Sunteți pe pagina 1din 37

T h e B a s e m e n t

IN F O R M A T IO N C E N T R E

B a s e m e n ts 1 -

B e n e fit s , V ia b ilit y a n d C o s t s

Acknowledgements
The Basement Information Centre would like to thank: Francis Ryder, The Concrete Centre, for updating and expanding the cost data given in this publication and for contributing to the text. Pauline Guo-Heritage, The Concrete Centre for assistance with the costings and preparation of various drawings. Issy Harvey, Bracknell Tracing for production of various drawings. Alan Tovey, Tecnicom for assessment of the updated data and publication editing. Thanks also remain to Brian Keyworth, Keyworth Architects for input into the preparation, design costing and analysis of the original publication. Sworn King and Partners for their contribution to both the original and previous update of the costing studies. Particular thanks go to The Concrete Centre, the Prime Group Member of the Basement Information Centre, for generous support with respect to this publication and other basement projects.

A list of members providing products and services for new build, refurbishment and retro-fit basements may be found on The Basement Information Centres website www.tbic.org.uk or www.basements.org.uk

This publication
It is intended that subsequent updates will be made available as a download from TBICs Website. Note on diagrams - Throughout this publication the diagrams are illustrative only, and do not show all detail of construction nor should any detail be used for any detailed drawing for a specific project. Note on costings - the costings given in this publication have been developed from general published construction prices as applicable to the south east. Adjustments for regional variations may be estimated using published regional variation factors. The indicated costings are for illustrative purposes only and should not be used or relied upon for any contractual purposes.

Many construction activities are potentially dangerous, so care is needed at all times. Current legislation requires all persons to consider the effects of their actions or lack of action on the health and safety of themselves and others. Advice on safety legislation may be obtained from any area offices of the Health and Safety Executive.

TBIC/002 First published 1991 2nd edition 1999 ISBN Price group British Cement Association 1991, 1999 Basement Information Centre 2005

Published by Basement Information Centre Riverside House 4 Meadows Business Park Station Approach, Blackwater Telephone: 01276 33155 Camberley, Surrey GU17 9AB www.tbic.org.uk

All advice or information from the British Cement Association is intended for those who will evaluate the significance and limitations of its contents and take responsibility for its use and application. No liability (including that for negligence) for any loss resulting from such advice or information is accepted. Readers should note that all BCA publications are subject to revision from time to time and should therefore ensure that they are in possession of the latest version.

BASEMENTS 1 BENEFITS, VIABILITY AND COSTS

CONTENTS PAGE

PREFACE..........................................................................................................2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................4 POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES ......................................................................................5 LEGISLATION.....................................................................................................8 TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................8 CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES ............................................................................... 10 COST STUDIES ................................................................................................. 12 EFFECT OF BASEMENTS ON SITE LAYOUT.................................................................. 20 COST COMPARISONS OF HOUSE TYPES ..................................................................... 24 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................... 32

PREFACE THE POTENTIAL FOR BETTER SPACE WITH BASEMENTS The Basement Information Centre has produced this study in conjunction with The Concrete Centre in order to show the current benefits and viability of basements in housing. It was first published in 1991, was updated in 1999 and has now been updated in 2005. A much earlier evaluation (1), which examined only construction costs, was carried out by BRE in 1977. Due to the wide variation of site conditions and construction options, this study is not proposed to be definitive but is considered to show adequately: a) b) c) The effect the inclusion of a basement has on construction costs. The effect of basements on land utilization. The effect of basements on profitability.

Now is an ideal time to consider the main market characteristics that will shape demand for future products. Different pressures will occur over the next 20 years due to growing demands for housing, shortages of available development land, requirements for the use of Brownfield land, climate change and changes in customers expectations and requirements. There are indications that future housing will be greatly influenced by a small number of key factors, which will include: Land - The cost of land, its quality and its proximity to amenities will all be significant. All indications are that that land prices will continue to rise and that housebuilders will be under increasing pressure to get the best return from available land by using it more efficiently. The quality of available land is also likely to be poorer, so a great deal of construction will be on difficult or sloping sites because good flat sites are becoming more and more difficult to find. Increasing political pressures will also militate against easy options in this area, leading to increased construction on Brownfield sites. This could lead to a cost burden, which builders could pass on to their purchasers. However, it also represents a challenge to produce creative solutions, such as the inclusion of basements, which could ease cost increases by making better use of land space. Building performance - Legislation and regulation to improve energy efficiency, external sound transmission and environmental quality will continue to become more stringent. Internal environmental quality will also feature, by means of quieter homes by way of the changes to Part E, and even a specific quiet space within the home, e.g. a basement. Buyer demand - House purchasers are becoming more sophisticated and, as a result, the builder/developer has already begun to offer better finishes. There are strong indications that demand for more space and better environmental performance to meet changing lifestyles is increasing. Studies by the Traditional Housing Bureau in 1994(2), 1999(3), and 2001(4) show a significant desire for more space. Some builders have also indicated that there is a demand for more space and have provided it in the form of basement construction. Similar studies in the American market (5) show a marked preference for more space, most frequently as a basement. The Basement Information Centre has seen a significant increase in the interest in basements within the self-build sector and with the public at large. People are increasingly having experience with European and American housing where there is significant use of basements. This is having an effect on UK housebuyers, who are increasingly saying, why dont builders provide houses with basements? and seeking housebuilders who offer basements.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Basements offer the advantage of better use of poor sites, more living space for purchasers and hence potentially better land utilisation. They are energy efficient and offer a host of other benefits. New design and construction information is available to show how they can be built to meet the current building regulations. Construction techniques are reasonably well developed, and tanked and drained systems are available in the market. This cost study has been carried out to determine the relative costs of a fully below-ground basement, a partially below-ground basement and a basement on a sloping site, as opposed to normal substructure and foundation costs. In addition, the effect on site layout and land use for various simple house types and layouts incorporating basements has been investigated. It should be emphasised that each individual project will be subject to the effects of regional variations in land price and construction costs, as well as numerous other factors, such as ease of access, size, mix and complexity of development, local topography, planning conditions, project duration, etc. A cost comparison model has been used to obtain an indication of the effect of basement designs on potential margins for housebuilders. The main conclusions are: 1. Better space. Incorporating a basement increases the available space by up to 50% for a two-storey house, allowing additional habitable accommodation with or without an integral garage. Importantly, a basement offers the most economic way to create a large single area space. Where land costs are high, basements can provide an option for more space on a smaller site. In the case of a single large-area basement, very significant land cost savings can be obtained (up to 50% reduction). Notable additional savings, in the order of 34%, can be made by constructing the basements to a basic structural finish (with the provision of natural lighting and minimal background heating). It is shown that the cost of a single large-area basement can be no more than the lower end of the cost of one storey of the superstructure. In addition, the opportunity exists to achieve a significant improvement in development margin, whilst offering a reduction in sale price to the purchaser, by constructing to a utility specification. The cost of constructing a house with a partially below-ground basement, divided into rooms and fully finished, is now only 1.9% more than a house of similar size without a basement. The saving on land now gives a potential for a 15.7% increase in margin over that of a non-basement house, assuming the same selling price. A house with a fully below-ground basement, again divided into rooms and fully finished, is now only 6.7% more than a house of similar size without a basement, which is a reduction on the 8.1% given in the 1998 edition of this publication. However, the saving on land possible in this example indicates the potential for an increased margin of 15.7% (compared to 5.4% in 1991) over a non-basement house, assuming the same selling price. The costs indicated in 4 and 5 will be further reduced if the foundations to the comparative house were required to be deeper than 1m or to be piled or a raft. Partially below-ground basements offer potentially the most profitable option for a small extra construction cost. They also offer potential for design variety. Further cost savings are possible from savings in the provision of insulation to the walls and floor of the basement, over that which would be required for a similar space above ground level.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7. 8.

INTRODUCTION Basements were once commonplace in many domestic buildings in the UK. After the 1914/18 war, when many houses were built at relatively low cost, basements were generally omitted. At that time, land was comparatively cheap and the accommodation usually produced by domestic basements was often of low environmental quality. Until about 10 years ago there was little demand for basements, either from potential buyers or from the housebuilding industry. This was perhaps because the basement has historically been perceived as an unattractive space, usable only as a service or storage area. However, that image has now changed (Figure 1) and a great deal of increased interest from prospective purchasers has been expressed. Nearly five times as many people in 1999(2) and again in 2001(4) indicated a need for more space (roof and basements) compared with those in 1994(2), which is a very significant change. The image of modern designed basements has changed significantly. In the past, the method used by planning authorities to control development density has, in certain circumstances, militated against increasing the usable floor area created by a basement. However, attitudes are changing and, in order to gain real advantage from the addition of basements, developments are being considered in terms of their amenity space, rather than simply assessing plot ratios or bedspace density. In mainland Europe and North America, in contrast with the UK, basements have continued to be incorporated into new dwellings. The reasons for this vary. Traditionally they were used as storage space in the colder parts of Northern Europe, where households stored produce during long winters. As the need for such storage diminished, basements have been used as additional living space, hobby rooms, utility rooms, etc. In response to the continuing demand, the construction industry has developed improved methods of incorporating basements, making them cheaper to construct, warmer and drier. In North America, basements are commonly used as family rooms, play rooms, hobby rooms and utility spaces, even when land is available to provide these spaces at ground level. With the current high land and building costs in Britain, it is appropriate to consider the advantages of reintroducing modern basements into domestic buildings, particularly in view of the changes in requirements and opinion.

Figure 1 Inside view of modern finished basement

POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES Better use of poor sites Many of todays development sites are on poor ground, necessitating deep foundations, where considerable amounts of excavation are necessary. With the cost of spoil removal and environmental obligations ever increasing, basements could make use of the excavated space in such cases. Alternatively, some sites will require ground materials brought back onto site in order to raise levels and resulting deeper substructure work, which again will benefit the use of a basement to gain space. Better and more living space for purchasers The use of a fully below-ground basement (Figure 2) or partially below-ground basement (Figure 3) gives increased usable space within the building shell, so larger dwellings can be built on small sites without losing all amenity space around the buildings. In the case of partially below-ground basements, the provision to meet Part M can be achieved by placing the required entrance to the rear, as opposed to front of the property. On sloping sites it is possible to have a partially below-ground basement on one side, which is near ground level at the other (Figure 4). The high cost of a conventional substructure on these sites can be offset against the cost of the basement. Alternatively, by incorporating facilities such as the garage(s), utility room or workshop within the shell at basement level, it is possible to increase the number of houses on a given site or provide larger gardens as an amenity for users. Significantly, a basement offers the most economic and only realistic way of creating a large single room to provide the purchaser with the flexibility for changing lifestyles and requirements. Single large rooms are also cheaper to construct, particularly when finished simply to a structural water-resistant level of construction. Surveys show that a simple finish is perfectly acceptable to prospective purchasers, as they recognise that it provides maximum space at minimum cost and that it can later be easily and economically upgraded if required. Better land utilization In urban redevelopments, by using a basement and, where relevant, the roof space (Figure 4), it would be possible to achieve two dwellings on a site where today it would be normal to build only one, without materially affecting the overall visible size of the building. In environmentally sensitive areas, the use of a basement would give increased floor area without increasing the apparent size of the building. With a concrete intermediate floor and with a concrete floor at roof level to support a simple roof frame, maximum flexibility is obtained. A partially below-ground basement is likely to reduce excavation cost and gives increased privacy in urban developments, by lifting the ground floor level above the sight line of passers-by (Figure 5). Better energy utilization A house with a basement has fewer directly exposed external walls and is therefore more energy efficient. Wall and floor insulation are improved and the construction incorporates additional mass to balance thermal fluctuations. A house with a basement can be up to some 10% more energy-efficient, compared with a house with the same volume and construction built entirely above ground (6).

Figure 2 Fully below-ground basement with light wells for windows

Maximum gradient 1 in 6 (ref 7)


Partially below ground basement. Usually means the basement floor level approximately 1.4 metres below ground floor level and the ground floor raised by 1.2 metres. When garages are located in the basement, the ramp needed for a partially below ground basement is considerably less than the 9.5 to 10.5 metres needed for a fully below ground basement.

Figure 3 Partially below-ground basement

On a sloping site the basement can be fully or partially below ground. In partially below ground condition the front wall is not required to be a basement wall. A similar condition is achieved in a fully below ground level at the front of the building.

Figure 4 Basement on sloping site

Incorporating habitable space within the roof structure together with a partially below-ground basement produces four floors of accommodation within a bulding (shown dotted on the section). This combination particularly when incorporating concrete floors at intermediate and roof level could enable two dwellings to be incorporated instead of one . Alternatively it can provide approximately 80% more useable space within one dwelling.

