Scores of people persistently come forward waving, for example, a piece of clinker block and show that this material when fully dry causes good responses from an electrical moisture meter and therefore, hallelujah, we lesser mortals can all be fooled into misdiagnosing the problem. Of course we all know the same effect can be gained by sticking the probes into their heads! It appears that only those that have read the manufacturer’s instructions and brought our attention to this known phenomenon have ‘the knowledge’ which will lead the unknowing out of the darkness into the light!

They also point out that electrical moisture meters do not measure moisture but electrical resistance, capacitance (impedance) and radio wave reflection. Hence, put any electrically conducting material on the electrodes and you will get a ‘result’. Mind you a carbide meter doesn’t directly measure moisture either-it measures gas pressure in a sealed space.

Those ‘in the know’ usually point out that conductance meters also respond to certain salts, especially hygroscopic soluble chlorides and nitrates, which of course is indeed a fact and is also in the manufacturer’s instructions. Now they have ‘discovered’ the presence of these particular salts in tap water, salt, animal waste, flooring materials, washed sand and so on. And as these salts are so widespread in building materials we are told they can easily ‘fool’ the unwary if one relies on identifying their presence alone as an indicator as to the source of water ingress.

However, let us take a look at the reality and the science.

The table below illustrates responses of conductance type moisture meters to air dry materials:

When a competent, experienced surveyor is investigating a building it is known that a very few types of material such as certain clinker blocks, and some black ash mortars, will cause electrical moisture meter to respond in a significant manner; this is well documented. However, it is highly unlikely that most investigations are undertaken by directly sampling such materials with a moisture meter should they even exist in the property – in other words these situations are rare. Most electrical moisture meter readings are taken from surfaces such as plaster, render and possibly exposed brick and mortar. If one does obtain moisture meter readings throughout the whole property then any moderately competent surveyor should readily identify that there is a particular problem and this may well be due to an electrically conducting substrate. Nevertheless, most investigations are made incorporating the use of moisture meter on surfaces such as described above and not these exceptions.

So what about the composition of some commonly encountered materials in buildings?

Mains water: Legislation dictates that mains water contains up to a maximum of 50 ppm nitrate but much higher levels of chloride are allowed, probably up to around 250 ppm. Groundwater may in certain geographical locations contain higher levels. The ratio of chloride to nitrate will vary according to the water authority and groundwater in which part of the country one samples. Look up your local Water Boards’ own analyses. What becomes obvious is that you cannot specifically rely on the ratio between the chloride and nitrate in diagnosis between mains water and ground water as their origin in buildings.

As far as building materials are concerned. Water used in their manufacture (bricks, etc.) or for gauging will have used one of the sources of water, probably ground (pond/river/well) in older buildings. Thus, even the small amounts of chloride and nitrate present in such water are insignificant with regard to affecting electrical moisture meter readings, and of course they are diluted even further when mixed with mortars, limes, plasters, brick, etc. As such they will not cause an electrical moisture meter to respond significantly: in this situation their presence is of no consequence whatsoever.

Where mains water has a long history of wetting masonry directly, not via soil, then such salts may build up to a greater level where they alone can start to cause an electrical moisture meter to respond to a greater extent in the absence of free water that lead to their origin-but this takes a considerable time and is usually localised to the vicinity of the leak.

Similarly, it is frequently argued that rising damp is the result of mains water leaks in the ground. If so, (1) for water to rise the wall must be sufficiently permeable and therefore any soil water can rise, (2) mains water would pass through the soil before rising up the wall and also pick up groundwater salts in its passage, (3) any rise of water into the wall will take a long time before any significant levels of salts accumulate from whatever origin given the rate of rise of water.

Unwashed sand: almost all ‘pit sand’ is washed – it is washed in water from which it was removed! This is to remove fines (clay and silt), not salts. If unwashed ’sea sand’ is used then distinct and significant levels of sodium chloride would be present and this would have been readily identifiable for years causing problems throughout the property in which it was used. Analysis would reveal chloride alone.

Water additives containing chlorides: the additive is usually calcium chloride (deliquescent), which form insoluble complexes with cement and as such they do not result in hygroscopic problems or detected by simple water extraction. If, however, they are mixed with gypsum plasters then hygroscopic problems do distinctly arise. But this is a use for which they are distinctly not intended.

Seawater exposure: this will occur obviously in coastal areas and any surveyor worth his salt (excuse the pun) would be aware of this. Nitrate levels in sea water are very low and contamination would effectively lead to readily identifiable levels of chloride.

De-icing salt: this would only be present to lower part of walls immediately facing adjoining treated roads. The contamination would be effectively solely chloride-sodium chloride.

Animal waste: this usually contaminates buildings where animals are kept i.e. agricultural buildings. It may only directly contaminate lower parts of walls but it can provide ‘enhanced’ groundwater salt concentrations into a wall through rising water via contaminated ground due to the waste: a lot of chloride should be expected together with ammonium salts. Nitrate does not appear to be detected in urine (human) by commonly used techniques, i.e., those used in identifying nitrates in building materials; nitrite in fresh urine indicates a medical problem.

Stored fertiliser/salted food, etc: this is rare and in most cases probably present in agricultural buildings, old meat processing areas, old bakeries, etc. It is also likely to be very localised.

Chimney flues: the result of long-term burning of fossil fuels cause the build up over a long period of time of soluble chlorides and nitrates; these are often associated with staining of a chimney breast and it will also occur on upper levels and adjacent to the chimney structure. One usually finds excess chloride to nitrate ratio in these situations, and also possibly ammonium salts. If there is a sufficient build up of the salts they will also cause visible dampness and high electrical moisture meter readings due to their hygroscopic nature.

Washing-up liquid: this was distinctly not available at the time of building houses with lime mortars: there appears to be no free chloride or nitrate present in diluted ‘Fairy liquid’ or Morrison’s, but I have no idea about Tesco, Sainsbury’s, etc. own brand. If present they would have been significantly diluted by the water and the mortars/renders into which the water was added and as such they would be of absolutely no consequence.

Electrical cables: These do not affect electrical moisture meter readings as some claim – unless you penetrate through to the wire, and you won’t need a meter to tell you that!

In relation to the presence of certain soluble salts, it should be appreciated that soluble chloride and nitrate are almost certainly present in most building materials, especially where groundwater (including rivers and ponds)/tapwater are used in their manufacture/application. But at such levels they are of no consequence and for practical purposes can be totally ignored! It is not a case of presence -v- no presence but being present at sufficient levels beyond a ‘background’ level; in other words they will have been introduced following construction from some source.

In most clean building materials, including old bricks/mortars, they are present at levels of less than 0.01% wt/wt, often far less. In almost all cases where high levels are present, sufficient enough to influence moisture meter readings, they are introduced most often in solution and over a period of time. Some seem to suggest or imply their presence at any level is akin to, “All elephants are grey; if it is grey it is an elephant”

Finally, the most important feature is that when using an electrical moisture meter or any other method of potentially looking at salt/water problems, the area should be ‘profiled’-that is how the meter readings are distributed (This also applies to any moisture and salt profiling by destructive lab methods) – it is the level and distribution of the salts that are effectively the definitive key to diagnosis. For example, if using an electrical moisture meter all readings are related to the chimney area only, it may be due to a salt problem related solely to the chimney. If the high readings are restricted to lower parts of walls only, salt and/or moisture such as found in long term rising damp may be the result – further information may be obtained by the nature of the profile. If the meter readings are obtained throughout the property, this may possibly be inherent in the building materials, etc.

Basically, any investigation is the combination of simple common sense together with using ones’ eyes, and experience – realistically a very high proportion of significant electrical  moisture meter responses will be water ingress and/or reasonable hygroscopic salt contamination, neither of which should be in the material and must therefore have originated from somewhere subsequent to construction.

 
The following guidance should be considered by the householder (‘layperson’) should they be seeking specialists for damp and timber infestation problems.
 
Always ask for a survey and written report – these should describe the problems in full, give any instrument readings obtained and the methods to be used to effect a solution.
 
Always ask if the system being offered will cure the problem you have – always get this in writing and a full report before accepting any contract.
 
Always ask if there are other damp issues in your property which the system cannot rectify – get the answer in writing.
 
Always ask if there are any ancillary matters that are your responsibility in relation to the problems you are experiencing – if the answer is yes or even no then, again, get this clearly identified and confirmed in writing, whatever the case.
 
Never accept a quote only without a full report, especially if offered at the time of the visit.
 
Always read the report fully and any small print/guarantees and other information provided prior to accepting any work.
 
If you do not know the company or surveyor always ask that he is suitably qualified, – for example – one of the following qualifications CRDS, CTIS or CSRT. For waterproofing (‘tanking’) it is CSSW. These are all UK nationally recognised qualifications.
or,
If you do not know any company then it is prudent to look for one that is a member of the Property Care Association (PCA) – member Surveyors have to be qualified as described above.
 
FINALLY and VERY IMPORTANT:-
 
Always determine if the person visiting is simply  a ’SALESPERSON’, say responding to your enquiry to an advertisement and just there to get a ‘quote’ or simply to sell a product/system (distinctly not advised), or is  PROPERLY TRAINED AND QUALIFIED to undertake specialist damp/timber surveys – if in doubt then ask for a specialist (qualified) from that company or select another company.
 
By considering the above guide, any person having specialist works undertaken will reduce the risks of dispute should one develop where the argument finally relates to the documents and contract.

By definition a ‘myth’ is 1. Any fictitious story, or unscientific theory, belief, etc, and 2. Person or thing whose existence is fictional or unproven account.
 
As part of the introduction the author of ‘The Rising Damp Myth’ also states:
 
“For the fact is that rising damp is a mythical building defect, which only came to widespread prominence in the 1960s —-” and “The rising damp myth has become so powerful, and so deeply ingrained in the psyche of the construction professions, that to question it is to invite denial and even ridicule.”
 
So what about the truth?

Does it or does it not exist?

And do the claims made in the book ‘The Rising Damp Myth’ stand up to scrutiny or is the author simply just making it up?

To find out the truth read the independent review of “The Rising Damp Myth” and draw your own conclusions.

Download an independent Review of “The Rising Damp Myth”

The document is a must read for fellow damp professionals as well as  members of the public considering the installation of a damp proofing system.

A European damp proofing system

A Review of an Environmentally Driven Damp-Proofing System

This traditional cavity brick built, mid-terraced house was subjected to a Home Buyers Survey, which identified dampness within the front living room and rear dining room walls, as a consequence of which recommendations where made to instruct a Specialist Damp Proofing Co to undertake a full survey (standard recommendation) and carry out any remedial works.

After an investigation by a local damp proofing company, rising damp was identified and recommendations put forward for a chemical injection damp proof course and re-plastering to the value of £1800 + Vat.

No visual evidence of dampness to the front bay window

 
Apparently happy with this quote, the prospective purchaser’s builder expressed his concerns with the diagnosis, as the property had (what appeared to be) a perfectly good slate damp proof course (as was installed at the time of construction) visible to both the front bay and rear dining room external facing walls.

A second opinion was sought and Premier Heritage were invited to undertake a survey of the property for Structural Dampness which found the following;-

•  No obvious external defects or sources of moisture
• No apparent internal decorative spoiling (other than badly applied wall paper)
• No obvious plaster deterioration
• No surface mould growth
• No significant levels of moisture within the skirtings or adjacent timbers
• However, high and consistent damp readings to ceiling height on both walls.

Question………What type of dampness would cause this?

Answer……….  The Metal foil backed paper type of dampness. 

Lifting the wall paper expose’s the metal foil paper responsible for the damp readings!

Wrong Diagnosis

The damp problem had been incorrectly diagnosed, as it was metal foil paper (under the wallpaper) that was interfering with the damp meter, causing it to give the readings. The user should however (if he had known what he was doing) been ‘put on notice’ to the fact that the readings were consistent throughout the walls height (unusual) and that there was no obvious spoiling of decorations / plasterwork etc.

This should have at the very least, made him suspicious and he should have looked beyond the damp meter readings. More importantly is the fact that the property had a fully effective physical damp proof course.

The Outcome

The survey and investigation of dampness in an occupied house can sometimes be restricted as destructive investigation cannot always be carried out or approved. The misdiagnosis of dampness in buildings generally results from the misuse of the ‘moisture meter’ as in this case, but one should not rely on the moisture meter alone and should depend on the surveyors experience, eyes and common sense, all of which will tell him far more than the moisture meter alone. But such instruments are there to support and aid in the diagnosis of dampness (if used correctly) and as such their importance should not be overlooked.

We were somewhat surprised that the Chartered Surveyor had failed to identify the problem and far too quickly ‘passed the buck’ to the damp proofing company. We were however not too surprised with the damp-proofing surveyors findings as he was not only inexperienced, but also held no formal qualifications in damp surveying.

The foil backed paper had been applied to the walls due to the colonisation of mould during the winter months, the mould clearly a symptom of a seasonal condensation.

The foil paper, marketed as an aid to ‘damp control’, was naively applied by the Vendor in an innocent attempt to eradicate the mould, which clearly was never going to happen.

Premier Heritage identified that no structural dampness existed within this property and therefore no works were needed. Following the removal of the foil backed paper and redecoration they all lived happily ever after, apart from the surveyor and the damp-company who were asked to  contribute towards Premier Heritages costs, which could have been avoided had they looked beyond the end of their noses!

This detached, stone built former Devon Farmhouse was refurbished by its previous owners in the 1970’s and unfortunately like many properties of this age was stripped of much of its original fabric, including its lime plasterwork, renders and pointing mortar.

Farmhouse prior to traditional form of damp proofing taking place

In early 2008 Premier Heritage received instructions from its new owners to undertake a full survey of the property for dampness and associated defects and to put forward a specification for remedial works to deal with the dampness present and any associated defects.

Drying out the dampness in the property

The main areas of concern identified by our investigation confirmed the presence of rising and penetrating dampness affecting various walls, although the latter mainly affecting the weather prevailing elevations and most noticeably the front sitting room, rear drawing room and stair area. No structural dampness was identified at first floor level.

As a consequence of the longstanding dampness to the lower sections of the south and western walls, several timber lintels were also showing signs of decay (some having already been replaced) and also death watch beetle activity.

Lintels showing signs of death watch beetle activity and fungal decay

The structural timbers supporting the half landing were also affected by wet rot where bearing into the wall as were numerous skirting and window boards.

To the western wall there was also the added complication of raised external ground levels sloping towards the house and also an obvious, insufficient overhang of the thatched roofing, increasing moisture at ground level and within the walls.

Replaced timbers

It was established that the conditions affecting this property had resulted as a consequence of the building’s past refurbishment and the removal of the original permeable mortars and renders used in the buildings original construction (i.e. the lime plaster, bedding and pointing mortar etc). Subsequent replacement with modern cement, being less permeable has resulted in dampness becoming trapped within the fabric of the wall ‘due to its inability to breathe’. This problem has built up over many years being further compounded by the numerous layers of masonry paint applied to the walls over the past 30 years or so!

Premier Heritage’s specification for remedial works concentrated on the removal of the cement materials (both inside and out) to allow the walls to dry down, along with subsequent repairs to structural and joinery timbers. The main contractor was appointed and the works were project managed by Premier Heritage.

The first task was to remove the external paintwork and cement pointing which was impermeable and trapping moisture / dampness within the wall’s, increasing the levels of dampness and internal damage to the building’s fabric. Having removed all external coatings and cement mortar (including that to the interior of the sitting room) the walls started to dry down.

New oak lintels were introduced, where existing were structurally unsound and timber repairs were completed to the interior staircase and landing etc.

Ground levels to the western wall were also reduced, with improved drainage and a vertical slate barrier fitted to the lower sections of the wall to minimise damp penetration.

Following the drying period re-pointing commenced to the exposed stone walls and this was undertaken using a lime based (permeable / breathable) mortar, after which the building was re-thatched and finally redecorated throughout.

The building has now been restored to its former condition and is dry and comfortable as well as looking great!

