Insulating Solid walls

Page 1 of 5  

Hi all
I am just about to buy a house that has solid brick walls. I will be having a DPC installed (probably injection?) but the surveyor said something about recommending I had the walls insulated, and mentioned dry lining. Is this the best way to go about it, or are there easier/better ways, and if dry lining is the way to go, how?
I am probably going to have to DIY it, and many other things, as finding the huge deposit necessary these days have left me pretty much skint - Expect more posts from me on here as I find other bits wrong with the house!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Does the house actually need the walls insulated ? Is it a prerequisite requirement of the mortgage (which I doubt) or a surveyors expert opinion that in order to reduce energy costs, reduce heat loss, etc the walls is may be desirable to have the walls insulated?. In otherwords it's just a suggestion. Or do you need to insulate the walls because of structural problems with the house?
Just out of curiosity why are you having the DPC installed? I presume it already has one? The reason I ask is that when we bought our 1900 house ( ... and I can hear the yawns from the regular contributors/readers that yet again I've mentioned I have a 1900 house ... ) it was a requirement of the mortgage that DPC to the rear of the property be injected. The problem was actually due to the house having settled and the concrete footpath around the house was higher then the DPC (due to the house settling) and damp was able to bridge the DPC ... as the footpaths were all been removed and re-laid I pointed this out and I never did have to have the DPC injected. Lowering the footpaths solved the problem ... obviously this may not be the answer in your case.
Ash
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

phone, the basic jist was that there were no structural problems, but it will be very expensive to heat, it is an end terrace so 3 walls out of the 4 are exposed.

as I am aware, I know a previous owner who confirmed that when he moved out in the 70's that the house had never had a DPC. Not sure whether the mortgage company will insist on a DPC, but obviously it is something I will be getting done anyway, and while I am about it I may as well do the insulation work.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That makes sense. Take a look at this guide ... it may help you with choosing how to insulate your walls http://www.british-gypsum.com/PDF/LIT_ThermallamsA4_Mar05.pdf
Ash
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A house of that era will normally have a slate damp proof course. It may have got buried by raising of ground levels. Also, there probably won't be a damp proof course under a hearth, as the heat from the fire keeps that dry, except you probably haven't had a fire in it for decades;-)

I wouldn't waste any money on damp treatment until you've been there for a while and seen what, if any, genuine damp issues you have. Rising damp is the most unlikely of the lot. Installing a DPC where you have damp which isn't actually rising damp will usually make it worse.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Oops, sorry didn't mean to repost here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SimonJ wrote:

very rarely needed

rarely effective

You can put insulation on the inside or outside. Outside means rendering over it, inside means replastering and losing a couple of inches.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

Extremely effective if needed.

Try and get 50mm celotex inside every outside wall.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

http://www.askjeff.co.uk/rising_damp.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave-UK wrote:

Yeah, there's also the BRE tests where they stood all sorts of designs of walls in water for years, and none of them got rising damp. And the case where a dpc injection company injected masses of walls with nothing but water, and had no complaints. Theres lots of info on this topic out there.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

If they were using modern plasticised mortar and quality engineering bricks, they wouldn't.
If they had a 17th century brick an lime mortar, that would be a different story.,
Why don't you take it to the standards people, and tell them that every house with a DPC doesn't need one.
Why not earth your house up above DPC and revel in the dry interiors.
And the

And a lot of it is applied out of context or is plain lies.
If brickwork doesn't absorb water, how come frost spalls it?
How come it sucks mortar dry when you lay bricks?
How come you get efflorescence?
I am not saying that its the be all and end all, or that companies aren't cowboys, but that doesn't invalidate the whole concept.
Rising damp definitely occurs from wet ground to masonry, and probably extends 4-6" above the water table. Noticeably. Enough to rot timber in contact with it and blow plaster over it. I know, because I had it. vOn the wall that WASN't injected.
.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

they used all sorts of bricks and mortars, including lime. None suffered rising damp.

why would I get involved in that? wacky suggestion.

it might get damp. A dpc isnt going to make any difference to such situations

?
it does absorb water

_that_ may not, but theres enough information that does. You just dont like reading.

What you had is damp near ground level. Lots of houses have had this. To then claim that a large proportion of cases of damp near the ground are due to rising damp is a simple non-sequitor.
Why dont you go do some reading.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

I think "none" is slightly overstating it, iirc there were one or two test walls with a very soft brick and high sand lime mortar where they did observe it.
The general observation that rising damp is rare and hugely over diagnosed is fair though.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Rumm wrote:

yes, but does one observe such sandy mixes used in practice?

NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

Only in period properties.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The old lime mortar I've dealt with in several houses was certainly no better than sand.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stuart Noble wrote:

are you telling us you have enough experience to know the mixes used were too sandy in a signifcant percentage of houses?

which tells us nothing. We know mortar fails in the end, that doesnt tell us if the mix was too high in sand
Thing about lime mortar is its both soft and very slow setting, which both hinder construction speed. Mixing it too sandy only makes it worse, slowing the build project even further. I cant see many builders doing that to save a fiver in lime.
I dont have enough experience personally, but have heard from folk that do that its not a problem in practice.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stuart Noble wrote:

I've not come across that. The main issues with pozzolan are:
1. it needs to be mixed dry and kept dry until use. This is not very compatible with the usual site practice at the time of mixing all the mortar required on site in one go at the beginning.
2. It needs to be ground very fine to work. Thats not something one can do on site, so its more cost to put it in
3. It needs prolonged mixing times in the dry phase to work, again translating to a lot more labour, bearing in mind there were no electric cement mixers
4. It sets as quickly as cement, resulting in wastage.
In short, pozzolan wasnt normally used in housebuilding for all these reasons. I couldnt possibly rule it out from all builds, but there were several practical reasons to not use it.
NT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote:

From time to time, certainly...
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.