NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS REPORT

1+063

WATER PERMEABILITY OF HYDROCIDE C0L0RC0AT

COATINGS APPLIED TO CONCRETE MASONRY

By

E. J. McCamley

Report to

Office of the Chief of Engineers

Department of the Army

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Sinclair Weeks, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

A. V. Astin, Director

THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The scope of activities of the National Bureau of Standards is suggested in the following listing

of the divisions and sections engaged in technical work. In general, each section is engaged in

specialized research, development, and engineering in the field indicated by its title. A brief

description of the activities, and of the resultant reports and publications, appears on the inside

of the back cover of this report.

Electricity and Electronics. Resistance and Reactance. Electron Tubes. Electrical Instru- ments. Magnetic Measurements. Process Technology. Engineering Electronics. Electronic

Instrumentation. Electrochemistry.

Optics and Metrology. Photometry and Colorimetry. Optical Instruments. Photographic

Technology. Length. Engineering Metrology.

Heat and Power. Temperature Measurements. Thermodynamics. Cryogenic Physics.

Engines and Lubrication. Engine Fuels.

Atomic and Radiation Physics. Spectroscopy. Radiometry. Mass Spectrometry. Solid

State Physics. Electron Physics. Atomic Physics. Nuclear Physics. Radioactivity. X-rays. Betatron. Nucleonic Instrumentation. Radiological Equipment. AEC Radiation Instruments. Chemistry. Organic Coatings. Surface Chemistry. Organic Chemistry. Analytical Chemistry.

Inorganic Chemistry. Electrodeposition. Gas Chemistry. Physical Chemistry. Thermochemistry. Spectrochemistry. Pure Substances.

Mechanics. Sound. Mechanical Instruments. Fluid Mechanics. Engineering Mechanics.

Mass and Scale. Capacity, Density, and Fluid Meters. Combustion Controls.

Organic and Fibrous Materials. Rubber. Textiles. Paper. Leather. Testing and Specifications. Polymer Structure. Organic Plastics. Dental Research.

Metallurgy. Thermal Metallurgy. Chemical Metallurgy. Mechanical Metallurgy. Corrosion.

Mineral Products. Porcelain and Pottery. Glass. Refractories. Enameled Metals. Concreting Materials. Constitution and Microstructure.

Building Technology. Structural Engineering. Fire Protection. Heating and Air Conditioning. Floor, Roof, and Wall Coverings. Codes and Specifications.

Applied Mathematics. Numerical Analysis. Computation. Statistical Engineering. Mathematical Physics.

Data Processing Systems. Components and Techniques. Digital Circuitry. Digital Systems.

Analogue Systems.

Cryogenic Engineering. Cryogenic Equipment. Cryogenic Processes. Properties of Materials.

Gas Liquefaction.

Radio Propagation Physics. Upper Atmosphere Research. Ionospheric Research. Regular

Propagation Services.

Radio Propagation Engineering. Frequency Utilization Research. Tropospheric Propagation

Research.

Radio Standards. High Frequency Standards. Microwave Standards. • Office of Basic Instrumentation • Office of Weights and Measures
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS REPORT

NIBS PR0JECT NBS REPORT

1000-30-1+801 April 18 , 1955 1+063

WATER PERMEABILITY OF HYDROCIDE C0L0RC0AT

COATINGS APPLIED TO CONCRETE MASONRY

BY

E. J. McCamley

To

Office of the Chief of Engineers

Department of the Army

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The publication, reprint)

unless permission Isobta

25, D.C. Such permlssl

cal ly prepared If that

Approved for public release by the

Director of the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST)

on October 9, 201 5.

rt, is prohibited

ds, Washington

las been specifi- er Its own use,

WATER PERMEABILITY OF HYDROCIDE COLORCOAT

COATINGS APPLIED TO CONCRETE MASONRY

by

E. J. McCamley

Abstract

The water permeability of coatings of a

resin base paint known as Hydrocide Colorcoat was determined. The coatings were

applied both by spraying and brushing to

walls of rough- textured concrete masonry.

