The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-080X.

htm

Building conservation philosophy for masonry repair: part 2 principles

Alan M. Forster
School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
Abstract
Purpose The techniques available for the repair of historic masonry structures are extremely wide ranging. The advantages and disadvantages of each type of repair can be evaluated in terms of cost, time and quality as with modern projects. It is however, important to realise that when repairs to historic buildings are selected they must conform to building conservation philosophy, or an ethical and principle based evaluation. The purpose of this paper (part 2 of 2) is to establish what is meant by principles in this context and wherever possible apply practical examples to illustrate these concepts. Design/methodology/approach Evaluative literature review of the principles encapsulated within building conservation philosophy utilising them to stimulate discussion on practical repair interventions. Findings It has been shown that the principles of building conservation philosophy must be considered prior to making decisions relating to masonry repair. These repairs have varying degrees of defensibility, and will ultimately lead to good or bad conservation approaches. This paper briey discusses the principles, highlighting some of the issues that may be initially confusing to the practitioner. Originality/value The evaluation of building conservation philosophy for masonry repair, and more specically the principles have been little studied. The importance of this cannot however be over stated, as far from being an esoteric concept it affects every practical repair. This work brings together the study of the philosophical and practical, enabling practitioners to better understand the ramications of building conservation philosophy for their projects. It must however be emphasised that as with any aspect of philosophy, there is not necessarily a right or wrong answer, only higher levels of defence for the selected repairs. Keywords Building conservation, Regulation, Building specications Paper type Viewpoint

Building conservation

165

Introduction This paper is the second part of an investigation into the philosophy of masonry repair. The rst paper (Forster, 2010) dealt ostensibly with the building conservation ethics relating to masonry repair for historic buildings, whilst this part will evaluate building conservation principles. The principles are specic criteria upon which conservation works should be based (Bell, 1997, pp. 27-33), whilst ethics, form the broader issues or key concepts to be considered. For this reason this paper has a greater technical focus than part 1. The majority of conservation principles were established over 100 years ago by William Morris (SPAB, 1877) and his then newly founded Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. Generally, ethics and principles should be considered in conjunction, however, for the purpose of this work they have been separated. The principles include (Bell, 1997, pp. 27-33):

Structural Survey Vol. 28 No. 3, 2010 pp. 165-188 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0263-080X DOI 10.1108/02630801011058906

SS 28,3

166

Principles (specic criteria upon which conservation works should be based) . Minimal (least) intervention (or conservative repair). . Legibility (honesty and distinguishability). . Materials and techniques (like for like materials). . Reversibility. . Documentation (meticulous recording and documentation). . Sustainability. Repairs selected, based upon the ethical concepts and a combination of the principles should be defensible, and should in theory lead to naturally good, well founded conservation interventions. However, it could be argued that some of the principles conict, creating tensions, potentially confusing the technical intervention decision. It is also important to understand that there are no absolutes in conservative repair only greater levels of defence for selected repairs, and that the rst rule of conservation is that there should be no dogmatic rules (Powys, 1995, p. 3). Powys emphasises that no xed rule can be set up to be followed invariably. Each case must be considered on its own merits. As mentioned in the rst paper, Burman (1995, p. 4) highlights that conservation philosophy can be seen either positively or negatively. It can generate much discussion, or it can invigorate and inform our decision taking about the care and repair of historic buildings. There is constant need for observation and debate, in a constructive and harmonious spirit. There are no goodies and baddies, but there are skilful and unskilful solutions to the repair of old buildings. Each of the principles will be discussed individually, however, in situation where clarication can be gained from comparing and contrasting the principles this will be undertaken. Minimal (least) intervention (conservative repair) Building conservation is arguably one of the rare elds where less can be more, meaning to do nothing can be best. The concept of least intervention is extremely important as the more fabric that is removed the less of the original building will remain, with a corresponding reduction in the cultural signicance of the structure. Minimal, or least intervention has been dened as, as much as is necessary (Brereton, 1995, p. 7) and, as little as possible (Feilden, 2003, p. 235). The decision to replace deteriorated or defective masonry must be based upon need. A badly eroded fac ade may not necessarily require intervention. Conversely, if the masonry has eroded to such a degree that the masonry is loosening and beginning to collapse or structural integrity is in question then intervention will be required. This decision should be undertaken with the input from a suitably qualied conservation accredited structural engineer. See Plate 1. An extremely good example of over zealous masonry repair can be seen at the Keep at Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Plate 2). The decision to reface large sections of the tower, were probably driven by cost considerations, but the intervention has detracted from the integrity and authenticity of the building. The unnecessary works have led to more historic fabric being removed than was necessary.

Building conservation

167

Plate 1. Eroded masonry fac ade at Doune Castle

Clearly all masonry components will eventually require intervention. It is the authors view that prioritisation for selective replacement of badly deteriorated cornices, string courses and hood moulds would be easy to substantiate as they are weathering details, offering protection to the underlying substrate. That being said, these components could be repaired using less intrusive methods that would enable the retention of a greater amount of the original fabric. The durability of these alternatives (such as plastic repair) are poorer than replacing natural stone, and it is obvious that a trade off situation is present, namely, retention of fabric against longevity of repair. The repair options available to those attempting to repair historic masonry, range from overzealous (leading to potential cost savings, but, indefensible conservation) to the puritan (potentially philosophically good conservation, but costly). An example of this situation could be the use of pinning and dowelling techniques that would enable the retention of a higher degree of historic fabric, rather than replacing masonry. It must however, be emphasised that good conservation need not be expensive and a

SS 28,3

168

Plate 2. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Keep

puritan philosophical approach can in many cases be the least costly option. It is also well recognised that regular maintenance can be the most effective method to reduce decay, and as William Morris, stated stave off decay by daily care (SPAB, 2008). When confronted with decaying masonry substrates, the following options may be considered: . Do nothing. . De-scale masonry. . Replace with natural stone. . Indent with natural stone. . Plastic repair in lime mortar. . Plastic repair in an alternative materials (OPC and Lithomex). . Pinning/dowelling and aunching. . Consolidation and open wall head treatment. . Rebuilding. Minimal (least) intervention: no intervention and descaling In situations in which the masonry appears aesthetically poor but does not require intervention doing nothing can be a defensible position. If concerns are however raised about falling masonry, de-scaling could be an appropriate action. Either of these approaches may create an unhappy aesthetic outcome. Descaling is the process of removing loose, delaminating and friable sections of stone from the building. However, the amount of stone that could be removed without replacement could eventually lead to structural concerns. In most cases, descaling should be the supercial removal of surface masonry only. That being said, the cultural signicance that is placed upon a building would greatly inuence the decision to remove delaminating stone or to consolidate (see Plate 3). It is clear that cost would greatly increase if pinning, grouting and aunching

Building conservation

169

Plate 3. Delaminating argillaceous (clay rich) sandstone, Doune Castle

techniques were to be employed. This issue goes to the heart of philosophical driven interventions as one would be unlikely to use such crude conservation techniques such as descaling on monuments of international importance. Minimal (least) intervention: doweling and aunching of natural stone Retention of delaminating masonry that may have been built face bedded (on cant) can be achieved by pinning the layers back together with the use of roughened nylon, or stainless steel dowels (often threaded bar), in conjunction with modied lime grouts. An example of the use of this technique can be seen in Figure 1, in which a series of small holes are drilled through the surface of the unbound masonry. Grout is injected into the holes, into which the dowels can be inserted. The holes are then capped with a pigmented lime mortar to disguise the repair. The lime based grout used as a consolidant can be modied with the addition of casein to increase its workability properties. The lime grouts set to form a calcium caseinate matrix rather than a pure calcium carbonate (calcite) or hydraulic lime [a combination of calcite and calcium silicate hydrates (C-S-H)] (Forster, 2002). Clearly, this type of intervention is useful for ensuring the survival of deteriorated masonry and can be considered as being a least intervention approach when compared with descaling or replacement stone. Minimal (least) intervention: replacement stone Replacement of deteriorating natural stone with a suitably matched stone type (determined by the British Geological Survey BGS) will lead to a repair that will have a

SS 28,3

170

Figure 1. Dowelling techniques for delaminating stone

longer life expectancy than alternative techniques. However, this may only be achieved by cutting back sound masonry to a point at which sufcient bearing can be achieved to accommodate the new stone. Alternatively, stainless steel cramps can be used to retain thinner replacement stone. This technique could be argued to be better in terms of retaining the highest degree of original masonry, (as you are not cutting back masonry to the same degree) but could be criticised for introducing a non traditional repair process (i.e. cramping). Additionally, the longevity of the repair will be shorter than replacing thicker sections of stone. Building in a stone without cramps requires a minimum of 100 mm of stone to be cut back from the surface, to enable safe bearing of the stone on the lower masonry units. It can be seen that a trade off situation may arise where cost out-balances loss of historic fabric. An alternative approach is to utilise lime based plastic repair techniques. The depth to which a stone needs to be built back into the substrate is of key importance. If a thin piece of stone is built into a wall without xing restraint (say 40 mm) it is possible that upon erosion of the mortar joint, rotation leading to falling masonry could occur, with potentially fatal consequences. Figure 2 diagrammatically represents this hypothetical situation. Plate 4 illustrates the use of replacement natural stone built in a minimum of 100 mm and substrate preparation for lime based plastic repairs. Minimal (least) intervention: indenting natural stone Indenting stone to ashlar or to carved and sculptural components is a traditional, highly skilled, repair technique. This is based upon the removal of localised damaged

Building conservation

171

Figure 2. Insufciently thicker replacement stone, leading to potential rotation

Plate 4. Built in replacement natural stone without cramps

stone, replacing it with newly dressed and/or carved sections. Plate 5 illustrates a good example of a natural sandstone indent. These repairs are clearly least intervention in nature and enable the continuity of the aesthetics and integrity to be achieved. They are also initially honest as the intervention can be clearly read. However, overtime the blurring of the old and new fabric may occur as patination develops.

SS 28,3

172

Plate 5. Indent to sandstone carved enrichment (Frauenchirk, Dresden)

When approaching the recarving of a sculptural carved enrichment, good reproduction can be achieved using a point machine that can minimise the degree of conjecture. Fixing of these indents can take various forms with dowelling, and grouting or bonding using epoxy resins being commonly adopted. The indent shown in Plate 6 highlights that even the smallest sections of stone can be reattached and carved in situ. In this case the ngers of a statue in Dresden, have been reattached. A well executed indent should be almost seamless with the adjacent stone. The poorly executed indent shown in Plate 7 is clearly of a different geological composition to the surrounding host masonry and the joint width is unnecessarily large. In addition, the existing masonry has been cut out using a stihl saw and evidence of grinder marks can be seen in the right hand lower corner. As previously mentioned, various techniques can be used to x indents, ranging from lime grouts to epoxy resins. The defensibility of the use of lime is probably greater than the use of resin, however, a case for resin bonded indents could be made if it is sparingly used (BS7913, 1998). Over-hanging indents for repairs to cornices and string courses must be well designed, executed and utilise dowelling techniques. If this is not achieved the likelihood of falling masonry is increased. Alarmingly, 1,275 incidents of falling materials and debris from buildings were reported by 25 local authorities, over a two-year period, and of these 80 per cent involved buildings greater than 100 years old (Soane, 2008). Masonry accounted for 40 per cent of the reports, with the greatest number of issues relating to external walls. Minimal (least) intervention: plastic repair The use of plastic repairs may have advantages in terms of retaining the highest quantity of original fabric. Ashurst and Ashurst (1988, p. 36) establish criteria to aid the decision making process for the utilisation of plastic repairs, amongst which the following questions are to be posed will the use of mortar enable more original material to be retained than if stone was used? And will the use of mortar avoid

Building conservation

173

Plate 6. Indent to hand of sculpture (Dresden) prior to being carved in-situ

disturbing critically fragile areas? Disadvantages of these forms of repair include that they will not be as durable, or as aesthetically acceptable as replacing natural stone. The use of Ordinary Portland Cement based plastic repairs, are clearly indefensible as they are technically incompatible with the masonry substrate due to their tendency to entrap moisture and being relatively inexible. These factors can effect the bond between the plastic repair and the masonry substrate (Forster, 2002) increasing the probability of laminar debonding (sheet failure) (Meek, 1996). Exacerbating this situation, a quantity of the masonry substrate is often still bound to the rear of the plastic repair, increasing the loss of historic masonry fabric. When undertaking plastic repair (see Plate 8) various techniques can be utilised to ensure bond to the substrate. Suction bonds are the generally accepted method for repair for non-overhanging interventions. These require the drawing of ne particles from the fresh mortar into the pore structure of the substrate, that upon setting and hardening develop a physically bond. The term suction bond is derived from the suction forces that draw the liquid water from the repair mortar into the substrate. The strength of these forces are related to the permeability, the pore size and pore size distribution of the host masonry. It must be emphasised that suction bonds are difcult to achieve in relatively impermeable masonry substrate types due to the inability of the binder to be drawn into the pores. In situations where the efcacy of suction bonds are potentially limited, armatures can be included. Traditional armature methods include:

SS 28,3

174

Plate 7. Poorly executed indent to ashlar sandstone

Plate 8. Execution of plastic repair to ashlar fac ade, Edinburgh

. . . .

Slate/tile housed in recessed pockets (adhered in epoxy resin). Slate/tile housed in recessed pockets (adhered in lime grouts). Ceramic armatures. Non ferrous wire frames.

The efcacy of armatures used is a function of substrate quality, the number of xings, the spacing between them, the stability and strength of the wire frame work (if applicable), and obviously the weight of the repair. Arguments for the use of ceramic armatures and tile pockets can be made on the basis that they have a greater compatibility with the substrate in terms of thermal and moisture movement. This is opposed to stainless steel that will have a greater co-efcient of linear expansion than the substrate. The use of lime based plastic repairs are philosophically and technically more defensible than those previously mentioned, as lime was the traditional binder for initial construction. Although all plastic repairs are limited in design life when compared with replacement stone they are more often than not, cheaper to execute. The major advantages of utilising a lime mortar for plastic repair is that they have a higher permeability than OPC and are therefore more breatheable(Forster, 2002; Hughes, 1986) and they have better exural response (Allen et al., 2003). They are therefore more compatible with the lime and masonry built substrate. Colour matching of plastic repairs to the substrate can be achieved by various mechanisms. Traditionally, the colour of the lime mortar was derived from the aggregate and more specically, the nes (Gibbons, 2003). It is generally difcult to ascertain a true colour match with the surrounding stone, and hues will vary subtly. This could be argued to be an honest approach due to the differentiation of the old and new. The counter argument could be made that this debases the integrity of the building as a whole and a better match would go some way to rectify this situation. Minimal (least) intervention: proled plastic repair Proled repairs can be a suitable type of intervention that can lead to the conservation and retention of carved enrichments and straight through work, such as string courses and cornices. This type of repair is executed by building up thin layers of lime mortar around an armature system, with the nal prole being established with the use of a horse. It is the authors view that plastic repairs are in most cases less suitable than replacing natural stone for weathering details. This is due to the exposure levels and increased incidence of surface water run off that they will encounter. Premature failure could be correlated with corresponding likelihood of falling masonry. In situations where the proled repair overhangs, (for example, cornices) the likelihood of falling masonry may be signicantly increased due to the dead load of the material. It is clear that even if a case was made to undertake such repairs on philosophical grounds, the increased risk of falling masonry, and the implications for health and safety legislation must be paramount in the designers mind. Minimal (least) intervention: sculptural stone replacement When replicating sculpted and carved stone it is clear that a great deal of evidence is required to avoid conjecture. If the sculpture is in good condition and removed off site, a point machine can be used to produce a suitable likeness. This situation does not occur frequently and in reality sculptural pieces that have been externally located are eroded to greater or lesser degrees. The replication of these

