1. tes extension

smartTES

Innovation in timber construction for the modernisation of the building envelope

Book 2 TES Extension Tomi‐Samuel Tulamo (editor), Yrsa Cronhjort, Ville Riikonen, Markku Kolehmainen Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture Department of Architecture

Kai Nordberg Aalto University School of Engineering, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering

Wolfgang Huß Technische Universität München Chair for Timber Architecture

10.03.2014

smartTES

Book 2 – TES Extensions

Acknowledgements “smartTES – Innovation in timber construction for the building modernization” is a transnational research project under coordination of the WoodWisdom-Net and funding distributed by national funding agencies. Partners Germany - Technische Universität München - Hochschule Rosenheim - B&O Wohnungswirtschaft - Gumpp & Maier GmbH - Ambros GmbH - Funding: BMBF Finland - Aalto University - Finnish Real Estate Federation (Suomen Kiinteistöliitto ry) - Finnish Wood Research Oy - Metsä Wood - Puuinfo Oy - PAK RAK Oy - Funding: TEKES Norway - SINTEF - NTNU Norwegian Univeristy of Science and Technology - Funding: The Research Council of Norway Duration 2010-2013 Further information www.tesenergyfacade.com Public funding by:


smartTES

i

Contents Literature

ii

Internet references

v

Figure List

vii

Abbreviations and Units

xii

1.

TES EXTENSION

1

1.1. Background (Huß) 1.1.1. Building stock in Germany

1 1

1.2. Typical German multi-family buildings 1950 -1970 (Huß) 1.2.1. Building stock 1950 – 1960 1.2.2. Buildings from 1960 – 1970

4 4 7

1.3.

Existing building stock, Finnish concrete element buildings from the 1960’s to the1980’s 1.3.1. Basic structure 1.3.2. Foundations 1.3.3. HVAC / Building service systems

12 12 14 15

2.

State of the art - best practice

15

2.1.

Timber based prefabricated space modules

15

2.2.

Modular building structures of other materials

18

2.3.

Vertical building extensions in timber construction

21

2.4.

Horizontal building extensions in timber construction (Huß)

29

2.5.

Conclusions and TES applicability

33

3.

Requirements and limitations for building extensions

34

3.1.

Building Codes, Finland

34

3.2.

Building Codes, Germany (Huß)

36

3.3.

Transport requirements, Finland

39

3.4.

Transport requirements, Germany (Huß)

41

3.5.

Transport conclusions

45

4.

TES as a Load Bearing System (Huß)

46

5.

TES extension typology concepts (Huß)

50

5.1.

Introduction

50

5.2.

Vertical extensions

51

5.3.

Horizontal extensions (Huß)

67

6.

Case studies

88

6.1.

Demo case Siltamäki, Finland

88

6.2.

Competition Neu - Ulm Germany (Huß)

106

7.

Summary & Conclusions

119

8.

REFERENCES

120

ii

smartTES


Literature Cronhjort Y. Junnonen J-M., Kajander J-K., Kolehmainen M., le Roux S., Lylykangas K., Päätalo J., Sivunen M., Tulamo T. SmartTES Innovation in timber construction for the modernization of the building envelope. Project report 26.08.2011. [Kirja]. - [s.l.] : Aalto Univeristy School of Arts, Design and Architecture. Department of Architecture., 2011. - ISBN 978-952-60-45894(pdf). Kauffmann et al Building with Timber, Paths into the Future [Book]. - Munich – London – New York : Prestel Verlag, 2011. Kylliäinen Mikko ja Keronen Asko Lisärakentamisen rakennetekniset mahdollisuudet lähiöiden asuinkerrostaloissa // Tampereen teknillinen korkeakoulun julkaisuja 97.. - Tampere : Tampereen teknillinen korkeakoulu, 1999. Mäkiö Erkki Kerrostalot 1880 - 2000. - Helsinki : Rakennustietosäätiö, Rakennustieto Oy, 1994. Mäkiö Erkki Kerrostalot 1960 -1975, Rakennustietosäätiö [Kirja]. - Helsinki : Rakennustieto Oy, 1994. Mattila Jussi ja Peuhkurinen Terho Lähiökerrostalo lisärakentamishankkeen tekninen esiselvitysmenettely – Korjaus- ja LVIStekninenosuus // Tampereen teknillinen korkeakoulun julkaisuja 98.. - Tampere : Tampereen teknillinen korkeakoulu, 1999. Neapo Oy neapo_esite_final.pdf [Online] // Neapo Oy, FIXCEL® Metal Core Panel, Load bearing structure with exceptionalrigidity and low nominal weight. Neapo Oy. - 25. 10 2012. - http://www.neapo.fi/fi/www/att.php?id=19. Rakennusinsinöörien liitto RIL ry 205-1-2007 Puurakenteiden suunnitteluohje [Kirja]. - Helsinki : Rakennusinsinöörien liitto RIL ry, 2007. Rakennustieto Oy RT-kortti RT 92-10913, LVI-, sähkö- ja teleasennusten reitit ja asennustilat. Ympäristöministeriö, Rakennetun ympäristön osasto Suomen rakentamismääräykokoelma osa D2 Rakennuksten sisäilmasto ja ilmanvaihto, Määräykset ja ohjeet 2012 [Kirja]. - 2012. Building stock Germany Diefenbach N. Cischinsky H. Rodenfels M. Clausnitzer K. Datenbasis Gebäudebestand - Datenerhebung zur energetischen Qualität und zu den Modernisierungstrends im deutschen Wohngebäudebestand. Project report Bremer Energieinstitut und Institut Wohnen und Umwelt GmbH. – Darmstadt, 2010. Loga T. Diefenbach N. Born R. Deutsche Gebäudetypologie. Beispielhafte Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Energieeffizienz von typischen Wohngebäuden. Project report Institut Wohnen und Umwelt. – Darmstadt, 2011. Petsch W. Petsch J. Bundesrepublik – eine neue Heimat? Städtebau und Architektur nach `45. – Berlin: VAS Verlag für Ausbildung und Studium in der Elefanten Press, 1983. ISBN 3-88290-015-6. Durth W. Gutschow N. Architektur und Städtebau der fünfziger Jahre, Band 33 Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Nationalkomitees für Denkmalschutz. Bühl/Baden: Konkordia Druck GmbH, 1987. ISBN 3-922153-04-6.


smartTES

iii

Durth W. Gutschow N. Architektur und Städtebau der fünfziger Jahre, Band 41 Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Nationalkomitees für Denkmalschutz. Bühl/Baden: Konkordia Druck GmbH, 1990. ISBN 3-922153-06-2. von Beyme K. Berger H. (Editors) Neue Städte aus Ruinen. Deutscher Städtebau der Nachkriegszeit. - München: Prestel – Verlag, 1992. ISBN 37913-1164-6. Lange R. Architektur und Städtebau der sechziger Jahre. Planen und Bauen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der DDR von 1960 bis 1975. Band 65 Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Nationalkomitees für Denkmalschutz. Bühl/Baden: Konkordia Druck GmbH, 2003. ISBN 3-922153-13-5. Baureferat der Landeshauptstadt München (Editor) Bauen in München 1960 -1975. - München: Verlag C. Harbeke KG, 1970. Walter U. Sozialer Wohnungsbau in München. Die Geschichte der GWG (1918-1993). - München: Verlag F. Bruckmann KG, 1993. ISBN 3-7654-26091. Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (Editor) Strategien für Wohnstandorte an der Peripherie der Städte und in Umlandgemeinden. BBSR-online-Publication 38/2009. Download: http://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/Veroeffentlichungen/BBSROnline/2009/DL_ ON382009.pdf;jsessionid=8FA0DCEBE737D8D52F3B24D66C4F8107.live2051 ?__blob=publicationFile&v=2. ISSN 1868-0097.

Housing: Hegger M. Wohnwert-Barometer. Erfassungs- und Bewertungssystem nachhaltiger Wohnqualität. - Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, 2010. ISBN 9783-8167-8135-6. Sting H. Der Grundriss im mehrgeschossigen Wohnungsbau. – Stuttgart: Verlagsanstalt Alexander Koch GmbH, 1969. Triebel W. Kräntzer K. Grundrissbeispiele für Geschosswohnungsbau und Einfamilienhäuser. - Wiesbaden und Hannover: Bauverlag GmbH, 1970. Möller H. (Editor) Reihe Zeile Block & Punkt. Wohnungen, Häuser, Siedlungen im Raum München. Südhausbau 1936–1996. – München: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1997. ISBN 3-422-06212-2.

Building modernisation Germany Dirtheuer F. Die Zukunftsfähigkeit der 50er – Jahre – Siedlungen. Untersucht an sechs Siedlungsbeispielen in Bayern. Dissertation Technische Universität München, 2008. Download: http://nbnresolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:91-diss-20080131-645806-1-3 Dahme F. Nachverdichtung und Sanierung von Wohngebieten der fünfziger Jahre im Bewohnerurteil. Dargestellt am Beispiel einer Siedlung in Wald Kraiburg. Diploma thesis Technische Universität München, 1994. Mutschler M. Umbau von Wohngebieten der fünfziger Jahre. Dargestellt an Beispielen im Raum Stuttgart. Arbeitshefte des Institutes für Stadt- und Regionalplanung der Technischen Universität Berlin Heft 37. - Berlin: Zippel Druck, 1987. ISSN 0341-1125. ISBN 3 7983 1161 7.

iv

smartTES


Construction building stock Germany Ahnert R. Krause K. Typische Baukonstruktionen von 1860-1960, Band1. Berlin: Verlag für Bauwesen, 1996. ISBN 3-345-00564-6. Behringer A. Rek F. Das Maurerbuch. – Ravensburg: Otto Maier Verlag, 1955. Mittag M. Baukonstruktionslehre. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Verlag, 1953. Pfefferkorn W. Dachdecken und Mauerwerk. – Köln: Müller Verlag, 1980. ISBN 3-481-17971-5. Neumann F. Baukonstruktionslehre Teil 2. – Stuttgart: G. Teubner Verlag, 1956 Banz H. Baukonstruktionsdetails 1+2+3. – Stuttgart: Krämer Verlag, 1979. ISBN 3-7828-0445-7. Weil L. Baukonstruktionen des Wohnungsbaues. – Leipzig: B.G. Teubner Verlag, 1968.

Building regulations Germany Battran L. Kruszinski T. Brandschutz im Bestand. Bestandschutz auf Basis historischer Bauordnungen Bayern. – Köln: Feuertrutz Verlag für Brandschutzpublikationen, 2010. ISBN 978-3–939138–82–2. Geburtig G. Baulicher Brandschutz im Bestand. Brandschutztechnische Beurteilung vorhandener Bausubstanz. - Berlin – Wien – Zürich: Beuth Verlag, 2008. ISBN 978-3–410–16775–4. Busse J. Dirnberger F. Die neue Bayerische Bauordnung. Handkommentar 4.Auflage. - Heidelberg - München - Landsberg – Frechen – Hamburg: Rehm Verlag, 2009. ISBN 978–3–8073–0127-3.

Timber construction sector Germany Köster H. Wehner M. Marktforschung & Markterschließung. Holzbau der Zukunft HTO Teilprojekt 8. - Project report Hochschule Rosenheim University of applied science, 2008.

Publication best practise projects in professional magazines DGfH Informations- und Service GmbH, Holzabsatzfonds (Editors) Informationsdienst Holz. Holzbauhandbuch Reihe 1 Teil 14 Folge 1 Modernisierung von Altbauten. – Bonn: 2001. ISSN 0466-2114 Entwicklungsgemeinschaft Holzbau in der DGfH (Editor) Informationsdienst Holz. Holzbauhandbuch Reihe 1 Teil 14 Folge 3 Nachträglicher Dachgeschoßausbau. – München: 1992. ISSN 0466-2114 Fritzen K. (Editor) Bauen mit Holz - issue 12.2009 Nachverdichtung, Sanierung, Urbaner Wohnungsbau. - Bruderverlag: Köln, 2009. ISSN 005-6545. Fritzen K. (Editor) Bauen mit Holz - issue 12.2010 Aufstockung, Ausstellungshalle, Bauen mit Holz Kongress - Bruderverlag: Köln, 2010. ISSN 005-6545.


smartTES

v

Kastner AG (Editor) Die neue Quadriga – issue 4/2004 Im Blickpunkt: Aufstockungen und Dachausbau. – Verlag Kastner: Wolnzach, 2004. ISSN 1612-104X DETAIL Zeitschrift für Architektur + Baudetail issue 2006/12 Nutzbare Dachflächen. – Institut für internationale Architekturdokumentation GmbbH & Co.KG: München, 2006. ISSN 0011-9571 WEKA Media GmbH & Co.KG (Editor) Mikado, Unternehmermagazin für Holzbau und Ausbau issue 5.2008 Aufstockung Gute Aussichten für Holz. WEKA Media GmbH & Co.KG: Kissing, 2008. ISSN 0944-5749 WEKA Media GmbH & Co.KG (Editor) Mikado, Unternehmermagazin für Holzbau und Ausbau issue 5.2009 Aufstockung Holz belebt die Stadt. - WEKA Media GmbH & Co.KG: Kissing, 2009. ISSN 0944-5749 Lignum Schweizerische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für das Holz (Editor) Holzbulletin issue 25/1990 Umnutzen Sanieren 1. – Zürich 1990. Lignum Holzwirtschaft Schweiz (Editor) Holzbulletin issue 69/2003 Umbauen und Aufstocken – Zürich 2003. ISSN 1420-0260. Lignum Holzwirtschaft Schweiz (Editor) Holzbulletin issue 71/2004 Erweitern – Zürich 2004. ISSN 1420-0260. Lignum Holzwirtschaft Schweiz (Editor) Holzbulletin Aufstockungen – Zürich 2006. ISSN 1420-0260.

issue

78/2006

proHolz Austria (Editor) zuschnitt issue 13.2004 Holz hebt ab. - Dornbirn 2004. ISSN 1608-9642. proHolz Austria (Editor) zuschnitt issue 34.2009 Schichtwechsel. - Wien 2009. ISSN 1608-9642. ISBN 978-3-902320-68-1. proHolz Austria (Editor) zuschnitt issue 42. 2011 Obendrauf. - Wien 2011. ISSN 1608-9642. ISBN 978-3-902320-83-4. Bauverlag BV GmbH (Editor) Deutsche Bauzeitschrift issue 6/2010 Bauen im Bestand umnutzen, sanieren, aufstocken. – Bauverlag BV GmbH: Gütersloh, 2010. ISSN 0011-4782.

Internet references http://www.boklok.com/upload/Documents/Documents%20Denmark/Brochures/ BoKlok%20brochure%202007%2003%2021.pdf REF 19.6.2011 http://www.vandkunsten.com/uk/Projects/Project/BOKLOK-maalov/77-37.p REF 19.6.2011 http://www.vandkunsten.com/public_site/webroot/cache/project/file/BOKLOK_so enderbogaard.pdf http://ww2.moelven.com/imagearchive/moelvenmagasinet_3_06.pdf 19.6.2011

REF

http://www.marinahousing.fi/files/pdf/MH_catalog_screen.pdf REF 19.6.2011 http://www.rakennuslehti.fi/uutiset/projektit/19797.html REF 9.8.2011

vi

smartTES


http://www.containercity.com/container-city-one.html REF 9.8.2011 http://www.containercity.com/container-city-two.html REF 9.8.2011 http://www.zen17279.zen.co.uk/CCfaqs.htm REF 25.4.2011 http://www.tempohousing.com/products/housing-solutions/professor.html 19.6.2011

REF

http://www.tempohousing.com/projects/keetwonen.html REF 19.6.2011 http://www.tempohousing.com/pdf/brochures/thb-web_eng.pdf REF 9.8.2011 http://www.moelven.com/Documents/Sverige/Referenser/Byggsystem%20och% 20konstruktioner/Byggmodul/Case_blad_Nacka.pdf REF 19.6.2011 http://www.moelven.com/se/Produkter-ochtjanster/Byggmoduler/Referenser/Bostader/Lagenheter-kv-Lasarettet-Nacka/ REF 19.6.2011 http://www.sandellsandberg.se/project/Alby+etage REF 9.8.2011 http://www.ncc.se/sv/Byggnader/referensprojekt-byggnader/Alby-Stockholm/ REF 19.6.2011 http://www.vandkunsten.com/uk/Projects/Project/grantoften---rooftophousing/98-37.p REF 19.6.2011 http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/YhC3%A4+useampi+omakotitalo+kulkee+tilaaj alle+rekan+kyydiss%C3%A4/1135266885107 REF 19.6.2011 http://www.boklok.com/upload/Documents/Documents%20Denmark/Brochures/ BoKlok%20brochure%202007%2003%2021.pdf REF 9.8.2011 http://tegeludden.pro.drax.se/upploadpdf/4ce23c___Radhus%20%C3%B6versi kt%20plan%207.pdf REF 9.8.2011 http://www.vandkunsten.com/public_site/webroot/cache/project/planche21.jpg REF 9.8.2011 http://www.soltag.net/pdf/STfolder.pdf REF 19.6.2011 http://www.holzbau-deutschland.de/aktuelles/lagebericht_und_statistiken/ (last accessed 13 March 2013) Holzbau Deutschland Bund Deutscher Zimmermeister im Zentralverband des Deutschen Baugewerbes e. V. (Hrsg.); Lageberichte 2006 – 2012 https://www.destatis.de/DE/Startseite.html Statistisches Bundesamt

(last

accessed

21

May

2013)

http://www.bmvbs.de (last accessed 21 May 2013) Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung, Bericht zur Lage und Perspektive der Bauwirtschaft 2012


smartTES

vii

Figure List Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 Figure 1-3 Figure 1-4 Figure 1-5 Figure 1-6 Figure 1-7 Figure 1-8 Figure 1-9 Figure 1-10 Figure 1-11 Figure 1-12 Figure 1-13 Figure 1-14 Figure 1-15 Figure 1-16 Figure 1-17 Figure 1-18 Figure 1-19 Figure 1-20 Figure 1-21 Figure 1-22 Figure 1-23 Figure 1-24

