Revision history [back]

Hi Paul, great questions! About a year ago, we released the Thermal Bridging & Derating (or _TBD_) OpenStudio Measure, which does most of the heavy lifting to account for _major_ thermal bridging. Allow me to refer you to its online guide to start with, as it does provide some context and partial answers to your questions - and it's written for newcomers to energy modelling! I'm also referencing Canadian documents, code requirements, etc. - many European modellers are likely to be quite familiar with this already, given EPBD requirements.

1. In my experience with energy modelling and training, awareness seems to depend on (a) where you are (state/province) and (b) who's on the design/analysis team. With the advent of the RP-1365, BETBG, and thermalenvelope.ca, building professionals and energy modellers in BC (and more recently in Quebec) are likely to be very familiar (and somewhat thorough) with this, given provincial code requirements. Yet I still come across modellers who are quite unfamiliar (they stop at _clear-field_ RSi requirements), or who will simply not invest the extra time ($) it takes to do the heavy lifting - something we hope _TBD_ remediates.
2. In jurisdictions where this is now code (or for initiatives like PWGSC projects), I would say pretty frequently (unless they have access to new manufacturer data e.g., the latest thermally-broken cladding clip). I would much prefer seeing professionals rely on these _presolved_ sets, than wing it. BTW, _TBD_ integrates a handful of psi sets from BETBG ("poor", "regular", "efficient", and curtain wall variants), but we recommend switching over to custom sets as designs evolve.
3. I can't see energy modellers voluntarily taking on more work if they don't have to. But if it's required by code or set in performance targets by e.g. PWGSC ("28% better than NECB 2017"), then it's more a question of organizational inertia vs compliance.
4. In most cases (75%?), communication between client, architect, structural vs HVAC engineer/modeller is poor in this regard (despite claims on IDP). I have witnessed better _brass tacks_ discussions when clients and design teams have their backs up against the wall e.g., not achieving targets, or more frequently not having the (planned) budget to address prescriptive _major_ thermal bridging requirements. I suspect this will evolve/improve over time ...

Hope this helps.

PS - We're about to release an updated version of TBD (very early 2022). I'll revisit this post (and may correct some links) once it's released.

Hi Paul, great questions! About a year ago, we released the Thermal Bridging & Derating (or _TBD_) TBD) OpenStudio Measure, which does most of the heavy lifting to account for _major_ major thermal bridging. Allow me to refer you to its online guide to start with, as it does provide some context and partial answers to your questions - and it's written for newcomers to energy modelling! I'm also referencing Canadian documents, code requirements, etc. - many European modellers are likely to be quite familiar with this already, given EPBD requirements.

1. In my experience with energy modelling and training, awareness seems to depend on (a) where you are (state/province) and (b) who's on the design/analysis team. With the advent of the RP-1365, BETBG, and thermalenvelope.ca, building professionals and energy modellers in BC (and more recently in Quebec) are likely to be very familiar (and somewhat thorough) with this, given provincial code requirements. Yet I still come across modellers who are quite unfamiliar (they stop at _clear-field_ clear-field RSi requirements), or who will simply not invest the extra time ($) it takes to do the heavy lifting - something we hope _TBD_ TBD remediates.
2. In jurisdictions where this is now code (or for initiatives like PWGSC projects), I would say pretty frequently (unless they have access to new manufacturer data e.g., the latest thermally-broken cladding clip). I would much prefer seeing professionals rely on these _presolved_ presolved sets, than wing it. BTW, _TBD_ TBD integrates a handful of psi sets from BETBG ("poor", "regular", "efficient", and curtain wall variants), but we recommend switching over to custom sets as designs evolve.
3. I can't see energy modellers voluntarily taking on more work if they don't have to. But if it's required by code or set in performance targets by e.g. PWGSC ("28% better than NECB 2017"), then it's more a question of organizational inertia vs compliance.
4. In most cases (75%?), communication between client, architect, structural vs HVAC engineer/modeller is poor in this regard (despite claims on IDP). I have witnessed better _brass tacks_ brass tacks discussions when clients and design teams have their backs up against the wall e.g., not achieving targets, or more frequently not having the (planned) budget to address prescriptive _major_ major thermal bridging requirements. I suspect this will evolve/improve over time ...

Hope this helps.

PS - We're about to release an updated version of TBD (very early 2022). I'll revisit this post (and may correct some links) once it's released.

Hi Paul, great questions! About a year ago, we released the Thermal Bridging & Derating (or TBD) OpenStudio Measure, which does most of the heavy lifting to account for major thermal bridging. Allow me to refer you to its online guide to start with, as it does provide some context and partial answers to your questions - and it's written for newcomers to energy modelling! I'm also referencing Canadian documents, code requirements, etc. - many European modellers are likely to be quite familiar with this already, given EPBD requirements.

1. In my experience with energy modelling and training, awareness seems to depend on (a) where you are (state/province) and (b) who's on the design/analysis team. With the advent of the RP-1365, BETBG, and thermalenvelope.ca, building professionals and energy modellers in BC (and more recently in Quebec) are likely to be very familiar (and somewhat thorough) with this, given provincial code requirements. Yet I still come across modellers who are quite unfamiliar (they stop at clear-field RSi requirements), or who will simply not invest the extra time ($) it takes to do the heavy lifting - something we hope TBD remediates.
2. In jurisdictions where this is now code (or for initiatives like PWGSC projects), I would say pretty frequently (unless they have access to new manufacturer data e.g., the latest thermally-broken cladding clip). I would much prefer seeing professionals rely on these presolved sets, than wing it. BTW, TBD integrates a handful of psi sets from BETBG ("poor", "regular", "efficient", and curtain wall variants), but we recommend switching over to custom sets as designs evolve.
3. I can't see energy modellers voluntarily taking on more work if they don't have to. But if it's required by code or set in performance targets by e.g. PWGSC ("28% better than NECB 2017"), then it's more a question of organizational inertia vs compliance.
4. In most cases (75%?), communication between client, architect, structural vs HVAC engineer/modeller is poor in this regard (despite claims on IDP). I have witnessed better brass tacks discussions when clients and design teams have their backs up against the wall e.g., not achieving targets, or more frequently not having the (planned) budget to address prescriptive major thermal bridging requirements. I suspect this will evolve/improve over time ...

Hope this helps.