The Cleaning and Waterproof Coating of Masonry Buildings

PRESERVATION BRIEFS: 1

The Cleaning and Waterproof Coating of Masonry Buildings

Robert C. Mack, A.I.A.

U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Center for Cultural Stewardship and Partnerships
Heritage Preservation Services Division
Technical Preservation Services

Table of Contents

• Why Clean?
• What Is The Dirt?
• What Is The Construction Of The Building?
• Types Of Cleaning
• Planning A Cleaning Project
• Potential Problems Of Cleaning
• Problems Of Water Repellent And Waterproof Coatings

The inappropriate cleaning and waterproofing or masonry buildings is a major cause of deterioration of the Nation's historic resources. While both treatments may be appropriate in some cases, they may cause serious deterioration in others. The purpose of this leaflet is to provide guidance on the techniques of cleaning and waterproofing, and to explain the consequences of their inappropriate use.

Why Clean?

The reasons for cleaning any building must be considered carefully before arriving at a decision to clean.

Is the cleaning being done to improve the appearance of the building or to make it look new? The socalled "dirt" actually may be weathered masonry, not accumulated deposits; a portion of the masonry itself thus will be removed if a "clean" appearance is desired.

Is there any evidence that dirt and pollutants are having a harmful effect on the masonry? Improper cleaning can accelerate the deteriorating effect of pollutants.

Is the cleaning an effort to "get your project started" and improve public relations? Cleaning may help local groups with short term fund raising, yet cause long term damage to the building.

These concerns may lead to the conclusion that cleaning is not desirable at least not until further study is made of the building its environment and possible cleaning methods.

What Is The Dirt?

The general nature and source of dirt on a building must be determined in order to remove it in the most effective, yet least harmful, manner. Soot and smoke, for example, may require a different method of cleaning than oil stains or bird droppings. The "dirt" also may be a weathered or discolored portion of the masonry itself rather than extraneous materials. Removal of part of the masonry thus would be required to obtain a "clean" appearance, leading to loss of detail and gradual erosion of the masonry. Other common cleaning problems include metal stains such as rust or copper stains, and organic matter such as the tendrils left on the masonry after removal of ivy. The source of dirt, such as coal soot, may no longer be a factor in planning for longer term maintenance, or it may be a continuing source of problems. Full evaluation of dirt and its effect on the building may require one or several kinds of expertise: consultants may include building conservators, geologists, chemists, and preservation architects. Other sources of local experience or information may include building owners in the area, local universities, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the AIA State Preservation Coordinator.

If the proposed cleaning is to remove paint, it is important in each case to learn whether or not exposed brick is historically appropriate. Many buildings were painted at the time of construction or shortly thereafter; retention of the paint, therefore, may be more appropriate historically than exposing the brick, in spite of current attitudes about "natural" brick. Even in cases where unpainted masonry is appropriate, the retention of the paint may bc more practical than removal in terms of long range preservation of the masonry. In some cases, however, removal of the paint may be desirable. For example, the old paint layers may have built up to such an extent that removal is necessary prior to repainting. It is essential, however, that research on the paint type, color, and layering be completed on the entire building before removal.

What Is The Construction Of The Building?

The construction of the building must be considered in developing a cleaning program because inappropriate cleaning can have a corrosive effect on both the masonry and the other building materials.

Incorrectly chosen cleaning products can cause damaging chemical reactions with the masonry itself. For example, the effect of acidic cleaners on marble and limestone generally is recognized. Other masonry products also are subject to adverse chemical reactions with incompatible cleaning products. Thorough understanding of the physical and chemical properties of the masonry can help you avoid the inadvertent selection of damaging cleaning materials.

Other building materials also may be affected by the cleaning process; some chemicals, for example, may have a corrosive effect on paint or glass. The portions of building elements most vulnerable to deterioration may not be visible, such as embedded ends of iron window bars. Other totally unseen items, such as iron cramps or ties which hold the masonry to the structural frame, also may be subject to corrosion from the use of chemicals or even from plain water (Fig. 1). The only way to prevent problems in these cases is to study the building construction in detail and evaluate proposed cleaning methods with this information in mind.

Previous treatments of the building and its surroundings also should he evaluated, if known. Earlier waterproofing applications may make cleaning difficult. Repairs may have been stained to match the building, and cleaning may make these differences apparent. Salts or other snow removal chemicals used near the building may have dissolved and been absorbed into the masonry, causing potentially serious problems of spalling or efflorescence. Techniques for overcoming each of these problems should be considered prior to the selection of a cleaning method.

Types Of Cleaning

Cleaning methods generally are divided into three major groups: water, chemical, and mechanical (abrasive). Water methods soften the dirt and rinse the deposits from the surface. Chemical cleaners react with the dirt and/or masonry to hasten the removal process; the deposits, reaction products and excess chemicals then are rinsed away with water. Mechanical methods include grit blasting (usually sand blasting), grinders, and sanding discs, which remove the dirt by abrasion and usually are followed by a water rinse. Problems related to each of these cleaning methods will be discussed later in this leaflet.

