Next Article in Journal
STEAM Education Using Natural Resources in Rural Areas: Case Study of a Grouped Rural School in Avila, Spain
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Green and Low-Carbon Development Path of Digital Intelligence Empowering Enterprises in Manufacturing Industry
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 6
10.3390/su17062735
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustainable Development of Grade 2 Listed Dwellings: A Wall Replication Method with Slim Wheat Straw Panels for Heritage Retrofitting

by
Farres Yasser
1,*,
Hynda Aoun Klalib
2,
Amira Elnokaly
1,* and
Anton Ianakiev
2,*
1
Lincoln School of Architecture and the Built Environment (LSABE), Brayford Pool Campus, University of Lincoln, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK
2
School of Architecture, Design and the Built Environment, City Campus, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham NG1 4FQ, UK
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(6), 2735; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062735
Submission received: 5 February 2025 / Revised: 5 March 2025 / Accepted: 9 March 2025 / Published: 19 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Urban and Rural Development)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The urgent global mandate to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030 has accelerated innovation in sustainable construction materials, particularly natural insulation solutions. This study addresses persistent challenges such as complex production processes, non-compostable components, and limited adherence to industry standards by developing and evaluating a novel slim insulation panel made from agricultural waste, specifically wheat straw. Targeted at retrofitting Grade 2 listed dwellings in the UK—where external modifications are restricted—the panels combine simplicity, full compostability, and conformity with regulatory benchmarks. Prototypes were fabricated using wheat straw and two compostable binders, tested for thermal performance, moisture stability, and biodegradability using an innovative Actual Wall Replication Method (AWRM) to mimic real-world conditions. The findings demonstrated superior thermal conductivity and durability, with panels achieving significant energy-saving potential without compromising heritage integrity. The work highlights wheat straw’s viability as an eco-friendly insulation material and accentuates the necessity of realistic testing for accurate performance assessment. This study offers a replicable framework for integrating circular economy principles into heritage retrofitting, bridging the gap between ambitious environmental targets and historic building preservation, thereby contributing to broader sustainable development goals.

1. Introduction and Context

The drive for energy efficiency in buildings is central to the EU’s 2030 Climate and Energy Framework, which emphasises reducing carbon emissions and environmental degradation [1,2]. This goal has global relevance, especially in regions with less stringent policies. While there has been considerable focus on improving energy performance in new buildings, research on existing structures, particularly historical and listed buildings, has highlighted significant challenges. Pacheco-Torgal (2014) [3] noted that the construction industry is heavily reliant on non-renewable natural resources, contributing significantly to environmental degradation and stagnation in sustainable development. Previous studies, such as those by [3], have explored the incorporation of waste materials in construction as a sustainable alternative. However, their findings revealed gaps in the market availability and performance of these materials, especially regarding insulation retrofitting in heritage buildings. This study addresses these gaps by investigating sustainable, regionally sourced substrate and binder alternatives, like wheat straw insulation and compostable binders such as psyllium husk and bioplastic or starch-based plastic, evaluating their environmental impact and feasibility in retrofitting historical homes to improve energy efficiency without compromising architectural integrity [4,5].
Traditionally, retrofitting of Grade 2 listed homes presents unique challenges, particularly in terms of preserving historical integrity while improving energy efficiency. Conventional insulation methods for these buildings typically involve the use of foam and plaster boards, which can consume at least 20 cm of internal space. This research aims to address this issue by developing a slimmer, more breathable, and sustainable alternative. Unlike existing straw-based insulation solutions, which often take the form of structural insulated panels (SIPs) or rigid boards, this study focuses on creating slim panels specifically designed for Grade 2 listed homes [5]. The goal is to reduce heating requirements and environmental impact while maintaining the building’s historical character. Previous research in this area has largely overlooked the need for slim, breathable insulation solutions tailored to the unique constraints of heritage buildings [6]. By addressing this gap, this study seeks to offer a novel approach to sustainable retrofitting that balances energy efficiency with conservation requirements.
Recent advances in agro-waste insulation materials demonstrate growing global interest in sustainable alternatives to conventional foams. Agro-waste includes fibrous materials such as pineapple leaves [7], sunflower composites with plaster or epoxy as a binder [8], straw bale [9,10], seeds, and bagasse [11,12]. The thermal insulation properties of a pineapple can be utilised in various forms, including panels made of shredded and dried pineapple leaves fused through natural rubber latex. The results showed that panel densities of 178 and 232 kg/m3 had thermal conductivity levels that ranged between 0.035 and 0.043 (W/mK) and offered a fire resistance of 1.35 min according to the American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM D 635-98 fire resistance standard [8,13,14]. Other panels use the hot-pressing method to bond pineapple leaf fibres and natural rubber; a 338 kg/m3 dense panel showed a thermal conductivity of 0.057 W/mK [10]. Sunflower waste appears mainly in Europe, representing approximately 60% of its global waste. It is used to form particleboards and fibreboards manufactured using ground sunflower piths [15] with various grain densities, sizes, and diameters. A de-oiled cake was also produced during the sunflower refinery processes [11]. A thermal conductivity value of 0.0885 W/mK was apparent, though when using the stalks of sunflowers combined with textile waste, the resulting thermal conductivity performance was 0.0728 W/mK [16]. This is not as ideal as the 0.03 to 0.045 range that conventional foam insulation provides.
Despite progress, critical gaps persist in scalability, standardised testing protocols, and compatibility with heritage retrofitting constraints, particularly for Grade 2 listed dwellings, where material reversibility and non-invasive installation are mandated [17,18]. The urgency of this research study is accentuated by the residential sector’s substantial contribution to the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for approximately 20% of the total, with pre-1919 dwellings—a category that includes many heritage properties—contributing disproportionately [19,20]. Approximately 21% of UK homes were built before 1919, and many are either listed or situated in conservation areas, presenting significant retrofitting challenges [21,22]. A wall replication method was engineered and implemented to evaluate the thermal insulation properties and biodegradation of the panels under realistic conditions of a Grade 2 listed building [2,23]. The experimental phase involved the development of practical manufacturing methods, applicable across diverse economic contexts. Prototypes were created using wheat straw and two innovative compostable binders, followed by a comprehensive testing regimen, with the evaluation of a thermal conductivity I [24,25] method and an Actual Wall Replication Method (AWRM) utilising a cold box setup. This dual-method approach aimed to overcome the limitations inherent in the hotbox method and to provide a more holistic understanding of the thermal conductivity characteristics of the panels.
This study investigates the efficacy of wheat straw as an insulation material derived from agricultural waste, highlighting its potential as a cost-effective and fully compostable solution. The combination of natural binders and a straightforward manufacturing process ensures sustainability while meeting thermal performance requirements. Additionally, this research introduces an innovative testing methodology designed to closely replicate real-life conditions, providing a more accurate assessment of the panels’ performance within heritage retrofitting applications.

2. Material Substrate and Binders

In this study, wheat straw was utilised as the primary panel substrate. Wheat straw is abundantly available throughout the UK, irrespective of the municipality or season, making it an ideal choice [16]. The UK ranks as the third-largest producer of wheat straw in Europe (See Figure 1). In 2007 alone, the UK generated approximately 8 million tonnes of wheat crop waste. Notably, around 70% of this waste is unsuitable for biofuels due to varying local pedo-climates and market conditions.
The choice of wheat straw aligns with our goal (with the aim of this study) to create a complete panel from local agricultural waste. To bind these panels, the research explored two compostable binders. The first binder is psyllium husk (PH), derived from the Plantago ovata plant. PH possesses gelatinous properties suitable for binding composites together [17]. While compostable, PH is not locally sourced in the UK. The second binder is potato starch-based bioplastic (PB), which has been widely adopted in research projects using various starch sources as binders for insulation panels [18,19]. PB can be produced from locally sourced raw materials in the UK. Despite criticism for their relatively low mechanical strength, starch-based binders offer cost-effectiveness, renewability, wide availability, and biodegradability without toxic residues [26,27].
The wheat straw used in this study was sourced from local UK farms, with an average density of 120 kg/m3. The straw stems had an average length of 10–15 cm and a diameter of 3–4 mm. The straw was golden yellow in colour, with a moisture content of 10–12% at the time of harvest. The wheat variety used was a common UK winter wheat, harvested in the summer of 2024.
For the binders, two types were utilised. Psyllium husk (PH): Sourced from Organic Psyllium UK Ltd., this binder was in powdered form with a density of 0.75 g/cm3. Primarily used in the food and pharmaceutical industries, it has excellent water absorption properties. The cost was approximately GBP 10 per kg. Potato starch-based bioplastic (PB): This binder was made onsite and had a granular form with a density of 1.2 g/cm3.

