Cost comparison: reinforced concrete + ETICS vs. brick or wall + ETICS

@

your answer basically just confirms that you probably started studying civil engineering at some point, but didn't get past the first semester. Now you're sitting at home just trolling people.

You usually only read such nonsense in the comments on Bild.de

@

Everyone involved and responsible in construction has had to know this for decades. This is already regulated by every state building code regarding the approval of building products and requires appropriate proofs before the start of construction, including structural stability and thermal insulation.
Why this is the case before construction begins should be understandable even to you, as it serves to protect the builder and the public.

A moisture damage would be inevitable if one did not insulate a solid brick. Whether brick or KS does not matter in this regard.
The structural engineer must have had a reason for this and will very likely have already mentioned an alternative in the structural design.

Ever heard of Poroton? It is the most commonly used building material for single-family houses in Germany. And what is Poroton? A brick with which hundreds of single-family houses are built monolithically in Germany.

In your last post, you now write about solid brick. Maybe you mean a classic brick that was used for construction 100 years ago. But nowadays, not even anyone would come up with such an idea...

@

This concerns a static requirement.
As an alternative to reinforced concrete, only solid bricks are allowed.

Aerated concrete is a standard masonry material, as is Poroton.
Below 36.5 cm wall thickness, nothing monolithic happens there anymore without special compressive forces.
It is to be assumed that the structural engineer is familiar with the values.
In addition, they will have specified a strength class and mortar group.

A moisture damage would be inevitable if one did not insulate a solid brick. Whether brick or aerated concrete does not matter.

I have a suspicion that you are equating "monolithic" and "solid brick."

In your last post you are now talking about solid brick. Maybe you mean a classic clay brick, with which people built 100 years ago. But not even anyone today would come up with such an idea...

Yes, that's probably what this is about:

The structural engineer said about our design that, due to the window openings, it would be best to execute both stories in reinforced concrete.

... so about "stones of higher strength" (or partially reinforced concrete columns there) next to large window areas.

@ant11
I have the suspicion that you equate "monolithic" with "solid brick."

That is exactly why I point out the approvals. (SFK and MG)