(xavier) wrote in message . com...
(N. Thornton) wrote in message . com...

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?

1. Understand how these buildings work. 2. Go look at some. 3. Talk to
some experts too.

1900 houses are built of very soft very permeable bricks. They usually
have no dpc. So water is drawn up the wall through the bricks and
mortar. This evaporates from the brick surface, keeping levels of damp
below problematic.

Now, if you add a chemical dpc, this water dissipation is considerably
hampered, and the bricks below the dpc reach a much higher dampness
level. When it freezes, the water expands slightly and the bricks
steadily disintegrate. This can be seen on many Vic houses, bricks
below injected dpcs disintegrating. Uninjected houses that have been
maintained more appropriately do not suffer anything like as much from
this problem.


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?

Depends on brick type. Vic bricks were very soft and very porous, ie
very easily damaged by too much water content freezing.


http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/cgi-...rum2.pl?#34641


An excellent site but there are other opinions.

Obviuosly, one should consider them all and evaluate them. Some stand
up better to scrutiny than others.


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.

if you prise hard cement off brittle slate it tends to break.


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!

I'm not familiar with that, why is it not to be injected?


NT