3. Manufacturing and Evaluation of Panel Assemblies

In the UK, residential properties are classified into various categories for planning and preservation purposes. The main classifications include Use Class C3 for general residences (houses, flats, apartments) and Use Class C4 for houses in multiple occupation. Additionally, buildings of special architectural or historic interest are listed in three grades: Grade 1 (exceptional interest), Grade 2 * (particularly important), and Grade 2 (special interest). Grade 2 listed buildings, which make up about 92% of all listed properties, are homes deemed to have special architectural or historic significance warranting preservation efforts [21]. The panels fabricated and tested for these homes were at thicknesses of 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 cm, since EPS foam is typically used within these thickness ranges for Grade 2 listed homes [22]. The results for thermal conductivity and moisture levels varied based on the compostable binder used (PH or PB) and the thickness of the panels. To produce the panels, a custom mould was constructed, allowing for the creation of wheat straw panels measuring 60 × 30, with variable heights and thicknesses.
This study utilised various equipment, including a Clarke hand-operated hydraulic press (model CSA10BB) with a 10-tonne capacity for manual operations and a Howden electric hydraulic press (model number unknown) with a 100-tonne capacity for more robust applications. Additionally, a Nordstrand desktop mortar mixer (model PRO-5L) with a 5 L capacity and 650 W motor was employed for mixing materials, while a Belle Minimix 150 cement mixer, manufactured in the UK, provided efficient mixing with its 150 L drum capacity and 550 W motor. For moisture testing, we used a HOBO humidity monitor (model MX2301A), which operates within a range of −40 to 70 °C and 0–100% relative humidity. Furthermore, Greenteg’s gSKIN®-XP heat flux sensor was utilised to measure thermal performance accurately.

Hybrid Production Process

The experimental procedure for preparing wheat straw-based panels is described in detail below. It is worth noting that production methods in this field typically employ either advanced mechanised processes or entirely manual techniques. However, a hybrid approach, combining mechanised and manual labour, may also yield satisfactory results [23]. The steps in the production process were as follows:
  • Purification Process of Wheat Straw Biomass: Initially, wheat straws are cleaned using a conventional industry-standard blower to eliminate dust particles. During the cleaning process of wheat straw biomass, approximately 2–5% of the initial mass is removed as dust particles. For the manual method, a traditional outdoor beating process is employed. In this case, 1.5 m2 square plots are marked on the ground, and the batches of straws are periodically moved after 30 s of dusting. This evaluation helps determine the optimal dusting duration.
  • Contingent Thermal Treatment (Boiling) Procedure: This step is optional since boiling or steaming has proven to improve the surface matrices adhesion of wheat straw, releasing lipophilic extractives by 41–53% [28]. It involves boiling the wheat straw at temperatures of 80 °C, 100 °C, and 120 °C in a medium of distilled water in an autoclave. The treatment duration at boiling temperatures is approximately 2 min. Boiling enhances the structure and pore volume of the straws, facilitating better binding with the natural binder.
  • Mixing with Natural Binder: The composition of the bioplastic mixture used as a natural binder is detailed as follows: 7 parts water, 1 part starch, 2/3 part vinegar (5% acidity), and 2/3 part glycerine (also known as glycerol). This mixture was prepared by combining the ingredients and heating them over a boiling cast, with the potato-based mix stirred for 4 min to achieve a uniform consistency suitable for binding the wheat straw panels. The wheat straw is mixed with the chosen natural binder (either PH (psyllium husk) or BP (bioplastic potato starch binder)) and warm water. Mixing is carried out in an EC (European Community) standards-compliant laboratory concrete mixer C100, equipped with telescopic handles for ease of mobility. Approximately 3 min of mixing time is required. A manual mixing attempt was also made, which took approximately 2.7 times longer than the concrete blender. After mixing in the concrete mixer, the composite is carefully reviewed to eliminate any irregular coagulations, ensuring uniformity.
  • Compression Moulding: The wheat straw and binder mixture is subjected to compression moulding. Both automated and manual methods were employed to assess the force in Newtons and timeframes required for compression. For practical experimental purposes, MDF moulds were used instead of steel moulds to accommodate various sample sizes that align with industry-standard panel dimensions. The slim compostable wheat straw panels were designed for interior refurbishment of Grade 2 listed buildings and constructed using 60 × 30 cm MDF moulds with thicknesses of 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 cm. Compression was achieved either manually or using an electrically operated hydraulic machine, with applied forces varying based on panel thickness: 2 tonnes for the 2.5 cm and 5 cm panels, 4 tonnes for the 7.5 cm panels, and 2 tonnes again for the 10 cm panels. The compression time was consistent at 120 s across all cases.
  • Weight Application: To prevent expansion, sample panels are placed under the influence of weights. Various time intervals and weights were employed to expedite the process and significantly reduce panel thickness. The primary research objective is to produce, monitor, and test a novel slim wheat straw insulation panel that does not compromise the interior space of Grade 2 listed homes while preserving their facades. The weight applied was 30 kg for 24 h for each panel.
  • Drying Methods: The subsequent phase involves drying the panels using one of three methods: oven drying at 35 °C, industrial fan drying, or air drying at room temperature of 25 °C. Each method varies in terms of its impact on panel thickness and structural integrity. Oven drying, for instance, may cause swelling and occasional cracking, while fan and air drying methods are more conducive to maintaining thickness and structural integrity. Industrial drying typically takes 24 h, while air drying requires 2.5 to 4 days, depending on panel thickness.
Figure 2 illustrates the 3 main stages of the hybrid production process. The first row depicts the 3 mixing methods used to bind the wheat straw with the compostable binders PH and BP. The second row depicts the manual and mechanised methods of hydraulic pressing. The last row reveals the compression and drying processes.
Figure 3 provides a framework depicting the pre-manufacturing process, primary process, and optional steps that were tested but require further research before being recommended. Grey boxes represent more energy-intensive options at each stage, while cross-lined boxes or lines indicate alternative methods that were successfully tested but not adopted as the primary production method.
Figure 4 showcases the 3 moulds used to produce the sample wheat straw panels. The first (from left) was made of steel, with dimensions 20 × 30 cm; the second was MDF, with dimensions 60 × 40 cm; the third was MDF, 120 × 55 cm.

4. Results and Discussion

The 2.5 cm PH-based wheat straw panel exhibited a maximum flexure load (indicative of bending strength) of 17.5 N, with flexure extensions of 2.3 cm at maximum load and 3.15 cm at break, demonstrating satisfactory flexibility. The 5 cm PH panel recorded a maximum flexure load of 28.6 N, with flexure extensions of 1.38 cm at maximum load and 3.09 cm at break, reflecting robust strength and flexibility. The 7.5 cm PH panel achieved a maximum flexure load of 44.8 N, with flexure extensions of 2.21 cm at maximum load and 3.17 cm at break, indicating enhanced strength. The 10 cm PH panel demonstrated maximum flexure loads of 66.8 N (untreated) and 175.5 N (treated), with flexure extensions of 1.53 cm/2.06 cm at maximum load (untreated/treated) and 2.4 cm/2.54 cm at break, highlighting a significant strength increase with treatment. Mechanical data for BP-based panels were not fully obtained due to time constraints, and water absorption and water resistance properties remain untested, representing key objectives for future investigation. The similarity of the investigated panels’ properties was meticulously controlled by employing consistent binders (PH or BP) and wheat straw across all thicknesses to ensure uniform material composition, with selective treatments such as boiling applied to explore performance enhancements, as evidenced by the treated 10 cm panel’s superior strength.

