Posts Tagged ‘layout’

New sewer layout

Thursday, April 15th, 2010
Written by Marcus de la fleur

The big sewer question is resolved, thanks to our friend Jonathan. He commented on the post and sparked the ideas leading to the solution.

Rather than having all the basement fixtures draining through an ejector pit (Option 1) or installing a check valve (also called backwater valve) where the sewer exits the building (Option 2), we now have an Option 3:

All the basement fixtures will drain through a check valve before connecting to the main sewer line. This way all the basement plumbing is protected from flooding. Not only that, but it eliminates the need for pumping, because everything is now gravity fed.

sewer-option-03

We still could install an ejector pit with a pump upstream of the check valve. The assembly would only kick in during flooding, i.e. when the check valve for the basement plumbing is closed. Because there is no history of basement flooding in our house or on our block, in addition to the fact that I would like to get away from any pumping, we decided against it.

Furthermore, if there is flooding, the check valve would typically close only for a matter of hours, thus limiting the time of disruption for all basement fixtures.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

The big sewer question

Sunday, February 21st, 2010
Written by Marcus de la fleur

If we ever want to turn the basement into a third unit, flood protection will be rather important. We have inherited a check valve protection, but I am not too sure if this is the best option.

What else can we do?

Option #1

We could create a vertical separation between the waste water system for the basement and the rest of the building. In other words, the 1st and 2nd floor waste water system is gravity fed, while the basement system is pumped. Here is how it would work:

sewer-option-01

We eliminate the check valve with the sump and have the main sewer run directly to the vertical stack that service the first and second floor. All the basement waste water is plumbed into an ejector pit with a sump, which pumps all waste up to the first floor level and over into the vertical sewer stack.

If the city sewer system backs up into the house, all flood and waste water will be contained in the main sewer pipe. There is no plumbing connection that would allow the goodness to spill into the basement.

Option #2

We could keep and repair the check valve system. The check valve prevents the city system from backing up into the basement. It would be placed in an ejector pit with a sump and a sewer overflow. The waste water for the entire building is thus gravity fed…

sewer-option-02

… with one small exception, and that is if city system floods and the check valve closes. Once this happens, the pump engages and all waste water from the house is pumped out of the building.

Pros and Cons

Option #1 (see sketch above) would give us the flood protection we seek. The bathrooms and kitchens on the 1st and 2nd floor are gravity fed and would always remain operable. Not so for the basement plumbing, where use would be restricted during any power outage, which would disable the sump for the basement waste water system.

Option #2 (see sketch above) also gives us the necessary flood protection and is highly efficient as all waste water is gravity fed. A power outage in this case would only affect us during flooding, disabling the sump when the check valve is closed.

Should this ever happen, we still would be in good shape because we plan to use low-flow fixtures throughout the house. I calculated that we could store about 30 to 40 gallons of waste water in the 4 inch main sewer line, before it would spill out the basement floor drains. With 1.1 gallons-per-flush toilets, we could use the bathroom up to 25 times.

This logic of storing waste water in the sewer line will only work if I am disconnecting the downspouts from the sewer, which the city won’t allow. If I keep the existing roof downspout connected, the roof runoff would certainly flood the basement – if the power is out.

Option #1, on the other hand, would avoid this problem altogether, as all roof runoff and waste water is contained in the main sewer line and nothing can spill into the basement.

I also have to look at the energy side of things, if I would like to keep the ultimate goal of a zero energy building alive. The beauty of Option #2 is that a law of physics does the work for us. The system runs on gravity. The sump at the check valve may only have to kick in once it floods, say once or twice a year if that.

Not so with Option #1, where the sump in the ejector pit will kick in each time a plumbing fixture in the basement is used. This, over the course of a year, could result in major kilowatt usage and would not help with lowering our energy consumption.

This is quite a pickle, isn’t it? If you have a good idea or the solution, please let us know!

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Insulation – how much is needed?

Sunday, November 1st, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

We figured out that insulating the building from the inside with spray polyurethane foam (or, in short, spray foam) is the most suitable approach. It avoids potential conflicts with our masonry shell and will help with the moisture management in the brick walls.

