Most moisture from screed?

Good morning Dirk,

Sorry, that really isn’t a well-founded statement...

Rather the expression of a personal preference; often confused. In this context, it is interesting that "Brainpain" – against his inner conviction – bought a prefabricated house.

Take a look at the oldest houses in your town – those are surely half-timbered houses, right?

Crystal ball mode on: probably more likely the village church, which in turn was built solidly.

The healthier living climate...

That interests me now. How healthier?

Just as a thought: Two years ago, we experienced a noticeably strong earthquake at friends’ place in Switzerland. Damage to their timber frame house: none – The immediate neighboring house ("solid house"): clearly visible cracks from the ridge down to the first floor.

Concluding from this that the prefabricated house would better withstand an earthquake is, in my opinion, too simplistic; even if Wolf® boasts in the media that his product withstood several induced earthquakes in a laboratory without damage.

I only know Switzerland as a holiday destination, so I am out of the loop regarding their building regulations. The fact is that the DIN standards in the FRG – how could it be otherwise – prescribe binding measures for German earthquake zones. If these are observed during new construction, solidly built houses will also show no damage.

Ultimately, it is a pure gut decision which type of house you build, but one should also please accept the decisions of other builders and avoid badmouthing their house concept.

Exactly

Rhineland regards

That interests me now. How healthier?

that's how it says in the brochures

Crystal ball mode on: probably rather the village church and that again massively built.

Hello Bauexperte,

1 : 0 for you!

I probably should have written residential buildings...

That interests me now. How healthier?

That is probably more a matter of belief... I have the feeling of feeling more comfortable in a timber-frame house. I even imagine perceiving a subtle, pleasant wood scent that I personally like. However, the insulation with low-emission wood fiber boards was also a plus for me compared to Styrofoam insulation from the chemical factory. I am by no means a hardcore eco, but that was important to me.

To conclude from that that the detached house withstands an earthquake better is in my opinion too shortsighted; even if Wolf® boasts in the media that his product survived several induced earthquakes in a laboratory unharmed.

I only know Switzerland as a holiday country, so I am out of the loop regarding their building regulations. The fact is that the DIN in the FRG – how could it be otherwise – prescribes binding measures for the German earthquake zones. If these are complied with during new construction, even massively built houses show no damage.

There you are the expert. I just had this experience and included it in my decision-making.

Regards,

Dirk

Good evening Dirk,

1 : 0 for you!
I probably should have written residential buildings...

Sometimes even my mod soul needs a little caress

That is probably more a matter of belief...

Yes.

I have the feeling of feeling more comfortable in a timber frame house. I even imagine perceiving a subtle, pleasant wood scent that I personally like.

You don’t harm anyone with this subjective feeling; it just gives you a good feeling. With that, you have made the right decision for yourself!

I actually stumbled over this sentence: "The healthier living climate and better thermal insulation with the same wall thickness ..." even more over this adjective "healthier." I am willing to believe many things, but not that living in a building enclosed by a foil can be healthy. The same applies – from my conviction – to a classic ETICS.

"Better thermal insulation" is also such a sentence ... in my opinion, also born from your personal feeling. It is very possible to build well with filled stones – monolithic/massive – or Euro’s favorite wall structure: sand-lime brick + mineral wool + clinker. Just because the building was constructed massively does not mean the thermal insulation is better or worse

Rhenish greetings

For thermal insulation, there are calculations; if you really want to know exactly, you can calculate which wall insulates better. The heat transfer coefficient is calculated by every heating engineer when determining the size of the radiators, or at least they should do it, but today there are guidelines.

I actually stumbled more over this adjective "healthier" in the sentence: "The healthier living climate and the better thermal insulation with the same wall thickness ...". I am willing to believe many things, but not that it can be healthy to live in a building enclosed by a foil. The same applies - from my conviction - to a classic ETICS.

Hello Bauexperte,

you are probably right about that. I must admit that I am a layman in the field of today’s construction technology – what I found positive about "our" wall structure, however, is the information that no "classic" foil is installed in the wall, but rather a diffusion-open vapor-retardant fleece. This fleece also does not feel like a foil, but really more like a "fabric."

This fleece is supposed to prevent water vapor from getting into the insulation and making it damp.

Whether this actually makes a difference compared to the "classic" foil I cannot conclusively judge, of course.

Best regards,

Dirk