Figure 5 Habitable-space in basement and roof

A partially below-ground basement raises the floor level of the principal living rooms on the ground floor improving privacy from adjacent public

Figure 6 Improved privacy from partially below-ground basement Simpler to construct Mechanical equipment now available allows the necessary excavation to be done more cheaply and easily than before. There is a range of different construction options available, which include masonry, precast concrete and in-situ concrete, and the number of specialist basement contractors is increasing. Fittings such as individual pumped WCs and pumped drainage are readily available, if required, to allow the installation of bathrooms, utility rooms and kitchens below main drainage level. LEGISLATION An Approved Document - Basements for Dwellings (7) provides information on certain ways to meet all relevant building regulations for England and Wales, when a basement is incorporated as part of the house. It also provides good practice recommendations for aspects outside the normal regulations. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS BS 8102: Code of practice for the protection of structures against water from the ground (8) provides guidance on methods of dealing with and preventing the entry of water from surrounding ground into a building below-ground level. Three main methods are described. These are: 1. 2. 3. Tanked protection by using applied waterproofing finishes. Watertight construction using reinforced or prestressed concrete. Drained cavity construction using structural concrete to minimise water ingress, with an internal drained cavity, created by constructing an inner skin to both walls and floor.

The standard does not include reference to the use of externally located drained basement construction. Although primarily concerned with the design and construction of basements for large commercial or industrial buildings, the standard contains reference to domestic construction and includes details of substructure wall junctions, in stepped situations on sloping ground conditions. It also includes a considerable amount of detailed design information on asphalt or membrane tanking. Four grades of water tightness are designated. These are related to the end use of the basement structure and vary from car parking areas, where some seepage and damp patches are tolerated, to archives and stores where a controlled totally dry environment is required.

Residential and office environments are in Grade 3, which requires a dry environment. Grade 3 can be met by all of the forms of construction covered by the Standard, subject to the comment that careful supervision of all stages of construction is necessary. To aid design further, two publications (9,10) that deal with obtaining water-resistance are available from Concrete Information Limited. These give comprehensive basic guidance on design, use and application of different water-resisting methods and systems. The design guide (9) was used as the basis for the design guidance for the Approved Document Basements for dwellings (7). A comprehensive CIRIA Guide (11) Waterproof basements is also available, which is also available in summary form (12). British Board of Agrment certificates have also been issued for certain products used to form membranes, which are not covered by the British Standards for asphalt or bituminous felt and for basement tanking systems. Increased demand for basements should encourage other companies wishing to enter the market to follow suit. The Approved Document Basements for dwellings also provides guidance on obtaining water resistance and the information so provided is in essence based on reference 9. The Approved Document was first published in 1997 and dealt with the 1991 regulations and has now been updated to align with the Building Regulations 2000. This publication brings into one document all of the relevant building regulations for dwellings that are affected by the inclusion of a basement. The topics covered are: Part C Part A Part B Part L1 Part F Part E Part K Part N Part J Part M Site preparation and resistance to contaminants and moisture, Structure, Fire Safety, Conservation of fuel and power, Ventilation, Resistance to the passage of sound, Stairs ramps and guards, Drainage and waste disposal, Heat producing appliances and Access and facilities for disabled people.

This is a private sector Approved Document (AD), which has been approved by the Secretary of State under Section 6 of the Building Act 1984 as practical guidance on meeting the requirements of relevant paragraphs in Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2002 and 2000 (as amended 2001 and 2002), as they apply to the incorporation of basements to dwellings, and has the same standing as HMSO Approved Documents. However, as a private sector AD it also includes good practice guidance on matters such as vehicle access and selecting a construction and water resisting system. This AD is based on the current Buildings Regulations 2000 and current Ads, including Parts A and C, which came into effect on 1 December 2004. Two additions to the AD are in the course of production, which will eventually provide design guidance for plain concrete and plan masonry retaining walls.

CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES There are a number of construction options, which can be considered for both the basement structure and the method of waterproofing. For the purpose of this study, site-built construction, using blockwork (Figure 7) has been primarily considered, together with conventional in-situ reinforced concrete construction (Figure 8). Both of these included for a separate tanking system so as to achieve Type A form of construction for the blockwork and an enhanced Type B form of construction in the case of in-situ concrete. (Waterproof concrete would likely be equivalent in terms of both cost and performance, especially on large-scale developments. In-situ concrete walls can also be constructed with insulated concrete permanent formwork, in place of normal re-usable formwork, which is particularly beneficial on smaller sites and where high levels of insulation are required. These systems typically consist of either tied expanded or extruded polystyrene panels or hollow polystyrene blocks, which are filled with concrete to form insulated structural walls. The third possibility is the use of precast concrete wall panels, commonly used in Northern Europe, and a number of precast walls are now available and being used in Britain. Other systems, including box culverts have been used. In recent years alternative waterproofing membranes have been developed which are more durable than earlier materials and can be protected by boarding. In Europe, an alternative approach has been developed, whereby hydrostatic pressure on the wall structure is eliminated. These methods incorporate a drainage blanket around the perimeter of the basement, allied to effective drainage below the floor slab and around the building. The suitability of this will depend on the drainage characteristics of the ground and topography. There are also several other methods of achieving water resistance for the basement structure. The traditional method of tanking basements in Britain involved the use of bituminous membranes located externally or internally, or asphalt on the basement walls and floor. It is suggested that each of these methods is viable in Britain, depending upon the specifiers preference, site conditions and the type of development. Water resistance can also be obtained directly from the concrete walls and floor, which may be further enhanced by the introduction of water-proofing admixtures to the mix, with appropriate attention given to control water at construction joints. In addition to the requirements for the water resistance of basement walls, it is necessary to consider the implications of insulation, ventilation and condensation control within the basement rooms. Building Regulation requirements for ventilation of habitable rooms will generally be met by incorporating openable windows in the same manner as above ground construction (7). This may entail adjusting the external ground levels in partially below-ground basements and would mean forming open areas for windows in fully below-ground basements. New research is being conducted on ventilation, which will be introduced into the next revision of Part F of the Building Regulations. This may require higher levels of ventilation in certain cases. The addition of wall and floor insulation to ensure no cold bridging occurs is also recommended and has been included in the cost studies for all habitable rooms.

