Bauherrin92
2019-04-05 12:21:45
- #1
Would only be funny if the concrete ceiling would throw the 40 pages of floor plan puzzles over the heap again due to the statics.
Let's just hope not
City villa floor plan 160 sqm - Please provide tips!
- Erstellt am 2019-01-28 09:23:33
Let's just hope not
11ant
2019-04-05 17:52:26
- #2
I will respond "in cumulo" to the interim posts to avoid incorporating an overly confusing number of "@" and quotes:
The "statistics" of the OP are poorly valid not so much because of the small total number (2), nor because of the small size of each individual test group (just 1 each), but because the basics were not understood: if the concrete supporters have insulation on the ceiling and the wood supporters none or under the roof skin, the phenomenon cannot be any different than observed – however without the assumed causality (and thus unsuitable to indicate the decision in favor of the concrete ceiling!). Scientifically unsound established basics lead to decisions no more sensible than pure guessing (all other oracles would then be relatively more precise).
Concrete or wooden ceilings in relation to storage attic rooms have nothing to do with sound. Regarding different preferences between red-brick and white-brick federal states, I have little to say. However, I am referring here precisely to pure storage attics, which typically have no knee walls. In "urban villas" the roof shape is in any case more a matter of pure fashion.
So it is not initially about the roof itself. But about the fact that interior walls in drywall mean less labor cost. To pursue this consistently – i.e., to apply it to all interior walls of the floor – can only be done in the topmost (in the case of a bungalow: only) storey and under the condition that, thanks to a truss roof, the roof structure does not rest anywhere on the floor slab. In a truss roof, the roof structure and attic floor form a "triangle" unit. That means there is actually no ceiling of the upper floor here, but a floor of the attic. This makes no difference for insulation regarding heat, but it does for sound: impact sound insulation is heavier (and depending on its design does not even partially replace thermal insulation, so adds weight on top).
Having a wooden ceiling "above" thus almost means deciding against a residential conversion: storage attic, truss roof, and "drywall only" thus somewhat go together. More "residential use" than having a detective agency treehouse up there with your rubber chicken buddy can’t be had. A 25° pitch appearance cap as a "roof" anyway does not allow it.
"What if attic conversion" is therefore a purely hypothetical question with the modern "urban villa." Nevertheless, for simplicity’s sake, I give the answer to soundproofing here in the thread where it was asked: laypeople like to lump two things as "sound," namely airborne sound (noise) and impact sound (vibration).
Max and Moritz may both be equally annoying but behave differently: only the second-best vibration sound insulation is mass in which the vibration "runs itself dead" – more important here is the avoided rigid connection with other components, because these vibrations do not care how often they have to bend.
And mass only acts secondarily as a brake for noise sound, since actually stiffness matters. A hollow chamber profile with many webs even has better stiffness than a solid profile. Only when the solid profile is made from significantly denser material can it actually be "better." That is why it always makes my toes curl when I read in masonry discussions that the sand-lime brick is portrayed as the fat Buddha who just sits out the sound with its mass like once the chancellor from Oggersheim.
The actual sound brake in the sand-lime brick is the oval cavity, which it only has as a small-format brick (NF, 2DF) at interior wall thickness*. The gypsum board is "more solid," just so much for the topic "Physics understanding brings more than devouring comparison tables like an adolescent soft porn" (if nobody feels addressed here – so much the better).
* Yes, you read that right: it insulates best exactly where it is thinnest. Sounds strange, but it is so
The "statistics" of the OP are poorly valid not so much because of the small total number (2), nor because of the small size of each individual test group (just 1 each), but because the basics were not understood: if the concrete supporters have insulation on the ceiling and the wood supporters none or under the roof skin, the phenomenon cannot be any different than observed – however without the assumed causality (and thus unsuitable to indicate the decision in favor of the concrete ceiling!). Scientifically unsound established basics lead to decisions no more sensible than pure guessing (all other oracles would then be relatively more precise).
Concrete or wooden ceilings in relation to storage attic rooms have nothing to do with sound. Regarding different preferences between red-brick and white-brick federal states, I have little to say. However, I am referring here precisely to pure storage attics, which typically have no knee walls. In "urban villas" the roof shape is in any case more a matter of pure fashion.
So it is not initially about the roof itself. But about the fact that interior walls in drywall mean less labor cost. To pursue this consistently – i.e., to apply it to all interior walls of the floor – can only be done in the topmost (in the case of a bungalow: only) storey and under the condition that, thanks to a truss roof, the roof structure does not rest anywhere on the floor slab. In a truss roof, the roof structure and attic floor form a "triangle" unit. That means there is actually no ceiling of the upper floor here, but a floor of the attic. This makes no difference for insulation regarding heat, but it does for sound: impact sound insulation is heavier (and depending on its design does not even partially replace thermal insulation, so adds weight on top).
Having a wooden ceiling "above" thus almost means deciding against a residential conversion: storage attic, truss roof, and "drywall only" thus somewhat go together. More "residential use" than having a detective agency treehouse up there with your rubber chicken buddy can’t be had. A 25° pitch appearance cap as a "roof" anyway does not allow it.
"What if attic conversion" is therefore a purely hypothetical question with the modern "urban villa." Nevertheless, for simplicity’s sake, I give the answer to soundproofing here in the thread where it was asked: laypeople like to lump two things as "sound," namely airborne sound (noise) and impact sound (vibration).