4.1. Heat Flow Meters (Used Method)

An advanced and precise heat flux meter was employed in this study. This meter, known for its accuracy [26], yielded results that surpassed those obtained using the BS EN ISO 6946 [27] calculation method by 20% and the in situ thermal conductivity (Hukseflux) heat flux sensor by 10%. This technology has been utilised in numerous refurbishment projects to assess the efficiency of insulation products when installed both internally and externally in buildings [29,30]. The gSKIN® Heat Flux Sensor played a pivotal role in thermal measurement and control systems, offering rapid response times, minimal invasiveness, ease of use, customisable design, robustness, and high sensitivity. In this research, both the hotbox experiment and the AWRM (Actual Wall Replication Method) experiment were employed.

4.2. Calibrated Hotbox Design

The hotbox method, while widely used for assessing the thermal performance of insulation materials, has certain limitations, especially when applied to bio-based insulators. Studies have shown that the insulating capacity of bio-based materials cannot be reliably calculated from measured thermal conductivity alone. For instance, hotbox experiments revealed significant discrepancies between the actual insulating performance of bio-based insulations and predictions based solely on their thermal conductivity measurements. This suggests that additional factors, such as moisture sorption properties, play a crucial role in their thermal behaviour, which the hotbox method may not fully capture [31]. In this experiment, the hotbox configuration adhered to European ISO standards EN ISO 8990 [32,33]. Traditional insulation materials, such as foam or fillings, differ significantly from agro-waste fibre insulation panels, which possess rough surfaces and may exhibit multiple air gaps when applied to walls. This presents a challenge for conventional methods or apparatuses used to measure thermal conductivity, often resulting in inaccuracies. To mitigate this, substantial quantities of sealants are frequently used to eliminate air gaps, inadvertently creating thermal bridges [34,35].
To accommodate one of the larger 60 cm × 25 cm panels, a 10 cm thick polyurethane foam envelope was used. This not only provided structural support without the need for wooden casings but also offered superior insulation, mimicking the outdoor and indoor conditions of a Grade 2 listed residential building’s wall. The gSKIN® heat flux measuring kit, constructed by GreenTEG, was employed for measurements. A parallel coil of heat wire served as the heating source, achieving temperatures of up to 38 °C when combined with a circulating fan. A temperature difference of approximately 15 °C was maintained between the hot and cool chambers, exceeding the minimum requirement of 5 °C as stipulated by GreenTEG. The experiment extended over three consecutive days, complying with the BS ISO 9869 standard [36] for obtaining thermal conductivity values for an insulation panel (refer to Figure 5 and Figure 6).

4.3. Results of Pilot Test: Hotbox

The hotbox testing method produced results with significant discrepancies, yielding thermal conductivity coefficients ranging from 0.5 to 0.6 W/mK. These elevated values may be due to factors such as air gaps in the test setup or the hygroscopic nature of the straw affecting moisture content during testing. The porosity of the panels likely influenced their thermal performance, highlighting the importance of considering material properties beyond thermal conductivity alone. A comparative analysis of the thermal conductivity values acquired through the hotbox method and the anticipated values when the panel is applied to a conventional Grade 2 listed house exterior wall revealed that the values exceeded those reported by other researchers and experiments involving similar panels of comparable thickness. For example, in Smith (2016) [38], hotbox testing of EPS foam panels yielded values between 0.03 and 0.04 W/mK, while Alhawari and Mukhopadhyaya (2022) [39] studied the thermal conductivity of panels using a calibrated hotbox, and their tests on EPS panels yielded values of around 0.035–0.040 W/mK, which aligns with typical EPS performance in retrofit projects [40]. Consequently, a decision was made to employ the Actual Wall Replication Method (AWRM) as an alternative. This method entails testing the material’s thermal conductivity within a full-sized, on-site structure with walls and a roof, ensuring proper sealing. Further details on the AWRM will be presented in the subsequent section.
Table 1 illustrates that when tested for thermal conductivity values using the hotbox method, wheat straw panels exhibited a range of 0.6 to 0.5 W/mK across densities ranging from 133 to 385 kg/m3. The hotbox thermal conductivity values are presented as well as the assumed values once applied to a traditional Grade 2 listed wall with 30 cm masonry brick and plaster rendering on either side. These values were found to be ten times higher than those reported in similar experiments [8,12,41,42] (please see Table 2). This outcome highlights the inadequacy of the hotbox method, prompting the development of a novel Actual Wall Replication Method (AWRM) to obtain accurate thermal conductivity values. It is noteworthy that the total thermal conductivity of the wall following the application of the panels was calculated to gauge the impact of refurbishment, aligning with the required standards of 0.30–0.55 W/mK [22]. The observed increase in panel density with thickness can be attributed to compaction during manufacturing and non-uniform distribution of materials. However, the reported decrease in thermal conductivity despite a threefold increase in density is anomalous and requires further investigation. This unusual relationship could be due to measurement errors, unique material properties, or changes in porosity.
The preceding table demonstrates that the hotbox test, as employed initially in this study, failed to accurately ascertain the thermal conductivity values of the insulation panel. Additionally, investigations conducted by other researchers on materials with comparable densities have yielded significantly more favourable thermal conductivity levels. This collectively highlights the need for alternative testing methodologies to evaluate the insulation panel’s performance [28]. These researchers used agro-waste fibrous materials that informed this study, such as pineapple leaves [7,14], sunflower composites with plaster or epoxy binders [9,11,12,41], straw bale [44,45], seeds, and bagasse exhibited thermal conductivity values ranging from 0.035 to 0.043 W/mK, with densities ranging from 178 to 232 kg/m3 [7]. Additionally, panels incorporating pineapple leaf fibres and natural rubber displayed a thermal conductivity of 0.057 W/mK with a density of 338 kg/m3 [10]. Straw bales, when not modified into panels and with a thickness of 50 cm, exhibited a thermal conductivity of 0.067 W/mK at a density of 60 kg/m3 [34]. The impetus for this study to devise an alternative thermal conductivity testing methodology that could more accurately assess the true potential, or lack thereof, of the panel was the overlapping multi-directional straws of the panel, which were identified as having lower thermal conductivity values for straw fibre insulation thermal conductivity, particularly when fibres are oriented perpendicular to the direction of heat flow [35]. Through residential case studies, a Lithuanian investigation demonstrated that the use of straw bale insulation panels with various orientations in the straw could yield a reduction in daily heating requirements by approximately 60%, equivalent to roughly 2000 kWh of solar gains during warmer seasons [37]. Reeds used as panels exhibited thermal insulation levels ranging from 0.045 to 0.056 W/mK depending on the fibres’ orientation, with densities varying from 130 to 190 kg/m3 [46,47].

4.4. Actual Wall Replication Method: Accurate Thermal Conductivity

As mentioned earlier, the hotbox method failed to provide results that aligned with the standards or those found in similar studies. This may be attributed to the fact that the hotbox method, in most cases, was not validated. The paramount concern was assessing the resilience of wheat straw panels under varying moisture conditions, a vital aspect in understanding their potential during installation phases and drying. The study developed an innovative method known as the Actual Wall Replication Method (AWRM), as illustrated in Figure 7.
The AWRM was devised to focus on conducting a cost-effective, small-scale experiment that could evaluate moisture levels within the wheat straw panels. It aimed to assess how atmospheric conditions affected the application of wet traditional hydraulic lime render on these panels. The experiment involved the use of a cold box, positioned behind a double brick wall simulating an exterior environment resembling the temperate climate of the UK. Meanwhile, the wheat straw panels, and classic lime render layers (3.5 lime render with sand and water, excluding cement) were applied on the opposite side. The room housing the experiment was maintained at temperature and humidity levels typical of indoor conditions in British homes of indoor temperatures for living spaces between 18 °C and 21 °C and humidity levels between 40% and 60% for comfort and health [39]. This setup allowed for the evaluation of water vapour transfer from the warm room through the brick wall to the cold box on the other side.
The results indicated that the moisture levels in some of the wheat straw panels were well within acceptable limits, measuring below 8.5–10%. It is noteworthy that wheat straw bales can tolerate moisture levels up to 25% at temperatures not exceeding 10 °C. This assessment was carried out by accessing the panel’s front and rear surfaces, as well as its contact points with the lime render and masonry brick layer (please refer to the energy framework for a detailed description of the AWRM and its expected outcomes and see Figure 8 for the AWRM experiment design).
Please see Figure 8a for an exploded axonometric view of the Actual Wall Replication Method and Figure 8b for an illustration of the AWRM setup.