10

50 0.00 150 85 Solid concrete block 100mm

Horizontal reinforcement T10 @ 300

Concrete (35N) filling to hollow walls

Vertical reinforcement T12 @ 225

50mm internal insulation 65mm screed on 50mm insulation

2400

200 50 250 Mesh A252

Figure 7 Blockwork wall construction used for cost comparison

0.00

50 150 85

Horizontal reinforcement T10 @325

Concrete C35

Vertical reinforcement T12 @ 275

2400 50mm internal insulation 65mm screed on 50mm internal insulation

200 50 250 Mesh A252

Figure 8 In-situ concrete construction used for cost comparison

11

COST STUDIES House designs In order to evaluate the cost implications of basements in general and the alternative methods of constructing them, four house designs, broadly based on examples used by the housebuilding industry, have been produced. These are shown in Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13. Two of these are wide frontage (10.0 metres and 8.1 metres overall internally) designs that, it has been assumed, would be built as detached houses. The other is a narrower frontage (6.5 metres overall) design, which could be used in detached, semi-detached or terraced form. The 8.1 metre and the 6.5 metre wide houses have a similar floor area and in all cases, the houses could be constructed as two storey dwellings, without a basement. Foundations In order to have a basis for comparison, a standard non-basement substructure design (Figure 9), using 1 metre deep trench-fill foundations for sites where ground conditions are good and 2 metre deep trench-fill foundations where conditions are poor, plus a sloping site condition, have been costed (Table 1).

Assumed total load of loadbearing walling not more than 50KN/linear metre Granular firm ground 102.5 Five courses facing brick, half brick thick 0.00 97.5 100 Block 440 x 215 x 100 50 150 150 Precast floor Air void

Five courses facing brick, half brick thick 0.00 Clay ground condition 225

Block 440 x 215 x 100 50 150 Precast floor Air void

Clay board

1275 2000

775

1000

500

600 600

Figure 9 Foundations used for cost exercise Construction costs Costs have been based upon constructing sites of four houses in detached, semi-detached and terrace form, but the estimated costs shown in the tables are for a single house. The cost study is based upon prices for labour and materials as at the 4th quarter of 2005. In researching the study, comparative costs of EPS and precast systems were also examined and were generally found to be competitive with masonry and with in-situ systems using reusable formwork. It seems likely, therefore, that there is an opportunity for further development of these components in the UK, once builders accept the concept of basements.

12

Table 1 Cost of substructure for typical two storey houses


Foundation type Wide front detached 10.0 x 8.0 11,000 138/m2 15,650 196/m
2

Wide front detached 8.1 x 5.4 7,100 162/m2 10,650 243/m


2

Narrow front detached 6.0 x 7.2 6,950 161/m2 10,450 242/m 9,850 228/m2 13,300 308/m2
2

Narrow front semi-detached 6.0 x 7.2 6,400 148/m2 9,300 215/m 9,050 209/m2 11,900 275/m2
2

Narrow front terraced 6.0 x 7.2 6,150 142/m2 8,700 201/m2 8,650 200/m2 11,250 260/m2

Flat site - 1 metre deep foundations Flat site - 2 metre deep foundations Sloping site - 1 metre deep foundations Sloping site - 2 metre deep foundations

15,800 198/m2 20,450 256/m2

10,000 229/m2 13,550 310/m2

0.00

50 85

150

0.00

2400

200 50 250 Cross section

4500

2650

2650

Family room

Bedroom

Bedroom

8000

5900

5900

250

300

WC

Plan

Figure 10 Wide front detached house 10.0m x 8.0m

13

0.00 85

50 150

0.00

2400

200 250 50
Cross section

150 800

6000

150

7x250=1750

3100
3300

2400

2400
3300

250

300

5400

Family room

Bedroom

Bedroom

WC

Plan

Figure 11 Wide front detached house 8.1m x 5.4m

14

0.00 85

50 150

0.00

2400

200 250 50

Cross section

3900

2100

Bedroom

2100

Bedroom 3900 WC

250

300

2800

Family room

6000

Plan

Figure 12 Narrow front detached house 6.0m x 7.2m

15

0.00

50 85 150

0.00

2400

200 50 250 Cross section

6000

300

6000

7200 250 300

7200

Plan

Figure 13 Narrow front semi-detached house 6.0m x 7.2m


0.00 85 50 150 2400 200 250 50 0.00

Cross section

6000

6000

6000

6000

7200 250 300 300

7200 300

7200 300

7200

Plan

Figure 14 Narrow front terraced house 6.0m x 7.2m

16

150

1000

150

2x250=500

800

Plan

50 150 150 0.00 540 150 800 200 200 1100 0.00 2400 85

1000 500 1400 150 1000

50
Elevation section Cross section

250

Figure 15 Escape window used for partial depth basement

50 0.00 85

7000 150 2400 0.00 1000 0.00

50 85 150 2400 200 50 250

50 250

200

4500 Family room

2650

2650

5900

5900 300 2700 300 Garage door 150mm conc slab Bedroom 0.00

8000 250 300

Bedroom

WC

50mm blinding 250mm type 2 fill Reinforcement 500

7000

600

2700

Figure 16 Ramp detail used for partial depth basement

17

Basement conditions The proposals have been costed for a fully below-ground and a partially below-ground basement, and for the same sloping site condition as used previously in the non-basement condition. Basements in detached, semi-detached and terraced conditions have been included, because these conditions inevitably affect the proportion of waterproofed or drained wall required. Structural costs The proposals have been costed as structural costs, plus access stairs, wall and floor insulation and floor screed, but with no internal partitions (except to support the staircase), no doorsets, plastering, decoration or sanitary fittings. Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 show the structural costs of each of the basement types. The wall design assumes dry granular soil and a drained site. The cost of fully finishing the basement is shown as a separate item (Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8). Table 2 Structural cost of fully below ground basement
House type Wide front detached 10.0 x 8.0 57,950 724/m2 53,900 674/m
2

