Legurit
2015-10-28 20:18:06
- #1
Hello everyone,
once again a small crisis on our construction site.
The following situation: The construction description mentions 19 cm floor buildup and 8 cm perimeter insulation at the bottom and 14 cm buildup at the top.
Now there are two things: we decided on larger underfloor heating pipes and therefore need more screed to maintain the cover - furthermore, a sliding door was installed too low. At the bottom, 5 cm (0.035) and 3 cm (0.04) insulation are now installed, and at the top only 3 cm (0.04).
The u-value towards the ground worsens from 0.0166 to 0.0209 W/m²K - that is 120 W more heat loss and about 250 kWh more heat energy (15 € p.a. – geothermal energy).
For that, we have 3 cm higher ceilings... yeay. Honestly, I don’t understand why it is 3 cm at the upper floor... I assume it’s because the Roll-Jet came in that thickness.
On the ground floor, we do not meet the energy saving ordinance on the upper floor - we would actually need 4 cm. Where does the heat go then? Into the ceiling and then part of it into the ground floor? That wouldn’t be the worst, since according to the room heating load calculation, the rooms on the ground floor are the critical ones anyway.
What bothers me a bit is that the water pipes are not 100% covered by the insulation - on the other hand, the pipes themselves are still lying in 100% insulation. It is a reinforced concrete ceiling - 22 cm (I believe).
The site manager has so far shown little enthusiasm for making improvements - if we really insisted, at least the upper floor would probably be improved (at the bottom it would mean that the door would have to be replaced). For now, as a layman, I don’t see such big disadvantages to the current situation (except that it is stated differently in the construction performance description).
Thanks for your comments!
once again a small crisis on our construction site.
The following situation: The construction description mentions 19 cm floor buildup and 8 cm perimeter insulation at the bottom and 14 cm buildup at the top.
Now there are two things: we decided on larger underfloor heating pipes and therefore need more screed to maintain the cover - furthermore, a sliding door was installed too low. At the bottom, 5 cm (0.035) and 3 cm (0.04) insulation are now installed, and at the top only 3 cm (0.04).
The u-value towards the ground worsens from 0.0166 to 0.0209 W/m²K - that is 120 W more heat loss and about 250 kWh more heat energy (15 € p.a. – geothermal energy).
For that, we have 3 cm higher ceilings... yeay. Honestly, I don’t understand why it is 3 cm at the upper floor... I assume it’s because the Roll-Jet came in that thickness.
On the ground floor, we do not meet the energy saving ordinance on the upper floor - we would actually need 4 cm. Where does the heat go then? Into the ceiling and then part of it into the ground floor? That wouldn’t be the worst, since according to the room heating load calculation, the rooms on the ground floor are the critical ones anyway.
What bothers me a bit is that the water pipes are not 100% covered by the insulation - on the other hand, the pipes themselves are still lying in 100% insulation. It is a reinforced concrete ceiling - 22 cm (I believe).
The site manager has so far shown little enthusiasm for making improvements - if we really insisted, at least the upper floor would probably be improved (at the bottom it would mean that the door would have to be replaced). For now, as a layman, I don’t see such big disadvantages to the current situation (except that it is stated differently in the construction performance description).
Thanks for your comments!