ENE01 Compliance Checker

[btysoe]

Does anybody else find the statement on the front of the BREEAM 2011 ENE01 converter confusing?

"Software tools currently accepted are: IES/Apache (Versions 6.4.0.11, 6.4.0.12 and projects not including District Heating on version 6.4.0.10, IES2013)"

Does this mean it is just version 6.4.0.10 that can not include District Heating or is it both V6.4.0.10 and IES2013?

Thanks

[Complex Potential]

I read it to be the former.

I think this could be fallout from the "energy consumption" to "primary energy" switch thing.

[btysoe]

Thanks that is reassuring.

Do you know why the primary energy reported on the BRUKL is different to the primary energy displayed on the website after the .inp file has been uploaded?

[Complex Potential]

If I had to guess, I would say that the code governing how the .inp file is read is out of date and pointing to the wrong line since the change. Of course, for that to be true it would have to mean that the BRE have been sloppy in their working, which could not possibly be the case

Yes, I'm a miserable cynic

[btysoe]

I have queried this with the BRE and await their response.... when i have it I will let you know.

[btysoe]

Response from BRE:
'There is a plan to update the Ene1 scoring tool to be adapted for district heating networks to reflect the improvement in reduction of carbon emissions where a low carbon heat source is used. Unfortunately I cannot provide a definite date for when this update will be available but we hope it will be in the coming months.

Differences in the figures for the BRUKL and BREEAM documents are due to a difference in the scope for the energy value. Current versions of the approved building energy modelling software calculate energy consumption on the basis of delivered energy, not primary energy, so it will not be possible to use the figures reported in the BRUKL Output Document (technical data sheet) to accurately determine the number of BREEAM credits achieved. Until such time as the next version of the National Calculation Methodology is revised to include primary energy, BREEAM assessors and consultants will need to upload their BRUKL output files to the BREEAM Compliance Checker website to accurately calculate and verify the three EPRs for demand, consumption and CO2 and the number of BREEAM credits achieved.'

[Complex Potential]

I think I may have figured this out, kind of.

Apparently the BRE have updated the calculation method used for primary energy since IES last updated the software. The compliance checker adjusts for this when you upload the inp file:

https://www.epbhub.net/BREEAM/200/index.php?page=00005

This is why the primary energy reported on the IES BRUKL and the compliance checker do not match.

In any case, I have been assured that if you are using the latest IES software and uploading the correct inp file to the checker at the above link, the result you get back will be accurate.

It still seems needlessly complicated though...

[JohnLloyd]

There are differences in the way IES DSM and all SBEM softwares class unheated spaces. Within IES you can have an unconditioned space that is still classed as 'heated', and this room would therefore be included within the results reported on the BRUKL. For SBEM, this is not the case and these rooms are not included in the BRUKL.

There was therefore a fundamental difference in results that were being reported by the DSM BRUKL and an equivalent SBEM BRUKL.

The BRE based the whole ENE 01 calculation procedure on the SBEM outputs and were therefore needed a way to modify the IES DSM BRUKL's to bring them in line with that of SBEM prior to performing the ENE 01 calculation...hence why they created the website and need you to upload the .inp file.

Clear as mud?

[Complex Potential]

Yeah... unfortunately the results coming out of the online checker are completely unbelievable for IES DSM most of the time.

For example, I have a building which is just the wrong side of the 2010 TER to which I have applied enough PV to get to roughly a 26% pass margin. It has reasonable fabric but nothing spectacular but the DHW consumption far higher than the notional building, and the lighting is on the wrong side too.

Under the old spreadsheet method, I am on the border of 6 credits for BREEAM excellent which is exactly where I'd expect such a building to be. Using the online checker, I am informed I'm getting 12 credits! As well as this, the "Primary Energy" that the online checker reports is totally different to the "Primary Energy" listed on the BRUKL document (it changes from the actual being slightly worse than the target in the BRUKL to having the actual massively better and also changes the magnitude of both randomly).

The in house BREEAM assessors at my company have basically said they don't believe anything the online checker is telling them at the moment because it seems to be spitting out nonsense. They have raised this with the BRE also but have not yet received a response

[Terence]

Have any of you contacted BREEAM support regarding use of Bivalent Systems?

From running some tests i've discovered that although the bivalent portion is considered correctly during the calculation it appears that SBEM writes out to the BRUKL input file (the file uploaded to the Ene01 checker site) that all energy for the Bivalent System is being attributed to the primary system fuel. As with most of this stuff Apache copy's this behavior...

For the following inputs into SBEM

Primary System Load: 0%
Primary System Fuel: Biogas
Bivalent System Load: 100%
Bivalent System Fuel: Oil

the BRUKL input file will put all fuel consumption under Biogas and nothing for Oil.

The BREEAM online checker calculates primary energy consumption by multiplying the individual fuel consumption figures by the primary energy conversion factors...