Underfloor heating distribution box: better surface-mounted or flush-mounted?

Hello everyone.

We have planned underfloor heating on the ground floor and attic.
Now we are asking ourselves: Should we install the distribution box surface-mounted or flush-mounted?

The plan is as follows:

The technology goes to the basement.
The distribution for the ground floor should be in the utility room.
The distribution for the attic in the hallway.

An acquaintance built last year and installed the box surface-mounted. If something leaks, it wouldn’t run into the wall.
From my understanding, however, the pipes come through the wall anyway and then go into the surface-mounted box from the back (or bottom).
Therefore, the fluid would possibly run into the wall as well, right?

Furthermore, the surface-mounted box would heat the utility room. That should be the same with flush-mounted, shouldn’t it?

Do either of the two options have particular advantages or disadvantages?

Thanks for your opinions.

Hello,

The plan is as follows:

The technology will go into the basement.
The distribution on the ground floor should be in the utility room.
The distribution in the attic should go into the hallway.

An acquaintance built last year and placed the box surface-mounted. If something becomes leaky, it wouldn't run into the wall.
From my understanding, the cables go through the wall anyway and then enter the surface-mounted box from the back (or bottom).
Therefore, the liquid would possibly run into the wall as well, right?

The cables do not go "through" the wall, but through the basement or ground floor ceiling; at this point, you will later also have so-called casings.

Furthermore, the access point box would heat the utility room. That should be the same for flush-mounted boxes, right?

I hardly believe that this form of "heating along" is even remotely measurable.

Do either of the two options have particular advantages or disadvantages?

No, except for the fact that you must not perforate load-bearing walls! Furthermore, since the cables are routed up through the respective ceiling, you would have a step above the ceiling; whether that looks good, I doubt.

The box in the utility room doesn't really bother and can be installed below the required meters. And regarding the attic, as long as the preferred wall has no structural function (stairwell) or is built in lightweight construction, you can build over there or, in your words, install it "flush-mounted."

And if a pressure test for the underfloor heating is performed before commissioning, nothing can "leak" later either, unless you fiddle with the valves, which you should definitely avoid. Once the system is properly set up, the same applies as with computers: "never change a running system." I have too often experienced that site managers and well-meaning clients have made it necessary to dispatch technicians; mostly on weekends or holidays.

Best regards

Hello construction expert.

Thank you for the explanations.

We are building with timber frame construction.
Therefore, the box would already be planned in the walls at the factory, which should then be statically sound.

So you see, with correct execution, no problem if it is installed in the wall?

Since I am a software developer, my status changes from "running" to "crashed" quite often, but I know what you mean

Hello,

We are building with timber frame construction.
... So you see, with correct execution, no problem if it is installed in the wall?

No, except maybe that the distribution box in timber frame construction is visible from both sides due to the thinner walls; your decision.

Since I am a software developer, the status from "running" to "crashed" changes quite often for me, but I know what you mean

Kind regards