Design and Build of the AWRM

The experimental apparatus consisted of three modular wheat straw panels, each measuring 60 × 30 × 2.5 cm. These panels were positioned vertically and in parallel on the masonry wall, adhered with adhesive spray.
Externally, a 3 cm thick lime mortar mixture was applied to the wheat straw panels. The external portion of the chamber represented the interior of a Grade 2 listed household, while the cold chamber simulated outdoor conditions. The lime mixture consisted of three parts 3.5 NHL (natural hydraulic lime) to one part fine construction sand, closely resembling the lime renders commonly found in classical Grade 2 homes, as discussed in the literature review. These homes traditionally feature external walls with a thickness of 0.22 m and internal medium-density plaster renderings of approximately 0.016 m or 1.5 cm (Allen and Pinney, 1990). The lime render layer incorporated three openings for moisture measurements on the front end of the panels. Thermal conductivity values were determined using the gSKIN® heat flux sensor by GreenTEG, placed on the final lime render layer [48].
To replicate the exterior climate of the UK, the cold chamber utilised two Peltier Modules and a foam box chamber (please refer to Figure 9 for the placement of the Peltier Modules within the cold chamber). Two 12 V 6 A Thermoelectric Peltier Refrigeration Cooling Systems were employed, equipped with heat sinks and 12 V fans (0.12 A) measuring 11 × 12 × 11 cm, which facilitated heat dissipation from the cold box to the experiment room. The laboratory room’s indoor temperature was maintained at 23 °C, with humidity controlled at 36%.
The experimental design included leaving the upper sections of the wheat straw panels to rest against cement blocks. Instead of trimming the panels to match the height of the masonry blocks, the cement blocks were manually adjusted since the wheat straw panels were not affixed to them. This allowed for precise monitoring of moisture percentage readings between the panels and the wall, offering a more accurate representation of moisture levels at these contact points. Cement bricks were selected due to their ease of removal and replacement on a daily basis. Adhesive spray was applied once and allowed to dry to secure the panels to the masonry blocks. Cement blocks were temporarily removed and repositioned during moisture level measurements at the points of contact with the interior.
While this method presents certain complexities and potential implications for readings, particularly with regard to exposed monitoring points, which may not be fully covered with plaster, it provided valuable preliminary insights into moisture level fluctuations. This method could serve as a practical substitute for experiments necessitating a full-sized rig until such resources become accessible.

4.5. Replication of Site Conditions

To obtain as accurate thermal conductivity values as possible, it was essential to replicate real-life parameters, particularly indoor and outdoor temperatures and humidity levels. The Actual Wall Replication Method (AWRM), with its cold chamber and controlled indoor room temperature and humidity, allowed the wheat straw panels to react naturally in terms of biodegradation and thermal conductivity. These parameters closely mimicked the humidity and temperature datasets typical of the UK within DesignBuilder Software Ltd., Stroud, Gloucestershire, UK (refer to Figure 9). This was done to ensure that future research assessing long-term heating and cooling load savings from the straw panels would yield results consistent with the expected outdoor environment simulated by DesignBuilder Software Ltd., a popular tool among academics, students, and companies alike.
The indoor room temperatures in the simulated houses were adjusted to match the indoor temperature of the lab in Nottingham, which represented the indoor environment of Grade 2 listed houses. Normally, DesignBuilder Software Ltd. sets these temperatures to 21 °C for most rooms, with the bathroom at 22 °C, slightly higher than the suggested 18 °C to 20.2 °C [43]. The lab, emulating the interior of a Grade 2 listed house, maintained a temperature of 20.7 °C. The ideal relative humidity (RH) levels in UK homes range from 30% to 60% [49,50]. The lab achieved an RH of 36.2%. While the average outdoor temperature in Nottingham throughout the year was 9.8 °C, the cold chamber simulating outdoor conditions maintained an average temperature of 12.8 °C [42,51]. The average humidity levels in Nottingham were around 78%, but the cold chamber reached an average of 55%, which did not precisely match the required humidity levels [52].
The experiment could not be monitored over a full year with varying temperature and relative humidity controls due to lab access restrictions until May 2021. As a result, the average temperature values for the year and relative humidity levels were replicated as closely as possible, given the available equipment and timeframe.
HOBO sensors were programmed to capture readings every minute, with weekly data downloads, and their batteries lasted up to two months with an accuracy sensitivity of 0.1 °C or 0.1°F and 0.01% RH, respectively.
Figure 9 shows the similarity between the AWRM’s cool chamber and indoor room chamber temperature and humidity control with the humidity and temperature datasets of the UK within DesignBuilder Software Ltd.
The readings from the HOBO sensors placed in the cold chamber (emulating outdoor conditions) and the lab (simulating indoor conditions of a Grade 2 listed house) revealed average temperatures of 12.8 °C and 20.7 °C, with the lowest and highest readings at 11.6 °C and 18.9 °C, and 23.7 °C and 22.9 °C, respectively. Standard deviations were approximately 0.48 and 0.57, respectively (Refer to Table 3).
Figure 10 illustrates how the AWRM emulated Nottingham’s climate through the cold box method. It presents average temperatures in Nottingham from 1991 to 2021 [53].

4.6. AWRM: Preliminary Results

The Actual Wall Replication Method (AWRM) played a pivotal role in providing realistic values for the performance of a typical masonry wall in Grade 2 listed homes under conditions similar to the temperate climate of the UK. This was achieved by utilising the cold box, created on the masonry block side, equipped with Peltier Modules to mimic outdoor conditions in Nottingham. Simultaneously, the temperature and humidity levels in the lab emulated indoor conditions of a typical household where the straw panels and lime render side were exposed. It is important to note that the panels were installed on the interior of a Grade 2 listed building, not on the exterior. The results obtained constituted thermal conductivity values for the total wall, as the panels were applied to the masonry wall. A calculation method was subsequently employed to obtain thermal conductivity values for the wheat straw panels independently of other wall layers.
The classic equation for calculating insulation thermal conductivity could not be applied, as it necessitates an equation that considers multiple factors simultaneously, including density (ρ), conductivity (λ), permeability (μ), specific heat density (c), Young’s modulus (ε), and thickness. To obtain results that did not rely solely on the thermal conductivity levels of different materials used in the AWRM, Ubakus (Version 2024) was used as a highly useful tool. It allowed for the calculation of thermal conductivity values, moisture levels, and other building physics parameters based on a vast material library. Custom parameters were input for the novel wheat straw panels, derived from the thermal conductivity results obtained from the gSKIN® heat flux sensor by GreenTEG (Refer to Figure 11).
The correct application of the wheat straw panels was of paramount importance. The AWRM included layers of lime render plaster, wheat straw, and masonry brick, as indicated (refer to Figure 11). These layers are presented in order from the interior of a listed home (the lab or warm room) to the outdoor environment (or the cold chamber used to simulate outdoor conditions). Notably, there were considerable air gaps and pockets between the wheat straw panel and the masonry brick walls. These were calculated after researching approximate air depths for each thickness. Since the software could not recognise them as an integral part of the wheat straw layer, they were added as a separate layer in the Ubakus tool. The lime render used in the experiment was a mixture of sand and lime without cement. It was a blend of pure lime and sand stuccos, using NHL3.5, which is highly permeable and minimises condensation risks due to dew point percentages or temperature gradients overlapping, as observed in lime, cement, and sand renderings [54,55]. Refer to Figure 12, which shows the considerable difference in the permeability of renders using varied combinations and rations of cement, slaked lime, and sand.