A sprayed coating of Colorcoat applied at

a rate of 5° 4 gal/100 ft2 (19 ft^/gal)

postponed but did not prevent the appearance of visible water on the back of the

wall. The wall was rated Very Poor before

treatment and Poor after treatment. Another

wall of similar construction having two

brushed coatings of Colorcoat applied at a

rate of 3*0 gal/100 ft^ (3I4. ft^/gal) was

given a rating of Good to Excellent following the treatment.

1 . INTRODUCTION

The resin base paint selected for testing by the Office

of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington,

D. C. was Hydrocide Colorcoat, manufactured by L. Sonneborn

Sons, Inc. A test of different materials was requested in

a letter dated November 23* 1954s reference ENGES, signed by

H. B. Zackrison, Sr., Chief, Engineering Division, Military

Construction.

A sample of Hydrocide Colorcoat was shipped to the

National Bureau of Standards by the L. Sonneborn Company and

arrived February 4s 1955* Two company representatives came

to the National Bureau of Standards to supervise the application of the spray coating to a test wall. The coating was

applied to a concrete masonry test wall of a known permeability (Wall E-l). After treatment, the permeability was

again measured. The observed change in the permeability of
.

,* .

x
2

the wall s resulting from the treatment, was used to measure

the ability of the coating to resist the penetration of a

wind-driven rain,

A second concrete masonry wall (Wall D-13) was brushcoated at the request of the representatives of the company

to demonstrate the brushability of the material as compared

with its sprayability. Wall D-13 had not, previous to the

application of the coatings been tested to determine its

permeability untreatedo However, it was constructed at the

same times using the same material as several other test

walls which had been tested untreated and it could be presumed to have a similar rating of Very Poor*

2 o DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS AND METHODS OF

APPLICATION OF HYDROCIDE COLORCOAT

2.1 Hydrocide Colorcoat

A 5“gal can of Hydrocide Colorcoat was supplied to the

National Bureau of Standards by the manufacturer.

Directions printed on the container recommended that

the surface to which the paint was to be applied be thoroughly dry and free from dust and soot. Brush coatings

should be applied in such a manner as to flow the material

on the wall and not brush it excessively. It was recommended

that Colorcoat be used as it comes in the can s although in

cool weather one half pint of mineral spirits or turpentine

could be added to each gallon. It was claimed that one application of Colorcoat would give a durable film using the following recommended coverages?

Rough surfaces, concrete masonry units?

60 to 75 ft2/gal

.

Smooth surfaces, brick, cast concrete, etc.?

75 to 90 ft 2/gal.

The weight of the Hydrocide Colorcoat was found to be 11.08

lb/gal.

3 . 2.2 Test walls

A concrete masonry test wall (E-l), approximately 8-in.

thick* !j_0“in. long* and 50=in. high* was built to accommodate

the testing of the sprayed application of this material. The

concrete hollow load bearing units were of nominal 8= by 12-

by 8-in. size and met the requirements of Federal Specific©-

tion SS-C- 621 , type I. The mortar contained Is 0 . 2^3 parts

by weight of high-early-strength cement * hydrated lime and

mortar sand. The wall was highly permeable and the workmanship used in its construction was that commonly used in concrete masonry buildings.

The second concrete masonry wall (D-13) was constructed

some years ago when other permeability tests were being made,

and which never was tested prior to the tests described in

this report. This wall was of the same approximate dimensions

as wall E-l and was made of hollow concrete load-bearing units.

The mortar contained Isis 6 parts by volume of portland cement*

hydrated lime and damp sand.

Both walls were similar to the test walls described in

Report BMS 95 s ’'Tests of cement-water paints and other waterproofings for unit-masonry walls." There were no unsightly

cracks or openings in the face of the walls.

