ᐅ Substructure for facade with rhombus-shaped cladding boards without insulation
Created on: 22 May 2020 09:26
A
abc12345
Hello everyone,
To visually enhance the entrance area, we would like to install rhombus cladding on the facade. The area measures 5 meters (16.4 feet) in length and 3 meters (9.8 feet) in height.
I have already ordered the rhombus cladding boards (untreated Siberian larch). I plan to apply a clear wood stain.
The wood will be installed on the north side of the facade, so it is not exposed to direct sunlight. Only a bit of morning sun reaches it early in the day.
The facade is already plastered and painted, with the staircase located behind it.
I want to skip insulation since this is purely for decorative purposes.
Now my question is how I should build the substructure.
My plan was simply to screw a timber batten onto the facade, then staple a black vapor-permeable underlay membrane over it, seal the overlaps with appropriate tape, and finally screw the rhombus profiles onto that.
Is this approach feasible?
What minimum thickness should the substructure have? I think a 40 x 60 mm (1.6 x 2.4 inches) spruce timber batten might be oversized, right?
Would a simple roof batten of 24 x 48 mm (1.0 x 1.9 inches) be sufficient?
To visually enhance the entrance area, we would like to install rhombus cladding on the facade. The area measures 5 meters (16.4 feet) in length and 3 meters (9.8 feet) in height.
I have already ordered the rhombus cladding boards (untreated Siberian larch). I plan to apply a clear wood stain.
The wood will be installed on the north side of the facade, so it is not exposed to direct sunlight. Only a bit of morning sun reaches it early in the day.
The facade is already plastered and painted, with the staircase located behind it.
I want to skip insulation since this is purely for decorative purposes.
Now my question is how I should build the substructure.
My plan was simply to screw a timber batten onto the facade, then staple a black vapor-permeable underlay membrane over it, seal the overlaps with appropriate tape, and finally screw the rhombus profiles onto that.
Is this approach feasible?
What minimum thickness should the substructure have? I think a 40 x 60 mm (1.6 x 2.4 inches) spruce timber batten might be oversized, right?
Would a simple roof batten of 24 x 48 mm (1.0 x 1.9 inches) be sufficient?
I initially considered the tongue-and-groove option but ultimately decided against it due to the cost.
Intuitively, I would have stapled the underlay membrane to the battens. This way, the rhombus cladding strips press tightly against the membrane, allowing the wall behind to breathe. Possibly, I would have wrapped the substructure battens with an additional layer of the underlay membrane to protect them from moisture.
How is this done correctly? From what I have seen online, in cases without insulation, they often do not install an underlay membrane at all.
Intuitively, I would have stapled the underlay membrane to the battens. This way, the rhombus cladding strips press tightly against the membrane, allowing the wall behind to breathe. Possibly, I would have wrapped the substructure battens with an additional layer of the underlay membrane to protect them from moisture.
How is this done correctly? From what I have seen online, in cases without insulation, they often do not install an underlay membrane at all.
I am facing the same question. I think that if the breathable membrane is placed directly against the back of the battens, there might still be occasions where driving rain can penetrate through the joints and potentially not drain properly. Instead, water could accumulate partly between the membrane and the batten, which over time might damage the wood.
The membrane is supposed to be vapor-permeable, allowing the wall to breathe. And if rainwater hits the joints, it should be able to drain off properly. However, I am uncertain about this assumption. I will contact a manufacturer of these membranes to ask for clarification.
The membrane is supposed to be vapor-permeable, allowing the wall to breathe. And if rainwater hits the joints, it should be able to drain off properly. However, I am uncertain about this assumption. I will contact a manufacturer of these membranes to ask for clarification.
You can let me know what you find out.
Stapling the membrane to the battens without contact to the house wall would obviously be the easiest. In this case, you would have to figure out how to attach the membrane to the wall with simple battens. Over time, nothing will hold securely there for sure.
Stapling the membrane to the battens without contact to the house wall would obviously be the easiest. In this case, you would have to figure out how to attach the membrane to the wall with simple battens. Over time, nothing will hold securely there for sure.
I need to bring this post back up.
We want to clad the front of the garage and the bay window with rhombus-shaped battens. The total wall area is about 20 m² (215 sq ft). Does anyone have an idea of the approximate cost for this? I’ve seen online estimates of around 200 EUR/m² (about 200 USD/sq ft) — but I assume that includes labor, right? I would actually like to do the work myself.
Now to my main question:
Since it is clear from the start that we want to cover these two areas with wooden cladding for aesthetic reasons, is it then possible to skip applying the exterior render (stucco) on those spots from a building physics perspective? Or is it still necessary for insulation purposes?
In my opinion, the exterior render can be omitted if the cladding is properly insulated with a weather-resistant membrane and mineral wool. Is that correct?
Is there any significant saving at all if we leave out the exterior render on these approximately 20 m² (215 sq ft) of wall surface?
We want to clad the front of the garage and the bay window with rhombus-shaped battens. The total wall area is about 20 m² (215 sq ft). Does anyone have an idea of the approximate cost for this? I’ve seen online estimates of around 200 EUR/m² (about 200 USD/sq ft) — but I assume that includes labor, right? I would actually like to do the work myself.
Now to my main question:
Since it is clear from the start that we want to cover these two areas with wooden cladding for aesthetic reasons, is it then possible to skip applying the exterior render (stucco) on those spots from a building physics perspective? Or is it still necessary for insulation purposes?
In my opinion, the exterior render can be omitted if the cladding is properly insulated with a weather-resistant membrane and mineral wool. Is that correct?
Is there any significant saving at all if we leave out the exterior render on these approximately 20 m² (215 sq ft) of wall surface?
Well, if you want to do it yourself, you just need to calculate how much material you’ll need and check the cost per square meter. It also depends on which type of wood you prefer, as there can be significant price differences.
I would definitely apply an external render under the construction and paint it as well. This way, you prevent water from easily penetrating and reaching the masonry. In my opinion, you might even create a thermal bridge yourself. Since it’s only about 20 m² (215 sq ft), I wouldn’t worry too much about any potential savings. You’ve probably received a price per square meter from your plasterer, so you can easily calculate it yourself. ;-)
I would definitely apply an external render under the construction and paint it as well. This way, you prevent water from easily penetrating and reaching the masonry. In my opinion, you might even create a thermal bridge yourself. Since it’s only about 20 m² (215 sq ft), I wouldn’t worry too much about any potential savings. You’ve probably received a price per square meter from your plasterer, so you can easily calculate it yourself. ;-)
Similar topics