I considered for a long time placing the post in another forum but found that this is more about "building technology" than "bathroom".
Just as the title suggests, I am thinking about limiting the application of the waterproofing membrane in my bathroom. The reason for this is not due to time or money savings but a balance between pros and cons.
In my case, the bathroom is on the upper floor, i.e., not below ground. All walls are made of concrete/stone material that is plastered externally. No organic materials are in the construction.
What I am considering is to apply the waterproofing membrane only on the walls in the shower corner and the entire floor + 5cm up on all walls (from the floor perspective). My theory is that nothing in the wall can be damaged by moisture. Additionally, I am somewhat of the opinion that if moisture enters, it will also exit.
The bathroom will be used by two adults with normal "shower conditions." An efficient ventilation system will be installed with an extractor above the shower where the idea is to remove the worst moisture.
I am interested in your reactions and opinions, maybe I'm missing something?
Attaching a drawing that illustrates what I mean.
Just as the title suggests, I am thinking about limiting the application of the waterproofing membrane in my bathroom. The reason for this is not due to time or money savings but a balance between pros and cons.
In my case, the bathroom is on the upper floor, i.e., not below ground. All walls are made of concrete/stone material that is plastered externally. No organic materials are in the construction.
What I am considering is to apply the waterproofing membrane only on the walls in the shower corner and the entire floor + 5cm up on all walls (from the floor perspective). My theory is that nothing in the wall can be damaged by moisture. Additionally, I am somewhat of the opinion that if moisture enters, it will also exit.
The bathroom will be used by two adults with normal "shower conditions." An efficient ventilation system will be installed with an extractor above the shower where the idea is to remove the worst moisture.
I am interested in your reactions and opinions, maybe I'm missing something?
Attaching a drawing that illustrates what I mean.
If the house is made of stone, it should have roughly the same conditions as in a basement.
I think that sounds sensible. You seem to think the same way we do about our shower/sauna in the basement. There, we also plan to put waterproofing on the floor and inside the shower. All other walls will only get tiles or paint.
If, unexpectedly, it doesn't dry out in your bathroom, what surface material is on the walls and ceiling below? That might be where you could potentially encounter problems.
I think that sounds sensible. You seem to think the same way we do about our shower/sauna in the basement. There, we also plan to put waterproofing on the floor and inside the shower. All other walls will only get tiles or paint.
If, unexpectedly, it doesn't dry out in your bathroom, what surface material is on the walls and ceiling below? That might be where you could potentially encounter problems.
You might be thinking right, or wrong. What do I know?
But think one step further: IF an accident were to happen, what do you get from the insurance??
What if water were to spill on the floor, what happens then?
I think it's just foolish to skip tätskikt.
But think one step further: IF an accident were to happen, what do you get from the insurance??
What if water were to spill on the floor, what happens then?
I think it's just foolish to skip tätskikt.
You gain nothing from a moisture perspective by skipping the waterproofing, but on the other hand, it's essentially risk-free to do so in your case. What you should keep in mind is that the rules state you should have waterproofing throughout the entire space, regardless of whether the walls are moisture-resistant or not. Insurance companies also want it that way. The only risk I can see is if the insurance company, in the event of potential damage, starts arguing that the bathroom is not professionally executed, even if the damage itself is not related to the lack of waterproofing.
So, as mentioned, the only thing you gain by skipping it is a little money, nothing else. I would waterproof the whole room, for bureaucratic reasons so to speak.
So, as mentioned, the only thing you gain by skipping it is a little money, nothing else. I would waterproof the whole room, for bureaucratic reasons so to speak.
Poggan,
I understand what you mean. However, I must admit that I'm not the "overcautious" type. That is, you can't insure against everything; somewhere you have to think sensibly and take "a one in a million" risk. According to my calculations, the waterproofing can cause more harm than good and that is why I chose the spacing.
Regarding the floor, it will be completely sealed and also a couple of centimeters up on the walls. In the event that larger amounts of water would come, it would still run over the threshold and damage adjacent rooms.
The house was built in the 1930s. The house is still standing today and is intact and fresh. Over the years, moisture has freely traveled in and out. It should remain that way, I think, and it gives me the best insurance against unwanted events.
Pinebar,
The existing roof is made of tongue-and-groove wood. Previously, there was straw/reed reinforced plaster on it, which we have removed. The plan is to install 2-3 cm thick boards in the ceiling with a certain distance (30-60cm) and these boards will support the inner ceiling. The space created between the tongue-and-groove and the inner ceiling is used for running all electrical wiring. The choice of material for the inner ceiling in the bathroom is still unclear, perhaps LUX. For other rooms, plasterboard. The next step is to rent a plaster sprayer to plaster the inner ceiling. The space between the tongue-and-groove and the inner ceiling, where the electrical conduits are run, I am considering ventilating through a couple of small holes in the passing ventilation channels. The result is that the air is set in motion and any condensation can be ventilated out.
I understand what you mean. However, I must admit that I'm not the "overcautious" type. That is, you can't insure against everything; somewhere you have to think sensibly and take "a one in a million" risk. According to my calculations, the waterproofing can cause more harm than good and that is why I chose the spacing.
Regarding the floor, it will be completely sealed and also a couple of centimeters up on the walls. In the event that larger amounts of water would come, it would still run over the threshold and damage adjacent rooms.
The house was built in the 1930s. The house is still standing today and is intact and fresh. Over the years, moisture has freely traveled in and out. It should remain that way, I think, and it gives me the best insurance against unwanted events.
Pinebar,
The existing roof is made of tongue-and-groove wood. Previously, there was straw/reed reinforced plaster on it, which we have removed. The plan is to install 2-3 cm thick boards in the ceiling with a certain distance (30-60cm) and these boards will support the inner ceiling. The space created between the tongue-and-groove and the inner ceiling is used for running all electrical wiring. The choice of material for the inner ceiling in the bathroom is still unclear, perhaps LUX. For other rooms, plasterboard. The next step is to rent a plaster sprayer to plaster the inner ceiling. The space between the tongue-and-groove and the inner ceiling, where the electrical conduits are run, I am considering ventilating through a couple of small holes in the passing ventilation channels. The result is that the air is set in motion and any condensation can be ventilated out.
jon_h,
Professionally, it will probably serve as a "counterargument," just as you say, if something happens. Let's hope nothing happens and nothing should happen either.
Professionally is in some ways incomprehensible to me. I gladly post suggestions, opinions, and questions in forums. The answers get exposed, debates are created, and I learn. However, when I go to a "professional" or even worse "expert," I imagine that I know nothing and listen very carefully to what the person has to say. It gives me a clear picture and everything is fine and dandy. After some pondering, I realize that something doesn't add up, and to be sure, I contact another professional or expert. The answers I receive are not in the slightest bit equivalent to the previous ones. What happens? I become uncertain and contact a third professional. It all ends with me being confused and no longer knowing what applies. After that, I am supposed to carry out the work "professionally," without being entirely sure of what applies. In this particular case, it is clearly stated that all walls are to be covered with a moisture barrier, but if I miss on a single screw, it could end with the work not being carried out professionally.
I don't wish to initiate a debate about the regulations regarding the application of the moisture barrier, but all bathroom doors I have seen lack a moisture barrier and hold up acceptably well.
Professionally, it will probably serve as a "counterargument," just as you say, if something happens. Let's hope nothing happens and nothing should happen either.
Professionally is in some ways incomprehensible to me. I gladly post suggestions, opinions, and questions in forums. The answers get exposed, debates are created, and I learn. However, when I go to a "professional" or even worse "expert," I imagine that I know nothing and listen very carefully to what the person has to say. It gives me a clear picture and everything is fine and dandy. After some pondering, I realize that something doesn't add up, and to be sure, I contact another professional or expert. The answers I receive are not in the slightest bit equivalent to the previous ones. What happens? I become uncertain and contact a third professional. It all ends with me being confused and no longer knowing what applies. After that, I am supposed to carry out the work "professionally," without being entirely sure of what applies. In this particular case, it is clearly stated that all walls are to be covered with a moisture barrier, but if I miss on a single screw, it could end with the work not being carried out professionally.
I don't wish to initiate a debate about the regulations regarding the application of the moisture barrier, but all bathroom doors I have seen lack a moisture barrier and hold up acceptably well.
I agree that what is considered professional is not always the same as what is rational, and that professional does not necessarily equate to what you hear from professionals and experts. In this case, however, the definition is quite clear; it is the industry standards for wet rooms set by the Byggkeramikrådet that largely describe what is considered professional. Of course, one can make deviations, but then one must be sure that the function is not compromised, and be aware that problems may arise when dealing with insurance companies. They generally do everything they can to avoid or reduce compensation in the event of damage.
In my view, it makes sense even if it doesn't comply with the current regulations. Practically speaking, it might also be good to apply some waterproofing where water spray from pipe joints, etc., can sometimes result in a bit too much water.