The next question is: how much insulation do we need? We can look at it in terms of R-value (thermal resistance) or the depth of the spray foam layer, although both are somewhat proportionate to each other.

Here is what the building code says: R-49 for ceilings, R-19 for exterior walls and R-10 for basement foundations (Chicago Building Code, Chapter 18-13-102.1.1; Building thermal envelope insulation, Table 18-13-402.1.1). The Chicago Green Homes program requires R-52 for ceiling, R-21 for exterior walls and R-15 for basement foundations.

Having our eye on the zero-energy goal, it appears that more insulation or the highest possible thermal resistance is better. But there are limitations we have to wrestle with.

To keep the moisture management of the masonry shell intact, the whole interior wall assembly must have a perm rate of greater than 1. Closed cell spray foam has a better thermal resistance than open cell foam, but also lower perm rates. Limiting the closed cell foam to a 1 inch layer followed by open cell foam should yield the right perm rate and allow for the needed diffusion of water vapor through the wall assembly.

And then there is the space limitation. The building originally had no insulation. There was the outside masonry shell, a ¾ inch furring strip, followed by a ¾ inch wood lath and plaster assembly, which we removed.

Replacing the old 1 ½” interior wall assembly with 1 inch of closed cell foam plus dry wall, would only give us an R-value of around 6.5. Adding more insulation, beyond the 1 inch, would take away from the room size. Here are some scenarios:

insulation-section-01

My friend David Lemair knew about our effort to balance room size with R-value and pointed me to an article in Fine Homebuilding. I learned that spray polyurethane foam has a point of diminishing returns:

“… you would think that an R-40 wall full of spray foam would perform twice as well as a wall sprayed to R-20 with the same foam, but that is not the case.”

Source: Yagid, Rob; Spray Foam – What Do You Really Know?; Fine Homebuilding, June/July 2009

The article goes on to explain that the increased effectiveness from the R-20 to the R-40 wall is only about 2%. Open cell foam apparently reaches its point of diminishing return at 5 inches, closed cell foam already at 3 or 4 inches. No technical explanation is given to what causes that diminishing return, but I would really like to know!

The puzzle is coming together. We have determined that the closed cell foam must be limited to 1 inch to keep the perm rate greater than 1. It looks like open cell spray foam has its point of diminishing returns at 5 inches. That would give us a 6 inch insulation assembly with an R-value of about 24 that takes 4 ½ to 5 inches away from the room size. This is a good balance between R-value and room size.

insulation-section-02

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Stuck in workshop preparations

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

Coming from the design profession, I am a strong believer in the effectiveness of design workshops.

To kick off the design and engineering process, I had planned for a design workshop with architects, contractors and green building professionals (the so called green team). The intent of the workshop was to figure out how we would put everything back together and how to integrate the most appropriate and efficient sustainable strategies, systems and materials. The cumulative expertise and creativity of the workshop participants was to help us to organize our ideas, make sure that various wish list items are compatible, and make sure we accomplish our project principles.

A rehab is not a cheap undertaking, nor is a sustainable rehab. If we spend all this money, I would like to make sure that we get things right the first time round and that we can count on a reasonable payback and/or effective environmental footprint reduction. The workshop was an investment that will help us in this regard.

I developed a list of items to discuss and resolve in the workshop:

  1. Cathy and I very much liked the layout of the building. We now have floor plans of the existing conditions that include some of the original building features we discovered during the deconstruction process (see also 06/13/2009, 06/15/2009, 06/17/2009 posts). We would like to restore some of those original items and, in some instances, change their function – for instance turning the former pantry into a half bath room. I would like to review the floor plan with the green team to see what other ideas may emerge.
  2. Insulation is a very big, and as it turns out, complicated topic. It has a significant impact on many of the other systems we will need to operate the building. What kind of R-value do I really need? What kind of insulation would suit our project best? What kind of windows would go hand in hand with the insulation?
  3. I needed some input on space heating and domestic hot water. We favor a solar hot water system. But what would be the peak load the system has to meet – after we insulated the building? What kind of heat distribution system would work with solar hot water? We would like a biomass furnace as a backup for cold and cloudy days, but is this realistic?
  4. We plan to create an airtight building envelope (stop the building from leaking air in our out). That will, by definition, require a good ventilation system to keep the indoor air healthy. Can we rely on passive ventilation or do we need an active system (fans and ducts)? Does a heat or energy recovery unit make sense? How do we size the ventilation system and how much energy would it need to operate?
  5. The findings from the insulation, heating and ventilation discussion would bring us back to the floor plans and layout. Where should we place the various utilities and how much space would they take up? How could we route things (like ducts or pipes) in effective ways? Would our ideas require changes to the floor plan after all?

