I have surveyed with the same problems

even on recent builds.

• Open floor voids to the first floor

• Quilt insulation not fitted correctly to overlap the wall plate

• Areas of missing & poorly fitted insulation to the residual voids which are the partial

ceilings of the ground floor rooms

• A total lack of insulation to Knee walls

• A total lack of air sealing

• Poorly lagged heating pipework running through the un-conditioned voids

• Lack of overlap of insulation at changes of geometry

This is not a comprehensive list, but all these problems were seen visually today. What made

the situation worse was that the last ‘professional’ builder had installed rafter lock insulation

to the rafters of a storage area where the attic had not been converted which was a total waste


158

of money, the storage area being an unconditioned space with free external air moving

through it.

I made my usual suggestions of how the Householder could remedy the problems found, and

here was the stumbling block. Did I know of any insulation contractor that could ‘fix’ the

issues? My answer had to be no I don’t.

I know plenty of contractors that would come and explain the grant system, and suggest

‘topping’ up the existing quilt to 300mm with blown fiberglass. All that would do is cover up

some of the existing problems, and covering them up does not make them go away. A

convective loop between installed insulation and what it is supposed to be insulating will still

be there even if covered up.

Where attics have old and incomplete quilt insulation I would like to see Irish contractors

using the same approach as some of their forward thinking American counterparts. That is;

Strip out the existing quilt and debris (typically mouse droppings etc.)

Make the ‘room in the roof’ air tight ensuring correct airflow through the roof

structure

Ensure vapour barriers where appropriate are intact

Efficiently lag all pipework, then re-insulate!

Hopefully someone reading this will tell me they know of such a contractor, if that is the case,

I can find quite of work for them.

FM-

Well, that was an interesting comment! I could have written that myself because you are

exactly right and I've come across it umpteen times! I am an insulation installer but one who

tries to do things the right way. I have 13 years’ experience and several building related

qualifications including carpentry and joinery, insulation installing, external insulation with

Agreement Cert, BER assessor etc., but am only too aware that these really mean nothing in

terms of doing a job properly. You said yourself, John that you didn't need any of your

qualifications or experience to see how bad an installation can be; in fairness it’s not rocket-

science! A small bit of cop-on and some care and attention combined with the right products

can do a job like this to the highest standards.

Unfortunately, despite the recent press about poor installations in Irish Buildings (Priory Hall

etc.), building works in Ireland, including insulation is still well below par in terms of the

standards being worked to. We need to take hold of the situation quickly and weed out those


159

inferior installers. There is no regulation whatsoever on insulating an attic or indeed the inside

of a house in general (dry lining etc.), so anyone (quite literally) can set up tomorrow morning

and start installing. Why is this? One must understand things like how heat travels across

different building components, draughts, ventilation, condensation, etc. to be competent in

this area.

Of course, the installers who don't understand or don't care about what they are installing but

only about the pay-cheque they receive are mainly to blame but there are others who must

share this blame also:

1. There is nowhere near enough regulation and no penalties for doing things the wrong

way. Installers who for example, stuff quilt insulation into an attic blocking

ventilation airflows whilst at the same time perhaps ignoring the insulating of knee

walls should be held accountable and punished.

2. Homeowners who will always choose the cheapest contractor must take some blame

also. Nobody would buy the cheapest car they could find and expect it to drive like a

Rolls, yet people regularly "buy" the cheapest insulation installer and expect the

insulation to work perfectly....it just doesn't make sense.

It makes me sad to see our buildings being wrecked in the way that they are and people being

robbed of their money with shabby installations. There's tons of work out there for everyone

involved in insulation and if we could get all contractors to work to higher standards,

charging a little bit more per installation, we would all be better off.

ME-

Hi J,

I read your discussion. I am also am an insulation contractor. I've got loads of qualifications

and training etc. I am currently studying to become a passive house designer. But I believe the

biggest issue in this country is the general attitude among your ordinary punter (who knows

nothing about building) that building is a simple game. Throw up a few blocks, bang on a

roof, throw in a bit of insulation etc. that almost every job can be done cheaply.

Then I come along and try to explain what needs to be done and then I give the price for the

job and 9 times out of 10, its too expensive. Too many jobs are done 'on the cheap' by a local

handyman who the punter meets in the pub. Try explaining thermal bridging to these guys!

The country needs strong enforcement of building reg's or we'll never improve this attitude.


160

CM-

Well said M, cheap is the name they all want to hear now, you are right not until there is

proper building control will anything change

DK-

Hi Guys I have worked in the insulation industry for over 22 years in a sales and technical

role. Three years ago I left my employer to start my own business XXXX Insulation

Solutions. We promote a common sense approach to choosing your insulation material to suit

the application not the sale price which in turn will increase the chances of the product being

applied correctly. I just finished three days at the Self Build show in Belfast explaining to the

new self-builders and young couples who have built their homes over the last 5 years. As J

discussed the biggest issues were people living in homes built only in the last 5 years had

huge fuel bills, condensation problems, acoustic problems, and many more all because the

focus on the insulation and associated building products was the cost of the materials and not

the end result.

