Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 3287–3291

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Evaluation of capillary water absorption in rendering mortars

made with powdered waterproofing additives
Marcos Lanzón a, P.A. García-Ruiz b,*
a
Departamento de Arquitectura y Tecnología de la Edificación, Escuela de Arquitectura e Ingeniería de la Edificación, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena,
Alfonso XIII 52, E-30203 Cartagena, Spain
b
Grupo E047-01 QCBA, Departamento de Química Orgánica, Facultad de Química, Universidad de Murcia, E-30100 Espinardo, Murcia, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Several additives, such as powdered stearates, oleates, silanes and silicone films, are used to avoid water
Received 17 January 2008 absorption in renders. This paper looks at the effectiveness of six powdered waterproofing additives after
Received in revised form 5 May 2009 28 days of curing at: 0.00%, 0.25%, 0.50%, 1.00% and 2.00% w/w on the whole composition. The water-
Accepted 8 May 2009
proofing efficiency is analyzed by capillary water absorption tests, while water immersion tests are also
Available online 11 June 2009
carried out after 20 and 90 min. Powdered silicone and sodium oleate showed the best resistance to
water penetration, while metallic soaps in the form of calcium stearate and zinc stearate showed the low-
Keywords:
est efficiency in this respect at low dosages. The results are useful for understanding the long-term dura-
Waterproofing
Sorptivity
bility of renders and the minimal waterproofing dosages according to the EN 998 requirements.
Water absorption Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Durability

1. Introduction level, the capillary water absorption is not specified, that is the
manufacturer does not declare any value. In the W1 type mortar
Rendering mortars are designed for external use and they are the capillary water absorption should be lower than 0.4 kg/
often applied on concrete blocks, bricks or previous cementitious m2 min0.5, while in the W2 type the capillary absorption should
materials. Most renders are used for decorative and protective pur- be lower than 0.2 kg/m2 min0.5. Therefore, the best performance
poses and they are usually coloured to avoid additional coatings, in terms of water penetration and durability should be expected
such as paint. Some renders, especially one-coat rendering mor- for the W2 type mortars. One-coat rendering mortars are typically
tars, are manufactured by mixing white cement, white limestone classified as W1 or W2, whereas general purpose mortars are com-
aggregates (marbles), pigments and different powdered additives monly marked as W0.
including cellulose ethers and waterproofing agents. Of those Taking into account the latter requirements and the classifica-
waterproofing additives, some metallic soaps, such as calcium tion given by the EN 998-1:2003 standard, we thought that it
stearate, zinc stearate or sodium oleate, are normally used in ren- might be interesting to study the relative effectiveness of common
ders to protect the mortar against moisture and rain. Metallic waterproofing additives and the optimal dosages for attaining the
soaps, are salts from long chain fatty acids and are popular as best classification (W2). Protection against water, especially in
waterproofings due to their low cost and effectiveness. mortars made with carbonaceous aggregates, such as the one-coat
The MERUC classification [1] defines six levels of capillary water renders, should be taken into consideration due to potential
absorption for one-coat rendering mortars. In addition, the CSTB aggression by acidic pollutants dissolved in rain water [8–11].
methods describe the test methodology for evaluating the capillary As regards the waterproofing additives used in renders, metallic
water absorption coefficient [2]. The essential requirements con- soaps, such as calcium stearate, zinc stearates and sodium oleate,
cerning the tests methods and CE marking of rendering mortars are widely used although no reference has been found concerning
are defined in the EN 998 standard [3,4]. The requirements for their relative effectiveness. Powdered silicone additives may be
hardened mortars are divided into three sections; (i) compressive used instead of metallic soaps but their high cost means that they
strength after 28 days [5], (ii) capillary water absorption [6] and are not currently a realistic alternative and few manufacturers use
(iii) thermal conductivity [7]. As regards capillary water absorp- them. However, powdered silicones are very stable and show bet-
tion, the standard defines three waterproofing levels. At the W0 ter resistance in the face of environmental aggression and so they
could perhaps be used instead of metallic soaps at low dosages. In
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 968 364814; fax: +34 968 364148. addition, the growing demand for special products within the
E-mail address: [email protected] (P.A. García-Ruiz). building sector, such as repairing mortars, thin layer mortars or

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.05.002
3288 M. Lanzón, P.A. García-Ruiz / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 3287–3291

Table 1
Waterproofing properties.

Waterproofing Nature Appearance Bulk density, g/cm3 Particle size (% passing 80 lm sieve)
Calcium stearate (CaS) Metallic soap White powder 0.28 100
Zinc stearate (ZnS) Metallic soap White powder 0.27 100
Sodium oleate (NaO) Metallic soap Light beige powder 0.15 78.85
Silicone A (Sil-A) Redispersible silicone White powder 0.45 90.60
Silicone B (Sil-B) Redispersible silicone White powder 0.36 89.87
Ethylene–lauril-vinyl(HRP) Hydrophobic redispersible polymer White powder 0.43 75.67

joint mortars, might well increase the demand for powdered sili- 2.3. Curves of capillary absorption
cones. Finally, synthetic polymers, such as ethylene–laurate-vinyl
Four discs per sample were introduced into a capillary chamber to follow their
powder, are used in conjunction with inorganic binders to increase capillary water absorption. The samples were dried until constant mass before reg-
water repellent properties of cementitious products. These poly- istering the curves and their weight variation was followed for 90 min. The lateral
mers disperse readily in water during the mixing process and sides of the specimens were sealed to avoid water penetration.
may be added in similar percentages to metallic soaps. Finally, sil-
icone films based on siloxanes can be applied to the surface of mor- 2.4. Capillary water absorption
tars to preserve them externally [12]. However, the last method
The prismatic specimens were introduced into a capillary chamber to estimate
implies additional coatings and extra time, increasing the cost of the water absorption coefficient due to capillary action. The lateral sides of the
the process. This paper focuses on the comparative effectiveness specimens were sealed to restrict the water flow along the longitudinal axis. The
of several powdered waterproofings at different dosages, with water flux through the sample was measured by partial immersion of the speci-
the aim of ascertaining which waterproofings and dosages are mens at a depth of 5 mm. The capillary absorption coefficient was calculated using
the measurements for 10 and 90 min.
most suited to protecting against water according to the require-
ments given by the EN 998-1:2003 standard. 2.5. Water absorption tests

The 4  4  16 cm specimens were weighed before being immersed in a water

2. Experimental procedure tank for 20 and 90 min, after which they were removed and partially dried to elim-
inate the excess of water on the surface. Water absorption was calculated as a per-
2.1. Mix constituents centage of the initial mass.

2.1.1. Portland cement

All the samples were prepared with a Type I white cement 52.5R at 21% w/w of 3. Experimental results and discussion
the whole composition.
3.1. Capillary absorption curves
2.1.2. Aggregates
A combination of coarse, medium and calcium carbonate filler was selected to
achieve the correct size distribution. The grain size was 0.010–1.5 mm.
The capillary absorption curves for the CT, CaS, ZnS, NaO, Sil-A,
Sil-B and HRP samples are shown in Figs. 1–4. At low waterproof-
2.1.3. Additives ing dosages (0.25% w/w) most of the waterproofed samples be-
The samples were prepared with a constant quantity of cellulose ether (dos- came saturated within 25–30 min (Fig. 1), while the control
age of 0.21% w/w) as is common practice in renders to achieve the right work- samples (CT) became saturated after approximately 16 min. Of
ability. Finally, six powdered waterproofing (calcium stearate, zinc stearate,
particular note was the high effectiveness of sodium oleate (NaO)
sodium oleate, silicone A, silicone B and hydrophobic redispersable polymer)
were used to study their influence on capillary water absorption (Table 1). The and the powdered silicone A (Sil-A) at low dosages. At 0.50% w/w
samples are termed CaS, ZnS, NaO, Sil-A, Sil-B and HRP, respectively, while the (Fig. 2), became evident the first differences between calcium
dosages investigated were 0.00%, 0.25%, 0.50%, 1.00% and 2.00% w/w of the whole and zinc stearates (CaS and ZnS) the latter becoming saturated at
composition. The samples were compared with non-waterproofed control sam- the end of the experiment, while the CaS samples showed satura-
ples (CT).
tion at 36 min, approximately. At this dose, the powdered silicone
2.2. Mixing, moulding and conditioning
B samples (Sil-B) showed a substantial reduction of capillary
absorption, while the absorption curve of the hydrophobic redis-
The samples were first blended inside plastic bags to achieve better homoge- persable polymer samples (HRP) and the ZnS samples were similar.
neity. After this, the mortars were mechanically mixed with a constant percent- The NaO and Sil-A samples were again the best in terms of capil-
age of water (21.1%) in an auto-mixer, following the EN 196-1 recommendations
lary absorption.
[13].
The recommended thickness of rendering mortars varies between 10 mm and The 1.00% w/w doses did not point to major differences be-
15 mm, and so a modified moulding method was proposed to reproduce, as closely tween ZnS and Sil-A (Fig. 3). Compared with the above dosages
as possible the recommended thickness. This method has been recently used for the (0.25% and 0.50%) a significant reduction in capillary absorption
capillary water absorption evaluation in rendering mortars [14]. After the mixing was observed for the ZnS and CaS samples. The NaO samples were
process, the samples were placed in 60  60  12 mm square plastic moulds. Three
hours latter, the mortars, still in the moulds, were cut using a 50 mm diameter tron-
again slightly more effective than the Sil-A samples, while capillary
coconic ring, thus providing four specimens of 50 mm diameter and 12 ± 1 mm absorption in the HRP samples did not decrease so much as in the
thickness from each formulation. These specimens (discs) were used to follow the ZnS samples.
capillary absorption curves obtained during 90 min. Finally, at very high dosages of 2.00% w/w no great differences
Additionally, a standard moulding method was followed by placing the samples
were observed between most of the samples (Fig. 4). Silicone A
into 4  4  16 cm prismatic moulds. Six specimens were made per sample, three of
which were used to quantify the capillary water absorption after 28 days of curing seemed to be the most effective waterproofing, while calcium stea-
according to the UNE-EN 1015-18 standard [6]. The remaining specimens were rate seemed to be the worst.
used to estimate their water absorption. Before the water absorption tests the spec-
imens were dried to constant mass. 3.2. Capillary water absorption
After the moulding process, the specimens were enclosed in polyethylene bags
(95 ± 5% RH) under laboratory conditions (23 ± 2 °C) for 48 h. The specimens were
then demoulded and stored in the same conditions as above for 5 days and then The capillary water absorption coefficients for all the dosages
at 23 ± 0.5 °C and 65 ± 1% RH for 21 days. are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. Each figure includes the reference levels
 M. Lanzón, P.A. García-Ruiz / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 3287–3291 3289

0.35 0.35
CT CT
CaS 0.25% CaS 2.00%
0.30 ZnS 0.25% 0.30 ZnS 2.00%
NaO 0.25% NaO 2.00%
Sil-A 2.00%
Capillary abs., g / cm2

Sil-A 0.25%
Sil-B 2.00%

Capillary abs., g / cm2

0.25 Sil-B 0.25% 0.25
HRP 0.25% HRP 2.00%

0.20 0.20

0.15 0.15

0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
time, min0.5 time, min0.5

Fig. 1. Dosages of 0.25% w/w. Curves of capillary absorption for CT, CaS, ZnS, NaO, Fig. 4. Dosages of 2.00% w/w. Curves of capillary absorption for CT, CaS, ZnS, NaO,
Sil-A, Sil-B and HRP samples. Sil-A, Sil-B and HRP samples.

0.35
CT 1.2
CaS 0.50%
0.30 ZnS 0.50%
CaS
NaO 0.50% 1.0 ZnS
Sil-A 0.50% Capillary water abs., kg / m2 min0.5 NaO
Capillary abs., g / cm2

0.25 Sil-B 0.50%

W1 upper limit
HRP 0.50%
0.8 W2 upper limit
0.20

0.6
0.15

0.10 0.4

0.05 0.2

0.00
0.0

0 2 4 6 8 10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
time, min0.5
Waterproofing dosage, %
Fig. 2. Dosages of 0.50% w/w. Curves of capillary absorption for CT, CaS, ZnS, NaO,
Sil-A, Sil-B and HRP samples. Fig. 5. Capillary water absorption of samples made with metallic soaps (CaS, ZnS
and NaO) at different dosages. The reference lines (dotted/broken lines) are taken
from the EN 998-1 classification.
0.35
CT
CaS 1.00%
0.30 ZnS 1.00% zinc stearates are used to waterproof mortars (Fig. 5). Zinc stearate
NaO 1.00%
Sil-A 1.00% only became effective at 0.50% w/w, whereas calcium stearate was
Capillary abs., g / cm 2