2.3 Application of coatings

The spray coating was applied to the test wall E-l in a

manner similar to actual spraying jobs done in the field. A

commercial painter from the Edward W. Mint© Company* Washington*

D. C., hired by the manufacturer, applied the coating under

the supervision of their representatives. The spraying equipment used was standard commercial equipment.

The face of the wall to be sprayed was clean and dry before the application. A quart of turpentine was added to the

5-gal can of Colorcoat to facilitate spraying. The wall was

sprayed two times from the bottom to the top* then around the

edges. At the painter 5 s suggestion, spraying was stopped for

a few minutes in order to let the paint set a little. Upon

inspecting the wall, it could be seen that the paint had not

filled the voids in the face of the wall, and that the paint

around the edges was very thick and had started to lap. After

about 8 minutes the painter, using just the air stream from

the gun, tried to even out this excess paint and to fill the

voids. More paint was then sprayed on the wall and again air
9

'
b

was used to even out the coating. After the application, it

was noted that the wall had a very heavy coating of paint

although voids could still be seen that were not filled with

paint. The rate of coverage of the sprayed application was

19 ft^/gal. This was about three times the amount recommended

by the manufacturer. The treated wall was stored indoors for

seven days before testing for permeability to allow plenty of

time for the coating to dry.

The brush coating was applied to wall D-X3 by the

company* s representative using a 7”in. whitewash brush dipping it directly into the 5-gal container. The coating

seemed to brush easily and no special effort was made by the

representative to scrub the coating into the wall. Voids

could also be seen in the face of this wall at the conclusion

of the application. The rate of application was £6 ft^/gal,

which is approximately that recommended. The wall was stored

indoors for one day before testing at the recommendation of

the representatives.

After wall D-13 was given a permeability test resulting

in a rating of '’Poor," it was decided to give the wall another

brush coating to see if this would improve the rating. The

same brush was used and again no special effort was made to

scrub in the coating. However, pains were taken to fill all

voids by allowing the paint to flow into them. The rate of

application of the second brush coating was 8I4. ft2/gal. The

wall was allowed to set two days before being tested again.

The combined rate of coverage for the two brush coatings was

34. ft2/gal.

3. DESCRIPTION OF WATER PERMEABILITY TEST

The test exposures were as described in Report BMS95

and simulated an exposure to a heavy rain driven by a 50-mph

wind.

3»1 Test apparatus and procedure

The exposed face of a test wall formed one side of a

pressure chamber. Water at the rate of I4.O gal/hr was applied

to the top of the exposed face from a tube containing a line

of small perforations spaced 3/k *- n » apart. The air pressure

on the exposed face was maintained at 10 lb/ft^ above atmospheric pressure, equivalent to a hydrostatic head of 2 in.

The tests were continued for a minimum of one day.
.

>
5-

3«2 Definition of permeability test ratings

The water permeability test ratings are listed below;

Excellent (E) - No water visible on back of the

~ wall l above the flashings) at the end of 1 day.

Not more than 25 percent of the wall area damp

at the end of 3 days. No leaks \J through the

wall in 3 days.

Good (G

)

- No water visible on the back of the

wall at the end of 1 day. Less than 50 percent

of the wall damp at the end of 1 day. No leaks

through the wall at the end of 1 day.

Fair (F) - No water visible on back of the wall

during first 3 hours, but visible at the end of

1 day. The rate of leakage through the wall

less than 1 liter/hr at the end of 1 day.

Poor (P) » Water visible on back of wall in 3 hr

or less and at the end of 1 day. Rate of leakage through the wall less than 5 liter/hr at

the end of 1 day.

Very Poor (VP) - Hate of leakage through the

wall equal to or greater than 5 liter/hr at

the end of 1 day.

Water-resistant coatings applied to permeable concrete

masonry should preferably have permeability ratings of Good

or Excellent.

Coating rated as Fair may possibly be considered to

have a satisfactory resistance except when subjected to rain

and to winds of high velocity.

Coatings rated as Poor or Very Poor would be expected

to have an unsatisfactory resistance to the penetration of

wind-driven rain.

