24 COMMENT


A performance-based approach to energy modelling & rating


Shikha Bhardwaj from Hawkins\Brown looks at the changing conversation around energy, and the shift from ‘designing for compliance’ to ‘designing for performance,’ as embodied in the increasingly popular NABERS approach


© Alesia Kazantceva on Unsplash T


he conversation around energy is changing. The energy crisis – alongside the climate emergency and the UK’s legal net zero commitment by 2050 – has emphasised the need to minimise the energy use of the built environment. Importantly, the industry has also acknowledged that this outcome cannot be delivered by compliance tools only.


Methodologies such as predicted energy from SBEM Part L or EPC ratings only cover regulated energy-use based on standard assumptions that are not in line with how the building will be operated in real life, and hence are not a true representation. This realisation of the performance gap in energy use between design and operation has started a cultural shift from ‘designing for compliance’ to ‘designing for performance.’ As a result, more and more of our clients are now aware of, and increasingly requesting, more accurate energy assessment methods. These include systems such as Passivhaus certification via PHPP calculation and CIBSE TM54 (Evaluating Operational


WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK


Energy Use). Procuring a NABERS rating is also grouped into this set of client requirements. This is positive for closing the performance gap and improving standards, but although client briefs target all the available assessments to the highest rating without understanding the best assessment method for the project and early implementation, performance is still not guaranteed. The use of each assessment method as a design tool to make improvements – and the accuracy of recommendations – demand early implementation, specialist skills and specific procedures that make demands on both time and cost. In addition, specific methods might be more suitable for certain building types than others. Therefore, to maximise the benefits of the process, it is key to compare the relevant assessments at the feasibility stage to identify the most suitable approach for a particular situation. NABERS UK is a good example of this. Before committing to


it, it is important to understand what the scheme is likely to entail. NABERS originated in Australia and has now been introduced and


ADF SEPTEMBER 2023


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100