Hello everyone,
Yesterday, we had an initial informational meeting with a solid construction house provider. Of course, we always ask where each provider sees THEIR advantage compared to other construction methods. He couldn’t give a very clear answer to that yesterday; instead, he mainly focused on presenting arguments against prefabricated timber frame houses.
In any case, he also said that most of the moisture enters the house through the screed, so it doesn’t really matter whether you build stone on stone (and expose yourself to weather risks) or quickly assemble the shell of a prefabricated house. The screed has to be laid on site and then dried anyway.
You often read that one advantage of a prefabricated house is the dry construction process in the factory, but is this actually offset again by the screed?
I appreciate any answers and thoughts on this.
Best regards,
Sandra
Yesterday, we had an initial informational meeting with a solid construction house provider. Of course, we always ask where each provider sees THEIR advantage compared to other construction methods. He couldn’t give a very clear answer to that yesterday; instead, he mainly focused on presenting arguments against prefabricated timber frame houses.
In any case, he also said that most of the moisture enters the house through the screed, so it doesn’t really matter whether you build stone on stone (and expose yourself to weather risks) or quickly assemble the shell of a prefabricated house. The screed has to be laid on site and then dried anyway.
You often read that one advantage of a prefabricated house is the dry construction process in the factory, but is this actually offset again by the screed?
I appreciate any answers and thoughts on this.
Best regards,
Sandra
B
Bauexperte7 May 2014 08:40Good morning Dirk,
I know Switzerland only as a holiday destination, so I am not familiar with their building regulations. The fact is that DIN standards in Germany – as expected – prescribe binding requirements for earthquake zones. When these are followed in new construction, even solid masonry houses show no damage.
Regards, Bauexperte
Doc.Schnaggls schrieb:More of a personal preference; often confused. Interestingly, in this context, "Brainpain" bought a prefab house against his inner conviction.
Sorry, that really isn’t a well-founded statement...
Doc.Schnaggls schrieb:Crystal ball mode on: more likely the village church, which is constructed with solid masonry.
Take a look at the oldest houses in your town – they are probably half-timbered houses, right?
Doc.Schnaggls schrieb:That interests me. In what way healthier?
The healthier indoor climate ...
Doc.Schnaggls schrieb:Concluding that a prefab house withstands earthquakes better is, in my opinion, too simplistic; even if Wolf® proudly advertises that their product survived multiple simulated earthquakes in a laboratory without damage.
Just as a thought: Two years ago, we experienced a clearly noticeable earthquake with friends in Switzerland. Damage to their timber frame house: none – The immediate neighbor’s house ("solid masonry house"): clearly visible cracks from the ridge down to the first floor level.
I know Switzerland only as a holiday destination, so I am not familiar with their building regulations. The fact is that DIN standards in Germany – as expected – prescribe binding requirements for earthquake zones. When these are followed in new construction, even solid masonry houses show no damage.
Doc.Schnaggls schrieb:Exactly so.
Ultimately, it’s a gut feeling which type of house you build, but you should accept other builders’ decisions and avoid criticizing their house concepts.
Regards, Bauexperte
D
DerBjoern7 May 2014 10:31Bauexperte schrieb:
Now this interests me. How is it healthier?that’s how it’s stated in the brochures
D
Doc.Schnaggls7 May 2014 12:49Bauexperte schrieb:
Crystal ball mode on: probably rather the village church, and that again built solidly. Hello Bauexperte,
1 : 0 for you!
I probably should have written residential buildings instead...
Bauexperte schrieb:
That interests me now. How healthier? That is probably more a matter of belief... I have the feeling that I feel more comfortable in a timber frame house. I even imagine perceiving a subtle, pleasant wood scent that I personally like. However, the insulation with low-emission wood fiber boards was also a plus for me compared to styrofoam insulation from a chemical factory. I am by no means a hardcore eco-friendly person, but that was important to me.
Bauexperte schrieb:
Concluding that a single-family house withstands earthquakes better is, in my opinion, too simplistic; even if Wolf® proudly advertises in the media that their product withstood several simulated earthquakes in a laboratory without damage.
I only know Switzerland as a holiday destination, so I am not familiar with their building regulations. The fact is that the DIN standards in Germany—no surprise there—set mandatory measures for German earthquake zones. If these are followed during new construction, even solidly built houses do not show damage. You are the expert here. I just happened to have that experience and took it into account in my decision-making.
Regards,
Dirk
B
Bauexperte8 May 2014 00:31Good evening Dirk,
Sometimes even my mod soul needs a little bit of pampering
Yes.
Your subjective feeling doesn’t harm anyone; it just brings you a good feeling. So you have made the right decision for yourself!
Actually, I stumbled more over this sentence: “the healthier indoor climate and better thermal insulation with the same wall thickness ...” especially the adjective “healthier.” I am willing to believe a lot, but not that it can be healthy to live in a building enclosed by a membrane. The same applies – from my conviction – to a classic ETICS (external thermal insulation composite system / external wall insulation).
“Better thermal insulation” is also a phrase I would question... in my opinion, it’s also born from your personal impression. You can build very well with filled masonry – monolithic/massive – or Euro’s favorite wall construction: calcium silicate brick + mineral wool + facing brick. Just because the building is constructed massively, thermal insulation is not necessarily better or worse.
Regards, Bauexperte
Doc.Schnaggls schrieb:
1 : 0 in your favor!
I probably should have written residential building...
Sometimes even my mod soul needs a little bit of pampering
Doc.Schnaggls schrieb:
That’s probably more a matter of belief...
Yes.
Doc.Schnaggls schrieb:
I feel more comfortable in a timber frame house. I even imagine noticing a subtle, pleasant wood scent that I personally like.
Your subjective feeling doesn’t harm anyone; it just brings you a good feeling. So you have made the right decision for yourself!
Actually, I stumbled more over this sentence: “the healthier indoor climate and better thermal insulation with the same wall thickness ...” especially the adjective “healthier.” I am willing to believe a lot, but not that it can be healthy to live in a building enclosed by a membrane. The same applies – from my conviction – to a classic ETICS (external thermal insulation composite system / external wall insulation).
“Better thermal insulation” is also a phrase I would question... in my opinion, it’s also born from your personal impression. You can build very well with filled masonry – monolithic/massive – or Euro’s favorite wall construction: calcium silicate brick + mineral wool + facing brick. Just because the building is constructed massively, thermal insulation is not necessarily better or worse.
Regards, Bauexperte
B
Brainpain19748 May 2014 08:02For thermal insulation, calculations are available to determine which wall provides better insulation if you want to know precisely. The thermal transmittance coefficient (U-value) is something that every heating engineer calculates when determining radiator sizes—or at least should do—but nowadays, there are standard reference values.
D
Doc.Schnaggls8 May 2014 08:16Bauexperte schrieb:
I actually stumbled more over this adjective "healthier" in the sentence: "The healthier indoor climate and better thermal insulation with the same wall thickness ...". I am willing to believe many things, but not that living in a building completely enclosed by a membrane can be healthy. The same conviction applies to a classic ETICS (external thermal insulation composite system). Hello Bauexperte,
you are probably right about that. I admit that I am a layperson when it comes to today’s construction technology – but what I found positive about “our” wall structure is the fact that it doesn’t use a “classic” membrane, but a diffusion-open vapor retarder fleece instead. This fleece also doesn’t feel like a membrane, but more like a textile fabric.
This fleece is intended to prevent water vapor from entering the insulation and causing moisture buildup.
However, I obviously cannot conclusively judge whether this makes a real difference compared to a “classic” membrane.
Regards,
Dirk
Similar topics