Comparation of Two Different Methods for Fighting Moisture in Historic Masonry

Abstract

Nearby all historic building built in Central Europe before the half of the 20th century have to face problems with unwanted moistening of their constructions. A significant part of them stands under legal protection as architectural monuments. There are several technologies which can be used to deal with this problem. Some of them are more invasive into historical masonry, some of them are less invasive. Some of them are much more effective in insulating effort, some of them are less. According to the Venice charter from 1964 methods which are less invasive should be preferred. Some of them are the ventilation methods. But are they really effective? On the other side of the spectrum are undercutting methods, which are drastically invasive. So, they are standing in a clear opposition the recommendations of the Venice charter. Why should they be used? Are they really so effective? And what should be done with their conflict with the Venice charter? The article tries to find answers on these questions on a base of introduced anti-moistening technologies from both sides of the mentioned spectrum. From a couple of renovation interventions undertaken in Slovakia, in the climate of Central Europe, two typical examples were taken out to support a – hopefully – right result. We used natural ventilation in a church in Western Slovakia and we achieved a success. Then we used the undercutting technology in some other church - again in Western Slovakia. We were also successful. So what is the matter? The matter is that one of this method was not successful in an adequate extend. The other one was.