U values results for floors, walls, and roofs do not mean anything if the wrong type of product

is chosen for the project. If we spend a little extra time explaining to the customer the

relationship between the insulation and the associated building products I believe we can

achieve the right result. Understand the product then choose the brand. For example pitch

roof sloping ceiling application.

Best practice

Roof tiles or slate

Tile battens

Counter battens High quality breathable roofing membrane

Semi rigid breathable insulation to complement the breathable roofing membrane

High quality moisture management membrane. [totally taped and sealed]

50mm Timber counter battens fitted below the ceiling rafter

50mm Semi rigid breathable insulation fitted between the timber battens

12.5mm Plasterboard fixed to the timber battens

Inspection of application of each layer. Job done

People fail products - Products do not fail people


161

MC-

J,

Have a solution to your problem. As I am in the air tightness business and I work with only

one insulation contractor, between us, I install an air tight membrane before the insulation is

installed. I test the floor space separately from the rest of the house by sealing off stairwell

and allowing the blower door test to do what it is very good at doing before the walls are

skimmed. It is the only way of achieving a decent level of air tightness (less than 1 a/c per

hour). What I do with the skirting board and the floor boards I picked up working in

Germany. Give me a call on the mobile if you would to chat about proper retrofitting.

TK-

We are all familiar with the difficulties of finding a decent contractor. Because I talk to

people about sustainability, they ask me specific questions like "Who is a good insulation

installer?" I'm not in the building profession. I read Construct Ireland and can study the

websites of all of you who have responded to this comment, and suggest people do the same.

That is a start.

However, what do you suggest are the most important questions a homeowner should ask an

insulation contractor? Educating the customer is usually a good way to improve standards.

FM-

Hi T,

I agree and you're right. Education is extremely important and I think the likes of SEAI

should be providing more of this for all who are interested in improving their homes. They do

provide some information but you have to go and search a website for it.

Regarding what questions you should ask...

1. Ask contractors about thermal bridging, condensation, protection measures for water

pipes and tanks. Even if you don't understand fully all of these things, you may well

get a good idea to whether the installer does. I know for a fact that there are many

installers out there who haven't got a clue about thermal bridging or what even causes

condensation or mould growth never mind protecting against it!

2. Also, as a general rule, you should ask the cheaper installers much more questions or

even eliminate them as they are by far the most likely to be cutting corners, using

cheap materials etc. The more expensive guy may well be just as bad but if he's


162

charging enough, at least there's some chance the job will be done right. The guy who

pushes on price saying things like "You won't beat that price” WILL NOT install to

high standards. As any reputable, quality installer will testify; working to the highest

standards using good materials, simply will not allow the price to be the lowest out

there.

3. How thorough is the site survey or is there even a site survey. Any contractor who

"doesn't need to survey" can't possibly know what's required and therefore can't

possibly give a proper quotation.

4. How much detail is in the quotation/proposal? This can give a good indication to how

much a contractor knows and cares about a project.

5. Ask for references. Of course this cannot guarantee a contractor’s quality as the

person referring may know and are friends with the contractor or maybe doesn't even

know the difference between good and bad installations. If you get any hint however

that things weren't up to scratch, then run!

JM-

Firstly my apologies, I appear to have started two parallel posts both of which are receiving

replies, which was not my intention, this was down to me editing the first version on-line. I

have posted this reply to both posts.

Thank you for your responses, I have to say they confirm the fact that these problems are

widespread.

F hits the nail on the head with his comment “There is nowhere near enough regulation and

no penalties for doing things the wrong way.” We simply don’t have an effective building

regulation system here in Ireland, and what penalties could be applied are not an adequate

deterrent.

I don’t believe there is at present sufficient follow up inspections on grant assisted works. I

was involved as an assessor for the SERVE project http://servecommunity.ie/ which offered

householders additional funding for energy upgrade works. The Tipperary Energy Agency

which managed the project, developed their own quality assurance scheme to ensure that the

works were carried out competently which involved contractor workshops and post upgrade

inspections. The upshot of this is that the quality of the upgrade works was consistently high

and if we are to achieve similar results across the country then this is the approach we should

be taking nationwide.


163

As F and M commented cost is generally an issue and the analogy of buying a cheap car and

expecting it to run like a Rolls Royce is apt. Mostly you do get what you pay for, although

with the recent client of mine, she paid good money for an expensive product installed in the

wrong place, and although not buying a Rolls certainly thought she was heading for a

Mercedes in terms of performance.

It never ceases to amaze me how much some householders will spend inside their homes on

appliances furnishings and decoration, and how little they are prepared to spend on its fabric,

it almost being a badge of honour to say how little they paid for work done.

T asks how do you find a decent contractor and the response by F is to the point. Educating

the customer is always the best approach; however with most companies any information

provided is more about the promotion of their product. Possibly SEAI could step up to the

mark here!

As someone who is involved in the physical testing of building performance, I heartily agree

with D when he says “People fail products - Products do not fail people” It is difficult to

explain to a customer that has paid for good materials that the installation is not up to

standard.

Many modern building products need to be installed as part of a system, which needs to be

properly designed and implemented. Unfortunately there are many builders who don’t

appreciate this and build houses as they always have done but with newer materials, saying

“that’s way we have always done it” as though that somehow makes it right.