I put these items into a draft workshop agenda and ran them by my friends John Edel and  Ted Krasnesky (Pepper Construction). Both pointed out that I was missing baseline data on basic energy needs. That data would be the foundation for the workshop discussions (i.e. how well would the insulation work and how much heating do I really need?).

I needed an energy model. More importantly, I needed to find someone competent who can run that energy model for me – quickly. Never mind the bad economy. Energy consultants in the residential green building business seem to be extremely busy.

A visit to Chicago Green Drinks earlier this year got me out of this rut. I remembered a presentation by Corbett Lundsford (Green Team Group, LLC) about energy audits and modeling. Corbett was kind enough to squeeze me into his schedule. He ran a REM/Rate energy model for me based on the floor plans and building performance parameters we discussed. Thank you Corbett!

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Measure-mania!

Friday, August 21st, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

Smaller tasks, such as the replacement of the front porch roof (see also 08/18/2009 post), don’t necessarily require a set of drawings or plans. But we have bigger – much bigger – tasks ahead of us and will need floor plans that show the existing and proposed conditions. Such plans will allow us to get accurate pricing and bids from contractors and effectively schedule and execute the work. Drawings, plans and specifications are also required for the permitting process.

In our attempt to get a halfway accurate floor plan together, we have measured back and forth in the house many times, starting back in April. I actually lost track on how many times we measured.

measuring

No an easy task in an old house like this. At the beginning (prior to any deconstruction) we had to measure each room individually. Inevitably, there are small errors along each step which compound into bigger discrepancies at the end. Once we had the basement and first floor gutted, we were able to reconcile those discrepancies. We now can pick a fixed point (such as a point on the inside of the shell wall) and measure in increments from that one point.

as-is-1st-floor

I took the measurements and input them into CAD (Computer Aided Design). There are CAD software options for purchase, or freeware such as SketchUp. For those who don’t have access to a computer, an alternative option is hand drafting the floor plans, although this makes corrections and adjustments somewhat difficult and labor intensive.

While drafting everything up in CAD, I went back to the house a couple of times to verify some dimensions, but I now have accurate floor plans that show the as-is or existing conditions. These plans are the foundation for the forthcoming design process in which we take our project rationales and principles and our wish list to figure out how we put things back together.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Crooked

Monday, August 3rd, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

Our bathroom is situated between the kitchen and dining room, and is not very spacious – which is OK. It appears that in the dining room there must once have been a 14” deep built-in hutch, which backed up to the bathroom.

crooked-01

Because none of the original hutch structure is left (other than a hole in the wall) we decided to add the 14” to the bathroom, making it a little larger. Very simple, right? We removed the studs from the back of the hutch, salvaged those in good shape and pulled the framing forward by 14”.

crooked-02

It took us half a day to get these 6 feet of framing up – half a day! Thank God I had Drew’s help; he volunteered to help me with some work and he knows a thing or two about framing. And thank God for his patience!

So – what was the problem? It was in the salvaged studs we were reusing. Some of them measured 2 by 4 inches, others 1 ¾ by 3 ¾. And even worse, some of them were very crooked and bowed.

crooked-03

Because we were mixing various salvages studs, it was impossible to get framing plumb and to line up. That is until we started to first check their dimensions and see if they were straight pieces.  This is so very obvious in hindsight, but my brain must have had difficulties with linear or process thinking that day.

Another solution could be to move all the framing material from an entire wall to the new location. Because the exiting framing is plumb and does line up, we could avoid a crooked start or finish.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

We had a pantry - once…

Wednesday, June 17th, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

Today’s report is about another of our more interesting discoveries.

Some things left us scratching our head while looking at the various rooms prior to any deconstruction. Take the bedroom in the back, next to the kitchen, for example. It has a more or less a square footprint with that odd closet sticking out in one corner (just ignore the salvaged casings in trims in the picture below…).

pantry-01

Looking at the overall floor plan composition and architectural style of this house, this bedroom layout with the closet did not seem right. And it wasn’t! While taking the adjacent kitchen apart, we discovered a walled over doorway, leading into that bedroom.

pantry-02

Looking at it from the other side, the bedroom side, we did not only find that same door, but also plenty of evidence of a wall that must have been removed some time ago. The hardwood floor, for instance, stopped at either side of that former wall, and so did the wood lath in the ceiling, where the studs would have been.

pantry-03

Putting one and one together, we concluded that we found the former pantry that connected to the kitchen. Question is now: what are we going to do with it?

Leaving the bedroom floor plan as is, is out of the question. The wall that once was, has to come back. We could, in other words, restore the pantry, although the kitchen is already very large and offers a lot of storage possibilities. May be we can turn this into a half bathroom?

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Rediscovering our living room – Part 2

Monday, June 15th, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

Yep, there was more to discover. Look at the door to the very left in the picture below. That is a very odd proportion for an entry into such a grand living room, now that we know about the archway (see also 06/13/2009 post).

living-2-archway-b4

The corridor leading to that door also didn’t make any sense at all. What’s the point of stepping through the front door into a small vestibule, and then into a dark, 12 foot long corridor with a small door to the side at the end?

living-doorway-0

I had difficulty to believe that an architect a hundred years ago would have included a space in a house that basically served no function.

It turns out that the oddly proportioned door was not original but added sometime later. And here’s the kicker. Look carefully at the living room wall below, and you may detect an interesting outline.

living-doorway-1

Behind that outline, we found a glorious double door entry way that once led from the corridor into the living space. Much better proportioned, wouldn’t you agree?

living-doorway-3

The functionality conundrum of the corridor is resolved too! In the corridor, to the left of the double door entry way, was once and walk-in closet for coats etc. Or – if you look at the picture below, the closet would have been at the very end of the corridor.

living-doorway-4

That closet had been removed once the new, oddly proportioned door was added. And why would someone remove that closet, add an odd door, close up the double door entry way and wall off the grand archway (see also 06/13/2009 post)? Well, to split the very large living room into two spaces, adding a front bedroom to the unit. Apparently not that uncommon in Chicago’s graystone and brownstone buildings.

It’s a real thrill and treat to discover the original architecture and layout and dream up plans about bringing it all back.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Rediscovering our living room – Part 1

Saturday, June 13th, 2009
Written by Marcus de la fleur

Gutting an old building can be pretty messy and hard work, but also a lot of fun. The building has been remodeled or ‘upgraded’ a number of times in its 100 year-plus history. Removing everything down to the outside shell and interior studs reveals all past alterations.

Take the basement for instance. It was easy to identify any original interior walls. They all had old growth studs (true two by fours), while all new walls had the nominal studs (1-1/2 by 3-1/2).

Just looking around the living room prior to any deconstruction, we got the feeling that the layout was something else once upon a time. Take a look at the wall below that separates the two living room sections.  Nothing too remarkable, but did you notice the baseboard that is short on the left side?

living-2-archway-b4

Look at the same wall from the other side, and you notice that the doorway was once about twice the size. Also look again at the baseboard and the upper trim. The patching and change in materials suggests a different layout from way back when.

living-1-archway-b4

Our suspense grew over the weeks, as did the theories on what the original living room layout may have been. We are now finally at the point where we can open up the walls to find out. It turns out that this very big living room was once sectioned off into two spaces by a very big archway, as hinted in the image below.

living-2-archway-after-1

Look at the same ‘wall’ one hour later, add a little creative imagination into the mix, and you can envision the glory of this old archway that added a beautiful balance to the living room.

living-2-archway-after-2

  • Share/Save/Bookmark