|
|
|
|
|
Why
use a mortar that is weak, flexible and vapour permeable? Because that
was, and still should be, the method of construction in traditional buildings.
A single, solid, thick wall standing on very shallow, often rudimentary
foundations is bound to move as it and the ground it stands on expand
and contract in response to variations in humidity and temperature throughout
the year.
Thus, the mortar and render must not only allow movement but also allow
the moisture, which inevitably will enter through the minute cracks generated,
to exit the structure. Lime mortars and renders have been rediscovered
as perfect for this purpose. The modern obsession with cube tests and
crushing strengths is a product of a totally different mode of building.
While strong mortars are absolutely essential in post-war construction
with their deep concrete foundations, damp courses and double skin walls,
extra strength in old buildings, except in very exposed positions (copings,
chimneys etc.) is actually detrimental.
Whether the alumino-silicates in cement that cause it to set are more
harmful than those in hydraulic lime is a separate question. Both are
harder and and have a lower lime content than pure lime putty. They thus
allow less movement and less vapour transfer.
Traditionally,
in Britain, the first job on a building site, especially an important
one like a church or cathedral, was to dig a pit in which the lime was |
|
slaked
so the resultant putty would have time to mature. This makes it very unlikely
that the limes used were hydraulic, since by definition, they set under
water. Today it is impossible with a dry powdered product, either hydrate
or hydraulic, to attain the same plasticity which gives a proper lime
putty its fantastic bonding ability. Even if the original mortar contained
added strength, the structure has, by now, been exposed to the process
of decay and can be seriously weakened. If a replacement mortar or render
is stronger than the actual fabric of the building then vapour transfer
and its attendant damage will eventually start to break down the brick
or stone.
Specialist restoration companies understand these problems and have trained
craftspeople, skilled in the use of most appropriate solutions. However,
there is a danger that less well qualified people will use hydraulic limes
in more places than actually needed, merely because they are more like
what they are familiar with, ie. cement.
The preservation of our historic buildings should not be put at risk for
the ease of unskilled builders; or engineers not versed in this area who
try to impose completely inappropriate parameters; or gullible specifiers
who believe it possible to have all the advantages of lime and of cement
too. It is a paradox, but a real lime mortars strength is its relative
weakness - that and it being cheaper of course. |
|
|