I asked this question on the NG some time ago but the suggested
solution of rebuilding in the same fashion does not appeal.

Would it be feasible to use "casing" or a couple of wood sheets nailed
approx 750mm apart, then fill thes with a gravel/ cement mix along
with most of the original stone.

My thoughts are that the more stone that goes in the stronger the
final wall.

Or might there be problems with the ingredients expanding and
contracting at different rates?

Regards

HN

"hugh neary" wrote in message
...
I asked this question on the NG some time ago but the suggested
solution of rebuilding in the same fashion does not appeal.

Would it be feasible to use "casing" or a couple of wood sheets nailed
approx 750mm apart, then fill thes with a gravel/ cement mix along
with most of the original stone.

My thoughts are that the more stone that goes in the stronger the
final wall.

Or might there be problems with the ingredients expanding and
contracting at different rates?

No, it would look like ****.
You will have to GOYA and do a proper job.
It will be time consuming and/or expensive.
And you will need a proper concrete footing.

The strength of any cement/aggregate mix depends on how strong the aggregate
is and how much cement there is in the mix.
There's no point in putting lots of cement in a mix where the aggregate is
weak.
Most concrete fails due to voids in the mix, ie, not properly
tamped/vibrated down.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"hugh neary" wrote in message
...
I asked this question on the NG some time ago but the suggested
solution of rebuilding in the same fashion does not appeal.

Would it be feasible to use "casing" or a couple of wood sheets nailed
approx 750mm apart, then fill thes with a gravel/ cement mix along
with most of the original stone.

My thoughts are that the more stone that goes in the stronger the
final wall.

Or might there be problems with the ingredients expanding and
contracting at different rates?

No, it would look like ****.
You will have to GOYA and do a proper job.
It will be time consuming and/or expensive.

And you will need a proper concrete footing.

Must by why all those drystone walls that have
been there for decades always have those.

The strength of any cement/aggregate mix depends on how strong the
aggregate is and how much cement there is in the mix.
There's no point in putting lots of cement in a mix where the aggregate is
weak.
Most concrete fails due to voids in the mix, ie, not properly
tamped/vibrated down.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"hugh neary" wrote in message
...
I asked this question on the NG some time ago but the suggested
solution of rebuilding in the same fashion does not appeal.

Would it be feasible to use "casing" or a couple of wood sheets nailed
approx 750mm apart, then fill thes with a gravel/ cement mix along
with most of the original stone.

My thoughts are that the more stone that goes in the stronger the
final wall.

Or might there be problems with the ingredients expanding and
contracting at different rates?

No, it would look like ****.
You will have to GOYA and do a proper job.
It will be time consuming and/or expensive.

And you will need a proper concrete footing.

Must by why all those drystone walls that have
been there for decades always have those.

Lack of a footing is why they fall down, retard.

The strength of any cement/aggregate mix depends on how strong the
aggregate is and how much cement there is in the mix.
There's no point in putting lots of cement in a mix where the aggregate
is weak.
Most concrete fails due to voids in the mix, ie, not properly
tamped/vibrated down.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"hugh neary" wrote in message
...
I asked this question on the NG some time ago but the suggested
solution of rebuilding in the same fashion does not appeal.

Would it be feasible to use "casing" or a couple of wood sheets nailed
approx 750mm apart, then fill thes with a gravel/ cement mix along
with most of the original stone.

My thoughts are that the more stone that goes in the stronger the
final wall.

Or might there be problems with the ingredients expanding and
contracting at different rates?

No, it would look like ****.
You will have to GOYA and do a proper job.
It will be time consuming and/or expensive.

And you will need a proper concrete footing.

Must by why all those drystone walls that have
been there for decades always have those.

Lack of a footing is why they fall down

Must be why all of those without a
proper concrete footing always fall down.

The strength of any cement/aggregate mix depends on how strong the
aggregate is and how much cement there is in the mix.
There's no point in putting lots of cement in a mix where the aggregate
is weak.
Most concrete fails due to voids in the mix, ie, not properly
tamped/vibrated down.

On 19/03/2015 00:22, hugh neary wrote:
I asked this question on the NG some time ago but the suggested
solution of rebuilding in the same fashion does not appeal.

Would it be feasible to use "casing" or a couple of wood sheets nailed
approx 750mm apart, then fill thes with a gravel/ cement mix along
with most of the original stone.

My thoughts are that the more stone that goes in the stronger the
final wall.

Or might there be problems with the ingredients expanding and
contracting at different rates?

If you are happy with something that does not look like the rest of the
wall (and it won't), it would probably be simpler to replace it in brick
or block work.

--
Colin Bignell

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:22:37 +0000, hugh neary wrote:

Would it be feasible to use "casing" or a couple of wood sheets nailed
approx 750mm apart, then fill thes with a gravel/ cement mix along
with most of the original stone.

Which look like dog turd after dog has eaten sweetcorn and ****. I
doubt it would stay up very long either. First decent frost would
have bits falling out of it.

A decently built drystone wall will stand for decades if not
centauries with no maintenance. Slopes will shorten the life if
winters have hefty freeze/thaw cycles. The stones are lifted by the
freeze and put back down just ever so slightly further down hill.

Drystone walling isn't that hard to do, once you know how a drystone
wall ought to be constructed (GIYF) but it is physical. It's the
latter aspect that has us paying a waller to rebuild about 100m of
wall here. On a good day he'll manage about 5 m/day (6 hours ish)
taking down and rebuilding. A good day for me would be 1 m at best
and then a rest day...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thursday, 19 March 2015 07:20:01 UTC, harry wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message

And you will need a proper concrete footing.

Must by why all those drystone walls that have
been there for decades always have those.

Lack of a footing is why they fall down, retard.

huh?
So you think the massive stones that go at the base below ground level move and so the rest of the wall above falls down?

hehehe! - how long were you in Yorkshire again?

Sounds like another job for your 4'6" stone roof slates you claim to have had...

Jim K

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 03:53:45 -0700 (PDT), JimK wrote:

Lack of a footing is why they fall down, retard.

So you think the massive stones that go at the base below ground level
move and so the rest of the wall above falls down?

Well the footing stones of the wall we are having rebuilt have moved
and it's the bowing of the wall above and winter frosts that cause
the collapse. The top of the wall stays more or less in place but the
base follows the footings until it's no longer supporting the top.

This wall is probably several centauries old mind and built
diagonally across quite a steep slope.

Sounds like another job for your 4'6" stone roof slates you claim to
have had...

Some of the bottom rows of stone roofed buildings around here have
some fairly sizeable "slates". Some of the bits lying around this
place, presumably from the original stone roof, are not far short of
4'6" long. When as "slates" they would have been 1'6 to 2' wide and
laid landscape.

--
Cheers
Dave.

/ Sounds like another job for your 4'6" stone roof slates you claim to
have had...

Some of the bottom rows of stone roofed buildings around here have
some fairly sizeable "slates". Some of the bits lying around this
place, presumably from the original stone roof, are not far short of
4'6" long. When as "slates" they would have been 1'6 to 2' wide and
laid landscape. /q

Got a pic? Where are you? What sort of stone?

Jim K

/ So you think the massive stones that go at the base below ground level
move and so the rest of the wall above falls down?

Well the footing stones of the wall we are having rebuilt have moved/q

How does one decide that?

Jim K

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:53:17 -0700 (PDT), JimK wrote:

So you think the massive stones that go at the base below ground
level
move and so the rest of the wall above falls down?

Well the footing stones of the wall we are having rebuilt have moved

How does one decide that?

'Cause the line of the base of the wall is mostly straight but
sections deviate from that line in the downhill direction.

--
Cheers
Dave.

/Cause the line of the base of the wall is mostly straight but
sections deviate from that line in the downhill direction. /q

And these stones are/were underground?

Jim K

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:34:57 -0700 (PDT), JimK wrote:

Cause the line of the base of the wall is mostly straight but
sections deviate from that line in the downhill direction.

And these stones are/were underground?

Apart from the top inch or less yes and they ain't little stones 12"
x 18" x 6" or there abouts.

This wall is marked on the earliest OS map I've seen for here, 1847
IIRC. The wall is one for the in-bye, the first farmstead was proably
built around 1750 +/- 25 years. It wouldn't be a rash assumption that
the in-bye was enclosed about the same time.

As I said this is an old wall, 260 odd years old. Those stones have
had plenty of time to have moved the foot or so they have.

--
Cheers
Dave.

/Those stones have had plenty of time to have moved the foot or so they have./q

Footings on mine are well below ground level. I can't recall ever having to reset large stones by anything like 'a foot' in any direction.

Maybe you have other factors at play besides just time....

Jim K

On 19/03/2015 09:27, Dave Liquorice wrote:

Drystone walling isn't that hard to do, once you know how a drystone
wall ought to be constructed (GIYF) but it is physical. It's the
latter aspect that has us paying a waller to rebuild about 100m of
wall here. On a good day he'll manage about 5 m/day (6 hours ish)
taking down and rebuilding. A good day for me would be 1 m at best
and then a rest day...

I have always rather wanted one at the bottom of my garden where there
is a lane as I presume that they are indestructible, or can be
reconstructed at a low cost. As the stones are not readily available in
Kent I have settled for a hedge instead.


--
Michael Chare