1/ Leaks are defined as follows; A leak is a flow of water

from one or both flashings, the combined rate of flow

being equal to or greater than 0.05 liter/hr.
'
4» TEST DATA AND DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS

4*1 Permeability of the untreated walls

The test data obtained from tests of the spray-coated

wall E"1 before and after treatment are listed in Table 1.

It may be noted that the wall was highly permeable before

treatment, and rated as Very Poor. The wall became wet on

the back in about 4 minutes after the test was started and

the maximum observed leakage was 47 liter/hr.

No preliminary data were available on the brush-coated

wall D-13 before treatment.

4.2 Permeability of the spray coating of colorcoat

Throughout the test the face of the wall E-l was highly

repellent and the water ran down the face of the wall in

separate streams. However, some of the water did penetrate

the face of the wall and showed as dampness on the back of

the wall in about 8 minutes after starting the test. Visible

water appeared on the back of the wall above the upper flashing in about 35 minutes. This visible water remained throughout the test although it did not run or flow from the flashing.

Visible water also appeared on the lower flashing about 5 Hr

after starting the test although this water did not flow from

the lower flashing. The dampness on the back of the wall increased throughout the test and covered about 4^ percent of

the wallas area at the end of the test. The leakage was

stopped by the spray coating of Colorcoat although it did permit some water to penetrate. The damp area was reduced a

little more than half compared to the untreated wall. The

wall was considered permeable and was rated as Poor.

4»4 Permeability of two brush coatings of Colorcoat

The face of the wall D-13 was highly repellent to water

which ran down the face of the wall in separate streams

throughout the test. Some water did penetrate the face of

the wall, although it took a much longer time than when only

one brush coating was applied. The time required for the

dampness to appear was 2 l/4 hours from the start of the test.

No visible water appeared on the back of the wall nor was any

present at the end of the test. The damp area was reduced as

7.

compared with the test of the one brush coating to 5 percent

of the area of the back of the wall. This wall was considered

water repellent and was rated Good to Excellent.

5. CONCLUSIONS

A spray coating of Colorcoat applied liberally (19 ft^/gal)

to a clean, dry face of a rough- textured concrete masonry test

wall, postponed but did not prevent the appearance of visible

water on the back of the wall. The test wall was rated Very

Poor before treatment and Poor after treatment.

One brush coating of Colorcoat applied to a clean, dry

face of a rough-textured concrete masonry wall, at approximately the recommended rate of coverage ( 56 ft^/gal) probably

would reduce but not stop the leakage of water through the wall.

The test wall was rated Poor.

Two brush coatings of Colorcoat applied to the same test

wall at a combined rate of coverage of 33»& ft^/gal (as against

a rate of 60 ft^/gal recommended by the manufacturer), did prevent leakage and visible water from appearing through the wall.

The wall was rated Good to Excellent.

In the case of both the sprayed and the single brush coating, the paint did not fill the voids in the face of the wall.

It was noted that pin holes were present in both coatings, although to what extent these holes allowed water to penetrate

could not be determined.

After applying a second brush coating to the wall and

filling most of the voids, much better results were obtained.

Pin holes also developed in the second coating but the apparent

backing up by the first coat prevented the water from going

through the coating to any great extent.
,* ,
Table

1.

Water

permeability

test

data (

bO

ft •H

-P

cd K

-p

X

m

ft

®

a) ft

© -P

<D S

ft Cd -p ft

«aj

X cdO P

ft®O

ft®

ft 0 •H9S I _ ® S -P cd

ft as (in

® £ ft O pH Ct

t>)'

03 1 a) oft AO w

X

® > cd bO cd

ft £3

H Cl

©

ft pH «H rH

pH ob ob a» •H ® ® X Cd +3 pH O

ft Cd

A ft aS o •H ® £3

O ®H 03 +3

+3 X) oH cd

C c >30

® «H C=» C*» OB E ft .is! •H E o

EH cd

C cd pO,Q

ft

oft

ft #3

ft ft

==

as ft

ft

O

=P

ca

•pi ft

®

p o -P

cd x)

-p

°rH X

ftOa

ft r-H 43 O ft o o ® cd ft 43 rH ® > 1 pH ft

ft I ft TS

® as

ft o O

OO

® o O

O * p,

ft ft P W E

aS xs ® o o 1 lA oft 43 o -d- 1 CO

43

03

oft 43 o ® O ® T3 0 ft 1 o ft ® f- o 1 CO

p± s {25

CM

03 o ® 03

ft > ® CO ® p, aS pH ft ! <\l ft XI e o 1 o O ® o s o is: oQ

CO

X

pH ft

ft o

o- CO cd

O o U\ 1 cm g O TS o e 1 o O S3 o o o a 43 ®

•H

r°\ O

f"°i pH i CO

pH

\A

CM gh the o o I • • o O o CM O 43

,ft as 43

pH 43

as ft®

pH i— > o 1 1 rH pH

pH ft ft ® O (X

03

oft bO bO >tn

-P 43 »P ft ft cd CM

ft “pi ft •pi •pi

X

® 3 ® 43 43 43 43 ft E S cd cd cd cd pH aS 43 X 43 o o o o .ft cd ® 43 cd o o o o ft 43 ® 43 cd ® ft ft O

ft cd

O ft oft

O oft

O ft 03 43 o o 43 03 pH 03 rH 03 o ft ft ° ft o X ® ® 1 o ® ft o • ft o ® pH

ft >pH ft £3 £3 43 O cd O O ft ft 03

®

ft ft o ft

® o OO

® £3

® ft® ft 5

43

CQ C/3 CQ o T5 pH pH

pH ft cO cd O

pH 1 1 ^ 3 0 § W Q '

Table 2 . Coverages

Method of application Coverage ' Coverage*

gal/100 ft 2 ’

t ft 2/gal

5.4 ;

t

19

1.8 «

* 56

1.2 * 81l

i 3.0 ?

t 34

Sprayed

Brushed 1st coating

Brushed 2nd coating

Combined brushed coating

THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Functions and Activities

The functions of the National Bureau of Standards are set forth in the Act of Congress, March

3, 1901, as amended by Congress in Public Law 619, 1950. These include the development and

maintenance of the national standards of measurement and the provision of means and methods

for making measurements consistent with these standards; the determination of physical constants and properties of materials; the development of methods and instruments for testing materials,

devices, and structures; advisory services to Government Agencies on scientific and technical

problems; invention and development of devices to serve special needs of the Government; and the

development of standard practices, codes, and specifications. The work includes basic and applied

research, development, engineering, instrumentation, testing, evaluation, calibration services, and

various consultation and information services. A major portion of the Bureau’s work is performed

for other Government Agencies, particularly the Department of Defense and the Atomic Energy

Commission. The scope of activities is suggested by the listing of divisions and sections on the

inside of the front cover.

Reports and Publications

The results of the Bureau’s work take the form of either actual equipment and devices or published papers and reports. Reports are issued to the sponsoring agency of a particular project

or program. Published papers appear either in the Bureau’s own series of publications or in the

journals of professional and scientific societies. The Bureau itself publishes three monthly periodicals, available from the Government Printing Office: The Journal of Research, which presents

complete papers reporting technical investigations; the Technical News Bulletin, which presents

summary and preliminary reports on work in progress; and Basic Radio Propagation Predictions,

which provides data for determining the best frequencies to use for radio communications throughout

the world. There are also five series of nonperiodical publications: The Applied Mathematics

Series, Circulars, Handbooks, Building Materials and Structures Reports, and Miscellaneous

Publications.

Information on the Bureau’s publications can be found in NBS Circular 460, Publications of

the National Bureau of Standards ($1.25) and its Supplement ($0.75), available from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office. Inquiries regarding the Bureau’s reports and

publications should be addressed to the Office of Scientific Publications, National Bureau of

Standards, Washington 25, D. C.