Planning A Cleaning Project

Once the existing conditions have been evaluated, including the type of dirt and the building materials, planning for the cleaning project can begin.

Environmental concerns: The potential effect of each proposed method of cleaning should be evaluated carefully. Chemical cleaners, even though dilute, may damage trees, shrubs, grass, and plants. Animal life, ranging from domestic pets to song birds to earth worms, also may be affected by the runoff. In addition, mechanical methods can produce hazards through the creation of airborne dust.

The proposed cleaning project also may cause property damage. Wind drift. for example, may carry cleaning chemicals onto nearby automobiles, causing etching of the glass or spotting of the paint finish. Similarly, airborne dust can enter surrounding buildings, and excess water can collect in nearby yards and basements.

Personal safety: The potential health dangers of each method proposed for the cleaning project must be considered, and the dangers must be avoided. Both acidic and alkaline chemical cleaners can cause serious injury to cleaning operators and passersby; injuries can be caused by chemicals in both liquid and vapor forms. Mechanical methods cause dust which can pose a serious health hazard, particularly if the abrasive or the masonry contain silica. Steam cleaning has serious hazards because of high temperatures.

Testing cleaning methods: Several potentially useful cleaning methods should be tested prior to selecting the one for use on the building. The simplest and least dangerous methods should be includedas well as those more complicated. All too often simple methods, such as a low pressure water wash, are not even considered, yet they frequently are effective, safe, and least expensive. Water of slightly higher pressure or with a mild nonionic detergent additive also may be effective. It is worth repeating that these methods should be tested prior to considering harsher methods; they are safer for the building, safer for the environment, and less expensive.

The level of cleanliness desired also should be determined prior to selection of a cleaning method. Obviously, the intent of cleaning is to remove most of the dirt. A "brand new" appearance, however, may be inappropriate for an older building, and may require an overly harsh cleaning method. It may be wise, therefore, to determine a lower level of acceptable cleaning. The precise amount of residual dirt considered acceptable would depend upon the type of masonry and local conditions.

Cleaning tests, whether using simple or complex methods, should be applied to an area of sufficient size to give a true indication of effectiveness. The test patch should include at least a square yard, and, with large stones, should include several stones and mortar joints. It should be remembered that a single building may have several types of masonry materials and similar materials may have different surface finishes; each of these differing areas should be tested separately. The results of the tests may well indicate that several methods of cleaning should be used on a single building.

The cleaning budget should include money to pay for these tests. Usually contractors are more willing to conduct a variety of tests if they are reimbursed for their time and materials, particularly if the tests include methods with which the contractor is not familiar.

When feasible, test areas should be allowed to weather for an extended period prior to evaluation. A waiting period of a full year is not unreasonable in order to expose the masonry to a full range of seasons. For any building which is considered historically important, the delay is insignificant compared to the potential damage and disfigurement which may arise from use of an incompletely tested method (Figs. 25).

Potential Problems Of Cleaning

Water Cleaning: Water cleaning methods include: (1) low pressure wash over an extended period, (2) moderate to high pressure wash, and (3) steam. Bristle brushes frequently are used to supplement the water wash. All joints, including mortar and sealants, must be sound in order to minimize water penetration to the interior.

Porous masonry may absorb excess amounts of water during the cleaning process and cause damage within the wall or on interior surfaces. Normally, however, water penetrates only part way through even moderately absorbent masonry materials.

Excess water also can bring soluble salts from within the masonry to the surface, forming efflorescences (Fig. 2); in dry climates, the water may evaporate inside the masonry, leaving the salts slightly in back of the surface. The damage which can be caused by soluble salts is explained in more detail later in this leaflet. Efflorescence usually can be traced to a source other than a single water wash.

Another source of surface disfigurement is chemicals such as iron and copper in the water supply; even "soft" water may contain deleterious amounts of these chemicals. Water methods cannot be used during periods of cold weather because water within the masonry can freeze, causing spalling and cracking. Since a wall may take over a week to dry after cleaning, no water cleaning should be permitted for several days prior to the first average frost date, or even earlier if local forecasts predict cold weather.

In spite of these potential problems, water methods generally are the simplest to carry out, the safest for the building and the environment, and the least expensive.

Chemical cleaning: Since most chemical cleaners are water based, they have many of the potential problems of plain water. Additional problems of chemical cleaning agents have been mentioned in the discussion of environmental concerns.

Chemical cleaners have other problems as well. Some types of masonry are subject to direct attack by cleaning chemicals. Marble and limestone, for example, are dissolved easily by acidic cleaners, even in dilute forms. Another problem may be a change in the color of the masonry caused by the chemicals, not by removal of dirt; the cleaner also may leave a hazy residue in spite of heavy rinsing (Fig. 3). In addition, chemicals can react with components of mortar, stone, or brick to create soluble salts which can form efflorescences, as mentioned earlier. Historic brick buildings are particularly susceptible to damage from hydrochloric (muriatic) acid, although it is, unfortunately, widely used on these structures.

Mechanical cleaning: Grit blasters, grinders, and sanding discs all operate by abrading the dirt off the surface of the masonry, rather than reacting with the dirt and masonry as in water and chemical methods. Since the abrasive do not differentiate between the dirt and the masonry, some erosion of the masonry surface is inevitable with mechanical methods, especially blasting. Although a skilled operator can minimize this erosion, some erosion will still take place. In the case of brick, soft stone, detailed carvings, or polished surfaces, even minimal erosion is unacceptable (Figs. 4 and 5). Brick, a fired product, is hardest on the outside where the temperatures were highest; the loss of this "skin" of the brick exposes the softer inner portion to more rapid deterioration. Abrasion of intricate details causes a rounding of sharp corners and other loss of delicate features, while abrasion of polished surfaces removes the polished quality of stone. Mechanical methods, therefore, should never be used on these surfaces and should be used with extreme caution on others.

Grit blasting, unfortunately, still is widely used in spite of these serious effects. In most cases, blasting will leave minute pits on the surface of the masonry. This additional roughness actually increases the surface area on which new dirt can settle and on which pollutants can react.

Mortar joints, especially those with lime mortar, also can be eroded by mechanical cleaning. In some cases, the damage may be visual, such as loss of joint detail or increased joint shadows. Joints constitute a significant portion of the masonry surface (up to 20% in a brick wall) so this change should not be considered insignificant. In other cases, however, the erosion of the mortar joint may permit increased water penetration, leading to the necessity for complete repointing.

Other problems of mechanical methods have been mentioned in the discussion of project planning. In addition, wet blasting or water rinses can create the potential hazards of water methods.

Problems Of Water Repellent And Waterproof Coatings

Is waterproofing necessary? Coatings frequently are applied to historic buildings without concern for the requirement or the consequences of the coating. Most historic buildings have survived for years without coatings, so why are they needed now? Water penetration to the interior usually is not caused by porous masonry but by deteriorated gutters and downspouts, deteriorated mortar, capillary moisture from the ground (rising damp), or condensation. Coatings will not solve these problems. In the case of rising damp, in fact, the coatings will allow the water to go even higher because of the retarded rate of evaporation. The claim also is made that coatings keep dirt and pollutants from collecting on the surface of the building thus reducing the requirement for future cleaning. While this at times may be true, at other times the coatings actually retain the dirt more than uncoated masonry. More important, however, is the fact that these coatings can cause greater deterioration of the masonry than that caused by pollution, so the treatment may be worse than the problem one is attempting to solve.

Types of coatings: Masonry coatings are of two types: waterproof coatings and water repellent coatings. Waterproof coatings seal the surface from liquid water and from water vapor; they usually are opaque, such as bituminous coatings and some paints. Water repellents keep liquid water from penetrating the surface but allow water vapor to enter and leave through the "pores" of the masonry. They usually are transparent, such as the silicone coatings, although they may change the reflective property of the masonry, thus changing the appearance.

Waterproof coatings: These coatings usually do not cause problems as long as they exclude all water from the masonry. If water does enter the wall, however, the coating can intensify the damage because the water will not be able to escape. During cold weather this water in the wall can freeze, causing serious mechanical disruption, such as spalling. In addition, the water eventually will get out by the path of least resistance. If this path is toward the interior, damage to interior finishes can result; if it is toward exterior cracks in the coating, it can lead to damage from the buildup of salts as described below.

Water repellent coatings: These coatings also can cause serious damage, but by a somewhat different mechanism. As water repellent coatings do not seal the surface to water vapor, it can enter the wall as well as leave the wall. Once inside the wall, the vapor can condense at cold spots, producing liquid water. Water within the wall, whether from condensation, leaking gutters, or other sources, can do damage, as explained earlier.

Further damage can be done by soluble salts. Salts frequently are present in the masonry, either from the mortar or from the masonry units themselves. Liquid water can dissolve these salts and carry them toward the surface. If the water is permitted to come to the surface, efflorescences appear upon evaporation. These are unsightly but usually are easily removed; they often are washed away by the simple action of the rain.

The presence of a water repellent coating, however, prevents the water and dissolved salts from coming completely to the surface. The salts then are deposited slightly behind the surface of the masonry as the water evaporates through the pores. Over time, the salt crystals will grow and will develop substantial pressures which will spall the masonry, detaching it at the depth of crystal growth. This buildup may take several years to cause problems.

Test patches for coatings generally do not allow an adequate evaluation of the treatment, because water may enter and leave through the surrounding untreated areas, thus flushing away the salt buildup. In addition, salt deposits may not cause visible damage for several years, well after the patch has been evaluated.

This is not to suggest that there is never a use for water repellents or waterproofings. Sandblasted brick, for example, may have become so porous that paint or some type of coating is essential. In other cases, the damage being caused by local pollution may he greater than the potential damage from the coatings. Generally, coatings are not necessary, however, unless there is a specific problem which they will help to solve. If the problem occurs on only a portion of the masonry, it probably is best to treat only the problem area rather than the entire building. Extreme exposures such as parapets, for example, or portions of the building subject to driving rains can be treated more effectively and less expensively than the entire building. Washington, D.C. November, 1975.

Back to Tips & Techniques