The finished farmhouse free of damp

From October 2008 all domestic buildings (being built, rented or sold) were required ‘by Law’ to have an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) to help improve the energy efficiency of the building. The EPC provides an ‘A’ to ‘G’ rating for the building, ‘A’ being the most efficient and ‘G’ the least and to-date a ‘D’ rating is currently being banded as the average.

It is claimed that around a third of heat loss in a house is through its roof and walls and currently there is a government drive (supported by television advertising and the offer of Home Improvement Insulation Grants) to encourage home owners to increase loft insulation and also to fit cavity wall insulation, as it is claimed this can save on average around £180 per annum on heating costs!

However were you aware that by installing cavity wall insulation, whilst you may well be saving some money on fuel costs, you could also be creating a major expense for the future……..damp!

Example of cavity wall insulation

The cavity wall (as we know it) dates back to the early 1900’s and is commonly found in the coastal areas around Britain, used to reduce the risk of rain penetration. In the 1920’s, local building by-laws encouraged the construction of the cavity wall and by the 1940’s it had become the Industry Standard. The familiar cavity wall (as we know it) is two leaves of brickwork, forming a 60mm cavity and tied together with metal wall ties.

Even back in the good old 1970’s concerns were being expressed over Energy Conservation and home owners were then being encouraged to introduce loft insulation and it wasn’t long after that cavity wall insulation was also being recommended.

Fill your cavities with foam, polystyrene, mineral wool or any other material you can introduce through a small hole in the wall and you will save energy and loads of money. Sounds good, but what if by introducing this insulation you increased the risk of damp to your property, which in turn would cause internal decorative spoiling, plaster damage, fungal decay to  structural and joinery timbers and also accelerate the risk of corrosion to the metal wall ties.

Could that really happen? Well the answer is yes and it is.

Paul Carter, the principal of Premier Heritage, has investigated hundreds of buildings over the past 20 years of so, where damp has affected internal decorations etc and found that the damp present was due to bridging of the cavity by the earlier installed insulation materials. Whilst some of these cases were wrongly diagnosed by others as rising damp, most of these buildings (if not all) retained a physical damp proof course, the newest being a 1980’s brick built bungalow in Hampshire.

Ok, lets put this into perspective, there have been thousands of cavity built houses within the UK that have been insulated and a good majority of these don’t currently have nor will ever have a problem with damp. But there are a great number that have and no doubt more will be affected in the years to come! 

Increased rainfall in past years has resulted in a noticeable increase in damp problems affecting conventional cavity-constructed housing, due to moisture penetrating / bridging the cavities and in particular on the weather prevailing elevations and this isn’t a problem relating to current rainfall, but a gradual build of damp over many years.

Rainwater driving into the masonry of a building can penetrate the outer leaf brickwork leading to the wetting of the insulation materials, increased damp penetration and a reduced thermal performance of the material. Poor construction methods, mortar and perp joints, debris within the cavities, dirty wall ties and poor installation procedures by installers all contribute to the overall problem, which generally will result in the need to remove the insulation, which is not only expensive, but will almost certainly cosmetically scar the building when finished. Unfortunately it doesn’t come out through the same hole through which it went in!

So how do you avoid this problem? Well there’s no easy answer to this other than to look carefully at the building’s construction (porosity of building materials) and its exposure to the prevailing weather conditions. If having then decided to proceed, ensure that the chosen contractor / installer, during the survey, checks the cavities  and cavity trays for debris and dirty wall ties, but more importantly offers a system and material that guarantees (preferably insurance backed) that the materials being installed will not transmit / bridge moisture through and into the internal wall!

Alternatively, if you’re still unsure then don’t install.

Examples of Cavity Wall Insulation causing damp:

Cavity Foam Insulation

1970’s block constructed bugalow with poorly installed cavity foam insulation and debris bridging moisture via wall ties, cost around £800 to remove and rectify internal damage caused.

Polystyrene bead cavity insulation

Polystyrene bead cavity insulation 2

1920’s brick constructed house, south facing elevation with polystyrene bead insulation and poor quality mortar. Caused extensive damp to internal decorations and accelerated corrosion of wall ties (rusting ends just visable), cost in excess of £3,500 to remove insulation and install new wall ties.