Design Detailing - Evidence Base Report - v2

Evidence base report
Design detailing for materials resource

efficiency
A guide to ten alternative construction design details which offer good

materials resource efficiency.
Project code: WAS400-040 ISBN: N/A

Research date: November 2008 – May 2009 Date: v1 November 2009
v2 August 2010
WRAP’s vision is a world without waste,
where resources are used sustainably.
We work with businesses and individuals

to help them reap the benefits of reducing
waste, develop sustainable products and
use resources in an efficient way.
Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk
Written by: Ben Stubbs, Faithful+Gould, Euston Tower, 286 Euston Road, London. NW1 3AT
Front cover photography: Voided Biaxial Slab, photo courtesy of Bubbledeck UK.
WRAP and Faithful+Gould believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and
regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken
in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.).
The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to
ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being
inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain
whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by
WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the
material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must
not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP’s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its
web site: www.wrap.org.uk
Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Background...........................................................................................................................4
1.2 Selection of design details......................................................................................................4
1.3 Assessment criteria................................................................................................................5
2.0 Design details........................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Exposed ceilings ....................................................................................................................9
2.2 Rotary displacement piles .................................................................................................... 12
2.3 Castellated and cellular beams ............................................................................................. 12
2.4 Post tensioned floor slab ......................................................................................................12
2.5 Voided biaxial slab ............................................................................................................... 12
2.6 Flexible plumbing systems.................................................................................................... 12
2.7 Aerated concrete blocks with thin joint mortar....................................................................... 12
2.8 Polished concrete floor......................................................................................................... 12
2.9 Low waste door jamb .......................................................................................................... 12
2.10 Tile detailing ....................................................................................................................... 12
Version
Version Issue date Brief description
1 Nov 2009 Original issue
2 Aug 2010 Section 2.2 amended
Acknowledgements
For Atkins
Sean Lockie (Surveyor) Mike Sillett (Architect)

Jon Casey (Sustainability) Ian Marlowe (Environment)
Dorte Jorgensen (Engineer) Tom Gent (Architect)
Julian Sutherland (Engineer) Chris Nunn (Environment)
Martin Pease (Architect) Steve Watson (Quantity Surveyor)
Expert Panel
Elaine Toogood, Concrete Centre Neil Paterson, BRE

Steve Millward, CPA/Jewson Dave Marsh, WRAP
Anthony Harker, EIC Sean Rath, Carillion
Lucy Hall, ISG Ben Mackinnon, Jacobs
Robin Fleming, ISG Jolanda Putri, Willmot Dixon/Re-thinking
Paul Cockaday, Laing O’Rourke Richard Biggs, CIC
Lee Alexander, Crest Nicholson
Product Manufacturers/Specialist Contractors
Armstrong Ceilings
Bachy Soletanche (Geotechnical Specialists)
Bubbledeck, UK (Voided Biaxial Slab)
Ecoflor (Polished Concrete Floors)
Hep2O (Flexible Plumbing)
Knauf (Plasterboard)
May Gurney (Piling Contractor)
ASD Westok (Castellated/Cellular Beams)
Design detailing for materials resource efficiency 3

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
Achieving the construction sector commitment target of halving construction waste to landfill by 2012 will require
construction designers to identify and act upon opportunities to improve materials resource efficiency (reduced
use of materials and waste creation) through planning and design of projects.
Work undertaken by WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme), Envirowise, AMEC and the BRE has shown
that reducing waste being created has a far greater positive impact on reducing waste to landfill compared with
improving on-site management of waste. It has also been shown that reducing waste is far more cost-effective.
The principles of Good and Best practice Site Waste Management Plans (SWMP) promote that the best
opportunities to improve materials resource efficiency occur by working at the earliest stages possible in the
construction process. Clearly, working with design teams to implement this through the design process is a critical
link in achieving the target.
Decisions made throughout the evolution of a design can have a major impact on the levels of materials used and
waste which arises during the physical construction, and future demolition, of a project. High-level decisions (for
example, the layout or form of a building) and more detailed-level decisions (for example, those that relate to the
design of specific elements of a building) can be equally influential. Often these decisions are made based on
considerations such as site constraints, client requirements for improved performance or finish, or compliance
with Building Regulations, but rarely include improving materials resource efficiency. WRAP is therefore working
with designers to build their knowledge and experience of materials resource efficiency, and provide the tools and
resources they need to implement it. Two key resource guides have been published by WRAP:
 Designing out Waste: a design team guide for buildings1.

 Designing out Waste: a design team guide for civil engineering2.
A further resource is a series of data sheets of design details which can provide improved materials resource
efficiency compared to standard design details commonly used in UK construction projects. The purpose of these
data sheets is to support design teams (architects, consultants, engineers) to consider and implement
opportunities for improving materials resource efficiency through the design process.
This document provides information on the development of ten data sheets. It presents the basis of the research
and the assumptions and underlying data used. The ten data sheets are available from
www.wrap.org.uk/construction and are:
 Exposed ceiling;
 Rotary displacement piles;
 Castellated and cellular beams;
 Post-tensioned floor slab;
 Voided biaxial slab;
 Flexible plumbing systems;
 Aerated concrete blocks with thin joint mortar;
 Polished concrete floor;
 Low waste door jamb; and
 Tile detailing.
1.2 Selection of design details

The identification of appropriate design details was carried out in consultation with a panel of experts drawn from
various disciplines across the industry; this included architects, designers, technical consultants, engineers,
specialist contractors, suppliers and manufacturers. The aim of this process was to ensure that individual details
could make a significant contribution to materials resource efficiency through reduced materials use and/or
reduced waste creation. A list of consultees is provided in the acknowledgments section of this document.
The development of specific design detail sheets builds on previous research by WRAP on design detailing for
resource efficiency which resulted in a long list of potential details (Appendix 1). This list was assessed by the
expert panel and a resulting short list was then further refined in consultation with individual experts to ensure
that the selected options have the potential to deliver measurable benefits.
1
Available for download from www.wrap.org.uk/construction
2
Available for download from www.wrap.org.uk/construction from January 2010.

Analysis of wastage rate data from WRAP’s NetWaste tool3 was also carried out to identify elements and items
which generate the most waste (by percentage); this list was further modified taking into account how items
could be influenced by design interventions. The table of wastage rates identified during this exercise is included
in Appendix 2.
Final selection was based on the following key criteria:

 Potential availability of design information and data;
 Potential for practical application (e.g. in terms of cost, availability, acceptability etc);
 Potential for designer influence;
 Prospects for resource efficiency savings – particularly with regard to waste; and
 Successful application on a range of completed projects (details which are theoretical or in the early stages of
development were excluded).
1.3 Assessment criteria

All of the design details were assessed according to a set list of seven criteria identified during the consultation
process. These criteria were selected based on the following:
 Potential for reduced materials use / waste creation. This is the key objective of the design detail sheets;
 Relevance to designers and the design process;
 Construction programme implications (i.e. time, cost, constructability, replicability); and
 Carbon reduction potential. The construction industry as a whole has a major responsibility in meeting
challenging government targets for carbon reduction, as outlined in the Climate Change Act.
Where relevant, benefits have been quantified based on reliable, auditable data; however, this is subject to the
limitations of data availability and variations in the options available for each design detail. In addition,
appropriate measures are not available for all criteria (e.g. constructability, replicability). Quoted benefits
should therefore be treated as a guide only; actual benefits are likely to vary on a project-by-
project basis.
In addition to these core criteria, a set of additional criteria were identified which may also have implications for
the efficiency of some of the design details throughout their life cycle. Where relevant, information on these
criteria is given below but is not included as separate categories on the design sheets.
The quantification of benefits under different assessment criteria for the design details involved the collection of
data from a wide variety of sources. This included product manufacturers and suppliers, cost consultants,
academic literature and construction professionals. All sources are referenced in the footnotes of relevant
sections.
CORE CRITERIA
1.3.1 Reduced materials use and waste creation

The main objective of promoting the design details is to bring about improved materials resource efficiency
through reduced materials use and/or reduced waste creation. For each of the ten options, potential savings
have been calculated. Implications for further efficiencies throughout a building’s structure are also noted where
relevant.
The units of measurement for materials resource efficiency vary between different design details according to: a)
the most appropriate format to describe savings that can be achieved; and b) data availability. For most details
the metrics are volume, area or mass; however, length is also used in the case of piping for plumbing.
Whilst absolute numbers based on real examples have been provided where possible, reductions are actually best
described in percentage terms for most of the details because a range of sizes or configurations are available.
The main potential materials resource efficiency benefits also vary between different details. For some, the main
benefit is materials savings; for others it is reduced waste. Data is for whichever is most appropriate, or both
metrics where possible.
3
WRAP NetWaste Tool [www.wrap.org.uk/nwtool]

Sources of information in materials resource efficiency include manufacturers specifications, quantity surveyors,
architects and structural engineers.
1.3.2 Cost implications

A full list of cost comparisons for all design details is provided in Appendix 3.
An assessment of potential cost savings which could be achieved by specifying each of the design details was
provided by Faithful+Gould and based on specific examples.
It should be noted that cost savings were not a prerequisite for inclusion of a design detail; in fact some options
may cost more to procure and install than standard options. However, the cost of individual design details should
be viewed in whole life terms; any extra costs may be offset by efficiencies which they can facilitate elsewhere in
the programme, or due to maintenance or operational savings.
1.3.3 Time implications

The potential for any time savings which can be achieved by using each design detail have been assessed and
quantified where possible. However, precise savings will depend on the type of project, it’s location and the
working practices of individual contractors. Where time savings can be achieved, this has clear implications for
overall programme efficiency and may also result in cost savings.
1.3.4 Carbon reduction

The construction industry is under increasing pressure to make deep cuts in the carbon emissions (as well as
other greenhouse gases) for which it is responsible. For each design detail potential reductions in embodied
and/or operational carbon have been assessed and quantified as far as possible.
Unless otherwise stated, all embodied carbon calculations were based on data contained within Bath University’s
‘Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE)’4. This is currently the most widely recognised source of such data
covering a wide range of construction materials. Where carbon factors are unavailable for specific materials,
calculations are based on the nearest equivalent.
1.3.5 Recycling implications

Designers may have the opportunity to specify recycled content as an option for materials used in individual
design details. It is also important to consider the recyclability of specified materials once a building is
decommissioned. This section includes information on whether or not recycled content can be specified as well
as end of life recycling options.
1.3.6 Constructability
Issues which may influence the constructability of individual element, both positive and negative, have been
noted. It is particularly important for designers to be aware of any special considerations which should be taken
into account during the construction programme. Examples include any extra skills or tools which may be
required for installation compared to the standard option.
1.3.7 Replicability
The potential to replicate design details across a number of different types of project is important. Where
individual details are limited to certain types of project, this has been noted.
4
Bath University (2006) Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE)

ADDITIONAL CRITERIA
1.3.8 Impact on structure

Some of the design details may have an impact on the overall structure of the building; for example, this may
include changes in weight, stresses, dimensions or layout. Such impacts, whether positive or negative, are noted
in this section.
1.3.9 Procurement issues

Most of the design details and related skills are widely available within the UK. Where there are any issues
regarding the availability of specific options, these are identified.
1.3.10 Off site construction

Design details which involve offsite construction techniques, or options for offsite construction, together with the
potential benefits that this may bring, have been noted.
1.3.11 Salvaged components

The use of carefully sourced, salvaged components has clear advantages for improving materials resource
efficiency and reducing waste to landfill. Although no such opportunities were identified for the current set of
design details, this category could be an important consideration for future design details.
1.3.12 Longevity
The expected design life of each of the design details is important in the consideration of life cycle materials
resource efficiency. Long term materials savings and reductions in waste to landfill may be no better than for
standard options if replacement intervals are much shorter or intensive maintenance is required.
1.3.13 Packaging
Packaging waste can be a major contributor to landfill waste; the construction industry is responsible for major
quantities of such waste. Where relevant, the likely extent of packaging waste has been assessed.
1.3.14 Standardisation
For many design details standardisation of sizes, installation or appearance is crucial to ensure adoption across a
range of building types and projects. Where relevant, the availability of standard options is noted; however, by
their nature, several of the details are bespoke for individual projects (e.g. beams, floor slabs)
1.3.15 Dimensional coordination

Any specific issues concerning the dimensional coordination of each design detail with other products or
materials, or as part of building elements, are noted in this section.
1.3.16 Repairability
The ability to perform simple, cost effective repairs is essential for the long term viability of some design details.
This section assesses the opportunities for such repairs and any implications repair work may have on aesthetics
or structural integrity.
1.3.17 Deconstructability
The reuse of products and materials, without changing their form, is the most efficient waste management
option. Where it is possible to remove products or materials from buildings for reuse with minimal or no further
processing, this has been noted. However, some elements will always be difficult to reuse; for example, this may
be due to their bespoke nature, materials used, size or position within a building’s structure.
1.3.18 Additional information

Many of the ten design details covered in this document offer further sustainability benefits in addition to those
covered by the headings above; improved thermal performance is one example which applies to a number of
design details. Where these benefits are of note, they have been included under ‘Additional information’.
This section also includes any further important considerations or information for designers who are considering
specifying each of the options.