The education process has to start with the contractors, and has to encompass all related

trades. I am fortunate that when I started in the building industry there were no ‘sub

contractors’, even small building companies directly employed their workforce and all trades

were catered for, and with a company clerk of works to keep everyone on the right track. This

meant that no one trade ever left a problem for another and an apprenticeship in one trade led

to a good understanding of all others.

I understand that it’s no good looking backwards but I maintain that there needs to be an

overlap of knowledge so that no one trade leaves a problem for another which then creates an

even bigger problem to the householder, and I would certainly welcome the sight of more

Clerks of the Works!


164

BK-

You remind me of the past J. The painters refusing to paint over a spot of glazed plaster and

demanding to getting waiting time while we sorted out the spot of glazed plaster and the

Clerk of Works refereeing the debate.

Now most of the plaster is glazed and the guy with the paint brush paints everywhere with

polly bond.

JM-

B Hi, you have reminded me that painter and decorator was a real trade, and of many times as

a 'lad' receiving a blow on the head from a small piece of linseed putty for checking the

painters, who would mix and knead the putty on a sheet of newspaper before use for glazing

and filling small gaps in painted woodwork.

P.S. my uncle was the Clerk of Works and a tough nut; he had the lightest touch that would

find the smallest imperfection. He was known to remove locks and inspect lock mortises for

neatness and debris! He was however a real Jack of all trades and could hold his own against

any tradesman.

PK-

I know two people who achieved a high quality retrofit to a dormer.

They both did it themselves.

J, I fear even in SERVE we were unable to get to an acceptable standard for dormers. I would

ask the question to the few insulation contractors, as this is a pertinent question. It is not what

can be done, but what can be done that achieves a balance between cost effectiveness and

quality. Yes we would all be delighted to rip all the plasterboard down, and start afresh full

AT membrane etc., but in truth that is not cost effective in terms of kWh saved per Euro

invested.

I would love to see a brochure / method statement from any of you above that actually does

this upgrade.... with an indicative cost for an example building. Not the Rolls Royce, but an

achievable balanced upgrade, with a real chance of being taken up.

DK-

The real problem is education for the contractor and the customer.

Understanding what are the right types of products for the application.


165

First question and the most important one to the customer is: what do you want to achieve

from your insulation and associated building products? Thermal, Acoustic, Breathable, Air

tightness, Fire Safe solutions Maybe all 5.

The insulation contractor or building contractor needs to explain the difference between the

insulation materials and offer choice of products by performance before brand.

Most customers will be offered a guarantee for the insulation materials. The customer should

ask for a guarantee for the application to ensure the products are fitted correctly.

This would encourage best practice applications.

Insulation is not rocket science but is the most important building material to go into any

building. If the insulation fails everything else relating to the energy performance fails.

SOLVER insulation calculator and insulation training guide identifies product by

performance and will go a long way to improving what is happening in the industry today

If anyone would like a demonstration of SOLVER feel free to contact me on XXXXXXX. "If

you can't explain it you should not be selling it".

ME-

P, every building is different and performs differently. Particularly when you could be dealing

with a building 100yrs. old or 20yrs. old. How can a small private company produce method

statements, brochures that can provide you with all the information you need?

Is that not what our government agencies are supposed to be doing?

We survey buildings on a case by case basis and offer our advice directly to the customer. If

you have surveyed some of these older buildings you'll find some crazy stuff. You might first

have to take care of structural remedial work before you can worry about energy efficiency?

Unfortunately I find you have to spend more money than you would hope to on these older

building's if you want to do the job right. I laugh when I hear the likes of SEAI etc. talk about

spending €1500.00 to €3,000.00 on retrofitting a house?

A German speaker said it at the Retrofit Conference in Croke Park; he stood up and said he

finds it amazing that we think we can improve the energy efficiency of our buildings on

budgets like above.

I know the country is broke but we need to get real about this we spend Billions on fuel

allowance but when the 'dreaded builders' want to be actually paid for doing a good job we try


166

and avoid it at all costs. A lot of builders did very poor work but why don't our government

agencies get out there are police the industry, on site, not sitting in an office!

MB-

I am currently retrofitting my own dormer style house with cellulose insulation on the roof

slopes and dormers.

I have stripped out the plasterboard and fiberglass insulation to expose the rafters. The

underside of the rafter is then lined with Solitex breathable membrane and sealed around each

floor joist down to the cavity closer. The same is done at the ceiling joist allowing the solitex

up 300-400mm over ceiling level. I then added in new 75*50mm rafters on a sole plate,

supported by a new purlin, and tied in at ceiling joist to create a cavity in which to add the

cellulose. I have chosen 300mm. The underside of the new rafter is then lined with Intello and

sealed as before at all joists and ceiling (ground floor), sides and again to the foil of the

existing ceiling slab (first floor). New walls are created internally at the dormer to create a

void also. The voids are then packed with cellulose (in stages with the application of the

Intello) to insure it is uniformly packed.

It works well but is very time consuming as I am packing in the cellulose by hand to approx.

50kg/m3. I chose this as a solution as stripping off the slates was not an option and I could

afford to make the rooms smaller as well as the dormers having adequate room either side of

the windows to add insulation. Too many dormers in this country have barely 100mm either

side when viewed externally - it just tells you how much insulation is present!