Wide front detached 8.1 x 5.4 40,200 919/m2 37,150 849/m


2

Narrow front detached 6.0 x 7.2 39,600 917/m2 36,600 847/m


2

Narrow front semi-detached 6.0 x 7.2 34,600 801/m2 31,550 730/m


2

Narrow front terrace 6.0 x 7.2 32,100 743/m2 28,700 664/m2

In-situ concrete structure Masonry structure

Table 3 Structural cost of partially below ground basement


House type Wide front detached 10.0 x 8.0 50,900 636/m
2

Wide front detached 8.1 x 5.4 35,450 810/m


2

Narrow front detached 6.0 x 7.2 34,850 807/m


2

Narrow front semi-detached 6.0 x 7.2 30,500 706/m


2

Narrow front terrace 6.0 x 7.2 28,300 655/m2 24,900 576/m2

In-situ concrete structure Masonry structure

46,850 586/m2

32,350 740/m2

31,850 737/m2

25,950 601/m2

Table 4 Structural cost of basement on sloping site


House type Wide front detached 10.0 x 8.0 41,800 523/m
2

Wide front detached 8.1 x 5.4 28,350 648/m


2

Narrow front detached 6.0 x 7.2 28,400 657/m


2

Narrow front semi-detached 6.0 x 7.2 25,800 597/m


2

Narrow front terrace 6.0 x 7.2 24,000 556/m2 21,100 488/m2

In-situ concrete structure Masonry structure

40,550 507/m
2

27,600 631/m
2

27,150 628/m
2

22,750 527/m
2

18

Access ramps On flat sites, locating garages in the basement inevitably incurs the extra cost of excavation, access ramps, retaining walls and safety barriers. In partially below-ground basements or sloping-site basements, the size and cost of these facilities is reduced. Table 5 illustrates the likely costs involved in the case of the detached house model including drained retaining walls and adjustment for doors in lieu of wall. Table 5 Cost of ramp to basement garage
Basement type Detached house Fully below-ground 12,750 Partially below-ground 5,700

Finished basement costs Finishing includes heating and electrical installations, but excludes sanitary fittings and their associated macerator or pumped drainage system, all of which can vary considerably in price, depending on the quality level selected. Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8 include the cost of finishing the basement rooms. Table 6 Cost of fully finished basement wholly below ground
House type Wide front detached 10.0 x 8.0 79,600 995/m
2

Wide front detached 8.1 x 5.4 56,850 1,300/m 53,800 1,230/m2


2

Narrow front detached 6.0 x 7.2 56,400 1,306/m 53,400 1,236/m2


2

Narrow front semi-detached 6.0 x 7.2 51,450 1,191/m 48,350 1,119/m2


2

Narrow front terraced 6.0 x7.2 48,950 1,133/m2 45,550 1,054/m2

In-situ concrete structure Masonry structure

75,550 944/m2

Table 7 Cost of fully finished basement partially below ground


House type Wide front detached 10.0 x 8.0 71,700 896/m
2

Wide front detached 8.1 x 5.4 51,250 1,172/m 48,200 1,102/m


2 2

Narrow front detached 6.0 x 7.2 50,900 1,178/m 47,900 1,109/m


2 2

Narrow front semi-detached 6.0 x 7.2 46,500 1,076/m 42,000 972/m


2 2

Narrow front terraced 6.0 x7.2 44,300 1,025/m2 40,900 947/m2

In-situ concrete structure Masonry structure

67,650 846/m
2

Table 8 Cost of fully finished basement on sloping site


House type Wide front detached 10.0 x 8.0 60,750 759/m
2

Wide front detached 8.1 x 5.4 42,300 967/m


2

Narrow front detached 6.0 x 7.2 42,550 985/m


2

Narrow front semi-detached 6.0 x 7.2 39,950 925/m


2

Narrow front terraced 6.0 x7.2 38,150 883/m2 35,250 816/m2

In-situ concrete structure Masonry structure

59,450 743/m
2

41,500 949/m
2

41,300 956/m
2

36,900 854/m
2

19

By applying these estimated costs to a typical house, the comparative costs of constructing houses of similar area, with and without basements, are discussed, together with the effects on land prices, later in this report (Table 9 and Table 10). EFFECT OF BASEMENTS ON SITE LAYOUT When a basement or partially below-ground basement is incorporated into a house design, it may be possible to increase the amount of habitable space within the house shell, or to provide space for garaging, rather than constructing this as adjoined or separate accommodation. Garages in basements The typical minimum provision required by most planning authorities is one garage plus one car parking space per dwelling or its equivalent. This generally entails a garage beside the house, with the driveway doubling as the parking provision. Incorporating this facility within the basement can therefore save between 2.5 and 3.0 metres of site width per house. (Figure 17, shown as 3m). Locating garages in basements could allow greater development densities to be achieved. The effect of this inevitably varies, depending upon the site size, dwelling size and garaging provision. A number of studies that illustrate the possible density gain suggest that between a 12% and 25% gain is possible in most situations, in addition to creating more habitable space. In a simple street arrangement, this could result in the gain of one building plot in four, as shown in Figure 18. In practice such a simple arrangement does not often occur, and garages are sited in front of houses or partially recessed into the main shell. Simple site layout studies show that similar potential savings of site area (but not necessarily road frontage) can be made in cases similar to Figure 17. Examining an actual project layout (Figure 19), where the road layout is predetermined by other factors, suggests that, in most cases, at least one additional house can be included if the garage is incorporated in a fully or partially below-ground basement, and the gain increases where more than a single garage is required.

20

u pl

s6

s re et m

Figure 17 Garages in basements compared with garages situated beside house

10.6 metres

Plot area 273 sq m

12.0 metres

10.6

7.6 metres

7.6 10.6 3 bedroom house

3 bedroom house with basement garage Plot area 173 sq m

7.6

10.6

Plot area 241 sq m

7.6

9.0 m

7.8 m

6.0 m

6.0 m

7.8 m

9.0 m

Incorporating basements provides increased habitable space, and a garage located in the basement reduces the required plot size, potentially enabling increased density with no amenity loss.

Figure 18 Project example with and without basements

21

Alternative house layouts based upon a 45 metre long cul-de-sac. When garages are located in basements it is possible to increase from eight to nine dwellings. In situations where double garages are required the potential increase is greater and the visual impact of double garages can be reduced

Figure 19 House layouts with and without basements

22

Creating habitable space instead of garage space Using a narrow-fronted detached house of the type shown in Figure 12, putting a basement below and using it as habitable space creates a dwelling of 129m2. If the site layout in Figure 20 were considered, increasing the site width by about 1 metre would allow a narrow-fronted detached house to be designed. To create the same space without a basement would require an additional 3 metres to be added to the width. Thus, to create the same habitable space would mean increasing the site area by some 26%, i.e. the basement option would require 21% less plot area, with subsequent savings in land cost, (Figure 20).

22.8 m

11.6 m

Plot area 264.5 m 2

129 m 2 house with habitable basement plus garage at the side

14.6 m

Plot area 332.9 m 2

129 m 2 house without a basement requires approximately 26% more land

3 m increase in site width

22.8 m

Approx 3 metres

Two storey house 64.5 m2 Total area = 129 m2

Two storey house plus basement 43 m2 per floor Total area = 129 m2

Figure 20 A basement house compared with a two-storey house of the same floor area

23

COST COMPARISONS OF HOUSE TYPES Two examples are presented below, each comparing a house incorporating a basement with a house without a basement. The first example considers a fully finished basement suitable for use as habitable space, whilst the second considers a basement constructed to utility specification. Example 1 Basement Constructed as Fully Finished Habitable Space The following gives an example of the cost of construction for one house type with and without a basement, constructed as fully finished habitable space.

1. House with Basement


Narrow-fronted detached house with three floors, each of 43m2, totalling 129m2 as: a) A fully below-ground basement, and b) A partially below-ground basement.

Both basement areas are taken as fully habitable and each house would have a separate garage on the site. 1.1 Basement costs: a) A 43m2 fully below-ground masonry basement on a narrow front detached house would cost 53,400 (Table 6). b) A 43m2 partially below-ground masonry basement would cost 47,900 (Table 7). 1.2 Superstructure costs The cost of building superstructures, i.e. from the DPC upward, will vary considerably depending on design, construction, method and finishes. Current book costs for housing vary depending upon type, but guidance figures currently given are: 640 (terraced, low cost) to 910 per square metre (semi-detached and detached) for local authority and housing association projects. Two and three storey speculative housing 750 to 950. Private housing i.e. speculative more individual projects - 850 to 1,320. For the purpose of comparison, a figure of 900/m2 is used in this analysis. It is around the mean figure given for two-storey housing in a commonly-used guide for estimating for the current period. It includes the provision of the sub-structure and could be used for the superstructure costs for all the house types. The superstructure costs for the basement constructions will need to be adjusted for foundations, which are already included. Table 1 gives a figure of 6,950 for this house type for a 1 metre foundation depth on a flat site, giving the following result: Construction cost including substructure: 86m2 x 900 Deduct for cost of 1 metre deep foundation (Table 1) Total cost of superstructure = = = 77,400 6,950 70,450

24

1.3 Total costs a) Fully below-ground basement 129m2 narrow-fronted detached house with fully below-ground basement (separate garage) Superstructure costs from 1.2 above Fully below-ground basement cost from 1.1 a) above Total cost b) Partially below-ground basement 129m2 narrow-fronted detached house with partially below-ground basement (separate garage) Superstructure cost from 1.2 above Partially below-ground basement from 1.1 b) above Total cost = = = 70,450 47,900 118,350 = = = 70,450 53,400 123,850

2. House without basement


Cost of 129m2 house (separate garage) including foundations but without basement is: 129m2 x 900 = 116,100

3. Comparing the house type costs


From the above it can be seen that the fully below-ground basement cost would be (123,850 116,100) = 7,750 or 6.7% more. The partially below-ground basement would cost (118,350 116,100) 2,350, or 2.0% more.

4. Implications for potential margin


To a great extent the selling price will be determined by local market conditions. Whilst it is difficult to give a specific example, it is possible to set up a general model cost structure. This can be used to examine the effect of adopting this form of construction on likely margins. Indications are that the average housebuilders relative costs might be as follows, before overheads and interest charges are taken into account. Construction cost Land costs Margin 42 % 27% 31%

If it is assumed that the construction costs account for some 42% of the selling price as indicated above, then a 129 m2 house without a basement would sell for:

116,100 = 276,450 0.42

25

This would result in a land cost of some 74,650 (27% of 276,450). Both basement options offer the same size of house with a slightly smaller garden (Figure 20). For the purpose of this exercise it is assumed that this would not materially affect the selling price. From the cost comparison in the previous section, the following is established: a) b) A house of 129 m2 would cost 116,100. A 129 m2 house with a fully below-ground masonry basement would cost 123,850. However, this could also save 3 metres on site width and potentially 21% of the land cost (Figure 20). c) A 129 m2 house with a partially below-ground masonry basement would also save 3 metres on site width, i.e. 21% of land costs (Figure 20).

The saving in land contribution of around 21% is some 15,700 (21% of 74,650). With the same selling price, and using the above cost allocation model, it is possible to see the effect that including a basement might have on a builders/developers margins. A comparison of possible savings and losses is shown in Table 9. The following points emerge from the re-allocated figures in the above model. In this model, the increases in labour and material costs, to generate more space, yield an increased margin over the house without a basement. A fully below-ground basement would increase the construction cost by 6.7% over no basement, but the model shows a 9.3% increase in margin over no basement, for the same selling price. A partially below-ground basement, again offering the same space, also showed that for a 1.9% increase in construction costs, a 15.7% increase in margin over no basement could be possible for the same selling price and offering the same habitable space.
Table 9 Cost comparison - Fully finished basement (drained site)
Partially below-ground basement Actual cost % change Fully below-ground basement Actual cost % change

Relative cost item

No basement actual cost

Construction Land Margin Selling price

116,100 74,650 85,700 276,450

118,350 58,950 99,150 276,450

+1.9% -21.0% +15.7%

123,850 58,950 93,650 276,450

+6.7% -21.0% +9.3%

(Note: Change is expressed as a percentage of no basement cost.)

The land price is derived in this exercise as 27% of the selling price, but clearly the improvements in margin that can be obtained become considerably more significant as the price of land increases. If the assumptions above hold, it would appear that, although basements divided into rooms and fully finished are more expensive to construct, they offer the builder/developer the opportunity to increase margins and thus obtain a better return for the land purchased. They also offer the builder/developer greater sales potential, with scope for reducing the selling price due to the increased margins. To the customer, they offer a better product.

26

However, research has shown that there is considerable interest among purchasers in a house containing a basement a utility basement space, which they can either use in that condition or can later upgrade to be habitable space
Example 2 Basement Constructed to Utility Specification 1. House with Basement

The following gives an example of the cost of construction for one house type with and without a basement, constructed to utility specification (Structural costs) only. Narrow-fronted detached house with three floors, each of 43m2, totalling 129m2 as: a) b) a fully below-ground basement, and a partially below-ground basement.

Both basement areas are taken to structural finish only and each house would have a separate garage on the site. 1.1Basement costs: a) A 43m2 fully below-ground masonry basement on a narrow front detached house would cost 36,600 (Table 1). b) A 43m2 partially below-ground masonry basement would cost 31,850 (Table 3). 1.2 Superstructure costs The cost of building superstructures, i.e. from the DPC upwards, will vary considerably depending on design, construction, method and finishes. As in Example 1 , a figure of 900/m2 is used in this analysis. Again, the superstructure costs for the basement constructions will need to be adjusted for foundations, which are already included. Table 1 gives a figure of 6,950 for this house type for a 1 metre foundation depth, giving the following result: Construction cost including substructure: 86m2 x 900 Deduct for cost of 1 metre deep foundation (Table 1) Total cost of superstructure = = = 77,400 6,950 70,450

1.3 Total costs a) Fully below-ground basement 129m2 narrow-fronted detached house with fully below-ground basement (separate garage) Superstructure costs from 1.2 above Fully below-ground basement cost from 1.1 a) above Total cost = = = 70,450 36,600 107,050

27

b)

Partially below-ground basement 129m2 narrow-fronted detached house with partially below-ground basement (separate garage) Superstructure cost from 1.2 above Partially below-ground basement from 1.1 b) above Total cost = = = 70,450 31,850 102,300

2.

House without basement

Cost of 129m2 house on two floors (separate garage) including foundations but without basement is: 129m2 x 900
3. Comparing the house type costs

116,100

From the above it can be seen that the fully below-ground basement cost would be (107,050 116,100) = 9,050 or 7.8% less. The partially below-ground basement would cost (102,300 116,100) 13,800, or 11.9% less.
4. Implications for potential margin

Assuming the same proportions as in Example 1, viz. Construction cost Land costs Margin
2

42% 27% 31%

then a 129 m house without a basement would sell for: 116,100 = 276,450 0.42 resulting in a land cost of some 74,650 (27% of 276,450). Both basement options offer the same size of house with a slightly smaller garden (Figure 20). For the purpose of this exercise it is assumed that this would not materially affect the selling price. Using the same approach as in the previous example, the following is established: a) b) A house of 129 m2 would cost 116,100. A 129 m2 house with a fully below-ground masonry basement to structural finish only would cost 107,050. However, this could also save 3 metres on site width and potentially 21% of the land cost (Figure 20). c) A 129 m2 house with a partially below-ground masonry basement would also save 3 metres on site width, i.e. 21% of land costs (Figure 20).

The saving in land contribution of around 21% is some 15,700 (21% of 74,650).

28

On the basis that the sale price remains the same for a house with a basement constructed to utility specification, Table 10 shows the effect on a builders/developers margins for a range of potential sale prices. The following points emerge from the re-allocated figures in the above model. The reduction in construction costs generates more space and, in this model, yields an increased margin over the house without a basement. A fully below-ground basement would reduce the construction cost by 7.8% over no basement, but shows a 28.9% increase in margin over no basement, for the same selling price. A partially below-ground basement, again offering the same space, also shows that, for an 11.9% reduction in construction costs, a 34.4% increase in margin over no basement could be possible for the same selling price and offering the same habitable space.
Table 10 Cost comparison - Utility specification basement (drained site)
Partially below-ground basement Actual cost % change Fully below-ground basement Actual cost % change

Relative cost Item

No basement Actual cost

Construction Land Margin Selling price

116,100 74,650 85,700 276,450

102,300 58,950 115,200 276,450

-11.9% -21.0% +34.4%

107,050 58,950 110,450 276,450

-7.8% -21.0% +28.9%

(Note: Change is expressed as a percentage of no basement cost.

The land price is derived in this exercise as 27% of the selling price, but clearly the improvements in margin that can be obtained become considerably more significant as the price of land increases. However, it must be recognised that a house with a basement constructed only to utility specification would not achieve the same selling price as one with a fully habitable basement space. Nonetheless, opportunity exists for the reduced construction costs to generate a potentially higher margin for the builder, whilst at the same time offering the possibility of a lower purchase price to the buyer. Table 11 indicates the selling price, which would be possible if the same margin of 31% were to be required, whilst maintaining the same mark-up on construction and land costs as apply without a basement (45.0%).

29

Table 11 Cost comparison - Selling price with margin maintained (Utility basement)
Partially belowground basement Actual cost Fully belowground basement Actual cost

Relative cost Item

No basement Actual cost

Construction Land Margin Selling price

116,100 74,650 85,700 276,450

102,300 58,950 72,500 233,750

107,050 58,950 74,600 240,600

Clearly, however, the full possible saving is unlikely to be offered to the purchaser, the likelihood being that the developer could achieve a margin greater than 31% of the selling price, whilst still passing some of the saving to the purchaser to reflect the reduced specification. Table 12 therefore shows the effect of a range of potential selling prices on margin and mark-up, if construction and land costs remain the same.
Table 12 Potential on margin for different selling prices - Utility basement

Relative cost item Selling price Cost Item Construction costs Land Margin

No basement

Partially below-ground basement


233,750

Fully below-ground basement


240,650

276,450

Actual cost 116,100 74,650 85,700

Margin 42.0% 27.0% 31.0% 45.0%

Actual cost 102,300 58,950 72,500

Margin 43.8% 25.2% 31.0% 45.0%

Actual cost 107,050 58,950 74,650

Margin 44.5% 24.5% 31.0% 45.0%

Margin expressed as mark up on construction & land costs

Selling price Cost Item Construction costs Land Margin

276,450

245,000

245,000

Actual cost 116,100 74,650 85,700

Margin 42.0% 27.0% 31.0% 45.0%

Actual cost 102,300 58,950 83,750

Margin 43.8% 25.2% 34.2% 51.9%

Actual cost 107,050 58,950 79,000

Margin 44.5% 24.5% 32.2% 47.6%

Margin expressed as mark up on construction & land costs

30

Table 12 Potential on margin for different selling prices - Utility basement (Continued)

Relative cost item Selling price Cost Item Construction costs Land Margin

No basement

Partially below-ground basement


255,000

Fully below-ground basement


255,000

276,450

Actual cost 116,100 74,650 85,700

Margin 42.0% 27.0% 31.0% 45.0%

Actual cost 102,300 58,950 93,750

Margin 43.8% 25.2% 36.8% 58.1%

Actual cost 107,050 58,950 89,000

Margin 44.5% 24.5% 34.9% 53.6%

Margin expressed as mark up on construction & land costs

Selling price Cost Item Construction costs Land Margin

276,450

265,000

265,000

Actual cost 116,100 74,650 85,700

Margin 42.0% 27.0% 31.0% 45.0%

Actual cost 102,300 58,950 103,750

Margin 43.8% 25.2% 39.2% 64.3%

Actual cost 107,050 58,950 99,000

Margin 44.5% 24.5% 37.4% 59.6%

Margin expressed as mark up on construction & land costs

Elemental breakdown of construction

The elemental breakdown of the range of basement costs within all the types of construction (concrete and masonry), types of basement (wholly below-ground, partially below-ground and sloping site) and the range of configurations and plan forms (wide front detached and narrow front) evaluated is given in Table 13, which indicates scope for saving costs by retaining some or all of the excavated soil on site for perhaps use in landscaping. It also illustrates well how adopting a utility specification achieves savings in fitting out costs.
Table 13 Elemental break down of range of basements evaluated

Fully finished Utility

Groundworks 19-35% 30-48%

Water-proofing 3-5% 4-7%

Structure 28-38% 37-51%

Fitting-Out 30-49% 9-17%

The creation of a single-large-area space

One of the major benefits of a basement is that it enables the creation of a single-large-area space. This is common in America and Canada and indeed in many other countries, where the basement serves as a multi-purpose area games/rumpus room, utility room, storage area or whatever. The major benefit is that it can be used full-size or temporarily sub-divided. Creating a room equal to the plan area of the house is only practicable in the form of a basement; as such a facility at ground level would mean an additional single-storey area requiring twice (+100%) the land width.