2.0 Design details
This section presents each of the selected design details, together with a detailed breakdown of the data
collected to demonstrate their benefits, both in terms of materials resource efficiency and other criteria described
above.
For each design detail the following information is provided:
 NBS reference
 Description, including how it differs from standard practice
 Type of projects it is relevant to
 Design stage of implementation
 Relevant standards5
 Quantification of benefits in terms of resource efficiency (as outlined above)
 Quantification of other relevant benefits
 Further useful information
Design details are presented in order of stated design stage.
5
We have listed the main reference codes for each standard; it should be noted that some standards include a number of
versions (e.g. BS EN 12201, Plastic piping systems for water supply, includes separate versions for pipes, fittings, valves, fitness
for purpose etc.)

2.1 Exposed ceilings
Subject Exposed concrete ceilings

NBS reference E05 (In situ concrete construction); E10 (Mixing/ casting/ curing in situ
concrete); E20 (Formwork for in situ concrete); E30 (Reinforcement for
in situ concrete)
Type of projects All building types
Design stage of RIBA Stage B (Design Brief)
implementation
Relevant standards EN 206-1, Concrete. Specification, performance, production and
conformity
BS 8500, Complementary British Standard to EN 206-1
EN 13369, Common rules for precast concrete products
2.1.1 Standard option

Modern commercial buildings generally use suspended ceiling tiles to provide a uniform and ‘desirable’
ceiling finish. This typically involves the use of ceiling tiles which are held in place by a grid of metal
channels suspended on wires from the slab/beams above (Fig. 2.1.1).
However, the installation of such systems can result in high levels of materials use and wastage.
Traditional mineral fibre tiles, for example, can be easily damaged, offcuts are discarded and there are
no opportunities for reuse. In addition, service life is often limited.
Fig. 2.1.1 Suspended ceiling tiles

2.1.2 Resource efficient design detail
Leaving the underside of the concrete slab exposed can provide a high-quality, durable ceiling
alternative, either left bare of finished with a wide variety of textures or colours. It can also provide
benefits in materials resource efficiency.
Exposure of the slab represents good passive design, allowing efficient exploitation of the thermal
mass of the building; it can reduce the need for mechanical heating and cooling.
Where completely exposed concrete isn’t an option, ‘canopy systems’ (clusters of ceiling tiles) can
result in substantially less materials use and waste compared to wall-to-wall coverage. It is also
possible to specify recycled content.
Fig. 2.1.2 Exposed concrete ceiling

2.1.3 Assessment criteria
Criteria Potential benefits Quantification of benefits

Materials  Omission of a secondary ceiling layer results in materials A typical suspended ceiling system
saved savings. requires materials amounting to
 Exposed ceilings avoid offcuts or damaged ceiling tiles. around 5.75kg/m2 (including tiles,
and/or hangers, cross tees etc).6
Reduced This equates to 37m3 of materials for

waste to a 1000m2 building7 (around half of
landfill this is the tiles themselves)
7.5% of materials used in suspended

ceilings is wasted.8
Cost  Although a small additional cost may be required to achieve Minimum net savings of £18/m2 can
implications the desired concrete finish, particularly for bespoke/coloured be expected.9
options, this may be easily offset by the avoidance of
suspended ceiling systems.
Time  Omission of suspended ceilings can result in major labour Labour requirements are approx.
implications savings. 1.5hours/m2.10
Carbon  Major carbon reductions are achievable by reducing the use of The omission of 1000m2 of mineral
reduction secondary finishes. tiles represents an embodied saving
 The exposed thermal mass can help minimise CO2 emissions of 10.4 tonnes CO2e.11 (including
resulting from operational heating and cooling requirements. aluminium suspension system)
 Reduced volume/weight of materials can result in reduced
transport emissions.
Recycling  Consider specifying concrete with recycled content.
implications
Construct-  Extra care is required in specification and installation of

ability exposed concrete.
 Quality control is essential to minimise variations in concrete
appearance.
 Protection during site works is necessary to avoid damage.
Replicability  Suitable for many types of buildings, although may affect
other considerations such as aesthetics, acoustics and M&E
service routes.
 Natural variations in concrete mean that the finish will vary
slightly between projects (and even between pours on the
same project).
Criteria Further considerations

Impact on structure  Provision of M&E services must be planned early; there will be fewer opportunities for
hiding cables etc.
Procurement issues  None
Off-site construction/  The soffits of pre-cast floor slabs may be left exposed, but may require extra finishing
modularisation work.
Salvaged components  N/A

Longevity  High level of durability compared to ‘softer’ finishes such as ceiling tiles or plasterwork.
Minimal maintenance requirements.
 The building will be well adapted to climate change so will have an extended service life
without the need for extensive modifications.
Packaging  N/A
Standardisation  N/A
Dimensional coordination  N/A
Repairability  Repairs or adaptations to large monolithic areas are difficult to conceal and could result
in permanent change in apperance.
Deconstructability  Poor - as with most large areas of concrete structure.
6
WRAP Case Study Data (Southwark School - currently unpublished)
7
Ibid
8
Ibid.
9
Atkins Data. Armstrong Dune Suspended ceiling @ £30/m2; also includes additional cost of fair-faced formwork to soffit plus
two coats of emulsion paint (optional) @ £12/m2.
10
Faithful+Gould Cost Consultancy
11
WRAP Case Study Data (Southwark School - currently unpublished)

 Canopy systems generally use fewer materials than standard suspended ceilings and may
represent a good alternative where exposed concrete is impractical. They can be arranged to
avoid the need to cut tiles and to cover specific parts of the ceiling area only. Mineral and steel
ceiling tiles are recyclable and can be specified with high levels of recycled content.
 Room acoustics can be controlled through diffusion or absorption by special surface finishes,
canopy systems, or other room finishes (e.g. carpets).
 The thermal mass of exposed ceilings can be used effectively as part of a passive design to help
reduce mechanical heating and cooling requirements.
 It is important to establish a design strategy for M&E service distributing at an early stage.
 Concrete is not the only option for exposed ceilings; in situ steel shuttering or timber can also be
left exposed.
2.1.5 Embodied carbon calculation
Table 2.1.5 Embodied carbon of suspended ceiling system12
CO2
Quantity Quantity equivalents Embodied Waste
13
Product materials of waste Material CO2 CO2
(tonnes) (tonnes) kgCO2e/kg (tonnes/1000m2)
Dune Max Board, Mineral Fibre

600x600x18 4.62 0.35 Tile 0.2414 1.11 0.08
Prelude 24 Main
runner 0.22 0.02 Aluminium 8.53 1.86 0.14
Prelude 24 XL Cross
tee 0.45 0.03 Aluminium 8.53 3.85 0.29
Prelude 24 XL Cross
tee unslotted 0.21 0.02 Aluminium 8.53 1.76 0.13
Wire Hangers 0.04 0.00 Steel Wire 2.83 0.11 0.01
Painted shadowline
20x20x20x20mm 0.20 0.01 Aluminium 8.53 1.67 0.13
Design
Totals 10.36 0.78
12
Based on Armstrong Dune Max Ceiling Tiles. WRAP Case Study Data (Southwark School - currently unpublished)
13
14
Assumed equivalent of plasterboard.

2.2 Rotary displacement piles
Subject Rotary displacement piles (RDPs)

Reference number NBS D30 (Piling)
Type of projects All foundation applications where bearing piles are required for either
covered buildings or structures.
Design stage of RIBA Stage C (Concept Design)
implementation
Relevant standards EN 206-1, Concrete. Specification, performance, production and
conformity
BS 8004, Code of practice for foundations
ISO 11886, Building construction machinery and equipment. Pile driving
and extracting equipment.
Eurocode 7, Geotechnical Design
Revisions to the data were provided by Roger Bullivant Ltd in July 2010. The previous text is indicated with a
strikethrough, and new/updated text in red. The data sheet has been updated and reissued accordingly.

Some piling systems are responsible for both intensive materials
use and the creation of significant waste. Structural support is
related to the depth and number of piles whilst drilling can result in
the extraction of significant amounts of spoil, which is often
transported off site for disposal.
 Materials use is determined by the depth of the piles required

to provide the necessary support for a building. Typically this
involves the use of concrete with steel reinforcement.
 Waste is produced by the extraction of significant amounts of

soil for most piling solutions; the resulting spoil often has to be
disposed offsite which can create particular problems and
expense where soil has been contaminated. It can also cause
storage problems onsite.

Rotary displacement piles can provide a viable, resource efficient,
low waste solution for some ground conditions (particularly
granular soils and weathered chalk). They can result in a
reduction in overall foundation costs by reducing pile lengths,
reducing and materials used, minimising spoil arisings.
Rotary displacement involves the use of a ‘boring’ tool (auger)

which penetrates the ground and displaces soils. Concrete is
pumped under pressure into the hollow shaft as the auger is
reversed out; reinforcement can then be added. The resulting
concrete ‘threads’ facilitate load transfer from pile core to soil due Roger Bullivant Ltd advised
to increased overall diameter and surface area of the pile. that this length should be
amended to 11000, and that
Rotary displacement also improves soil strength due to compaction the diameter should be
~25% larger than the CFA
and increased soil density around the pile. It results in minimal pile
spoil which is particularly advantageous on contaminated sites.


Materials  Threaded nature of the pile provides a large surface area Up to 30% increased load bearing
saved15 and overall diameter and can enable short pile lengths capacity, depending on ground
reducing concrete volume. conditions, can enable shortening of
and/or  Ground is displaced rather than removed so minimal spoil is pile.16 Up to 40% reduced length.
created, reducing overall site waste and, potentially, waste
Reduced to landfill. (Materials savings vary widely depending on Up to 58% concrete saving can be
waste to ground conditions and building specification) achieved.17
landfill Corresponding reduced concrete
volume, by up to 32%
Cost  Possible reduction in overall foundation costs by reducing Up to 32% (Average Approx £400) cost
implications pile lengths and diameter of core depending on depth of saving per pile18.
founding stratum.
 Omission of costs related to treatment and disposal of
contaminated soils.
 Low earthwork costs as soil disposal costs are minimised.
 Reduced transportation costs to low materials use and
waste creation.
Time  Installation system is rapid resulting in benefits to
implications contracting programme; concreting is carried out using
mobile concrete pumps.
 Minimal spoil means low quantities of spoil to be removed
from site.
 Low disturbance of contaminated soils limits clean-up
operations.
 No spoil heaps to interfere with simultaneous works.
Carbon  Reduced pile volume results in embodied carbon reductions Embodied carbon reduction of up to
reductions – this will vary according to ground conditions and building 58% 32% for concrete use. (740kgCO2e
type/size. based on an equivalent 18m CFA pile).
 Low materials required and spoil removed from site means Steel reinforcement remains the same.
reduced transport emissions.
implications
Construct-  Low vibration and noise allows construction closer to
ability existing buildings and structures.
 Spoil is minimised, reducing on-site storage and
transportation requirements.
Replicability  Tests have demonstrated that rotary displacement piles can
provide the same level of performance as continuous flight
auger (CFA) options with a much reduced depth.19
 Replicability depends on ground conditions and building
types; each project must be assessed separately. Different
ground conditions produce varying benefits.

Impact on structure  No impact on overall structure.
Procurement issues  Check availability of boring machinery
Off-site construction/  N/A
modularisation
Salvaged components  N/A
Longevity  60+ years.
Packaging  N/A
Standardisation  Uses standard machinery. Depth of pile can be varied according to requirements.
Dimensional coordination  N/A

Repairability  N/A
Deconstructability  Poor. Piles are difficult to extract and concrete could be contaminated.
15
Based on CFA Pile of 18m x 450mm and RDP of 7.5m X 450mm
16
Concrete Centre [Correspondence]
17
Faithful+Gould Cost Consulting. Based on rotary bored piles instead of CFA piles. CFA pile; 450mm diameter; 18m deep vs.
Rotary displacement pile; 450mm diameter; 7½m deep. (Raw data: May Gurney, Piling Contractor)
18
Ibid.
19
Bachy Soletanche ‘Rotary Displacement Piling: Screwsol. BAe Broughton Fire Station’.
(http://www.bacsol.co.uk/downloads/case_studies/Rotary%20Displacement%20Piling/A404%20-
%20BAe%20Broughton%20Fire%20Station.pdf)

 Whilst a variety of piling solutions are available, the exact choice will depend on geological/ground
conditions and the nature of the structure to be supported.
 Rotary piles are best suited to granular soils and weathered chalk. They are not suitable for
stiffer clay soils.
Table 2.2.5 Comparison of embodied carbon in concrete20: CFA and rotary displacement piles
(volume of steel reinforcement is the same for both options)
Continuous flight auger Rotary displacement pile
Dimensions (m) 0.45 x 18 0.45 x 7.5
Volume (m3) 2.86 1.19

Embodied carbon21 (kgCO2e/kg) 0.211 0.211
Mass (kg) (concrete density @ 6006 2499
2100kg/m3)
Embodied carbon (kgCO2e/kg) 1267 527
Embodied carbon saving per pile n/a 740
(kgCO2e)
% embodied carbon saving n/a 58%
(concrete only)
20
Dimensions provided by Atkins Cost Consulting
21
ICE/Bath University Data. Assumed high strength concrete @ 0.211kgCO2/kg (steel reinforcement not included)

2.3 Castellated and cellular beams
Subject Castellated (Cellular) Beams

NBS reference G10 (Structural Steel Framing)
Type of projects Particularly suited to long spans (e.g. car parks, hospitals, stadia,
schools, bridges etc…)
Design stage of RIBA Stage C/D (Concept Design/ Design Development)
implementation
Relevant standards BS 5950, Structural use of steelwork in building (BS 5400 for bridges)
Eurocode 3, Design of steel structures
BS EN 1993, Design of steel structures (UK annex to Eurocode 3)
Standard I-beams have an ‘I’ or ‘H‘-shaped cross section with a solid web (vertical section) (Fig 2.3.1).
Usually made of structural steel, British and European standards refer to them as Universal Beams
(UBs).
I-beams provide effective structural support. However, since the strength of the beam is more closely
related to its depth rather than the volume of steel, they often have a strength far exceeding the
engineering requirement and so in many applications other resource efficient solutions may be
suitable.
Figure 2.3.1
Standard I-beam

Castellated and cellular beams can achieve the same strength as solid I-beams of the same depth
with significantly less steel use; they are therefore both strong and comparatively light weight.
Castellated beams are created by forming ‘web openings’ in a standard universal beam section. This
involves cutting along the length of the section in a ‘wave form’ and welding the two pieces together
to form a deeper section with hexagonal openings (Fig 2.3.2a). Precision cutting techniques with
laser technology can alternatively produce circular or oval openings, the position of which can be more
easily planned. These are cellular beams (Fig 2.3.2b).
Castellated and cellular beams also offer designers a number of opportunities for bespoke sizes and
sections; for example, this includes varying the depth of the beam or creating tapered sections.
Castellated beams are particularly suited to long span applications with light to moderate loadings
such as roofs.

Figure 2.3.2a
Castellated beam
Figure 2.3.2b
Cellular beam


Materials  Openings in the web allow for a significant reduction in overall Castellating typically results in a 25%
saved steel use compared to standard I-beams. reduction in steel weight for the web
 Castellating results in a beam which is 40-60% deeper than its (flanges unaffected).22
and/or parent section.
 Since services can pass directly through the beams, it may not Weight savings of over 50% have
Reduced be necessary to include voids between beam and ceilings (i.e. been achieved in the web.23
waste to ceilings can be attached directly to the beams rather than
landfill suspended) Up to 15% reduction in materials use
 For cellular beams, the cutting process results in approx 1% for M&E has been reported.24
waste; however, this can be easily recycled.
 The light weight of the beams allows further materials savings A castellated beam is up to 2.5 times
in the supporting structure (e.g. columns, supporting walls,
stronger than its parent section.25
foundations etc)
Cost  Cost savings will be directly related to the amount of steel Average savings of £38/metre
implications saved – this varies between individual beams. (around 10%) for castellated steel
 For some castellated beams, costs of production may be close beams26.
to those of standard beams due to extra work involved in
cutting and welding.
 Cost savings for cellular beams are also reduced due to more
complex manufacture.
 The relatively light weight of castellated beams may allow
transportation and on-site cost savings.
 Further savings are possible due to lighter supporting
structure.
 Integrating services into the beam can may result in M&E cost
savings.
Time  Long spans and light weight allow omission of some Time savings will depend on exact
implications supporting structure leading to quicker construction. nature of overall structure.
 Light weight and manoeuvrability may allow some time
savings on site, although this is unlikely to be significant.
Carbon  Reductions in steel use whilst achieving the same structural Steel embodied carbon savings of
reduction strength result in significant embodied carbon reductions. 41 kg CO2e/metre can be expected 27.
 Reduced volume/weight of materials can reduce transport
emissions.
Recycling  Steel is 100% recyclable.
implications  Most steel produced in the UK contains recycled content;
levels can be specified.
 Manufacturing waste is recycled.
Construct-  The light weight of castellated beams means that they can be
ability easier to assemble than solid I-beams.
 Bolted sections are easy to disassemble.
 Some M&E services can pass through openings in the beam.
Replicability  Castellated beams are proven across a range of buildings and
are produced using standard procedures in factory conditions.
 Beams are usually bespoke for individual projects – laser
precision cutting ensures efficient manufacturing process.
 Particularly suitable for longer spans such as stadia, car parks
and bridges.

Impact on structure  Weight of structure is reduced significantly due to 25% lighter beams.
Procurement issues  Castellated and cellular beams are widely available and produced by specialist
manufacturers.
Off-site construction/  Castellated beams are produced offsite under factory conditions.
modularisation
Longevity  60+ years
Packaging  N/A
22
ASD Westok Ltd [Telephone Interview]
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
Faithful+Gould Cost Consultancy. Based on castellated steel beams instead of BS4 steel beams. 305 x 305mm UC x 240kg/m
~ beam for 7.5m span.
27
ICE Bath Data: Based on steel carbon factor of 1.82kg CO2/kg; see section 2.1.5 for assumed weights. Includes steel
manufacture only; does not include cutting and welding.

Standardisation  Castellated and cellular beams are usually bespoke for individual jobs. However, they
are produced on a standardised ‘production line’ under factory conditions.
Dimensional coordination  Bespoke items.
Repairability  Beams can be reinforced in situ to provide extra strength, if necessary, by the addition
of additional steel plates or by closing web openings.
Deconstructability  As with standard universal beams, bolted sections can be easily dismantled for reuse.
 Emerging good practice is to stamp the load rating onto the beam to enable easier
future reuse.

 This is an established approach – the use of castellated beams became particularly important
during the years following the Second World War when steel was scarce.
 Additional reinforcement can be added to stress points, if required, by either omitting or plating
web openings.
 Emerging good practice is to stamp the load rating onto the beam to enable easier future reuse.
 Castellating can be used to produce both straight and tapered beams.
Table 2.3.5 Solid I-beam vs castellated beam (305mm x 305mm)
Solid I-beam Castellated Beam

Embodied carbon of steel 1.82kgCO2e/kg 1.82kgCO2e/kg
Steel Mass (kg/m) (Flanges+Web) 240kg 218kg
Embodied Carbon (kgCO2/m)28 437 396
Embodied carbon reduction = 41kgCO2e/m
28
ICE Bath Data: Based on steel carbon factor of 1.82kg CO2/kg. Includes steel manufacture only; does not include cutting and
welding.

2.4 Post tensioned floor slab
Subject Post-tensioned concrete

NBS reference E05 (In situ concrete construction); E10 (Mixing/ casting/ curing in situ
concrete); E20 (Formwork for in situ concrete); E30 (Reinforcement for
in situ concrete)
Type of projects All types of structures; especially commercial (particularly high-rise), car
covered parks, bridges (i.e. where long spans are required).
Design stage of RIBA Stage C/D (Concept Design/Design Development)
implementation
Relevant standards BS 8110, Structural use of concrete
Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures

The strength of ordinary reinforced concrete slabs is dependent on the thickness of the slab and the
degree of reinforcement included – this must be carefully calculated to overcome concrete’s low
tensile strength.
Slabs can be either prefabricated or poured in situ; prefabricated units are manufactured in factories
to the required shape/dimension and transported to site, whilst in situ slabs are poured onsite using
temporary or permanent formwork. The resulting concrete slab is solid concrete with steel reinforcing
mesh encased within.
Fig. 2.4.1 Typical solid concrete floor slab.

Post tensioning enhances concrete’s load carrying capacity by using high tensile steel cables or rods to
apply compressive forces to the concrete after it has set. All tendon forces are transmitted to the slab
(no stresses are applied to the formwork).
Post-tensioned slabs have been widely and successfully used in the USA and Australia for several
decades and are now becoming increasingly popular in the UK. They are significantly thinner than
ordinary reinforced slabs, minimising the weight of a building as well as reducing its overall height (it
may be possible to incorporate an extra storey on a ten storey building). Materials resource efficiency
is achieved not only by reducing materials in the slab itself, but also in columns, walls and foundations
which have less weight to support. Enhanced strength means that it also possible to achieve greater
spans between columns or walls.
Fig. 2.4.2 Post-tensioned floor slab.


Materials  Reduced slab thickness, light weight and long spans can allow Slab thickness typically reduced by
saved fewer columns and thinner foundations. Deep downstands 75mm29.
can be eliminated.
and/or  Minimum floor thickness can reduce the overall height of the 2.2m3 waste to landfill savings per
building and cladding requirements. 1000m2.30
Reduced  Consider leaving a polished concrete floor, to avoid
waste to requirement for additional floor coverings. Overall storey height can be up to
landfill  Insitu concrete can be ordered in specific quantities. Regular 300mm lower than some other
building shapes minimise cutting of plywood sheets for structural solutions.31
formwork.
Cost  Post-tensioned floors are a frequently used solution as an Post tensioned slabs generally
implications economic choice of floor slab. become economic at spans greater
 Light weight allows efficiencies, not only in the floor slab itself than 6m.32
but also throughout the building structure (i.e. frame,
columns, cladding, foundations etc) 35% (£67/m2) saving compared to
solid slab.33
Overall potential construction cost

savings of ~£13K/1000m2.34
Time  Reduction of both reinforcement installation and concrete pour
implications can speed up programme.
 Large area pours reduce the total number of pours and
increase construction speed.
 Prefabrication of tendons reduces fixing time and early
stressing enables formwork to be stripped quickly.
 The thin slab may reduce curing times.
Carbon  Reduction in slab thickness will reduce level of embodied CO2. Embodied carbon reduction of
reductions  Further embodied carbon reductions in supporting structure. 82 tonnes CO2e/1000m2 for
 Minimising screed (i.e. powerfloating) will also reduce concrete.35
embodied CO2.
 Reduced volume/weight of materials can reduce transport
emissions.
implications  Concrete is 100% recyclable; post-tensioning has no
implications for recyclability.
 Formwork can be reused a number of times and proprietary
systems returned to suppliers for reconditioning.
Construct-  Construction techniques are well established and understood.
ability  Design methods can accommodate irregular grids; tendons
can be deflected to suit the building’s geometry.
 Clear, flat soffits enable flexibility and economy in service
layout.
 Slab can be poured onsite, or precast units can be produced.
Replicability  Formwork systems provide a high level of control and
replicability.

Impact on structure  Light structure and low floor-to-floor heights.
Procurement issues  There are a number of specialists who can install post tensioned slabs. It is
recommended that suppliers are CARES approved36
Off-site construction/  Tendons can be prefabricated to allow faster construction.

modularisation
Longevity  60+ year design life
Standardisation  Standard installation procedures, although specialists should be used.

