Masonry Repair Options and Their Philosophical Ramifications

Conference paper
Part of the RILEM Bookseries book series (RILEM, volume 7)

Abstract

It would be assumed that a survey of a masonry structure would result in the production of an objective report. This situation cannot necessarily be guaranteed as the experience and understanding of masonry deteriorology and repair will vary from practitioner to practitioner. The difference in reporting will clearly determine alterative starting positions for the repair works, with divergence in the project potentially occurring when philosophical tenets are applied. The selection of repairs can be significantly influenced by the different professional’s philosophical perspectives that can be broadly categorised as, purist, pragmatist and cynic. These perspectives may direct the approach to repair, placing emphasis of the intervention towards what is of greatest perceived value to the practitioner; for example, honesty over aesthetic integrity and vice versa. This paper investigates how and why projects may start at a subjective point (although perceived as being relatively objective) and be prone to further divergence when building conservation philosophies are applied. This situation would go some way in explaining why two professionals would be confronted with the same structure, yet the outcome of the finished repair project could be significantly different.

Keywords

Minimal Intervention Lime Mortar Masonry Material Lead Professional Philosophical Stance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Watt, D.: Building Pathology: Principles and Practice. Blackwell, London (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashurst, J.: Conservation of Ruins. Butterworth-Heinmann, Oxford (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Straub, A.: Dutch standard for condition assessment of buildings. J. Struct. Surv. 27(1), 23–35 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Douglas, J., Ransom, W.: Understanding Building Failures, 3rd edn. Taylor & Francis, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Addleson, L., Rice, C.: Performance of Materials in Building. Butterworth-Heinmann, Oxford (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ruston, T.: Understanding why buildings fail and using ‘Heir’ methodology in practice’, latest thinking on building defects in commercial buildings: their diagnosis, causes and consequences, one-day conference, London, 15 July 1992Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    RICS.: Assessment of professional competence: RICS Education and Qualification Standards. RICS http://www.RICS.org (2009). Accessed Apr 2010
  8. 8.
    Hollis, M.: Surveying Buildings, 5th edn. RICS Books, London (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    RICS.: Guide to Building Surveys and Inspections of Commercial and Industrial Property. RICS guidance note, 3rd edn. RICS, London (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Webster, R.: Stone Cleaning and the Nature, Soiling and Decay Mechanisms of Stone. Donhead, London (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Earl, J.: Building Conservation Philosophy, 3rd edn. Donhead, Somerset (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    BS 7913.: The principles of the conservation of historic buildings. BSi (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bell, D.: Technical Advice Note 8: The Historic Scotland Guide to International Charters. HMSO, Edinburgh (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stirling, J.S.: Building Conservation Philosophy. Unpublished lecture notes, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Forster, A.M.: Building conservation philosophy for masonry repair: part 1 ‘Ethics’. J. Struct. Surv. 28(2), 91–107 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Forster, A.M.: Building conservation philosophy for masonry repair: part 2 ‘Principles’. J. Struct. Surv. 28(3), 165–188 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Powys, A.R.: Repair of Ancient Buildings. Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, Kings Lynn (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    BRE.: Building Research establishment (BRE), stone list. http://projects.bre.co.uk/condiv/stonelist/corsehill.html (2010). Accessed Mar 2010
  19. 19.
    Scottish Executive: Building with Scottish Stone. Crown Copyright, Arcamedia, Edinburgh (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hill, P.: Conservation and the stonemason. J. Archit. Conserv. 1(Part 2), 7–20 (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ashurst, J., Ashurst, N.: Practical Building Conservation: stone masonry: English Heritage Technical Handbook, vol. 1. Gower Technical Press, Avon (1988)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hughes, J.J., Banfill, P.F.G., Forster, A.M., Livesey, P., Nisbet, S., Sagar, J., Swift, D.S., Taylor, A.: Small-scale traditional lime binder and traditional mortar production for conservation of historic masonry buildings. In: Proceedings of International Building Lime Symposium, Orlando, FL, pp. 1–13 (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scotland, H.: Tan 19: Scottish Aggregates for Building Conservation. Crown Copyright, Edinburgh (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of the Built EnvironmentHeriot-Watt UniversityEdinburghScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations