(N. Thornton) wrote in message . com...
John Rumm wrote in message ...
Jake wrote:

snip
--


and dpc injection can
result in the fabric of the building beginning to disintegrate near
ground level. It is not suitable for Victorian buildings.

What is your proof for this statement? If the house is built of brick
or stone then why should a silicone injection cause it to deteriorate
any more than a brick or stone which is in a house built in the 30's?

Nor is it effective in such buildings, it hinders the damp control
system more than it helps it. It seems to me you need to understand
how your building deals with damp, and what things you can rectify. To
speak with the experts, I'd suggest:
http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/cgi-...rum2.pl?#34641


An excellent site but there are other opinions.

For other general interest, most Vic houses had no dpc of any kind,
and there are indeed 9" thick cavity walls, its called ratbond. Vics
with dpc usually used slate as the dpc material, and slate dpcs often
become ineffective due to them being bridged on the outside with
mortar. Of the few slate dpcs I've seen at least half were bridged by
inappropriate repointing technique. However if this has been done, one
should be wary of breaking the mortar off, since cement in sound
condition is a lot stronger than slate.


Sorry, this doesn't make sense. A mortar joint will cause only a
minimal bridge and will not normally contribute in any marked degree
to the passage of rising damp. It will to a degree but only
marginally, especially if it's cement based (as opposed to lime).
That's why a re-plastering base coat should be sand/cement!

Also, I can't see the connection between breaking off the mortar and
the condition of the slate. Are you suggesting it's somehow become a
structural item? I'm not being facetious,I'm genuinely puzzled.

Ratbond is a cheap way to build walls quickly and, according to
BS6576, is not to be injected under any circumstances. But this is
because of its construction, not its content!

KR's

Xav