|
Damp course for victorian terraced house
Hi,
A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. Chris |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
Chris Styles wrote:
Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. Chris Unless there are damp problems that you can conclusively attribute to rising damp (which would be unusual), leave well alone, and tell any mortgage lender that you'll go elsewhere if they're not happy with that. |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
Chris Styles wrote:
Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. Chris I'm pretty sure that re-plastering would really only be necessary if there was rising damp that had left salt stains in the existing plaster near to floor level. You don't say whether there is any evidence of rising damp. It is also possible that the vendors have done a quick disguise by using stain blocking paint so a *proper* independent damp survey would be a good idea. Of course, a damp proofing company might say differently as most of the work and perceived value and thus cost, is the removal of the old plaster and the re-plastering. Sorry, no idea of cost. Steve |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:14:33 -0000, "Chris Styles"
wrote: Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. We were quoted £650 by Dampco for two inside walls - one about 7 foot long and one about 4 foot. This included removal and replacement of plaster but not radiators present. On moving into the property, we see no signs of damp at all - dunno what Dampco were detecting but I can't see or fell or smell anything at all, so we have just left it alone.. On my old house, we had the front exterior wall done (15 foot long) and it cost £1000 25 years ago. |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
Stuart Noble wrote:
Chris Styles wrote: Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) I think it's almost a given that if they inject a DPC, in order to offer the magic and worthless guarantee which is required to satisfy the lender, it will be required to rip off the bottom metre of plaster back to the brickwork, and replace with Special sand/cement-based plaster. Hell of a mess. Unless there are damp problems that you can conclusively attribute to rising damp (which would be unusual), leave well alone, and tell any mortgage lender that you'll go elsewhere if they're not happy with that. I totally agree with the sentiments but she'll end up in just the same situation with any other mortgage lender (paying an arrangment/valuation fee each time) will the possible exception of a specialist lender who deals in and understands period properties, but are unlikely to be able to match the mortgage deals offered by the big boys. David |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
In article ,
Chris Styles wrote: A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. Neither do any in this street in London. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. Not actually so silly - I've seen a mechanical damp course inserted by 'sawing the wall in half'. And it's likely to work rather better than a chemical one which is a con. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Well, yes. If you have damp showing - for whatever reason - removing the old plaster and replacing it with waterproof skim plus plaster will stop the damp showing again - at that spot. Any hints, tips gratefully received. Do a Google and you'll find plenty advice. Suffice it to say true rising damp is extremely rare - otherwise those houses would have been built with one in the first place. Most causes of actual damp are cause by water penetration - patios etc added afterwards not draining water away from the walls. -- *Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
"Chris Styles" wrote in message ... Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. The Building Research Establishment did extensive tests, to try to detect rising damp, by standing various building materials in water for prolonged periods. They concluded that damp does not rise more than, at most, a few inches, which implies that the DPC is entirely superfluous. Good ventilation is far more important for avoiding damp problems. Colin Bignell |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
nightjar wrote:
"Chris Styles" wrote in message ... Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. The Building Research Establishment did extensive tests, to try to detect rising damp, by standing various building materials in water for prolonged periods. They concluded that damp does not rise more than, at most, a few inches, which implies that the DPC is entirely superfluous. Good ventilation is far more important for avoiding damp problems. Colin Bignell Do you have a link for this study Colin? As said, its a waste of time. The usual solution is to get a competent specialist to put in writing that such treatment is not appropriate and not needed, then BSs will usually say ok to that. These folk http://periodpropertyshop.co.uk/phpB...wforum.php?f=1 could probably point you to someone capable of the job. NT |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
nightjar cpb@ wrote:
"Chris Styles" wrote in message ... Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. The Building Research Establishment did extensive tests, to try to detect rising damp, by standing various building materials in water for prolonged periods. They concluded that damp does not rise more than, at most, a few inches, which implies that the DPC is entirely superfluous. Good ventilation is far more important for avoiding damp problems. Colin Bignell One wonders why damp courses ever became standard practice |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
Chris Styles wrote:
Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. Biggest problem is that while injecting outer walls is relatively easy, inner walls are less so, and chimneys are damn near impossible. Forget the arseholes who say that rising damp doesn't exist BTW, it damn well does and it is a nightmare if you want to turn a draughty open fired house into a cosy des res. In general apart from DP injection, you have two or three other lines of attack. Firstly lowering the local water table: you create a gravel filled moat round the property and drain it. Easy if on high or sloping ground, requires pump and a sump if lower down. Secondly waterproof tanking up the inside walls. This works by basically making sure that as the damp travels upwards, it doesn't come inside until its had a damn good chance to evaporate outwards. This works well on single brick with no cavity but not well on cavity walls unless they are airbricked and even then its not that hot. And of course is some **** has decided your problem was penetrating damp, cos he listened to some other ****, and has waterproofed the walls outside, you are in deep **** anyway. Finally. whatever is left, you control with heat and ventilation. Damp per se is only a problem if it leads to blown plaster, mould or rotting wood. Chris |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
