Hello everyone,
like many of you, we are currently in the planning phase of our house building project.
After numerous discussions with different builders, we still don’t know which method is best for installing underfloor heating. Some prefer the wet installation method, while others swear by the dry installation method. For example, which option offers better thermal conductivity? What are your experiences? We want to install vinyl flooring and can’t understand why wet installation with bonding the vinyl surface should be disadvantageous...
Best regards, Tu Hus
like many of you, we are currently in the planning phase of our house building project.
After numerous discussions with different builders, we still don’t know which method is best for installing underfloor heating. Some prefer the wet installation method, while others swear by the dry installation method. For example, which option offers better thermal conductivity? What are your experiences? We want to install vinyl flooring and can’t understand why wet installation with bonding the vinyl surface should be disadvantageous...
Best regards, Tu Hus
Hello "Kaspato".
In construction, you can either build according to standards or use special constructions. The former always works; the latter can work and are mostly used in existing buildings or when building according to standards is not possible for various reasons. This involves certain risks, but usually, there is no other solution.
In residential and commercial construction, underfloor heating with warm water, integrated into wet screeds, is standardized according to DIN 18560 Part 2. This has been working perfectly well for many years.
However, flowing screeds should be preferred, as the bond between the binder and the heating elements allows better heat transfer.
Now to the second topic: calcium sulfate or cement-based flowing screed?
Damage patterns caused by drying-related shrinkage stresses, especially in cement-based flowing screeds, have been observed in practice for many years. To summarize: the manufacturers’ promises have mostly not been fulfilled in practice...
For this reason, this type of screed is not standardized! It is therefore a "special construction" that must be agreed upon with the client, with all disadvantages disclosed beforehand. The stresses in purely cement-based flowing screeds are almost uncontrollable.
It is different with calcium sulfate flowing screeds (CAF).
These comply with the technical rules and are also listed in DIN 18560-2.
---------------------------------------------
To summarize, the task of respondents in this forum is to provide askers with technically correct answers so that they can apply the associated (possibly new) insights in their own practice.
And that, at least, is what I hope my answers achieve.
Regards, KlaRa
In construction, you can either build according to standards or use special constructions. The former always works; the latter can work and are mostly used in existing buildings or when building according to standards is not possible for various reasons. This involves certain risks, but usually, there is no other solution.
In residential and commercial construction, underfloor heating with warm water, integrated into wet screeds, is standardized according to DIN 18560 Part 2. This has been working perfectly well for many years.
However, flowing screeds should be preferred, as the bond between the binder and the heating elements allows better heat transfer.
Now to the second topic: calcium sulfate or cement-based flowing screed?
Damage patterns caused by drying-related shrinkage stresses, especially in cement-based flowing screeds, have been observed in practice for many years. To summarize: the manufacturers’ promises have mostly not been fulfilled in practice...
For this reason, this type of screed is not standardized! It is therefore a "special construction" that must be agreed upon with the client, with all disadvantages disclosed beforehand. The stresses in purely cement-based flowing screeds are almost uncontrollable.
It is different with calcium sulfate flowing screeds (CAF).
These comply with the technical rules and are also listed in DIN 18560-2.
---------------------------------------------
To summarize, the task of respondents in this forum is to provide askers with technically correct answers so that they can apply the associated (possibly new) insights in their own practice.
And that, at least, is what I hope my answers achieve.
Regards, KlaRa
In the floor heating standard DIN EN 1264, these are referred to as "systems with pipes within the screed - Type A and Type C" (wet system) as well as "systems with pipes below the screed - Type B" (dry system).
Found during a search for "floor heating dry DIN."
So this is not really a "special construction."
And I believe that there can certainly be more than one "standard."
The standard you mentioned seems to refer only to wet screeds, not directly to floor heating systems.
In the Type B (dry) option for floor heating, the underfloor heating is located below the screed. This screed can still be a wet screed according to your standard.
Found during a search for "floor heating dry DIN."
So this is not really a "special construction."
And I believe that there can certainly be more than one "standard."
The standard you mentioned seems to refer only to wet screeds, not directly to floor heating systems.
In the Type B (dry) option for floor heating, the underfloor heating is located below the screed. This screed can still be a wet screed according to your standard.
@ Kaspatoo:
I recognize that it is better to leave things as they are at the current stage.
I do not obtain my information (especially the necessary background knowledge) from the internet. Instead, it is part of my daily work to be familiar with various standards covering comparable topics, to interpret their content, and to consolidate them succinctly. This is especially important for courts, to provide the presiding judges with a basis for their rulings.
Therefore, my statements, as described earlier, remain fully valid.
The different construction methods you seem to have identified are actually unrelated to the question asked, as well as to my reply, and represent a self-contained subject within the types of standardized underfloor heating systems installed in wet screeds.
Type B underfloor heating has nothing to do with prefabricated screeds (dry systems), but only that the heating elements are embedded in the upper edge area of the insulation layers. In practice, this is an installation method that is used less frequently.
-----------------
Best regards, KlaRa
I recognize that it is better to leave things as they are at the current stage.
I do not obtain my information (especially the necessary background knowledge) from the internet. Instead, it is part of my daily work to be familiar with various standards covering comparable topics, to interpret their content, and to consolidate them succinctly. This is especially important for courts, to provide the presiding judges with a basis for their rulings.
Therefore, my statements, as described earlier, remain fully valid.
The different construction methods you seem to have identified are actually unrelated to the question asked, as well as to my reply, and represent a self-contained subject within the types of standardized underfloor heating systems installed in wet screeds.
Type B underfloor heating has nothing to do with prefabricated screeds (dry systems), but only that the heating elements are embedded in the upper edge area of the insulation layers. In practice, this is an installation method that is used less frequently.
-----------------
Best regards, KlaRa
Similar topics