Exterior wall with ETICS or exterior wall with lightweight plaster?

Hello,

Yes, and here we are again at the fundamental discussion of ETICS yes or no...

This is a "Jehovah" topic - what do you expect :D

We reject building with ETICS for various reasons; foremost the pointlessness of building hazardous waste onto your own home. Of course, there are also ecologically acceptable insulation materials - but currently (still) no one wants to pay for them; however, that could still change. On the other hand, there is no need to insulate exterior walls if the thickness of the stone used, or its thermal insulation properties, are right. The issue of algae or bird nest building is now only a nice side effect.

Architects and most suppliers like to work with traditional ETICS. They then tell their customers that it is cheaper and that with this the efficiency status of a single-family home can be better achieved. All pretense. In truth – in my experience – it is solely about avoiding discussions with builders concerning external settlement cracks, which do occur. Of course, settlement cracks also occur in a single-family home wrapped in ETICS; but just behind the facade and not visible from the outside.

Now, of course, one can have a good discussion about who is fooling whom here. In the end, though, it is pointless, as long as the price at the bottom right is always the measure of all things and not the sum of the individual components of a valuable single-family home over many years.

Rhenish greetings

Hello,


Then I don’t understand your statement :confused:

One doesn’t believe that apples and pears are being compared, the other does...

[QUOTE]
Hazardous waste
[QUOTE]
Can we please include the breathable walls now?! Then we have everything together :rolleyes:

Hello,

Can we please now also include the breathable walls?! Then we would have everything together :rolleyes:

I always see it as a confirmation of the forum’s raison d'être when users are helped. But before I get to the breathable walls, I still have the sqm/WF for good to very good equipment under €1,000. Since this topic has not been sufficiently discussed yet, you will probably have to wait ;)

Rhenish greetings

The document is also known to me... many ETICS facades that are being renovated nowadays were either installed incorrectly, or had too thin a top coat, or or or...

The subject of these investigations is a heated test house, which was constructed within the framework of the intentional IEA project Annex 24 (HAMTIE). Figure 5 shows the west and south facades (windows) of the single-story house with a basement. The enclosing surfaces consist of different wall constructions with similar heat transfer coefficients (U-value). The west wall (U = 0.41 W/m²K) with an 80 mm thick external insulation (ETICS) on 240 mm calcium silicate masonry is considered, as well as the north- and south-facing monolithic wall sections (U = 0.51 W/m²K) made of 365 mm [/]porous lightweight brick with white and red tinted plaster.

Correct! "Apples" --> ETICS U=0.41 Pears --> Brick wall U=0.51

This inaccuracy by the two engineers obviously completely invalidates the entire statement of the Fraunhofer investigation.[I]

@ConstructionExpert I guess with the 1000€/m² you're still quite busy :D

@Allrounder

0.41 W/m²K => 0.51 W/m²K

At least 25% more energy passes through. With crucial temperature differences in the decimal range as indicated there, this can already have a significant impact. You can also see this with the better thermally conductive dowels in the ETICS, where no algal growth occurs in their place. And today's monolithic wall structures are clearly heading towards a U-value of under 0.2. They don't have much in common anymore with the 30-year-old bricks like in the test. There can quickly be disappointment a few years after moving in...