NCM Activities
NCM Activities
Am I correct in the assumption that the NCM profiles assigned to vent, small power lighting, occupancy etc should not be changed to a more realistic profile? ie 6 to 8 no lunch etc?
Re: NCM Activities
20 views but no reply.
Anyone?
Anyone?
Re: NCM Activities
You are restricted by the NCM here, only exception is the Lighting gain Dimming profile (DSM only) which is editable to allow you to get extra credit in the model by explicitly modelling Daylight Controlled Dimming
(e.g. by linking to Radiance sensors results...http://www.iesve.com/support/faq/pdf/da ... faq258.pdf and http://www.iesve.com/support/search?key ... typhoto/3/)
This might help to open your discussion up a bit.
Phil
(e.g. by linking to Radiance sensors results...http://www.iesve.com/support/faq/pdf/da ... faq258.pdf and http://www.iesve.com/support/search?key ... typhoto/3/)
This might help to open your discussion up a bit.
Phil
IES Worldwide Technical Support
Re: NCM Activities
Thanks Phil. I know this is not IES problem. Its the NCM and BRE.
I just dont believe the NCM templates have any relationship to reality. The building in question I know from the inside out as the mechanical consultant. I know the full lighting design, the small power to the watt. I also wrote the controls specification so i know the strategy. Yet the NCM puts stupid 7 till 9pm profiles in instead of my modified 8 to 6. Bungs in generic small power and also has the same daft profile.
Whilst the NCM profiles are fine for inspecting an existing building you know nothing about. When you know every nut and bolt, i should be able to enter realistic profiles that the building has been designed to operate under. It has extensive energy metering. I know every watt.
But thank you Phil for confirming my fear. I usually use hevacomp for simple EPC's but this is my first complex IES building model which needs an EPC so I have learnt something to be aware off.
I do understand the need for EPC to be comparible but some flexibility is needed to allow for a low carbon building to be modelled correctly.
However. As much as I moan I know this is out of your control and is the fault of the BRE who spend too much time living in an ideal world without commercial pressures to come to real life conclusions.
Your response has been greatly appreciated.
I just dont believe the NCM templates have any relationship to reality. The building in question I know from the inside out as the mechanical consultant. I know the full lighting design, the small power to the watt. I also wrote the controls specification so i know the strategy. Yet the NCM puts stupid 7 till 9pm profiles in instead of my modified 8 to 6. Bungs in generic small power and also has the same daft profile.
Whilst the NCM profiles are fine for inspecting an existing building you know nothing about. When you know every nut and bolt, i should be able to enter realistic profiles that the building has been designed to operate under. It has extensive energy metering. I know every watt.
But thank you Phil for confirming my fear. I usually use hevacomp for simple EPC's but this is my first complex IES building model which needs an EPC so I have learnt something to be aware off.
I do understand the need for EPC to be comparible but some flexibility is needed to allow for a low carbon building to be modelled correctly.
However. As much as I moan I know this is out of your control and is the fault of the BRE who spend too much time living in an ideal world without commercial pressures to come to real life conclusions.
Your response has been greatly appreciated.
Re: NCM Activities
I'd add as well that not everyone has the luxury of using DSM software, I can appreciate how hard it must be for the regulations to be tailored to suit all and I guess to be achievable.
The problem I see is that you just don't get enough credit for some of the advanced design features in buildings under the NCM. I don't know what the answer would be - some advanced rating system that isn't directly tied to the compulsory regs but can give 5 star or platinum or Excellent whatever you'd want to call it status?
I think the issue with profiles (and other inputs you haven't specifically mentioned) is that the Actual Building has to be comparable to the Notional and other Benchmarks so the current system forces on you a strict framework so they can apply rules for the National And dictate targets that way.
We're expecting new regulations next year so it will be interesting to see what comes of that, I know they go through a lot of consultation on these and it's my opinion that with technology and the software tools out there now the assessors (well some of them) are getting a much better understanding of the process and should be allowed a chance to contribute to the specifications. I don't think that happens too much at the moment.
Phil
The problem I see is that you just don't get enough credit for some of the advanced design features in buildings under the NCM. I don't know what the answer would be - some advanced rating system that isn't directly tied to the compulsory regs but can give 5 star or platinum or Excellent whatever you'd want to call it status?
I think the issue with profiles (and other inputs you haven't specifically mentioned) is that the Actual Building has to be comparable to the Notional and other Benchmarks so the current system forces on you a strict framework so they can apply rules for the National And dictate targets that way.
We're expecting new regulations next year so it will be interesting to see what comes of that, I know they go through a lot of consultation on these and it's my opinion that with technology and the software tools out there now the assessors (well some of them) are getting a much better understanding of the process and should be allowed a chance to contribute to the specifications. I don't think that happens too much at the moment.
Phil
IES Worldwide Technical Support