search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
14


VIEWS


The impact of Part L can already be seen, with window manufacturers reviewing the design and price point of their products based on the materials used


feasible to meet new build standards, however replacement thermal elements, such as roofs, walls or floors must meet the Part L1A standards. In June, the maximum allowable figure for windows was lowered from 1.6 W/m2


K


to 1.2 W/m2K, and will shift further to 0.8 W/m2


K in 2025. Heat is lost through


a window’s glazing and frames, so both must be factored in when calculating a window’s U-value. As you would expect, double and triple glazing gives you a lower U-value and better insulation, but the type of frame material chosen has a bigger impact than is sometimes anticipated. For example, an aluminium-clad timber window frame can achieve a U-value of 1.2, while a typical


WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK


PVCu, aluminium or composite window frame would need to be triple glazed to achieve that figure.


When combined with triple glazing, aluminium-clad timber frames can hit U-values as low as 0.74, due to the natural insulation qualities that timber develops as it grows, and the millions of tiny air pockets in wood’s cellular structure.


Although architects have long known the benefits of timber, it appears that Part L has given timber frame windows something of a leg-up in the pecking order of building materials, nullifying the increased capital cost, and making the benefits more financially accessible.


The impact of Part L can already be seen in the fenestration industry, with window manufacturers reviewing the design and price point of their products based on the materials used.


It would be a step too far to suggest that this was the exact intention of those who framed Part L, but it’s certainly a good practical example of how these changes will drive change, lower carbon and increase quality.


There are numerous projects over the past 30 years where architects have specified high-performance timber framed windows that far outstripped Building Regulations at the time, only for standards


to then subsequently advance. Castle Court is one such example, a high-rise social housing development managed by The Guinness Partnership. It was regenerated over 30 years ago, but will still meet the Future Homes Standard in 2025. Switching to better quality window frames will also have positive benefits for the whole life carbon impact of a building. Less glazing and longer product life spans reduce the release of embodied carbon (the emissions generated from material abstraction and manufacture), due to the reduced use of materials, maintenance and replacement. On top of this, timber is also a natural carbon sink, absorbing carbon as it grows, and is therefore carbon negative at the point of harvest and manufacture. In conclusion, if architects require assistance in calculating the whole life carbon value of a building material, then they should look out for independently verified Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), or their equivalent. We now have EPDs in place for the vast majority of our product range, meaning a transparent, third party audit of all embodied and operational carbon.


Sonia Travis is commercial sales manager for the North of England at NorDan UK


ADF SEPTEMBER 2022


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100