ᐅ Exterior wall, interior insulation, followed by slate installation in new construction
Created on: 6 Mar 2011 10:25
F
Franka
Hello! Sorry if I’m bringing up a topic that has probably been discussed many times before. However, we have an additional issue: the later installation of slate cladding on the gables and the required substructure for it.
Background:
We are in the process of having a 150 sqm (1,615 sq ft) solid house built. It is intended to be a "standard house" that complies with the 2009 energy-saving regulation guidelines. It will be equipped with a gas condensing boiler combined with a solar system and underfloor heating. The house will have a white plastered finish; the gables are to be clad with slate.
Our builder has proposed exterior walls of 17.5 cm (7 inches) aerated concrete blocks ("Ytong") on the ground floor and upper floor. In addition, the interior walls on the ground floor will be made of 17.5 cm (7 inches) thick lime sand brick masonry as plan blocks. The interior walls in the upper floor will be built with 11.5 cm (4.5 inches) aerated concrete blocks. The facade is to receive a 140 mm (5.5 inches) external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS).
The slate facade cladding will also require an elaborate and costly thermal insulation system.
Now my question:
Is it possible to use a thicker exterior wall (for example 24 cm or 30 cm / 9.5 inches or 12 inches) with less insulation? Can the slate cladding be installed on counter battens with minimal insulation in between? Or could the upper floor perhaps be constructed with a timber frame system to avoid multiple layers of insulation and substructures?
We are complete beginners and would appreciate your suggestions and experiences.
Background:
We are in the process of having a 150 sqm (1,615 sq ft) solid house built. It is intended to be a "standard house" that complies with the 2009 energy-saving regulation guidelines. It will be equipped with a gas condensing boiler combined with a solar system and underfloor heating. The house will have a white plastered finish; the gables are to be clad with slate.
Our builder has proposed exterior walls of 17.5 cm (7 inches) aerated concrete blocks ("Ytong") on the ground floor and upper floor. In addition, the interior walls on the ground floor will be made of 17.5 cm (7 inches) thick lime sand brick masonry as plan blocks. The interior walls in the upper floor will be built with 11.5 cm (4.5 inches) aerated concrete blocks. The facade is to receive a 140 mm (5.5 inches) external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS).
The slate facade cladding will also require an elaborate and costly thermal insulation system.
Now my question:
Is it possible to use a thicker exterior wall (for example 24 cm or 30 cm / 9.5 inches or 12 inches) with less insulation? Can the slate cladding be installed on counter battens with minimal insulation in between? Or could the upper floor perhaps be constructed with a timber frame system to avoid multiple layers of insulation and substructures?
We are complete beginners and would appreciate your suggestions and experiences.
B
Bauexperte7 Mar 2011 12:46Hello €uro,
The “signs of the times” are being interpreted by certified experts at the drawing board who, in my opinion, delight in ever lower U-values without giving any thought to affordable and healthy solutions. If you want to take these people’s word blindly, that is your choice.
And one more thing: if you consider it right to live in a plastic envelope in the future, which moreover—if necessary—must be disposed of at high cost, that is your personal decision. You should refrain from consciously discrediting people who are strangers to you—this is neither good manners nor a sign of a mature character.
Kind regards
€uro schrieb:
U-values of future-proof wall constructions should already be <= 0.16 W/m²K, otherwise one has not recognized the signs of the times
The “signs of the times” are being interpreted by certified experts at the drawing board who, in my opinion, delight in ever lower U-values without giving any thought to affordable and healthy solutions. If you want to take these people’s word blindly, that is your choice.
And one more thing: if you consider it right to live in a plastic envelope in the future, which moreover—if necessary—must be disposed of at high cost, that is your personal decision. You should refrain from consciously discrediting people who are strangers to you—this is neither good manners nor a sign of a mature character.
Kind regards
€uro schrieb:
U-values of future-proof wall constructions should already be <= 0.16 W/m²K, otherwise one has not recognized the signs of the times
Regards.Hmm, that sounds nice of course, but the rest must also fit and not be undone by windows with 0.9 - 1.1 W/m²K, and if you build the most future-oriented of everything, it becomes unaffordable for 80% of people!
And as already mentioned, such a thick plastic shell is not acceptable for everyone.