I am doing all the work myself and I can only imagine what a builder would need to charge to

cover the hours involved in the preparation alone, as well as each situation being unique and

calling for different approaches. As has been mentioned it can be done by DIY as long as

there is a good understanding of the products and their application.

JM-

Thank you all for engaging in this debate, there are so many angles to what should be a

straightforward solution, but as M says “every building is different and performs differently”

and therefore the approach has to be tailored to the specific dwelling.

As P says even with the SERVE project standards cost was still an issue although I personally

don’t just see these problems in terms of kWh saved per Euro invested. All too often the

usefulness of dormer roof rooms is severely compromised. The house I visited which

prompted my original post has 3 children all trying to study in rooms that it is impossible to


167

keep warm in, not conducive to effective study. Fortunately the householder can see an

investment in ‘proper insulation’ is an investment in her children.

But let’s call a spade a spade, the type of construction we are talking about is a ‘room in the

roof’ and a cold roof construction to boot. It is impossible to maintain an effective thermal

envelope when the envelope is more akin to a net.

I am pleased to see the responses from people who have come up with effective solutions to

their own particular circumstances. It is possible to maintain an effective thermal envelope

with a cold roof construction, but much easier with a warm roof construction.

Fortunately I am seeing a good few new builds with warm roofs. But my own situation is

somewhat privileged as I have conducted more than 25 air permeability tests at the ECO

village in CloughJordan, most of which are warm roof constructions. I doubt if this is as yet

the norm, although maybe someone can enlighten me.

What concerns me is that we are still collectively making the same mistakes in construction

over and over. We all understand the shortcomings of our Building Control, a situation I

personally find incredible. We improve our Building Regulations in line with (but generally

behind) the rest of Europe but have no effective means of control in place. I have been in

communication recently with the Dept. of Environment on another matter, and was assured

that we will be ‘stepping up to the mark’ in the future, unfortunately I heard that one 5 years

ago.

I am reminded of a good friend of mine, a Dubliner who sadly is no longer with us who told

me many years ago that if we imagine the building regulations as a line and the minimum

standard required.

A German builder on approaching the line and seeing it will take one step past it. An English

builder on seeing the line will make sure that his toes are directly on it, and an Irish builder on

seeing the line will get close and then decide that ‘it’s near enough’. I still hear his words!

MC-

Having read most of the solutions to the room-in-roof retrofit debate, I haven’t seen the word

VENTILATION a part of any procedure which is, as important as insulation?

DK-

You are right M if you would like a free copy of my SOLVER insulation guide it clearly

identifies the ventilation as being a very important part of the insulation specification. J a


168

warm roof with the insulation board fixed over the rafters can have its own problems to. The

fixings to secure the insulation through the counter battens into the roof rafters are very

expensive and I have seen regular nails being used for this application. Unless we inspect the

build we will always have problems. We do not have to rely on building control to do the

work of a good site foreman or contracts manager. We just have to lose the attitude - It’s

alright jack you won't see it from my house.

I have had conversations with insulation manufacturer’s sales people and insulation

distributor’s through Ireland over the quality of application of their products and all I get in

reply is yes we know what is going on but we are not responsible for bad workmanship.

Guess what suppliers your brand is being damaged from the lack of courage to speak up and

work with the applicators and at least make an effort to improve the situation for future

building.

JM-

Hi M you will see from my original post the phrase “Make the ‘room in the roof’ air tight

ensuring correct airflow through the roof structure”

This of course was referring to the roof structure, you are so right that adequate ventilation

needs to be provided for occupation, and this at all times must be controllable.

All too often even on new builds I hear the phrase “well you need some ventilation” when I

am pointing out the presence of air leakage paths.

Some builders still consider leakage as ventilation, which if not controllable can never be

efficient. In the summer on a still day you have none when you need it, and on a windy day

you have plenty when you don’t need it!

I often survey houses with absolutely no ventilation at all, and these houses typically have

open fires and shower rooms. Then there are the ones which have tee-shirts or towels stuffed

into the permanent vents, apparently to ‘keep the heat in’.

That I think deserves a Post all to itself!

JM-

D as you so rightly say any product needs to be installed correctly as I have already said ‘as

part of a system’. This needs to be correctly specified at the design stage by the architect or

specifier. I rarely see this level of detail included with a set of plans, and in fact recently saw


169

plans for a house (with problems) which had planning permission granted in 2006 and which

referenced the 1997 building regulations!

Today I had a call from a local builder who on looking through plans for a new build he was

to cost, could find no detail regarding installation of insulation only a manufacturers name.

When I asked him the name of the Architect, in case it was someone I had dealt with he said

the only name he could find was the name ‘Mark’ which says it all.

This issue of incorrect installation of product i.e. not as part of a system was well

demonstrated to me 5 years ago when a local Garda called me to his new house. He was

having high fuel bills and could not understand why, as he had used the most up to date

products suggested by his builder, and which were suggested by his supplier.

The builder had installed a ‘wonderful’ new product, which supposedly was the equivalent of

200mm of fiberglass to the attic it was what I like to call ‘foil backed bubble wrap’ this

particular brand originating in France.