Building conservation

175

SS 28,3

176

objects are clearly prone to be a conjectural interpretation, with the newly carved piece being potentially misguiding and dishonest. A decision to remove a deteriorating externally located sculpture must not be taken lightly. That being said, when the piece has lost signicant quantities of carved detail then the decision to take down and or re-carve may be necessary. Alternatively the commissioning of a contemporary piece could be considered as opposed to reproduction. Hill (1995) believes that the philosophy of repair for carved and sculpted pieces raises complex issues that do not require consideration for dimensional stone. That being said, the author believes that philosophically the same problems occur in both forms of repair as there is potential for conjecture in each. It is the authors view that if insufcient documentary evidence exists to guide the replacement of a sculpture then a contemporary piece should be commissioned, that does not detract or compete with the building. This approach would be honest, support masonry craft skill, and if well executed, form an integral part of the buildings history. This type of modern intervention would undoubtedly be the product of talented and creative minds and potentially result in a product that may add to the listing description of a building (Maguire, 1997). Minimal (least) intervention: reuse of existing pinnings When undertaking repointing to rubble masonry it is important, wherever possible to retain the original pinnings stones (also known as Galleting) for later reuse. The location of the pinning stones should be noted prior to raking out in an attempt to ensure the correct sequence for reinstating (Gibbons, 2003). This approach conforms to the principle of least intervention and will ensure that the masonry construction style is not compromised. Additionally, it increases the speed of the repair as the contractor does not need to source, sort or cut new pinning stones. The omission of pinning stones in lime pointing works will lead to failure of the mortar due to excessive shrinkage (Gibbons, 2003). From a philosophical perspective the use of pinnings are essential to enable the integrity of the fabric not to be compromised. See Plate 9.

Plate 9. Rubble masonry with high quality pinning work

Legibility (honesty and distinguishability) and honest repair Article 12 of the Venice Charter (1964) states that Replacements of missing parts (of fabric) must integrate harmoniously with the whole, but at the same time must be distinguishable from the original so that restoration does not falsify the artistic or historic evidence. Legibility, or honest repair could be considered as a clear solution to the principle of avoidance of conjecture. It can utilise different materials and/or construction techniques to highlight new repairs to the host masonry. This approach can obviously create tension as it may visually detract from the integrity of the structure and introduce different performance characteristics into the building. Earl (2006, p. 108) points out that Aggresively visible repairs can distract attention from the very qualites that mark out a building for preservation. A little discretion may be no bad thing. The degree to which any repair is clearly distinguishable from original work, is often subjective. For example, when assessing the replacement of well matched natural stone, it is evident that the identication of new work from existing fabric may be difcult to distinguish especially post weathering. A geologist, may upon close examination of the masonry be capable of determining new from old, but to the lay person the fabric may appear seamless. This poses the question, is the distinguishability of repairs meant only for expert interpretation, or is it meant to be read by the lay person? The use of a stone type that is clearly different from the host would be readable, but would create technical performance deciencies. These problems are generally associated with incompatible physical characteristics of the selected stone, leading to accelerated decay of the original fabric (Wilson, 2005). A philosophically, defensible intervention could be to utilise an alternative masonry type that is clearly distinguishable from the historic fabric. One such example of this can be seen in Plate 10 in which the decayed stone has been replaced with red brick. Hill (1995, p. 16) is critical of this approach believing that making repairs in brick today for philosophical reasons serves simply to advertise that philosophy. Obviously, brick, tile and stone slip repairs are very honest, but are criticised for being aggressively obtrusive and detracting from the integrity of the building as a whole. Additionally, technical arguments are often used to discredit the use of these types of

Building conservation

177

Plate 10. Honest repair to Roman walls in Barcelona

SS 28,3

178

repairs in so much as they have the potential to alter the performance of the wall, and more specically, the moisture handling and load bearing characteristics. In theory if the historic fabric is composed of masonry that has a relatively high permeability function then the newly inserted impermeable brick will prohibit moisture transfer, leading to the alteration of the breatheability characteristics of the wall as a whole. That being said, alternative specication with high permeability, low strength bricks could act in a sacricial manner and therefore aid the ultimate performance and survival of the historic masonry, whilst fullling the principle of honesty and distinguishability. Honest repair: rebuilding masonry Reconstruction and rebuilding of masonry must be based upon solid evidence. If signicant sections of masonry have deteriorated to such a degree that rebuilding is necessary to stabilise a structure, evidence must exist to direct the replacement. Approaches to this situation can include reconstruction adopting a masonry style and material that are inuenced by the intact surrounding materials or reconstruction using alternative material and/or masonry styles, thereby, enabling honest interpretation of different construction phases. The approach taken clearly has ramications for the integrity and aesthetic outcome of the building. The author has seen several examples of masonry stabilisation and reconstruction undertaken in obtrusive red brick inserted into the stone substrate. This approach has clearly been driven by the concept of honesty and distinguishability. However, an alternative approach could have been to utilise natural stone slips or an alternative masonry bonding style with less detriment to the integrity of the structure. Honest repair: proled masonry The replication and reconstruction of tracery and other moulded masonry must be based on evidence (i.e. sufcient existing prole to enable templating). If the deterioration has occurred to such a degree that this evidence is tenuous then it may be necessary to adopt an honest repair approach creating a new moulding detail or a contemporary design. In most situations moulding detail may be sufciently evident to enable templates to be produced without conjecture. Clearly, templates would be taken from the most representative surviving sections of masonry, reducing the degree of conjecture. Selective replacement voussoirs have been undertaken at St Magnus Cathedral, Orkney. It has been assumed that sufcient detail existed to enable restoration to be achieved with a minimum of conjecture. That being said, if the degree of erosion in the voussoirs has resulted in no meaningful evidence of carved enrichment being left then the decision to recarve and replace may lead to philosophical problems. On one level it could be assumed that as this is a Norman Cathedral, following an architectural tradition, with common decorative forms, then it could be extrapolated that dog tooth enrichment would have been most likely adopted. However, if in reality the masons deviated from the norm and created a transitional or freeform detail, would it still be the correct approach, or would this be conjectural and dishonest? (Plate 11) As mentioned in Paper 1, this problem confronted those entrusted with the repair of York Minsters West door. The decision to utilise a contemporary design, rather than attempting to recreate the existing, avoided this situation.

Building conservation

179

Plate 11. Recarving of voussoirs to door arch, St Magnus Cathdral, Orkney

Honest repair: tile repairs SPAB were pioneers in the development and adoption of honest repair techniques with tile repairs for masonry substrates being one solution. These repairs utilise tiles or natural stone slips that are built in a coursed manner. They are clearly distinguishable to the lay person and could therefore be considered philosophically defensible (Plate 12).

Plate 12. Honest repair in the form of plain tiles

SS 28,3

180

As previously mentioned criticism could, however, be made that they detract from the integrity and beauty of the structure. It is the authors view that in certain masonry types these repairs can work aesthetically well, and it must be emphasised that a wide range of options are also available when specifying honest repair methods. For example, the use of stone slips in natural stone substrates are clearly honest, whilst being less obtrusive than the clay plain tile option. These repairs do not detract from the host masonry, and may therefore be considered as a more sensitive intervention. The use of plain tile and stone slip repairs have been criticised for being labour intensive, and therefore cost ineffective especially when compared to replacing natural stone. There may be a certain amount of validity in this view, however, it must be emphasised that if cost were the basis for our repair strategies then many indefensible interventions would be undertaken. Honest repair: replacement stone The utilisation of tile repairs are clearly a response to concerns of deviation from the principle of honesty and distinguishability. This raises the question, is all replacement stone ultimately dishonest? What motivates some practitioners to select obtrusive repair over less distinguishable types of materials? These philosophically driven interventions are clearly in the fore of the minds of the professionals who choose to utilise tile repairs, in favour of replacement stone. Hill (1995, p. 16) discusses replacement stone, believing with some it has become an article of faith that no stone should ever be replaced on the grounds that the original fabric is sacrosanct. Also, that to put in new stone is an act of deception on the public, if not the present, then of the future. Hill (1995, p. 16) continues if it is essential for any part of a building to be replaced, then the replacement should be in a foreign material such as tile or brick. Thus, the reasoning runs, there is no deception so far as the public is concerned, for replacements are obviously such. One may be permitted to ask what is being achieved by the insertion of tile, brick, or other foreign materials into an ancient building. Structural stability, yes, but, at the expense of the visual satisfaction that the public is entitled to expect. To carry this view to its logical conclusion, the collapse of a tracery window calls for the insertion of a single sheet of glass in a timber frame. It is important to realise that honest repair is being discussed in a polarised manner by Hill (1995), and as we have seen there are various methods to achieve honesty, without complete compromise of the buildings integrity. It is clear that the main argument for the replacement of natural stone is that it ensures the integrity of the building and this appears to be especially important in living buildings such as neo-classical ashlar built structures, whilst the use of honest repairs upon dead buildings appears acceptable to Hill (1995). Hill (1995, p. 17) takes a negative stance towards honest repair to masonry, highlighting that English Heritage, the guiding guardian of historic sites and buildings, indulges in the academically suspect practice of improving the appearance of archaeological sites by inserting stone where none existed at the time of excavation, so why should a historic building in current use not be repaired in the original material in order to preserve the original design? The overriding consideration must surely be for the integrity of the original design. It seems extraordinarily arrogant to say that ours is the last generation that will, instead, see only weathered and barely

recognisable features in place of the crisp outlines that were intended, set in a fac ade patched with brick and tile. Hill (1995, p. 18) clearly favours replacing fabric in natural stone highlighting that there is nothing sacrosanct about a piece of worked stone, merely on the grounds that it once had a face or some detail on it that has long disappeared or become unsound. This argument could be somewhat dangerous as it could be used to substantiate unnecessary replacement of fabric, on conjectural grounds. It is clear that this is a contentious issue, and the author would like to emphasise that both methods of repair are suitable in the correct situation. It would be unhelpful to restrict the range of repair options available on the basis of dogma. Honest repair: surface nishes (tooling) to natural stone The principle of honesty of repair also poses questions about nish techniques to natural stone. The majority of natural stone would have been nished with tooling effects derived from the masons chisels and force with which they are used. Chisels claws and punches all create different nishes and give valuable information relating to the construction and reduction techniques employed by the masons. In a situation, where natural stone has been used as the repair material then the surface nish to be applied should take guidance from the surrounding existing masonry. It is evident that very similar nish techniques applied to geologically similar replacement stone, could lead to indistinguisability. The use of variation in tooling nishes could be applied to differentiate the new from the old. However, the clear ability to distinguish the original from the repair may be diluted as the nishes weather back. The decision to identify new works through nishes may only therefore be satisfactory within shorter time frames. Plate 13 illustrates very poor quality surface nish to natural stone. The nish has been created with the use of an angle grinder and bears little relation to the tooled nish associated with the original masonry. It could however, be argued that it is honest and clearly distinguishable. This view does not however draw upon the need to support traditional skills. There is no excuse for poor quality or ill-conceived interventions that could be argued to be honest. This could be used to substantiate poor workmanship in almost any application. Good, well-executed honest repairs require high standards of workmanship and design creativity. Honest repair: refacing traditional mass masonry The complete replacement of a dressed masonry fac ade could be required if the structural integrity is compromised, however, this situation is not common. The decision to replace the complete fac ade is generally aesthetically driven. This approach is philosophically difcult to defend as it contravenes the principle of least intervention, reversibility, respect for historic patina and eventually honestly and distinguishability. That being said, if one were to assess this approach applying Hills (1995) concept of this being a living building then the ethical concept of integrity of structure would potentially override the aforementioned principles.

Building conservation

181

SS 28,3

182

Plate 13. Poor quality applied nishes to natural stone, bearing no relation to the original nish (or techniques used to apply them)

Honest repair direct dating A common method of denoting repairs is to directly date the work. This is achieved by carving the date of construction onto certain elements of the structure. This approach is helpful but obviously would not be applied to every stone. Additionally, it could be argued that it detracts from the aesthetics of the carved component and may not indicate the age of associated masonry works. Materials and techniques (like for like materials) A contentious issue in building conservation philosophy is that of the apparent conict between the principles of honest repair, and like for like materials replacement. As previously discussed the selection of natural stone for the repair of a building is the correct approach if assessing the repair based upon like for like material replacement. However, if the decision making process for the project is skewed to honesty then a puritan approach may be to deviate from this stance and utilise clearly different repair materials and techniques. Clearly, repair options and nish effects to natural stone could go some way to avoid the philosophical problems previously mentioned, however, when we attempt to apply philosophical parameters to lime mortars it becomes somewhat difcult. The replication of historic mortars on one level is very easy to achieve as all mortars are composed of a binder, an aggregate and water (if hydraulic lime is used as opposed to non hydraulic putty limes). This oversimplication of the materials is however, unhelpful. That being said, mortar specication requires a great deal of consideration and should always be directed by analysis that is ideally multi phase in nature. The sample of existing mortar should determine the physical characteristics such as, the

nature of the lime (whether, hydraulic or non hydraulic), the grading and type of the aggregate and the basic mix proportions. Mortars that attempt to replicate historic aged mortars can never be fully achieved, when assessed on a microstructure level. This is due to the fact that the physical composition of a mortar modies over the life of material with dissolution and recrystalisation of the material altering the amorphous and crystalline nature of the binder, and pore structure (Forster, 2007). In addition, the complexity of historic mortars is considerably greater than their modern counterparts, with variability in the ring of the material leading to alteration in reactivity of the binder, yielding different hydrated forms of Calcium Silicate Hydrates (C-S-H), calcite and portlandite (Forster, 2004b). The incorporation of fuel waste, such as ash is also common, further complicating the situation. The aggregates within these historic mortars can also be more varied than those aggregates available for modern conservation works (Hughes et al., 2005). Rather than attempting to replicate these materials it may be best to adopt a performance-based specication approach. These types of specication utilise the performance characteristics of the existing mortar and host masonry to guide the repair material. These characteristics include, permeability, pore size and pore size distribution, compressive strength, exural response, capillarity, and resistance to frost and salts. However, this does not help with the key issue of distinguishability and the question could be asked is there sufcient ability to identify existing lime mortar from repair mortars? If not how do we reconcile the need for like for like materials, based upon technical performance, that may be considered dishonest. One potential answer could be to encourage different surface nish effects, but this still does not reconcile the problem of honesty once the nish has deteriorated. Reversibility The principle of reversibility is easy to achieve with certain intervention types, such as freestanding secondary structural frames for alleviating loading etc. However, when we attempt to evaluate the reversibility of masonry repairs the situation becomes more complicated. BS 7913 (1998, p. 3) denes reversibility as the Concept of work to a building, part of a building or artefact being carried out in such a way that it can be reversed at some future time, without any signicant damage having being done. An example of a reversible repair is that of pointing that could be reversed by cutting out the relatively soft lime mortar, and the replacement of natural stone that could also be cut out. One of the main issues of irreversibility in this area is directed at the use of overly hard cement based mortars on weak backgrounds. This situation has the potential to damage the substrate if attempts are made to remove them (Gibbons, 2003) and they are therefore only reversible with consequences. Masonry interventions within the latter half of the twentieth century have seen the widespread use of epoxy resins. These repairs are irreversible and if used zealously their relative impermeability can cause moisture entrapment. The limited use of epoxy resins can have benets for retaining nylon and stainless steel dowels. However, alternative approaches can generally be utilised with similar results. Well specied and executed consolidation techniques using lime grouts are considered philosophically more defensible than epoxy resins as they utilise traditional materials that are out of place in historic structures. That being said, BS 7913 (1998) indicates that in certain situations, the isolated use of epoxy resins can be useful.

Building conservation

183

SS 28,3

184

Earl (2006, p. 172) cites the Burra Charter (1999, article 15) indicating that Non reversible change should only be used as a last resort and should not prevent future conservation action. An example of an intervention of this nature is that of remedial works to mass masonry wall core voiding and subsequent grouting techniques. The treatment of wall core voiding is both technically and philosophically difcult to remedy. If the wall core is to be grouted, the hydraulicity of the grouting material will need to be relatively high. Therefore the hydraulic set will be required to be the primary set mechanism, as opposed to carbonation as a side reaction (Hughes and Swann, 1998) to ensure that the material sets sufciently and creates the structural capability that is required from the intervention. This set will derive little from the carbonation set process as it would be difcult, if not impossible to achieve within the depth of the wall core. Once the grouting process has been undertaken it would be virtually impossible to reverse without the removal of large sections of external masonry. In addition, the performance of the hardened grout will tend to be signicantly different to that of the original wall core material (Beckman, 1995), and it is therefore not too unrealistic to assume that it would exhibit alteration of permeability, exural response and compressive strength characteristics. Wall core mortars are generally, not dissimilar to bedding and construction mortars, in that they tend to be lime rich (Forster, 2004a) and may have been manufactured using hot lime techniques. The authenticity of grouting materials are clearly questionable, however, these remedial works do pose technical and philosophical quandaries. Reversibility: structural repair and stabilisation Deecting, bowing and leaning masonry walls may require remedial restraint to ensure survival. These interventions, should not be assessed in isolation and require evaluation of additional factors that have caused the structural defect (for example, failure of foundations and or defective roof timbers leading to rotation of the masonry wall). An honest repair approach was taken for the structural stabilisation of the towers at Fyvie Castle. The use of visually imposing straps is clearly honest, technically suitable and reversible, however, claims could be made that the intervention detracts from the integrity of the building and could be utilised to substantiate an alternative solution. See Plate 14. The use of tie rods and externally located pattress plates are traditional methods of restraining lateral forces imposed upon the structure (Beckman, 1995). These interventions are reversible and are clearly honest as they visually express the repair. Alternative approaches, such as the construction of secondary buttressing to the external face of the masonry may also be reversible, but may be considered as being overly visually intrusive, detracting from the integrity of the building. Reversibility: surface stone consolidation Problems associated with irreversible interventions are highlighted when assessing the use of brethane which is a alkoxy silane consolidant (Ashurst and Ashurst, 1988, p. 96). These interventions prevent the masonry from breathing and also lead to the migration and formation of damaging salts that crystallise in the masonry. Paraloid B has been used as a stone consolidant for many years and is supposedly reversible with the use of a solvent to the treated area. However, when paraloid enters

Building conservation

185

Plate 14. Honest repair in the form of stainless steel tying straps at Fyvie Castle

the pore structure of the porous material it will diffuse into the body of the material. It is difcult to determine the degree to which this can be removed satisfactorily. Lime water has been used as a traditional stone consolidant for many years. A calcium hydroxide (Ca (OH)2) saturated solution is sprayed onto the friable masonry and the process is repeated several times. The calcium hydroxide, is converted to calcite via carbonation with a corresponding binding effect between the sand or lime grains. The degree to which this process is reversible is questionable, however, in calcareous based sandstone and limestones the principle binding matrix is composed of calcite. These types of sandstone and limestones should in theory benet from limewater consolidation techniques. That being said, this technique does create problems as it introduces a great deal of water into the host material and can cause additional problems (Quayle, 1996). Sandstones that are argillaceous, or silaceous in nature are bound in different ways and the introduction of calcite into these materials may not be suitable. Recording and documentation Recording is dened in the Stirling Charter (Historic Scotland, 2000, p. 7) as the description, depiction and analysis of any feature or area using drawings, survey, photographs and any other suitable means as well as the preservation of documents, photographs and other material relating to the feature or area in any earlier condition or use BS 7913 (1998, p. 10) discusses recording and documentation stating Records of work done, and of the fabric before, during and after the work should be maintained,

SS 28,3

186

and properly deposited and stored. One of the most common uses of recording and documentation for masonry is that of templating undertaken prior to the works commencing. This is the process of tracing the outline of the masonry onto sheets of dimensionally stable tracing paper in conjunction with rigorous labelling/numbering system and photographic records. This can enable reasonable replication of the fabric when rebuilding is required. An alternative approach for masonry dis-assemblage (taking down) is to use a rudimentary numbering system with the numbers being painted (with non permanent paint or chalk) directly on to the individual stones. The numbering should be undertaken in a logical manner to aid reconstruction. Once the numbering process has been completed a framed grid is then placed over masonry and photographs are taken. This combination of numbers and grid, enables relatively accurate reconstruction to occur. When dealing with fragments of masonry, a system of labelling can be used to direct rebuilding. Sustainability Sustainability has two meanings in the context of building conservation philosophy, namely, a green agenda and also the perpetuation of a buildings utility. The ability of a building to be in continuous use is essential for its survival, however, change must be sensitively managed. This view is discussed in Article 5 of the Venice Charter (1964) stating that The conservation of monuments is always facilitated by making use of them for some socially useful purpose. Clearly alterations and additions to the masonry fabric, enabling this sensitive change to occur may be necessary. If these interventions are well designed, they should be readable, reversible and not detract from the integrity of the building. Summary This work does not profess to have denitive answers for masonry repair and should be seen as a mechanism to stimulate discussion between all parties involved in these processes. It is the authors view that a great deal can be gained from better communication between craft and professional alike as both have valid contributions to make. Various techniques exist for the repair of historic buildings, some of which may be more defensible than others. That being said, they all have their place in the appropriate situation. The attitude and education of those specifying and undertaking the works may also vary considerably with consequent ramications for the nature and sensitivity of the repairs selected. The selected repairs will not only depend on the technical issues but also the philosophical views held by the practitioner or overseeing statutory bodies. It is evident that the ethical concept of integrity (ostensibly discussed in Paper 1) of a structure is paramount in most practitioners minds. This potentially takes precedence over the principle of legibility or honest repair for those buildings that are still inhabited, or also known as living buildings (Hill, 1995). For those buildings that are uninhabited, or in a ruinous state (also known as dead buildings (Hill, 1995) the use of honest repair may achieve a higher degree of acceptance and be more widely adopted.