Dimensional coordination  Dimensions are flexible.
29
Ibid.
30
31
Stevenson, A. M. Post-Tensioned Concrete Floors in Multi-Storey Buildings. British Cement Association.
32
Minson, A Post-tensioned suspended floors gain favour. Concrete Centre [Available at:
http://www.concretecentre.org/main.asp?page=1089]
33
Faithful+Gould Cost Consultancy. Post tensioned concrete slab instead of insitu reinforced concrete slab.
34
WRAP Case Study (Colchester Magistrates Court - currently unpublished) – Comparison between ribbed solid concrete slab
and post-tensioned slab. Includes cladding savings due to thinner slab consequent floor heights.
35
Ibid.
36
www.post-tensioning.co.uk

Repairability  Care must be taken not to disturb or damage tendons.
Deconstructability  Post-tensioned floors are easier to separate out steel and concrete
 Avoid contamination of material during deconstruction.
 Bonded post tensioned slabs (most commonly used in this country) require no special
consideration compared to demolition of standard insitu slabs. Recycling the demolished
concrete is marginally easier due to the reduction in embedded reinforcement.
 Unbonded post tensioned slabs require specific sequencing for demolition

 Post-tensioned flat slabs are economic up to 12m.
 Exposing the soffit improves the benefits of thermal mass. This can help regulate temperatures
and will assist in reducing M&E requirements.
 Active thermal mass systems can be designed to pump air at low velocity or water through slabs
to activate more of the mass.
 Reducing slab thickness may affect sound insulation. Take care to avoid the need for increased
ceiling structure to compensate, particularly in residential properties.
Table 2.4.5 Potential embodied carbon savings using post-tensioned slabs
Savings achieved using post- Concrete Steel

tensioning
Reduction of slab thickness 75mm37
Volume of material saved 0.075m3/m2
75m3/1000m2
Mass of materials saved 157kg/m2 20kg/m2.38
157tonnes/1000m2 20tonnes/1000m2
Embodied carbon reduction39 25.6kgCO2e/m2 56.6kgCO2e/m2.
25.6tonnesCO2e/1000m2 56.6tonnesCO2e/1000m2
Total embodied carbon reduction = 82kgCO2e/1000m2
37
38
Stevenson, A. M. Post-Tensioned Concrete Floors in Multi-Storey Buildings. British Cement Association. Steel weight can be
reduced by up to 50% (Comparison is with 410mm solid concrete slab incorporating 42kg steel/m2).
39
Bath University (2006), Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) (Concrete = 0.163kgCO2e/kg; Steel wire = 2.83kgCO2e/kg)

2.5 Voided biaxial slab
Subject Voided biaxial slabs (VBS) (e.g. Bubbledeck, Cobiaxdeck)

NBS reference NBS Ref: E05 (In situ concrete construction); E10 (Mixing/ casting/
curing in situ concrete); E20 (Formwork for in situ concrete); E30
(Reinforcement for in situ concrete)
Type of Projects Can be used to replace solid reinforced slab for most building types.
Covered
Design stage of RIBA Stage C/D (Concept Design/Design Development)
implementation
Relevant standards BS 8110, Structural use of concrete

Standard solid concrete floor slabs can be either prefabricated or poured in situ; prefabricated units
are manufactured in factories to the required shape/dimension and transported to site, whilst in situ
slabs are poured onsite using temporary or permanent formwork. The resulting concrete slab is solid
concrete with steel reinforcing mesh encased within.
Not all of the concrete slab contributes to its structural strength - the middle of the slab is ‘non-
working’ dead load. But, the specification of supporting foundations, columns and walls must all take
into account the total weight of the solid slab.
Fig. 2.5.1 Standard solid concrete floor slab.

Voided biaxial slabs (VBS) provide a resource efficient design for concrete slabs by incorporating voids
which significantly reduce overall materials use (Fig 2.5.2).
Several VBS technologies have been introduced during the last decades, primarily to reduce the
weight of buildings, and designs now have comparable strength to solid concrete slabs.
Typical systems use hollow plastic spheres placed in a precise modular grid; these can be fixed in
place using only reinforcement mesh. Solid concrete above and below the voids ensures greater
strength at the points of highest stress. Semi pre-cast systems offer faster, straightforward
construction.
VBS systems offer excellent freedom in architectural design, by allowing a variety of building shapes,
large spans and few supporting points. As a result they allow the construction of flexible and easily
changeable buildings.
The light, strong slabs can also allow materials savings throughout the building structure, including in
supporting beams, columns and foundations.
Fig. 2.5.2 Voided biaxial slab


Materials saved  Voids in the slab reduce concrete use and therefore Up to 35% lighter than solid slab of the
give weight savings. same thickness40
and/or  Biaxial design also allows weight savings in steel
reinforcement. 30% concrete saving in the slab41 – up to
Reduced waste  Light slab and large spans allow further materials 50% saving has been reported.42
to landfill savings, and therefore good resource efficiency
throughout the structure – supporting beams, 1kg of plastic replaces 100kg of concrete43
columns, foundations, walls etc.
 The use of formwork is avoided for semi-precast Up to 40% fewer columns44
systems.
20% less concrete in frame and
structure45
Cost  Modest cost savings or slight increase in cost for the Manufacturer estimates suggest 5-15%
implications slab itself. However, this is offset when the frame and cost savings for the building carcass46.
substructure are included; a light slab and large spans
allow materials cost savings for other structural Savings of £8/m2 for 450mm VBS instead
elements (beams, columns, foundations etc). of 900mm solid slab47. This equates to
 Reduced weight can result in lower transport costs. 4%.
 Less powerful lifting equipment is required.
 Potential reduction of downstand beams and load
bearing walls contributes to cost reductions.
Time  Semi-precast systems incorporate permanent Time savings of up to 40% have been
implications formwork with factory production and finish which achieved (semi-precast systems)48
simplifies finishing work on site.
 The potential to eliminate downstand beams and some
load bearing walls allows fast construction times.
Subsequent installation of services is also fast.
 Some fully finished VBS elements can be used for
certain applications (e.g. balconies; staircases)
 Low concrete volume can allow for short drying/curing
times.
Carbon  Embodied carbon emissions are reduced in Potential embodied carbon reductions of
reductions correspondence with low concrete use. around 90kgCO2e/m2 are achievable,
 Enables simple placement of installations like ducts based on 340mm VBS.49 (See table 2.5.5)
and heating/cooling systems directly in the slab;
thermal heating/cooling slabs can substantially reduce
energy consumption.
 The thermal mass of the slab can be exploited through
passive or active means to reduce heating or cooling
for buildings in operation.
 Reduced volume/weight of materials can result in
reduced transport emissions.
Recycling  Consider specifying concrete with recycled content.
implications  Recycled HDPE spheres are used in some systems.
 Specifying VBS systems has no negative impact on the
recyclability of the slab.50
Constructability  Problems associated with reduced resistance to shear,
local punching and fire in older VBS systems have
been reduced. However, it may be necessary to omit
voids near columns and walls where the shear stress is
high.
 The reduced weight of the slab can allow long spans Up to 50% increase in span between
between columns, or alternatively reduced deck columns can be achieved
thickness for equivalent span.
 Subsequent installation of services can be simplified
due to flat soffits with no obstructing beams. It is
40
Bubbledeck (http://www.bubbledeck.co.uk/) and Cobiax (http://www.cobiax.ch/html/english/cobiax_big5/big5_benefits.html)
41
WRAP – Waste Minimisation Design Review (University of Bristol – currently unpublished)
42
Bubbledeck (http://www.bubbledeck.co.uk/)
43
Ibid.
44
http://www.cobiax.ch/html/english/cobiax_big5/big5_benefits.html
45
WRAP – Waste Minimisation Design Review (University of Bristol – currently unpublished)
46
http://www.bubbledeck.co.uk/
47
Faithful+Gould cost consultancy
48
http://www.cobiax.ch/downloads/english/press/New_Concrete_06_06.pdf
49
See table 2.5.5. Data supplied by Bubbledeck ‘Bubbledeck-v-Solid Slab Comparisons’ (February 2009)
50
Bubbledeck (http://www.bubbledeck.co.uk/)

possible to use precast soffits onto which the slab can
be poured.
 The size of the reinforced elements (before concrete is
added) can be bespoke to suit specific projects.
 Different versions of VBS systems are available
according to the degree of prefabrication.
Replicability  Can be used in the construction of most building
types.
 Can be treated as a normal flat slab supported on
columns in the UK. Conforms to ISO standards.
 Examples include offices, apartments, hotels, schools,
car parks, hospitals and factories.

Impact on structure  Buildings can be designed to be flexible, with future changes in layout achievable.
Procurement issues  Widely available throughout the UK
Off-site construction/  Included above
modularisation

Longevity  60+ years replacement interval51
Packaging  N/A
Standardisation  Cage modules (reinforcement and voids) and semi precast units come in a range of
standard sizes.
Repairability  Same as solid reinforced slab.
Deconstructability  Throughout a structure’s lifetime, the envelope and all internal work can be removed,
and the original frame refitted for a new purpose. Internal reconfiguration is possible.

 Use of the some VBS systems can help to achieve credits under LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design).
 The effect of post-tension cables in VBS systems can be enhanced, allowing spans of up to 50
times the deck thickness.
 Semi-precast VBS systems do not require formwork and offer a flat, smooth soffit finish which can
be left exposed.
 Prominent buildings which have made use of VBS technology include Le Coie, Jersey; Millennium
Tower, Rotterdam; Sogn Arena, Oslo; and Tesco in Orpington, UK.
 Risk during construction is reduced due to low weight and fewer crane lifts.
Table 2.5.5 Embodied carbon of VBS vs. equivalent solid slab52
VBS (340mm) Solid Slab (410mm)53

2
Steel Weight (/m ) 18kg 42kg
Concrete Weight (/m2) 574kg 914kg
HDPE Weight (/m2) 3.7kg N/A
Steel Embodied Carbon (kg CO2/m2)54 31 72
Concrete Embodied Carbon (kg CO2/m2) 94 149
HDPE Embodied Carbon (kg CO2/m2) 5 0
Total Embodied Carbon (kg CO2/m2) 130 221
Embodied carbon reduction (slab only) using VBS = 91kgCO2/m2 (approx 41%)
51
BRE ‘Green Guide to Specification’ (http://www.thegreenguide.org.uk/)
52
Data supplied by Bubbledeck ‘Bubbledeck-v-Solid Slab Comparisons’ (February 2009)
53
Solid slab must be thicker for the same span.
54
Embodied carbon factors based on ICE/Bath Data. Steel Bar = 1.72kgCO2/kg ; Concrete Slab = 0.163kgCO2/kg; Recycled
HDPE = 1.44kgCO2/kg (assumed 20% less than virgin HDPE figure)

2.6 Flexible plumbing systems
Subject Flexible Plumbing Systems

NBS reference NBS S90 (Hot and cold water supply systems)
Type of projects All buildings incorporating water services.
covered
Design stage of RIBA Stage D (Design Development)
implementation
Relevant standards BS EN 12201, Plastic piping systems for water supply. Polyethylene
Pipes.
BS 7291, Thermoplastics pipes and associated fittings for hot and cold
water for domestic purposes and heating installations in buildings.
BS ISO 4427, Plastic piping systems. Polyethylene pipes and fittings for
water supply.

Plumbing in buildings has traditionally relied on the use of rigid copper piping. Although copper is
proven, reliable and safe for potable water supply, piping can often involve complex layouts using
many components for bends and branches. Installation, maintenance and repairs can be labour
intensive, requiring the services of a trained plumber and specialist tools.
Fig. 2.6.1 Standard copper piping and joints

Flexible, plastic plumbing systems have developed rapidly over recent years, and now offer levels of
performance at least comparable with copper pipe. Plastic solutions are available for both hot and
cold water applications as well as above and below ground drainage.
Flexible pipes are supplied on long rolls, creating less waste than rigid lengths by reducing the number
of offcuts. Fewer joints and fittings are required and most systems enable these to be easily
demountable and reusable.
Fig. 2.6.2 Flexible plastic piping


Materials  Supplied in lengths of up to 100m, means few offcuts are Approx 75% lower weight than
saved created when pipes are cut to length. Number of fittings copper piping.55
required is also low.
and/or  Fittings can be reusable.
 Good insulating properties reduces the need for additional
Reduced lagging.
waste to
landfill
Cost  Materials costs savings. 16% cost savings compared to
implications  Significant installation and maintenance cost savings. copper pipe. (average £4/metre of
 Little price fluctuation. pipe run.56)
Time  Simple installation and maintenance – many have push-fit
implications joints.
 Major time savings from few joints/bends. Soldering of joints
is not required.
 Programme savings: it may be possible to fit floors before
pipes.
Carbon  Embodied carbon reduction of up to 88% compared to copper For 15mm Pipe57:
reduction pipe. HDPE = 0.12kg CO2e/m
 Modern high-performance plastics have a long life-expectancy Copper = 1.07kg CO2e/m
and are corrosion-free. SAVING = 0.95kg CO2e/m = 88%
 Reduced weight of materials can result in reduced transport
emissions.
Recycling  Polybutylene/PVC pipe can be recycled and converted back to
implications granular form ready for re-use in the production of other
plastics-based products.
Construct-  Long pipe lengths means few joints/fittings may be required. Plastic piping is round ¼ the weight
ability  The light weight and flexibility of plastic pipes can result in of rigid copper pipe.
easy handling and installation.
 Safer and fast electrical installation is possible, reducing the
need for earthing.
 Pipework can be ‘threaded’ through complex routes – flooring
can be installed before pipes.
 Many flexible pipe fittings can be rotated in situ, even under
pressure.
 Repairs can be made without emptying pipes.
 Long runs are possible resulting in few joints (support
spacings may need to be adjusted).
 Fittings are designed to connect to standard copper pipes
where necessary.
Replicability  Standard pipe sizes and fittings ensure full replicability
between projects.

Impact on structure  None
Procurement issues  Standard materials. Available throughout the UK.