nightjar cpb@ wrote:
"Chris Styles" wrote in message ... Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. The Building Research Establishment did extensive tests, to try to detect rising damp, by standing various building materials in water for prolonged periods. They concluded that damp does not rise more than, at most, a few inches, which implies that the DPC is entirely superfluous. Good ventilation is far more important for avoiding damp problems. Well it made about a foot in my old house up 18th century porous brick. Quite enough to rot all the floor timbers and blow all the plaster above the skirting. Colin Bignell |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
Stuart Noble wrote:
nightjar cpb@ wrote: "Chris Styles" wrote in message ... Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. The Building Research Establishment did extensive tests, to try to detect rising damp, by standing various building materials in water for prolonged periods. They concluded that damp does not rise more than, at most, a few inches, which implies that the DPC is entirely superfluous. Good ventilation is far more important for avoiding damp problems. Colin Bignell One wonders why damp courses ever became standard practice Indeed. |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
In article , The Natural
Philosopher wrote: The Building Research Establishment did extensive tests, to try to detect rising damp, by standing various building materials in water for prolonged periods. They concluded that damp does not rise more than, at most, a few inches, which implies that the DPC is entirely superfluous. Good ventilation is far more important for avoiding damp problems. Well it made about a foot in my old house up 18th century porous brick. Quite enough to rot all the floor timbers and blow all the plaster above the skirting. And just how old were the timbers and plaster? And if it were rising damp due to no damp course would have caused these problems many times in the house's life? Of course if you concrete round the outside of a house where there used to be drainage you can often get damp penetrating through porous bricks, etc. But that's not rising damp. -- *Why is the word abbreviation so long? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
On 29 Oct, 12:14, "Chris Styles" wrote:
Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. Chris Dear Chris An awful lot of unscientific, unsubtantiated assertions are made about rising damp. You do not have to look further than the opinions expressed above to get a feel of it. As best I can I will give you a resume of what happens. Rising damp is caused by the migration of a solution of inorganic salts from the ground into the plaster and bricks of a wall over a long period of time - decades. It is NOT water per se that is the problem but the water that is abstracted from the atmosphere at times of high RH. The reason the BRE experiment did not work is probably because the chaps doing it could not reproduce the conditions in a building over a period of say 50 years. I happen to know most of them and they are not the only ones to have tried the idea of putting brick columns in ponds of water and testing dpcs this way. ~The University of the South Bank did a similar experiment with similar lack of sucess and drew a disimilar conclusion. Rising damp does exist. It is not particularly rare. The problem is the specialists do egg it a lot and class bridged dpcs and latereral penetration as rising damp. That may account for more than 50% of the houses treated - unnecessarily! Plastering is NOT always needed and not necessarily for 1 m - the standard distance. That is normally to protect the interests of the company rather than the client. When my firm was contracting in this field (1979) we did it for 1 year and decided that it was simply not worth doing because the profit margin was too low and most of the houses we visited did not have true rising damp needing treatment. We got calls out for condensation - pipe leaks - bridge dpcs - you name it! your friend needs to do several things 1) establish that there really is no dpc - they have been mandatory since 1886 and could have been bridged by soil and concrete paths 2) IF NO dpc - then borrow or buy a damp meter and plot readings in all walls on an isometric sketch of the affected areas over a period of several months at times of high and low RH. Any variation in the tide mark indicates RD. There should be a pattern of readings starting from the top of no damp at say 1 m down to very damp at say 800 mm then slightly damp below that at the top of the skirting. check the skirtings - are they wet (greater than say 14 w/w ) if so you may have some form of dampness 3) get at least three free surveys - select using the following criteria a) full members of the PCA (ex BWPDA) b) offering GPT back up guarantee c) most importantly insist the surveyor has the CSRT qualifiation these three will not ensure you get a good survey but will cut out an awful lot of crap 4) USE YOUR COMMONSENSE in intermpreting the results and dont take them as Gospel - most firms have their intersts at heart 5) If there is dampness but the plaster is not visually damaged - take a risk - put in the dpc but delay the replastering for a year and see if it dries out - that saves a lot of money 6) understand that the rising damp does not occur in the bricks so drilling the bricks is a waste of time- It occurs in the mortar. Ask the firm if they drill the bricks (trick question) If they say "Yes" show them the door and explain that you wanted someone who understood they needed to drill the mortar not the brick to put the hydrophobic layer in the mortar 7) the best dpc (in my opinion) is one using a silane based compound - trade name "Dryzone" from Safeguard Chemicals - you can buy it and diy See the website Costs - these vary from firm to firm but a good diy can negotiate reductions by taking off skirtings where needed for them and doing the hacking off themselves 8) read up on the BWPDA (now PCA) code of practice for DPC s which is similar to that of the BS which is also worth reading Both are a bit out of date but show the principles. Come back to me if you need further help Chris |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: The Building Research Establishment did extensive tests, to try to detect rising damp, by standing various building materials in water for prolonged periods. They concluded that damp does not rise more than, at most, a few inches, which implies that the DPC is entirely superfluous. Good ventilation is far more important for avoiding damp problems. Well it made about a foot in my old house up 18th century porous brick. Quite enough to rot all the floor timbers and blow all the plaster above the skirting. And just how old were the timbers and plaster? Timbers? probbly 200 years Plaster? looked like 70's And if it were rising damp due to no damp course would have caused these problems many times in the house's life? Indeed. It obviously had. Some patching had improved it, other patching had trapped rot inside. Plastering over what had been brick chimneys sealed its fate. Of course if you concrete round the outside of a house where there used to be drainage you can often get damp penetrating through porous bricks, etc. But that's not rising damp. Er..concrete round a house does not affect damp being sucked up in the middle of it by the chimney. When w finally took it apart, there was a small pond under the floor and the chimney stood in the middle of it. |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
|
Damp course for victorian terraced house
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... nightjar cpb@ wrote: .... The Building Research Establishment did extensive tests, to try to detect rising damp, by standing various building materials in water for prolonged periods. They concluded that damp does not rise more than, at most, a few inches, which implies that the DPC is entirely superfluous. Good ventilation is far more important for avoiding damp problems. Well it made about a foot in my old house up 18th century porous brick. The theortical lift in a glass tube of 0.2mm diameter, which should be more effective at producing a straight lift from capillary action than the variable size passageways in a brick, is 14cm, although the theoritcal lift is not normally achieved. That suggests that either you have a reduced force of gravity in your house, or a higher than normal surface tension in your water, or it was not rising damp. Colin Bignell |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
Lobster wrote:
wrote: nightjar wrote: The Building Research Establishment did extensive tests, to try to detect rising damp, by standing various building materials in water for prolonged periods. They concluded that damp does not rise more than, at most, a few inches, which implies that the DPC is entirely superfluous. Good ventilation is far more important for avoiding damp problems. Do you have a link for this study Colin? IIRC it was one that Jeff Howell was involved in or at least reported in some depth - there seems to be much less info about it on his site now, but I think the graphs in this link refer to the same study: http://www.askjeff.co.uk/content.php?id=3 David Thanks - I just wish the BRE study were online somewhere NT |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
nightjar cpb@ wrote: "Chris Styles" wrote in message ... Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. The Building Research Establishment did extensive tests, to try to detect rising damp, by standing various building materials in water for prolonged periods. They concluded that damp does not rise more than, at most, a few inches, which implies that the DPC is entirely superfluous. Good ventilation is far more important for avoiding damp problems. Well it made about a foot in my old house up 18th century porous brick. Be interesting to hear how you determined that the water rose up the wall, rather than being lateral penetration or condensation. NT |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
wrote:
On 29 Oct, 12:14, "Chris Styles" wrote: Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. Chris Dear Chris An awful lot of unscientific, unsubtantiated assertions are made about rising damp. You do not have to look further than the opinions expressed above to get a feel of it. As best I can I will give you a resume of what happens. Rising damp is caused by the migration of a solution of inorganic salts from the ground into the plaster and bricks of a wall over a long period of time - decades. It is NOT water per se that is the problem but the water that is abstracted from the atmosphere at times of high RH. The reason the BRE experiment did not work is probably because the chaps doing it could not reproduce the conditions in a building over a period of say 50 years. I happen to know most of them and they are not the only ones to have tried the idea of putting brick columns in ponds of water and testing dpcs this way. ~The University of the South Bank did a similar experiment with similar lack of sucess and drew a disimilar conclusion. Rising damp does exist. It is not particularly rare. The problem is the specialists do egg it a lot and class bridged dpcs and latereral penetration as rising damp. That may account for more than 50% of the houses treated - unnecessarily! Plastering is NOT always needed and not necessarily for 1 m - the standard distance. That is normally to protect the interests of the company rather than the client. When my firm was contracting in this field (1979) we did it for 1 year and decided that it was simply not worth doing because the profit margin was too low and most of the houses we visited did not have true rising damp needing treatment. We got calls out for condensation - pipe leaks - bridge dpcs - you name it! your friend needs to do several things 1) establish that there really is no dpc - they have been mandatory since 1886 and could have been bridged by soil and concrete paths 2) IF NO dpc - then borrow or buy a damp meter and plot readings in all walls on an isometric sketch of the affected areas over a period of several months at times of high and low RH. Any variation in the tide mark indicates RD. There should be a pattern of readings starting from the top of no damp at say 1 m down to very damp at say 800 mm then slightly damp below that at the top of the skirting. check the skirtings - are they wet (greater than say 14 w/w ) if so you may have some form of dampness 3) get at least three free surveys - select using the following criteria a) full members of the PCA (ex BWPDA) b) offering GPT back up guarantee c) most importantly insist the surveyor has the CSRT qualifiation these three will not ensure you get a good survey but will cut out an awful lot of crap 4) USE YOUR COMMONSENSE in intermpreting the results and dont take them as Gospel - most firms have their intersts at heart 5) If there is dampness but the plaster is not visually damaged - take a risk - put in the dpc but delay the replastering for a year and see if it dries out - that saves a lot of money 6) understand that the rising damp does not occur in the bricks so drilling the bricks is a waste of time- It occurs in the mortar. Ask the firm if they drill the bricks (trick question) If they say "Yes" show them the door and explain that you wanted someone who understood they needed to drill the mortar not the brick to put the hydrophobic layer in the mortar 7) the best dpc (in my opinion) is one using a silane based compound - trade name "Dryzone" from Safeguard Chemicals - you can buy it and diy See the website Costs - these vary from firm to firm but a good diy can negotiate reductions by taking off skirtings where needed for them and doing the hacking off themselves 8) read up on the BWPDA (now PCA) code of practice for DPC s which is similar to that of the BS which is also worth reading Both are a bit out of date but show the principles. Come back to me if you need further help Chris fair bit of misinformationn here too NT |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
|
Damp course for victorian terraced house
|
Damp course for victorian terraced house
On Oct 31, 8:44 am, "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk
wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in . net... nightjar cpb@ wrote: ... The Building Research Establishment did extensive tests, to try to detect rising damp, by standing various building materials in water for prolonged periods. They concluded that damp does not rise more than, at most, a few inches, which implies that the DPC is entirely superfluous. Good ventilation is far more important for avoiding damp problems. Well it made about a foot in my old house up 18th century porous brick. The theortical lift in a glass tube of 0.2mm diameter, which should be more effective at producing a straight lift from capillary action than the variable size passageways in a brick, is 14cm, although the theoritcal lift is not normally achieved. That suggests that either you have a reduced force of gravity in your house, or a higher than normal surface tension in your water, or it was not rising damp. Colin Bignell Or that the typical hole size in the brick is less than 0.2mm? (I would have expected the lift height to be roughly inversely proportional to the hole size for "small but not atomic" sizes.) |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
On Oct 31, 11:03 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: nightjar cpb@ wrote: "Chris Styles" wrote in message ... Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. The Building Research Establishment did extensive tests, to try to detect rising damp, by standing various building materials in water for prolonged periods. They concluded that damp does not rise more than, at most, a few inches, which implies that the DPC is entirely superfluous. Good ventilation is far more important for avoiding damp problems. Well it made about a foot in my old house up 18th century porous brick. Be interesting to hear how you determined that the water rose up the wall, rather than being lateral penetration or condensation. Because there was no way other than that it could get up what was essentially a pillar in the middle of the house. ****. There was no 'outside wall' idiot. THEY were dry - THEY had been injected. It was only the INTERIOR walls. Not taking sides here, but how do you know it wasn't condensation? Elsethread you refer to this being the chimney - it sounds possible to me that warm(ish), moist, internal air could rise up the chimney, cool, and condense - leaving the chimney wet. (I am assuming the fireplace wasn't in use of course). |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
Martin Bonner wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:03 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: nightjar cpb@ wrote: "Chris Styles" wrote in message ... Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. The Building Research Establishment did extensive tests, to try to detect rising damp, by standing various building materials in water for prolonged periods. They concluded that damp does not rise more than, at most, a few inches, which implies that the DPC is entirely superfluous. Good ventilation is far more important for avoiding damp problems. Well it made about a foot in my old house up 18th century porous brick. Be interesting to hear how you determined that the water rose up the wall, rather than being lateral penetration or condensation. Because there was no way other than that it could get up what was essentially a pillar in the middle of the house. ****. There was no 'outside wall' idiot. THEY were dry - THEY had been injected. It was only the INTERIOR walls. Not taking sides here, but how do you know it wasn't condensation? Elsethread you refer to this being the chimney - it sounds possible to me that warm(ish), moist, internal air could rise up the chimney, cool, and condense - leaving the chimney wet. (I am assuming the fireplace wasn't in use of course). Sigh. Because it happened a day *after* it *rained heavily*. Without fail. Using the chimneys helped a lot. Also on one spine wall, it appeared UNDER a layer of plastic bags the previous owner had placed UNDER the carpet. To prevent it discolouring. Total lift up from the soggy clay underneath would have been about a foot or so. |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
On Oct 31, 1:45 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Martin Bonner wrote: On Oct 31, 11:03 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: nightjar cpb@ wrote: "Chris Styles" wrote in message ... Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. The Building Research Establishment did extensive tests, to try to detect rising damp, by standing various building materials in water for prolonged periods. They concluded that damp does not rise more than, at most, a few inches, which implies that the DPC is entirely superfluous. Good ventilation is far more important for avoiding damp problems. Well it made about a foot in my old house up 18th century porous brick. Be interesting to hear how you determined that the water rose up the wall, rather than being lateral penetration or condensation. Because there was no way other than that it could get up what was essentially a pillar in the middle of the house. ****. There was no 'outside wall' idiot. THEY were dry - THEY had been injected. It was only the INTERIOR walls. Not taking sides here, but how do you know it wasn't condensation? Elsethread you refer to this being the chimney - it sounds possible to me that warm(ish), moist, internal air could rise up the chimney, cool, and condense - leaving the chimney wet. (I am assuming the fireplace wasn't in use of course). Sigh. Because it happened a day *after* it *rained heavily*. Without fail. Fair enough! Using the chimneys helped a lot. Of course. (Althogh that's not diagnostic of where the water was coming from) Also on one spine wall, it appeared UNDER a layer of plastic bags the previous owner had placed UNDER the carpet. To prevent it discolouring. Total lift up from the soggy clay underneath would have been about a foot or so. It is difficult to see how it could be anything other than rising damp doesn't it. I wonder why the BRE results were so different. Two options spring to mind: 1. They weren't, and are being (innocently) misremembered 2. They tested modern bricks and/or modern mortar. |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
