06.05.2024 Views

Design Strategies IMPULSE - Sustainable Facades Vol 2

Report Winter Semester 2023/24

Report Winter Semester 2023/24

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Figure 32. Density<br />

Figure 36. Summary of comparative analysis<br />

Figure 33. Thermal Conductivity<br />

Figure 34. Heat Capacity<br />

Figure 35. Compressive strength<br />

Figure 35. Sound reduction (dB)<br />

The U-value, expressed in W/m²K, represents<br />

the overall heat transfer coefficient of a building<br />

element or product. It‘s calculated using the<br />

equation U-value = thermal conductivity (λ) /<br />

thickness (d). This value indicates the rate at which<br />

heat is transferred through one square meter<br />

of the structure, divided by the temperature<br />

difference across the structure.<br />

Compressive strength is the strength of a<br />

material loaded in compression. For load-bearing<br />

structures (1-2 stories) a compressive strength<br />

of 0.1-0.2MPa is sufficient, but for safety reasons<br />

and after the safety factors are applied, the<br />

compressive strength should be ca. 2-2.5 MPa [2].<br />

As Fig 35 shows unfi red earthen products,<br />

rammed earth and cork present the highest values<br />

of compressive strength, while hemp lime product<br />

presents a slightly lower value of compressive<br />

strength but still a sufficient compressive strength<br />

of more than 2 MPa. On the other hand, straw<br />

products have very low values, less than 1 MPa<br />

which means they are not suitable as load-bearing<br />

materials.<br />

Fig 36 represents the sound reduction capability<br />

of the materials. From this graph, it is noticed that<br />

Rammed earth and Hemp lime products present<br />

the highest sound reduction. In a project where<br />

acoustic performance has a high priority, these<br />

materials can be a better choice.<br />

Different comparative analyses result that<br />

different materials may belong to multiple<br />

categories depending on their applications<br />

(Fig 37), each offering unique benefi ts and<br />

considerations. While biodegradable materials<br />

require careful design to avoid moisture issues,<br />

cork stands out for its water resistance, alongside<br />

stabilized earthen structures. Conversely, straw<br />

products necessitate robust water protection due<br />

to susceptibility to rot. Despite this, straw remains<br />

cost-effective and widely available, boasting<br />

favorable thermal and mechanical properties,<br />

ideal for eco-friendly construction projects.<br />

8. Conclusion<br />

This study provides valuable insights into the<br />

practical implementation of biodegradable<br />

materials in envelope design, equipping<br />

architects, engineers, and builders with informed<br />

decision-making tools. Biodegradable materials<br />

offer numerous benefits, including renewability,<br />

reduced environmental impact, and compatibility<br />

with circular economy principles,<br />

while also enhancing structural integrity and<br />

indoor environmental quality. „Building for the<br />

Future: A Guide to Biodegradable Materials<br />

in Envelope <strong>Design</strong>“ aims to inspire industry<br />

professionals and researchers to embrace<br />

these materials for a more sustainable future,<br />

leveraging advancing technology to further<br />

enhance their performance and unlock their full<br />

potential in sustainable construction endeavors.<br />

26<br />

ARTICLES<br />

<strong>Design</strong> <strong>Strategies</strong> <strong>IMPULSE</strong> – <strong>Sustainable</strong> Façades 04.2024 <strong>Design</strong> <strong>Strategies</strong> <strong>IMPULSE</strong> – <strong>Sustainable</strong> Façades 04.2024<br />

ARTICLES<br />

27

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!