0.25 Sil-B 1.00%

HRP 1.00% less effective at this dose. At 1.00% and 2.00% w/w zinc stearate
was again more effective than calcium stearate. Comparing the
0.20
0.50% and 1.00% w/w dosages, there was a very steep reduction
0.15
in capillary water absorption in the samples made with zinc
stearate.
0.10 Although sodium oleate is chemically similar to zinc and cal-
cium stearates, its efficiency as waterproofing was excellent even
0.05 at very low dosage (0.25% w/w), and the mortar with this sub-
stance could be classified as W2 type from the lowest dose. In fact,
0.00
the results obtained for the samples made with sodium oleate are
comparable with those obtained by using powdered silicone A.
0 2 4 6 8 10 However, a slight reduction in the relative effectiveness of sodium
time, min0.5 oleate was observed at the highest dosages (2.00% w/w).
The powdered silicone samples showed different degree of
Fig. 3. Dosages of 1.00% w/w. Curves of capillary absorption for CT, CaS, ZnS, NaO, effectiveness at the lowest dose (Fig. 6). At this dose (0.25%),
Sil-A, Sil-B and HRP samples.
the mortars made with silicone A could be classified as W2 type,
whereas the silicone B mortars could not. Because of their cost,
this finding should be borne in mind when using powdered sili-
given by the EN 998-1 standard (dotted/broken lines). Waterproof- cones in rendering formulations. Both silicones provided similar
ing dosages of 0.25% w/w are not recommendable when calcium or results at higher dosages, although silicone A was better in all
3290 M. Lanzón, P.A. García-Ruiz / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 3287–3291

1.2 16
Capillary water abs., kg / m 2 min0.5

1.0
Sil-A 14
Sil-B
HRP
W1 upper limit 12 CaS 90 min
0.8 W2 upper limit
ZnS 90 min
NaO 90 min

Water abs., %
10
0.6
8
0.4
6

0.2
4

0.0 2

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Waterproofing dosage, % Waterproofing dose, % w/w

Fig. 6. Capillary water absorption of samples made with powdered silicones (Sil-A Fig. 8. Immersion tests for samples made with 0.00%, 0.25%, 0.50%, 1.00% and 2.00%
and Sil-B) and the hydrophobic polymer (HRP) at different dosages. The reference w/w in calcium stearate (CaS), zinc stearate (ZnS) and sodium oleate (NaO) after
lines (dotted/broken lines) are taken from the EN 998-1 classification. 90 min of immersion.

the experiments and dosages. The hydrophobic redispersable 16

polymer showed satisfactory water protection at low and med-
ium dosages and slightly worse results than those obtained for 14
ZnS and Sil-B.
12
3.3. Water absorption tests Sil-A 20 min
Sil-B 20 min
Water abs., %

10
HRP 20 min
The water absorption test confirmed most of the results ob-
8
tained in the capillary water absorption experiments (Figs. 7–10).
Sodium oleate and silicone A were once again the most effective 6
at all the dosages. Comparing both additives, the water absorption
percentage was slightly higher for the sodium oleate samples at 4
the highest dose (2.00% w/w), which perhaps due to the air
entraining effect of sodium oleate. As regards the rest samples, 2
the lowest water absorption percentage was obtained at the high-
est dosages, as expected. The best results were obtained for the Sil- 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
A samples after 20 and 90 min of immersion; 0.63% and 1.44%, Waterproofing dose, % w/w
respectively. At the same dosages, the worst results were observed
for the CaS samples; 4.47% and 5.42%, respectively. The ZnS and Fig. 9. Immersion tests for samples made with 0.00%, 0.25%, 0.50%, 1.00% and 2.00%
HRP samples showed a noticeable increase in waterproofing capac- w/w in silicone A (Sil-A), silicone B (Sil-B) and hydrophobic polymer (HRP) after
ity for dosages above 0.5% w/w. 20 min of immersion.

16 16

14 14

12 12 Sil-A 90 min
CaS 20 min
ZnS 20 min Sil-B 90 min
HRP 90 min
Water abs., %

Water abs., %

10 NaO 20 min 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Waterproofing dose, % w/w Waterproofing dose, % w/w

Fig. 7. Immersion tests for samples made with 0.00%, 0.25%, 0.50%, 1.00% and 2.00% Fig. 10. Immersion tests for samples made with 0.00%, 0.25%, 0.50%, 1.00% and
w/w in calcium stearate (CaS), zinc stearate (ZnS) and sodium oleate (NaO) after 2.00% w/w in silicone A (Sil-A), silicone B (Sil-B) and hydrophobic polymer (HRP)
20 min of immersion. after 90 min of immersion.
 M. Lanzón, P.A. García-Ruiz / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 3287–3291 3291

4. Conclusions as W2 type mortars. Rendering mortars made with zinc stearate

were very effective at dosages above 1.00% w/w but only showed
The effectiveness of powdered waterproofing additives typically similar effectiveness to silicones or sodium oleate at the highest
used in renders was studied through water absorption experi- dosage. Rendering mortars made with calcium stearate, especially
ments: capillary absorption curves, capillary absorption coefficient at dosages lower than 1.00% w/w, cannot be recommended to
and water absorption percentage after 20 and 90 min of immer- reach the minimal requirements (W1 or W2). Finally, mortars
sion. The reference levels (W1 and W2) and requirements given made with hydrophobic polymers (HRP) showed better results
by the EN 998-1 standard and the method proposed in the EN than when calcium stearate was used and they could be used to
1015-18 standard were used to give an idea of the waterproofing reach the W1 or W2 classification, depending on the waterproofing
effectiveness of each waterproofing at each dosage. We can dosage used.
conclude:
Acknowledgments
1. Of the metallic soaps, sodium oleate can be considered the best
alternative at all the dosages. The latter was confirmed by the The authors express their thanks to the Centre for the Develop-
capillary absorption curves, capillary water absorption coeffi- ment of Industrial Technology (CDTI) under the Spanish Ministry
cients and water immersion tests. The capillary water absorp- of Science and Technology. The support given by Wacker-Chemie
tion value was extremely low even at the lowest dosages and GmbH by providing some materials and technical information re-
the samples made with sodium oleate should be classified as quired for this research is greatly appreciated.
W2 type mortars. In addition, sodium oleate gave better results
than powdered silicones for intermediate dosages. References
2. At low dosages (0.25% or 0.50% w/w), calcium stearate did not
[1] CSTB Certification des enduits monocouches d’imperméabilisation, MERUC
reach the minimal requirements demanded by the EN 998-1
classification. Cahiers du CSTB 1778; 1982.
standard. Therefore, calcium stearate should not be recom- [2] Certification CSTB des enduits monocouches d’imperméabilisation, Modalités
mended at low dosages, whereas zinc stearate could be used d’essais. Cahiers du CSTB 2669-4; 1982.
[3] EN 998-1:2003. Specification for mortar for masonry. - Part 1: rendering and
instead of calcium stearate at intermediate dosages.
plastering mortar. European Committee for Standardization.
3. Powdered silicones were very effective as water repellents in [4] EN 998-2:2003. Specification for mortar for masonry. - Part 2: masonry mortar.
the mortars investigated. However, silicone B was not as effec- European Committee for Standardization.
tive as silicone A. The Sil-A samples reached the W2 classifica- [5] EN 1015-11:1999. Methods of test for mortar for masonry. Part 11:
determination of flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar.
tion from the lowest dosages (0.25% w/w), whereas Sil-B only European Committee for Standardization.
reach this level above 0.50% w/w. At the highest dosage [6] EN 1015-18:2002. Methods of tests for mortars for masonry. Part 18:
(2.00% w/w) silicone A showed the lowest water absorption val- determination of water absorption coefficient due to capillary action of
hardened mortar. European Committee for Standardization.
ues of all the tests. Due to their chemical properties, silicones [7] EN 1745:2002. Masonry and masonry products. Methods for determining
may be a good alternative for guaranteeing long term water- design thermal values. European Committee for Standardization.
proofing in cementitious mortars as one-coat renders. [8] Beddoe RE, Dorner HW. Modelling acid attack on concrete: Part I. The essential
mechanisms. Cem Concr Res 2005;35:2333–9.
4. The samples made with hydrophobic polymer (HRP) gave sim- [9] Brown PW, Clifton JR. Mechanism of deterioration in cement-based materials
ilar results to the zinc stearate samples. However, at the lowest and in lime mortar. Durab Build Mat 1998;5:409–20.
dosages (0.25% w/w) the hydrophobic polymer was more effec- [10] Zivica V, Bajzab A. Acidic attack of cement based materials a review. Part I:
principle of acidic attack. Constr Build Mater 2001;15:331–40.
tive (W1) than zinc stearate. At dosages of 0.50% w/w, both
[11] Zivica V, Bajzab A. Acidic attack of cement based materials a review. Part II:
additives showed very similar behaviour (W1) and finally, at factors of rate of acidic attack and protective measures. Constr Build Mater
the highest dosages the HRP samples were seen to be less effec- 2002;16:215–22.
tive than the ZnS samples. [12] Maravelaki-Kalaitzaki P. Hydraulic lime mortars with siloxane for
waterproofing historic masonry. Cem Concr Res 2007;37:283–90.
[13] EN 196-1:1994. Methods of testing cement. Part 1. European Committee for
Comparing their capillary absorption coefficients and the EN Standardization.
998-1 requirements, rendering mortars made with sodium oleate [14] Lanzón M, García-Ruiz PA. Effectiveness and durability evaluation of rendering
mortars made with metallic soaps and powdered silicone. Constr Build Mater
and silicones, especially silicone A, were extremely effective as 2008;22:2308–15.
water repellents. In most cases, these mortars could be classified