The author is condent that if all parties involved in the repair of historic masonry structures undertake an evaluation of their repair strategies, set against the philosophical principles, then better, more considered conservation will be achieved. It is generally, those undertaking works who do not consider, or have no understanding of philosophy of repair who ultimately irreversibly damage our historic buildings.
References Allen, G., Allen, J., Elton, N., Farey, N., Holmes, S., Livesey, P. and Radonjic, M. (2003), Hydraulic Lime Mortar for Stone, Brick and Block Masonry, Donhead, Dorset. Ashurst, J. and Ashurst, N. (1988), Practical building conservation: stone masonry, English Heritage Technical Handbook Volume 1, Gower Technical Press, Avon. Beckman, P. (1995), Structural Aspects of Building Conservation, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Bell, D. (1997), Technical Advice Note 8: The Historic Scotland Guide to International Charters, HMSO, Edinburgh. Burman, P. (1995), A question of ethics, available at: www.buildingconservation.com/articles/ ethics/ethics.htm (accessed July 2009). Brereton, C. (1995), The Repair of Historic Buildings: Advice on Principles and Methods, English Heritage, London. BS 7913 (1998), The Principles of the Conservation of Historic Buildings, BSi, London. Burra Charter (1999), International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, ICOMOS, Paris. Earl, J. (2006), Building Conservation Philosophy, 3rd ed., Donhead, Somerset. Feilden, B.M. (2003), Conservation of Historic Buildings, 3rd ed., Architectural Press, Oxford. Forster, A.M. (2002), An assessment of the relationship between the water vapour permeability and hydraulicity of lime based mortars with particular reference to building conservation materials science, PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University. Forster, A.M. (2004a), Hot lime mortars: a current perspective, Journal of Architectural Conservation, Vol. 3 No. 10, pp. 7-27. Forster, A.M. (2004b), How Hydraulic Lime Binders Work: Hydraulicity for Beginners and the Hydraulic Lime Family, Love your Building Publishing, Edinburgh. Forster, A.M. (2007), Binder loss in traditional mass masonry: a cause for concern?, Structural Survey, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 148-70. Forster, A.M. (2010), Building conservation philosophy for masonry repair: part 1 ethics, Structural Survey, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 91-107. Gibbons, P. (2003), The Preparation and Use of Lime Mortars: Technical Advice Note 1, Historic Scotland, Edinburgh. Hill, P. (1995), Conservation and the stonemason, Journal of Architectural Conservation, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 7-20. Historic Scotland (2000), The Stirling Charter, Historic Scotland, Edinburgh. Hughes, D. and Swann, S. (1998), Hydraulic limes a preliminary investigation, Journal of the Building Limes Forum, Vol. 6, Privately published. Hughes, J.J., Banll, P.F.G., Forster, A.M., Livesey, P., Nisbet, S., Sagar, J., Swift, D.S. and Taylor, A. (2005), Small-scale traditional lime binder and traditional mortar production for conservation of historic masonry buildings, Proceedings of International Building Lime Symposium, Orlando, Florida, 2005, pp. 1-13.

Building conservation

187

SS 28,3

188

Hughes, P. (1986), The need for old buildings to breathe, SPAB News Spring, Vol. 18, pp. 1-3. Maguire, R. (1997), Conservation and diverging philosophies, Journal of Architectural Conservation, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 7-18. Meek, T. (1996), Case Studies of Traditional Lime Harling: A Discussion Document, Historic Scotland, Edinburgh. Powys, A.R. (1995), Repair of Ancient Buildings, Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, London. Qualye, N.J.T. (1996), The case against limewater, The Journal of the Building Limes Forum, Vol. 4 No. 2, privately published. SPAB (1877), Manifesto, available at: www.spab.org.uk/what-is-spab/the-manifesto/ (accessed September 2009). Soane, A. (2008), SCOSS: Condential Reporting on Structural Safety for Scottish Buildings, Scottish Building Standards Agency, Edinburgh. Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) (2008), What is SPAB?, available at: www.spab.org.uk/html/what-is-spab (accessed 21 June 2009). Venice Charter (1964), International Charters for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and sites, ICOMOS, Paris. Wilson, P. (2005), Building with Scottish Stone, Arcamedia and Natural Stone Institute, Belfast. Corresponding author Alan M. Forster can be contacted at: a.m.forster@hw.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints