To compare both forms of construction, I began with a 12000mm x 6000mm brick building and contained 2 bedrooms, a toilet, open plan kitchen & living as well as a garage. To warrant the comparison, I designed the strawbale house using the identical rooms and just precisely the same floor area for every room, but due to the bales’ fairly broad (approx. 480mm) module width I ended up with a 13200millimeter x 7250millimeter outside envelope for the straw bale house. This made quite a difference on the material volume of the roof and roof trusses. The houses’ received one plaster layer, but change in depth. Traditional brick wall plaster width change from apprx. 12mm – 18mm, in comparison with the 30mm plaster coating for strawbale walls due to the higher surface unevenness among other motives.
The foundation elements differs from traditional brick buildings. The straw bales are placed on a bed of rock so they are going to not retain moisture. A cement screed is cast in the underside of the trenches on the conc. footing to make sure that any water that may find its way to the trench will be directed away through the weep holes on the sides. All these are the sole bricks utilized in the strawbale house, so embodied energy values for mortar and bricks are a lot less for such a building. The bases for strawbale buildings are shallower (200mm deep), so less conc. Is used at the same time.
The past chief difference is, obviously, the wall stuff which differs enormously in the quantity of embodied energy to create & install them. Embodied energy for straw bales is 31MJ/m3 compared to the 5200MJ/m3 of stock bricks, so as the walls possess the maximum material volume of all building parts, it’s clear the strawbale house is going to have far lower overall embodied energy value than it is competing as is suggested below.