4.7. Final AWRM Thermal Conductivity

It is important to acknowledge that some of the insulation panels, particularly the 7.5 cm and 10 cm panels, exhibited thermal conductivity levels that did not perform as expected. These panels showed increased air gaps disproportionate to their thickness, resulting in higher heat transmittance between the interior and exterior of the wall, rather than heat retention [46,56].
The Actual Wall Replication Method (AWRM) identified the 5 cm and 7.5 cm panels of the PH-based (Psyllium husk) panel as the best performers, with thermal conductivity values of 0.017 and 0.023 W/mK. Meanwhile, the 2.5 cm and 10 cm panels had higher values of 0.025 and 0.028 W/mK. For the BP-based (bioplastic) panels, the 7.5 cm and 5 cm panels had thermal conductivity values of 0.021 and 0.0215 W/mK, respectively, making them favourable. On the other hand, the thinnest and thickest panels of 2.5 cm and 25 cm showed thermal conductivity values of 0.033 and 0.026 W/mK. Table 3 shows the thermal conductivity values of PH (psyllium husk) binder-based wheat straw panel when tested using the hotbox or AWRM. It also represents the thermal conductivity values of the BP (bioplastic potato starch) binder-based wheat straw panels when tested only using the AWRM. The densities of each of the PH- and BP-based panels are represented.
However, it is worth noting that the thermal conductivity values provided by the hotbox method significantly deviated from the normal range of bio-based insulation with similar thickness (please see Table 4 and Table 5).
The disproportionately higher thermal conductivity values obtained from the hotbox method, or errors in thermal conductivity determination for the same panels tested in the AWRM, could be attributed to various factors. These factors may include non-uniform temperature distribution within the hotbox (Lucchi, Roberti and Alexandra, 2018), lack of clear moisture content control in the mock-up [47], the specific test setup [57], small metering section [58], limited measuring points with that section [47], and a small temperature difference (ΔT) between the cold and hot chambers or between the chamber and room simulating the exterior and interior environments [59]. Additionally, inaccuracies in hotbox results can stem from factors like non-accurate surface temperature measurements, number, location, and type of sensors and probes, thermal bridges [49], and variation or shielding of the temperature gradient [60,61]. The absence of radiative cooling in the hotbox may have led to heat shielding issues among the probe numbers and locations, contributing to major inaccuracies in thermal conductivity values [62].
The AWRM, on the other hand, yielded results that were more aligned with other experiments involving bio-based insulation made from agro-fibre waste and natural materials. It helped bridge the gap between the hotbox method and actual on-site performance. Thermal conductivity values for PH and BP binder-based panels were ranked differently based on thickness. However, these preferences changed when energy performance simulations were conducted on semi-detached, terraced, and detached 3D models [63,64].

4.8. Resistance to Moisture

Concerns regarding the decay of agro-waste fibres when used in wall insulation under specific conditions stem from high moisture levels that persist for a short time or low levels that persist for a long time. The moisture resistance experiment aimed to evaluate the effects of atmospheric conditions and plaster rendering on the moisture content of wheat straw. Complex water vapour passage within the wheat straw panels was monitored at several surface points [65].
The results indicated a level of moisture to be expected from wheat straw insulation, which did not pose a threat to the structural integrity of a wall through decay. Moisture levels fluctuated and reached a maximum of 25%, which did not surpass the undesirable threshold of 37% [54,66], at which point straw deterioration begins. However, it is worth noting that although the wheat straw was pre-treated via boiling and steam treatments, reducing the likelihood of fungal activity by eliminating live matter or pests in the straw bales, this may not be the case once the binder is added to the wheat straw panels after treatment.

5. Discussion

This study introduced a novel slim insulation panel utilising wheat straw and compostable binders, providing a sustainable retrofitting solution for Grade 2 listed dwellings in the UK. These findings are significant in the broader context of achieving net zero carbon targets by 2030 [55,67] while preserving the architectural integrity of heritage buildings [68,69]. Specifically tailored for Grade 2 listed homes in the UK, which are subject to constraints in exterior renovation, this panel aims to offer an interior insulation solution that is both uncomplicated in construction and fully compostable while adhering to industry benchmarks. The experimental framework involved the utilisation of wheat straw and compostable binders to fabricate prototype panels, which were then subjected to a series of tests to ascertain their thermal conductivity, moisture level stabilisation, and biodegradation under conditions that closely mimic real-life scenarios. The outcomes of these tests highlight the potential of wheat straw as a viable, cost-effective, and compostable material for insulation purposes. The study highlights the criticality of employing realistic testing environments to accurately gauge the true performance capabilities of these insulation panels [70,71,72,73,74].
The development and testing of these panels focused on three primary objectives: thermal efficiency, environmental sustainability, and compatibility with conservation requirements. The initial phase of testing the fabricated panels involved employing the conventional hotbox method. However, this approach was deemed ineffective due to its significant error margin.
The adoption of the Actual Wall Replication Method (AWRM) in conjunction with cold box testing proved instrumental in evaluating the panel performance under conditions that closely simulate real-world scenarios. Subsequently, a more realistic wall replication method was developed to assess the panels’ performance under actual conditions. This involved the construction of a cold box to mimic the outdoor temperature and humidity levels typical of the UK, alongside utilising the laboratory environment to simulate average indoor conditions. The findings from this approach indicated that panels utilising a 5 and 7.5 cm thickness of psyllium husk-based binder were most effective, exhibiting thermal conductivities of 0.017 and 0.023 W/mK, respectively. In the context of the bioplastic potato starch-based binder, both the 5 cm and 7.5 cm panels demonstrated superior performance, with the 7.5 cm panel marginally outperforming the 5 cm panel, registering thermal conductivities of 0.021 and 0.0215 W/mK, respectively. These results corroborate the findings of Lawrence et al. (2008) [69], who determined that the application of NHL lime render to straw bale insulation results in a moisture content that is at least 3% lower than when utilising a 1:1:6 lime/cement/sand render, attributing this to the enhanced ‘breathability’ of the formulated lime render as compared to its cement counterpart, with an average moisture level of 14%.
In practice, the integration of these panels into heritage buildings involves regulatory and logistical challenges, including adherence to conservation guidelines, cost considerations, and the need for skilled labour for installation. These barriers emphasise the need for policy incentives and training programmes to facilitate adoption.

Significance of This Study

This research fills a critical gap by providing a replicable framework for integrating circular economy principles into the retrofitting of heritage properties. Unlike conventional insulation solutions that often compromise sustainability or architectural preservation, these panels offer a balanced approach, demonstrating that natural materials like wheat straw can meet modern thermal and environmental standards.

6. Conclusions

This study has successfully demonstrated the potential of slim wheat straw-based insulation panels as a sustainable retrofitting solution for Grade 2 listed dwellings in the UK. Key findings indicate that these panels, utilising PH and PB binders, can achieve thermal conductivity values comparable to conventional materials while offering the added benefits of compostability and alignment with conservation requirements.

6.1. Main Contributions and Impact

  • Innovative Materials: This research established wheat straw, an abundant agricultural waste product, as a viable substrate for insulation, offering an eco-friendly alternative to non-renewable materials.
  • Novel Methodologies: By developing the Actual Wall Replication Method (AWRM), this study set a precedent for more realistic performance evaluation of insulation panels, addressing the shortcomings of conventional testing techniques.
  • Heritage Compatibility: The proposed solution bridges the gap between environmental sustainability and the strict conservation requirements of heritage properties.

6.2. Limitations and Future Directions

While this study provides a robust foundation, certain limitations remain. The scalability of the hybrid production process and the availability of suitable binders, such as PH, warrant further exploration. A comprehensive life-cycle assessment should be conducted to fully evaluate the environmental impacts of the panels across their production, use, and disposal phases.
A key limitation of the current study is the relatively short testing period, which may not fully capture the long-term performance of the wheat straw insulation panels. Future studies should extend the assessment over multiple seasons to evaluate the impact of prolonged exposure to varying environmental conditions, ensuring the panels’ effectiveness over their entire lifespan. Additionally, climatic variability plays a significant role in panel moisture levels, particularly in heritage buildings where fluctuating humidity and temperature conditions can affect insulation performance. The Actual Wall Replication Method (AWRM) developed in this research provided valuable insights into moisture behaviour under controlled conditions, yet further studies are needed to analyse long-term absorption and desorption cycles in real-world settings. Finally, improvements to AWRM could enhance its precision in measuring thermal dissipation over time. Incorporating additional sensors, such as high-resolution heat flux sensors and embedded humidity probes, would allow for a more comprehensive understanding of heat transfer and moisture dynamics within the panels. These refinements would strengthen the methodology’s ability to replicate real-world conditions and validate the sustainability of bio-based insulation materials in historic retrofitting.
Additionally, long-term field tests in diverse climatic and occupancy conditions are needed to validate the durability and biodegradation of the panels.