In my opinion, it is better to build reasonably with a single-layer wall now and halfway done, and then if necessary, insulate all around in 15-20 years when needed.
I think it makes sense and is still acceptable to achieve below 0.25 W/m²K for a wall construction, but even many new builds do not meet this and still comply with the Energy Saving Ordinance 2009.
Hello,
I fully agree with the points made by €uro. A house built today should not only meet the required maximum values but ideally perform better than those limits. The key phrase here is: SUSTAINABLE BUILDING.
A lot of energy is lost through the exterior walls (which are also the largest surface area exposed to heat transfer). And not every well-insulated exterior wall has to be made of “plastic.”
@blurboy: Surely you’re not serious about planning a new build in a way that it will need added insulation in 15 years.
By the way, a U-value ≤ 0.16 W/m²K (0.03 BTU/h·ft²·°F) is not rocket science.
Best regards
I fully agree with the points made by €uro. A house built today should not only meet the required maximum values but ideally perform better than those limits. The key phrase here is: SUSTAINABLE BUILDING.
A lot of energy is lost through the exterior walls (which are also the largest surface area exposed to heat transfer). And not every well-insulated exterior wall has to be made of “plastic.”
@blurboy: Surely you’re not serious about planning a new build in a way that it will need added insulation in 15 years.
By the way, a U-value ≤ 0.16 W/m²K (0.03 BTU/h·ft²·°F) is not rocket science.
Best regards
Hello Building Expert,
Mistake — future costs for energy carriers will clearly prove this! It truly requires little expertise to recognize this.
Anyone living in a “plastic shell” simply got the wrong advisor/planner!
No one needs to be discredited here; numbers and facts always matter. Anyone who consciously denies this probably has something to hide, wants to push something onto a client, or lacks holistic expertise.
E.Curb is absolutely right: U-values ≤ 0.16 W/(m²·K) of the outer shell do not mean a "plastic shell" at all!
For better understanding, I recommend an energy balance analysis over a service life of 20…25 years combined with an economic feasibility comparison — this usually makes things clearer.
Currently, there are hardly any safer and comparable financial investments than using existing capital to protect against inflation and invest in reducing future heating energy costs.
Best regards
Bauexperte schrieb:
...The "signs of the times" are interpreted by certified experts at the drawing board, who, in my opinion, delight in ever lower U-values without giving a thought to affordable and healthy solutions. If you want to take these people’s words blindly, please do.
Mistake — future costs for energy carriers will clearly prove this! It truly requires little expertise to recognize this.
Bauexperte schrieb:Don’t worry, I do not live in a “plastic shell” — and without any mechanical ventilation system!
And one more thing: if you think it is right to live in a plastic shell in the future, ...
Anyone living in a “plastic shell” simply got the wrong advisor/planner!
Bauexperte schrieb:
You should refrain from deliberately discrediting people who are unfamiliar to you — this is neither good style nor a sign of mature character.
No one needs to be discredited here; numbers and facts always matter. Anyone who consciously denies this probably has something to hide, wants to push something onto a client, or lacks holistic expertise.
E.Curb is absolutely right: U-values ≤ 0.16 W/(m²·K) of the outer shell do not mean a "plastic shell" at all!
For better understanding, I recommend an energy balance analysis over a service life of 20…25 years combined with an economic feasibility comparison — this usually makes things clearer.
Currently, there are hardly any safer and comparable financial investments than using existing capital to protect against inflation and invest in reducing future heating energy costs.
Best regards
E.Curb schrieb:
@blurboy: You can’t seriously be planning a new build in a way that it will need additional insulation just 15 years later.
RegardsI said it should at least be possible, but what am I supposed to do with a house that already has 20cm (8 inches) of insulation applied? Besides, who knows what the situation will be in 15–20 years? The houses in our region built in the early 1990s are now, from an energy efficiency perspective, completely outdated!
I said at least it should be possible, but what am I supposed to do with a house that already has 20cm (8 inches) of insulation on it?Definitely not add insulation afterward, because it’s not necessary!
Also, do you know what will happen in 15-20 years?Yes, you do. You will have to add insulation later, and it will be very expensive. Retrofitting insulation on an exterior wall costs many times more. Insulating is not just about sticking polystyrene to the wall. It also requires some planning.
Similar topics