SAP calculation

[camillitech]

I have to confess at not knowing a great deal about this SAP stuff, which strikes me as being a lot of baloney designed to keep people that don't actually do anything in jobs. An assumption that I based on a conversation some years ago with a friend who built a well insulated holiday let, heated by the latest and most efficient condensing boiler and only achieved 78 on account of his space age insulation and hi tech boiler not actually being on 'the list' 

To be honest it's not a great concern of mine for I plan to leave the only house I've ever built in a wooden box so resale isn't really an issue. However when I got the calcs back today from my architect he tells me it's the best rating he's ever seen.



is he blowing smoke up my ar5e 

Cheers, Paul

[wookey]

SAP isn't baloney. EPC (aka RdSAP) is pretty shoddy. Both suffer from simplifications in the interest of standardisation, and you can make a pretty good case that EPC/RdSAP is a simplification too far. They are also limited by only looking at the building and not occupant behaviour. BOth these problems are intrinsic in designing a repeatable assessment for buildings.

It's easy enough to do your own by filling in this spreadsheet: http://wookware.org/files/SAPWorksheet9.80.ods
with explanatory material here: http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/SAP/2009/SAP-2009_9-90.pdf

That way you can check if your architect has got it right or not.

[supremetwo]

It's easy enough to do your own by filling in this spreadsheet: http://wookware.org/files/SAPWorksheet9.80.ods

For those with excel, you can convert by uploading the open office ods file to Google docs and then downloading it as an excel file.

Or Wookey could be persuaded to ask OO to save as an excel.

(I used to live in Wookey; the River Axe from the caves ran past the bottom of my garden).

[camillitech]

SAP isn't baloney. EPC (aka RdSAP) is pretty shoddy. Both suffer from simplifications in the interest of standardisation, and you can make a pretty good case that EPC/RdSAP is a simplification too far. They are also limited by only looking at the building and not occupant behaviour. BOth these problems are intrinsic in designing a repeatable assessment for buildings.

It's easy enough to do your own by filling in this spreadsheet: http://wookware.org/files/SAPWorksheet9.80.ods
with explanatory material here: http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/SAP/2009/SAP-2009_9-90.pdf

That way you can check if your architect has got it right or not.

Thanks for that Chaps but I'll give it a miss  I couldn't open the files  don't have Excel and not sure what a spreadsheet is 

I'm not really that bothered about checking if it's right, for I don't actually trust these sort of ratings. I'm sure my current house is way down at the bottom with it's stone walls, tin roof and lack of insulation but as it's powered by wind and hydro and heated by local coppiced birch it's probably more 'efficient' and 'greener' than most 

Just wanted to know if the rating of 105 and 104 was exceptionally good or Archie my architect is pulling my leg. The calc was actually done by some consultant in London    What the fek is all that about, is it so complicated that no one local could actually understand it   

Certainly I couldn't understand it but I'm 'thick' 

The paperwork, all thirty pages of it  says 'Stroma U value calculator' and 'Stroma FSAP2009' and just strikes me as one more unnecessary expense in this whole house building carry on 

Cheers, Paul

[brackwell]

Paul,

You should wear this like a  badge of honour as you should be very proud of what you have achieved. WELL DONE

You can achieve a high rating by cutting the energy demand through insulation etc. or increasing the amount of renewable energy-in your case a surplus i guess and thats the reason for getting more than a rating of 100 (which i thought was the limit)

Ken

[Eleanor]

Yes, well done Paul. Must have been the expensive windows that did it! 

[camillitech]

Thanks for that Ken and Eleanor,

almost makes me think that the gazillions of ££s that I've paid to Archie is worth it for the kudos  I have to confess at being a little flummoxed by it all. I'm building a house in the middle of nowhere, a place where I've lived and worked for 22 years and these fecking clowns just seem to put obstacles in my way. It's taken me two years to get to get this far and you would not believe the cr4p that they've hit me with. Five friggin people live here, in a community that once supported a school of 60 children and they go on about this 5hite about spoiling the 'natural and cultural heritage' I despair  I live ten miles from anywhere, own or rent all the land within sight and nobody objects to us building (apart from the council) It's been a long hard battle but at least we're getting there  The next thing is, these dudes in local government will be holding us up as some 'shinning example' of what can be achieved 

Eejits

 

[dhaslam]

I think that  Council planners  have  a bit of  Nicolae Ceaușescu in them.  They enjoy putting people down  while feathering their own nests.    In Romania  individuals whose houses were considered  too grand had to knock them down but that didn't apply to everyone. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=_WFbyjg748Q

[camillitech]

I think that  Council planners  have  a bit of  Nicolae Ceaușescu in them.  They enjoy putting people down  while feathering their own nests.   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=_WFbyjg748Q

And I thought 120 square meters was big 

"In Romania  individuals whose houses were considered  too grand had to knock them down but that didn't apply to everyone."

This part of Scotland has a history of landlords burning the houses of their tenants, sometimes with them still inside  and it's not that long ago either, certainly when our house was built in 1850 it was still going on.

Cheers, Paul 

[Eleanor]

Paul, I was wondering if there have been any questions regarding the fact that you haven't made any contributions to the MCS scheme? 

[StBarnabas]

Paul
sorry possibly I should start a new thread. I am running through Wookey's spreadsheet trying to do a SAP calculation for StBC. A few questions
1) Has anyone any idea as to the U value of an uninsulated timber floor?
2) In the solar gains section there is a reference to utilisation factor row 226 the reference seems incorrect. Any idea what I should enter here?

Many thanks in advance

sean

[supremetwo]

Paul
1) Has anyone any idea as to the U value of an uninsulated timber floor?

http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/pdf/rpts/BR_443_(2006_Edition).pdf
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/133394.pdf
Table 4    U-values of uninsulated suspended floors.

[StBarnabas]

Supremo,
thanks I have used the method for suspended timber floors outlined on P39 section 12 and come up with a U value of about 0.685. Most of this is not the floor itself (structurally it has a value of about 1.75), but the insulation caused by the air gap and clay soil. I could look at BS EN ISO 13370 if I had the motivation. (For a detailed calculation of the thermal resistance below the deck of a ground floor the reader is referred to the procedure in BS EN ISO 13370.) Does this sound reasonable?
Sean

[supremetwo]

Does this sound reasonable? Sean

0.685 looks to be spot on.

Found 13370 online:- 
http://wiki.pato.metid.polimi.it/@api/deki/files/637/=ISO_13370-2007.pdf

See worked example K 3.2 - 0.69 W/(m² K)