Quantity of multiple dwellings in existing buildings [Huß, based on data Statistisches Bundesamt] Multiple dwellings – building age, number of storeys, ownership, freestanding building [Huß, based on data Institut Wohnen und Umwelt, Darmstadt] Construction and energetic standard outer walls of the building stock [Huß, based on data Institut Wohnen und Umwelt, Darmstadt] Percentage of destroyed housing space in German cities after World War 2 The neighbourhood scheme described by Hans Bernhard Reichows in ,Organische Stadtbaukunst' 1948 Model floor plan 1:200 by Bund Deutscher Architekten (Association of German Architects) 1951 Model floor plan 1:200 by Oberste Baubehörde (Supreme Building Authority) Munich 1953 Typical housing development of the 1950s –Munich Griegstraße Typical tower blocks of the 1960s with quite complexe building volumes Floor plan1:250 building previous figure Typical dwelling of the 1960s with large balconies and diffenciated building volume Floor plan1:200 building previous figure Typical urbanistic strategy of the 1960s: Combination of highrise towers and horizontal buildings Experimental building of the 1960s: Terraced hill house Partly elemented building frame structure,[ original image Mäkiö 1994, image texts by the editor] Concrete element building frame structure, [original image Mäkiö 1994, image texts by the editor] BES-standard concrete element building frame structure, [ original image Mäkiö 1994, image texts by the editor] Ammerwald Alpine Hotel, Structure breakdown, [Kauffmann et al.: Building with Timber, Paths into the Future] Ammerwald Alpine Hotel, Standard floor plan , [Kaufmann et al.: Building with Timber, Paths into the Future] Impulse Centre in Graz, erection of office space space module, [Kauffmann et al.: Building with Timber, Paths into the Future] Installation of modular FIXCEL -apartment units by Neapo, [http://www.neapo.fi/fi/www/popupcard.php?id=29] Exterior view of the ContainerCity [http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4154/5002715126_220a13b374 _o.jpg,Image by Pdg,2010] Tempohousing units in Amsterdam, [http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3016/2989423487_8bd187fb8f_ o.jpg, image by Tadolo, 2008] Lasarettet rooftop extensions, [http://www.moelven.com/Documents/Sverige/Referenser/By ggsystem%20och%20konstruktioner/Byggmodul/Case_blad _Nacka.pdf]

2 2 3 4 5 5 6 6 8 9 10 10 11 11 12 13 14 17 17 18 19 20 20

21

viii

smartTES


Figure 1-25 Alby Etage rooftop extension [http://www.sandellsandberg.se/content/images/630x417/13 7.jpg] Figure 1-26 Multi-family housing Hannover Schlägerstraße [Photo: Frank Lattke] Figure 1-27 Multi-family housing München Fernpassstraße [Photo: Stefan Müller-Naumann] Figure 1-28 Multi-family housing München Fernpassstraße section 1:200 [Drawing: Hristina Lazaroff TUM] Figure 1-29 Karlhofschule Linz [Photo: grundstein] Figure 1-30 Karlhofschule Linz section section 1:200 [Drawing: Eva Classen TUM] Figure 1-31 School Bad Segeberg [Photo: Meyer Steffens Arch.] Figure 1-32 School Bad Segeberg section 1:500 [Drawing: Helena Frigowitsch TUM] Figure 1-33 Lecture building Herrsching [Photo: Bogevischs Büro] Figure 1-34 Lecture building Herrsching section 1:200 [Drawing: Katharina Glomb TUM] Figure 1-35 Treehouses Hamburg Bebelallee [Photo: Hagen Stier] Figure 1-36 Rendering vertical extension by space modules Landesgarage Graz Figure 1-37 Hannover Schlägerstr.: Sketch floor plan flat 1:200 [Huß] Figure 1-38 Hannover Schlägerstr.: Space modules stored in the court yard [Photo: Huß] Figure 1-39 Augsburg Grüntenstr. : Sketch floor plan flat 1:200 [Huß] Figure 1-40 Augsburg Grüntenstr. : Assembly of TES element [Photo: lattkearchitekten] Figure 1-41 München Fernpassstr.: Walkways and Stairs [Photo: Stefan Müller-Naumann] Figure 1-42 Gasfabrikstraße Bamberg street view [Photo: Nickel und Wachter Architects] Figure 1-43 Gasfabrikstraße Bamberg floor plan extension 1:200 [Nickel und Wachter Architects] Figure 1-44 Space module (width 3,90 m) Impulszentrum Graz Architect: Prof. Riess [Photo: KLH Massivholz] Figure 1-45 Maximum length dimensions of a trailer truck without the need of a certificate of exemption (accordingto StVZO § 32) [Huß] Figure 1-46 Overview German constraints for transport with oversized width [Huß] Figure 1-47 TES Element loadbearing – Timber frame construction vs. skeleton[Huß] Figure 1-48 TES Element loadbearing – Alternative structures [Huß] Figure 1-49 TES loadbearing – overview alternative foundation solutions [Huß] Figure 1-50 Best practise Munich Fernpassstraße2011. Cross-section showing modernization of facade, vertical and horizontal extension 1:200 [Planning Consortium Kaufmann Lichtblau] Figure 1-51 Façade modernization – Vertical extension – Horizontal extension [Huß] Figure 1-52 Residential and workshop building Aarau [Photo: bkf architektur ag] Figure 1-53 Longitudinal section [bkf architectur ag]

22 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 41 42 44 46 47 49 50 51 51 52


smartTES

Figure 1-54 Figure 1-55 Figure 1-56

Multi-family housing Zürich Irchel [Photo: Kleffel + Straub] Cross section [Straub + Kleffel] Head quarter Winterthur burkhalter sumi architekten [Photo: Heinrich Helfenstein] Figure 1-57 Cross section [burkhalter sumi architekten] Figure 1-58 Zürich Manessestraße [Photo: burkhalter sumi Architekten] Figure 1-59 Cross section [burkhalter sumi Architekten] Figure 1-60 Original building: Punctual circulation – Linear circulation [Huß] Figure 1-61 Prolongation of the existing system [Huß] Figure 1-62 Addition to the existing system [Huß] Figure 1-63 Replacement of the existing system [Huß] Figure 1-64 Independent access to vertical extension [Huß] Figure 1-65 Residential and workshop building Aarau [bkf architektur ag] Figure 1-66 Multi-family housing Zürich Irchel [Straub+Kleffel Architekten] Figure 1-67 Treehouses Hamburg Bebelallee [Photo: Hagen Stier] Figure 1-68 Bebelallee floor plan existing level [blauraum Architekten] Figure 1-69 Bebelallee floor plan new level [blauraum Architekten] Figure 1-70 Zürich Manessestrasse [Model photo: burkhalter sumi Architekten] Figure 1-71 School Stainach [ Photo: Bramberger Architekten] Figure 1-72 Multi-family housing Munich Fernpassstraße [Photo: Stefan Müller-Naumann] Figure 1-73 Extension bunker Frankfurt [Photo: Index Architekten] Figure 1-74 Load transfer via original building structures [Huß] Figure 1-75 Load transfer within a new building envelope [Huß] Figure 1-76 No changes in the supporting structure [Huß] Figure 1-77 Load concentrations within the structure [Huß] Figure 1-78 Structural strategies in case of deviating structures [Huß] Figure 1-79 Top storey ceiling stable – not stable [Huß] Figure 1-80 Geometry types of the connection to the stock building [Huß] Figure 1-81 Connection to the existing building - overview of the influencing design parameters [Huß] Figure 1-82 Horizontal extensions – Possibilities of load transfer – schematic axonometry [Huß] Figure 1-83 Horizontal extensions – Possibilities of load transfer – schematic cross section [Huß] Figure 1-84 Horizontal extensions – Possibilities of load transfer – examples [Huß] Figure 1-85 Horizontal extension – functional differentiation [Huß] Figure 1-86 Horizontal extension – Systematic interior rooms [Huß] Figure 1-87 Horizontal Extension – Connection situations [Huß] Figure 1-88 Horizontal Extension- exemplary layers ceiling construction [Huß] Figure 1-89 Exemplary horizontal extension joint between original balcony and theTES extension vertical section [Huß] Figure 1-90 : Horizontal extension – exemplary alternative joint connections [Huß] Figure 1-91 Alternative1: Exemplary horizontal extension joint between original exterior wall and aTES extension. Vertical section [Huß]

ix

52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 58 58 59 59 59 60 60 61 61 62 62 63 63 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

x

smartTES


Figure 1-92 Alternative 2: Exemplary horizontal extension joint between the original exterior wall and the TES extension. Vertical section Huß] Figure 1-93 Alternative 3: Exemplary horizontal extension joint between the original exterior wall and aTES extension. Vertical section [Huß] Figure 1-94 Typical floor plan 1950s (Ingolstadt Brucknerstrasse) 1:150 [Huß] Figure 1-95 Typical room layers and depths of buildings oriented towards east –west [Huß] Figure 1-96 Design study – Overview floor plan proposals [Huß] Figure 1-97 Floor plan 1:200 Alternative 1.3 [Huß] Figure 1-98 Floor plan 1:200 Alternative 2.2 [Huß] Figure 1-99 Alternatives retrofit as to reach accessibility [Huß] Figure 1-100 Floor plan 1:200 Alternative. 3.1 [Huß] Figure 1-101 Floor plan 1:200 Alternative. 3.3 [Huß] Figure 1-102 Floor plan 1:200 Alternative. 3.4 [Huß] Figure 1-103 Siltamäki location in Helsinki [Map data ©2013 Google] Figure 1-104 Areal photo from east. Demo building highlighted. [Fonecta maps / kartta.fonecta.fi] Figure 1-105 Mechanical ventilation concepts / scenario 3 with different solutions [Tulamo] Figure 1-106 Mechanical ventilation concepts / scenario 1 [Tulamo] Figure 1-107 Areal study of rooftop extensions, small units and one rooftop floor [Tulamo] Figure 1-108 Areal study of rooftop extensions, 1-2 one rooftop floors and sinle roof top floor with deck access. [Tulamo] Figure 1-109 Areal study of rooftop extensions, 3-4 rooftop floors in towers and mixture of the different typologies [Tulamo] Figure 1-110 First rooftop extension floor. Space component boundaries presented with red dashed line [Tulamo] Figure 1-111 First extension floor plan [Tulamo] The red circles repreent the radius of the drainage from the existing building service systems shafts, where wet spaces should be placed. Figure 1-112 Adjustment structure highlighted with red [Tulamo] Figure 1-113 Load bearing scenario A: The loads of two new rooftop floors are evenly distributed to adjustment structure [Nordberg] Figure 1-114 Load bearing scenario B Load bearing walls are vertically in line and adjustment structure is loaded with its own load and loads in the extension floor (furniture etc.), [Nordberg] Figure 1-115 Load bearing scenario C, A load bearing wall from the vertical extension floors is placed on top of the adjustment layer in the middle of the span of the load bearing walls of the existing building.[Nordberg] Figure 1-116 Load bearing scenario D,The loads of the both rooftop extension floors are placed on the adjustment layer in the middle of the the span of the load bearing walls of the existing building [Nordberg] Figure 1-118 The total thickness of the adjustment layer [Tulamo] Figure 1-119 Breakdown of the extension construction, adding the adjustment layer [Tulamo] Figure 1-120 Plan of the extension construction, adding the building service systems and air handling units [Tulamo]

77 78 80 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 89 90 91 91 93 93 94 94 95 95 96 96

97

97 98 99 99


smartTES

Figure 1-121 Breakdown of the extension construction, adding the building service systems and air handling units [Tulamo] Figure 1-122 Breakdown of the extension construction, adding space modules around the air handling unit Figure 1-123 Breakdown of the extension construction, adding more space modules Figure 1-124 Space module and adjustment structure integration scenarios [Tulamo] Figure 1-125 Apartment specific air handling unit and ventilation ducts placed above apartment entrance door over the recessed ceiling [Tulamo] Figure 1-126 Extension of the existing staircase to a single additional floor [Tulamo] Figure 1-127 Elevator example 1: Replacing the other flight of the existing stair with a new retrofit elevator. [Tulamo] Figure 1-128 Elevator example 2: Replacing the existing stairs with new stairs and an external elevator [Tulamo] Figure 1-129 Street view – South facade of the stock building [Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS)] Figure 1-130 Situation plan before modernization [Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS)] Figure 1-131 Ground floor plan before modernization [Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS)] Figure 1-132 Site plan after modernization [Doris Grabner] Figure 1-133 Ground floor plan 1:200 [Huß] Figure 1-134 Second floor plan 1:100 [Huß] Figure 1-135 Top floor plan 1:100 [Huß] Figure 1-136 Visualization south façade [Michael Maier] Figure 1-137 Visualization north façade [Michael Maier] Figure 1-138 Cross section A-A 1:100 [Huß] Figure 1-139 Section south façade 1:50 [Huß] Figure 1-140 Section north façade 1:50 [Huß] Figure 1-141 Elevation north façade 1:50 [Christian Schühle] Figure 1-142 Concept sanitary objects independent from original bathrooms [Huß]

xi

100 100 101 102 103 104 104 105 106 106 107 108 108 109 110 111 111 112 113 114 115 118

xii

smartTES


Abbreviations and Units Abbreviations AHU BES CLT EEA ENEV EU HVAC ISO KTH TES

Units Hz kN m mm m²

Air Handling Unit (Finnish) Concrete element standard (Betonielementtistandardi) Cross laminated timber European Economic Area Energy Saving Ordinance European Union Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning International Organization for Standardization Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan TES EnergyFaçade - timber based element system for improving the energy efficiency of the building envelope

hertz kilonewton metre millimetre squaremetre


1.

smartTES

1

TES EXTENSION The scope of the extension research is to develop model solutions for timber based building extensions that can be accomplished in connection to a TES Facade renovation. The aim is to find solutions for structural timber-based systems for rooftop and horizontal extensions. The research focuses on creating exemplary solutions from architectural, structural and building service system’s point of view which fit to the most typical suburban buildings, which in Finland are concrete element apartment buildings built in the 1960’s and the 1970’s and in Germany concrete buildings from the 1950’s post-war era. The designed solutions are also designed to meet current energy efficiency requirements for new building. The TES Extension process is designed to be both compatible and executed in connection to a TES Facade renovation. However, it is also possible to realize the extension independently. TES Extension solutions follow the principle that tenants in the old, existing building have the possibility to continue living in their apartments during the whole renovation process. TES Extensions are recommended to be realized as prefabricated space modules when building service systems are integrated to the modules. This shortens the work on site and provides a high level of finishing including final surface materials with the pre-installed building service systems. Using prefabricated space modules shortens significantly the work on site where only assembly takes place, hence reducing the disturbances to the tenants. This part contains examples of state-of-art / best practise projects, a review of the existing building stock, definitions of requirements for extensions and model solutions for case-study buildings.

1.1. Background (Huß) 1.1.1. Building stock in Germany Characteristics of the German building stock In the following, the German building stock is briefly described. Starting from a general overview the analysis continues through focusing on parameters pertaining to building modernization and extension. The possibilities of extensions are not limited to housing buildings. However, the following discussion focuses, due to the availability of data, on residential buildings (with a total of 39.7 million existing homes in Germany by end of 2011).

2

smartTES


Figure 1-1

Quantity of multiple dwellings in existing buildings [Huß, based on data Statistisches Bundesamt]

Figure 1-2

Multiple dwellings – building age, number of storeys, ownership, freestanding building [Huß, based on data Institut Wohnen und Umwelt, Darmstadt]


smartTES

3

31% of all dwellings in Germany are located in multi-family buildings built between 1949 and 1983[1]. 92.4% of multi-family buildings are classified as belonging to German building classes 1-4. This stock is of the highest interest for building extensions in timber construction, because this range permits the use of timber construction as load bearing structure. [2]

Figure 1-3 Construction and energetic standard outer walls of the building stock [Huß, based on data Institut Wohnen und Umwelt, Darmstadt]

Construction of the outer wall In total 92.5% of the external walls of German buildings prior to 1978 are made of bricks. There are large regional differences in the masonry types: in the north of Germany double-shell structures dominate with a share of about 60%, in the south single-layer masonry walls prevails (more than 85%).[3]

External wall thermal insulation standard Buildings that have not yet been energetically modernized are of primary interest for building modernizations and extensions according the TES method. Until today 27.6 % of all housing buildings constructed before 1978 (year of the first Thermal Insulation Regulation -1.Wärmeschutzverordnung- in Germany) have been modernized by adding a thermal insulation to the outer walls. The correlation between the modernization rates and the geographic situation of the building can be described as follows: The location of the buildings in rural areas, small or large cites hardly influences the modernization rate. There is no apparent correlation between the growth of communities and the modernization rate. There are different modernization rates in different parts of Germany. East Germany tops the list with 28.8% thermally modernized outer wall surface, while North (20.9%) and South Germany (17.8%) are lagging well behind. The structure of the ownership also influences the modernization rate: In former West Germany housing companies achieve the highest modernization rate with

4

smartTES


28.6% energetically modernized outer wall surface, followed by companies owned by individual owners with a rate of 21.4% renovated building stock. Owners' associations are least successful (16.5%).

1.2. Typical German multi-family buildings 1950 1970 (Huß) 1.2.1. Building stock 1950 – 1960 To this day the consequences of the destruction of the 2nd World War characterize the German building stock. 45% of over 10 million homes in West Germany were destroyed or severely damaged by 1945. Only one-third of the housing stock was spared from the effects of war. In 1950 we were still lacking 6.3 million homes.[4]

Figure 1-4

Percentage of destroyed housing space in German cities after World War 2 [5]

As a model for the reconstruction, the ideal of the ‘structured and spatial city' [6] prevailed. In contrast to the traditional city centers of the previous centuries,


smartTES

5

which were seen as outdated and not beneficial to human well-being, green cities with optimal ventilation and sunlight were be developed.