Martin Bonner wrote:
On Oct 31, 1:45 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Martin Bonner wrote: On Oct 31, 11:03 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: nightjar cpb@ wrote: "Chris Styles" wrote in message ... Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. The Building Research Establishment did extensive tests, to try to detect rising damp, by standing various building materials in water for prolonged periods. They concluded that damp does not rise more than, at most, a few inches, which implies that the DPC is entirely superfluous. Good ventilation is far more important for avoiding damp problems. Well it made about a foot in my old house up 18th century porous brick. Be interesting to hear how you determined that the water rose up the wall, rather than being lateral penetration or condensation. Because there was no way other than that it could get up what was essentially a pillar in the middle of the house. ****. There was no 'outside wall' idiot. THEY were dry - THEY had been injected. It was only the INTERIOR walls. Not taking sides here, but how do you know it wasn't condensation? Elsethread you refer to this being the chimney - it sounds possible to me that warm(ish), moist, internal air could rise up the chimney, cool, and condense - leaving the chimney wet. (I am assuming the fireplace wasn't in use of course). Sigh. Because it happened a day *after* it *rained heavily*. Without fail. Fair enough! Using the chimneys helped a lot. Of course. (Althogh that's not diagnostic of where the water was coming from) Also on one spine wall, it appeared UNDER a layer of plastic bags the previous owner had placed UNDER the carpet. To prevent it discolouring. Total lift up from the soggy clay underneath would have been about a foot or so. It is difficult to see how it could be anything other than rising damp doesn't it. I wonder why the BRE results were so different. Two options spring to mind: 1. They weren't, and are being (innocently) misremembered 2. They tested modern bricks and/or modern mortar. I think that is fairly relevant actually. I know fom my own bricklayng experimens that tudor/17th century bricks are soft and friable, and soak up water out of mortar like nothing. Cheaper modern bricks are similar, bu good quality modern bricsk are ` heap different. Likewise teh fact that peoel use string portlanmd cement mortars to 'tank' up wdamp walls sows that that is also a relevant factor. Indeed the proponents of lime mortar argue that its 'breathable' porous nature is what makes it so good: In the context of rising damp IMHO its a fecking disaster. Damp arguments aways devolve to whether its better to help it get out, or stop it getting in. My logic says as long as it gets out faster than it gets in and via a place where it won't rot wood or screw up plaster, all is well and good. It is vital to establish how its getting in tho: tanking up the outside of a wall with rising damp under the impression its penetrating damp will make things worse, forcing moisture to the inside of the house. Ive got a little bit of it myself. I have a loose slate in the wetroom floor and patch f wall in te corridor shows efflorescence about 6" above floor level..Must fix hat..theres a stud wall nearby. |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
so who's going to get the credit card out, there is a bit of an
introduction http://www.brebookshop.com/details.jsp?id=287528 looks like they do believe in rising damp. On Oct 31, 11:03 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: wrote: wrote: On 29 Oct, 12:14, "Chris Styles" wrote: Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. Chris Dear Chris An awful lot of unscientific, unsubtantiated assertions are made about rising damp. You do not have to look further than the opinions expressed above to get a feel of it. As best I can I will give you a resume of what happens. Rising damp is caused by the migration of a solution of inorganic salts from the ground into the plaster and bricks of a wall over a long period of time - decades. It is NOT water per se that is the problem but the water that is abstracted from the atmosphere at times of high RH. The reason the BRE experiment did not work is probably because the chaps doing it could not reproduce the conditions in a building over a period of say 50 years. I happen to know most of them and they are not the only ones to have tried the idea of putting brick columns in ponds of water and testing dpcs this way. ~The University of the South Bank did a similar experiment with similar lack of sucess and drew a disimilar conclusion. Rising damp does exist. It is not particularly rare. The problem is the specialists do egg it a lot and class bridged dpcs and latereral penetration as rising damp. That may account for more than 50% of the houses treated - unnecessarily! Plastering is NOT always needed and not necessarily for 1 m - the standard distance. That is normally to protect the interests of the company rather than the client. When my firm was contracting in this field (1979) we did it for 1 year and decided that it was simply not worth doing because the profit margin was too low and most of the houses we visited did not have true rising damp needing treatment. We got calls out for condensation - pipe leaks - bridge dpcs - you name it! your friend needs to do several things 1) establish that there really is no dpc - they have been mandatory since 1886 and could have been bridged by soil and concrete paths 2) IF NO dpc - then borrow or buy a damp meter and plot readings in all walls on an isometric sketch of the affected areas over a period of several months at times of high and low RH. Any variation in the tide mark indicates RD. There should be a pattern of readings starting from the top of no damp at say 1 m down to very damp at say 800 mm then slightly damp below that at the top of the skirting. check the skirtings - are they wet (greater than say 14 w/w ) if so you may have some form of dampness 3) get at least three free surveys - select using the following criteria a) full members of the PCA (ex BWPDA) b) offering GPT