NCM System type for LTHW Radiant Ceiling Panels

Part L2 of the Building Regulations (2006 edition).
Post Reply
Wasted Energy
VE Graduate
VE Graduate
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:58 am
Location: UK NW

NCM System type for LTHW Radiant Ceiling Panels

Post by Wasted Energy »

This must have come up before; but what NCM system type should be used to model LTHW radiant ceiling panels?
User avatar
Complex Potential
VE Expert
VE Expert
Posts: 467
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:57 am
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: NCM System type for LTHW Radiant Ceiling Panels

Post by Complex Potential »

I don't think there's a perfect match for that so I'd probably vote for using the normal radiator system type.
Wasted Energy
VE Graduate
VE Graduate
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:58 am
Location: UK NW

Re: NCM System type for LTHW Radiant Ceiling Panels

Post by Wasted Energy »

Yeah that's what I've gone for, but it's a bit frustrating because to my mind the building should benefit from a reduced heating load compared to radiators (which are of course convectors in reality), in a similar way as if the system was defined as underfloor heating.

Wasted
User avatar
Complex Potential
VE Expert
VE Expert
Posts: 467
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 11:57 am
Location: Bristol, UK

Re: NCM System type for LTHW Radiant Ceiling Panels

Post by Complex Potential »

Agreed. Although if the BRE ever implemented a methodology to allow for that system type it would probably specify that the notional building is treated exactly the same way (perhaps some general reduction in setpoint?)
Wasted Energy
VE Graduate
VE Graduate
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:58 am
Location: UK NW

Re: NCM System type for LTHW Radiant Ceiling Panels

Post by Wasted Energy »

Ah, but even if the notional building is treated the same way there is still a benefit in reducing the space heating load as this brings down the BER, which is a benefit in those situations where the client is under a planning requirement to implement 10 or 20% renewables, as it then makes that 10 or 20% requirement a smaller, and less expensive, absolute value to implement.

Wasted
Post Reply