Figure 1-5

The neighbourhood scheme described by Hans Bernhard Reichows in ,Organische Stadtbaukunst' 1948 [7]

Exemplary plans were needed as a guide for reconstruction. These were delivered, for example, in the form of model floor plans of the Association of German Architects or the Supreme Building Authority.

Figure 1-6

Model floor plan 1:200 by Bund Deutscher Architekten (Association of German Architects) 1951 [8]

6

smartTES

Figure 1-7 [9]


Model floor plan 1:200 by Oberste Baubehörde (Supreme Building Authority) Munich 1953

As a result of the need to create very quickly the greatest possible number of homes, a very homogeneous stock of multi-family buildings was constructed according to these model solutions. The buildings have little in common with today's ideas of living. They provide a great challenge and at the same time a big chance for building modernization. The multiplication potential of exemplary modernization solutions for this type of buildings is considerable.

Figure 1-8

Typical housing development of the 1950s –Munich Griegstraße [10]


smartTES

7

Characteristics of housing developments from the 1950s

A structure of building rows for optimal lighting and ventilation of apartments Often 2-4 storeys, in core cities even more Big open spaces with little differentiation between building rows Mono-functional developments focused on living, barely other uses Seldom a mix of apartment sizes, mostly 3-room flats for the ‘standard – family’ No spatially formed street spaces Seldom any relation to the existing urban context Often with an appreciated amount of trees In growing cities, former peripheral urban locations have now become attractive areas close to the city center

Characteristics of multi-family buildings from the 1950s Supporting structure: Outer walls and middle wall load bearing (more seldom bulkhead structures) Depth of the buildings is just over 9 meters regardless of the orientation of the building Staircases with 2 - 4 flats per storey Size and proportion of the individual rooms sufficient even from today’s point of view Ceiling height approx. 2,40 m, partly less Very small, almost unusable bathrooms Kitchen and living room without spatial relation The dining zone is part of the living room and not seen as an independent zone No or very small balconies Small window openings, more seldom French doors Masonry walls, ceilings concrete or timber construction Pitched roofs with unheated attic Complete basement in concrete, more seldom masonry

1.2.2. Buildings from 1960 – 1970 This decade of the ‘economic miracle' is dominated by developing prosperity, full employment, and a great confidence in the future. The reconstruction is

8

smartTES


continued. Housing is developing in different directions: The homogeneity caused by the emergency of the fifties is lost. The idea of the ‘spatial city' continues to play a role. Along comes the new model ‘urban by densification'. New forms of settlements are introduced: Residential towers and large estates, first terrace houses and small scale cluster-like structures with residential roads, game courts and public places were developed. At the same time the monotone row structure still play an important role in this decade as well. With special buildings (for example churches) construction experiments as precast building systems, tent structures or space frameworks were tested. Large investments were made in educational buildings: Compact and flexible buildings were designed instead of the pavilions of the 1950s. Due to economic prosperity many office buildings were needed and built. The open-plan office is getting popular, curtain walls prevail. The importance of concrete as a façade material increases substantially. [11] The floor plans reflect the growing standard: Living and dining areas are getting larger and better differentiated. Various spatial configurations of the zones kitchen - dining – living can be observed. The separation of the apartment into a public and a private part is becoming the standard. In East Germany concrete slab construction is increasingly impacting on housing since 1959.

Figure 1-9

Typical tower blocks of the 1960s with quite complexe building volumes [12]


Figure 1-10

smartTES

Floor plan1:250 building previous figure [13]

9

10

smartTES

Figure 1-11 volume [14]

Figure 1-12


Typical dwelling of the 1960s with large balconies and diffenciated building

Floor plan1:200 building previous figure [15]


smartTES

Figure 1-13 Typical urbanistic strategy of the 1960s: Combination of highrise towers and horizontal buildings [16]

Figure 1-14

Experimental building of the 1960s: Terraced hill house [17]

11

12

smartTES


1.3. Existing building stock, Finnish concrete element buildings from the 1960’s to the1980’s 1.3.1. Basic structure In Finland the construction with prefabricated building units started in the beginning of the 1960’s by using elements in exterior walls. A partly elementbased building was the most typical building type between 1960 and 1975 with the building skeleton casted on-site and exterior walls of prefabricated concrete elements. In these buildings the horizontal roof and floor slabs were massive concrete slabs with a maximum span of 5 to 6 metres. The structural height of this slab was typically 190 mm.

Figure 1-15

Partly elemented building frame structure,[ original image Mäkiö 1994, image texts by the editor]

Step by step the building production moved towards more extensive use of prefabrication. The first step was a structure where the separating walls were made out of concrete elements and horizontal structures out of massive concrete slab elements. The structural height of horizontal slabs was 190 – 200 mm and the span up to 5,4 meters.


smartTES

Figure 1-16

13

Concrete element building frame structure, [original image Mäkiö 1994, image texts by the editor]

As element based construction in Finland evolved, a standardized BES system for the element buildings was developed. Its characteristics were based on a pre-stressed hollow core slab which was used both as roof and floor slabs. With this innovation the amount of bearing and separating walls was reduced dramatically. The hollow core slabs were standardized and the height was 265 mm and the span usually around 10 meters. The first BES buildings were produced in 1971. A few years later The BES technique became more common and a construction industry standard.

14

smartTES

Figure 1-17


BES-standard concrete element building frame structure, [ original image Mäkiö 1994, image texts by the editor]

The distance between bearing walls or the span of the horizontal structures has a major effect on building additional floors. Structures and spans in additional floors have to be designed according to the spans and limitations of the old, existing building. In a Finnish concrete element building the construction principles are based on transversal bearing walls and non-load bearing exterior walls on the long side of the building. The transversal stiffening of the building is therefore easily realized with transverse walls. For longitudinal stiffening some stiffening walls were placed in the middle line of the building in contact with the staircase. Typically the floor height of the building was 2800 mm and the room height therefore 2600 mm[18]. The thickness of the bearing walls was usually 160 mm, but in BES buildings 180 mm.[19] When planning extensions the capacity of the old walls still need to be calculated case-by-case, as to find out their load bearing capacity with regard to additional, new loads.

1.3.2. Foundations In a concrete element building with load bearing walls and slabs the possibilities of building additional floors depends, from a technical perspective , most on the capacity of the foundations and the existing ground properties on the site. E.g. the bearing wall dimensions are formed according to other factors like fire loads or sound insulation requirements.[20] Concrete element buildings from the 1960’s and 70’s have usually been founded by using supporting concrete piles or wall footings. In case the geotechnical bearing capacity of the ground has been on a reasonable level,


smartTES

15

also a slab moulded directly on the ground has been used. Usually the capacity of the supporting piles can be analysed more reliably than the capacity of footings, because denting affects more on the capacity of wall footings. Usually a building founded on supporting piles can be extended easier than a building with wall footings. On the other hand, it can be difficult to realize extensions to buildings founded on friction or cohesion piles. The bearing capacity of friction piles is lower than for supporting piles[21].

1.3.3. HVAC / Building service systems A mechanically ventilated, common duct air exhaust is the most typical ventilation system in typical Finnish concrete element buildings from the 1960’s and 1970’s.. In this system the exhaust air pipes of several apartments were connected to a common collector duct. The collector duct was in turn, connected in the loft space to the ventilation machine. Alternatively, an extractor fan could be used.[22] The sewage system was based on cast iron sewers and drains at least until the end of the 1960’s. Plastic sewers were introduced towards the end of the 1960’s and the use continued throughout the 1970’s. Sewers were installed in a vertical pit. The technical condition of the sewers is today usually on a level which requires either a renovation or replacement of the sewage system.[23] [24]

2.

State of the art - best practice The state-of-art or best practice research of building extensions and space pod solutions, covers several buildings in Europe featuring both timber-based prefabricated space modules and modular structures of other materials, mainly steel composites. For further reference, see 25

2.1. Timber based prefabricated space modules Prefabricated space modules consist typically of a floor, one or more walls and a ceiling or roof. Prefabricated timber-based space modules were found to be most often used in rooftop extensions. Other popular uses were small individual houses or rowhouses where two to four space modules formed one apartment. In all selected exemplary case building service systems were integrated with the space elements, at least to some extent, during the prefabrication phase in the factory. An early development using solid timber wall elements in space modules was the Swedish Vetenskapsstad apartment building for KTH Royal Institute of Technology,in Stockholm, Sweden, built in 2001. The building was constructed both from prefabricated space modules and from separate wall and floor elements. In the Vetenskaps- apartments, the building service system parts were manufactured separately and then sent to the factory manufacturing space modules. The four storey building's load bearing external walls were made of 1200mm wide timber elements consisting of three layers of glued wood, 90mm thick. The structure is similar to contemporary CLT structures, except the middle layer is not solid wood but contains air cavities for extra insulation. The cross laminated planks are connected with wooden studs and glue resulting in a total thickness

16

smartTES


of the exterior wall including insulation and exterior plastering of about 320mm. The floor elements were constructed as a double structure, formed by the floor in one volume and the ceiling in the volume below. The floor element of the space module was constructed of a load-carrying floor slab consisting of 145 mm glued laminated timber and covered by a 12mm timber board floor. The suspended ceiling of the space module consisted of 145 mm joists, 28 mm spaced boarding and 13 + 13 mm gypsum boards. The space between the floor element and the suspended ceiling was filled with mineral wool and it was utilised as the main horizontal zone for the installations, which were put into the volumes in the factory. The total height of the floor structure is about 500 mm. The space modules hosted apartments’ wet spaces, which were built as a separate space component of its own, and then mounted into the hosting space module[26]. Ikea's BoKlok prefabricated space module concept was used in the Söndergård low cost housing in 2006. BoKlok space modules are based on a standard 140mm timber frame and fitted with almost complete interior finishing and building service system installations[27]. Each of Söndergård's BoKlok apartments comprises of a total of four timber-based space modules[28] in two stories installed on pre-cast concrete foundations[29]. First BoKlok apartments were made in Finland in Porvoo and Vantaa in 2006 and new housing area is built to Vantaa in co-operation with IKEA Skanska and Stora Enso, which is expected to be completed in the end of 2013. The Ammerwald Alpine hotel in Reutte Tyrol Austria was built in 2008 for the automobile manufacturer BMW. Because of the hotels location 1,100 metres above sea level where average snowfall during winter is up to two metres, building erection was only possible during the summer months. To realize the project at such a demanding schedule, prefabrication processes similar to automotive industry were used for the prefabrication of hotel room space modules. The building’s basement and first floor were made from concrete cast on site and the three floors of prefabricated hotel rooms were attached on top of the concrete base. The dimensions of the space modules were 4,5 x 5,0 x 3,0 metres and they were prefabricated in a carpentry shop over a period of nine weeks. The building service systems and sanitary spaces were installed into the space modules. The production of a single space module was divided into 12 steps and a production rate of 3 modules per day was achieved. The prefabrication of all 96 modules was possible in 31 working days. The erection of the building on site took ten working days.[30]


smartTES

Figure 2-1

Ammerwald Alpine Hotel, Structure breakdown, [Kauffmann et al.: Building with Timber, Paths into the Future]

Figure 2-2

Ammerwald Alpine Hotel, Standard floor plan , [Kaufmann et al.: Building with Timber, Paths into the Future]

17

18

smartTES


The Impulse Centre in Graz, Austria was built in 2004 at the old Reininghaus Brewery site. The surrounding building frame is made from concrete but the office spaces facing to inner courtyard were made from prefabricated space modules. The modules were made out of prefabricated CLT elements with high detail of finishing including windows, interior and exterior surfaces without the final paint, as well as building service systems with cooling ceilings. Two modules form a single office space in each storey. The space modules are stacked on top of each other on elastomer blocks reducing frame vibrations[31].

Figure 2-3

Impulse Centre in Graz, erection of office space space module, [Kauffmann et al.: Building with Timber, Paths into the Future]

2.2. Modular building structures of other materials Steel and aluminium seems to be the most common material alternatives to prefabricated timber-based building systems. Companies, like the former Finnish ship cabin builder Neapo Oy, are using their long time experience and knowledge from the ship building industry to produce steel based space modules. The construction of the modules is based on the principles used in prefabricated ship cabin construction which has been adapted for house building purposes. The module is built based on a modular steel honeycomb sandwich structure with polyurethane insulation called FIXCEL. The company is also manufacturing floating homes in co-operation with Marinetek Finland by installing space modules on top of Marinetek's heavy-duty steel-reinforced concrete pontoons[32]. Steel-based sandwich modules are generally bigger than timber-based space modules, with sizes varying from 5 to 7,72m x 20m with a height up to 5m and a total weight of 16-24 tons. In Neapo's modules most of the building service systems are pre-installed in the factory during the prefabrication process[33]. The Neapo FIXCEL system can be used for extension floor structures with spans up to 7,6 metres, when loads are directed straight to the load bearing walls of the building beneath. The FIXCEL system requires continuous support and therefore it’s not suitable for column-based load bearing systems and requires anchoring of the extension floors to the existing building structure.[34]


Figure 2-4

smartTES

19

Installation of modular FIXCEL -apartment units by Neapo, [http://www.neapo.fi/fi/www/popupcard.php?id=29]

Interestingly, also several examples of used ISO standard shipping containers transformed into space-modules were found. Pioneering with the idea has been an initiative called Urban Space Management which built the Container City in 2001 to Trinity Buoy Wharf, along the Thames River in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The building consists of multiple sea standard containers connected together, and forming apartments, studios and workspaces. The total duration of the project was 5 months but the erection on site was done in four days[35]. Container City proved such a success that the same concept was used in a second phase expansion on the nearby site called Container City 2[36]. As each container acts as a separate unit, they have excellent sound and fire insulation properties[37].

20

smartTES

Figure 2-5


Exterior view of the ContainerCity [http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4154/5002715126_220a13b374_o.jpg,Image by Pdg,2010]

In 2005-2006 a company called Tempohousing in the Netherlands built the world‘s largest “container area” consisting of 1000 housing units for temporary student housing in Amsterdam. Named Kentwonen, the area has 12 five-storey buildings, each made up of 80-110 individual used shipping containers. Each shipping container forms one 25m2 student apartment, including a private bathroom and kitchen with separate sleeping and study areas[38]. The complex was designed as a temporary solution for five years to accommodate the high demand of student housing. However, the concept turned out so popular among the students that the relocation time has been extended until 2016[39]. Tempohousing states that the structural system can withstand heights up to seven stories. In both London and Amsterdam projects polyurethane based thermal insulation was added inside the container[40].

Figure 2-6

Tempohousing units in Amsterdam, [http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3016/2989423487_8bd187fb8f_o.jpg, image by Tadolo, 2008]


smartTES

21

2.3. Vertical building extensions in timber construction Selected rooftop extensions were all based on timber frame elements. It is a lightweight construction that is easy to mount on existing buildings in dense urban environments. Light structures also put less stress on the building below, and hence more additional floors can be mounted on top of an existing building. Prefabricated space modules can be mounted and installed quickly and the disturbance to existing residents can be minimized. During the Lasarettet rooftop extension project, in Nacka, Sweden in 2007 people could live at home in the existing building during the erection of the three new floors[41]. The construction time from the first module assembly to the final inspection was only about 8 weeks[42].

Figure 2-7 Lasarettet rooftop extensions, [http://www.moelven.com/Documents/Sverige/Referenser/Byggsystem%20och%20konstruktioner/Byggmodul/Case_blad_Nacka.pdf]

Extensions have also been used as to extend existing apartments. One example is the Alby Duplex apartments in Stockholm, Sweden in 2010. The extension was constructed as a single 23m2 space module that was lifted and anchored on to the existing concrete frame[43]. The top floor apartments received an extra room and a roof terrace on the additional floor accessed through stairs in the apartments. New kitchens were installed at the same time to the existing part of the apartment. The total construction time was one year[44].

22

smartTES

Figure 2-8


Alby Etage rooftop extension [http://www.sandellsandberg.se/content/images/630x417/137.jpg]

The Grantoften competition entry made in 2007 to Ballerup Denmark proposes a rooftop extension to an existing 8-storey building built in 1966. The project is yet to be realized, but it presents an interesting concept of apartment variations made up of only 3 different sized space modules. Apartment sizes vary from 58 m2 two-room apartments to 115 m2 four-room apartments. The proposal requires heavy modifications to the existing building. Every third existing staircase is designed to be extended to the new rooftop level and two new external elevators and six new external staircases are needed to meet the fire regulations for the additional floors. The existing building installation shafts are also planned to be extended to the new rooftop extension level and existing roof insulation upgraded to accommodate roof terraces. The design proposition states that the rooftop extension can be done with either separate prefabricated building assemblies, or with space modules. Although architecturally fascinating, the complex and costly modifications may prevent the project from ever being realized[45].


smartTES

23

Vertical extensions (Huß) As a basis for further research and based on a literature research, approximately 70 built projects of vertical extensions in timber construction mainly in German-spoken regions were selected for further study . The emphasis was on projects with an urban scale, extensions of detached or semidetached houses were considered only exceptionally. Projects that appeared particularly exemplary because of their architectural quality, constructional or functional concept were investigated and documented in collaboration with the architects in student research papers (Appendix 5). Of the researched projects, 46% accommodate apartments, 22% schools and 16% office buildings18% of the projects are extended by more than 1 floor. By adding 4 storeys the residential and commercial building in Zurich Manessestrasse (Architects: Burkhalter Sumi Architekten) is taking place in the forefront of this trend. In the following 5 projects vertical extensions are combined with prefabricated timber frame elements for façade modernization:

Project: Architects: Client: Location: Completion existing building: Completion extension:

Figure 2-9

Multi-family housing lattkearchitekten (D - Augsburg) Mechthild Berger Schlägerstraße 2 - 30171 Hannover - Germany 1958 2011

Multi-family housing Hannover Schlägerstraße [Photo: Frank Lattke]

24

smartTES


Figure 2-10

Figure 2-11


Multi-family housing Hermann Kaufmann (A - Schwarzach) Lichtblau Architekten (D - München) GWG Städtische Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH Fernpaßstraße 47 - 81373 Munich - Germany 1958 2012

Multi-family housing München Fernpassstraße [Photo: Stefan Müller-Naumann]

Multi-family housing München Fernpassstraße section 1:200 [Drawing: Hristina Lazaroff TUM]


smartTES


Figure 2-12

Figure 2-13

25

Karlhofschule special school grundstein Immobilien Linz GmbH & Co KG Linz Teistlergutstraße 23 - 4040 Linz - Austria 1961 2009

Karlhofschule Linz [Photo: grundstein]

Karlhofschule Linz section section 1:200 [Drawing: Eva Classen TUM]

26

smartTES


.