Max and Moritz may both be equally annoying but behave differently: only the second-best vibration sound insulation is mass in which the vibration "runs itself dead" – more important here is the avoided rigid connection with other components, because these vibrations do not care how often they have to bend.
And mass only acts secondarily as a brake for noise sound, since actually stiffness matters. A hollow chamber profile with many webs even has better stiffness than a solid profile. Only when the solid profile is made from significantly denser material can it actually be "better." That is why it always makes my toes curl when I read in masonry discussions that the sand-lime brick is portrayed as the fat Buddha who just sits out the sound with its mass like once the chancellor from Oggersheim.
The actual sound brake in the sand-lime brick is the oval cavity, which it only has as a small-format brick (NF, 2DF) at interior wall thickness*. The gypsum board is "more solid," just so much for the topic "Physics understanding brings more than devouring comparison tables like an adolescent soft porn" (if nobody feels addressed here – so much the better).
* Yes, you read that right: it insulates best exactly where it is thinnest. Sounds strange, but it is so
tumaa
2019-04-05 18:34:48
- #3
I’ll respond "in cumulo" to the interim posts, to avoid an unclear mess of many "@" and quotes:
The "statistics" of the OP are poorly valid less because of the small total number (2), or the small size of each individual test group (only 1), but because the fundamentals were not captured: if the concrete fans have the insulation on the ceiling and the wood fans have none or under the roof covering, the phenomenon cannot be anything other than as observed – but without the assumed causality (and thus unsuitable to indicate the decision for a concrete ceiling!). Scientifically unsound established basics lead to decisions no more sensible than pure guessing (all other oracles would then be relatively more precise).
Concrete or wooden ceilings regarding storage attic rooms have nothing to do with sound. Regarding different preferences between Red-brick and White-brick federal states, I can say little. However, I refer here precisely to pure storage attic rooms, which typically have no knee walls. For "city villas," the roof shape is anyway rather a pure fashion statement.
So initially, it is not about the roof itself. But about the fact that interior walls in drywall mean lower labor costs. To carry this through consistently – that is, to apply to all interior walls of the floor – can only be done in the uppermost (in the case of a bungalow: only) floor and on the condition that, thanks to a truss roof, the roof structure does not rest anywhere on the floor slab. In a truss roof, the roof structure and the attic floor form a "triangle" as a unit. That means there is actually no upper floor ceiling here, but a floor of the attic. For insulation related to heat, this makes no difference, but for sound it does: impact sound insulation is heavier (and depending on design does not even partially replace thermal insulation, so it adds weight on top).
So, having a wooden ceiling "upstairs" practically goes along with deciding against a living-space conversion: storage attic, truss roof, and "drywall only" are thus kind of linked. More "living use," like having a detective agency treehouse with your chewing-gum buddy up there, is anyway not allowed by a 25° roof pitch aesthetic "cap" as a "roof."
"What if attic conversion" is thus a purely hypothetical question for the modern "city villa." I nevertheless give the answer on sound insulation here in this thread for simplicity, where it was asked: laypeople like to toss two different things into the same pot as "sound," namely airborne sound (noise) and impact sound (vibration).
Max and Moritz may both be equally annoying, but behave differently: only the second-best vibration sound insulation is mass, in which the vibration "runs itself dead" – more important here is the avoided rigid connection with other components, since these vibrations do not care how often they have to bend.
And for airborne noise, mass only acts as a secondary brake because stiffness actually matters. A hollow-chamber profile with many webs even has better stiffness than a solid profile. Only when the solid profile is made of significantly denser material can it even be "better." That's why it always makes my toenails curl when I read here in stone discussions how sand-lime brick is portrayed as the fat Buddha who simply sits out the sound with its mass like once the chancellor from Oggersheim.
The actual sound damper in sand-lime brick is the oval hollow cavity, which it, however, only has as a small-format brick (NF, 2DF) in interior wall thickness*. "Solid" is better achieved by the gypsum panel, just so much for the topic "physics understanding brings more than devouring comparison charts like a teenager devours softcore porn" (if nobody feels addressed – all the better).
* Yes, you read that right: it insulates best exactly where it is thinnest. Sounds strange, but that's how it is
One should write novels
11ant
2019-04-05 19:05:00
- #4
This week my signature
is especially gladly overlooked again :-(
Full Quote is not necessary
is especially gladly overlooked again :-(
kaho674
2019-04-06 10:23:09
- #5
The "statistics" of the OP are poorly valid less because of the small total number (2), or the small size of each individual test group (1 each), but because the fundamentals were not understood:
Well, it wouldn't be the first survey where the approach is not suitable to justify causality. Ultimately, it comes down to the banal question of what insulates best against heat – in this case, ~20cm of concrete or some kind of insulation material. Accordingly, I would probably study the insulation materials first.
In view of climate change and the repeatedly expressed fear of heat also in other threads, I wonder if it wouldn't slowly be appropriate to cover roofs in white in the future, instead of the eternal anthracite gray.
ypg
2019-04-06 10:31:05
- #6
In view of climate change and the repeatedly expressed fear of heat in other threads, I wonder if it wouldn’t be appropriate to cover roofs in white in the future instead of the eternal anthracite gray.
Even if it somehow no longer fits the main topic: I still find protection against cold more important than heat protection. In this respect, our roof is deliberately anthracite, but one also has to clearly say: it’s the insulation that matters.
With us, the heat comes through the window!