back up guarantee c) most importantly insist the surveyor has the CSRT qualifiation these three will not ensure you get a good survey but will cut out an awful lot of crap 4) USE YOUR COMMONSENSE in intermpreting the results and dont take them as Gospel - most firms have their intersts at heart 5) If there is dampness but the plaster is not visually damaged - take a risk - put in the dpc but delay the replastering for a year and see if it dries out - that saves a lot of money 6) understand that the rising damp does not occur in the bricks so drilling the bricks is a waste of time- It occurs in the mortar. Ask the firm if they drill the bricks (trick question) If they say "Yes" show them the door and explain that you wanted someone who understood they needed to drill the mortar not the brick to put the hydrophobic layer in the mortar 7) the best dpc (in my opinion) is one using a silane based compound - trade name "Dryzone" from Safeguard Chemicals - you can buy it and diy See the website Costs - these vary from firm to firm but a good diy can negotiate reductions by taking off skirtings where needed for them and doing the hacking off themselves 8) read up on the BWPDA (now PCA) code of practice for DPC s which is similar to that of the BS which is also worth reading Both are a bit out of date but show the principles. Come back to me if you need further help Chris fair bit of misinformationn here too pot, kettle. NT |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: nightjar cpb@ wrote: "Chris Styles" wrote in message ... Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. The Building Research Establishment did extensive tests, to try to detect rising damp, by standing various building materials in water for prolonged periods. They concluded that damp does not rise more than, at most, a few inches, which implies that the DPC is entirely superfluous. Good ventilation is far more important for avoiding damp problems. Well it made about a foot in my old house up 18th century porous brick. Be interesting to hear how you determined that the water rose up the wall, rather than being lateral penetration or condensation. Because there was no way other than that it could get up what was essentially a pillar in the middle of the house. ****. There was no 'outside wall' idiot. THEY were dry - THEY had been injected. It was only the INTERIOR walls. I figured the reply would be less than logical. Walls with their feet in water tend to be colder, and walls are always coldest at the bottom anyway, so its no surprise when condensation occurs there. NT |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Martin Bonner wrote: On Oct 31, 11:03 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: nightjar cpb@ wrote: "Chris Styles" wrote in message ... Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. The Building Research Establishment did extensive tests, to try to detect rising damp, by standing various building materials in water for prolonged periods. They concluded that damp does not rise more than, at most, a few inches, which implies that the DPC is entirely superfluous. Good ventilation is far more important for avoiding damp problems. Well it made about a foot in my old house up 18th century porous brick. Be interesting to hear how you determined that the water rose up the wall, rather than being lateral penetration or condensation. Because there was no way other than that it could get up what was essentially a pillar in the middle of the house. ****. There was no 'outside wall' idiot. THEY were dry - THEY had been injected. It was only the INTERIOR walls. Not taking sides here, but how do you know it wasn't condensation? Elsethread you refer to this being the chimney - it sounds possible to me that warm(ish), moist, internal air could rise up the chimney, cool, and condense - leaving the chimney wet. (I am assuming the fireplace wasn't in use of course). Sigh. Because it happened a day *after* it *rained heavily*. Without fail. Using the chimneys helped a lot. which conicidentally just happens to be when water content of the soil is at it highest, and RHg is high too. Uhuh - must be rising then. Also on one spine wall, it appeared UNDER a layer of plastic bags the previous owner had placed UNDER the carpet. To prevent it discolouring. right, ties in with greater ground water content then. NT |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
pot, kettle. Hardly a logic based line of reasoning, but hey. NT |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
On Nov 1, 12:23 am, wrote:
Be interesting to hear how you determined that the water rose up the wall, rather than being lateral penetration or condensation. Because there was no way other than that it could get up what was essentially a pillar in the middle of the house. There was no 'outside wall' idiot. THEY were dry - THEY had been injected. It was only the INTERIOR walls. I figured the reply would be less than logical. Walls with their feet in water tend to be colder, and walls are always coldest at the bottom anyway, so its no surprise when condensation occurs there. Boggle! Outside walls tend to be colder still, and injecting a DPC won't warm the wall up (so it would still get condensation). I think you are clutching at straws here. I don't think the Natural Philosopher is suggesting that all dampness in all houses is due to rising damp - and to do so would be ridiculous. It is not ridiculous to ask "Is it possible that no dampness in any house is caused by rising damp", but there comes a point where it /is/ ridiculous to continue to avoid the evidence that "at least part of at least one wall is damp because of rising damp" (to misquote the old joke about black sheep in Scotland). |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
Martin Bonner wrote:
On Nov 1, 12:23 am, wrote: Be interesting to hear how you determined that the water rose up the wall, rather than being lateral penetration or condensation. Because there was no way other than that it could get up what was essentially a pillar in the middle of the house. There was no 'outside wall' idiot. THEY were dry - THEY had been injected. It was only the INTERIOR walls. I figured the reply would be less than logical. Walls with their feet in water tend to be colder, and walls are always coldest at the bottom anyway, so its no surprise when condensation occurs there. Boggle! Outside walls tend to be colder still, and injecting a DPC won't warm the wall up (so it would still get condensation). I think you are clutching at straws here. I don't think the Natural Philosopher is suggesting that all dampness in all houses is due to rising damp - and to do so would be ridiculous. It is not ridiculous to ask "Is it possible that no dampness in any house is caused by rising damp", but there comes a point where it /is/ ridiculous to continue to avoid the evidence that "at least part of at least one wall is damp because of rising damp" (to misquote the old joke about black sheep in Scotland). Condensation can usually be discounted if the damp is the same all year round. That just leaves the rising/penetrating discussion. My experience over the years suggests the latter is invariably the culprit but, as this involves time-consuming remedial work to the walls, people would rather think about something else |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