Then there's another issue with a potential next owner and the one after that, who might slightly rearrange the bathroom and assume that there's waterproofing everywhere. It's perhaps something to consider if you're thinking about selling the house at some point.
/Kent
Then there's another issue with a potential next owner and the one after that, who might slightly rearrange the bathroom and assume that there's waterproofing everywhere. It's perhaps something to consider if you're thinking about selling the house at some point.
/Kent
Self-builder
· Stockholm
· 8 594 posts
A thought I'm having now is IF the walls are made of wood/mineral wool - what consequences could that have then.
I'm working on a holiday home, i.e., a family's intensive showering only for a maximum of one week at a time, and then shutting down (with some basic heating in the bathroom) for weeks or maybe months.
Is a completely sealed barrier (except in the ceiling of course) good or bad then...
I'm also considering having "thresholds" in the shower corner so that water doesn't flow out, but that also prevents water from flowing into the floor drain - is this professional, do you think...
Something to think about perhaps...
/K
I'm working on a holiday home, i.e., a family's intensive showering only for a maximum of one week at a time, and then shutting down (with some basic heating in the bathroom) for weeks or maybe months.
Is a completely sealed barrier (except in the ceiling of course) good or bad then...
I'm also considering having "thresholds" in the shower corner so that water doesn't flow out, but that also prevents water from flowing into the floor drain - is this professional, do you think...
Something to think about perhaps...
/K
If you have wood in the walls, you should definitely have a moisture barrier. I have demolished 2 bathrooms built during the time "before moisture barriers". Both had moisture damage in exposed areas, bathtub edges, etc. There was rotten wood, rotten studs, and mold. Still, I think the damage in the rooms in question was noticeably minimal. Neither bathroom had been used as a shower room, but mainly for baths. I believe that showering generates much higher humidity in the room, more water vapor can be pushed out into the walls.
I assess it as virtually risk-free to skip waterproofing in parts of the room that are not exposed to water, provided that ventilation is decent, especially as the load is as low as in your case. The steam in the air is primarily ventilated out, and condenses on the tiles to eventually evaporate and be ventilated out as a secondary measure. However, since there are no technical advantages, and the insurance company would turn their back on you if you build like this, I don't think it's a good idea.
Self-builder
· Stockholm
· 8 594 posts
Yes, in the actual shower corner it would have turned out that way anyway.hempularen said:
The thoughts were just about whether it would be more negative than positive to have it in the rest of the bathroom. I tend to lean towards doing it the "right" way, i.e. with boards (it will be gypsum - I don't have a vapor barrier outward), a waterproof membrane, and then tiles.
It was just the thing with the "threshold" in the shower then - it would be nice to avoid runoff into the bathroom, but IF water still gets there, there's no floor drain . . .
/K
As mentioned, there's nothing negative about having it in the entire bathroom.klaskarlsson said:
With a good slope, the water won't flow out into the room anyway. I definitely think you should skip the threshold.klaskarlsson said:
In our bathroom built in '76, the construction was as follows: raw wood planks, gypsum board, and then tiles directly. Sounds like the worst nightmare considering the previous owners had 7 children, 5 of whom were daughters... 
Despite this, the only damage I discovered when tearing everything down was that the nail heads in the raw wood were a bit rusty where the shower had been. Everything was bone dry, not the slightest discoloration whatsoever.
And yet, it was a shower corner that was used incredibly much for about 25 years.
When I rebuilt, it felt a bit like overkill with all the modern waterproofing layers, but I built strictly according to regulations, so today you could probably close the door and fill the room to the ceiling without a problem... unless it sprays out the door frame that is...
Knowing how it looked before, it feels silly since today we have a tub and never wet any walls or floors.
Despite this, the only damage I discovered when tearing everything down was that the nail heads in the raw wood were a bit rusty where the shower had been. Everything was bone dry, not the slightest discoloration whatsoever.
And yet, it was a shower corner that was used incredibly much for about 25 years.
When I rebuilt, it felt a bit like overkill with all the modern waterproofing layers, but I built strictly according to regulations, so today you could probably close the door and fill the room to the ceiling without a problem... unless it sprays out the door frame that is...
Knowing how it looked before, it feels silly since today we have a tub and never wet any walls or floors.
I am completely convinced that your gypsum boards were primed with a dense primer before tiling. It may be impossible to see if you're not experienced. Otherwise, there is no chance they would have survived behind ceramics that are exposed to water.