Vocational school Mayer Steffens Architekten (D - Lübeck) County administration Bad Segeberg Burgfeldstraße 39 - 23795 Bad Segeberg Germany 1975 2010

Figure 2-14

School Bad Segeberg [Photo: Meyer Steffens Arch.]

Figure 2-15

School Bad Segeberg section 1:500 [Drawing: Helena Frigowitsch TUM]


smartTES


Figure 2-16

Figure 2-17

27

Lecture building Bogevischs Büro (D - München) State building department Weilheim Rauscher Straße 10 – 82211 Herrsching Germany 1930s 2012

Lecture building Herrsching [Photo: Bogevischs Büro]

Lecture building Herrsching section 1:200 [Drawing: Katharina Glomb TUM]

28

smartTES


Exemplary for the densification of settlements of the 1950s are the aforementioned residential building in Munich and the ‘Treehouses' in Hamburg Bebelallee (blauraum architects): The living area of homes from 1959 was doubled by two-storey extensions. The small apartments inhabited mostly by older people were complemented with family-friendly maisonette apartments to improve the social mix of the development.

Figure 2-18

Treehouses Hamburg Bebelallee [Photo: Hagen Stier]

The level of prefabrication, currently widely used in the new building sector, is well represented by 2 projects: For the prefabrication of planar elements the housing ‘Ölzbündt’ (Dornbirn Austria) of Hermann Kaufmann 1997 [46] must be mentioned as example. A design using space modules can be studied in the project ‘Ammerwald Hotel’ (Reutte Austria) planned by Oskar Leo Kaufmann [47]. This extremely high level of prefabrication has not yet arrived in the practice of vertical extensions of existing buildings. One single example is the hotel project in Bezau by Oskar Leo Kaufmann, where space modules are used to augment the existing ground floor. Since this project only partially integrates an existing basement, it is not a vertical extension in accordance with common parlance. The project ‘Landesgarage Graz’ by Hubert Riess (feasibility studies 2002 -2007) provides an example of an extension with space modules in timber construction. However, the project was not realized.

Figure 2-19

Rendering vertical extension by space modules - Landesgarage Graz [48]


smartTES

29

Parallel to the literature research a call for projects to approximately 300 German timber construction companies (Appendix 4) was made. The aim of the survey was to evaluate the current construction activities in the areas of vertical and horizontal building extensions, roof replacements and façade modernizations in timber. Age, function and construction methods of the affected existing buildings were studied as well as scale and function of the extensions and which kind of timber construction they were applying. The state of the art regarding measurement methods, prefabrication, assembly time and energy standard was documented. The low return percentage of the survey (just 13.6% of the companies participated) does not allow for valid conclusions. The survey does, however, show some trends:

Most of the projects were in the field of detached or semi-detached houses. 53% of the original buildings were built between 1960 and 1979. Timber frame construction dominates the sector with a percentage of 84%. Space modules do not play any role. A relatively high level of prefabrication has prevailed. In 71 % of all projects the walls were prefabricated. Just in 10 % of the projects assembly time of more than 2 weeks for the timber construction was announced (19% did not give any specification). Modern measurement methods did not yet prevail comprehensively. In 83 % of the projects a manual measurement was the basis for planning.

2.4. Horizontal building extensions in timber construction (Huß) The presentation of the current state of art with regard to horizontal extensions of buildings is mostly limited to references to pilot projects that have accompanied the research: The project in Hanover Schlägerstraße (Planning: lattkearchitects Completion: 2011) provides beside the modernization of the building envelope and the replacement of the unheated roof truss a horizontal extension of the existing ground floor: The existing balconies were added to the interior and enlarged by small space modules made of cross laminated timber. The new size of the zone allows for an easy placement of a table. The modernization was realized during use of the building.

30

smartTES


Figure 2-20 Hannover Schlägerstr.: Sketch floor plan flat 1:200 [Huß]

Figure 2-21

Hannover Schlägerstr.: Space modules stored in the court yard [Photo: Huß]

The project Augsburg Grüntenstraβe (Planning: lattke architects Completion: 2012) includes a façade modernization and a horizontal extension of the existing ground floor. The old balconies were integrated to the interior by timber frame construction, and new balconies in timber construction were added in the spaces between the balcony conversions. The modernization was realized during use of the building.


smartTES

Figure 2-22

Figure 2-23

31

Augsburg Grüntenstr. : Sketch floor plan flat 1:200 [Huß]

Augsburg Grüntenstr. : Assembly of TES element [Photo: lattkearchitekten]

The project Munich Fernpassstraße (Planning Consortium Kaufmann Lichtblau Architekten Completion: 2012) provides an example of a façade modernization, the addition of a storey, and the complete replacement of the existing circulation system of the building: Horizontal extensions were added in form of walkways, stairwells, elevators and balconies.

32

smartTES

Figure 2-24


München Fernpassstr.: Walkways and Stairs [Photo: Stefan Müller-Naumann]

In the project Bamberg Gasfabrikstraße (Planning: Nickel und Wachter Architects) conventional façade modernization and extension in timber construction were combined:

Figure 2-25

Gasfabrikstraße Bamberg street view [Photo: Nickel und Wachter Architects]


smartTES

Figure 2-26

33

Gasfabrikstraße Bamberg floor plan extension 1:200 [Nickel und Wachter Architects]

The attached building volumes accommodate new bathrooms. The existing bathrooms were converted into work spaces and storage rooms. This strategy facilitated the construction process under operation: The existing bathrooms were used by the inhabitants until the new bathrooms were totally completed and in a last step connected to the flats.

2.5. Conclusions and TES applicability Although separate building assemblies are still being used in building construction, space modules are becoming more common, as they have many advantages over separate building elements. The oversize transportation is growing and within certain dimensions, it's relatively easy and cost-efficient to deliver space modules onto the building site. Nowadays even complete houses are transported to the building site with special arrangements[49]. The increased speed of installation on site for building extensions makes prefabricated space modules competitive in urban environments. The size of the modules is limited mainly by the selected transport method. In all studied projects wet spaces and kitchens were placed in the same space module and dry spaces, such as living rooms and bedrooms, were in separate modules as to minimize building service system connections between different space modules. All space module constructions generally required a separate foundation made beforehand on site, on which the space modules could then be installed.

34

smartTES


Challenges faced by the use of space modules include physical dimensions of the modules themselves. Since land transport is the most common option for delivering space modules to the building site, it limits the maximum dimensions of modules. The width and height of space modules are more critical than the length of the module as it is limited by the width and height of road clearances. The width and length of space modules used were in Ikea BoKlok 3,9m x 8,210,0m[50], Tegeludden roofhouses 3,6-5m x 10,0-12,4m[51], Grantoften 4,0m x 8,0, 9,5 and 12metres[52]. All space modules were one storey high, approximately 3 metres. ISO shipping containers also seem to work well as space modules. Their advantages are excellent modularity, good sound insulation, ease of construction and fast building erection time. The key to a quick and easy erection process is the standardized connection method on each corner of the containers, which locks the containers on top of each other. The fundamental ideas of ISO shipping containers could also be transferred to timber-based space elements. Treating each element as a separate unit addresses the fire and sound insulation challenges usually related to wooden structures. Using standardized, yet simple connections to other units means shorter mounting times and easy assembly. Individual space modules should be treated as components in which additional components can be installed. Combining separate building service system components with space components helps to standardize and minimize the amount of connections needed between different space modules. In extensions, making space modules self-sufficient for energy simplifies the connections to existing building service systems[53]. Building service systems need a maximum of 5 connections to the space module: water, heating, ventilation, electricity, and sewage. If heating is integrated to ventilation, then only four separate connections are needed. Multifunctional TES-elements enable the use of building service systems integrated to space modules as well as an optional use of separate building service system modules when needed.

3.

Requirements and limitations for building extensions 3.1. Building Codes, Finland Master plan requirements Extensions of existing building always require a building permit and might, additionally, require changes in the local master plan. The extension floor area is part of the building´s total floor area and is hence limited by the building right. Excessive floor are requires a change of the master plan. A change might also be required due to the height of the planned building extension: In case the extension is a rooftop extension the resulting total building volume might exceed the stated maximum building height. Minor exceptions from the official master plan are possible with the permission of local authorities, but significant changes usually require a change in the


smartTES

35

master plan. Added floor area and building right also increase the requirements for parking spaces accordingly. Additional storage spaces and air-raid shelters might also be required, if there exists no room in the existing building to accommodate the additional needs of space.[54]

Extensions as new building In Finland extensions outside the existing building envelope are treated as a new building, and therefore the extension part must meet the building code requirements for a new building. However as the extension is joined to the existing building, the boundary between the new and existing building creates situations which require some regulation interpretation by local authorities and are evaluated on a case by case basis.[55]

Fire regulations Fire requirements play a significant role in extension design. The regulations are based on three fire classes which have different requirements for building height and materials of load bearing structures ad maximum floor areas. Extensions increase the capacity requirements of the emergency exists. Extensions made of timber may also require sprinkling for the extension part or for the whole building.

Accessibility Extensions are required to meet accessibility requirements for new buildings. An elevator connection is required to additional floors, except for attic floors which are built inside the existing building envelope. However when attic floors are being built, Helsinki city, for example, usually requires that also some other improvements are done to the existing house. The possible additional requirements depend on local authorities and municipality building codes. If the existing building does not have an elevator, it is usually required for the existing and new attic floor apartments. In case the extension to the attic is minimal, an elevator might not be required. However stair connections for fire exit routes are always required which results in a need to extend existing staircases to additional floors or adding separate connections to the extension floors. Additional floors usually have higher floor height than the old parts of the building, which requires more space for the stairs.[56]

Structural requirements and limitations In connection to building additional floors, it is essential to find out the needs for renovation for all existing structures and technical parts. It is important to consider combining these renovations. [57]. Additional floors must meet current vibration and structural requirements. Existing building’s roof structure might differ from the regular floor structure, and therefore alternative solutions needs to be studied on a case by case basis. The starting point for planning additional floors is an analysis of existing structures as to determine, whether the new floors can be installed directly on to the original roof slab structure or if an additional load transferring structure is needed between the existing building and the new rooftop structures . Most of the Finnish buildings from the 1960’s and 1970’s are built by using a hollow core roof slab, hence an analysis of this structure is required as part of the generic design process. On the other hand, the few realized extension projects in Finland show that a massive concrete slab does not generally stand for loads by one or more additional floors and hence it is recommended to use an adjustment structure as to transfer new loads directly to the old concrete walls.

36

smartTES


Typically a hollow core slab is about 265 mm:s high with reinforcements of 6 pre-stressed steel strings, Ø12,5 mm. The building of two additional floors has been taken as a generic assumption in the calculations made in this research. The calculations are made according to the Eurocode. Based on these assumptions, two new, timber constructed floors, cause a constant load of 11 kN/m2 in the ultimate state limit and a load of 14,7 kN/m2 in serviceability limit state. When analyzing the capacity curve of atypical hollow core slab, a maximum span with these loads would be only 7,5 metres. But typically hollow core slabs have a a span of 10 metres. Therefore it is concluded that the old roof slab cannot stand for the loads of two additional floors and an adjustment structure is needed as to transfer these loads. Generally a separate adjustment structure is needed between the old and new building parts. This structure will transfer the loads of additional floors directly to the old, load bearing concrete walls. The structure will be designed and scaled as a normal floor structure, and hence the vibration of the structure will in most of the cases define the final structure height. The calculations made in this research were made according to the Eurocode SFS EN-1995-1-1 and national annexes. The vibration is taken into account in serviceability limit state calculations. The term or limit for the vibration is that the specific frequency of the structure is required to be f ≥ 9 Hz. In addition to this, the requirements for a momentary bending caused by a 1 kN pointing load has to be  ≤ 0,5 mm.[58] Tension stresses from the wind can occur in stiffening walls in the additional extension floors because of the light weight of the structures. Therefore it is assumed that two additional floors are built for analysing the biggest horizontal forces. In the analysis it was additionally assumed that the extensions are recessed, which reduces the length of the stiffening walls and leads to more probable tension stresses. The wind and stiffening calculations were made according to the Eurocode. The calculations show that tension stresses between 20 kN and 40 kN may occur for stiffening walls (See Appendix 3). Therefore the joint details have to be designed by taking these forces in account and the walls have to be anchored to the old concrete walls. On the other hand, the calculations show that usually two additional floors can be realized without consolidation of the old concrete walls [59]

Weight limitations Usually weight is not an issue for timber based modules with regard to transport or assembly of extension floors. However, especially for larger modules the available crane capacity within relevant distance from the site needs to be investigated as transporting suitable cranes over long distances can be costly.

Hvac requirements According to the Finnish Building code (RT manual) the maximum length of the horizontal ventilation duct is 20 meters. The reason is adjustment requirements for the ventilation. Therefore enough vertical pits for HVAC ducts are required in the building. Also the placement of ventilation machines has to be designed according to the regulations. This means that the distance between centralized ventilation machines cannot exceed 40 meters. This usually leads to separate ventilation units for each staircase[60]

3.2. Building Codes, Germany (Huß) Building regulations in Germany are defined in part on a nationwide level, but most of them at the level of the federal states: The nationwide Federal Building Code (Baugesetzbuch) regulates the legal competences of urban planning on a


smartTES

37

general level. At the level of federal states, the state building codes (in case of Bavaria Bayerische Bauordnung) rule the building law (Bauordnungsrecht) and therefore the requirements for the buildings (building materials, components, requirements for the plot ...). Unless otherwise stated this chapter deals with the current requirements in the federal state of Bavaria.

Urban planning requirements Areas with or without a development plan There are two different situations: If the affected plot is within the scope of a binding land-use plan, the regulations of the plan must be met. Derogations and exemptions from the land-use plan are possible in a certain scale, but they have to be applied for and must be approved by the authorities. Existing land-use plans can be changed by the authorities if there is a wish to speed up urban densification in a certain area. Especially the core cities in Germany often aren’t regulated by binding land-use plans. In this case the volumes and characteristics of the neighboring developments define the standard and viability of an extension, which leaves room for interpretation by the authorities.[61]

Distance spaces Except for permitted development on the border of the plot (e.g. enclosed developments) certain distance in front of exterior walls must be kept free of buildings. The required distance depends on the height of the outer wall and the urban situation: Generally the distance space corresponds with the full height of the building. In core areas it is half of the height, and a quarter of the height in industrial areas, but always at least 3 m. Depending on the roof inclination the height of the roof is also proportionally taken into account. The municipalities are authorized to reduce the necessary distance even more by local statutes. Distances can also cover adjacent land, if the neighbor agrees and these areas are not developed. In core areas, the legal distance requirements are often not met in the already existing stock. Nevertheless a permission of an extension can be granted, if the illumination by daylight of the surrounding buildings is still guaranteed. Roof overhangs, balconies, bay windows and dormers are considered minor components, which are not counted when determining the distance space in case that they do not exceed a certain size and distance from the plot border [62].

Fire safety requirements for the existing building Existing buildings must comply with current building inspection requirements applicable to their establishment. They benefit from grandfathering. This prevents the building from having to be adapted to the constantly changing regulations. If an extension is added to the existing building, this protection of the existing building is lost in case of [ 63]: 1. Change in use of the building 2. Risk to human life or health 3. Refurbishment measures lead to the creation of a new building (the extension outweighs the original building volume).

38

smartTES


In case of major changes of the existing building the building permit authorities are authorized to require rebuilding of the original construction[64]. This concerns for example emergency routes.

Fire safety requirements for the extensions Extensions must comply with current legal requirements. The requirements for the components of the extensions are described in detail in smartTES project report Book 4: Smart Construction: Fire Safety + Building Physics / Climate Adaption.

Fire safety requirements for the circulation system If the building class is changed by adding an extension the overall building must meet the current requirements for emergency routes. In this case, following requirements must be fulfilled: -

Requirements for the flights of stairs, boundary walls and openings (doors)

-

Requirements for ventilation, lighting and smoke removal

-

Requirement regarding closed staircase + direct exit to the outside from building class 3

Accessibility In building class 5 the implementation of elevators is required [65]. Stops at the top level, at ground level and at basement level are not obligatory if the effort of implementation is exceptionally tedious. In multi-family houses at least a part of the flats must be accessible barrier-free or accessible by wheelchair and generally barrier-free.[66] In case of an extension it is depending on the extent of change and at the interpretation of the building permit authority to impose these requirements. The economic reasonability of the measure is to be weighed.[67]

Requirements on energetic standard The legal requirements of minimum energy standards are regulated by the Energy Saving Ordinance (Energieeinsparverordnung). Currently, the version of 2009 is valid. The following information pertains to this version: If more than 10% of the existing surfaces of the building envelope (exterior walls, windows, roofs ...) are changed, these modernized surfaces must achieve specified U-values. Alternatively, the primary energy demand and transmission heat loss of the whole building must not exceed the values of a corresponding new building by more than 40%. In case of extensions up to 50 m² heated area the requirements regarding the U-values have to be implemented only on the new building envelope parts. In case of larger extensions the extension itself must fully comply with the requirements for new buildings[68].The building extension does not involve an obligation for thermal modernization of the original building.

Parking spaces If the extension creates a need for additional parking spaces, this must be met by adding new parking possibilities [69]. The number of required parking spaces


smartTES

39

is regulated on the level of federal states [70]. Local statutes may replace these regulations. Generally it is possible to waive the erection of parking spaces by discharging a payment. The community is then obligated to use that amount of money to improve the overall parking situation.

