Realistic costs for a single-family house?

Good evening Marcus,

Maybe we should address this topic at the next meeting?

We will, I think you are currently a bit further along in the planning/implementation.

After a few more considerations, we have now come to the conclusion that it definitely should be a solid house, as initially desired. However, there is such a variety of different stones here, some CAN still be additionally insulated, some MUST definitely be insulated. Is there (approximately) the best stone here or what are the advantages and disadvantages of the stones in practice.

Hello Tobi,

there are incredibly many different variants, and each has its proponents. I personally like wall constructions where the functions of statics, insulation, and weather protection are structurally separated from each other.

On the inside of the wall, I would generally prefer a sand-lime brick over all others, as it has the highest compressive strength, allows shelves, etc. to be attached very well, achieves the highest sound insulation, and stores a lot of heat (cold). Disadvantage: almost no thermal insulation properties.

For the exterior cladding, I would always favor a facing masonry.

Then a cavity insulation must necessarily be installed (e.g., mineral wool).

The worst variant for me is a monolithic wall construction made exclusively of aerated concrete. Depending on the requirements, normally no additional insulation is needed here (KfW 55). A significant disadvantage from my point of view: hardly any soundproofing due to the low mass, hardly any heat storage. Furthermore, heavy objects can only be fixed here with chemical anchors.

There is no "best stone," otherwise every builder would have chosen it. It depends on many factors, e.g.: - Location (temperatures) - Regional brick manufacturers - Requirements (municipal regulations) - Funding ([KFW]) - Static calculations - Desired exterior facade (brick, plaster) - Use of additional trades (external insulation) - Personal preference (styrofoam or "natural") - Desired heat absorption and release of the stone (temperature fluctuations inside) - Consider as a whole with insulation (shift of the dew point) - Budget

Significant disadvantage from my point of view: Due to the low mass, hardly any sound insulation,

Is not relevant from 36.5 onwards.

hardly any heat storage.

**The heat storage capacity of aerated concrete lies between the extremes of lightweight construction (e.g. timber frame construction with approx. 50 kJ/m²K) and solid construction (e.g. masonry or reinforced concrete with approx. 250 kJ/m²K). The corresponding value for an aerated concrete wall is approx. 90 kJ/m²K.

Furthermore, heavy objects can only be fastened here using chemical anchors.

Chemical anchors ....?

**Source: my homepage

Rhine greetings

Since he wants to build a solid house, the comparison with "extreme lightweight construction" is rather uninteresting. Where do you get the numbers in the unit (kJ/m²K) from? Which wall thicknesses are being compared? Regardless, I consider the factor of 3 between the variants to be quite significant. (I cannot access your homepage)

Why is the mass no longer relevant for sound insulation beyond 36.5 cm? Is there a physical explanation for this, or are we just supposed to believe it?

In plant engineering, the term chemical anchor is common. You can be stubborn or ask Aunt Google, then you will find "chemical plugs" as a synonym.