ᐅ Installation of Controlled Residential Ventilation – In the Ceiling or Externally?
Created on: 14 Jul 2014 23:39
K
Kazazi
Hello dear forum community,
We are about to make a decision regarding a ventilation system. Among other options, we have two offers for a mechanical ventilation system with heat recovery to choose from, which differ in how the ductwork is installed. Naturally, both providers claim that their system is the best.
To help us form our own opinion, we would appreciate hearing about your personal experiences or any objective information explaining why one solution might be preferable over the other:
Provider A wants to route the ventilation ducts inside the precast concrete ceiling between the ground floor and attic, stating this is simply the best solution in new builds; other methods would only be used when retrofitting a mechanical ventilation system in existing buildings. So far, the only specific advantage mentioned is the appearance, as this avoids visible duct boxing outside the ceiling. In this setup, the rooms on the ground floor receive air from above, while those in the attic get air from the floor level. A detailed price quote is still pending.
Provider B intends to run metal ducts from the utility room on the ground floor up to the converted attic (loft), ventilating the attic rooms from there. Visible duct boxing would occur in two narrow spots in the hallway and, if I understand correctly, also at one spot in the converted attic. He claims that this system works significantly better compared to plastic ducts with smaller diameters, which could also be installed in the ceiling. In addition, it avoids an unattractive tangle of distribution ducts in the utility room, and the installation is approximately $1000 cheaper.
Regarding appearance, we don’t consider either a tangle of ducts in the utility room or a few discreet duct boxing sections as problematic, so this factor is not decisive for us. Therefore, we would like to know what other advantages or disadvantages these options might have.
Does option B really perform better? Is there any objective proof of this? And is my husband right in thinking that option B would also be easier to service or handle in case of faults, because the ducts are more accessible? Or are there functional or other significant advantages to option A, apart from appearance, that we should be aware of?
I look forward to your experiences, opinions, and advice on this, thank you very much,
Kazazi
We are about to make a decision regarding a ventilation system. Among other options, we have two offers for a mechanical ventilation system with heat recovery to choose from, which differ in how the ductwork is installed. Naturally, both providers claim that their system is the best.
To help us form our own opinion, we would appreciate hearing about your personal experiences or any objective information explaining why one solution might be preferable over the other:
Provider A wants to route the ventilation ducts inside the precast concrete ceiling between the ground floor and attic, stating this is simply the best solution in new builds; other methods would only be used when retrofitting a mechanical ventilation system in existing buildings. So far, the only specific advantage mentioned is the appearance, as this avoids visible duct boxing outside the ceiling. In this setup, the rooms on the ground floor receive air from above, while those in the attic get air from the floor level. A detailed price quote is still pending.
Provider B intends to run metal ducts from the utility room on the ground floor up to the converted attic (loft), ventilating the attic rooms from there. Visible duct boxing would occur in two narrow spots in the hallway and, if I understand correctly, also at one spot in the converted attic. He claims that this system works significantly better compared to plastic ducts with smaller diameters, which could also be installed in the ceiling. In addition, it avoids an unattractive tangle of distribution ducts in the utility room, and the installation is approximately $1000 cheaper.
Regarding appearance, we don’t consider either a tangle of ducts in the utility room or a few discreet duct boxing sections as problematic, so this factor is not decisive for us. Therefore, we would like to know what other advantages or disadvantages these options might have.
Does option B really perform better? Is there any objective proof of this? And is my husband right in thinking that option B would also be easier to service or handle in case of faults, because the ducts are more accessible? Or are there functional or other significant advantages to option A, apart from appearance, that we should be aware of?
I look forward to your experiences, opinions, and advice on this, thank you very much,
Kazazi
Bauabenteurer schrieb:
With fresh air supply in the floor, you end up having more work when installing the flooring at the latest. And the bottle of cola should also be an argument! That's true, our floor installers did have additional work to mill out the openings. However, this was quite limited and it’s not something done every day. I would initially deny that the milling of the holes caused a significant extra effort during floor installation.
As a rule, I don’t drink a bottle of cola next to my window.
B
Bauabenteurer21 Jul 2014 15:03Jaydee schrieb:
I would initially deny that milling the holes caused a huge additional effort when installing the floor.I didn’t say there was a huge additional effort, just "more work," especially if you’re a DIY installer. I assume this shouldn’t be a problem for professional tradespeople.
Jaydee schrieb:
I usually don’t drink a bottle of cola next to my window.Kids, you wouldn’t believe the ideas they come up with!
But it doesn’t have to be cola. Think, for example, of a bucket of cleaning water, which can also be spilled.