this topic had its last comments in March, then I wrote something about it again because I did not quite understand the dry construction method (according to my ideas type B).
You then wrote something, but you refer to the old comments.
I think my question is very much related to the topic, since it is about the advantages of wet or dry installation of the "underfloor heating" (at least that is what the title of the topic says).
I will summarize again what I !believe so far:
- you can install underfloor heating wet or dry
- dry means that the heating pipes are NOT surrounded by the (still wet when laying) screed, wet installation is the other way around
- there seem to be different options for dry installation
- e.g. laying dry screed prefabricated panels
- covering the heating pipes with a separating layer, e.g. thin sheets, which can also function as heat conducting plates, whereby wet screed is poured afterwards again, but since the pipes remain dry because of the sheet, it is still called dry installation even if flow or cement screed is used
- the heating pipes can be embedded in the upper side of the insulation layer
- alternatively, the pipes can also be embedded in a kind of granulate
The absolutely classic installation method, especially in new buildings, seems to be wet installation.
Now my father-in-law keeps pestering me on this topic and raves about his dry installation and how the heat now distributes much better than with the previous wet-installed underfloor heating. My wife confirms this by saying that as a child, when she played on the tiles, she always looked for a warm tile.
I could now imagine that either the materials used earlier were not so great or the installation distances were too large.
Besides, he had a big crack through the screed back then, which my father-in-law believes to prevent by no longer laying heating pipes in the screed so that the screed can no longer settle unevenly.
Therefore, I am now trying to learn again about the advantages and disadvantages in this already existing thread with almost the same topic as I see it.
Manufacturers of underfloor heating (e.g. ArteTherm) sell both variants. For the dry systems, a frequently cited argument is that the heat is better distributed by the heat conducting plates.
-> Is that true, or is it exclusively a matter of the laying distances?
It is also emphasized that the trades heating and screed are separated from each other.
-> Does this lead to fewer cracks or are cracks in the screed nowadays no longer an issue or if they are, do they have nothing to do with the wet installation of the underfloor heating?
A disadvantage seems to be that dry systems are somewhat more expensive than wet systems.
Are there other points that I am overlooking here?