You say that no one can do it correctly, and then that 50% have had problems with the method. Reasonably, 50% should then have a functioning house. However, I'm neither a mathematician nor a construction expert.
Then, to try to discuss the topic a bit, it might be interesting to know what problems one can expect if the framework is made of stone material. That wood deteriorates if moisture is trapped is obvious, but perhaps stone is better for the method.
Then, to try to discuss the topic a bit, it might be interesting to know what problems one can expect if the framework is made of stone material. That wood deteriorates if moisture is trapped is obvious, but perhaps stone is better for the method.
Functioning so far you might add.stake said:
One expects a house to have a longer lifespan than ten years.
How many have suffered damage after an additional ten years is anyone's guess.
The figure 50% comes from a survey conducted by a person in 2007. In Svedala, those who lost in court all had problems. The method is so poorly designed that you can't tell if you have problems in your house. You can drill holes and insert meters to check moisture levels, but it's not until you tear down the facade that you see the extent. So it's impossible to say how many have problems. And how long it takes before you have problems. Can even a house with this facade manage without problems for 20 years? 50 years?
Smart alek
· Västra Götalands
· 11 164 posts
No, I neither do nor did. Read again. I write that 50% failure means that the *industry* and *users* obviously cannot handle the system. 50% in such a short time is an enormously large proportion. Unreasonably large. So large that if it occurred in almost any other context, we would be talking about a disaster. So just based on that figure, we can completely reject it.stake said:
What happens if you change it, e.g., place it on a stone house, is not so interesting because that's not what we’re talking about. No stone houses have been built with single-stage sealed facades in Sweden. (Sure, there might be occasional exceptions, but that's not what it’s about.)
P.S. I am a mathematician, or at least I work as one, but admittedly not a building expert.
It's a strange conclusion to draw. If those houses were poorly constructed, it is not surprising if there are moisture damages. So, is the problem 1. the builder built incorrectly. 2. the method doesn't work. 50% of the houses had moisture damage, it also says at the top about poor sheet metal work, poor sealants, and moisture from the construction period. Later someone writes in the thread that the whole of Europe is full of such houses without problems.lars_stefan_axelsson said:No, I neither do nor did I. Read again. I am writing that 50% error means that *the industry* and *the users* obviously cannot handle the system. 50% after such a short time is indeed an enormously large share. Completely unreasonably large. So large that if it occurred in almost any other context, we would be talking about a disaster. So just based on that number, we can completely make an exception, but that's not what this is about anyway.
P.S. I am a mathematician, at least I work as one, but not a construction expert.
Then there is reason to assume that the builders screwed up, but the method, if used properly, is okay.
It is said that Europe is full of aerated concrete/leca houses that do not have problems. The problem here is that they are fundamentally wooden houses.
30–50 years ago, Swedish roads were built in such a way that if we drove poorly, we died. Now the roads are built so that if we drive poorly, it only results in fender benders.
I think it seems like the (Swedish) single-step method resembles the old road-building approach.
30–50 years ago, Swedish roads were built in such a way that if we drove poorly, we died. Now the roads are built so that if we drive poorly, it only results in fender benders.
I think it seems like the (Swedish) single-step method resembles the old road-building approach.
The fundamental problem with single-stage sealed facades on wooden houses is roughly the same as with mold/water damage in bathrooms (also in wooden houses), despite the world's strictest wet room regulations. It seems to be treated with medicine, rather than prevented (read: skip organic material in the framework).
Smart alek
· Västra Götalands
· 11 164 posts
No, it's the modern way of reasoning. All modern aviation safety work since the nineties is based on it. In other words, it's not always possible to automatically blame the pilot, or the air traffic controller, or whatever person it is in the chain who has "failed" if the technology hasn't supported the human in making the right decision, or if the consequences of a human's actions become too severe without direct cause. Therefore, it is the technology that should be adapted to humans' known weaknesses and strengths as far as possible, not the other way around.stake said:
It's obvious that a system that relies on everyone doing everything perfectly right, meaning performing a nearly hermetically sealed facade, otherwise you get damages to the underlying structure, is a faulty system. It can't be achieved in practice at a reasonable cost. Additionally, there are alternatives that don't suffer from these problems, so you can't get away with that either. (Haavgard has already explained why the comparison with the continent is flawed. You can bet they are about as competent/sloppy as here, but since minor leaks don't have those consequences there, it doesn't matter as much.)
I usually avoid analogies, but: Why do you think we have balcony railings? It's just about making sure not to fall over the edge, and those who don't understand that have themselves to blame. It's not the balcony builders' fault that people can't use them properly...
Last edited:
Smart alek
· Västra Götalands
· 11 164 posts
Not to mention cars. We have seen an enormous development in passive safety. Despite initial strong resistance from both the USA and the UK. We heard about the same arguments then; we have made our cars with such good driving characteristics that if you crash, you have only yourself to blame. There is nothing wrong with the car, etc. etc.haavard said:
"– The combination of thin plaster, cellplast, and unventilated wooden frame is not forgiving, says Anders Jansson, who is a damage investigator at SP."
Note "thin plaster" and "cellplast"!!
The thin plaster I've looked at more closely is nothing but plastic paint with sand in it. It is thus not plaster at all. It's like calling metal roofing formed and colored like tiles for tile roofing. Plastic paint, as well as thin plaster, is too dense, it does not release the moisture that gets in due to damage or construction errors. The cellplast doesn't help, it also slows down moisture migration and keeps the wall warm for mold to grow faster.
Traditional thick plaster, both cement plaster and lime plaster, releases the moisture that gets into the wall. Lime plaster better than cement plaster. (However, lime plaster is mechanically weaker.)
Houses without air gaps with thick plaster work because the thick plaster allows moisture to pass through, enabling the wall to dry out if it gets wet. Furthermore, the insulation under the plaster (if there is any) should be as moisture-permeable as possible. Stone wool is for example better than cellplast. Traditionally, however, there is tar paper on the plank wall, followed by a horizontal thin panel, and then a reed mat mounted on chicken wire, which is used to attach the plaster. The weight of the plaster is then absorbed by the thin panel, and the chicken wire/reed mat reinforces and holds the plaster against the wall. "
Note "thin plaster" and "cellplast"!!
The thin plaster I've looked at more closely is nothing but plastic paint with sand in it. It is thus not plaster at all. It's like calling metal roofing formed and colored like tiles for tile roofing. Plastic paint, as well as thin plaster, is too dense, it does not release the moisture that gets in due to damage or construction errors. The cellplast doesn't help, it also slows down moisture migration and keeps the wall warm for mold to grow faster.
Traditional thick plaster, both cement plaster and lime plaster, releases the moisture that gets into the wall. Lime plaster better than cement plaster. (However, lime plaster is mechanically weaker.)
Houses without air gaps with thick plaster work because the thick plaster allows moisture to pass through, enabling the wall to dry out if it gets wet. Furthermore, the insulation under the plaster (if there is any) should be as moisture-permeable as possible. Stone wool is for example better than cellplast. Traditionally, however, there is tar paper on the plank wall, followed by a horizontal thin panel, and then a reed mat mounted on chicken wire, which is used to attach the plaster. The weight of the plaster is then absorbed by the thin panel, and the chicken wire/reed mat reinforces and holds the plaster against the wall. "
Now I think I learned something new. I had no idea that tunnputs is not a cement-based material. Is it something like acrylate as a binder in tunnputs?
Here you can read a bit more about the soup: http://www.lfs-web.se/enstegstatad-fasad.htm