Stuart Noble wrote:
Martin Bonner wrote: On Nov 1, 12:23 am, wrote: Be interesting to hear how you determined that the water rose up the wall, rather than being lateral penetration or condensation. Because there was no way other than that it could get up what was essentially a pillar in the middle of the house. There was no 'outside wall' idiot. THEY were dry - THEY had been injected. It was only the INTERIOR walls. I figured the reply would be less than logical. Walls with their feet in water tend to be colder, and walls are always coldest at the bottom anyway, so its no surprise when condensation occurs there. Boggle! Outside walls tend to be colder still, and injecting a DPC won't warm the wall up (so it would still get condensation). I think you are clutching at straws here. I don't think the Natural Philosopher is suggesting that all dampness in all houses is due to rising damp - and to do so would be ridiculous. It is not ridiculous to ask "Is it possible that no dampness in any house is caused by rising damp", but there comes a point where it /is/ ridiculous to continue to avoid the evidence that "at least part of at least one wall is damp because of rising damp" (to misquote the old joke about black sheep in Scotland). My point was it can be either, and he doesnt apear to have established which. That leaves both options open. I'm not trying to start taking guesses or propose extreme positions. Condensation can usually be discounted if the damp is the same all year round. I wish it were so, it would make life esier. Unfortunately condensation does occur in summer with a small minority of properties. That just leaves the rising/penetrating discussion. My experience over the years suggests the latter is invariably the culprit but, as this involves time-consuming remedial work to the walls, people would rather think about something else Indeed. But dont rule out leaks causing unnecessarily high interior RH or running own cavities. NT |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
Stuart Noble wrote:
Martin Bonner wrote: On Nov 1, 12:23 am, wrote: Be interesting to hear how you determined that the water rose up the wall, rather than being lateral penetration or condensation. Because there was no way other than that it could get up what was essentially a pillar in the middle of the house. There was no 'outside wall' idiot. THEY were dry - THEY had been injected. It was only the INTERIOR walls. I figured the reply would be less than logical. Walls with their feet in water tend to be colder, and walls are always coldest at the bottom anyway, so its no surprise when condensation occurs there. Boggle! Outside walls tend to be colder still, and injecting a DPC won't warm the wall up (so it would still get condensation). I think you are clutching at straws here. I don't think the Natural Philosopher is suggesting that all dampness in all houses is due to rising damp - and to do so would be ridiculous. It is not ridiculous to ask "Is it possible that no dampness in any house is caused by rising damp", but there comes a point where it /is/ ridiculous to continue to avoid the evidence that "at least part of at least one wall is damp because of rising damp" (to misquote the old joke about black sheep in Scotland). Condensation can usually be discounted if the damp is the same all year round. That just leaves the rising/penetrating discussion. My experience over the years suggests the latter is invariably the culprit but, as this involves time-consuming remedial work to the walls, people would rather think about something else Actually mostly it doesn't. Ive had plenty of penetrating damp too - the old cottage was basically falling to pieces from damp, and had been for years and many bodges had happened. But some good things still existed like drip boards, to throw rain off walls. Where they had not rotted away that is.. Put decent overhangs on your eaves, pay attention to guttering and drain round the house well to avoid splashback, and your walls stay remarkably dry even in torrential rain. In the final analysis something nasty like pebbledash will give the house a plastic mac as it were. Of course its usually just after that has been done that the rising damp., now locked in, starts to find its way out via the interior plaster ;-) |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
On 31 Oct, 10:57, wrote:
wrote: On 29 Oct, 12:14, "Chris Styles" wrote: Hi, A friend is looking to buy a Victorian Terraced house, and it doesn't have a damp course. After spinning her an elaborate story about having the entire house sliced out of the terrace and lifted up on blocks while a damp course is fitted, I promised to ask around to find out how much she should expect to pay to have a chemical DPC done. I seem to recall someone else having the chemical DPC, and it requiring a certain amount of replastering to be done after, because the plaster had to be stripped back at the bottom of the wall. Is this normal (or even anything to do with the DPC?) Any hints, tips gratefully received. Chris Dear Chris An awful lot of unscientific, unsubtantiated assertions are made about rising damp. You do not have to look further than the opinions expressed above to get a feel of it. As best I can I will give you a resume of what happens. Rising damp is caused by the migration of a solution of inorganic salts from the ground into the plaster and bricks of a wall over a long period of time - decades. It is NOT water per se that is the problem but the water that is abstracted from the atmosphere at times of high RH. The reason the BRE experiment did not work is probably because the chaps doing it could not reproduce the conditions in a building over a period of say 50 years. I happen to know most of them and they are not the only ones to have tried the idea of putting brick columns in ponds of water and testing dpcs this way. ~The University of the South Bank did a similar experiment with similar lack of sucess and drew a disimilar conclusion. Rising damp does exist. It is not particularly rare. The problem is the specialists do egg it a lot and class bridged dpcs and latereral penetration as rising damp. That may account for more than 50% of the houses treated - unnecessarily! Plastering is NOT always needed and not necessarily for 1 m - the standard distance. That is normally to protect the interests of the company rather than the client. When my firm was contracting in this field (1979) we did it for 1 year and decided that it was simply not worth doing because the profit margin was too low and most of the houses we visited did not have true rising damp needing treatment. We got calls out for condensation - pipe leaks - bridge dpcs - you name it! your friend needs to do several things 1) establish that there really is no dpc - they have been mandatory since 1886 and could have been bridged by soil and concrete paths 2) IF NO dpc - then borrow or buy a damp meter and plot readings in all walls on an isometric sketch of the affected areas over a period of several months at times of high and low RH. Any variation in the tide mark indicates RD. There should be a pattern of readings starting from the top of no damp at say 1 m down to very damp at say 800 mm then slightly damp below that at the top of the skirting. check the skirtings - are they wet (greater than say 14 w/w ) if so you may have some form of dampness 3) get at least three free surveys - select using the following criteria a) full members of the PCA (ex BWPDA) b) offering GPT back up guarantee c) most importantly insist the surveyor has the CSRT qualifiation these three will not ensure you get a good survey but will cut out an awful lot of crap 4) USE YOUR COMMONSENSE in intermpreting the results and dont take them as Gospel - most firms have their intersts at heart 5) If there is dampness but the plaster is not visually damaged - take a risk - put in the dpc but delay the replastering for a year and see if it dries out - that saves a lot of money 6) understand that the rising damp does not occur in the bricks so drilling the bricks is a waste of time- It occurs in the mortar. Ask the firm if they drill the bricks (trick question) If they say "Yes" show them the door and explain that you wanted someone who understood they needed to drill the mortar not the brick to put the hydrophobic layer in the mortar 7) the best dpc (in my opinion) is one using a silane based compound - trade name "Dryzone" from Safeguard Chemicals - you can buy it and diy See the website Costs - these vary from firm to firm but a good diy can negotiate reductions by taking off skirtings where needed for them and doing the hacking off themselves 8) read up on the BWPDA (now PCA) code of practice for DPC s which is similar to that of the BS which is also worth reading Both are a bit out of date but show the principles. Come back to me if you need further help Chris fair bit of misinformationn here too NT- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dear meow2, Particulars (of misinformation) please? Chris G |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
On Nov 1, 11:58 am, wrote:
Dear meow2, Particulars (of misinformation) please? Chris G Don't worry he's a period property 'loony' ;) Interesting site here BTW: http://www.konrad-fischer-info.de/2auffen.htm cheers, Pete. |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
Pete C wrote:
On Nov 1, 11:58 am, wrote: Dear meow2, Particulars (of misinformation) please? Chris G Don't worry he's a period property 'loony' ;) Interesting site here BTW: http://www.konrad-fischer-info.de/2auffen.htm cheers, Pete. Note two things Early on thee page he says "No ascending dampness by capillarity, but consequence of current splash-water, water sucking cement joints" = rising damp!. Look at the brick wall in the pool of water. Makes my case that modern cement is a DPC in itself . Note he has NOT used lime mortar here. Look at how sodden the brick is UP to the first mortar joint. Whilst I am happy to agree that many so called rising dmp problems are not, in older properties it does exist and is a serous isue IF you want to modernise them. If you leave the chimneys open, burn coal and don't plaster the walls or fit double glazing, why? that's how they were designed in the first place!. Draughty (well ventilated) and heated by a means that would RAPIDLY dehumidify them in winter, and with the windows wide open all summer, and no wood anywheree near the brcks..not that lasts more than 60 years, anyway. The issue comes when you have a 100 year old place built out of soft brick and lime mortar with no DPC and you want to at least make it un draughty and use CH. Here injection will work. IF you can get to all the walls. But if its single brick I'd just s soon put in a concrete floor WITH DPM And insulation and possibly UFH as well), run that up the walls and tank over up to about 2 ft, or better still, dry line it with foil backed board and celotex, and let all that dees come up get outside, not inside. A chimney or spine wall is always gong to be a bugger. Its just always going to be damp at the base. You can't really inject very sucessfully. Rally you have perhaps just two choices..tank it up and cover it in render, or let t BE a chimney and tank it up where you want to plaster over it, and put some sort of waterproofing between it, and any wooden flooring etc. Frankly a victorian semi or terrace is my idea of hell anyway. I'd pull the ****ers down and build something better on the land personally. But there you go. Victorain rectories and decent gerorgian hosuses are worth keeping tho. They tend to have been better built to start with. A lot of victorian stiff wasn't built to last and it hasn't. Theres not a lot of timber framed 300 year old stuff around either - when I pulled mine down I found out why ;-) It wsa allegedly a farm building originally - almost a barn. Never built to last, or house people, but somehow it did. |
Damp course for victorian terraced house
On Nov 1, 4:53 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Early on thee page he says "No ascending dampness by capillarity, but consequence of current splash-water, water sucking cement joints" = rising damp!. You could at least quote the sentance properly, it says: "No ascending dampness by capillarity, but consequence of current splash-water, water sucking cement joints AND EARLIER ANIMAL HUSBANDRY (FOLLOWS MINERAL SALTPETER (SODIUM NITRATE)) With 'rising damp', water is only half of it, the other half is HYGROSCOPIC SALTS. Theres not a lot of timber framed 300 year old stuff around either - when I pulled mine down I found out why ;-) It wsa allegedly a farm building originally - almost a barn. E-X-A-C-T-L-Y!!! Never built to last, or house people, but somehow it did. Probably lasted longer than much current housing will. cheers, Pete. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:43 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter