Replacing suspended timber floor with concrete or block and beam, worth it?

[Deep86]

When my planning application eventually gets approved I'll have the perfect opportunity to redo pretty much the entire house. I currently have a suspended floor which will need insulating, but a mate of mine was saying that I should replace the timbers with concrete instead.

If I do that I could have proper underfloor heating which will be far more efficient than having big old radiators but I'm unsure if replacing the suspended floor is possible without big drawbacks?

What are the pros and cons of doing this? Is it expensive? The current ground floor is around 50m2, so would anyone know the rough cost it could be?

 

[^woody^]

Doesn't your mate know?

The advantages are that you can have your "proper" underfloor heating. Although you can have underfloor heating in timber floors.

I suppose the disadvantage is the massive cost of importing the fill and forming a new floor, when the cost could be spent elsewhere.

BTW, underfloor heating is not more efficient, and can be less efficient, more costly and less economical to run than radiators.

 

[Deep86]

Doesn't your mate know?

The advantages are that you can have your "proper" underfloor heating. Although you can have underfloor heating in timber floors.

I suppose the disadvantage is the massive cost of importing the fill and forming a new floor, when the cost could be spent elsewhere.

BTW, underfloor heating is not more efficient, and can be less efficient, more costly and less economical to run than radiators.

Unfortunately he doesn't know the benefits it's just what the builder did in his house recently.

The cost is going to be the final hurdle, but before I start getting quotes I want to understand exactly what benefits I'll get from it.

I've read different about UFH than radiators, I remember reading it's up to 20% more efficient. Also, because I don't have cavity walls the size of radiator I need in my living room would be huge.

 

[Mr Chibs]

I've got wet UFH in my kitchen, best decision I made, the floor is stone tile, rest of the house is oak on suspended floor. These suspended floors are cold in comparison to UFH, and yes they are insulated.

Comfort is better with UFH as the heat starts at your feet upwards. I would happily have it in the whole ground floor if I knew how good it is, but not sure what it's like with wood floor or carpet, (others will know and give their opinions).

I would have thought retrofit B&B floor will be a faff, concrete floor yes doable, but at a cost.

As for running costs, I think it's economical.

 

[^woody^]

I've read different about UFH than radiators, I remember reading it's up to 20% more efficient

It's not more efficient than rads. Efficiency relies on other factors such as the boiler, controls and the house insulation and openings etc. So you can't just say its more efficient in any given situation. It can potentially be more efficient only if designed properly and in conjunction with all the other factors - mainly massively insulated walls and roofs and working out solar gain and losses through openings.

Plus it needs to be used differently regarding the warming up and cooling down cycles. And then there is the perception of room warmth, which can lead to improper use and greater use - reducing the efficiency.

The most significant thing would be the payback period, taking into account the costs of changing all the floors - if that is actually necessary in the first place.

You should get specialist advice by an independent consultant who is not biased to any system

 

[mikeey84]

I would be very surprised if UFH was more efficient in a house without heavily insulated walls.