6.3. Recommendations

Future research should focus on the following aspects:
  • Enhancing Production Efficiency: Refining the hybrid production process for greater scalability and uniformity across manufacturing setups.
  • Policy and Incentives: Engaging stakeholders to establish regulatory support, training, and subsidies for heritage retrofitting projects using sustainable materials.
  • Material Optimisation: Exploring alternative binders with higher thermal and moisture performance while maintaining compostability and local availability.
The findings of this study highlight the potential of agricultural waste as a transformative resource in the construction sector. By aligning heritage preservation with sustainable innovation, this research contributes a vital step towards meeting net zero carbon targets and setting a benchmark for future developments in the field of sustainable retrofitting.

Author Contributions

Methodology, F.Y.; validation, A.E.; formal analysis, F.Y.; writing—original draft, F.Y.; writing—review & editing, A.E.; supervision, H.A.K., A.E. and A.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. 2011. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012DC0673:EN:NOT (accessed on 4 February 2025).
  2. Elnokaly, A.; Keeling, I. An empirical study investigating the impact of micro-algal technologies and their application within intelligent building fabrics. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 216, 712–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pacheco-Torgal, F. Eco-efficient construction and building materials research under the EU Framework Programme Horizon 2020. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 51, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alqadi, S.; Elnokaly, A. An Empirical Study of a Residential Building. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies, Nottingham, UK, 15–17 August 2023; p. 158. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ahmadian, E.; Sodagar, B.; Bingham, C.; Elnokaly, A.; Mills, G. Effect of urban built form and density on building energy performance in temperate climates. Energy Build. 2021, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhou, Y.; Trabelsi, A.; El Mankibi, M. A review on the properties of straw insulation for buildings. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 330, 127215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Govaerts, Y.; Hayen, R.; de Bouw, M.; Verdonck, A.; Meulebroeck, W.; Mertens, S.; Grégoire, Y. Performance of a lime-based insulating render for heritage buildings. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 159, 376–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tangjuank, S. Thermal insulation and physical properties of particleboards from pineapple leaves. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 2011, 6, 4528–4532. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chougan, M.; Ghaffar, S.H.; Al-Kheetan, M.J.; Gecevicius, M. Wheat straw pre-treatments using eco-friendly strategies for enhancing the tensile properties of bio-based polylactic acid composites. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 155, 112836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Carfrae, J.; De Wilde, P.; Goodhew, S.; Walker, P. Detailing the effective use of rain-screens to protect walls made from straw bales in combination with hygroscopic, breathable finishes. (Intelligent Sustainable Cities) View project The relationship between quality management and the thermal. In Proceedings of the Detail Design in Architecture 8—Translating Sustainable Design into Sustainable Construction, Cardiff, UK, 4–8 September 2009. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ashour, T.; Wieland, H.; Georg, H.; Bockisch, F.J.; Wu, W. The influence of natural reinforcement fibres on insulation values of earth plaster for straw bale buildings. Mater. Des. 2010, 31, 4676–4685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Palladino, D.; Scrucca, F.; Calabrese, N.; Barberio, G.; Ingrao, C. Durum-Wheat Straw Bales for Thermal Insulation of Buildings: Findings from a Comparative Energy Analysis of a Set of Wall-Composition Samples on the Building Scale. Energies 2021, 14, 5508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. ASTM D635; Rate of Burning and/or Extent and Time of Burning of Plastics in a Horizontal Position 1. American Society for Testing and Materials Standards: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2003; pp. 1–7.
  14. Kumfu, S.; Jintakosol, T. Thermal insulation produced from pineapple leaf fiber and natural rubber latex. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012, 506, 453–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lechtenböhmer, S.; Schüring, A. The potential for large-scale savings from insulating residential buildings in the EU. Energy Effic. 2011, 4, 257–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sañudo, R.; Dell’Olio, L.; Casado, J.A.; Carrascal, I.A.; Diego, S. Track transitions in railways: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 112, 140–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Herrera-Avellanosa, D.; Rose, J.; Thomsen, K.E.; Haas, F.; Leijonhufvud, G.; Brostrom, T.; Troi, A. Evaluating the Implementation of Energy Retrofits in Historic Buildings: A Demonstration of the Energy Conservation Potential and Lessons Learned for Upscaling. Heritage 2024, 7, 997–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Menconi, M.; Painting, N.; Piroozfar, P. Simulated Results of a Passive Energy Retrofit Approach for Traditional Listed Dwellings in the UK. Energies 2025, 18, 850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Historic England. “Greening” Historic Homes Could Save up to 84% in Carbon Emissions. Hist. Engl. 2021, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  20. Elnokaly, A.; Ayoub, M.; Elseragy, A. Parametric investigation of traditional vaulted roofs in hot-arid climates. Renew. Energy 2019, 138, 250–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Potton, E.; Hinson, S. Housing and Net Zero. 2020. Available online: https://www.thinkhouse.org.uk/site/assets/files/2010/hoc0320c.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2025).
  22. Salonen, T.; Fischer, H.; Korjenic, A. Chopped Straw as an Insulation Material: The Influence of Different Blow-In Technologies and Flame Retardants on Hygrothermal Properties. Buildings 2023, 13, 2555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Elnokaly, A.; Elseragy, A. Sustainable urban regeneration of historic city centres: Lessons learnt. In Proceedings of the World Sustainable Building Conference, Helsinki, Finland, 18–21 October 2011. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lopez Hurtado, P.; Rouilly, A.; Vandenbossche, V.; Raynaud, C. A review on the properties of cellulose fibre insulation. Build. Environ. 2016, 96, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Evon, P.; Vandenbossche, V.; Pontalier, P.-Y.; Rigal, L. New thermal insulation fiberboards from cake generated during biorefinery of sunflower whole plant in a twin-screw extruder. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 52, 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Masood, R.; Miraftab, M. Psyllium: Current and Future Applications. In Medical and Healthcare Textiles; Anand, S.C., Kennedy, J.F., Miraftab, M., Rajendran, S., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Series in Textiles; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2010; pp. 244–253. ISBN 978-1-84569-224-7. [Google Scholar]
  27. Palumbo, M.; Navarro, A.; Avellaneda, J.; Lacasta, A.M. Characterization of thermal insulation materials developed with crop wastes and natural binders. WSB14 World Sustain. Build. Conf. 2014, 28, 188-1-188-10. [Google Scholar]
  28. Soto, M.; Rojas, C.; Cárdenas-Ramírez, J.P. Characterization of a Thermal Insulating Material Based on a Wheat Straw and Recycled Paper Cellulose to Be Applied in Buildings by Blowing Method. Sustainability 2023, 15, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mohammed, A.M.; Elnokaly, A.; Aly, A.M.M. Empirical investigation to explore potential gains from the amalgamation of phase changing materials (PCMs) and wood shavings. Energy Built Environ. 2021, 2, 315–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Costes, J.-P.; Evrard, A.; Biot, B.; Keutgen, G.; Daras, A.; Dubois, S.; Lebeau, F.; Courard, L. Thermal conductivity of straw bales: Full size measurements considering the direction of the heat flow. Buildings 2017, 7, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pendlebury, J. Conservation values, the authorised heritage discourse and the conservation-planning assemblage. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2013, 19, 709–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Historic England. Energy efficiency and historic buildings: Insulating Solid Walls. Hist. Engl. 2016, 29, 16–17. [Google Scholar]