31

A two-storey/single-storey design is not often aesthetically acceptable and redesigning the house as a complete two-storey unit is difficult, and will still require in the order of a 50% wider plot. An alternative three-storey house will present layout problems, which can be difficult to gain aesthetic acceptance and planning consent. Another benefit of the large area basement option is that it is acceptable to move from a plastered room down to an area finished with simple bucket-handled jointed block walls or plain in-situ concrete or precast concrete walls. That would not be acceptable when moving from room to room at the same level within a house. Surveys show that basic finish is perfectly acceptable to prospective purchasers, as they recognise that it provides maximum space at minimum cost and that it can, if needed, be easily and economically upgraded in the future. The following comparison considers the cost implications of creating an additional space equal to the plan area of the house and shows that the single-story facility costs nearly four times the single area basement, when land costs are included. The construction costs cannot be directly compared since the single-story area is fully finished whereas the basement area is to a lower specification. Also the costs used for the single-story area are those used for twostorey work and may be somewhat higher in practice, because of the greater effective roof area. Nevertheless the comparison shows very significant savings in land cost and demonstrates the potential of basements for single, large areas. Single area basement under a narrow frontage detached house: Basic construction cost Less foundation costs Total cost Single area constructed at ground level. Construction cost 900 x 43 Extra land cost (+100%) Total cost
DISCUSSION

= = =

36,600 6,950 29,650

= = =

38,700 74,650 113,350

This study has not set out to be definitive, but to consider the implications of including basements in housing. There is considerable scope for development of both dwelling designs and construction techniques, beyond those used in the study, to improve site efficiency and economic or functional performance. Because of the increased number of variables involved, no consideration has been given to including basements in very large houses or in the type of house which might be considered in city centres, where land costs could be very high, although basements in both these situations have great validity and have been built. Subject to approval by planning authorities, it is possible to see that incorporating basements allows increased plot ratios to be achieved with no loss of amenity. It is probable that, as basement construction is accepted and desired by the house buying public, a new generation of designs could appear, making more use of the construction form and methods, but consideration of these is beyond the scope of this study. The general conclusion is that masonry and in-situ concrete (including EPS insulated systems and precast concrete systems) will all be competitive and their suitability and cost effectiveness will depend on the environmental conditions and other design requirements.

32

The study illustrates that the cost of ramps to basement garages is relatively high, especially in fully below-ground basements. In partially below-ground or sloping site basements this is radically reduced. Although no cost studies have been applied to the use of basements for garaging or service areas in flats, the concrete floor between the basement and ground floor storeys would satisfy compartment floor criteria, enabling this arrangement at relatively low cost and offering opportunities for improved environmental design and possibly increased densities. It is inconceivable that Britain will not follow the pattern of most of Northern Europe and incorporate basements in future housing projects. It is likely that this will initially be in areas where development land is in short supply and is therefore very expensive, but the environmental advantages of the basement are such that it is likely that subsequent development will be more generally spread. The partially below-ground basement, that minimises excavation and construction costs, makes less demands on service connections and retains good natural lighting and ventilation, seems to have immediate potential. The last MORI survey (3) shows increased public demand for more space, which can be provided in the way of basements. This trend is likely to increase as life styles change and more people work from home. The provision of a basement has many advantages and has been shown now to be even more financially viable. This is particularly so in the case of single-large-area basements where construction costs are comparable to mid-price superstructure costs alone. Hence the comment that it costs no more to build a basement than an above ground storey.
REFERENCES

1.

COVINGTON, SA. Basements in housing: a feasibility study. Garston, BRE, 1977. Current paper 4/78. 10 pp 2. THE TRADITIONAL HOUSING BUREAU. Attitudes towards house construction. Research conducted for the Traditional Housing Bureau. . Private document, THB, 1994. MORI/8175. 25 pp. 3. TRADITIONAL HOUSING BUREAU. Attitudes towards house construction MORI survey. Private document, THB, 1999. MORI/11772. 30 pp. 4. TRADITIONAL HOUSING BUREAU. Attitudes towards house construction MORI survey. Private document, THB, 2001. MORI/114847. 30 pp. 5. AHLUWALIA, G and CARLINGER, M. What homebuyers want. Washington D.C., National Association of Homebuilders, 1989. 118 pp. 6 BRITISH CEMENT ASSOCIATION. Basement 3, Thermal performance of dwellings with basements. Blackwater, CIL, 1993. C/17. 8 pp. 7. THE BASEMENT INFORMATION CENTRE. Approved Document - Basements for dwellings. Camberley, TBIC/001, 2004. 87 pp. 8. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS 8102: 1990. Code of practice for protection of structures against water from the ground. London, BSI, 1990. 40 pp. 9. BRITISH CEMENT ASSOCIATION. Basement waterproofing: Design Guide, BCA, Crowthorne, 1994. 48.058. 20 pp. 10. BRITISH CEMENT ASSOCIATION. Basement waterproofing: Site Guide, CIL, Blackwater, 1994. 48.059. 20 pp. 11. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATION. Water-resisting basement construction - a guide safeguarding new and existing basements against water and dampness. London, CIRIA, 1995. Report 139. 189 pp. 12. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATION. Water-resisting basement construction - a guide safeguarding new and existing basements against water and dampness. London, CIRIA, 1995. Summary Report 140. 62 pp.

33

B A S E M E N T S 1 : B E N E F IT S , V IA B IL IT Y A N D C O S T S T H E B A S E M E N T IN F O R M A T IO N C E N T R E T B IC / 0 0 2

C I/S fB U D C 6 4 3 .8

S-ar putea să vă placă și