ᐅ Cost Difference Between External Thermal Insulation Composite Systems (ETICS) and Energy-Efficient Bricks, Future Expenses, Single-Family Home
Created on: 12 Sep 2012 09:46
O
Otti
Hello everyone,
we are planning to build a single-family house. We have already spoken with several construction companies, but have heard many different opinions.
We want: KfW 70 standard with ETICS T8, 36.5 cm (14 inches) thick (lambda 0.08, overall U-value approx. 0.21 W/m²K) without external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS) due to concerns about algae growth, etc. One company told us that the cost is about the same whether you choose ETICS or ETICS-free. Another company says that using ETICS would result in additional costs of around 8,000 – 10,000 EUR, based on ETICS with 12 cm (5 inches) EPS insulation and 24.5 cm (10 inches) hollow bricks, with an overall U-value of approx. 0.22 W/m²K. The house has a footprint of about 11.4 x 8.7 m (37 x 29 feet) and a knee wall height of about 75 cm (30 inches).
As laypersons, we think that ETICS is much more complex since masonry work is necessary either way, and then ETICS has to be applied on top. ETICS costs money and also involves more labor. Using ETICS-free hollow bricks costs more than standard 24.5 cm solid bricks, which is clear.
Is it really possible that additional costs of this magnitude can occur? What are your experiences?
If you need more information, please let us know!!!
Thanks for your help!!!
Best regards,
Otti
we are planning to build a single-family house. We have already spoken with several construction companies, but have heard many different opinions.
We want: KfW 70 standard with ETICS T8, 36.5 cm (14 inches) thick (lambda 0.08, overall U-value approx. 0.21 W/m²K) without external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS) due to concerns about algae growth, etc. One company told us that the cost is about the same whether you choose ETICS or ETICS-free. Another company says that using ETICS would result in additional costs of around 8,000 – 10,000 EUR, based on ETICS with 12 cm (5 inches) EPS insulation and 24.5 cm (10 inches) hollow bricks, with an overall U-value of approx. 0.22 W/m²K. The house has a footprint of about 11.4 x 8.7 m (37 x 29 feet) and a knee wall height of about 75 cm (30 inches).
As laypersons, we think that ETICS is much more complex since masonry work is necessary either way, and then ETICS has to be applied on top. ETICS costs money and also involves more labor. Using ETICS-free hollow bricks costs more than standard 24.5 cm solid bricks, which is clear.
Is it really possible that additional costs of this magnitude can occur? What are your experiences?
If you need more information, please let us know!!!
Thanks for your help!!!
Best regards,
Otti
K
karliseppel7 Oct 2012 17:13@Chris: When was that technical article published again? What lambda value did the bricks available on the market at that time have – or better yet: what lambda value did the bricks already installed for about 10 years at that time have, which might have shown damage?
A facade requires maintenance after all. If the necessary repainting is neglected for decades, other building physics properties of the materials used come into play. Yes, then it might be that due to greater thermal storage capacity and better water vapor permeability, the bricks perform better. But that’s getting into scientific decimals.
A facade requires maintenance after all. If the necessary repainting is neglected for decades, other building physics properties of the materials used come into play. Yes, then it might be that due to greater thermal storage capacity and better water vapor permeability, the bricks perform better. But that’s getting into scientific decimals.
Hello karliseppel,
The original poster was mainly concerned with the question of the additional cost for porous perforated bricks compared to external thermal insulation composite systems (ETICS), not with discussing the contamination issues of ETICS. By the way, the main factor there is the frequency and duration of dew point undershoots. I find it hard to believe that the differences are really only a matter of decimal places.
The original poster was mainly concerned with the question of the additional cost for porous perforated bricks compared to external thermal insulation composite systems (ETICS), not with discussing the contamination issues of ETICS. By the way, the main factor there is the frequency and duration of dew point undershoots. I find it hard to believe that the differences are really only a matter of decimal places.
Similar topics