Hello dear forum,
I am currently gathering information on the effort and costs for renovating an older building (built in 1955).
We would like to have underfloor heating on the ground floor and in the bathrooms. Now to my questions:
Should the screed be removed and everything rebuilt? What is the approximate cost per square meter?
Is it possible to keep the screed and use a low-profile system? If so, which one?
Are there other options, such as milling technology?
What about the overall installation height? I definitely do not want to alter the door lintels.
Thank you very much
I am currently gathering information on the effort and costs for renovating an older building (built in 1955).
We would like to have underfloor heating on the ground floor and in the bathrooms. Now to my questions:
Should the screed be removed and everything rebuilt? What is the approximate cost per square meter?
Is it possible to keep the screed and use a low-profile system? If so, which one?
Are there other options, such as milling technology?
What about the overall installation height? I definitely do not want to alter the door lintels.
Thank you very much
Hello Nils
First of all, you need to know the current construction setup.
Generally, I would recommend removing the old floor structure.
With that build-up option, you would probably lose valuable centimeters (inches) of clear door height.
With the milling option, I would be concerned about the effort involved and the risk of the screed breaking.
Olli
First of all, you need to know the current construction setup.
Generally, I would recommend removing the old floor structure.
With that build-up option, you would probably lose valuable centimeters (inches) of clear door height.
With the milling option, I would be concerned about the effort involved and the risk of the screed breaking.
Olli
I am in favor of yes. We did it the same way. The main reason was that in the old building there was no insulation under the floor slab or above it, and we didn’t want all the heat to be lost. Additionally, we renovated to an energy-efficient house standard, so floor insulation was mandatory. With a total of 10.5 cm (4 inches) of insulation plus an OSB board in between for stability, it was clear that the screed had to be removed. This saved about 6 cm (2.5 inches). The underfloor heating was a dry construction system (we didn’t want to and couldn’t bring hectoliters of water into the old building) with a build-up height of 45 mm (1.8 inches), including 25 mm (1 inch) insulation, which is already included in the above-mentioned 10.5 cm (4 inches). The new screed is therefore 2 cm (0.8 inches) thick.
It is certainly possible to have a thinner structure, but at what cost, and then it would only be wet again. Since there is no basement underneath anymore, the thick insulation had to be installed below the underfloor heating, and I would never want to do without it. If there is a basement below and enough budget, insulation can be done from underneath, and a honeycomb system can be used, resulting in a total build-up height of about 1 cm (0.4 inches) with a honeycomb panel and grout, without any milling work.
It is certainly possible to have a thinner structure, but at what cost, and then it would only be wet again. Since there is no basement underneath anymore, the thick insulation had to be installed below the underfloor heating, and I would never want to do without it. If there is a basement below and enough budget, insulation can be done from underneath, and a honeycomb system can be used, resulting in a total build-up height of about 1 cm (0.4 inches) with a honeycomb panel and grout, without any milling work.
Similar topics