好色先生TV

Since Part L came into action in April specifiers have had just one wish 鈥� to find some software that would help them design buildings that comply with the new regulations. Unfortunately, their general feeling is that the government鈥檚 Simplified 好色先生TV Energy Model (SBEM) has been disappointing. Neville Rye, a director of engineering consultant WSP 好色先生TVs, thinks that SBEM, which was created to demonstrate compliance in buildings other than dwellings, is useful only for very simple and conventional building design. He says: 鈥淭he problem with SBEM is that it is not very flexible and the input geometry can only be used for the most simple building forms.鈥�

Stuart Barlow, technical manager at Reid Architecture, identifies two of the main problems of SBEM as the long time spent inputing data and its lack of visual information. He says: 鈥淪BEM only produces cold figures. It takes longer than it should and we are never sure what the relationship between the elements in the building should be because it doesn鈥檛 generate visuals.鈥�

Even more crucial to compliance with Part L is the inability of SBEM to take into account factors such as heating, ventilation and cooling and transfer them onto a visualisation of the building. If specifiers wish to produce more sophisticated data they have to turn to computer modelling using thermal simulation software.

The alternatives

Luckily, there are alternatives available. Software compliance tools from providers such as IES and Environmental Design Solution (EDSL) have been accredited by the government. These thermal modelling software systems assess compliance by estimating the carbon emissions for different elements of the building separately and then combining them to get the final result. They use information that SBEM could provide, but in a more sophisticated visual form 鈥� for example a screen showing a visualisation of the building containing calculations about the building services. They also allow elements such as airflow, ventilation shading from adjacent buildings to be considered. IES and EDSL have even developed simpler versions of their software for architects who might not be building-services savvy. The question is whether they succeed where SBEM apparently has failed.

WSP 好色先生TVs adopted IES because it required software to check compliance with not only Part L but other aspects of the design process such as ventilation, which is covered by Part F, and solar control. All this can be simulated using IES鈥� VE Compliance software, says Rye. He adds that technologies like ground heating, cooling and bio fuels can be evaluated more accurately using thermal simulation software than through SBEM.

Meanwhile HLM Architects is using EDSL鈥檚 Tas software 鈥� 鈥渁 slightly favourable option,鈥� says director David Cafferty, 鈥渂ecause it provides a greater degree of flexibility in the evaluation process鈥�. Tas thermally simulates buildings, so specifiers can compare heating and cooling strategies, facade design for equipment sizing and energy demands.

Reid鈥檚 Barlow says software tools calculating the thermal performance of the building enable architects to do the job without involving M&E people. Reid has swapped SBEM for IES鈥� software because it gives 鈥渁 more comprehensive study of the building and more accurate results鈥�. One key thing for Barlow is that IES allows the user to export CAD drawings and create models.

Software tools calculating the thermal performance of a building enable architects to do the job without involving M&E

Stuart Barlow, technical manager at Reid Architecture

Limitations

However Darryl Nash, technical adviser at architect Scott Brownrigg, warns that even the more sophisticated software tools have limitations. He says: 鈥淭he degree of building services knowledge required to operate [the tools] can be a huge problem for the architect. As a CAD modelling tool, it鈥檚 quite simple, but the challenge is to get sufficient knowledge to operate the software and understand its results.鈥�

The introduction of Part L and relevant compliance tools has changed the way specifiers work together within the design team. HLM鈥檚 Cafferty says a more fully collaborative process is necessary from the early stages of the project. He says: 鈥淭he new Part L makes it necessary to continuously determine how design decisions will influence the performance of a building. This requires input from both the architect and the building services .

However, only architects can keep an overview of how a design progresses.鈥�

Nash, who has tested a series of compliance tools for Scott Brownrigg, says the most recent developments target architects. Manufacturers like Corus, Kingspan, and Knauf now have services to assist specifiers.

Barlow says Reid Architecture has been looking at Southfacing Services鈥� Carbon Checker software, which claims to supersede SBEM because it allows the entry of the geometrical representation of a building. He says that the practice might use this or a similar product with IES software.

There is still some ground to cover to offer specifiers what they really want. Nash would like to see an 鈥淢&E wizard鈥�. But for now the specifiers鈥� task of complying with Part L remains something of a dark art.