NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS REPORT

NBS PROJECT HBS REPORT

1000-30-i|801 December 1, 1953 2950

WATER PERMEABILITY OF A "MARBLESEAL" COATING

by

C. C. Fishburn

Report to

Office of the Chief of Engineers

Department of the Army

<NBS>

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The publication, repr

unless permission iso

25, D, C. Such perm

etlly prepared If the

Approved for public release by the pa' t ’ '* pr9hll)it8d Director of the National Institute of

ldard *' Wa,hln&1on

Standards and Technology (NIST) on October 9, 20 1 5.

WATEB FB;IBABILITY CF A "MARBLESLaL " COATING

by

0. € * Pishburn

Abstract

The resistance to wind-driven rain of

a cementitious coating of "Karfelesaal, ** applied tc a highly permeable cinderconcrete masonry test wall, was measured. The arbleseal coating was

applied by the sponsors using a small

spray gun. The coating was found to be

permeable on each of two tests. Ab may

be expected, a decrease in permeability

was indicated on the second test. It is

probable that a more water-resistant

coating would have been obtained with

the Marbles eel if It had boon scrubbed

into the surface of the well.

1. IITEoWoficN

Tests of* the water permeability of a coating of

Garbleseal applied, to e cinder-concrete masonry test wall

were requested by the Office of the Chief of Engineers,

'•apartment of the Army, * ashington, D. C. The request

was nade in a letter dated August 25, 1953, end signed by

• Ir. Max Berth, Acting Chief, Engineering division, '’Military Construction, reference ENG.T.

2. Marble seal

The Garbleseal was & white cementitious powder passing a Ho. 100 sieve and manufactured by Marble seal, Inc., middle sboro, Kentucky. The results of an examination of
'"r.v .r- . v

3 tt-J*

'~nvi:~.U i.itixm-'tm :U'%& •« o* be-i.U-m

;-i& . ..•• -'S" 7

' "Xl'l Cl «ra a |&£*0 •t&tttc ,* j&*li***

o? jurat mw &&!$»*& *df *0*3 %&*%*

»s;r7'> ©w3 I f ii-vac- rtv5 ©Ids tv;

jri MftaMi *\i$ r.o &ai*©I£'nl tsW

fl $**W

: :- jacjjKhfc •'M'i iYd Al^ow

? «»®rf isd tJt - XaaiaKSia' ait?

• JUftw ®d# la &sf£ ©s*sl

^ ITOUa^ IfK *X

'to ,f;c ^ m ad* •

'

jf£ai? 3 .1 fc*u>£f©

s

«**Mbs$X9 a o4 I#w®Xrafl

«** -w^an '!:, la*.-*.-, ad* lo wmo ®rt* bastaatiprz *i«w

. , .jutoatilMV «i»*A «ft 1© Jcantfnaqad

,;.

' -UV •n.tx-r^nl/Ki j 5 V:.lrf, 3Al*ft* *« 1 * -;? .

> ; ••fsatalav *rx»W©irt<f<MioO t*ea

I*.*b si-?' >•- ' .S

, L-^..>:

•' 0 *iw -?•••>••* "'-n •«/ *

-•7 no IteaJtaa-x* «a la adf ttWN»X ^oioaaaXfc&Jft
2 .

the Marbleseel, made- for conform!tv with the require icnts of

federal Specificaticn TT-’-Sl, are Hated and. d® scribe 6 be loo-

a) The herbloses! contains no titanium dioxide or

Kinc sulphide pigments, one of Which is required*

b) The percentage of carbonates, calculated as CO2

is 23 more than the maximum specified C3 percent),

c) The amount of portland cement in the powder was

43 percent by weight, less than the minimum spedfisc (63 percent).

As indicated above, the arbleeeal does not conform

with the requirements of Federal Specification TT- P-21, amaiw-

•sent 2, Type 1, Class A.

3. m&Gffl;Y WALL BPMXmm

A cinder-aggregate concrete masonry wall specimen about

50-in. high, 40-in. long and 8-in. thick was furnished by

the National Bureau of ftandards. The wall was numbered

0-12 and its construction w&a the same as that of the concrete masonry test 'walls described In -•.©port Ki! 96, The

wall was highly permeable.