Playgrounds Playgrounds are required in buildings with more than three apartments. The minimum area is 60 m², at least 1.5 m² per 25 m² living space [71]. Local statutes may replace these regulation [72]. In case of extension a subsequent creation of new or additional playground area may be required.

3.3. Transport requirements, Finland Transport dimensions The most usual method for transporting off-site manufactured prefabricated space modules to the site is a road transport. This defines the reasonable sizes for space modules. Finland is using the same maximum dimension and weight limits to all vehicles and vehicle combinations registered in the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA) countries. For vehicles and vehicle combination outside EU and EEA area have different limits. Timber based space modules usually don’t exceed weight limits, and therefore the weight limits are not discussed in this context. The authorized dimensions allowed in normal traffic are stated by the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment.[73] In some cases the authorized dimensions and total weights are bigger in Finland than in the rest of Europe.

Abnormal transport and indivisible load An abnormal transport is a transport conducted by a vehicle or vehicle combination, having either no load or an indivisible load, which exceeds at least one authorized dimension or weight allowed in normal road traffic in Finland[74]. An indivisible load cannot be divided into two or more loads without unreasonable cost or risk for road transport. Due to its weight or dimensions, an indivisible load cannot be transported on any type of vehicle or vehicle combination without exceeding an authorized maximum weight or dimension allowed in normal traffic in Finland. An indivisible object should be loaded to avoid primarily excess in width and secondarily excess in height.

Free dimension limits The free dimension limits define the maximum oversize transport size which exceeds the authorized dimensions allowed in normal traffic in Finland, but which doesn’t necessarily require an abnormal transport permit. Free dimension limits apply to an abnormal transport vehicle or vehicle combination which is registered in an EU or EEA country[75]. The transport must however always comply with all the rules and regulations concerning oversize transports such as marking of transport, the amount of escort vehicles and traffic directors[76]. If the abnormal transport is larger than the free dimension limits, it requires a permit. An abnormal transport permit on road is issued if the object cannot be transported at all using another mode of transport (rail, sea, etc.), or it cannot be transported without unreasonable costs, or without causing danger. The transport vehicle must be approved and registered for traffic, and it is required to be suitable for the transport in question. It is also required that there are no obstructions and the capacities of bridges are sufficient along the transport route. The permit is issued for mainland Finland, except for Åland, by the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment for

40

smartTES


Pirkanmaa. On Åland, the abnormal transport permit is issued by the provincial government of Åland.

Transporting space modules The Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment recommends that long objects should primarily be transported on a semi-trailer. Tall objects should be transported on a low trailer or on a low-loading trailer and wide objects resting on a slanting support to avoid excess width. Space module dimensions are likely to exceed the authorized dimensions because of the typical room space requirements. The most critical dimension is the height clearance of roads which sets the limits for the transportation total height. The maximum authorized height, which doesn’t require a separate permission for all the vehicles is 4,2 metres for EU and EEA countries and 4,0 metres for other countries. For indivisible loads the free dimensional limit allows the maximum height up to 4,4 metres, which is also the required minimum clearance for public roads in Finland[77]. This is sufficient in most cases as the Finnish building code states a minimum floor height of 3 metres for apartment buildings. The use of low-loading trailers increase the transportable space module height up to 4,0 metres, which satisfies the needs of most floor heights required in office buildings. The width of space modules is also expected to exceed the authorized maximum dimension of 2,55 metres. The free dimension limits allow a load width of up to 4,0 metres, which is usually sufficient and which meet most of the apartment room space requirements. The maximum authorised length of the transport is more complex as it depends of the vehicle combinations. Based on standardized trailers, the maximum length of the load space can be up to 13 metres. The free dimension limit allow a total length of the vehicle or vehicle combination up to 30,0 metres which enables about 20 metres of transport space on special low-loading trailers, depending on the vehicle combination.


smartTES

41

3.4. Transport requirements, Germany (Huß)

Figure 3-1 Space module (width 3,90 m) Impulszentrum Graz Architect: Prof. Riess [Photo: KLH Massivholz]

The most relevant dimension: The width The application of space modules in building modernization reduces the interferences with existing buildings and assembly times considerably, especially if the modernization has to be realized during use. The limiting factor concerning the dimension of prefabricated timber space modules is the transport on public streets. In Germany the allowed length, height and width of vehicles with loads are legally regulated, as well as the at most allowed axle loads and total weights. If a transport exceeds the permitted sizes or weights a special permit is necessary. Transports of timber space modules usually exceed the dimension limits, not the weight regulations. Hence, large volume transports are examined closer in the following, whereas heavy load transports can be disregarded in this context. Loads with excessive lengths do barely happen and are not considered here further. The permitted maximum height of a vehicle with load amounts to 4.00 m. Assuming a minimum loading height of 0.30 m of a flatbed-truck space cells of 3.70-m height including transport protections are possible. This measure corresponds to common storey heights in office buildings and excels in general the demands in residential buildings. Usually space modules correspond to single rooms (in the case of hotel and hospital rooms the sanitary cells are often integrated). Usual widths for day rooms vary from 2.70 m to approx. 5.00 m and excel the permitted transport width of 2.55 m. Therefore, the dimension to be looked at in detail is the width of the transports.

42

smartTES


max. 2,04

max. 12,00

max. 16,50 Figure 3-2 Maximum length dimensions of a trailer truck without the need of a certificate of exemption (accordingto StVZO § 32) [Huß]

Relevant legislative regulations in Germany Regarding road traffic and traffic management: Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung (STVO) Road traffic code Allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift zur Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung (VwVStVO) General Implementation Rules for the Road traffic code Straßenverkehrs-Zulassungs-Ordnung (StVZO) Road Traffic Registration Regulation Richtlinie für Großraum- und Schwertransporte (RGST) Bulk and heavy goods transports directive

Regarding road planning: Richtlinie für die Anlage von Stadtstraßen (RAST) Guidelines for Urban Road Design Richtlinie für die Anlage von Landstraßen (RAL) Guidelines for Highway Design Richtlinie für die Anlage von Autobahnen (RAA) Guidelines for Autobahn Design

Which transport width is sensible? The application of space modules has to be decided on a case by case basis. In urban situations the storage space is often very limited, so the moving of space modules directly to the destination by means of an auto crane may offer big logistic advantages. These advantages must be evaluated against the bigger effort for the transport. In the sum a space module transport which makes rather costly traffic-steering measures like police escort or road closure necessary can still be economic. The standard of the public roads may vary from district to district, even more from federal state to federal state. One way to avoid transport related problems is not to exceed a width of 3,25 m, so even unexpected roadwork sites (according to the ‘Richtlinie für die Sicherung von Arbeitsstellen an Straßen’ Guideline for the protection of road sites) can be passed. Bridges, traffic signs and leading systems of highways (Autobahn) maintain a free height of 5.00 m. Bottlenecks with clear heights of less than 4.50 m have to be indicated by road signs. The German road system is laid out almost everywhere with a clear height of 4.50 m, so that with a transport height of 4.35 m a sufficient safe distance is guaranteed.


smartTES

43

If transports with more than 3.50 m width are considered, a transport study should be ordered. In the planning process it might be necessary to define the space module dimension before the timber construction company is chosen. In this case it might be reasonable to analyze the transport routes of several suppliers.

Limiting parameters There is no agreed maximum measure of large volume transports in Germany. The constraints to the transport increase with the rising width of the load[78]. The specific local situation on the street determines the feasible dimension. Bottlenecks like crossings, thoroughfares, roundabouts or even road building sites determine the feasibility and economic efficiency of the transport. There is no comprehensive computer-based tool that shows all narrowed sections in Germany. Merely the Bavarian bridges of state routes are completely digitally captured. In case a bigger number of space modules must be transported the observance of the intended order and delivery schedule is a logistic challenge.

44

smartTES

Figure 3-3

Overview German constraints for transport with oversized width [Huß]



smartTES

45

3.5. Transport conclusions Adding extensions which interact with the existing building and utilize its structures requires careful examination of regulations, limitations and requirements. Changes in the existing condition requires solutions on multiple levels from the master plan to load calculations and transport. The transport dimensions and existing building properties have the biggest effects on the design of space modules and spaces the modules host. Although the spaces themselves should be the basis for architectural design, it is good to understand the dimensional limits of road transport, as oversize transports can be costly. As space modules consist mostly of air, they likely require higher standards of finishing as to justify the higher transport costs, as compared to the transport of separate building components. The authorised maximum dimensions for road traffic are most likely to be exceeded when transporting space modules. However, if the dimensions of the transport are within the free dimensional limits, a separate permission for the transport is not necessarily needed. This gives more flexibility to the transport, although the transport must comply with all rules and regulations concerning oversize transports.[79]

46

smartTES

4.


TES as a Load Bearing System (Huß) The TES Energy Façade system provides the possibility to add a supporting structure through the timber frame. In case of horizontal or vertical extensions this may be necessary. The demands on the capacity of the connections and fire protection vary considerably in this case (see smartTES project report Book 4: Smart Construction: Fire Safety + Building Physics / Climate Adaption). Depending on the building class, according to German building regulations two basic strategies are possible: 1. The framework components are statically activated and must meet the structural requirements. 2. The vertical load transfer is taken over by pillars, and the facade elements are not load bearing.

Figure 4-1

TES Element loadbearing – Timber frame construction vs. skeleton[Huß]

If pillars are used for the load transfer, there are two possible and different assembly strategies: 1. The pillars are integrated into the facade elements and mounted together with those. The challenge in this case is the frictional connection between the pillars themselves. 2. The pillars are mounted before the façade elements and serve as fixation for those. Depending on the requirements of the specific building task vertical or horizontal elements may be sensible. The following overview shows possible system configurations:


smartTES

-

Figure 4-2

TES Element loadbearing – Alternative structures [Huß]

47

48

smartTES


Foundations (Huß) The basis for the evaluation and planning of foundations are soil reports, structural calculations and construction plans of the original building. The compliance of the planning with the built reality needs to be checked on site. The presence or the state of a seal against soil moisture plays an important role in the further planning. The load reserves of exterior basement walls and foundations should be checked separately as to find the appropriate solution. If new foundations have to be implemented the interaction of the loads from existing and new foundations and the resulting soil pressures are to be investigated.


Figure 4-3

smartTES

TES loadbearing – overview alternative foundation solutions [Huß]

49

50

smartTES

5.


TES extension typology concepts (Huß) 5.1. Introduction The objective of the following chapter is to present a systematic delineation of all possible cases of building extensions as a basis for further considerations.

Figure 5-1

Best practise Munich Fernpassstraße2011. Cross-section showing modernization of facade, vertical and horizontal extension 1:200 [Planning Consortium Kaufmann Lichtblau]

The different extension concepts were analised and divided into general typologies, based on the material found in the State of Art research. The extensions were categorized to two main categories, vertical and horizontal extensions. These main categories have several typological subcategories based on the extension type and characteristics. Vertical extension is understood as both the replacement of non-insulated roof spaces through insulated roof spaces maintaining the geometry as well as an addition of storeys with change in the geometry of the building. Horizontal extension is understood as a spatial extension of an existing floor plan in close functional and spatial relationship to the original building. It can serve the main function or also the circulation system of the building. Independent annexes are not considered here.


Figure 5-2

smartTES

51

Façade modernization – Vertical extension – Horizontal extension [Huß]

A basic distinction between horizontal and vertical extension is, that the two fundamentally different types of extensions differ in the spatial relationship to the stock building: Vertical extensions can be developed much more independently from the original building. Although the original building does of course influence the design of the extension by its dimensions, supporting structure, load reserves, materialization, circulation system, building service system, the upper building closure and its façade by setting technical, functional and design parameters. However a certain independence from the original building can be achieved. The horizontal extension is always closely linked to the existing floor plan. In the following systematics the two basic extension types are discussed separately. Combinations of the two types of course are often possible and sensible. The parameters discussed describe the relationship between the existing building and the extension.

5.2. Vertical extensions Function Vertical extensions are usually self-contained functional units. They frequently take on the use of the existing building, but can also be used independently. The range is shown below with reference to built examples:

Figure 5-3

Residential and workshop building Aarau [Photo: bkf architektur ag]

52

smartTES

Figure 5-4


Longitudinal section [bkf architectur ag]

The ground floor of the residential and workshop building in Aarau Switzerland (bkf architektur ag 2002) accommodates workshops and community rooms, the floors of the extensions host apartments. As a contrast, the extension of the example in Zurich Irchel (Straub+Kleffel 2004-2007) extends the existing residential use.

Figure 5-5

Multi-family housing Zürich Irchel [Photo: Kleffel + Straub]

Figure 5-6

Cross section [Straub + Kleffel]


smartTES

53

Ratio of areas existing building - extension The ratio of areas of the existing building and extension varies strongly. They range from minor building additions to extensions where the original building plays only the role of a building base. The most common measure in built examples is the addition of one storey.

Figure 5-7 Helfenstein]

Head quarter Winterthur burkhalter sumi architekten [Photo: Heinrich

Figure 5-8

Cross section [burkhalter sumi architekten]

54

smartTES


Figure 5-9

Zürich Manessestraße [Photo: burkhalter sumi Architekten]

Figure 5-10

Cross section [burkhalter sumi Architekten]


smartTES

55

Circulation system Existing buildings can be divided into two groups based on their either punctual or linear circulation system.

Figure 5-11

Original building: Punctual circulation – Linear circulation [Huß]

Dealing with the original circulation system The performance of the circulation system is an essential criteria for long-term usability of a building. We can distinguish four basic strategies to deal with the existing system: 1. Prolongation of the existing system This strategy is based on the maximum preservation of the existing structure. It has significant economic advantages regarding the production costs. Extensions built during use are feasible under certain conditions.

Figure 5-12

Prolongation of the existing system [Huß]

2. Addition to the existing system The construction task may make it necessary to add new components to the existing system. Additional staircases can be required due to the escape routes. For reasons of accessibility the addition of elevators may be required.

56

smartTES

Figure 5-13


Addition to the existing system [Huß]

3. Replacement of the existing system Due to the social and demographic development, a barrier-free access is required for many types of buildings. An extension can offer the chance for a retrofit of this type. It can be sensible to replace existing staircases and implement a new system of walkways, staircases and elevators.[80]

Figure 5-14

4.

Replacement of the existing system [Huß]

Independent new system for the extension

In rare cases (for example, extension of bunkers or buildings with a corresponding topography) an independent access to the extension may be necessary.


Figure 5-15

smartTES

57

Independent access to vertical extension [Huß]

Criteria for the choice of strategy Need for a modernization during use of the original building - During the construction process the access of the building must work without interruptions. This normally prevents major interventions in the circulation systems. - Fire safety requirements resulting from the extension To consider is whether the extension arises additional requirements on the escape routes. Possible scenarios: 1. The building class is changed. The stock building must satisfy the increased demands. 2. The use of the extension requires an additional escape route (eg: School buildings). Accessibility is required In this case the retrofit of elevators and possibly the replacement of staircases is necessary. Functional concept Independent functions of existing building and extension can make independent circulation systems necessary. Economic efficiency Interventions in the original structure are associated with a cost that must be weighed against long-term improvements of the building in use Examples of different solutions handling with an existing circulation system

58

smartTES

Figure 5-16


Residential and workshop building Aarau [bkf architektur ag]

The existing access of the former attic continues to be used and is supplemented by the internal flat stairs of the maisonettes.

Figure 5-17

Multi-family housing Zürich Irchel [Straub+Kleffel Architekten]

The existing windmill-like access galleries are extended by two storeys. The central staircase tower is obtained and also expanded.


smartTES

Figure 5-18

Treehouses Hamburg Bebelallee [Photo: Hagen Stier]

Figure 5-19

Bebelallee floor plan existing level [blauraum Architekten]

Figure 5-20

Bebelallee floor plan new level [blauraum Architekten]

59

The existing staircase is extended by two floors. The new maisonette flats are connected on both levels to the staircase.

60

smartTES

Figure 5-21


Zürich Manessestrasse [Model photo: burkhalter sumi Architekten]

The existing staircase in the middle of the building is extended and supplemented by two new, external staircases.

Figure 5-22

School Stainach [ Photo: Bramberger Architekten]

The existing stairway is extended, and a new staircase is added (left).


smartTES

Figure 5-23

61

Multi-family housing Munich Fernpassstraße [Photo: Stefan Müller-Naumann]

The existing stairways are converted into living space and replaced by access galleries, external staircases and elevators.

Figure 5-24

Extension bunker Frankfurt [Photo: Index Architekten]

The apartments are accessed by an independent staircase and walkway system.

62

smartTES


Load transfer Original buildings with sufficient load reserves to carry additional vertical and horizontal loads of the extension form the first category. The second are buildings that do not have enough load reserves and therefore need to bear all loads (or parts of them) within the new building envelope.

Figure 5-25

Load transfer via original building structures [Huß]

Figure 5-26

Load transfer within a new building envelope [Huß]


smartTES

63

Load transfer via load reserves in original building structures The obvious way to transfer new vertical and horizontal loads caused by the extension is to direct these straight into the existing supporting structure. An extension of existing support structures without changes distributes the loads optimally to the original structures.

Figure 5-27

No changes in the supporting structure [Huß]

Figure 5-28

Load concentrations within the structure [Huß]

The design might also impose a structure that completely deviates from the original structure:

Figure 5-29

Structural strategies in case of deviating structures [Huß]

64

smartTES


Strategies to deal with unstable original ceilings Reinforcement of the original ceiling Replacement of the original ceiling Original ceiling + additional ceiling

Figure 5-30

Top storey ceiling stable – not stable [Huß]

Connection to the existing building The vertical extensions can be divided into four different typology categories, based on the connection to the existing building. The first extension typology follows the existing exterior walls and existing building structure adding a full storey on top of the existing building. The extension floors increase the buildings´ shading on the ground level, but the straight-up connection of the exterior walls enables easier TES Facade and building service system integration. The second vertical extension typology is the recessed extension floor where the exterior wall of the extension is moved inwards from exterior walls of the building structure below. This creates possibilities for roof terraces and reduces the shading of the extension part on the ground level. If the new extension mass is placed on the rooftop within an imaginary line at 45 degrees measured from the eave of the building below , it is treated as an attic storey rather than full storey in master planning. The recessed wall line creates the need for new floor plans which require careful planning, especially regarding the integration of building service systems and the division of structural loads to the building structure beneath. Possible roof terraces require special solutions when built on top of an old roof structure. The third extension typology is a cantilevered floor, where the extension floor is extended over the exterior wall of the building below. This typology requires cantilever structures and creates more floor area to the extension stories, but the building shading is increased on the ground level. The fourth extension typology is an extension that is either done within an existing or new pitched roof. The extension floor area is limited by the roof line, but the shading of the building is not significantly increased on ground level. The extension floor is formed under the roof structure and the amount of new exterior walls is minimal.


smartTES

Pitched roof connection

65

Hannover Schlägerstrasse [Photo: lattkearchitekten]

Flush connection

München Fernpasstrasse [Photo: Stephan Ott]

Cantilevering connection

Hamburg Bebelallee [Photo: Domonik Reipka]

Setback connection Figure 5-31

Wien Mandalahof [Photo: Krischanitz Architekten]

Geometry types of the connection to the stock building [Huß]

66

Figure 5-32

smartTES


Connection to the existing building - overview of the influencing design parameters [Huß]


smartTES

67

5.3. Horizontal extensions (Huß) Horizontal extensions of buildings offer numerous possibilities for the upgrading of existing buildings: In many cases apartments can be adapted to today's needs by extensions of rooms and balconies. In addition, the existing circulation system can be partially or totally replaced by a new one, as to meet the demand for accessibility or enable new floor plan layouts.

Load transfer 4 basic types can be identified: Load transfer within the extension The extension is structurally independent and transfers only horizontal loads to he original building Load transfer through TES façade and the extension Load transfer through the original building and the extension Load reserves of the original building are mobilized, some of the loads ntroduced in the original ceiling, exterior walls or bulkheads Load transfer through the original building All loads are transferred to the original building

Figure 5-33

Horizontal extensions – Possibilities of load transfer – schematic axonometry [Huß]

68

smartTES


Figure 5-34 Horizontal extensions – Possibilities of load transfer – schematic cross section [Huß]

The concepts above for load transfer can be implemented as a skeleton structure, using transverse load-bearing or longitudinal walls.


smartTES

Figure 5-35 Horizontal extensions – Possibilities of load transfer – examples [Huß]

69

70

smartTES


Functional differentiation Horizontal extensions can be primarily divided into extensions consisting of interior rooms, exterior rooms and / or parts of circulation systems.

Figure 5-36 Horizontal extension – functional differentiation [Huß]

Extensions of interior spaces can be primarily divided into conversions of existing free areas (loggias, balconies) into interior spaces and extensions through additional rooms. The former can also be implemented as a nonstructural system, the latter require a primary support structure within the extension. The requirements for noise and fire protection of partition walls between units or buildings have to be considered separately.


smartTES

71

Figure 5-37 Horizontal extension – Systematic interior rooms [Huß]

Horizontal extensions – Connection to the original building In the following the connections between the original building and extension parts are discussed in detail. In practice, project specifics will dictate the detail design. However, suggested solution strategies may be applicable in many cases.

72

smartTES

Essentially two distinguished:

fundamentally


different

installation

situations

can

be

1. Extension through the integration of existing balconies 2. Additional rooms in front of the original exterior wall construction

Figure 5-38 Horizontal Extension – Connection situations [Huß]

Determining factors on the detail level are the issues of sound insulation and fire protection. The construction heights of the existing building ceilings make very thin ceiling constructions necessary. Typical ceiling structures of the 1950s and 1960s show raw ceilings of reinforced concrete (about 150 -180 mm) and bonded screeds (about 50 - 80 mm) and are extremely thin compared to today’s constructions. Frequently found ceiling heights of 2.40 m or less aggravate the situation even more. Massive wood ceiling constructions (e. g. cross laminated timber boards) allow to minimize the construction height best.

Requirements: sound insulation In existing buildings the required level of sound protection has to be clarified in an early project state with all involved parties. The issue is complex. Often the existing structures as such do not meet today's requirements. Sometimes a sound protection upgrade during use is either not possible or economically not feasible. In the case of a TES modernization it must be taken into consideration that the acoustical conditions of the building will change: The new, airtight building envelope reduces the impact of outside sound considerably. This brings the noise entering from the neighboring units into the fore. Those will be perceived more intensely than before the modernization. The level of sound insulation of the extension should in no event be worse than the level of the original building. As a first step this level should therefore be determined or at least estimated. If the original building does not have an above-average sound insulation in Germany, it makes sense to strive for level 1 of VDI guideline 4100 (minimum sound insulation according to E-DIN 4109 Part 10) of the German requirements. Defining the layers of the construction with a safety margin of 2 dB for the reduction of noise protection by the joints must be taken into account.


smartTES

73

Requirements: fire safety According to the German Musterbauordnung 2002 and Holzbaurichtlinie (MHFHHolzR 2004) supporting timber structures are possible up to building class 4. All components must be protected with non-combustible components (encapsulation K2 60). This requirement can be met using a suspended ceiling EI 60 and a dry screed, which ensures a K260 encapsulation from above. The situation in building class 5 is different: Once relevant compensation measures in conversions of existing buildings can usually not be offered, load bearing structures cannot be constructed in timber. Hybrid structures with precast concrete ceilings, steel columns and non-structural timber frame façade elements are quite conceivable.

Choice of suitable ceiling construction Since geometric specifications determine the ceiling construction in every specific project, a precise standard construction cannot be described here. Below a sequence of layers is presented for ceilings of building class 4, which has to be specified for each project. With a suitable combination of the layers the requirements can be met.

Figure 5-39 Horizontal Extension- exemplary layers ceiling construction [Huß]

Exemplary layers from top to bottom 1 Floor covering Freely selectable 2 Dry screed Provides either alone or in conjunction with the impact sound insulation underneath the encapsulation (K260) the ceiling structure from above. 3 Sound impact insulation 4 Levelling fill Enables the geometric equalization between original ceiling and ceiling of the extension. Layer thickness according to geometric demands. 5 Cross laminated timber board Dimensioning according to structural requirements. In case of the implementation of space modules doubling of the layer. 6 Suspended ceiling Meets the fire protection requirements (EI 60) from below. Minimized height. Improves the sound insulation properties.

74

smartTES


Exemplary joint connection situation 1

Figure 5-40 Exemplary horizontal extension joint between original balcony and theTES extension vertical section [Huß]

Structural components 1 Airtight adhesive tape Improvement of the sound insulation 2 Tight stuffing of the gap with fire resistant mineral wool (1000°C) Improvement of the sound insulation and to avoid hollow space 3 Panel strip plasterboard Improvement of the sound insulation 4 Structurally effective conjunction Directs the horizontal loads from the extension into the stock. Harmful movements between original building and extension can be prevented by using a timber construction with low settlings.

Exemplary joint connection situation 2 For this joint there are three possible strategies 1 Smooth filling of the exterior plaster layer 2 Additional drywall construction 3 Space module construction


smartTES

75

Figure 5-41 : Horizontal extension – exemplary alternative joint connections [Huß]

Qualitative comparison of the exemplary detail solutions Alt.1

Alt. 2

Alt. 3

Space consumption

+

o

-

Material consumption

+

o

-

Sound insulation

-

+

++

Dealing with tolerances existing outer wall

-

+

+

Dealing with existing building geometry

o

+

-

Integration structure

-

+

+

Integration HVAC

-

+

+

Ceiling height

+

+

-

Level of prefabrication

-

o

++

76

smartTES


Exemplary joint connection Alternative 1

Figure 5-42 Alternative1: Exemplary horizontal extension joint between original exterior wall and aTES extension. Vertical section [Huß]

Construction components 1 Panel strip laminated veneer lumber according to structural requirements for the positioning of the extension 2 Doweling according to structural requirements for the transfer of horizontal loads from the new ceiling along and across the exterior wall into the original ceiling 3 Airtight connection to the original building for sound insulation. As an alternative to adhesive tapes, sealing cords may be used depending on the geometric situation. Tight stuffing of the gap with fire resistant mineral wool (1000°C) 4 Existing plaster filled depending on surface condition 5 Acoustically decoupled suspended ceiling EI 60 6 Cross laminated timber board according to structural requirements. Fixation to panel strip Pos. 1 with diagonally arranged screw couples. 7 Dry flooring as described above


smartTES

77


Figure 5-43 Alternative 2: Exemplary horizontal extension joint between the original exterior wall and the TES extension. Vertical section Huß]

Construction components 1 Panel strip laminated veneer lumber according to structural requirements for the positioning of the extension and structural function: Load transfer timber frame 2 Doweling according to structural requirements for the transfer of the horizontal loads of the new ceiling along and across the exterior wall into the original ceiling 3 Airtight connection to the original building for sound insulation. A partial filling of the plaster may be necessary. As an alternative to adhesive tapes, sealing cords may be used depending on the geometric situation. Tight stuffing of the gap with fire resistant mineral wool (1000°C) 4 Load bearing timber frame prefabricated with plating K260. Ceiling Pos. 8 and panel strip Pos. 1 insulated against structure-borne sound transmission by elastomeric bearings 5 Airtight connection between Ceiling Pos. 8 and panel strip Pos. 1, if possible connected to the exterior wall also to improve the sound insulation behavior. 6 Finish of the plating on site 7 Acoustically decoupled suspended ceiling EI 60. 8 Cross laminated timber board according to structural requirement. Supported by the timber frame Pos. 4. Fixation to panel strip Pos. 1 with diagonally arranged screw couples 9 Dry flooring as described above

78

smartTES



Figure 5-44 Alternative 3: Exemplary horizontal extension joint between the original exterior wall and aTES extension. Vertical section [Huß]

Construction components 1 Steel pin for positioning of the space module, welded to steel angle Pos. 2 2 Punctually steel angles according structural requirements. Fixed to Pos 5 by pin and screws. Upper space module on elastomeric bearings 3 Doweling according to structural requirement for the connection of the original building and the space modules. Transfer of horizontal loads to the original ceiling if needed. 4 Space module cross laminated timber boards according to structural requirements with plating K260 5 Space module cross laminated timber boards according to structural requirements with plating K260 6 Mineral wool 7 Dry flooring with minimized height


smartTES

79

Potentials for horizontal building extensions in Germany In chapter 1.2 qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the building stock in Germany are described. In this chapter the potential that arises from typical stock buildings is discussed. It is defined which stock buildings are suitable for building extensions in general and building modernization using TES extensions in particular.

Case Germany: Building characteristics that favor extensions generally Location with a need for urban densification Reserves in distance spaces Reserve in permitted density of buildings according to development plan or Art. 34 Model Building Code Baugesetzbuch Existing circulation system adapted for an extension (change of building class, escape routes, accessibility…) Simple building geometry (few setbacks or cantilevers, openings of simple geometry) Load reserves in supporting structure (up to the foundation) Original building with an anyway need for refurbishment Ownership favorable for investment

Building characteristics that favor horizontal extensions Low depth of the building (reserves in natural lighting, favorable ratio of opening share of original facades to floor height and depth of the rooms) Walkways or balconies can be realized with a favorable orientation

Building characteristics that favor vertical extensions Geometry of the existing supporting structure can be applied to the layout of the extension. Greater load deflections are not required. Top ceiling of the original building is intact and stable Installation systems are suitable for a supplement (arrangement + reserve space of shafts, reserve space for change of heat generation)

Building characteristics that favor the method TES extension + TES facade renovation With the building size increases also the economic efficiency of the additional expenses for survey and measurement, planning and prefabrication. Up to building class 4 the possibilities of load-bearing timber structures are regulated from the viewpoint of fire safety. In building class 5 hybrid constructions can be interesting. Necessity of enlargement maintaining the original building in use (e.g. residential buildings). Need for a very short construction period (e.g. school or university buildings with limited holidays)

80

smartTES


Figure 5-45 Typical floor plan 1950s (Ingolstadt Brucknerstrasse) 1:150 [Huß]

When discussing horizontal extensions, in Germany the apartment buildings from the 1950s take a special position because these buildings have very often building depths of slightly over 9 m. As a result there is a large potential for horizontal extensions, especially for buildings in east-west orientation. In the following section, alternative horizontal extension options are illustrated for a typical building from this period.

Figure 5-46 Typical room layers and depths of buildings oriented towards east –west [Huß]


smartTES

81

In a systematic study alternative design possibilities for a horizontal extension of an exemplary floor plan were examined. Firstly, it was investigated how much the plan can be improved through purely internal floor plan changes (Alternatives type 1). In a second step, the possibilities of horizontal extensions were explored. First several alternatives were examined without interfering with the existing circulation system (Alternatives type 2), finally this was also to be rethought (Alternatives type 3).

EXISTING FLOOR PLAN

CHANGE OF FLOOR PLAN

+ CHANGE OF FOOT PRINT

+ CHANGE OF CIRCULATION SYSTEM

1.1

2.1

3.1

1.2

2.2

3.2

1.3

2.3

3.3

Figure 5-47 Design study – Overview floor plan proposals [Huß]

3.4

82

smartTES


In the following section selected alternatives are shown in more detail (1.3, 2.2, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4). -

Measures of conversion

Resulting floor plan

Figure 5-48 Floor plan 1:200 Alternative 1.3 [Huß]


smartTES


Resulting ground plan Figure 5-49 Floor plan 1:200 Alternative 2.2 [Huß]

83

84

smartTES


The following table illustrates the possibilities of designung a barrier-free circulation system for the original building.

Figure 5-50 Alternatives retrofit as to reach accessibility [Huß]


smartTES


Resulting ground plan

Figure 5-51 Floor plan 1:200 Alternative. 3.1 [Huß]

85

86

smartTES


Resulting floor plan




smartTES


Resulting ground plan


87

88

smartTES

6.


Case studies 6.1. Demo case Siltamäki, Finland The goal of the demo case research and development work was to create different scenarios and solutions for timber based vertical extensions of one or more floors to existing apartment concrete element buildings. The reason for using a demo building is to find out and demonstrate challenges related to the design and development of vertical extensions and provide exemplary solutions. The solutions are designed to be generic so they can be used as templates when designing additional floors for the majority of typical concrete element apartment buildings in Finland. The focus of the research is on the different extension typologies with related structural and building service systems solutions. The connection to the existing building is researched in more detail. The design solutions of the demo-case extensions are based on the assumption that the building envelope of the old building is concurrently renovated with the TES – method using timber based façade elements. All technical calculations are based on worst case scenarios, where initial data of the demo case project is adjusted so that the most demanding situation is the starting point for the problem solving. Hence the results of the calculations are applicable to less severe cases as well.

The Siltamäki area The Siltamäki area is located in northern Helsinki, Finland. The area was built between 1968 and 1974. The area has two and three storey apartment buildings and a shopping centre which includes a chapel and a swimming hall. The Siltamäki area apartment buildings are concrete element buildings which differentiate from other concrete element buildings from that through larger windows and designed architectural detailing with carefully planned colour schemes. The buildings in the area have undergone some minor renovations but mostly all major renovations are still waiting to be realised. . The area was selected for the demo case study as there has been interest towards different renovation concepts that could be applied to the whole area. The area has earlier been studied in other projects, i.e. the Ketterä project, including research and design studies on how to improve the area through refurbishment and urban renewal.

The demo building The demo case building is located in the southern part of Siltamäki. It is a 3 storey, concrete block house with an underground basement, designed by Pentti Ahola & co and built in 1971. The building has 30 apartments spread over three staircases. The building has no elevators. The apartment types are small studios of 34m², one-bedroom apartments of 50m² or 62m², and two-bedroom apartments of 82m². All the three apartment floors are identical. In the basement floor there are storage spaces, technical spaces and a shared sauna for the tenants of the building (see Appendix 4).


Figure 6-1

smartTES

Siltamäki location in Helsinki [Map data ©2013 Google]

89

90

smartTES

Figure 6-2


Areal photo from east. Demo building highlighted. [Fonecta maps / kartta.fonecta.fi]

Existing building structure The building structure is based on prefabricated concrete elements. The exterior walls consist of double wall precast concrete sandwich panels and load bearing interior walls are made of pre-cast reinforced concrete. Only floors and roof structures are built using cast-in-place reinforced concrete slabs. The building’s structural system is based on transverse load bearing interior walls with load bearing exterior walls in the ends of the building. The span of horizontal structures vary between 3,7 to 4,5 metres. The balconies are separate self supported structures with load bearing side walls. The load bearing walls and floor slabs function together as the shear structure. The floor height of the existing building is 2,8 metres and room height is 2,6 metres. The total height of the existing building is about 10 metres.

Existing building HVAC systems The existing building’s ventilation is based on a mechanical exhaust with two exhaust fans on the roof. Each apartment has a separate exhaust duct shaft which is located in the kitchen or bathroom. Larger apartments have a second shaft located in a walk-in closet. All shafts are built on site and they run vertically through the whole building. The shafts also host the sewage pipes which are connected to the sewage system under the building.

HVAC in original apartments after renovation The renovation of the existing building for improved energy efficiency requires a complete new mechanical air handling system with heat recovery. Different solutions were compared for adding mechanical air handling systems both to the existing building and the extension. The first scenario included a centralized air-handling unit that covers both the old buildingand the new extension parts. The air handling unit is placed on top


smartTES

91

of the extension floor. The centralized unit provides an efficient heat recovery and advantages of centralized maintenance. Existing exhaust air ducts are used for the existing apartment ventilation and new supply ducts are installed within TES Facade elements. However, the new and existing apartments have different requirements for ventilation and adjustments of the ventilation system can be challenging. The second scenario features apartment specific air handling units in every apartment. The advantage of this setup is the individual ventilation adjustments for every apartment. Challenges include de-centralized maintenance and increased amounts of ductwork which requires more space than existing shafts can provide. Also the already low room height of 2,6 metres in the existing apartments would be further reduced when installing apartment specific air handling units. The third scenario uses a hybrid solution of the previous two. The solution combines the advantages of both systems. The existing apartments are ventilated with a centralized system using existing exhaust ducts and new supply ducts fitted in the TES Facade elements, thus requiring only a little interference with the interiors of existing apartments. New apartments in the extension parts are ventilated with apartment-specific individual air handling units to meet the different ventilation requirements. The extension floor height must be higher as to fit the ductwork required by the apartment specific air handling unit.

Figure 6-4 Mechanical ventilation concepts / scenario 1 [Tulamo]

The placement of the centralized air handling unit is decisive, as it affects the extension solutions. Three alternative locations were studied, on top of the extension floor, within the top extension floor and on the first extension floor. Placing the centralized air handling unit higher than the first extension floor requires extensive ductwork and interference with the extension floors. Placing the centralized air handling unit on the first extension floor requires less ductwork and interference, results in easy maintenance as the unit is easily accessible from the extended staircase.

Figure 6-3 Mechanical ventilation concepts / scenario 3 with different solutions [Tulamo]

92

smartTES


The ventilation of old apartments is based on staircase specific air handling units serving the apartments along each stair case. In this case and according to calculations based on Finnish requirements for air ventilation rates the size of the air handling unit is approximately 1m x 2m x 3m (width x height x length) 39, s. 4 – 5 Additionally, a service space of 0,9metres is required on the long side of the unit. The space requirement of the air handling unit is therefore approximately 1,9m x 3m (width x length). The minimum required height is approximately two metres, but when placed on the first extension floor, the whole room height is used. The size of main ducts was calculated based on alternatively three or five storey buildings, as to find out the maximum required space. The apartment specific exhaust branch ducts are either 100 or 125 millimetres in diameter. The exhaust ducts from individual apartments are connected to the main duct in the adjustment layer between the old building structure and the rooftop extensions, and routed to the air handling units that serve the apartments along single staircases. This provides an optimum solution for the air flow and the required duct size does not exceed limits set by the space between the old building and extension parts. Due to the connections to the air handling units and current Finnish air flow regulations, a rectangular duct is required and used in the demo case. Round ducts are another possibility, provided that they fit in the space available. Supply air ducts are placed in TES facade elements. Based on previous research and the realized pilot project in Riihimäki, square ducts of the suggestive dimensions of 100x120mm or 100x150mm should be sufficient The type of sewage system designed for the new, additional floors usually depends on the renovation needs of the original sewage system in the old building parts. In case the original sewers are replaced as part of the refurbishment and in connection to the extension work, new sewers can be fitted in the original pits and the sewers from new, additional floors can be connected to these vertical shafts. Usually a sewer system of an age over 30 years has to be replaced. In general, a basic requirement should be an aim to prevent harm caused to residents of the old building. In case the original sewer system does not need to be renovated within the upcoming 10 years, the sewer ducts of new, additional floors can be connected to the old vertical sewers.[81]

The extension Simple studies were made for larger area in Siltamäki reflecting the Finnish building regulations. Two access options were presented, extending the existing staircase and adding new staircase connections to the ends of the building and connecting them to the extension floor via deck access. The latter was not studied further as it left the existing staircases without an elevator, which was not seen as a viable option. Further studies were made in more detail focusing on one building in the area.


smartTES

Figure 6-5

Areal study of rooftop extensions, small units and one rooftop floor [Tulamo]

Figure 6-6

Areal study of rooftop extensions, 1-2 one rooftop floors and sinle roof top floor with deck access. [Tulamo]

93

94

smartTES

Figure 6-7


Areal study of rooftop extensions, 3-4 rooftop floors in towers and mixture of the different typologies [Tulamo]

The demo-case extension has been designed as to exemplify and incorporate multiple extension typologies as discussed in section 5.2. The design solutions are tested with additional floors of one to two stories. The design solutions present generic solutions for space module design, accessibility, fire safety and the integration of building service systems. The extensions are divided into three sections by staircases serving the apartments. The first extension floor illustrates the three different types of extension typology based on the continuity of the exterior wall: recessed, flush and overhanging (see Figure 6-8). Additionally, different apartment sizes are studied based on the dimension limits of space modules and boundaries set by each typology.

Figure 6-8

First rooftop extension floor. Space component boundaries presented with red dashed line [Tulamo]


Figure 6-9

smartTES

95

First extension floor plan [Tulamo] The red circles repreent the radius of the drainage from the existing building service systems shafts, where wet spaces should be placed.

Adjustment structure There is a need for an “adjustment” structure on top of the old roof structure before new extension floors can be added to the building. Its primary function is to distribute the loads from new, additional floors, but it also has plays an important role in correcting irregularities and deviations ot the old building volume. Additionally, the adjustment structure accommodates needed building service systems for the new floors and provides flexibility of plan design for the new floors.

Figure 6-10

Adjustment structure highlighted with red [Tulamo]

The building service systems can be pre-installed in the adjustment structure elements where possible, and connected to old building on site. The more building service systems are possible to integrate to the elements beforehand, the shorter the assembly time is on site. The integration of building service systems to the elements requires case-by-case planning as to optimize the

96

smartTES


required amount of adjustment structure elements with integrated building service systems. The demo-case rooftop adjustment structure is designed using Metsä-Wood Kerto-Ripa panels, which reduce the height of the structure as compared to using timber beams. Alternative solutions for the adjustment structure are steel or hybrid (steel & wood) trusses and beams which can also be used. The structure runs perpendicular to the load bearing walls of the existing building. The vibration turned out to be the most significant factor dimensioning the adjustment structure. In loading scenario A, the loads of the two new, additional floors are evenly distributed to the adjustment structure.

Figure 6-11

Load bearing scenario A: The loads of two new rooftop floors are evenly distributed to adjustment structure [Nordberg]

In loading scenario B, the extension load bearing walls are following the load bearing walls of the existing building, and the adjustment structure is loaded by its own weight and the additional loads of the extension floor such as furniture etc.

Figure 6-12

Load bearing scenario B Load bearing walls are vertically in line and adjustment structure is loaded with its own load and loads in the extension floor (furniture etc.), [Nordberg]


smartTES

97

In loading scenario C, load bearing walls of the first additional floor are placed in the middle of the span and in load bearing scenario D, the load bearing walls for both extension floors are loading the adjustment structure in the middle of the span.

Figure 6-13

Load bearing scenario C, A load bearing wall from the vertical extension floors is placed on top of the adjustment layer in the middle of the span of the load bearing walls of the existing building.[Nordberg]

Figure 6-14

Load bearing scenario D,The loads of the both rooftop extension floors are placed on the adjustment layer in the middle of the the span of the load bearing walls of the existing building [Nordberg]

The minimum height of the adjustment structure is based on the added load of new floors and requirements set by the building service systems. The maximum height depends on the available space in the staircases which dictates the new stair length and riser requirements to meet the extension floor. Load bearing calculations presented above with stair calculation defined the maximum total height of the adjustment structure. Three alternative typical spans were selected for examination: 5,5metres, 7,5metres and 10,0 metres. As a result, a suitable adjustment structure thickness was found of approximately 600 mm from the top of the old roof structure to the finished surface of the first new floor level of the extension floor (see Figure 6-15).

98

smartTES

Figure 6-16


The total thickness of the adjustment layer [Tulamo]

Based on the load bearing calculations, and dimension requirements set by the new building service systems and the maximum length of stair flights, a KertoRipa panel from Metsä-Wood was selected as structural solution. The panel is placed upside-down which enables the integration and assembly of building service systems inside the load bearing structure. The purpose of the loading scenarios was to study resulting, required structural dimensions for the adjustment structure, when the loading properties of the extension floors vary.


smartTES

99

Space modules of the new, additional floors are placed on top of the adjustment structure. The Kerto-Ripa element lengths are measured and placed between old load bearing walls, thus forming a single span structure with support in both ends. The study shows that load bearing walls of vertical extensions should preferably follow the load bearing walls of the old building, although it is possible to place individual walls elsewhere, as the adjustment structure transfers the loads to the old, existing load bearing walls. According to this case study and selected design solutions, the building of additional floors begins with the assembly of a prefabricated adjustment structure, the installation of possibly integrated and pre-installed new building service systems followed by the installation of air handling units. Work continues with the assembly of prefabricated space modules, giving shape to the new, additional floors of the building.

Figure 6-17

Breakdown of the extension construction, adding the adjustment layer [Tulamo]

Figure 6-18

Plan of the extension construction, adding the building service systems and air handling units [Tulamo]

100

smartTES


Figure 6-19

Breakdown of the extension construction, adding the building service systems and air handling units [Tulamo]

Figure 6-20

Breakdown of the extension construction, adding space modules around the air handling unit


Figure 6-21

smartTES

101

Breakdown of the extension construction, adding more space modules

Space modules An individual apartment can consist of single or multiple space modules. The amount and sizes of space modules is mainly defined by transport limitations as discussed in section 3.3. The use of individual apartment specific modules solves fire and sound transmitting issues. Therefore individual space modules cannot be part of multiple apartments. Space modules are preferably categorized in two typologies: wet and dry modules. Wet modules host spaces like bathrooms and possibly kitchen that require the integration of building service systems. Wet modules are designed and use in close proximity, at a distance of approximately maximum 4 metres from of the extended building service system shafts, due to sewage requirements. Dry modules are used for the rest of the apartment spaces, such as living rooms and bedrooms, where building service systems other than electricity and parts of the ventilation system / outlets are not required. The staircase-specific air handling unit is proposed to be installed as an own, separate space module. The installation is easier and faster which reduces building time on site. Additionally, the isolation of vibrations and sound from the air handling unit towards apartments requires special attention. With regard to the assembly of space modules on to the adjustment structure, three different options were studied. The main challenge is how to connect wet spaces to new and old building service systems. In scenario A the wet space is integrated within a space module, which results in thinner overall structures compared to separate wet space modules, fast installation on site and easy integration of building service systems . However, the solution requires a high prefabrication standard and careful timing on site. If planned carefully and executed in time, it is the most preferred option for fast and efficient assembly of additional floors.

102

smartTES

Figure 6-22


Space module and adjustment structure integration scenarios [Tulamo]

In scenario B the wet space element is treated as an individual module from other space modules. This enables a separate manufacturing and assembly of wet spaces. The solution requires thicker structures as compared to scenario A, and the connection to the building service systems is more challenging. The solution requires more work on site and weather protection of the building is necessary in most cases. Scenario C presents an option where the adjustment structure functions as a floor for the space-elements. The advantages of the solution are limited as wet spaces require separate floor structures and the space modules are more difficult to transport without a floor structure. The solution also requires much more work on site, as compared to scenarios A and B, and the connections to the building service systems is more challenging. Weather protection of the building during assembly works is necessary. Because of the challenges and the complexity of the scenario C, it is not a recommended solution for vertical extensions.

Vertical extensions and HVAC The air ventilation of additional floors is in this case study is solved with apartment specific individual units, which are installed over the apartment staircase door as to enable centralized maintenance. The unit proposed for the extension floor is Vallox TSK unit, which can be installed above a recessed ceiling. The unit can be maintained from the staircase through a latch on top of the apartment door. The ventilation ductwork is routed in the recessed ceiling.


smartTES

103

The unit takes supply air through the facade of the apartment and exhaust air is routed after heat recovery through extended building shafts.

Figure 6-23

Apartment specific air handling unit and ventilation ducts placed above apartment entrance door over the recessed ceiling [Tulamo]

The building service systems shafts of the old, existing building parts are extended through the additional floors of the vertical extension. Rerouting is not recommended as the system of sewers should be vertical to avoid sound issues when flushing.

Circulation and accessibility There are three different scenarios presented for solving the circulation to the additional floors of the extension. Depending on the case and local authorities, a single storey extension is, in Finland, possible to build without adding an elevator, especially if the extension is done on the attic floor. Usually the elevator is required in all new apartment buildings which have three or more floors.[82] The connection to the new additional floor is solved by extending the existing staircase, cutting a hole to the old roof slab and adding new stairs. The adjustment layer for the rooftop extension usually results an increased floor height of the first rooftop floor compared to the existing building floor heights. Hence the new stairs might require extra steps and space compared to the existing stairs. The advantage of extending the existing staircase in a single storey extension is the simplicity and cost-effectiveness of the solution that works with almost all staircases. The downside of the solution is that there is no elevator added and hence the accessibility of the building is not improved.

104

smartTES

Figure 6-24


Extension of the existing staircase to a single additional floor [Tulamo]

The staircases in the demo case building are extremely efficient and there is little extra space. When a new elevator is required to the extension floors, modifications to the existing staircase are needed as to make necessary space for the new elevator. Additionally, the first apartment floor of the demo case building is half a storey above the ground level, which requires an elevator solution that has doors on both ends of the cabin as to meet the half storey difference. Hence the elevator is accessible on both the ground level and on the apartment floors.

Figure 6-25

Elevator example 1: Replacing the other flight of the existing stair with a new retrofit elevator. [Tulamo]


smartTES

105

There are two options for the elevator retrofit presented, but other options exist. The first option presented is to remove half of the existing staircase’s stair flights to make room for a lightweight elevator. This solution requires some demolition but it leaves the other half and the landing of the existing stair intact. However, new stairs are required outside the existing building mass as to connect the levels on existing stair landings. The downside is that the elevator options which will fit in the space of the demolished stair flight are limited. The internal connections are confusing as access from one level to another by stairs requires going both downstairs and upstairs. Additionally, the access to the basement from the staircase is only possible using elevator. It requires therefore a separate stair connection from outside the building. The advantage of this solution, as compared to the second example, besides less demolition is that it requires little additional space outside the existing building.

Figure 6-26

Elevator example 2: Replacing the existing stairs with new stairs and an external elevator [Tulamo]

The other option presented requires a total demolition of the old stairs and the addition of completely new stairs. The elevator is placed outside the existing building, which broadens the possible elevator options and enables higher level of prefabrication and easier installation. The downsides, as compared to example 1, are the total demolition of the existing staircase and the bigger area required outside the existing building.

106

smartTES


6.2. Competition Neu - Ulm Germany (Huß) Task and background During the time of the research project the German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development was organizing the competition ‘efficiency plus in building stock’. The competition aimed at planning teams of universities and architects. The chairs of the Technical University of Munich participated with the aim of testing and developing the extension strategies by means of a concrete example. Beside the call for innovative building modernization concepts, central issues of the competition were the energy efficiency level target of plus energy and life cycle assessment of the projects. These aspects are discussed in the following explanations only marginally, as the focus of this chapter is on the aspects of building extension in prefabricated timber construction. The object for the competition is a two-storey residential building in New Ulm built in 1938. This building was to be renovated to high standard in terms of energy consumption. Four existing flats should be adapted to today's housing needs and the building should be complemented by an additional family-friendly apartment.

Figure 6-27 Street view – South facade of the stock building [Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS)]

Figure 6-28 Situation plan before modernization [Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS)]


Figure 6-29

smartTES

107

Ground floor plan before modernization [Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS)]

Design The main circulation system at ground floor level is installed on the north side of the building. Tenant gardens, a generous circulation zone, the open staircase and balconies at the entrances of the flats are directed to this area. The terrain is modified slightly and ramps secure a barrier-free access to the ground-floor apartments. Laying the stairs to the outside allows the later retrofitting of elevators and thus a barrier-free access to all flats. The front yard in the south is privatized and allocated to the apartments on the ground floor. The upstairs apartments have balconies at the entrance areas and tenant gardens in the courtyard. The suggested additional attic apartment has a spacious roof terrace facing south. The main changes in the floor plan are made in the northern space layer. It consists mainly of very small bathrooms and kitchens and the staircase, which do not meet today’s needs. The southern space layer is largely preserved because of its rooms which have good proportions and sizes that are useneutral even from a current viewpoint.

108

smartTES

Figure 6-30


Site plan after modernization [Doris Grabner]

The entrance zones are generous and with enough storage space. By the implementation of double-leaf door openings an open plan with kitchen, dining and living illuminated from both sides is created. The existing staircase is being dismantled. In this area, the new barrier-free bathrooms are located.

Figure 6-31

Ground floor plan 1:200 [Huß]


Figure 6-32

Second floor plan 1:100 [Huß]

smartTES

109

110

smartTES


]

Figure 6-33

Top floor plan 1:100 [Huß]

Timber construction The original façades are modernized with floor-high, horizontally arranged TES elements. The original timber beam ceiling of the upper floor is obtained and structurally reinforced by an additional layer of concrete. The prefabrication of the façade elements on the south side includes gutters and railings. The baths are constructed as prefabricated space modules including all installations. A very compact building service unit (air-to-air heat pumps with heat recovery ventilation, air heating and hot water supply) is integrated into each bathroom.