Rather than read the instructions, the product was stapled to the underside of the joists and the

plasterboard directly fixed to the joists i.e. no air gap between plasterboard and product. The

Garda was not amused when I explained that the rather expensive material was in fact to all

intents and purposes just acting as a vapour barrier and not as insulation.

This product had no Agreement certification as in insulating product in the UK, and in tests

by BRE it was not possible to reproduce the insulating qualities claimed by the manufacturer,

after the subject was brought up in the UK parliament question time, it was decided that

individual Building Control departments could decide whether or not it could be used in their

area. As this was going on in the UK it started to appear on suppliers shelves here.

I am always suspicious of any product which appears to cheat the laws of physics, and I am

glad to say apart from one other occasion where there were even worse consequences I have

not seen it used since.

If anyone would like an explanation as to why a low emissivity coating does not work, and

cannot work when in contact with a conductive element I would be pleased to oblige.

DM-

All very interesting and well considered points - and it is very promising to see professionals

share their expertise for the good of all concerned.


170

I made the point to the RIAI recently that the contracting industry does not appear to have a

CPD programme. There is very little point in the designer/specifier upgrading his/her level of

skill and knowledge if the person actually implementing that design/specification has not kept

pace with the developments in their specific trade.

My second bone of contention is the really pointless way that we approach regulation. The

lack of proper inspection and the ridiculous notion that is 'Self Certification' really must end.

I have inspected quite a number of new build houses for sale purposes and never managed to

give one a clean bill of health on the subject of Compliance with Building Regs or Planning

Conditions and yet, they had all been granted certificates of compliance for both.

It's a line of work that I would happily abandon due to the risk of clinical depression!

JC-

It seems that only in Ireland (as a whole) do builders get away with this sort of thing so

readily. It seems that a structure being physically safe and acceptable in appearance/finish is

at best their only real concern. Somehow they feel that ensuring energy efficiency is

maintained through appropriate construction related measures such as insulation is not their

concern other than to make 'some' level of effort towards it especially where it can be seen

easily (i.e. they 'tick the insulation box') for the local authority.

It's an area where the builder can cut costs (or not include them in the first place) without the

client initially being any the wiser. Ensuring air tightness but maintaining sufficient

ventilation to prevent condensation is of course possible but requires time and effort few

builders are prepared to budget for, even if they know how best to achieve it.

I have seen it all. Houses with clever heat recovery installations, and renewable technologies,

yet little or no real thought given to adequate insulation and air tightness. It's like pouring

water into a bucket with holes in it and wondering why it will never fill.

DK-

Hi J It is not only Ireland that has this problem. In the UK it is every bit as bad as Ireland

when it comes to choosing and applying the correct type of insulation and associated building

products for each application.

The application standard in both countries is much the same. I have the images to prove this

statement.


171

1. The seller/manufacturer must produce application standards and provide the builder

with the details.

2. The customer must be clear with the builder exactly what they are trying to achieve.

3. The builder and the customer must inspect the product application before the walls

and floors are closed up. Job done. It’s not rocket science. Blame, blame, blame does

not fix the problem...

PE-

Hi Guys, there is some great comments there and it is clear that we are all passionate about

building tight and ventilating tight! I too have seen many of these problems with the lack of

care and general pride in tradesmen’s work, however it is not all tradesmen but education is

the key to improving building standards in conjunction with stringent building control. I am

currently back at college completing my BSc in Construction Management in Bolton St and I

am researching the benefits and limitations of applying the EnerPHit/low energy standard to

an existing semidetached dwelling.

I am using my own 3 bed semi d dormer as a case study. C2 BER rating, I will be running it

through the PHPP next. I performed an air test about 3 years ago and it was 13.5m3/h/m2.

The fans struggled to pressurize the house. I have no doubt by the large this is the same

countrywide.

I think ye may be interested in the results from my survey. I have had 64 responses since

Sunday the link will be open for another 10 days or so. I can forward them to anyone who is

interested? The link to take part is

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFNDdlBWR1hNMHdYX3E4Q0N

EVVpTeHc6MQ

I am on the Passive House Designers Course with Michael and share his views on Clients

always wanting the cheapest option, not the most cost effective over the life cycle of the

dwelling...Every dwelling will pose unique challenges and I for one would be reluctant to let

just 'any' tradesman near my own home. Every retrofit should be treated like it is your own

home with attention to detail but this will not be at the lowest price but a fair price for all.

Value does not constitute the cheapest price and comfort levels along with the health benefits

must be given real consideration and let’s not forget moisture transfer. Joseph Little has

written some great articles on this you will get them on his website. I hope to continue my

research next year with a research masters so I would be very grateful for any thoughts on the


172

survey. I am also looking to qualify the results with a couple of interviews. You guys seem

well placed if anyone may be interested? Kind regards

JL-

Gentlemen, I'm delighted to see such a passionate outpouring of energy, enthusiasm and

spleen! :-)

I think the only way is to scaffold-up, strip the roof, and build-up the layers again working

from both sides with a focus on air tightness and quality re-enforced by making several air

tightness tests part of the process and by making final payments contingent on achieving the

desired (fair) air tightness values.

