Will we always use Bricks to build?

geodesic said:
However, there are significant problems with bricks and mortar - damp being the major one in the UK, where earthquakes are less of a problem. Nickelodeon, have you got a link for that quote? It'd be interesting to see if the waterproof glue is as effective as traditional damp proofing methods.
Also, bricks aren't wonderful insulators, and in general make a poor internal surface, requiring plastering.

A simple and fairly inexpensive 1.5 inch layer of styrofoam insulation betwen the layers of brick or behind the brick make for a great insulator to heat and cold exchange. And that being the case, it's also great for condensation buildup, too.

The problems you've raised are, in fact, an issue ....but ONLY when the construction is sub-standard and cheap and poor quality of design. But you can say the same things about ANY material that isn't used properly.

Baron Max
 
geodesic said:
However, there are significant problems with bricks and mortar - damp being the major one in the UK, where earthquakes are less of a problem. Nickelodeon, have you got a link for that quote? It'd be interesting to see if the waterproof glue is as effective as traditional damp proofing methods.
Also, bricks aren't wonderful insulators, and in general make a poor internal surface, requiring plastering.
http://www.azobuild.com/details.asp?ArticleID=3022

Page 8 of:

http://www.brick.org.uk/bulletin/PDF/BB_June_03.pdf#search=%22Anker%20Plast%22
 
Last edited:
Nickelodeon: thanks, seems to be no damp proof course, so presumably the designer was fairly confident about the glue's abilities.

Max: You have me mistaken - I meant rising damp.
 
A big difference between buildings in Europe and America are the materials they build houses out of. Europe long ago turned to making stone buildings, as they destroyed all their forests as soon as they figured out how to cut them down.

America, on the other hand, as a lot of trees, and in many areas, houses are built of wood.
 
Rising damp is nothing to do with condensation - it's water drawn up into the walls through capillary action. And the point about the poor insulating properties of bricks was just to point out that there were areas for improvement. I wasn't claiming these were horrible flaws, merely areas that could use simplification.
 
geodesic said:
Rising damp is nothing to do with condensation - it's water drawn up into the walls through capillary action.

Do you think that brick buildings are built with only a single layer of brick???? ...that the brick exposed to the outside climate is the same as brick that you see on the inside?? Duh?

You should learn a bit more about brick construction before you start discussing the merits and drawbacks of brick.

Baron Max
 
Frankly, it depends on the construction method. You can indeed have single brick walls, with a layer of insulation and then plasterboard over the inside. However, this is irrelevant from the point of rising damp and capillary action.
 
Roman said:
A big difference between buildings in Europe and America are the materials they build houses out of. Europe long ago turned to making stone buildings, as they destroyed all their forests as soon as they figured out how to cut them down. America, on the other hand, has a lot of trees, and in many areas, houses are built of wood.
Neolithic villages were constructed of thatching and other ancient technologies, but stone buildings go back almost to the beginnings of civilization. Jericho, the oldest city yet discovered, dates back at least 10,000 years and was originally made of wood and clay, materials which are still used in temperate climates. But as cities grew and came to be relied on as protection from both the elements and the armies of other cities, their buildings needed to be stronger and longer-lasting, and stonemasonry became one of the earliest professions. We have ruins of stone cities going back into the mists of time. Cities as social and cultural entities died for every reason but the physical collapse of their stone buildings. When conditions were right for the reestablishment of civilization, the next city was often built virtually on top of the old one so its already-finished stones could be easily quarried and reused.

In most civilizations stone came into common use long before deforestation was an issue. The Mayas were a shining counterexample. Recent scholarship strongly suggests that their demise was brought about by the destruction of the ecosystem for hundreds of miles around so that it could no longer provide life support, caused by harvesting all the trees to build temples.
 
The neolithics didn't have axes or saws. Europe went through two major deforestations. Once when the (metal) axe was invented, and again, for good, during the industrial revolution.
 
An engineer buddy of mine is designing a brick, that will be cheaper to make, reusable,light & strong.Cant really say more except that, yeah, the humble brick does get some attention.
 
geodesic said:
Frankly, it depends on the construction method. You can indeed have single brick walls, with a layer of insulation and then plasterboard over the inside. However, this is irrelevant from the point of rising damp and capillary action.

Before you argue about something, you should at least know a little bit about it! You should also be careful of making statements about which you know so fuckin' little!

I've been in architecture and construction for over forty years and I've never, ever seen single wythe brick constructed home in any house construction (other than some hovels in Mexico!). The single wythe brick wall is so unstable that it couldn't even support roof beams, not to mention a snow load or wind load!

Excuse me for saying so, but you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground about brick construction!

Baron Max
 
Max: Apologies, I've realised what I wrote wasn't quite accurate - the construction of which I was speaking is an extension between two existing buildings - I cetainly don't think that a sinle thickness of brick is sufficient for the whole house!
 
Baron Max said:
Before you argue about something, you should at least know a little bit about it! You should also be careful of making statements about which you know so fuckin' little!
WOW! A clear case of hypocrisy if ever I saw one.
 
Back
Top