  33. Romero Quidel, G.; Soto Acuña, M.J.; Rojas Herrera, C.J.; Rodríguez Neira, K.; Cárdenas-Ramírez, J.P. Assessment of Modular Construction System Made with Low Environmental Impact Construction Materials for Achieving Sustainable Housing Projects. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sheweka, S.M.; Elnokaly, A. Waste management and material recycle as a potential of sustainable building envelope for low income housing. In Proceedings of the 41st IAHS World Congress Sustainabilit y and Innovation for the Future, Albufeira, Portugal, 13–16 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
  35. Peters, B.; Sharag-Eldin, A.; Callaghan, B. Development of a simple hot box to determine the thermal characteristics of three-dimensional printed bricks. In Proceedings of the ARCC 2017 Conference—Architecture of Complexity, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 14–17 June 2017; pp. 457–466. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sun, R.C.; Salisbury, D.; Tomkinson, J. Chemical composition of lipophilic extractives released during the hot water treatment of wheat straw. Bioresour. Technol. 2003, 88, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. ISO 9869:1994(en); Thermal Insulation—Building Elements—In-Situ Measurement of Thermal Resistance and Thermal Transmittance. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1994.
  38. Smith, S. Development of the Modified Hot Box: A Convective Heat Transfer Device for Measuring the Steady State and Transient Thermal Properties of Non-homogenous Building Materials. Master’s Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  39. Alhawari, A.; Mukhopadhyaya, P. Construction and Calibration of a Unique Hot Box Apparatus. Energies 2022, 15, 4677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. GreenTEG Instruction Manual for gSKIN® U-Value Kit. 2020, pp. 1–7. Available online: https://www.greenteg.com/de/uploads/g_SKIN_U_Value_KIT_Manual_Version2_42_847416a0ae.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2025).
  41. Binici, H.; Eken, M.; Dolaz, M.; Aksogan, O.; Kara, M. An environmentally friendly thermal insulation material from sunflower stalk, textile waste and stubble fibres. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 51, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mohammed, A.M.; Elnokaly, A.; Aly, A.M.; Mahmoud, M.H. Enhanced thermal performance of closed-cell rigid Polyurethane (PU) foam panels using phase change materials (PCMs). J. Adv. Eng. Trends 2022, 41, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jones, M.; Mautner, A.; Luenco, S.; Bismarck, A.; John, S. Engineered mycelium composite construction materials from fungal biorefineries: A critical review. Mater. Des. 2020, 187, 108397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ranefjärd, O.; Strandberg-de Bruijn, P.B.; Wadsö, L. Hygrothermal Properties and Performance of Bio-Based Insulation Materials Locally Sourced in Sweden. Materials 2024, 17, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. BS ISO 8990:1994; Thermal Insulation—Determination of Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties—Calibrated and Guarded Hot Box. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
  46. Almusaed, A.; Almssad, A.; Alasadi, A.; Yitmen, I.; Al-Samaraee, S. Assessing the Role and Efficiency of Thermal Insulation by the “BIO-GREEN PANEL” in Enhancing Sustainability in a Built Environment. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. CIBSE. Guide A Environmental Design (2015, Updated 2021); CIBSE: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  48. Asdrubali, F.; D’Alessandro, F.; Schiavoni, S. A review of unconventional sustainable building insulation materials. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2015, 4, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Council Oxford City. Keeping Your Home Free from Damp; Council Oxford City: Oxfrod, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  50. Climate Data. Climate in Nottingham, UK; Climate Data: Nottingham, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  51. Goodhew, S.; Griffiths, R. Sustainable earth walls to meet the building regulations. Energy Build. 2005, 37, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pruteanu, M. Investigations regarding the thermal conductivity of straw. Bul. Institutului Politeh. Din Lasi. Sect. Constr. Arhit. 2010, 56, 9. [Google Scholar]
  53. Milutiene, E.; Staniškis, J.K.; Kručius, A.; Auguliene, V.; Ardickas, D. Increase in buildings sustainability by using renewable materials and energy. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2012, 14, 1075–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Grilo, J.; Faria, P.; Veiga, R.; Santos Silva, A.; Silva, V.; Velosa, A. New natural hydraulic lime mortars—Physical and microstructural properties in different curing conditions. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 54, 378–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bovo, M.; Giani, N.; Barbaresi, A.; Mazzocchetti, L.; Barbaresi, L.; Giorgini, L.; Torreggiani, D.; Tassinari, P. Contribution to thermal and acoustic characterization of corn cob for bio-based building insulation applications. Energy Build. 2022, 262, 111994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Moncada, L.G.G.; Asdrubali, F.; Rotili, A. Influence of new fac tors on global energy prospects in the medium term: Comparison among the 2010, 2011 and 2012 editions of the IEA’s World Energy Outlook reports. Econ. Policy Energy Environ. 2013, 2013, 67–89. [Google Scholar]
  57. Williamson, A.; Finnegan, S. Sustainability in heritage buildings: Can we improve the sustainable development of existing buildings under approved document L? Sustainability 2021, 13, 3620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ji, Y.; Fitton, R.; Swan, W.; Webster, P. Assessing overheating of the UK existing dwellings—A case study of replica Victorian end terrace house. Build. Environ. 2014, 77, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dore, C.; Murrells, T.; Passant, N.; Hobson, M.; Thistlethwaite, G.; Wagner, R.A.; Li, Y.; Bush, T.; King, K.; Norris, J.; et al. UK emissions of air pollutants 1970 to 2006. AEA Energy 2008, 194. [Google Scholar]
  60. Nardi, I.; Paoletti, D.; Ambrosini, D.; De Rubeis, T.; Sfarra, S. Validation of quantitative IR thermography for estimating the U-value by a hot box apparatus. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2015, 655, 012006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cesaratto, P.G.; De Carli, M.; Marinetti, S. Effect of different parameters on the in situ thermal conductance evaluation. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 1792–1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Met Office. Climate in Nottingham 2017–2022; Met Office: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  63. Straube, J. Moisture Properties of Plaster and Stucco for Straw Bale Buildings. In Report for CMHC, Ottawa; EBNet: Schwerin, Germany, 2000; p. 4. [Google Scholar]
  64. Robinson, J.A. Quantifying and Evaluating the Risk Posed to Straw Bale Constructions from Moisture. Ph.D. Thesis, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK, 2014; pp. 35–44. [Google Scholar]
  65. Ali, A.; Issa, A.; Elshaer, A. A Comprehensive Review and Recent Trends in Thermal Insulation Materials for Energy Conservation in Buildings. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Czajkowski, Ł.; Kocewicz, R.; Weres, J.; Olek, W. Estimation of Thermal Properties of Straw-Based Insulating Panels. Materials 2022, 15, 1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Abu-Bakar, H.; Charnley, F. Developing a Strategic Methodology for Circular Economy Roadmapping: A Theoretical Framework. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Asdrubali, F.; Baldinelli, G. Thermal transmittance measurements with the hot box method: Calibration, experimental procedures, and uncertainty analyses of three different approaches. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 1618–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lawrence, M.; Heath, A.; Walker, P. The impact of external finishes on the weather resistance of straw bale walls. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Non-Conventional Materials and Technologies, NOCMAT, Bath, UK, 6–9 September 2009. [Google Scholar]
  70. Aviram, D.P.; Fried, A.N.; Roberts, J.J. Thermal properties of a variable cavity wall. Build. Environ. 2001, 36, 1057–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kus, H.; Özkan, E.; Göcer, Ö.; Edis, E. Hot box measurements of pumice aggregate concrete hollow block walls. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 38, 837–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sala, J.M.; Urresti, A.; Martin, K.; Flores, I.; Apaolaza, A. Static and dynamic thermal characterisation of a hollow brick wall: Tests and numerical analysis. Energy Build. 2008, 40, 1513–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Peng, C.; Wu, Z. In situ measuring and evaluating the thermal resistance of building construction. Energy Build. 2008, 40, 2076–2082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ahmad, A.; Maslehuddin, M.; Al-Hadhrami, L.M. In situ measurement of thermal transmittance and thermal resistance of hollow reinforced precast concrete walls. Energy Build. 2014, 84, 132–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 02735 g001
Figure 1. Graph demonstrating tonnes of wheat straw produced from European countries and the UK.
Figure 1. Graph demonstrating tonnes of wheat straw produced from European countries and the UK.
Sustainability 17 02735 g001
Sustainability 17 02735 g002
Figure 2. The stages of the hybrid production process, including mortar mixing, hydraulic pressing and pre drying compression. (a) Hand mixing: manual blending of wheat straw with the chosen binder (PH or BP). (b) Table-sized mortar mixer: mechanical mixing using a small-scale, laboratory-grade mixer. (c) On-site cement mixer: large-scale mixing using an EC-compliant concrete mixer (model C100). (d) Manual panel pressing: compression of the mixture using a hand-operated hydraulic press. (e) Electric panel pressing: compression using an electrically operated hydraulic machine. (f) Post-compression weight application: placing weights on panels to prevent expansion during drying. (g) Panel drying: utilising one of three methods—oven drying, industrial fan drying, or air drying.
Figure 2. The stages of the hybrid production process, including mortar mixing, hydraulic pressing and pre drying compression. (a) Hand mixing: manual blending of wheat straw with the chosen binder (PH or BP). (b) Table-sized mortar mixer: mechanical mixing using a small-scale, laboratory-grade mixer. (c) On-site cement mixer: large-scale mixing using an EC-compliant concrete mixer (model C100). (d) Manual panel pressing: compression of the mixture using a hand-operated hydraulic press. (e) Electric panel pressing: compression using an electrically operated hydraulic machine. (f) Post-compression weight application: placing weights on panels to prevent expansion during drying. (g) Panel drying: utilising one of three methods—oven drying, industrial fan drying, or air drying.
Sustainability 17 02735 g002
Sustainability 17 02735 g003
Figure 3. Framework hybrid production process.
Figure 3. Framework hybrid production process.
Sustainability 17 02735 g003
Sustainability 17 02735 g004
Figure 4. The 3 moulds used to produce the sample wheat straw panels.
Figure 4. The 3 moulds used to produce the sample wheat straw panels.
Sustainability 17 02735 g004
Sustainability 17 02735 g005
Figure 5. BS ISO 9869 [37] standard hotbox.
Figure 5. BS ISO 9869 [37] standard hotbox.
Sustainability 17 02735 g005
Sustainability 17 02735 g006aSustainability 17 02735 g006b
Figure 6. The hotbox interior and the wheat straw panel with heat flux sensor.
Figure 6. The hotbox interior and the wheat straw panel with heat flux sensor.
Sustainability 17 02735 g006aSustainability 17 02735 g006b
Sustainability 17 02735 g007
Figure 7. Actual wall replication method framework when compared to the hotbox method framework.
Figure 7. Actual wall replication method framework when compared to the hotbox method framework.
Sustainability 17 02735 g007
Sustainability 17 02735 g008
Figure 8. (a) Exploded diagram of the different layers utilised to develop the actual wall replication method (AWRM). (b) How the panels were applied to the AWRM with the lime render.
Figure 8. (a) Exploded diagram of the different layers utilised to develop the actual wall replication method (AWRM). (b) How the panels were applied to the AWRM with the lime render.
Sustainability 17 02735 g008
Sustainability 17 02735 g009
Figure 9. AWRM cool chamber and indoor room chamber temperature and humidity comparison within DesignBuilder Software Ltd.
Figure 9. AWRM cool chamber and indoor room chamber temperature and humidity comparison within DesignBuilder Software Ltd.
Sustainability 17 02735 g009
Sustainability 17 02735 g010
Figure 10. Temperature data for Nottingham from the UK Met Office.
Figure 10. Temperature data for Nottingham from the UK Met Office.
Sustainability 17 02735 g010
Sustainability 17 02735 g011
Figure 11. The Ubakus software interface.
Figure 11. The Ubakus software interface.
Sustainability 17 02735 g011
Sustainability 17 02735 g012
Figure 12. Graph comparing permeability of various renders.
Figure 12. Graph comparing permeability of various renders.
Sustainability 17 02735 g012
Table 1. Assumed and actual thermal conductivity values of the hotbox.
Table 1. Assumed and actual thermal conductivity values of the hotbox.
Hotbox Method
PH Binder Panels (Psyllium Husk)
Wheat Straw Panel Thickness (cm)Panel Thermal Conductivity, Hotbox (W/mK)Manually Calculated Total Wall Thermal Conductivity from Hotbox Obtained Hotbox Values (W/mK)Density (kg/m3)
2.50.61.036133
50.550.986186
7.50.520.937270
100.50.89385
Table 2. Natural insulation products, thermal performances, and densities. Adapted by author.
Table 2. Natural insulation products, thermal performances, and densities. Adapted by author.
Insulation Material TypeProduct Density
(kg/m3)		Thermal Conductivity (W/mK)Reference
Cellulose fibre500.04(Lopez Hurtado et al., 2016) [24]
Pineapple leaves178–2320.035–0.045(Tangjuank, 2011) [8]
Sunflower, sunflower stalks, and cotton textile waste2000.1642(Binici et al., 2014) [41]
Sunflower, rape straw, sunflower bark, sunflower pith, and a mix of sunflower pith and bark235–7140.055–0.156(Jones et al., 2020) [43]
Straw bales1200.155(Palladino et al., 2021) [12]
Table 3. Average results of the RH and temperature values of the cold chamber and indoor lab conditions.
Table 3. Average results of the RH and temperature values of the cold chamber and indoor lab conditions.
Temperature Cold Chamber (Outdoor Conditions) °CTemperature (Indoor Conditions) %RH Cold Chamber (Outdoor Conditions) %RH Lab (Indoor Conditions) %
Standard deviations0.50.63.74.2
Maximum23.722.964.650.6
Minimum11.618.929.828.4
Averages12.820.755.636.2
Table 4. Thermal conductivity values and densities of PH and BP binder-based wheat straw panels when tested using hotbox or AWRM.
Table 4. Thermal conductivity values and densities of PH and BP binder-based wheat straw panels when tested using hotbox or AWRM.
Hotbox MethodActual Wall Replication
PH Binder Panels (Psyllium Husk)BP Binder Panels (Bioplastic)
Wheat Straw Panel Thickness (cm)Manually Calculated Total Wall Thermal Conductivity from Hotbox Obtained Hotbox Values (W/mK)Panel Thermal Conductivity, Hotbox (W/mK)Manually Calculated Total Wall Thermal Conductivity from Actual Wall Replication Method (W/mK)Panel Thermal Conductivity from Actual Wall Replication Method (W/mK)Density
(Kg/m3)		Potato Wall Thermal Conductivity (W/mK)Assumed
Potato Panel Thermal Conductivity (W/mK)		Density
(Kg/m3)
2.51.0360.60.570.0251330.660.033146
50.9860.550.270.0171860.310.0215218
7.50.9370.520.240.0232700.2250.021324
100.890.50.220.0283850.230.026470
Table 5. The disproportionate thermal conductivity values between the PH- and BP-based wheat straw panels.
Table 5. The disproportionate thermal conductivity values between the PH- and BP-based wheat straw panels.
PH Binder Panels (Psyllium husk) BP Binder Panels (Bioplastic)
Wheat Straw Panel Thickness (cm)Assumed Wall Hotbox Panel Thermal Conductivity (W/mK)Wall Thermal Conductivity, Actual Wall Replication Method (W/mK)Ratio of Hotbox to AWRM ExperimentAssumed Wall Hotbox Panel Thermal Conductivity (W/mK)Potato Wall Thermal Conductivity (W/mK)Ratio of Hotbox to AWRM Experiment
2.51.0360.571.821.0360.661.57
50.9860.273.650.9860.313.18
7.50.9370.243.900.9370.2254.16
100.890.224.050.890.233.87
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yasser, F.; Klalib, H.A.; Elnokaly, A.; Ianakiev, A. Sustainable Development of Grade 2 Listed Dwellings: A Wall Replication Method with Slim Wheat Straw Panels for Heritage Retrofitting. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2735. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062735

AMA Style

Yasser F, Klalib HA, Elnokaly A, Ianakiev A. Sustainable Development of Grade 2 Listed Dwellings: A Wall Replication Method with Slim Wheat Straw Panels for Heritage Retrofitting. Sustainability. 2025; 17(6):2735. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062735

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yasser, Farres, Hynda Aoun Klalib, Amira Elnokaly, and Anton Ianakiev. 2025. "Sustainable Development of Grade 2 Listed Dwellings: A Wall Replication Method with Slim Wheat Straw Panels for Heritage Retrofitting" Sustainability 17, no. 6: 2735. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062735

APA Style

Yasser, F., Klalib, H. A., Elnokaly, A., & Ianakiev, A. (2025). Sustainable Development of Grade 2 Listed Dwellings: A Wall Replication Method with Slim Wheat Straw Panels for Heritage Retrofitting. Sustainability, 17(6), 2735. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062735

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop