Skip navigation 
Previous Page
ONLINE BRUSSELS HERITAGE - ONE-DAY SEMINAR - 11/12/2014
If the global consumption -i.e. including heating- between the two houses is compared, we can conclude that the Ibissenstraat house had a greater loss through the façades and the Kruisbooglaan through the roof. These differences are compensated for because one home contained an old atmospheric boiler and the other a more recent boiler. This more or less creates a balance, which can be seen in the difference between the blue zone on the Ibissenstraat house and the orange zone on the Kruisbooglaan.
Research was carried out to determine all of the possible energy saving measures which could be applied to the building. The following is a complete list detailing the situation before and after improvement works. When energy saving measures are applied, one measure will have an effect on the following measure with regard to the return on investment time and savings. For example, by insulating the façade first and then replacing the boiler, the boiler will consume less due to the façade insulation and thus the boiler's return on investment time will improve.
Below are detailed the results if the complete package of measures is applied. Tables 1 and 2 show the situation before and after applying the measures. We can see that the situation in both homes is more or less the same. There are of course a variety of priorities which could be chosen to assess the efficacy of various measures taken;, in our case the return on investment time has been used as the primary assessment measure.
| Area to be improved | Performance before improvements [W/m2.K] | Improvement | Performance after improvements [W/m2.K] |
| Sloped roof | 5.00 | Interior insulation | 0.33 |
| Façades | 1.60 | Exterior insulation | 0.58 |
| Dormer front | 5.62 | Exterior insulation | 0.31 |
| Board above cellar | 1.36 | Insulation under | 0.54 |
| Wooden window, single glazing | 5.24 | Version A: replaced with laminated glass (Ug=3.4 W/m2.K) / panel | 3.16 |
| Version B: replaced with double glazing (Ug=1.9 W/m2.K) / panel | 1.99 | ||
| Back door | 4.80 | Version A: replaced with laminated glass (Ug=3.4 W/m2.K) / panel | 2.81 |
| Version B: replaced with double glazing (Ug=1.9 W/m2.K) / panel | 2.05 | ||
| Front door | 4.46 | Version A: replaced with laminated glass (Ug=3.4 W/m2.K) / panel | 2.77 |
| Version B: replaced with double glazing (Ug=1.9 W/m2.K) / panel | 2.06 | ||
| Airtightness | Bad v50 = 12m3/h.m2 | Improve airtightness | Good5 v50 = 3m3/h.m2 |
| Heating | Efficiency: 80% | No improvement realised | Efficiency: 80% |
| Lighting | Several incandescent light bulbs | Replace incandescent light bulbs with LEDs | Only low-energy light bulbs |
| Ventilation | No ventilation system | Natural air supply and extraction via the wet areas | +/- System C |
Table 1
Measures Ibissenstraat 5 (© Cenergie).
50 | Financial impact of energy efficiency measures in Le Logis and Floréal