Figure 6-34

Visualization south façade [Michael Maier]

Figure 6-35

Visualization north façade [Michael Maier]

smartTES

111

112

Figure 6-36

smartTES

Cross section A-A 1:100 [Huß]



Figure 6-37

smartTES

Section south façade 1:50 [Huß]

113

114

smartTES

Figure 6-38

Section north façade 1:50 [Huß]



Figure 6-39

smartTES

Elevation north façade 1:50 [Christian Schühle]

115

116

smartTES


Conclusion - Strategies General strategies for building extensions can be extracted from the sample projects and former considerations:

1. Maximum prefabrication (especially of the complex construction components) Keeping the interface towards the original building as simple as possible has big advantages for the construction process on site. The more complex construction components are prefabricated, the faster is the construction process on site. At the same time the risk for errors in planning and execution is reduced. An application of this strategy is the use of space modules for new bathrooms or the prefabrication of façade elements including the technically complex eaves construction. This contains elements such as the roof drainage and guardrails, which involve a number of different crafts and subsections. The organization on site would significantly slow down the building process. Less complex structures such as flat roof insulations - and seals, however, offer little potential for prefabrication. It is reasonable to benefit from the flexibility of the execution on site. 2. Combination of planar elements and space modules The implementation of space modules to building modernization has big potentials for the construction process. Especially in modernization during use of a building the measures to be performed on site and the interference with users can be restricted to a minimum. On the other hand, designing with space modules also may cause limitations for the architectural design and the possibilities to create spaces. Maximal transport dimensions, which always are dependent on the transport route, determine the maximum room size. Joining the modules has to be done according to rigid rules. Very open or flowing spaces cannot be achieved. Therefore space modules in the new building sector can be found especially in serial typologies as in a hotels, hospitals or residential homes. In building modernization and extension there is a need to respond to the geometry of existing facades and supporting structures. Planar elements like timber frame wall elements are much more capable of this than space modules. Also seen from the aspect of the above mentioned strategy it is useful to construct complex, well-transportable and self-contained space units (bathrooms, kitchens, sections of staircase...) as space modules and combine theme with planar elements to create larger spaces. Thus a very high level of prefabrication and the necessary flexibility in the design decisions can be ensured. 3. Integration of HVAC components into the new envelope and extensions The integration of building services into the extension minimizes the intervention to the original building. It also facilitates the planning, which is getting more independent from information that may not come to light until the assembly is started. Revision works can be made from the inside space or via the external facade depending on the specifics of the project. In the case of project in Neu-Ulm, installation of bathrooms in space modules simplifies the interface with the original building: Generation, distribution and


smartTES

117

transfer of heat and hot water, the ventilation of the entire apartment are integrated into the extension. The original building is mainly kept free of ductwork. 4. Vertical extensions: Independence from stock building by activating the flooring for integration of duct work and structural measures Floorings of vertical extensions with a flooring height of approx. 40 – 50 cm (over top ceiling stock building) can cover several functions: Horizontal duct work and installations can be integrated, the layout of installed areas (bathrooms…) gets independent from the layout of the original building (see drawing below). Structural measures as to enable a room layout with a certain independence from the original supporting structure might also be integrated in this layer. Roof terraces can be connected to the interior rooms without a height difference.

118

smartTES

Figure 6-40


Concept sanitary objects independent from original bathrooms [Huß]

5. In case of interventions to the circulation system: Priority of accessibility Accessibility and flexibility of the circulation system are among the most important parameters for the durability of a building. If interventions in the existing circulation system are considered, these factors should be given a high importance. The additional costs must be weighed with the economic benefits in a long term view.


7.

smartTES

119

Summary & Conclusions This research is the first step defining the possibilities of TES based rooftop extensions. The examples are purposefully presented as generic concepts based on high standard prefabricated space modules which provide fast and tenant friendly option for vertical or horizontal extensions for the existing building. The extension space modules also have an important role from the maintenance point of view. Designing and constructing the extension so that certain building components are easy to maintain or even replaced when needed, can add value to the solution over time reducing the lifecycle maintenance costs. The transportation limits and locally available crane capacity also plays a significant role in the planning of space modules for extensions. There are also local legislation differences that need to be taken into account in different European countries. Usually special transport methods are required for the delivery of the space modules and the optimum module dimensions should be investigated separately for each case. Also the availability of the crane capacity is dependent on the location, as moving special cranes can be costly. As a result of the Finnish case study for vertical rooftop extensions on top of typical concrete apartment buildings, it can be concluded that a rooftop extension is most convenient solved using a “smart” adjustment structure between the existing building and new rooftop floors. The prefabricated “smart” adjustment layer has multiple functions. It has a structural purpose dividing the loads of additional floors to the load bearing walls of the existing building and the adjustment layer also evens the irregularities that are likely to exist between the existing building and extension, hence allowing tolerance for the prefabricated housing modules. Thirdly the adjustment layer provides space for rerouting the required building service systems, making the layout of the extension floors more flexible. It is worth to notice that different solutions are needed, based on the properties and suitability for extensions of the old building. The suitability of the existing building for the extensions needs to be studied case-by-case, as the structural suitability of the existing building defines both the limitations as well as possible solutions. More detailed construction specific solutions require further investigation in future researches.

120

smartTES

8.


REFERENCES [1]

Statistisches Bundesamt, Statistik: Fortschreibung Wohn- und Gebäudebestand, Tabelle 31231: https://www-genesis.destatis.de

[2]

Loga T. Diefenbach N. Born R. Deutsche Gebäudetypologie. Beispielhafte Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Energieeffizienz von typischen Wohngebäuden. Project report Institut Wohnen und Umwelt. – Darmstadt, 2011. pp. 19

[3]

Diefenbach N. Cischinsky H. Rodenfels M. Clausnitzer K. Datenbasis Gebäudebestand Datenerhebung zur energetischen Qualität und zu den Modernisierungstrends im deutschen Wohngebäudebestand. Project report Bremer Energieinstitut und Institut Wohnen und Umwelt GmbH. – Darmstadt, 2010. pp. 39 – 54

[4]

Durth W. Gutschow N. Architektur und Städtebau der fünfziger Jahre, Band 33 Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Nationalkomitees für Denkmalschutz. - Bühl/Baden: Konkordia Druck GmbH, 1987. pp. 25

[5]


[6]

First described in 1957 by John Göderitz in the then influential identically titled book ‚Die gegliederte und aufgelockerte Stadt‘

[7]


[8]

Dirtheuer F. Die Zukunftsfähigkeit der 50er – Jahre – Siedlungen. Untersucht an sechs Siedlungsbeispielen in Bayern. Dissertation Technische Universität München, 2008. pp. 32.

[9]

Dirtheuer F. Die Zukunftsfähigkeit der 50er – Jahre – Siedlungen. Untersucht an sechs Siedlungsbeispielen in Bayern. Dissertation Technische Universität München, 2008. pp. 35.

[10]

Walter U. Sozialer Wohnungsbau in München. Die Geschichte der GWG (1918-1993). München: Verlag F. Bruckmann KG, 1993.

[11]

Lange R. Architektur und Städtebau der sechziger Jahre. Planen und Bauen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der DDR von 1960 bis 1975. Band 65 Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Nationalkomitees für Denkmalschutz. - Bühl/Baden: Konkordia Druck GmbH, 2003. pp.9

[12]

Honorary Award of the City of Munich for good housing in 1968: Rainfarnstrasse 9; Architect: S. Pogadl. Source: Baureferat der Landeshauptstadt München (Editor) Bauen in München 1960 -1975. - München: Verlag C. Harbeke KG, 1970. pp. 187

[13]

Honorary Award of the City of Munich for good housing in 1968: Rainfarnstrasse 9; Architect: S. Pogadl. Source: Baureferat der Landeshauptstadt München (Editor) Bauen in München 1960 -1975. - München: Verlag C. Harbeke KG, 1970. pp. 187

[14]

Honorary Award of the City of Munich for good housing in 1969: Quiddestrasse 27 -29 Architect and client: Neue Heimat Bayern. Source: Baureferat der Landeshauptstadt München (Editor) Bauen in München 1960 -1975. - München: Verlag C. Harbeke KG, 1970. pp. 193

[15]

Honorary Award of the City of Munich for good housing in 1969: Quiddestrasse 27 -29 Architect and client: Neue Heimat Bayern. Source: Baureferat der Landeshauptstadt München (Editor) Bauen in München 1960 -1975. - München: Verlag C. Harbeke KG, 1970. pp. 193

[16]

Nordweststadt Frankfurt Architekten: W. Schwagenscheidt und T.Sillmann 1962-68. Source: Lange R. Architektur und Städtebau der sechziger Jahre. Planen und Bauen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der DDR von 1960 bis 1975. Band 65 Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Nationalkomitees für Denkmalschutz. - Bühl/Baden: Konkordia Druck GmbH, 2003. pp. 96

[17]

Dwelling mound Marl Architects: Faller, Schröder. Source: Lange R. Architektur und Städtebau der sechziger Jahre. Planen und Bauen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der DDR von 1960 bis 1975. Band 65 Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Nationalkomitees für Denkmalschutz. - Bühl/Baden: Konkordia Druck GmbH, 2003. pp. 98


smartTES

121

[18]

Mäkiö, Erkki, Kerrostalot 1880 - 2000, Rakennustietosäätiö, Rakennustieto Oy, Helsinki 1994. pp. 192-204

[19]

Mäkiö, Erkki, Kerrostalot 1960 - 1975, Rakennustietosäätiö, Rakennustieto Oy, Helsinki 1994, pp 70

[20]

Kylliäinen Mikko & Keronen Asko, Lisärakentamisen rakennetekniset mahdollisuudet lähiöiden asuinkerrostaloissa, Tampereen teknillinen korkeakoulun julkaisuja 97. Tampere: Tampereen teknillinen korkeakoulu. 1999. pp 24 & 52

[21]

Kylliäinen Mikko & Keronen Asko, Lisärakentamisen rakennetekniset mahdollisuudet lähiöiden asuinkerrostaloissa, Tampereen teknillinen korkeakoulun julkaisuja 97. Tampere: Tampereen teknillinen korkeakoulu.1999. pp. 5; 11; 24 - 27; 44 – 46; 52

[22]

RT-kortti RT 92-10913, LVI-, korjausrakentamisessa pp. 5

[23]

Mäkiö, Erkki, Kerrostalot 1960 - 1975, Rakennustietosäätiö, Rakennustieto Oy, Helsinki 1994.pp.37

[24]

Mattila Jussi ja Peuhkurinen Terho, Lähiökerrostalo lisärakentamishankkeen tekninen esiselvitysmenettely – Korjaus- ja LVIStekninenosuus, Tampereen teknillinen korkeakoulun julkaisuja 98. Tampere: Tampereen teknillinen korkeakoulu. 1999. pp 16

[25]

Cronhjort Y., Junnonen J-M., Kajander J-K., Kolehmainen M., le Roux S., Lylykangas K., Päätalo J., Sivunen M., Tulamo T. SmartTES Innovation in timber construction for the modernization of the building envelope. Project report 26.08.2011. s.l. : Aalto Univeristy School of Arts, Design and Architecture. Department of Architecture., 2011. ISBN 978952-60-4589-4(pdf).

[26]

Falk, Andreas: Architectural Aspects of Massive Timber – Structural Form and Systems Doctoral thesis presented at the Division of Timber Structures Luleå Technical University, Universitetstryckeriet, Luleå, Sweden 2005 pp. 93-98

sähkö-

ja

teleasennusten

reitit

ja

asennustilat

[27] http://www.boklok.com/upload/Documents/Documents%20Denmark/Brochures/BoKlok%2 0brochure%202007%2003%2021.pdf REF 19.6.2011 [28]

http://www.vandkunsten.com/uk/Projects/Project/BOKLOK-maalov/77-37.p 19.6.2011

REF

[29]

http://ww2.moelven.com/imagearchive/moelvenmagasinet_3_06.pdf REF 19.6.2011

[30]

Kauffmann et al.: Building with Timber, Paths into the Future, Prestel Verlag, Munich – London – New York, 2011 pp. 52

[31]

Kauffmann et al.: Building with Timber, Paths into the Future, Prestel Verlag, Munich – London – New York, 2011 pp. 48

[32]

http://www.marinahousing.fi/files/pdf/MH_catalog_screen.pdf REF 19.6.2011

[33]

http://www.rakennuslehti.fi/uutiset/projektit/19797.html REF 9.8.2011

[34]

Neapo Oy, FIXCEL® Metal Core Panel, Load bearing structure with exceptional rigidity and low nominal weight, pdf-document, REF 25.10.2012, Source: http://www.neapo.fi/fi/www/att.php?id=19 pp. 2

[35]

http://www.containercity.com/container-city-one.html REF 9.8.2011

[36]

http://www.containercity.com/container-city-two.html REF 9.8.2011

[37]

http://www.zen17279.zen.co.uk/CCfaqs.htm REF 25.4.2011

[38]

http://www.tempohousing.com/products/housing-solutions/professor.html REF 19.6.2011

[39]

http://www.tempohousing.com/projects/keetwonen.html REF 19.6.2011

[40]

http://www.tempohousing.com/pdf/brochures/thb-web_eng.pdf REF 9.8.2011

[41] http://www.moelven.com/Documents/Sverige/Referenser/Byggsystem%20och%20konstru ktioner/Byggmodul/Case_blad_Nacka.pdf REF 19.6.2011 [42]

[43]

http://www.moelven.com/se/Produkter-ochtjanster/Byggmoduler/Referenser/Bostader/Lagenheter-kv-Lasarettet-Nacka/ 19.6.2011

http://www.sandellsandberg.se/project/Alby+etage REF 9.8.2011

REF

122

smartTES


[44]

http://www.ncc.se/sv/Byggnader/referensprojekt-byggnader/Alby-Stockholm/ 19.6.2011

accessed

[45]

http://www.vandkunsten.com/uk/Projects/Project/grantoften---rooftop-housing/98-37.p REF 19.6.2011

[46]

Kaufmann H. Nerdinger W. Building with timber - Paths into the future. - Prestel 2011 pp. 46 et seq.

[47]

Kaufmann H. Nerdinger W. Building with timber - Paths into the future. - Prestel 2011 pp. 52 et seq.

[48]

Kapfinger, Wieler (Eds.), Riess wood³ Modulare Holzbausysteme, Springer 2007 pp. 26 et seq.

[49] http://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/artikkeli/YhC3%A4+useampi+omakotitalo+kulkee+tilaajalle+reka n+kyydiss%C3%A4/1135266885107 REF 19.6.2011

[50] http://www.boklok.com/upload/Documents/Documents%20Denmark/Brochures/BoKlok%2 0brochure%202007%2003%2021.pdf REF 9.8.2011 [51] http://tegeludden.pro.drax.se/upploadpdf/4ce23c___Radhus%20%C3%B6versikt%20plan %207.pdf REF 9.8.2011 [52]

http://www.vandkunsten.com/public_site/webroot/cache/project/planche21.jpg 9.8.2011

REF

[53]

http://www.soltag.net/pdf/STfolder.pdf REF 19.6.2011

[54]

Maankäyttö ja rakennuslaki (MRL) 5.2.1999/132 §115, §116

[55]

Maankäyttö ja rakennuslaki (MRL) 5.2.1999/132 §117

[56]

Maankäyttö ja rakennuslaki (MRL) 5.2.1999/132 §117 e

[57]

Mattila Jussi ja Peuhkurinen Terho, Lähiökerrostalo lisärakentamishankkeen tekninen esiselvitysmenettely – Korjaus- ja LVIStekninenosuus, Tampereen teknillinen korkeakoulun julkaisuja 98. Tampere: Tampereen teknillinen korkeakoulu. 1999. pp. 3 & 7.

[58]

Rakennusinsinöörien liitto RIL ry. 2007. 205-1-2007 Puurakenteiden suunnitteluohje. Helsinki. pp. 91-92

[59]

Nordberg Kai, Puurakenteisten lisäkerrosten toteuttaminen betonielementtirunkoiseen asuinkerrostaloon, Master Thesis, 2013 pp. 53

[60]

Suomen rakentamismääräyskokoelma osa D2 Rakennusten sisäilmasto ja ilmanvaihto, Määräykset ja ohjeet 2012. Ympäristöministeriö, Rakennetun ympäristön osasto. pp. 10. 25

[61]

German Town and Country Planning Code Baugesetzbuch Art. 34

[62]

Bavarian Building Regulations Bayerische Bauordnung Art. 6

[63]

Battran L. Kruszinski T. Brandschutz im Bestand. Bestandschutz auf Basis historischer Bauordnungen Bayern. – Köln: Feuertrutz Verlag für Brandschutzpublikationen, 2010. pp. 15 et seq.

[64]

Bavarian Building Regulations Bayerische Bauordnung Art. 54. Abs. 5 + 6

[65]

Bavarian Building Regulations Bayerische Bauordnung Art. 37 Abs .4

[66]

Bavarian Building Regulations Bayerische Bauordnung Art. 48 Abs. 1

[67]

Bavarian Building Regulations Bayerische Bauordnung Art. 54 Abs. 5 + 6

[68]

Energy Saving Ordinance Energieeinsparverordnung 2009 Art. 9

[69]

Bavarian Building Regulations Bayerische Bauordnung Art. 47

[70]

Attachment 1 to Bavarian Building Regulations Bayerische Bauordnung: Verordnung über den Bau und Betrieb von Garagen sowie über die Zahl der notwendigen Stellplätze (GaStellV) mit Anlage

[71]

Bavarian Building Regulations Bayerische Bauordnung Art. 7 Abs. 2


smartTES

123

[72]

Design Statues Open Spaces Freiflächengestaltungssatzung München

[73]

http://www.elykeskus.fi/en/frontpage/transport/abnormaltransportpermit/Documents/suurimmat_sallitut_ mitat_eng.pdf

[74]

http://www.elykeskus.fi/EN/FRONTPAGE/TRANSPORT/ABNORMALTRANSPORTPERMIT/ Sivut/default.aspx

[75]

http://www.elykeskus.fi/en/frontpage/transport/abnormaltransportpermit/Documents/vapaat_mittarajat_e ng.pdf

[76]

http://www.elykeskus.fi/en/frontpage/transport/abnormaltransportpermit/Documents/EscortVehicle_Traffi cdirecting.pdf

[77]

http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/1994/19940384

[78]

Two expert interviews were made to approach to the question of reasonable transport dimensions. One interview partner was with Monika Doll, responsible for the approval of large volume transports at the district administration of Munich, representing the perspective of the authorities. The other partner interviewed was Wolfgang Draaf, manager of the federal field group for special transports and crane works in Frankfurt am Main, representing the perspective of the carriers.

[79]

http://www.elykeskus.fi/en/frontpage/transport/abnormaltransportpermit/Documents/EscortVehicle_Traffi cdirecting.pdf

[80]

compare best practise Munich Fernpassstraße

[81]

Mattila Jussi ja Peuhkurinen Terho, Lähiökerrostalo lisärakentamishankkeen tekninen esiselvitysmenettely – Korjaus- ja LVIS-tekninen osuus, Tampereen teknillinen korkeakoulun julkaisuja 98. Tampere: Tampereen teknillinen korkeakoulu. 1999. pp. 4142

[82]

RakMK G1, Section 4.2.1

smartTES
