Hello everyone,
like many of you, we are currently in the planning phase of our house building project.
After numerous discussions with different builders, we still don’t know which method is best for installing underfloor heating. Some prefer the wet installation method, while others swear by the dry installation method. For example, which option offers better thermal conductivity? What are your experiences? We want to install vinyl flooring and can’t understand why wet installation with bonding the vinyl surface should be disadvantageous...
Best regards, Tu Hus
like many of you, we are currently in the planning phase of our house building project.
After numerous discussions with different builders, we still don’t know which method is best for installing underfloor heating. Some prefer the wet installation method, while others swear by the dry installation method. For example, which option offers better thermal conductivity? What are your experiences? We want to install vinyl flooring and can’t understand why wet installation with bonding the vinyl surface should be disadvantageous...
Best regards, Tu Hus
B
Bieber081526 Oct 2016 11:32KlaRa schrieb:
For this reason, this type of screed is not standardized! It is considered a "special construction," which must be coordinated with the client and all disadvantages must be explained in advance. We have a cement screed (purchased from the developer). Nothing was coordinated, nor did any "experts" (not a certified surveyor) raise concerns about the plans or the building and service specifications beforehand. So now what?
The question from the user "Tu Hus" dated March 17, 2016, was factual and was answered by several people with varying degrees of relevance.
It should be sufficient to note that in the case of contractual arrangements with a general contractor (GC), the detailed planning (in this case: underfloor heating and screed work) cannot be the responsibility of the client, especially if the client is a technical layperson in construction.
Accordingly, the GC is to be presented with the request for a hydronic underfloor heating system combined with a wet screed, who will then assign a corresponding partial scope of work to a screed installer, usually working jointly with a heating installation company.
Therefore, no further responses to hypothetical issues are necessary, especially not to unprofessional remarks.
(Quote)
If he says it like that: Run for your life! Make sure not to sign anything anywhere beforehand!
Everything that needed to be stated factually on the requested topic has already been addressed, so unnecessary repetitions should be avoided in the future.
---------------------------------------
KlaRa
It should be sufficient to note that in the case of contractual arrangements with a general contractor (GC), the detailed planning (in this case: underfloor heating and screed work) cannot be the responsibility of the client, especially if the client is a technical layperson in construction.
Accordingly, the GC is to be presented with the request for a hydronic underfloor heating system combined with a wet screed, who will then assign a corresponding partial scope of work to a screed installer, usually working jointly with a heating installation company.
Therefore, no further responses to hypothetical issues are necessary, especially not to unprofessional remarks.
(Quote)
If he says it like that: Run for your life! Make sure not to sign anything anywhere beforehand!
Everything that needed to be stated factually on the requested topic has already been addressed, so unnecessary repetitions should be avoided in the future.
---------------------------------------
KlaRa
B
Bieber081526 Oct 2016 12:25KlaRa schrieb:
If he says it like that: Run for the hills! Just make sure you don’t sign anything beforehand!At first, I didn’t understand what you meant with your post, then I searched for the quote. Oh, it was from me! I want to point out that you didn’t include the full context. The original statement was from a salesperson: “Drywall construction... everything else is shoddy” (see #12). Well, if a salesperson says that, I consider them untrustworthy and would (considering the overall situation) walk away. I probably expressed that quite bluntly, but not unprofessionally (see #13).Still, it’s perfectly fine if you don’t want to answer my question in #26.
This topic had its last comments in March, then I wrote something again because I didn’t fully understand the dry installation method (according to my understanding, type B).
You have now written something in response, but you refer to the old comments.
In my opinion, my question is very much related to the topic, as it concerns the advantages of wet or dry installation of underfloor heating (at least that is stated in the title of the topic).
I will summarize what I currently believe:
- Underfloor heating can be installed wet or dry.
- Dry installation means that the heating pipes are NOT surrounded by the screed (which is still wet when laid), while wet installation is the opposite.
- There seem to be different options for dry installation.
- For example, laying prefabricated dry screed boards.
- Covering the heating pipes with a separating layer, such as thin metal plates that can also act as heat conduction plates, and then pouring wet screed over them afterward. Even though the screed is poured wet and might be a flowing or cement screed, the pipes remain dry due to the metal plates, so this is still called dry installation.
- The heating pipes can be embedded in the upper layer of insulation.
- Alternatively, the pipes can be embedded in a kind of granulate.
The absolutely classic installation method, especially in new buildings, seems to be the wet installation.
Now my father-in-law keeps insisting on dry installation and praises that the heat distribution is much better than with the previously wet-installed underfloor heating. My wife confirms this by saying that as a child playing on tiled floors, she always looked for a warm tile.
I could imagine that either the materials used in the past were not as good, or the pipe spacing was too wide.
Also, there used to be a large crack through the screed, which my father-in-law believes can be prevented by not placing heating pipes inside the screed, so the screed no longer settles unevenly.
Therefore, I am now trying to get a better understanding of the pros and cons again in this already existing thread, which I find has almost the same topic.
Manufacturers of underfloor heating systems (e.g., ArteTHerm) offer both options. For dry systems, a commonly given argument is that the heat is better distributed due to the heat conduction plates.
-> Is this true, or is it solely a matter of pipe spacing?
It is also emphasized that the trades for heating and screed are separated.
-> Does this less frequently cause cracks, or are cracks in the screed nowadays no longer an issue at all, or if they do occur, do they have nothing to do with the wet installation of underfloor heating?
A disadvantage seems to be that dry systems are somewhat more expensive than wet systems.
Are there any other points I am overlooking here?
You have now written something in response, but you refer to the old comments.
In my opinion, my question is very much related to the topic, as it concerns the advantages of wet or dry installation of underfloor heating (at least that is stated in the title of the topic).
I will summarize what I currently believe:
- Underfloor heating can be installed wet or dry.
- Dry installation means that the heating pipes are NOT surrounded by the screed (which is still wet when laid), while wet installation is the opposite.
- There seem to be different options for dry installation.
- For example, laying prefabricated dry screed boards.
- Covering the heating pipes with a separating layer, such as thin metal plates that can also act as heat conduction plates, and then pouring wet screed over them afterward. Even though the screed is poured wet and might be a flowing or cement screed, the pipes remain dry due to the metal plates, so this is still called dry installation.
- The heating pipes can be embedded in the upper layer of insulation.
- Alternatively, the pipes can be embedded in a kind of granulate.
The absolutely classic installation method, especially in new buildings, seems to be the wet installation.
Now my father-in-law keeps insisting on dry installation and praises that the heat distribution is much better than with the previously wet-installed underfloor heating. My wife confirms this by saying that as a child playing on tiled floors, she always looked for a warm tile.
I could imagine that either the materials used in the past were not as good, or the pipe spacing was too wide.
Also, there used to be a large crack through the screed, which my father-in-law believes can be prevented by not placing heating pipes inside the screed, so the screed no longer settles unevenly.
Therefore, I am now trying to get a better understanding of the pros and cons again in this already existing thread, which I find has almost the same topic.
Manufacturers of underfloor heating systems (e.g., ArteTHerm) offer both options. For dry systems, a commonly given argument is that the heat is better distributed due to the heat conduction plates.
-> Is this true, or is it solely a matter of pipe spacing?
It is also emphasized that the trades for heating and screed are separated.
-> Does this less frequently cause cracks, or are cracks in the screed nowadays no longer an issue at all, or if they do occur, do they have nothing to do with the wet installation of underfloor heating?
A disadvantage seems to be that dry systems are somewhat more expensive than wet systems.
Are there any other points I am overlooking here?
Similar topics