Hello,
It would be really great if everyone here could just post one or a few pictures showing the current state of their house.
I'll start right away.
For renovations, it’s best to provide a comparison of before and after the remodeling.
Before March 2014:
After May 2015:
It would be really great if everyone here could just post one or a few pictures showing the current state of their house.
I'll start right away.
For renovations, it’s best to provide a comparison of before and after the remodeling.
Before March 2014:
After May 2015:
Lumpi_LE schrieb:
Oh, you have a photovoltaic system, that explains the "nonsensical" final energy demand.
I still find the heat transfer coefficient of 36.5 W/m²K (6.43 Btu/h·ft²·°F) rather ambitious, even if it were a T7 standard.
Forgotten thermal bridges? Forgotten windows? ... but that doesn’t really matter. Nothing was forgotten. You just know your own situation. To shed some light on this, the U-values of the building components are...
The building envelope just barely meets KfW 55 standards and is still far from a KfW 40 house. Even with 42.5 cm (17 inches) bricks, achieving KfW 40 wouldn’t be possible without additional construction measures.
Lumpi_LE schrieb:
Okay, it still seems unusual to me. Most houses built with 36.5cm (14.4 inches) bricks settle around a 0.3x value.
For example, all my U-values are slightly better than yours (walls 0.2, roof 0.13, floor 0.2, etc.), yet my Ht is around 0.30. Maybe your energy consultant forgot to enter something or miscalculated. Joking aside, if your highest U-value is already lower than the reference value, how can your overall value be so much higher? That simply doesn’t add up mathematically. The average of all U-values (across all surfaces) is your Ht value.
Do you have any large areas with particularly high outliers?
I’m genuinely curious now!
Yes, the average, area-related, for my case can be roughly estimated as follows:
0.2 for walls plus utility rooms comes to 0.25, windows and doors lower it further to around 0.4, the good roof (with a large area) then raises it again to just above 0.3, and the floor with 0.2 pushes it slightly back towards 0.3.
Windows have a strong impact; well, we have very large windows, but even if a typical house is at 20%, the heat transfer coefficient for walls and windows with your values would be 0.35, and with your utility rooms in the individual verification, then 0.37. For your values, roof and floor areas would have to be twice as large as the wall area. Maybe that’s the case for you, but it’s not the norm, hence my skepticism.
0.2 for walls plus utility rooms comes to 0.25, windows and doors lower it further to around 0.4, the good roof (with a large area) then raises it again to just above 0.3, and the floor with 0.2 pushes it slightly back towards 0.3.
Windows have a strong impact; well, we have very large windows, but even if a typical house is at 20%, the heat transfer coefficient for walls and windows with your values would be 0.35, and with your utility rooms in the individual verification, then 0.37. For your values, roof and floor areas would have to be twice as large as the wall area. Maybe that’s the case for you, but it’s not the norm, hence my skepticism.
Lumpi_LE schrieb:
Yes, the average, based on area, can be roughly estimated in my case as follows:
0.2 for walls plus utility rooms (WBZ) is 0.25, windows and doors reduce it further to about 0.4, the good roof (with a large surface area) then raises it again to just above 0.3, and the floor at 0.2 pushes it slightly toward 0.3.
Windows have a strong impact — well, we have very large windows, but even if a normal house is at 20%, the overall heat transfer coefficient (Ht) for walls and windows with your values would be at 0.35, with your utility rooms in the individual verification it’s 0.37. In that case, the roof and floor would have to be twice the surface area of the walls according to your values. Maybe that’s the case with your building, but it’s not the general rule, which is why I’m a bit skeptical. In my case, the ceiling of the upper floor compensates for the disadvantages of the basement exterior walls. The roof does not matter because it is designed as an unheated (cold) roof outside.
Everything else is significantly better and brings the Ht value just down to nearly KfW55 standard.
No more information is necessary.
For a change, here is also a house-building picture. Our terrace railing is installed. The fall protection as a welded mesh fence is also in place.
Zaba12 schrieb:
[IMG alt="2DCFA191-AE5B-4F71-A13B-8A555A65F939.jpeg"]https://www.hausbau-forum.de/data/attachments/36/36419-a11b0b36131a49a971b6e58a44d757a7.jpg[/IMG]If you calculate it through, you get about 0.3... (with the low wbz, otherwise 0.33, which would be the usual value). So maybe a calculation error?Well, with reduction for the parts in contact with the ground, the value goes down, a basement does make a big difference in this kind of calculation. I would still arrive at around 0.27.
Similar topics