Rule #1: no stick - no respect

Rule #2: if it's not named and measured it doesn't exist, or will be treated like it doesn't.

Rule #3: Don't try to do hard things well, make them easier first… then do them brilliantly.

We're going through exactly this learning curve for a builder who has been really pushed to

get to the design value of 1.0m3/m2hr for an EnerPHit project in Monkstown. He thought it

was easy, then impossible, then resisted and has now begun to really grow and perform. I

really feel he will never build the same way again.

JM-

Hi J

Obviously it depends on specific situations, but I don’t think it is always necessary to strip the

roof.

Often a ‘room in the roof’ is a conversion to an existing build, and is essentially a new

structure within the roof space. It is this new structure that is the cause of concern, and the

original roof can remain intact in a well thought out and executed conversion.

Admittedly working space is limited with the roof covering on, and this no doubt contributes

to the general poor quality of conversions. Another factor is that typically the insulation is

seen as the last job to be done, and is not part of the on-going build-up of the conversion.

The voids and awkward corners of the room make it virtually impossible to get to these areas

when plaster boarded.

I certainly concur with your last point, “Don't try to do hard things well, make them easier

first, and then do them brilliantly”


173

As I said at the start of the post, it’s not rocket science, breaking the job down into component

parts makes each section readily achievable. It does however need to be well thought out and

specified in advance.

I would be interested to know if you achieve the design value of 1.0m3/m2hr for the EnerPHit

project, that is really ‘pushing the boat out’

JL-

We're very close at the moment: 1.07. Pleased.

JM-

Hi J, you deserve to be pleased! That is a very respectable result; I suspect the result of

considerable planning & application. It just shows what can be achieved when the will is

strong and the pocket deep!

Appendix E

Appendix E: Case Study

175

APPENDIX E: CASE STUDY

The contents of this case study have not been verified through the Passive House Planning

Package (PHPP) software, THERM or WUFI (thermal bridging and dynamic moisture

simulation software). Therefore, the subject matter discussed in this case study may not

reflect the true extent of the works required in order to meet the EnerPHit standard and

verification through the software aforementioned will be required. The energy saving

measures suggested in drawings of this Appendix are specific to this case study and may not

be suitable to every retrofit.

The u-values for the major elements being upgraded to achieve the EnerPHit have been

calculated through the PHPP u-value tab and are illustrated in Figures 46, 47, 48 and 49.

Figure 46: Case study - Sloped ceiling u-value calculation (PHPP software)

Figure 47: Case study - Flat dormer u-value calculation (PHPP software)

3 Sloped Ceiling

Assembly No. Building Assembly Description

Heat Transfer Resistance [m²K/W] interior Rsi : 0.10

exterior Rse: 0.04

Area Section 1 l [W/(mK)] Area Section 2 (optional) l [W/(mK)] Area Section 3 (optional) l [W/(mK)] Thickness [mm]

1. Plasterboard 0.250 13

2. Hemp service cavity 0.038 stud 50x44@600ccs 0.130 50

3. Metac insulation 0.034 stud 150x44@600ccs 0.130 150

4. Intello VCL membrane 0.000

5. Thermafleece insulation 0.038 stud 150x44@400ccs 0.130 150

6. Roofing felt 0.000

7.

8.

Percentage of Sec. 2 Percentage of Sec. 3 Total

7.3% 36.3 cm

U-Value: 0.120 W/(m²K)

4 Flat Dormer Ceiling



exterior Rse : 0.04



2. Hemp service cavity 0.038 stud 50x44@600ccs 0.130 50

3. Intello VCL membrane 0.000

4. Thermafleece 0.038 joists 150x44@00ccs 0.130 100

5. Thermafleece 0.038 300

6.

7.

8.


11.0% 7.3% 46.3 cm



176

This case study is non-exhaustive and focuses on three fundamental areas; air tightness,

insulation and ventilation. The proposed energy saving measures for the case study are

illustrated and explained through some commentary on eleven construction drawings which

are included at the end of this report.

For the purpose of this case study the floor will remain untouched; placing insulation on top

of the existing floor will require the staircase to be removed and re-installed and will therefore

not be considered (change of riser height is not permitted under the building regulations).

Figure 48: Case study – Front elevation u-value calculation (PHPP software)

Figure 49: Case study – Side & rear elevation u-value calculation (PHPP software)

AIR TIGHTNESS & SAVING MONEY

The monetary value of air tightness or heat loss through ventilation cannot be neglected. DIN

EN 832 has estimated the infiltration air leakage based on n50 leakage rates (blower door

7 Front elevation



exterior Rse : 0.04



2. Hemp insulation 0.038 stud 50x35@600ccs 0.130 50

3. Intrello VCL membrane 0.000

4. Thermafleece 0.038 stud 220x44@600ccs 0.130 220

5. Existing structure 0.090 150

6.

7.

8.


5.8% 7.3% 43.3 cm


8 Hollow Block walls



exterior Rse : 0.04



2. Hemp insulation 0.038 stud 44x75@400ccs 0.130 50

3. Intrello VCL membrane 0.000

4. Cavity block 0.238 215

5. Sand & Cement render 0.800 25

6. Phenolic board 0.022 150

7.