4 . APPLICATION of THE COATIMG

A sample of the dry marble seal powder was furnished

and delivered to the national Bureau of Standards by the

sake*®. Application of the coating? was in charge of :•!*». Franklin B. £ lusher. Field nginesr, arblese&l, Inc., who

also prepared and applied the paint, others of the sponsors

who were present at the bureau when the paint was applied

wero Hr, H, ?. ae^feer, President of arbles^-al* Inc,, ana

hr, Harold V .Kemper, Lexington, Kentucky.

Five pounds of barbie-seal was mixed with & so: all quan- tity of water until the water repellcncy of the paint was

broken. Additions! water was then added tc produce a crear-y

consistency. The paint was applied to the dampened face of
- >

):i

u

:; r*ii' tn% «&«*; 9 iM4&mS,4*&'.i &dJ

•" :,*» rr rV • . ;.; IX

‘

• " ' ' ' - •

'

' i-

' -

• ... v i

...... *"-’ZC-X-'J e £ * 0 X*i .

.".• ?w

? -• : ' ’ r - fc IXtftf. X'tfD^s ; ; A r-. :> i „,

" *• ^

«** i '*" ••••'•* >::$#* u JV. 1H-ij

' aX e

' i»* ~ i

. -

•

.:; J

•

- I. - • l>. vir- •

- . r

••••

&'«>ri s i.l

•

• • • K - r:-i. ft,. •;" -I V. ' si'-v ,-S

.

“ - T '~ fc.-V^vS -Xl' •.-•'. i >’. ly-’U- -11 &:. ?. aii.c-: . ;

-•• i MvlX f- - ...

, X; ;

•

' :o U h A ' 0 ».U ?; - .-. ;• •;> . ,r

l-l- ••- •«••• 1 . -V 4iq -ft? XAX -iiJ. ;:.d4 :<r Jlv,'****} WOW

.

. ¥ ,-i "

aaltitaafc lo. #&mroq

' ^ '

• © . I .:• 21SJ J & Sl -• - v- ,-.

1 a

1

.
3

wall D-12 with & smell BeVilbiss (Cr.P.) spray gun having &

capacity of about 1 quart. Several fillings’ of the gun

were required to apply the paint. Waterf in small amounts,

was added to the paint before each filling of the gun. Th©

total amount of water used, by weight cf dry powder, was

62 percent. The wall was not’ completely covered after all

of the paint wee applied and a second batch containing

2 lb of Harblese&l was prepared. The percentage of water

In the second batch of paint was 66. Considerable care was

taken during: application of the paint from both batches and

the gun was again used over areas which had already been

painted. Although the small size of the gun say have made

it desirable to do some

M touching up” the application was

toe- carefully made to be fully rspresentfttiv-c of field

practice. Ordinarily & Birifee or a DeViXMsc f BC gun with

a tank and agitator with k5- to 60-lb/in.^ air pressure

would be used fur pneumatic application in the field. The

total amount of dry powder in the paint applied tc the wall

was about 6.3 lb. This um equivalent to about k‘> lb of dr

powder to place cue cost on 100 sq ft of wall area. It was

stated that the field applications averaged about 2*? lb of

powder per 100 eq ft of wall. However, the ©mount of paint

applied to a wall is affected by end is somewhat dependent

upon the roughness of the wall surface.

5. ctmiia of thf coktsm

The hsrbleseal coating an wall $-12 was. applied on

September lk, 1953* and was watted sown twice on September

15 sad once aa September 16 * The costing was again" wetted

cn September 23 and 25. The water perm®ability of the c~ating was tested on September 30, end a seeeind test was made on

October 14. The wall was placed out-of-doors on October 23 .

6. AmARAKCF OF THF COATXKO

The coating of. Uarbleeeal was carefully examined on

ffoveribor 3, 11 days after placing the wall out-of-doore. The

coating was harp, clean, white, and without dusting. It contained some pinholes and some small round indentations, both,

of which arc characteristic of jmeuastleSliy applied cementitious coatings. The 'arblescal coating was also crazed and

most of the erasing appeared on the surface after the well was

placed out-of-doors on October 23 . ?. FmmABitm tests amv wm tita

The water permeability tests simulated an exposure to

* wind-driven rain. The test apparatus , tost procedure and

the arbitrary system of rating perm® ability are described in

Hepcarts BHS 82 and 95* The permeability teste arc also

referred to in a KBS report to the Office of Chief of nginoe-rs, dated January 25, 1951, titled "Tests of Proprietary and other

Surface Waterproofing for n&o-onry Walls.*4
•: -:c t %.'£ . i: r w-m i iu -is \e tmq&v

,.;i« 4 . .1: . : - *>V t .4 I Hj#W

.

4$j&g> 44ff «8*%fc W-? .#iX;4 £?*4 iui?

» 4 .,4 ;:

' si 4444* >./4 .... . : i . • 4

tin IX %’ <«r

$

aXjst£ *d :.% *&aa yXlui^iz-s

•; >- MT &K "IiV> a

' ;; o.fiiti

' ", /it- v '. ,. - * .* 5 - I*. 4444444 v£® $intSf$X'*0& oi +&A f&Js* i>*s& tfttttf <*

4 4;4.f „>

:..

:• ; ;, " ;

,,. :

•

, 4 -4-

44 4~ ... 4. 444 . 4 ,4-/, *<:.. - 4. 4"’. 44 l l t ;

' .4 ' "

.- ,. fl &/S8& 1|4 £»$$& 44 r-i |X4i 4 ©*

.. .44,.,4 44 4; ., ;ii -

.- k.£Z-X& %»M % -

' Um & 4$. 44 " v Xa •-.?

-Si Ss.-I V 4.4

•r X. . 4; ,4 4.. ? 444 &?**«»•« 4*? 4 4 ,

: 4 4

? *...., ; 44 ,•;•*: 4.

It

:

' . : .

'

- i " ... .

' % .

. • i

- .: » ®S

.

: - .... :.. :. ;.'-V : 4- :.•:<: .' 444 4:4; 4 4444 >4

.

.s u* 44; X?, 4 44 ;• 44 ac! : 4 vs; .. .-4/ *

. $ 4v 4

4.' '.£4 v4. 44 . X .1441 SitiX ?.

'.. :. I. -tf?' . , r. -:^4 y4 .; r-:-4-4' oh.X'SV .:• 4 444 4, *: :44-4'. ; 4,4

:: 4 , 4

' 4 V

•

'

• 4 • 4: 4 : 4. *M

- 3. *?. Mil 4 1b \&Mi* tc -r^VXO wi'S >$ $'Tx.- qpn - -. r,i , wvl.**

,;.X- 4X‘-^C4.-; :o ;n»Xt£* ,X: 5 rX ./’X
4 .

fhe resistance of the Marblaaeal to th© penetration of

wirkl^oriven rain was measured by observing end compering the

water permeability of the test wail 1,-12, 'before and after

the wall was costed with the Xarbleec&l. Two permeability

tests were made on the coated wall. The data are listed In

fable 1.

8, ftxsctTs&xav of mm mmuss

The coating of Marble seal on the face of wall £-12

greatly reduced the leakage of water through the walls. The

©mall amount of water that penetrated the eoati ng may have

entered through pin holes In the coating. It is possible

that a brush application of the Marble seal, applied with a

scrubbing action with a stiff brush would have produced a

tighter and more water resistant coating:, without pin holes , Previous teste of concrete masonry walls coated with Portland

ceaaat water paints show that pneumatically applied coatings

of paint contain iuinute pin hoias and such' coatings are mere

per®©able than arc coatings applied with a stiff bristle

brush, see Blfestc of the Basiitsnee to Bain Penetration of

Walls Built of usonry Units* by a. £., dopeland ana C. C.

Carlson, Prod. Am, Cone. Inst. 36, 169 (1940)

^ The water penetrating the coating of arhlese&l collected

at the bottom of the inside of the wall and appeared on the

back at points just above the flashing . fine© the water ap- peared in less than 3 hr end since the maximum rate of leakage

was equal or greater than 0.05 lit ora par hr in both tests,

the resistance of the Marbleseal coating to the penetration

of wind-driven rain was rated as "Poor,* see Table 1. However, sines* the coating barely missed being rated as "fair*

on the second test, the rating of *Poorw may possibly be

considered to be unduly severe.

In general, the tests of the Karbleaaal coating indicates? the vulnerability to rain penetration of pin holes in

*pmy—applied coatings. These tests do not ©how whether or not the arblase&l coating Is mors or less durable to

weathering exposure than are a eatings of other cameafeiti ous paints.
£ ,-.a? >•&*'

*

r

s I * . j I ,, fe?

' '

• % wi

"

.

.. sif . :•

• ;• V ST

' ' ^ " - • >

' & ^

. i ,|4 <

, ; s • ;: -44 - - & 4> v : » ,* ?. • S- ; , . '42 * 4: £ ' Ctf ~ ,

- - ;; ' ; ^

1 ; C

"

'

*

- -‘ 34 -mu ,^-^y- '* • •-

4 : 5-.: *

' - -a

.. .. .
%

able

X.

Pasnsaafellity

of

Garble

seal

coating

on

cinder*

concrete

fflauo

ary

wall,,

P*12

as » »* «« ** $ § © Pb ^ <S t! e «9 <e-H o *tJ ** ** *• «« ©

Sf

€>

4*9 4

>* 9*P* A

•d©

43

0$ 0 S & P rl3

*SJ

•* •* *» »*

eaSPHH

#• ** »*

'd«©H•H

0}

ViOP$aH

ft

*• *

*§3 £

S*0 &

'3 e

... o a

«» «» ** +* *h 0 ® H > >

»•0PH 5 I * *# ** ** * #«r ** »« H

3E V|©a©HPH*«O * ** *© »* ** ««

si) Pm P V) 10

<3O Si ©»

a P H ' »« *» ft.* «« •* s 8

«4

frl ©

5>

f-OHO &o

Oft

*A *A

€©

H& O H • » m o

s»

OH * * m ©m o cym o cy oP u

5*

ho % Pm

V\HOoft cs om« cy

H V\ O o o • • # o c

X5

Q

p

p< 1

«S 0 o P Si © <a P P

sc la R«© © 0 © P © « v» p

41©

s* « P H 1

jD P * 9 s< ; f cs w

V*

©

d

©

p agp

© 0

(3j iK

O o

4rf* H

H

m I 1 ©•' i O 0s H » $w

65 XI 0H U

i:

mp1 O H

4*

53

© fig £« *Q O Pm

fi <© «H ©

HI

H

31

V* «f O ©HO Vi

©©

Vi©P0U«©H

tah&

u\

XIpp

fiS

aH

OP

*H

Hf

Si « £ ®.

fet) 9$

ft

H&© o

*© 8} X! X? 65 0 § & H P 0 S © S3

CS

O OP •

|gj

H

H

© Vi & H „ h Oh ^ JQ • ,£2 1A ®

«H

V ed <sH 5 a 83 §| h U

<s

dp

© ®c

»•* Pl 0 «9

<#

J3 p

a

© §

3U P 43 SS

H

pp>(

ajd

o' H©

XS8H

V*Vi©©P

Si P

4* * 2 ^ * »©*? 60 P

$3

*ri *

X3e

«3 H

n~s

aa1 —. r*t P V| p xi 0 p w O

x>

M

a% h

o-

© 0m >

r-i •3%

X3P 9 • §Ja e » <a' O ^ f* Si © ©

V# P P P H

Si P*H

is p^axa

0) o o* • O o

V|o©«

«s 1xsP V| p

«8 1 © P p

*d hi ® v? % gs

Si

© ®) <3 » P © 2 H « ©

O,& *rt «

Si©Pa #

14 ,s fewp

6^,

od P ^3
=4:

i-:- W- *

'

• y

*3: 'S *•>" *3 t

'v I

... P

J - V

: :

v

' >*- 4 p <g$_

. "/ • . - ; i' fe. & .'Aui ;«a •

-•

. a-.

p I

A*

-P I

. ... .

•

•- 4. "4

> . i. a l

.

- s .a '.a

4 r, , '

‘V-’ •> ;

a. .-v

V

V'

'Z t . ... :

•

;> i;

...

&

.4

o

:•••• --

f

" , ij “ J 'A

.