Off-site construction/  N/A
modularisation
Longevity  Modern flexible plumbing systems come with long guarantees – typically 50 years or
more.
 Flexibility means that pipes have good resistance to minor impacts.
 Flexible pipes are able to cope with ground movement which, together with long pipe
runs and few joints, can result in less leakage.
Packaging  Generally supplied on rolls of up to 100m.
Standardisation  Most flexible systems are compatible with conventional pipe materials and jointing
techniques.
55
Based on Hep2O Performance Data: 0.75kg/m for Hep2O; 2.81kg/m for copper
(http://content.wavin.com/WAXHW.NSF/pages/PDF_HEP2OTHB_PERFDATAEN/$FILE/THPerformanceData.pdf)
56
Faithful+Gould. Copper pipework with end feed capillary joints (weightings 50%:15mm, 30%:22mm, 20%:20mm) vs. Hep2O
pipework with proprietary joints (weightings 50%:15mm, 30%:22mm, 20%:20mm)
57
See table 2.5.5

Repairability  Easy to remove and replace sections and fittings, even for non-professionals.
Deconstructability  Most flexible plumbing fittings are fully demountable and reusable (e.g. ‘push-fit’
fittings)

 Plastic piping can provide a low contamination risk to potable water.
 Plastic piping has good insulating properties, reducing thermal loss.
 Noise and vibration problems (‘knocking’) are virtually eliminated.
Table 2.6.5 Embodied carbon of copper vs. plastic pipe (15mm diameter)
Copper Pipe Plastic Pipe

Mass (g/m pipe run)58 281 75
Embodied Carbon (kgCO2e/kg)59 3.8 1.6
Embodied Carbon (kgCO2e/m) 1.07 0.12
Total embodied carbon reduction by substituting 15mm copper pipe for 15mm polybutylene (or
HDPE) pipe = 88%.
58
Hep2O Performance Data
[http://content.wavin.com/WAXHW.NSF/pages/PDF_HEP2OTHB_PERFDATAEN/$FILE/THPerformanceData.pdf]
59
Bath University (2006), Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) (NB: No carbon factor available for polybutylene. Assumed
equivalent to HDPE)

2.7 Aerated concrete blocks with thin joint mortar
Subject Aerated concrete blocks (aerated autoclaved concrete - AAC) with thin
joint mortar
NBS reference NBS F10 (Brick/Block Walling)
Type of projects Wide variety of domestic and commercial building types.
covered
Design stage of RIBA Stage D/E (Design Development/Technical Design)
implementation
Relevant standards BS EN 771-4, Specification for masonry units. Autoclaved aerated
concrete masonry units.
BS 8110, Structural use of concrete

Standard concrete building blocks consist of cast concrete which is made up of cement, aggregate and
varying levels of sand/gravel depending on the density required. Although it is possible to incorporate
recycled content, particularly in lower density blocks, many use high proportions of virgin materials.
These types of blocks are usually bonded with sand/cement mortar (proportions depending on
required strength), 10 mm thick.
Fig. 2.7.1 Standard Concrete Blocks and Mortar

Aerated autoclaved concrete (AAC) blocks, together with thin joint mortar, represent a fast and
efficient construction alternative to standard aggregate blocks with cement mortar; they are strong,
durable and time-tested.
Modern large format AAC blocks are manufactured to exacting dimensional tolerances and can be
easily cut where necessary. Major materials resource efficiency savings come from the light weight of
the blocks (around 25% of the weight of conventional concrete on average) and lower mortar
requirements. In addition most AAC blocks include recycled content, in the form of pulverised fuel
ash (PFA).
A high level of design flexibility is possible allowing for a variety of plan forms, awkward sites and
bespoke projects.
The autoclaving process involves the use of high-temperature, high-pressure steams to ensure
strength, rigidity and dimensional stability. It can produce in a matter of hours concrete strengths
equal to those obtained in a concrete moist-cured for 28 days at 70° F (21°C).
Thin joint mortar is a cement-based product that only requires the addition of water and allows joints
of 3mm or less, although thickness can be varied to allow perfect levelling. Applied to the blocks with
a serrated applicator, it is quick-setting allowing rapid construction progress. Movement control mesh
compensates for the strength of the mortar and distributes any movement stresses that may build up
within the blockwork.60
Fig. 2.7.2 AAC Blocks and Thin Joint Mortar.
60
Thin Joint Technology [http://www.thinjoint.com/basic-frame.html?main=basic.html]


Materials  High strength/weight ratio results in reduced material use61. Up to 80% less mortar materials are
saved  Low mortar requirement – also results in low waste. used for thin joints (joints are 2-3mm
 The manufacturing process for aerated concrete blocks is thick)62
and/or highly efficient; any waste is minimised and can be easily
recycled. For every cubic metre of raw material
Reduced  Block off-cuts can be used elsewhere. used, around 5m2 of finished product
waste to  Good fire resistance, thermal, acoustic and surface properties is produced.63
landfill can eliminate the need for finishing materials such as
insulation and plasterboard.
 High quality internal finish may eliminate the need to skim for
some applications.
 Light weight blocks (for masonry) allow lightweight building
structure and foundations.
Cost  Any material costs increases are offset by labour and Modest extra cost of £2/m2 can be
implications programme savings. expected.64
 Lightweight materials and the potential reduced materials use
can result in lower transport costs. Value of wasted materials is reduced
 Lower foundations costs due to lightweight of building. by 44%.65
Waste disposal costs reduced by

50%66
Time  Large, lightweight block sizes allow rapid construction. Construction times equivalent to
implications  Thin joint mortar is quick-setting, allowing fast progress. offsite methods are claimed - a
 Buildings are watertight quickly using thin joint mortar. house can be ready for roofing in 5-6
 For cavity walls, internal works can be initiated before days (4-6 weeks for conventional
completion of the external leaf. methods).67
 Consistent wall surfaces helps speed up the work of finishing
trades and provides a suitable base for the application of
plasters or renders. Snagging work is potentially reduced.
 AAC formats for solid wall construction omit the need for outer
leaf altogether.
Carbon  Although aerated concrete blocks have higher embodied Thermal efficiency is 10X higher than
reduction carbon per kg, this is offset by the light weight of the blocks aggregate concrete.68
(/m3) – see table 2.7.5.
 Further savings come from low mortar requirements. The production of standard AAC
 Low weight of materials can result in reduced transport blocks involves around 21% less
emissions. embodied CO2e/m3 compared to
 Good thermal efficiency allows potential operational carbon standard equivalent sized blocks69.
reductions due to reduced energy requirements.
Recycling  PFA, a by-product from coal fired power stations, is used as an Aerated concrete contains 85% PFA,
implications ingredient. a waste product from coal power
 100% of aerated concrete blocks can be recycled or reused at stations.70
the end of a building’s life.
 No implications from use of thin joint mortar.
Construct-  Modern aerated blocks are manufactured to exacting Thin joint mortar sets within 20
ability dimensional tolerances. minutes.71
 Blocks are lightweight and easy to handle.
 A range of face sizes, thicknesses and strengths are available A typical 100mm block weighs
to match individual applications. approx 1/3 of the 20kg health and
 Low mortar requirements mean less onsite storage is required safety guideline.72
(i.e. bulk sand and cement)
 Thin joint technology allows easy laying and levelling of 70% lighter than standard concrete
blocks; simple training can be provided through builders blocks.
merchants or onsite.
 Dimensional accuracy helps to improve construction quality by
61
Greenspec (http://www.greenspec.co.uk/) gives strengths of 2.8 to 8.4 N/mm2 for AAC Blocks.
62
Tarmac (Durox System) [http://www.tarmac.co.uk/topblock/DuroxSystemproduct.aspx]
63
Aircrete [www.aircrete.co.uk]
64
Faithful+Gould Cost Consultancy. 100mm Thermalite Turboblock wall with 10mm clm 1:2:9 mortar joints vs. 100mm Durox
‘Supabloc’ wall with 3mm joints.
65
WRAP Case Study (Queenshill Court – currently unpublished) – replacement of traditional brick & block internal and external
walls with Thermoplan terracotta blocks with an external render finish.
66
Ibid.
67
Tarmac (Durox System) [http://www.tarmac.co.uk/topblock/DuroxSystemproduct.aspx]
68
Ibid
69
See section 2.7.5
70
Aircrete [www.aircrete.co.uk]
71
Ibid
72
Aircrete [www.aircrete.co.uk ]

providing flat and even wall surfaces.
 Special shapes and infill pieces can be easily cut and sanded
using standard tools.
Replicability  Aerated concrete blocks are a mass-market solution and are
readily available in the UK.
 Can be used for single leaf, external solid wall construction.
 They are recognised as a ‘Modern Method of Construction’ by
the Housing Corporation.

Impact on structure  Entire structure is lightweight for masonry which has implications for the specification of
other structural elements (i.e. foundations)
Procurement issues  AAC blocks are available from most merchants across the UK.
Off-site construction/  Recognised as a modern method of construction by the Housing Corporation.

modularisation  Assembly times can rival offsite solutions.
Longevity  Aerated concrete blocks have very good durability in use and are virtually unaffected by
insect attack, sulphates, frost or water.
 60+ years
Packaging  Usually packaged on reusable wooden pallets and shrink wrapped.
Standardisation  High levels of dimensional accuracy from precision factory cutting.
 AAC blocks come in a variety of sizes including 215mm course height to match standard
blocks.
Dimensional coordination  Available in a number of standard sizes compatible with standard blocks.
Repairability  Masonry construction is inherently simple and easy to repair.
Deconstructability  The concrete is 100% recyclable; however, blocks are easily damaged during
deconstruction and may be difficult to reuse.
 As well as reducing materials use, thin joint techniques can also improve air tightness, thermal bridging and
sound insulation.
 Excellent thermal efficiency allows cost-effective solutions to meet current Part L Building Regulations.
 Can be used in load-bearing walls up to 5 storeys.
 AAC is a relatively soft material and chipping or denting is possible. However, damaged ends can be trimmed
and thin joint mortar can be used to ‘glue’ broken pieces.
Table 2.7.5 Embodied carbon of AAC blocks compared to standard concrete blocks
Celcon standard AAC block Standard concrete block

(medium weight)
Embodied Carbon/kg73 0.32kgCO2/kg 0.163kgCO2/kg
Density 600kg/m3 74 1500kg/m3 75
Embodied Carbon/m3 192kgCO2/m3 244.5kgCO2/m3
Reduction in embodied carbon using AAC blocks = approx 21%
73
Bath University (2006), Inventory of Carbon & Energy
74
HHCelcon http://www.hhcelcon.co.uk/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=54610&name=DLFE-2802.pdf
75
Concrete Block Association http://www.cba-blocks.org.uk/

2.8 Polished concrete floor
Subject Polished concrete cloors

NBS reference E05 (In situ concrete construction); E10 (Mixing/casting/curing in situ);
E20 (Formwork for in situ concrete); E41 (Worked finishes to in situ
concrete); M10 (Cement based levelling/wearing screeds); M41 (In situ
terrazzo)
Type of projects Schools, supermarkets, hospitals, industrial etc
covered
Design stage of RIBA Stage D/E (Design Development/Technical Design)
implementation
Relevant standards BS 8204, Screeds, bases and in situ floorings
EN 206-1, Concrete. Specification, performance, production and
conformity.
EN 13369, Precast Concrete

Traditional hard floor finishes, such as terrazzo or ceramic tiles, laminates, stone, slate, lino and vinyl,
can consume large quantities of materials in their manufacture and installation. Cutting shaping and
damage can result in significant waste.
Fig. 2.8.1 Tiled floor construction

Specifying an exposed, polished concrete floor instead of additional, separate layers of flooring has
major potential for good materials resource efficiency.
Both new and existing concrete can be ground and polished to a high shine for attractive flooring
which needs no coating or waxing. Polished concrete looks like polished stone and is highly durable.
It is decorative, practical and economical.
The use of ‘dry shake’ finishes gives the option of different colours and textures and helps ensure a
more homogenous surface. It is also possible to use additional ‘toppings’ on existing surfaces to
achieve the desired finish.
Fig. 2.8.2 Exposed concrete floor


Materials  Omission of further flooring layers clearly has good resource
saved efficiency implications – particularly when an existing concrete Tiled flooring has an average
surface can be used. wastage rate of 8% - much of which
and/or  Offcuts associated with tiles, carpeting and linoleum are often goes to landfill.76
avoided for poured monolithic surfaces.
Reduced  Efficiencies can be achieved by co-ordinating volume required Polished concrete represents a
waste to with concrete ready-mix load. virtually 100% saving in materials
landfill  Potential major reduction in waste to landfill compared to use when replacing additional layers.
other surfaces which may need periodic replacement (e.g.
carpet, linoleum, laminate).
 Potential elimination of materials used for maintenance
(polishing/waxing).
 Waste associated with floor surface manufacturing is virtually
eliminated.
Cost  Potential cost savings compared to other floor finishes (e.g. Up to 83% cost saving (typically
implications terrazzo, timber, marble) if concrete is already proposed as £39/m2) achievable compared to
the floor structure. Avoid use of screed where possible. terrazzo tiles with screed layer.77
 The premium associated with a special colour or finish to the
concrete is offset by savings of material and labour cost of
fitting separate floor finishes.
 Durability ensures long life cycle.
Time  Significant labour and programme time savings usually
implications achievable compared to hand-laid floors (terrazzo, timber etc).
 Grinding and polishing of existing concrete floors is a quick
solution to achieve a high quality floor finish.
Carbon  Omission of additional layers of flooring allows notable savings 8.4kgCO2/m2 for tiles
reductions in embodied carbon. 15kg CO2/m2 for screed layer
 Low maintenance requirements also allow carbon reductions Total = 23.4
for buildings in operation. (See table 2.8.5)
 Exposing thermal mass can help reduce operational energy
demand for heating and cooling.
 Avoidance of transporting additional flooring materials to site
can result in reduced transport emissions.
Recycling  Consider specifying concrete with recycled content.
implications  Exposing concrete has no implications for recyclability.
 Inclusion of recycled glass aggregate can give further
desirable aesthetic effects.
Construct-  Exposed concrete floors offer a high quality finish with
ability minimal extra effort. Consider employing specialist installers.
 Care is required in specification and installation to achieve
acceptable appearance.
 Ground supported concrete floors are laid between 100mm
and 150mm thick and are reinforced with steel mesh; there is
no requirement for initial concrete work on the site. (If there
is an existing floor slab, maximum thickness will be 75 –
100mm).
 Appropriate protection during site works is essential. Stains
during curing are difficult to remove.
 Small areas present challenges for installation.
Replicability  Quality control and protection on site is essential to minimize
variations in concrete appearance. Natural variations will
occur between projects.
 However, dry shake finishes can be used to provide a
consistent finish between pours where required.

Impact on structure  Minimal, although weight of floor will be reduced.
Procurement issues  Standard materials used, although specialist installer / polishing company is likely to be
required.
Off-site construction/  Offsite manufacturing of concrete flooring slabs is possible. However, some of the waste
modularisation benefits may be lost unless slabs are manufactured to fit intended location.
76
WRAP – Netwaste Tool
77
Faithful+Gould Cost Consultancy. Polished concrete floor instead of terrazzo tiles. Based on 300 x 300 x 28mm Terrazzo tiles
laid in semi-dry screed vs. power float unset concrete & apply surface hardener.

Longevity  60+ year replacement interval
 Durability ensures a long life-cycle, even for industrial applications.
 Minimal maintenance requirements (clean with soap and water). No harmful chemicals
required. Can be buffed to restore shine if necessary.
 Future flooring layers can be installed on top if requirements for the space change.
 Repairs or adaptations to large monolithic areas are difficult to conceal. However, it is
possible to use pre-fabricated, smaller slabs.
Packaging  Materials can be delivered by concrete mixer. Further additives (i.e. dry shake colour)
likely to be packaged in bags.
Standardisation  Natural variations in concrete mean that it is important to complete a floor in one pour.
The finish may vary between different pours and projects.
Repairability  It is difficult to conceal repairs to large monolithic surfaces.

 Any access to services below the slab should be carefully planned and infill trays should
be used.
Deconstructability  Deconstruction will result in break up of floor surface. Efforts should concentrate on
separating concrete for recycling.

 Underfloor heating works more effectively when additional floor coverings are omitted. This
represents an effective and efficient heating solution, particularly if the thermal mass is used as
part of a passive solar design strategy.
 It is important to consider the acoustic implications of omitting soft floor finishes. The addition of
a resilient layer below the screed can help limit sound impacts in residential properties.
 Slip resistance requirements should also be taken into account and the exposed finish adapted
appropriately. However, if kept clean and dry a polished concrete floor is no more slippery than
regular concrete.
 Installation may be affected by weather conditions, for both internal and external applications.
Table 2.8.5 Embodied carbon of terrazzo tiles and separate screed layer
Terrazzo tiles (assumed Screed layer (assumed

28mm thick) 70mm thick)
Embodied carbon78 0.118kgCO2/kg 0.102kgCO2/kg
Tile weight (300x300x28mm)79 6.4kg n/a
Screed density (kg/m3) n/a 2100kg
Tile/screed weight/m2 71.1kg 84kg
Embodied carbon/m2 8.4kgCO2e/m2 15kgCO2e/m2
Total embodied carbon for terrazzo flooring including screed = 23.4kgCO2e/m2 =

23.4tonnesCO2e/1000m2
78
79
Kengate Terrazzo [http://www.kengate-terrazzo.co.uk/tech-testdata.htm]

2.9 Low waste door jamb
Subject Low waste door jamb
NBS reference NBS K10 (Plasterboard dry linings/partitions/ceilings)
Type of projects Retail, offices, residential, healthcare, schools, hotels etc.

covered
Design stage of RIBA Stage E (Technical Design)
implementation
Relevant standards BS 8212, Code of practice for dry lining and partitioning using gypsum
and plasterboard
2.9.1 Standard design detail
Plasterboard has one of the highest wastage rates for construction materials. Every year around one
million tonnes of waste plasterboard is created from construction, refurbishment and demolition
activities, with resulting environmental impacts and waste management costs.80 The construction of
door openings can make a major contribution to this waste.
Traditional methods for constructing door openings involve positioning a plasterboard sheet half way
or fully over the door position and then simply cutting out the required opening (Fig. 2.9.1). This
results in large off cuts.
Fig. 2.9.1 Traditional door construction
80
WRAP (2006) Review of plasterboard material flows and barriers to greater use of recycled plasterboard.
[http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/PBD0004_Plasterboard_material_flows_report1.7f70e4d4.2424.pdf]

More efficient door jamb arrangements can significantly reduce the amount of plasterboard waste
generated, by positioning full sheets of plasterboard up against studs at each side of the door opening
and using an off cut from elsewhere above the door. Arrangement of studs is the same as for the
standard door jambs.
Further material efficiencies can be achieved by taping and skimming over joints rather than applying
a plaster skim to the entire wall.
As an alternative, for lighter doors it may be possible to eliminate the secondary strengthening studs
at each side of a door opening to reduce metal use instead of plasterboard. However, this is only
possible with standard plasterboard arrangements.
Fig. 2.9.2 Low waste door jamb

Criteria Resource Efficiency Considerations Quantification of benefits

Materials  Potentially significant reduction in plasterboard waste. 27% reduction in plasterboard waste
saved  Reduction in total number of plasterboard sheets required compared to standard door jamb
(actual saving will vary from project to project) construction detail.81
and/or
25% reduction in the number of bins
Reduced required per floor.82
waste to
landfill Potential plasterboard saving of
5.4m2/100m2 wall area83.
Cost  Potential cost savings due to reduced number of plasterboard Typical £8 saving per door opening.84
implications sheets required.
 Less waste reduces disposal costs.
 Reduced materials use can result in lower transport costs.
Time  Time savings may not be significant for the construction of Minimal.
implications the door openings themselves.
 Time savings will be realised due to reduced materials
handling.
Carbon  Carbon reductions correspond to the reduction in materials Embodied carbon reduction of
reduction used and waste generated. 3.44kgCO2e /standard door
 Reduced volume/weight of materials can result in reduced opening.85
transport emissions.
Recycling  Remaining plasterboard waste should be carefully segregated; Recycled content of 75% or more
implications it can be fully recycled into its constituent parts – gypsum and can be specified.86
paper – if it is uncontaminated.
Construct-  Uses standard plasterboard sheets without affecting final
ability appearance or structural integrity of the jamb.
 No additional training or equipment required for installers.
 Successfully used on a variety of projects.
Replicability  Proprietary systems are available which allow full replicability
and consistent standards.
 Particularly efficient for buildings with many doors at regular
intervals (e.g. hotels, student accommodation)

Impact on structure  No effect on the final appearance or structural integrity of the door jamb.
Procurement issues  None. Proprietary systems are widely available and independent, bespoke versions can
be put together by installers.
Off-site construction/  Factory produced proprietary systems are available.
modularisation
Longevity  Typically 15 year replacement interval

Packaging  N/A
Standardisation  Uses standard plasterboard sheets.
Dimensional coordination  Room dimensions should be coordinated with standard plasterboard sizes where
possible.
Repairability  Large areas of damaged plasterboard are difficult to repair. Sections may have to be
replaced if badly damaged.
Deconstructability  Steel studding can potentially be demounted and reused, although care is required in
deconstruction. For plasterboard, recycling rather than reuse is likely to be the most
practicable option.
81
Knauf [Online] Knauf Drywall Anti-waste initiatives generate big savings.
[http://www.knaufdrywall.co.uk/news/page_175.html]
82
Ibid.
83
Ibid. Based on reduction of plasterboard wastage rate from 16% to 12%
84
Faithful+Gould Cost Consulting. Based on plasterboard discarded per door opening (traditional method vs Knauf Eco door
jamb method)
85
See section 2.6.5 for calculations.
86
Ecology Action [Online] Green Buildings Materials Guide
[http://www.ecoact.org/Programs/Green_Building/green_Materials/gypsum.htm]

 All stability, fire, acoustic and door-leaf weight requirements must be considered in conjunction
with the manufacturer.
 The biggest source of plasterboard waste is the offcuts resulting from dimensional specifications
which do not correspond with sheet sizes. Wherever possible, design to standard sheet sizes.
 Chipping plasterboard waste saves storage space and reduces the overall volume of waste to be
managed.
 For projects with larger plasterboard requirements (i.e. >10,000m2), it may be cost effective to
specify bespoke sheet sizes. However, accurate estimates of quantities will be necessary to
maximise waste reduction potential.
 As an alternative to this plasterboard detail, for lighter doors it may be possible to eliminate the
secondary strengthening studs at each side of a door opening to reduce metal use instead of
plasterboard. However, this is only possible with standard plasterboard arrangements.
Table 2.9.5 Embodied carbon reduction from use of low waste door jamb.
Embodied carbon calculation

Embodied carbon of plasterboard 0.24 kgCO2e/kg87
Plasterboard density 652kg/m3
Plasterboard mass (12.5mm sheet) 8.15kg/m288
Offcut mass for standard door (assumed dimensions of 2064mm x 852mm, 14.33kg
including jamb)
Embodied Carbon of offcuts of standard door size 3.44kgCO2e
87
88
Knauf Drywall. Based on Knauf standard wallboard.

2.10 Tile detailing
Subject Tile detailing

NBS reference NBS M40 (Stone/ Concrete/ Quarry/ Ceramic tiling; Mosaic/ Plastered/
Rendered coatings)
Type of projects All types of occupied buildings.
covered
Design stage of RIBA Stage E (Technical Design)
implementation
Relevant standards BS 5385, Wall and floor tiling.
Wall and floor tiles can be responsible for significant amounts of construction waste at the fit-out
stage: typically between 8 and 10%89 is wasted.
However, when using larger sized tiles this rate can be significantly higher due to the increased
offcuts produced and higher damage rates, particularly when working around smaller details or in
awkward spaces (Fig 2.10.1). Whilst some offcuts can be reused, in practice most end up as waste.
The recent trend towards the use of larger tiles, particularly for wall finishes, can therefore have a
potentially increased impact on the resource efficiency of a project unless carefully planned.
Fig. 2.10.1 The use of larger tiles resulting in higher volume of offcuts.
89
WRAP Netwaste Tool.

Careful coordination of the type and size of tiles with the space in which they are to be used can have
a major impact on the amount of materials used and waste created.
Larger tiles may be appropriate for large, uninterrupted wall areas where minimal detailing is required.
However, using smaller or mixed-size tiles, particularly for smaller or less regular spaces, and around
furniture and fittings (e.g. basins, toilets etc) can result in a significant reduction of tile wastage (Fig.
2.10.2).
Tile sheets can also offer improved workability and even the smallest offcuts can be easily reused.
Fig 2.10.2 Smaller tiles: reduces volume of offcuts.


Materials saved  Exact materials saving will depend on the precise Wastage can be reduced from 15%
dimensions of chosen tiles, room layout, furniture and to 8% or better by careful selection
and/or fittings, and the level of skill of the installer. of tile size to suit the space in which
 In many cases, moving away from larger sized tiles, or they are being used.
Reduced waste optimising tile sizes, will result in fewer offcuts and
to landfill therefore reduced overall materials use and waste.
 Damaged or broken tiles are usually unavoidable. For
smaller tiles this clearly represents a much smaller materials
loss.
Cost  Reduction in tile wastage results in cost savings. Value of wasted material can be cut
implications by 50% (typically £2/m2)90
Time  Time implications depend on the precise specification of tile Dependant on individual room layout
implications sizes and the space they are used in. Although increasing and dimensions.
the overall number of tiles could result in increases in labour
time, this may be offset if less cutting is involved.
 The use of tile sheets which cover larger areas, and are
easier to cut, could result in significant time savings.
Carbon  Embodied carbon of waste material may be reduced by half. 58.86kgCO2e/100m2 wall space (see
reduction table 2.10.5)
Total embodied carbon reduction of

7.5% for tiling.
Recycling  Fired ceramic waste can be recycled at specialist facilities. Up to 46% recycled content for
implications This includes grinding down and adding to the standard mix ceramic tiles.
for new tiles.91
 For standard sized, plain ceramic wall tiles best practice
recycled content rate is 46%. For glass tiles, this can be
higher.
Construct-  Tile sheets allow large surface areas to be covered quickly.
ability
Replicability  No restrictions other than aesthetic considerations.

 A slight variation in the overall size of tiles occurs during
manufacturing. Where possible, sufficient tiles for the area
to be covered should be obtained in one consignment to
avoid mismatching tiles being rejected on site and wasted.
 Exact colours may also vary between batches. Depnding on
the effect required, contents of different cartons can be
mixed to create a more natural finish and colour blend.

Impact on structure  None.
Procurement issues  Dependent on source/supplier.

Off-site construction/  Pre-fabricated bathroom pods may include pre-fitted tiles. Factory processes,
modularisation standardised pod sizes and increased opportunities to reuse offcuts can help to
significantly reduce overall waste.
Longevity  60+ years. Ceramic tiles have extremely long lives and are generally replaced for
aesthetic reasons rather than due to wear and tear.
Packaging  Tiles are necessarily supplied in protective packaging. This is usually cardboard and
can be recycled assuming it is not contaminated.
Standardisation  Wall and floor tiles are available in a range of standard sizes
Dimensional coordination  Tiles should be carefully selected to match the size of room.
 For hand made/bespoke tiles, lower tolerances can be accommodated
Repairability  Broken tiles must be replaced. Matching may be problematic if spares are not
available.
Deconstructability  Tiles rarely survive intact when removed from walls or floors. Opportunities for reuse
are therefore very limited.
90
Faithful+Gould. Based on 100mm x 100mm tiles instead of 400mm x 400mm.
91
Johnson Tiles [http://www.johnson-ceramics.com]

 Pre-fabricated bathroom pods may include pre-fitted tiles, and this factory production can
significantly reduce tile waste on site.
 Ceramic tiles are extremely durable. Consider refreshing rather than replacing on existing
buildings.
 Broken tiles may be used in mosaics to provide an attractive and distinctive finish.
Table 2.10.5 Embodied carbon savings of reducing tile wastage
Embodied carbon calculation

Standard tile thickness (mm) 8mm
Tile volume 0.008m3/m2
Tile density 1900kg/m3
Tile mass 15.2kg/m2
Embodied carbon 0.43kgCO2e/kg
Embodied carbon 6.54kgCO2e/m2
Total embodied carbon of waste (kgCO2e per 100m2 wall space based on 115.1kgCO2e
15% wastage rate)
Total embodied carbon of waste (kgCO2e per 100m2 wall space based on 8% 56.24kgCO2e
wastage rate)
Total embodied carbon reduction for waste (kgCO2e per 100m2 wall space) 58.86kgCO2e
Total embodied carbon reduction (% per 100m2 wall space) 7.5%

Appendix 1
Long list of potential design details
IDEAS TO REDUCE WASTE IN DESIGN
Use similar designs/materials in both projects so waste in one project can be used for the other
(lagged programme between the two)
Reuse car park as fill
Wire cages parking lot as SUDS (A-C)
Block work instead of plasterboard (more structural load and foundations) (A-B)
Don’t use plasterboard or dry lining in build (internal)
Packaging to be reused as part of public art installation e.g. elephant in Rowan House or Kitchen
worktops
Reuse car park cover for internal floor finish in Colchester (quality constraints)
Site strip/enabling works waste to be reused
Cavity fill with asphalt
Re-melt tarmac and pour into moulds for landscaping and water proofing (B-D)
Block work instead of plasterboard (more structural load and foundations) (A-B)
Use all waste products as cladding materials
Wire cages parking lot as SUDS (A-C)
Bricks and rubble for landscaping or put in wire cage for fence and street furniture
Reuse of materials & components
Custody area block work – use recycled blocks

Re-melt tarmac and pour into moulds for landscaping and water proofing (B-D)
Funding rules require that at least 70% of the development must be new build.
The sports hall is demolished in the early stage of work, and the crushed aggregate will form a
working platform.
There is plenty of space for on-site storage (e.g. tennis courts).
A soft strip pre-demolition phase is planned before full demolition.
Timber – segregated on site
Bricks - Cement mortar used - no good for reclamation
Limited opportunity to re-use from demolition but could be some from PRU (another Phase 2
project with existing buildings)
Demolition material for hard landscaping
Sloping site / backfill
Use on green roof
1.
As sub-base
Coordination between other phase 2 builds – for material sharing
Rubble for thermal heat stores
Recycled aggregate in concrete mix
Furniture and equipment - Reuse for charity
Recycle through supply survey
Timber flooring materials
Roof tiles (depending on condition check) - Clay tiles from Seacole (in poor condition) - local
reclamation centre required
External lighting (flood lights)
Structural steel (gets recycled, no plan to use on-site)
Reclaimed benches
Retention of reclaimed materials for the purposes of education in the new school
Re-use (retention) of existing brick boundary wall on Donegal St as a retaining wall, other
boundary walls will be demolished. (being considered seriously)
Improving specifications of materials on site, technical compost

Contractor’s internal symbiosis;
Use of existing material from adjacent building sites (Dependent on the level of contamination)
Some slate is being excavated and could either used on site for walls, landscaping or drainage.
There may be quality issues with this
Bubbledeck or similar alternative could be used to reduce the quantity of concrete in floor slabs
of first floor
Concrete could be specified to contain a recycled content or PFA
Sports hall will have a sprung timber floor – could a second hand floor be found?
The front of the gym will have to be removed to provide a large window to allow light in – this
could be used as fill or sub base
Demolition of existing plant room and changing rooms will provide fill or sub base
Outbuilding, repair existing; spares. Slate roofs and LS bricks (reuse in haha wall).
Car park tarmac – base material
Hedges – compost on site
Haha being dug out, reuse in landscaping?
Children’s playground being moved
Interface, take away carpet
Reuse old metal safe doors – architectural salvage
A tarmac public footpath runs across part of the site. An application to divert this has been
submitted and a decision is awaited. The tarmac could be left in place or reused elsewhere on
site
Carpets in classrooms could be carpet tiles to reduce off-cuts and reduce waste when repairs are
required
Could a water tank be sourced from one of the existing schools?
Could soil be remediated and used on another part of the MoD site? Cost likely to make this
unviable
Wall protection could also be moveable – so only protecting the area being worked above
There is the opportunity to excavate additional slate for these uses
Recycled materials could be specified for landscaping
Concrete paving/ blocks already specified for paths around classrooms as are better than pre-
cast in terms of embodied energy – this could be extended down to the sports fields
Rotary Piling suggested for foundations to reduce excavation – may cause stability problems with
the listed wall
Software modelling noted above but with the input and coordination of the subcontractor
Net amount of material required measured accurately by QS

Reusable packaging for standard elements to optimise the process
Establish project wastage KPIs
End of life considerations taken into account during design requiring manufactures and
subcontractors input
Eliminate basement and associated excavation
Off site cladding panels – reuse waste in factory, reduced weight and therefore materials in
construction /
foundations
Off Site
Prefabricated stairs
Prefab stair wells
Thermo deck off site pre cast concrete structure
Modular design
2.
Use prefabricated timber construction instead of concrete (thermal mass issue)

Two sets of stairs in the admin block are already planned to be pre-cast. Could standard moulds
be used?
The external cladding could be modularised, this could reduce cost and increase speed of
construction. Rendering would fit in with local area but there may be a weather issue. Cladding
could still be brick
Can all toilet blocks be standardised and brought in as pods?
Toilets and changing rooms could be brought in as pods? Access would make this nearly
impossible.
Changing rooms to have OSM components for assembly on site?
Concrete will all be cast in-situ as the shapes don’t lend themselves to pre-cast. Beam and block
could be considered.
External cladding could be cut to size off site
External cladding to be cedar or oak, depending on availability. Could be panellised. Glazing sizes
could be altered to fit with this
Gym roof lights to be translucent panels that can’t be cut to size so roof tiles will be removed to
fit. Tiles are thought to be clay and could be reused BUT won’t be available until the end of the
project. May be too late, could be used in access ramps?
Gym floor to be replaced – could use a second hand sprung floor
External lifts are already being considered instead of ramps which will require a lot of concrete
Piling not strips
Steel frame (Kit set – recycle off cuts)
Reinforced concrete pad (reused substrate)
Cladding, prefer OSM to bricks
Masonry would be local LS
Plasterboard, replace with: Fermacell – more expensive, but less wastage. More fit for purpose?
Stairs
Doors (off the peg)
Windows, component / on site assembly
OSC, form finding software approach to vinyl flooring
Pod/OSC of operating theatres
Pre-cast / minimise variants of stairs
Floor build ups – void formers to reduce in-situ concrete requirement e.g. BubbleDeck
Two classrooms need to be 10m2 larger than the others, currently these are wider but they could
be longer instead. This would make the toilets and two classrooms a standard layout with an
additional length which would be easier for off site manufacture of components
Building steel framed – driven by contractor - grid at 4.735 centres – not standard – could grid
be changed?
Floor slabs are planned to be cast in situ – most of them could be pre-cast. Ground floors will all
have under-floor heating
Pool plant could be bought as a package – access may restrict this
Lift
Can the 12 classrooms be made identical and be made as pods off site?
Off-site construction and manufacture already an integral part of the method of working.
Pre-fabricated services sections for all heating, electrical, ICT, phone, fire alarm, sprinklers
systems
Modular plant rooms

Modular form work (not PCC) and grid dimensions to minimize in-situ concrete slabs
Tea-point stations
Bespoke science and DT desks
Off-site staircases (x4)
Toilet pods
Toilet services modules
Sports changing rooms – toilets & showering services modules
Standardisation of bedroom and bathroom units (Plug-ins)
Theatres to be manufactured as modular units
Offices for administration to be manufactured as modular units
Façade modular panels
Panelock
Post-tension flat slabs to minimise slab depth, flat soffit, partitions and formwork. Also
implications for deconstruction.
Piles foundations – rotary system to reduce the amount of spoil to be reduced
Modular shuttering for concrete
Pre-cut wall elements and delivered with doors and clip into place (A-B)
Prefabricated core with M&E openings
Pre-cut wall elements and delivered with doors and clip into place (A-B)
Create module for walls and windows to reduce cut offs especially in dry walls
Consider construction / manufacturing procedures to eliminate/reduce waste
Revisit model to schedule plasterboard, insulation
Revisit model to check for pipe lengths, clasps
Time construction and delivery through 3D model and locate and plan storage for exact
quantities
Design for material optimisation
Concrete core shuttering and standard modular openings

Ensure sizing of services of materials as accurate as possible, less material used (programme
issues0
Coordination of stairways
Design practices already embody elements of dimensional coordination
Structural grid / modular (lesson learnt from Phase 1)
Standardised windows
Standardised doors
Plasterboard - Ordered to size of module
Re-use of off-cuts (also already occurring?)
Flooring – use of tiles / sheet flooring - Carpet, marmoleum, non-slip, sports floor
Rounded edges and non-orthogonal building shapes reduced
Positioning of buildings to maximise any opportunities on existing site levels
3.
Shuttering system – PERI – non timber with integral safety handrail

Car-parking areas reduced from 100 (based on Highbury Grove) to 40
Partition sizes for class room
Building form and layout, especially grouping of individual units and amount of external walling
Regular / orthogonal spaces (may already be occurring)
Planning of sheet flooring to minimise cuts and coordinate with coving
Modification of building form and layout (BB highlighted risk liability problems here)
Perimeter fencing (concern that standardised fencing not appropriate because of varied site
levels)
Dimensional co-ordination - plasterboard
Reduce the amount of excavation – screw piles
Standardisation

Design simplification
Steel frame could be co-ordinated with OSM cladding panels (1200mm standard).
Windows would need to be standardised to co-ordinate with the panel systems of steel and
cladding. All could be standardised to 1200mm. It is expected that changing the windows to
1200mm would be cheaper than specifying the panellised cladding to match the windows
Working to a 1200mm frame and panel system could allow ceilings and floors to be co-ordinated
If the slope on the pool floor is graded over a shorter distance then there would be less off-cuts
of tiles
Ceiling tiles and flooring tiles could be chosen instead of sheet/ rolls to reduce off-cuts
Sirtex is specified as insulation – could this be replaced with a panel system? Or replace with
recycled materials? Sirtex is very efficient as an insulator and allows very thin walls but does
generate a lot of waste and is hard to recycle
Ceiling tiles are specified but have high wastage. An open ceiling with baffles is planned for the
sports hall but ceiling tiles in the classrooms would provide the acoustic buffering to keep
classroom noise down and prevent excessive noise from rain on the metal roofs. Potential to
make a feature of areas of exposed ceiling to prevent the need for cutting ceiling tiles
Specification review – e.g. double or single board
Specifying recycled content in materials
Coordination of planning grids with materials throughout the building
Full door height or doors with fanlights versus overboard
Rationalisation of partition layouts with suspended ceiling
Find an alternative to black tarmac (slate with resin?)
Recycled content – recycled slate / demolition in concrete or screed (need for on-site mixing
plant)
Smaller plasterboards as easier to handle – need for discussion with specialist subcontractors
Unitised cladding systems, manufactured off site
Reuse of demolition as fill or landscape
Reuse aggregate in concrete from this or other sites in Bristol
Modular services – off site assembly into packages
Shuttering with regular modules – e.g. 45 degree rotations between beams
Volumetric WCs and other areas, e.g. staircases
Standard ceiling grids (in labs) resulting in less cuts but a need for a higher level of M&E
coordination
Engage University – do they have any materials for reuse on site (prefab building on site being
dismantled)?
Solar re-heating collector
Resin on top of concrete or screed in Maths lecture theatres in basement – less waste due to
pouring
Maths building: Finishes – carpet tiles review – must be Omni-directional
Salvage assessments of site
Walkways (bridges) – steel prefabricated already
Match skirting boards with off-cuts
Modular and Volumetric Lab benches plug and play, made off site
Client Furniture strategy – consistent & flexible – long term impact
Packaging – parallel with consumer purchasing – begin dialogue with suppliers
Burning packaging waste on site and use heat – adjacent to hospital – no biomass boiler

Chip pallets and plastic for university
Site wide strategy to conserve energy
Life cycle costing to make mainstream and test decision making
Exposed rock gabion walls hard core excavated material
Excavated materials used for retaining and landscape features
Identify larger contractor storage site – room for waste segregation
Rationalise use of building materials
De-classify conservation areas – make new buildings more efficient in terms of layout
Employ a specialist/’sympathetic’ waste specialist for removing/dealing with waste
Contractual documents to specify that contractors supply chain is reviewed at contractor
selection
Create a financial incentive on the contractor to reduce and recycle waste
Talk to suppliers of wall lining systems about reduction of actual material waste opportunities
Method statements from contractors to reduce waste on site and for correct installation of fragile
materials
Dialogue with plasterboard manufacturer
Architects to specify responsibly sourced materials (A-B)
Client buy in when it comes to their construction input, e.g. ATOS/SERCO, involve third parties
Architects to specify responsibly sourced materials (A-B)

Source materials locally – more likely to recycle and less fuel ‘waste’ in delivery
Recyclable fuels – biomass in itself renewable
Procurement and delivery systems
M&E on time
Efficient standards and systems already operated
Meet environmental standards in Islington procurement code
BB have policy on specifying reduced packaging from suppliers
BB’s policies on ordering from suppliers - Minimise over ordering
Take-back schemes for certain materials, such as plasterboard off-cuts
SWMP and monitoring of quantities
Good site storage facilities / JIT delivery
Specify increased recycled content (not a direct waste saving but reduces waste sent to landfill)
Simplify specification
Early supply chain involvement
Specification writing, added flexibility in the contract
Appropriate procurement and incentives
4.
Take-back systems could be specified for plasterboard and ceiling tiles off-cuts
Take-back systems could be specified for plasterboard and ceiling tiles off-cuts
Precast basements
No basements - no excavation so no internal fill
Use of natural materials – long term durability so less maintenance and replacement
Steel frame
Volumetric systems for offices / labs (pods)
Standard University construction type / grid
Modular / demountable partition systems
Recyclable / Deconstructable partition systems
Modular structure, series of facets rather than circle. Only circular part is outer panel cladding.
All beams are radial. Cantilevered flat slab.
Precast concrete frame rather than in situ pouring
No ceilings to non-lab areas

Management of waste / sign off of waste per package – responsibility at point of tender
Plasterboard strategy – future flexibility – dimension and consistency

Rock for façade – Serra Stone – Quintain developed process of developing/manufacturing façade
stone on site
Bubbledeck – minimise the weight of the structure – reduce slab material use
Omni-deck – no shuttering but quality/finish issues
Reuse second hand installation – issues with warranty, etc
Auditorium – raked timber (built on site) or steel modular systems build off site
Explicit part of brief? Client buy-in?
Mechanical handling of plasterboard or protection on board edges at manufacture to minimise
damage
Find out what waste current products produce when deconstructed
Brickwork and mortar to be recyclable (A-B)
Reuse car park cover/recycled demolition product
Consider reuse potential once design life complete
Pre-fabricated elements should be taken away, detailing?
Design for deconstruction
Brickwork and mortar to be recyclable (A-B)

‘Best fit’ material selection (not too large selection – stone, etc), broken down and reused at later
date
Screw fix where possible for better deconstruction
Installation of Wi-Fi systems could reduce cabling required around the school but could have a
significant adverse effect on the carbon footprint (very energy intensive in use) and have cost
implications for repair and replacement
Grasscrete could be used for the car park, fire access area and deliveries areas?
Although there is interest in future adaptability of the building and design for deconstruction, the
focus during the workshop was on the re-use of materials and components, off-site construction,
procurement, and dimensional coordination.
Adaptability plans for the extended use of the buildings by the community are already included in
5.
the specification. This is being implemented as a zoning system so that certain sections of the
school can be zoned off for use.
Wired & wireless ICT system – exists as back-up, future/existing use
Identify any future adaptations or extensions to the school, such as possible final link building,
where dismantling to facilitate additions.

Appendix 2
Net Waste Tool wastage rates
Wastage rate
Element Sub element Component
standard (%)
Walls, Floors and
Ceilings - finishes Walls 12.5mm plasterboard, paint finish 22.5
External Walls Outer skin Brickwork 20
External Walls Inner skin Blockwork 20
Walls, Floors and 80/20 wool/nylon carpet, natural fibre
Ceilings - finishes Floors underlay 20
Internal Walls Internal walls Fabric-covered framed panelling 15.45
External Walls Insulation All types 15
3 Coat Asphalt roof covering, solar reflective
Roof Roof covering paint 15
Structural
concrete Structural concrete Steel reinforcing 15
Substructure Ground slab Concrete Pre Cast, Beam and Block Flooring 14
Pre-cast concrete 50 thick Omniadec plank;
concrete topping; 300mm thick overall;
Floors Concrete pre cast reinforcement not exceeding 5% 13
Landscape Fill / hard
Earthworks standing / drainage 10
External Walls Outer skin Limestone cladding 10
Window boards, MDF, timber panelling, timber
Internal Walls Internal walls stud etc 10
Foundations user
Substructure defined Steel reinforcement in foundations 10
Walls, Floors and
Ceilings - finishes Walls Panelling, battening etc 10
Walls, Floors and Hardwood flooring, marble tiled flooring,
Ceilings - finishes Floors laminate etc. 10
Tile cladding, blockwork cladding, timber
External Walls Outer skin cladding 8.1
Roof Roof covering Tiles/slate 8
Walls, Floors and
Ceilings - finishes Walls Ceramic tiles 8
Walls, Floors and
Ceilings - finishes Floors Quarry tiles, granite tiles, ceramic, terazzo etc 8
External Walls Outer skin UPVC Shiplap cladding 5.25
External Walls Outer skin Render, plaster etc 5
Internal Walls Internal walls Wallboard, particle board 5
Structural Bases, footings, pile caps, ground beams,
concrete Structural concrete walls, slabs, piers 5
Substructure Foundation Concrete foundations, ground beams, piles etc 5
Walls, Floors and
Ceilings - finishes Walls Render, plaster etc 5
Walls, Floors and
Ceilings - finishes Floors Carpet tiles/vinyl sheet flooring 5
Walls, Floors and
Ceilings - finishes Ceilings Plaster 5

Appendix 3
Cost comparison table
Design detail Option Cost
(£) Unit
Exposed Fair faced concrete slab instead of Armstrong Dune
ceilings suspended ceiling
Armstrong Dune suspended ceiling 30.00 /m2 ceiling
Additional cost of fair faced formwork to soffit & 2 coats
emulsion paint 12.00 /m2 ceiling
Sub-alternative of canopy suspended ceiling system ~ 25% of
ceiling to have canopy (incl ff/painted soffit) 19.00 /m2 ceiling
Light weight Thin bed block wall instead of traditional block wall
concrete with mortar joints
blocks 100mm Celcon block wall with 10mm clm 1:2:9 mortar joints 27.86 /m2 wall area
100mm Celcon AAC block wall with 3mm Celcon thinjoint
mortar 29.42 /m2 wall area
Flexible PVC pipework instead of copper
plumbing Copper pipework with end feed capillary joints (weightings
50%:15mm, 30%:22mm, 20%:20mm) 25.00 /m of pipe run
Hep2O pipework with proprietary joints (weightings
50%:15mm, 30%:22mm, 20%:20mm) 21.00 /m of pipe run
Low waste Adopt Knauf system for creating door openings in
door jamb plasterboard stud walls instead of traditional "cut-out"
method
Plasterboard discarded per door opening (traditional method) 8.00 /door opening
Plasterboard discarded per door opening (Knauf method) 0.00 /door opening
Castellated Castellated steel beams instead of BS4 steel beams
beams 305 x 305mm UC x 240kg/m ~ beam for 7.5m span 414.00 /m of steel beam
Ditto but castellated web (218g/m) 316.00 /m of steel beam
Exposed Polished concrete floor instead of terrazzo tiles
concrete 300 x 300 x 28mm Terrazzo tiles laid in semi-dry screed 47.00 /m2 floor area
floor Power float unset concrete & apply surface hardener 8.00 /m2 floor area
Post- Post tensioned concrete slab instead of insitu reinforced
tensioned concrete slab
slab Post tensioned slab 125.00 /m2 slab
Traditional reinforced concrete slab 192.00 /m2 slab
Rotary Rotary bored piles instead of CFA piles
displacement CFA pile; 450mm diameter; 18m deep 1,260.00 /pile
piles Rotary displacement pile; 450mm diameter; 7½m deep 863.00 /pile
Voided 340mm Bubble-deck concrete slab instead of 410mm
biaxial slab reinforced concrete floor
BD340 slab 137.00 /m2 slab
410mm Solid reinforced concrete floor 181.00 /m2 slab
Tile detailing Tile detailing to reduce waste from 15% to 8% by using
100 x 100mm instead of 400 x 400mm ceramic tiles
Wastage costs 100mm x 100mm ceramic tiles 2.16 /m2 tiled area
Wastage costs 400mm x 400mm ceramic tiles 4.05 /m2 tiled area
Notes & assumptions

All figures include prelims@15%
All figures exclude VAT & consultants fees
All figures based on prices prevailing at Q2, 2009
Figures prepared by Steve Watson of F+G 01/05/09

www.wrap.org.uk/construction

Design Detailing - Evidence Base Report - v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Detailing - Evidence Base Report - v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evidence base report

Design detailing for materials resource

A guide to ten alternative construction design details which offer good

Project code: WAS400-040 ISBN: N/A

We work with businesses and individuals

Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk

Sean Lockie (Surveyor) Mike Sillett (Architect)

Elaine Toogood, Concrete Centre Neil Paterson, BRE

Product Manufacturers/Specialist Contractors

Design detailing for materials resource efficiency 3

 Designing out Waste: a design team guide for buildings1.

1.2 Selection of design details

Design detailing for materials resource efficiency 4

Final selection was based on the following key criteria:

1.3 Assessment criteria

1.3.1 Reduced materials use and waste creation

Design detailing for materials resource efficiency 5

1.3.2 Cost implications

1.3.3 Time implications

1.3.4 Carbon reduction

1.3.5 Recycling implications

Design detailing for materials resource efficiency 6

1.3.8 Impact on structure

1.3.9 Procurement issues

1.3.10 Off site construction

1.3.11 Salvaged components

1.3.15 Dimensional coordination

1.3.18 Additional information

Design detailing for materials resource efficiency 7

For each design detail the following information is provided:

Design details are presented in order of stated design stage.

Design detailing for materials resource efficiency 8

Subject Exposed concrete ceilings

2.1.1 Standard option

Fig. 2.1.1 Suspended ceiling tiles

Design detailing for materials resource efficiency 9

Fig. 2.1.2 Exposed concrete ceiling

Design detailing for materials resource efficiency 10

Criteria Potential benefits Quantification of benefits

Reduced This equates to 37m3 of materials for

7.5% of materials used in suspended

Construct-  Extra care is required in specification and installation of

Criteria Further considerations

Salvaged components  N/A

Deconstructability  Poor - as with most large areas of concrete structure.

Design detailing for materials resource efficiency 11

2.1.5 Embodied carbon calculation

Table 2.1.5 Embodied carbon of suspended ceiling system12

(tonnes) (tonnes) kgCO2e/kg (tonnes/1000m2)

Dune Max Board, Mineral Fibre

Design detailing for materials resource efficiency 12

Subject Rotary displacement piles (RDPs)

2.2.1 Standard option

 Materials use is determined by the depth of the piles required

 Waste is produced by the extraction of significant amounts of

2.2.2 Resource efficient design detail

Rotary displacement involves the use of a ‘boring’ tool (auger)

Design detailing for materials resource efficiency 13

Criteria Potential benefits Quantification of benefits

Criteria Further considerations

Dimensional coordination  N/A

Design detailing for materials resource efficiency 14

2.2.5 Embodied carbon calculation