8.


11.0% 45.3 cm



177

tests). It has estimated that the yearly infiltration rate of buildings without MHRV but with

balanced ventilation systems is between 1-10% of the air leakage rate. This can be determined

with specific climatic data to the site. Without the specific data a figure of 7% can be assumed

(Waltjen, 2009).

A blower door test was carried out on the case study property in December 2008; air

permeability rates of 13.5ach-1

were recorded. Furthermore, according to the method outlined

in DIN EN 832 infiltration air exchange is equivalent to 13.5 ach-1

x 0.07 = 0.945 ach-1

. In

energy saving terms Waltjen (2009) outlined that air infiltration losses of 0.42ach-1

correspond to over 30kWh/m2/yr in energy losses. Therefore, 0.945ach

-1 equals 2.25x0.42

ach-1

. This works out at an astonishing 67.5kWh/m2/yr (2.25 x 30kWh/m

2/yr), this is almost

three times the space heat demand allowance the EnerPHit standard allows (25kWh/m2/yr).

DRAWING NO: 01/02/2012 - FRONT ELEVATION

The front elevation of the case study will remain intact as neighbouring properties have the

same brick façade. Changing the appearance of the dwelling would require planning

permission; therefore, an internal insulation strategy (dry lining) will be deployed.

It is evident from the drawing, that there will be an increased thermal bridge below Damp

Proof Course (DPC) level on the front elevation. The rising walls of the front elevation are

not insulated, whereas the remaining external rising walls will have a 140mm phenolic board

down to the footings. In addition, the chimney breast will remain and will contribute to the

heat loss from the dwelling. The chimney breast in the living room will remain for aesthetic

and occupant preferences and without planning permission or approval of the neighbouring

dwelling, the chimney stack above the roof line will remain un-insulated.

Thermal bridges are present at the wall plate, party wall and side elevation points on the front

elevation. These can be seen in a little more detail in drawings 09/02/2012 and 10/02/2012.

DRAWING NO: 02/02/2012 - SIDE ELEVATION

The side elevation is externally insulated. The windows will be brought out onto the external

façade resting on a 30mm phenolic insulation board on the existing window cill. The

windows will be brought into the insulation layer to increase the installed u-value of the

window and reduce thermal bridges. Ideally, the amount of glazing on this façade (southwest)

should be increased substantially to cover approximately 25% of the wall and allow free solar

gains in to heat the dwelling.


178

The insulation on the drawing is denoted by two colours; mauve and green. The first, refers to

the standard practice that external insulation contractors undertake at present in Ireland;

stopping at the soffit board and at the level of the footpath. The green highlights the best

practice insulation strategy; removing the soffit board and insulating between the gable ladder

noggins and the protruding rafters. The footpath will need to be broken out and removed to

facilitate the continuation of insulation to the footings; reducing the thermal bridge of the

ground floor.

In reality, the soil stack and gully risers would have to be broken out anyway and moved to

the edge of new rendering to allow the external insulation to be fitted properly. However,

anecdotal evidence in relation to this, suggests that the insulation is simply dished around

existing pipes and risers; to keep the costs down and in line with other insulation contractors,

so that the contractors do not get priced out by rival companies. Cost versus quality is clearly

evident here.

The ESB box on the side elevation, needs to move out onto the outside of the external

insulation (re-fixed in anchorage dowels in the insulation) to remove the thermal bridge. At

present the cavities in the ESB box (hollow block wall) are exposed; allowing wind to get into

the cavity and assisting in wind-washing heat loss effect described in the literature review.

Additionally, having inspected the rendering at the soffits and eaves of the side and rear

elevations, the render stops at the soffit board; therefore posing problems in relation to wind-

tightness at the eaves and weatherproofing of the existing dwelling.

DRAWING NO: 03/02/2012 - SIDE ELEVATION SECTIONS 2.1 & 2.2

In section 2.1, a gutex wood fibre insulation board is illustrated below the soffit and behind

the fascia board. This is an added measure to reduce the thermal bridge of the protruding

rafters and gable ladder. The 110mm soil stack pipe as well as the two 50mm foul waste

pipes, which pass through the thermal envelope in section 2.2, are also adding to the heat loss

of the dwelling. During renovations the amount of penetrations through the envelope should

be limited where feasible, therefore reducing thermal bridges and associated heat losses.

DRAWING NO: 04/02/2012 - REAR ELEVATION

The rear elevation continues in the same manner as the side elevation. The external insulation

will stop at the party wall (continuing if the two properties were insulated in one go).

DRAWING NO: 05/02/2012 - PARTY WALL SECTIONAL ELEVATION


179

The insulation and air tightness strategies are illustrated in drawing 05/02/2012. The

insulation is a combination of external insulation, thermafleece sheepswool insulation, metac

high performance flexible mineral wool and 50mm hemp insulation in the service cavity.

The sheepswool (thermal conductivity 0.038 W/mK) is fitted between existing 150mm

rafters, down over the wall plate as far as the fascia board and also against the front elevation

(dry lined between 50mm x 220mm timber I-beam studs @ 600c/c). This insulation is outside

both the air tightness line and Vapour Control Line (VCL). Sheepswool can absorb and

release moisture and has an added benefit of acting as an early warning signal for potential

moisture related problems. The insulation will give off a smell if it remains wet over a

sustained period of time.

The air tightness layer will comprise of a combination of wet plaster, intello intelligent

membrane and air tightness tapes. It will follow the internal face of the sheepswool insulation

on the front elevation, continue up along the rafters and return down the inside face of the

hollow block wall at the rear of the dwelling. Where the internal block wall is tied into the

party wall, the airtight line will continue over the wall. See drawing 09/02/2012 for the

ground floor plan air tightness line. As a general rule designing an airtight line, the pencil

cannot leave the page (polyline in AutoCAD).

Next, the metac insulation is fitted between the 150mm timber I-beams, counter battened to

the sloping ceiling and on inside the air tightness zone (metac has a slightly better thermal

conductivity of 0.034 W/mK). A service cavity comprising of 50mm hemp insulation

(thermal conductivity 0.038 W/mK) with 50mm battens @600c/c completes the insulation of

the dwelling and will prevent puncturing the airtight layer during decoration and use of the

building. The service cavity serves another purpose along the party wall, by reducing the

thermal bridge at the front and rear elevations junctions of the party wall.

DRAWING NO: 06/02/2012 - PARTY WALL ELEVATION SECTIONS 5.1,

5.2, 5.3, 5.4 & 5.5

Section 5.3 illustrates a key thermal bridging point of the existing structure. Without remedial

works, comprising of either upgrading the floor insulation (major works will be required) or

‘dry lining’ the internal masonry walls a large linear thermal bridge will be present.

DRAWING NO: 07/02/2012 - SIDE ELEVATION SECTIONAL

The air tightness line will need to follow the insulation line of the dormer roof construction as

shown in this drawing. Furthermore, there is no block walls tied into the structure on the side


180

elevation, therefore, the air tightness line will follow the level of the finished floor. However,

unless the staircase is moved the airtight line will have to follow the stair string. This will

inevitably pose a challenge to achieving the desired level of air tightness during retrofitting.

At present the internal wall of the side elevation is ‘dry lined’. The stair string is just one of

the numerous breaks in the internal insulation layer. The first floor joists are also built into the

wall. The internal stud walls separating the kitchen, W/C and utility rooms have not been

exposed, however, one expects that the studwork is fixed to the hollow block walls and poses

the same thermal bridge effect as the stair string and floor joists. However, it must be noted,

that all of these thermal bridges are eliminated once the external insulation is applied.

The Mechanical Heat Recovery Ventilation (MHRV) unit, complete with heat exchanger, is

located in the utility room underneath the stair case. The supply and extract grills will be

located on the external wall at 2m c/c, to avoid cross flow contamination. It is also imperative

that the supply grill is in a zone where no other contamination can enter the grill (e.g.

neighbouring chimney, boiler flue or car exhaust etc.), ensuring a hygienic and fresh supply

air flow.

The MHRV is illustrated passing through a bulkhead in the W/C and kitchen, teeing off up

into the first floor, through the knee wall of the dormer. The ducting needs to stay within the

insulated envelope to reduce heat and distribution losses. Care must be taken when installing

the ducting to ensure every piece of the ducting is insulated as required, maximising

efficiencies. In addition, the MHRV unit must be located as close as is practically possible to

the supply and extract grills. The PHPP software makes this a requirement.

DRAWING NO: 08/02/2012 - SIDE ELEVATION SECTIONS 7.1 & 7.2

The raised ceiling of the kitchen extension is illustrated in sections 7.1 and 7.2. The insulation

is a combination of sheepswool, mineral wool and a hemp service cavity, as shown in the

drawing.

DRAWING NO: 09/02/2012 - GROUND FLOOR PLAN

The location of the supply and extract ducts on the ground floor, are demonstrated in drawing

09/02/2012. Both the extract and supply grills, are located as deep into the room possible;

assisting in the ventilation of the whole dwelling and ensuring the humidity in every corner of

the dwelling is taken into the ventilation system.


181

Fresh (warm) air is pumped into living rooms and bedrooms while the ‘stale’ humid air is

removed from the kitchens, utilities and bathrooms. A 10mm gap around the entire doorframe

is required to allow the circulation of air in the circulation zone.

The thermal bridges identified in this drawing are the foul waste ground floor penetrations in

the kitchen, W/C, bedroom 3 and the brick fireplace in the living room. The fireplace will

remain on request of the occupants. However, removing the fireplace would be more in line

with passive principles (air tightness and ventilation losses) but, a high efficiency stove will

be fitted instead.

The air tightness line follows the internal block walls and is located behind the service cavity

that wraps the majority of the dwelling.

DRAWING NO: 10/02/2012 - GROUND FLOOR SECTIONS 9.1, 9.2 & 9.3

Some of the pertinent thermal bridging and air tightness pinch points of the case study are

illustrated in sections 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3.

DRAWING NO: 11/02/2012 - FIRST FLOOR PLAN

The ventilation ductwork is located behind the knee wall of the dormer and will pass through

bulkheads where required. To encourage air flow, the supply and extract grills are located as

deep into the room as possible during installation.