DEAP/BER Issues (Merged)

topcatcbr

I see the BER Assessers Association website is now online.

Well done to all involved.

Link
http://www.berassoc.ie

I hope posting this link doesnt upset any Mods

If it does then remove post

Smcgie

sydthebeat wrote: »

anyone notice, on receipt of window quotations, that each individual window can have a different elemental U value......

i just recieved a quotation that had windows varying from 1.69 to 1.29 in elemental value....

do you calculate the average for that particular elevation??

Be Very careful with manufactures U-Values on windows they must have a En Standard CERT (or something along them lines) or SEI will not accept. I had trouble with a developer that bought windows from a manufacture and SEI would not take the manufacturers U-Values because they were not En standard registered.

I contacted the manufactures, they said it was too expensive for a small company to get the En ratings. Eventually i had to re-submit the certs taking default U-values. :rolleyes:

B-Links

Smcgie wrote: »

Be Very careful with manufactures U-Values on windows they must have a En Standard CERT (or something along them lines) or SEI will not accept. I had trouble with a developer that bought windows from a manufacture and SEI would not take the manufacturers U-Values because they were not En standard registered.

I contacted the manufactures, they said it was too expensive for a small company to get the En ratings. Eventually i had to re-submit the certs taking default U-values. :rolleyes:

Hi Smcgie.
Did SEI audit you on this or did you initiate the discussion with them?
When you re-submit the file for a cert do you pay an additional €25?

baguio

Hi folks. Just wondering if anyone has heard when we get to reregister so that we can go ahead with exisiting build? I thought it was supposed to be last Monday??

Also, when doing assessments, is everyone of the view that payment be taken at end of site visit - with calcs done afterwards and cert to be sent on to client afterwards?

topcatcbr

baguio wrote: »

Hi folks. Just wondering if anyone has heard when we get to reregister so that we can go ahead with exisiting build? I thought it was supposed to be last Monday??

Also, when doing assessments, is everyone of the view that payment be taken at end of site visit - with calcs done afterwards and cert to be sent on to client afterwards?

I got an email yesterday saying it will be this week. Therefore ill expect it in a couple of weeks. Maybee

MicktheMan

topcatcbr wrote: »

I got an email yesterday saying it will be this week. Therefore ill expect it in a couple of weeks. Maybee

Surprise, surprise. I just received an email from SEI inviting me to extend my registration to cover all dwellings. They say that this can be done on nas from next monday.

sinnerboy

me 2

topcatcbr

Just checked. I have it too

Mossyfields

The Ber assessor association has its web page up and running, I see a lot of familiar names from boards. good debate there at the minute on the Liveline show and Joe Duffys rant.
the URL for the site is www.berassoc.ie

Smcgie

B-Links wrote: »

Hi Smcgie.
Did SEI audit you on this or did you initiate the discussion with them?
When you re-submit the file for a cert do you pay an additional €25?

Yes it was during a cert audit, €25 fee to be repayed for new cert.

B-Links

MicktheMan wrote: »

Surprise, surprise. I just received an email from SEI inviting me to extend my registration to cover all dwellings. They say that this can be done on nas from next monday.

Surprise, surprise. I can't see the link on NAS. Is is me or SEI?

sydthebeat

just did a provisional on a 2 storey house..

min u values
85.7% oil boiler with rads
no low energy lighting
no draughstripping
windows 2.1 u value
doors 2.0
thermal bridging factor 0.15


.... and the bloody thing STILL gets a B3 rating (143.77) !! :mad:

even though it exceeds its MPCDER......

Ever think the bands in DEAP are too encompassing for new builds???
No wonder most of the assessments to date have been B3s.... theres very little attraction to build beyond min regs!!!

topcatcbr

It seems to be the case alright. All of mine are B rated. I got 1 A3 so far.

No6

topcatcbr wrote: »

It seems to be the case alright. All of mine are B rated. I got 1 A3 so far.

I've got one provisional one speced up to an A3 but there's so much extra stuff to get there a lot of it is comming out so I wounld't be suprised if it drops back to a B1 or a B2

sinnerboy

sydthebeat wrote: »

just did a provisional on a 2 storey house..

min u values
85.7% oil boiler with rads
no low energy lighting
no draughstripping
windows 2.1 u value
doors 2.0
thermal bridging factor 0.15


.... and the bloody thing STILL gets a B3 rating (143.77) !! :mad:

even though it exceeds its MPCDER......

Ever think the bands in DEAP are too encompassing for new builds???


No wonder most of the assessments to date have been B3s.... theres very little attraction to build beyond min regs!!!

what m2 and m3 Syd ? Must be less than 150 m2 ?

sydthebeat

sinnerboy wrote: »

what m2 and m3 Syd ? Must be less than 150 m2 ?

no...
close to 270 sq m i think... ill check tomorrow...

badolepuddytat

just doing some digging for a friend....

What Training course(s) did you do?

How useful was it?

Was it online type, or face to face?

Are there site visits?

Is there computer based workshops etc?

do you consider the courses value for money?

Would you recommend the course to a friend?

topcatcbr

I have found that larger houses tend to perform better than small ones. Less surface area to volume ratio.

sydthebeat

topcatcbr wrote: »

I have found that larger houses tend to perform better than small ones. Less surface area to volume ratio.

yes, one of the flaws of DEAP methinks...

the one i am doing at the moment, i can easily get to a B2 with fairly basic spec of:

insulating primary pipework and use cylinder thermostat
use 1.7 u value windows
ensure 100% draughstripping
ensure 100% low energy fittings
ensuring 0.08 thermal bridging factor

topcatcbr

I dont think it is a flaw. Its that larger 2 storey houses have less walls roof and floor per m2 of floor space and as the BER is Based on energy consumption per M2 it makes sense. It does however seem to indicate that larger houses are cheeper to heat. This is not the case because if you multiply the energy rating by the floor area this will give the real energy usage figure. and could be easier to compare

Ps how did the meeting go this morning

sinnerboy

topcatcbr wrote: »

I have found that larger houses tend to perform better than small ones. Less surface area to volume ratio.

oopps , of course . Silly me

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

yes, one of the flaws of DEAP methinks...

the one i am doing at the moment, i can easily get to a B2 with fairly basic spec of:

insulating primary pipework and use cylinder thermostat
use 1.7 u value windows
ensure 100% draughstripping
ensure 100% low energy fittings
ensuring 0.08 thermal bridging factor

Just an update on this one....

Getting a B2 was simple, as shown above...

but to get from a B2 to an A3 was a nightmare.

The dwelling would require:

6m2 flat plate panels
0.35 ac/hr air tightness or better
u value increases of
wall = 0.22 floor = 0.14 roof (flat) = 0.1 sloped = 0.17
condensing boiler 97%
no open fires, two room sealed wood stoves
load compensator on boiler

.....all adjustments at the high end of the financial tree.....

topcatcbr

sydthebeat wrote: »

Just an update on this one....

Getting a B2 was simple, as shown above...

but to get from a B2 to an A3 was a nightmare.

The dwelling would require:

6m2 flat plate panels
0.35 ac/hr air tightness or better
u value increases of
wall = 0.22 floor = 0.14 roof (flat) = 0.1 sloped = 0.17
condensing boiler 97%
no open fires, two room sealed wood stoves
load compensator on boiler

.....all adjustments at the high end of the financial tree.....

This doesn't seem excessive to me.

I think if you get air tightness down that far it will require mechanical ventilation. You may as wall go for HRV then.

Personally id like to get the walls down further. You may never get a second chance here.

Have you got the KS disk. Very handy as rule of thumb.

sydthebeat

topcatcbr wrote: »

This doesn't seem excessive to me.

I think if you get air tightness down that far it will require mechanical ventilation. You may as wall go for HRV then.

Personally id like to get the walls down further. You may never get a second chance here.

Have you got the KS disk. Very handy as rule of thumb.

and based on some very questionable calculations

yeah, MHRV seems like the next step.... but i dont want to scare the bejasus out of the guy....

my walls @ 0.22 have 80mm board

No6

Has anyone found that increasing the Insulation and improving the U value's dosn't improve the rating very much at all but could be quite expensive??

topcatcbr

sydthebeat wrote: »

and based on some very questionable calculations

yeah, MHRV seems like the next step.... but i dont want to scare the bejasus out of the guy....

my walls @ 0.22 have 80mm board

If it was my house id dryline the external walls also. Sorts out thermal bridging nicely and improves uvalue to boot. Some of the cost can be offset by the reduction in internal scratch coat of plaster.

sydthebeat

quick query lads...

does a connection to a district heating system such as heat pump, wood chip or wood pellet... constitute the 10kwh/m2 requirement in the 2007 part L??

No6

sydthebeat wrote: »

quick query lads...

does a connection to a district heating system such as heat pump, wood chip or wood pellet... constitute the 10kwh/m2 requirement in the 2007 part L??

I'd say it would syd but put it into DEAP and see what happens dont be suprised if it dosn't!!!:D

legs akimbo.

Hi all,
Would welcome a little advice if you all would be so kind.
I have an old cottage to assess and was wondering how I would treat a conservatory added to the rear of the property it has a full polycarbonate roof so over the 75% criterea and more than 50% glazing though it is heated from the central heating with a TRV. I was concerned it would have a negative impact on the rating, so is this construed as thermally seperated or not.
Also the wall elements are solid mass concrete with a U value of 2.2 but have been drylined in 50mm high density (Kingspan) therma board (38mm insulation and 12.5mmplasterboard) How would I calculate theese two elements together to attain the overall u value ?

With thanks in advance

legs.

topcatcbr

If it is heated from the main central heating system it is not thermally isolated and should be included in the calculations. It will bring it down quite a bit.
Maybee sugest isolating it from main heating system as part of improvement advice.

3.1.3 Conservatories
In this document, a conservatory is defined as an extension attached to a dwelling which has not less than three-quarters of the area of its roof and one half of the area of its external walls made of material that allows the transmission of light.



An attached conservatory should generally be treated as an integral part of the dwelling to which it is attached. However, it may be treated as an unheated space if it is thermally separated from the main dwelling. To be considered thermally separated, it must fulfill both of the following:

i) The walls, floors, windows and doors between it and the main dwelling must have U-values not more than 10% greater than corresponding exposed elements, and,

ii) It must be unheated or, if provided with a heating facility, must have provision for automatic temperature and on-off control independent of the heating provision in the main dwelling.