Monolithic: Aerated concrete vs brick

Suppose you want to build monolithically, i.e. aerated concrete or special thermal insulation bricks are a given, which is better and why do so many people actually build with bricks?

I will now assume aerated concrete with Lambda 0.08 or bricks filled with perlite and also unfilled with Lambda 0.08.

The unfilled brick has a very small web width, every hole destroys the thermal insulation in a large area (precisely in the area where the webs break out) and there are technically caused strong horizontal thermal bridges.

The filled brick is actually a brick with internal insulation. Not really to be called monolithic anymore, but okay. The internal insulation can settle within the investment horizon (~50-70 years), i.e. massive thermal bridges can arise.

Aerated concrete is truly monolithic, i.e. a uniform building material (no thin webs or similar, no internal insulation - the stone itself insulates). A real disadvantage may be the sound insulation, which does not play a role for us, an apparent disadvantage is that the stone is quite soft. You can "carve" it with your fingernail. But in practice, i.e. when installed and built in, this probably does not matter.

For wall cabinets or similar, none of the building materials is optimal. On one hand, we have our floor plan, but I have looked, arranged so that heavy, hanging elements (kitchen, TV) probably will not be hanging on the exterior walls anyway, on the other hand, there is a solution for everything in the form of special dowels.

From the facts, provided you build in a quiet area, aerated concrete convinces me the most, at the same time it is the more affordable building material. Therefore, I wonder why not more people build monolithically with aerated concrete? Sure, there are regional specialties, but in the 21st century, traditional notions should not decide what is invisibly installed between the exterior plaster and interior plaster and where in the end no one knows whether it is bricks, ETICS, aerated concrete, or timber frame?

So why do not more people build monolithically with aerated concrete or what disadvantages have I not considered?

Just as a note: 42.5 cm aerated concrete with Lambda 0.08 already meets the simplified KFW55 criteria from 01.04.2016 and 41.5 cm aerated concrete with Lambda 0.06 (really exists, not in Germany because it is not demanded here) meets the passive house standard with 0.14 W/(mK). But I do not want to compare aerated concrete with other double-shell constructions or timber frame - why do not more people build monolithically with aerated concrete instead of thermal insulation bricks when they already build monolithically? On the condition, as often applies, that you build in a quiet area and sound insulation is not primarily important.

I believe on the one hand it has to do with which raw materials are available, which companies are present in the region. Both craftsmen and manufacturers. Regarding the material: Poroton has a lower specific weight and also less heat storage capacity (both about a factor of 2) And ultimately, it is also simply a certain habit... in the south, people just build with bricks (I may be mistaken about that)

And in the end it is also simply a certain habit... in the south people just build with bricks (I might be wrong about that)

It could of course be the case, but the earthquake zone also plays a role in the choice of stone; it certainly should. In earthquake zone II you can still build with aerated concrete, but you accept many concrete cushions; I wouldn't want that. This is not necessary at this level with the hollow bricks. Rhine greetings

PP 2-0.35 has a density class of 0.45, the T8 has 0.7, and sand-lime brick has 1.2 to 2.2. Aerated concrete is therefore about 36% lower here. On the other hand, a timber frame wall probably only has a fraction of that (mineral wool as the main component with 0.02 to 0.15).

By the way, we are not building in an earthquake zone (so not even earthquake zone 0, but simply no earthquake zone).

Large parts of NRW and BW, however, are located in the earthquake zone, interesting to know something like that. But as I said, not an issue for us.

Now I have seen the NDR documentary and suddenly I definitely want to build monolithic...

No seriously, are there still some opinions on aerated concrete monolithic vs. brick monolithic? Assuming that sound insulation is secondary and you do not live in an earthquake zone. These two points are clear.

Hello,

I would like to know whether it is better to build with [Kalksandstein] or rather with [Porenbeton]. I want to have a solid construction. But I am not sure.

Thanks for your tips and best regards