Hello dear community,
Although this topic has been discussed in several posts before, long-term experiences are missing here.
I am currently planning a 150 m² (1,615 sq ft) new build with a basement. We have now narrowed down our choice to two builders who differ fundamentally in their building materials.
The house is planned to be built without insulation, using a monolithic construction method. One builder wants to use aerated concrete or Poroton blocks (wall thickness 36.5 cm (14 inches)), while the other plans to use a solid precast wall made of expanded clay aggregate with a wall thickness of 41 cm (16 inches). We are now a bit uncertain because the thermal transmittance (U-value) given by the builders differs greatly: 0.21 W/m²K for Poroton and 2.2 W/m²K for expanded clay. Both assure us that the houses meet the KFW 55 standard.
I am unclear how the U-values can differ so much or whether other factors, such as the mortar used with Poroton, are included. The insulation in the attic and the windows (triple glazed) seem comparable in both cases. Are there any long-term experiences in this forum with solid walls made from expanded clay?
Can you tell me whether a similar energy balance for heating can be expected based on the KFW 55 standard?
Our concern is that with poor insulation and a heat pump, we might not achieve sufficient room heating or end up with very high heating costs due to additional electric heating rods.
Best regards,
Sven
Although this topic has been discussed in several posts before, long-term experiences are missing here.
I am currently planning a 150 m² (1,615 sq ft) new build with a basement. We have now narrowed down our choice to two builders who differ fundamentally in their building materials.
The house is planned to be built without insulation, using a monolithic construction method. One builder wants to use aerated concrete or Poroton blocks (wall thickness 36.5 cm (14 inches)), while the other plans to use a solid precast wall made of expanded clay aggregate with a wall thickness of 41 cm (16 inches). We are now a bit uncertain because the thermal transmittance (U-value) given by the builders differs greatly: 0.21 W/m²K for Poroton and 2.2 W/m²K for expanded clay. Both assure us that the houses meet the KFW 55 standard.
I am unclear how the U-values can differ so much or whether other factors, such as the mortar used with Poroton, are included. The insulation in the attic and the windows (triple glazed) seem comparable in both cases. Are there any long-term experiences in this forum with solid walls made from expanded clay?
Can you tell me whether a similar energy balance for heating can be expected based on the KFW 55 standard?
Our concern is that with poor insulation and a heat pump, we might not achieve sufficient room heating or end up with very high heating costs due to additional electric heating rods.
Best regards,
Sven
Teemoe86 schrieb:
And please don’t come back with “if I don’t know anything, I should just keep quiet”... No, but if you don’t know anything, you can’t properly assess the competence of those answering—neither those who claim extreme A, nor those who claim extreme Z, nor those who say the truth lies somewhere in between. The real question is, what is it that matters to you?
If you want to know which online calculator makes which logical error, the answer will come on the day after never and it will be “42.”
If, on the other hand, you’re looking for a suitable wall building material, ask your neighbors what they use and how satisfied they are with it.
The philosopher’s stone is almost the only one that no building materials supplier stocks. But every advocate and every critic each has their own “stone” that they claim is either the greatest blessing (or worst failure). I tell you (to borrow a biblical turn of phrase), you won’t enjoy a top-rated material if your contractor is less experienced with it than with another one that’s only solidly average.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
and it says "42".Hehe, yes, I agree with you.If someone responds and says they have a PhD in physics and actually work in this field, I tend to believe them more (though never 100%, since there are fools everywhere) than someone who simply writes "yes, it has to be this way because the answer is 42."
I’m interested in this topic because I want to build a house myself — and noise should stay outside, meaning loud music should not be audible outside (Sunday/evenings, etc.).
Why this topic and my own thoughts:
- Once we find a plot, we want to build our own house
- Noise should stay outside and inside (e.g., music on Sunday or evenings should not annoy the neighbors)
- The developer uses 30cm (12 inches) Ytong blocks as standard; I read that a downside of Ytong is poor sound insulation
- I researched further and found this topic here
- I read claims like "windows provide 36 dB, so the wall hardly matters"
- Thought about it and based on my logic concluded that the wall still plays a role
- Trying to get information is not easy, so I wrote this thesis here, clearly stating it is a hypothesis, not established knowledge. To consider sound from multiple sources, I found a calculator that estimates sound based on several levels — of course very roughly — this is not about precise calculation but approaching reality, with a request for experts to correct this hypothesis if needed.
11ant schrieb:
and how satisfied they are with it.Does the car accelerate well or very well? -> Naturally very well! How many seconds does it take to go from 0 to 200 km/h (0-125 mph)? -> 12.4 seconds.
It’s a matter of perspective… some people don’t mind noise, many don’t even notice it, and some might have poor hearing anyway. Others still hear very well and are used to quiet.
11ant schrieb:
You won’t enjoy a top-rated building material if your contractor is less experienced working with it than with another one that is just above average.I agree 100% with that. However, a builder might be excluded for exactly this reason — or might not be.
Regarding my hypothesis, it would indeed make a difference which wall material is used, but the difference becomes much greater when the window has very poor sound insulation. The better the window insulates, the more important a well-insulated wall becomes, which I find logically plausible.
At the moment, I can only advise — based on my not expert knowledge — that with standard windows, a thicker wall might only add around 1 dB of sound reduction, but with much better sound-insulating windows, a better insulating wall can actually make a noticeable difference.
Therefore: I would find expert, technically sound statements or calculations very helpful so that a home builder can decide which wall and which windows they want or need to install.
Teemoe86 schrieb:
- However, the developer uses 30 cm (12 inches) Ytong as standard, from what I read, Ytong disadvantage: poor sound insulation A developer is only the builder who sells you a package deal of the house and land. My father lived in an aerated concrete house almost forty years ago, back when 25 cm (10 inches) wall thickness was considered modern. I slept like a log there, even though the house was located at a busy intersection. In my office directly above the workshop – also made of aerated concrete – noise was never a problem either. The myth that aerated concrete supposedly attracts noise is something I’ve only encountered since I started visiting building forums. Strange, isn’t it? I wasn’t deaf then nor am I now. But what’s on the internet must be true.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
T
T_im_Norden15 Jun 2020 13:12If sound insulation is that important to you, specify it as a requirement for the contractor you hire.
You might find someone willing to agree to that.
Otherwise, it won’t help much if you select building components based on sound reduction values (DB) but then the construction is not carried out carefully.
A sound bridge that is overlooked will ruin your entire concept.
You might find someone willing to agree to that.
Otherwise, it won’t help much if you select building components based on sound reduction values (DB) but then the construction is not carried out carefully.
A sound bridge that is overlooked will ruin your entire concept.
11ant schrieb:
But what’s written on the internet must be true. Why would you assume something like that? So far, I have had a positive and respectful opinion about your posts. The fact is that aerated concrete alone provides poorer sound insulation compared to other building methods. How much better or worse it is, and what difference that actually makes – that’s exactly the point here: whether walls with better sound insulation make sense, and if so, under which circumstances one can actually notice the difference. Your statement about living in a house with 25cm (10 inches) aerated concrete walls is fine, but I can only point out again that everyone has different perceptions. Some say “oh, how nicely warm” while at the same time I say “wow, way too hot, I’m sweating like crazy.” Do you want to claim that one of these statements is right and the other is wrong? I don’t think so. At least your contributions I have read in the forum haven’t seemed that rigid until now.
T_im_Norden schrieb:
A sound bridge that is overlooked can ruin your whole concept. Yep, definitely. The best insulation is useless if the door is open. When everything is closed, you can notice and/or measure the difference.
Personally, I consider a 30cm (12 inches) aerated concrete wall sufficient. I’m not building near a main road, highway, or flight path, so somewhat better soundproofing windows will be enough.
However, it can be helpful for others to know that, depending on the choice of windows for sound insulation, the walls might also become a decisive factor (note: this is currently just a theory).
Similar topics