The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-080X.htm

Building
Building conservation philosophy conservation
for masonry repair:
part 2 – “principles”
165
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 briefly
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 specifically 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
ramifications 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 specifications
Paper type Viewpoint

Introduction
This paper is the second part of an investigation into the philosophy of masonry repair.
The first 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 specific 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. Structural Survey
Vol. 28 No. 3, 2010
Generally, ethics and principles should be considered in conjunction, however, for pp. 165-188
the purpose of this work they have been separated. The principles include (Bell, 1997, q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-080X
pp. 27-33): DOI 10.1108/02630801011058906
SS Principles (specific criteria upon which conservation works should be
28,3 based)
.
Minimal (least) intervention (or conservative repair).
.
Legibility (honesty and distinguishability).
.
Materials and techniques (like for like materials).
166 . 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
conflict, 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 first rule of conservation is
that there should be “no dogmatic rules” (Powys, 1995, p. 3). Powys emphasises that
“no fixed rule can be set up to be followed invariably. Each case must be considered on
its own merits”.
As mentioned in the first 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
clarification 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 fields 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 significance of the structure.
Minimal, or least intervention has been defined 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 façade 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 qualified 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 façade at
Doune Castle

Clearly all masonry components will eventually require intervention. It is the author’s
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 flaunching.
.
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 superficial removal of surface masonry only.
That being said, the cultural significance that is placed upon a building would
greatly influence the decision to remove delaminating stone or to consolidate (see
Plate 3). It is clear that cost would greatly increase if pinning, grouting and flaunching
 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 flaunching 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 modified 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 modified 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 sufficient 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 fixing 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.
Insufficiently 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 fingers 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 “fix” 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 inflexible. 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 fine 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 difficult 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 efficacy 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 façade,
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 efficacy of armatures used is a function of substrate quality, the number of fixings, Building
the spacing between them, the stability and strength of the wire frame work (if conservation
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-efficient of linear expansion than the substrate. 175
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 flexural 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 specifically, the “fines” (Gibbons, 2003). It is generally difficult
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: profiled plastic repair

Profiled 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 final profile being established with the
use of a “horse”.
It is the author’s 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 profiled repair overhangs, (for example, cornices) the likelihood of falling
masonry may be significantly 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 designer’s 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
SS objects are clearly prone to be a conjectural interpretation, with the newly carved piece
28,3 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 significant 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
176 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 author’s view that if
insufficient 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 building’s 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 Building
Article 12 of the Venice Charter (1964) states that “Replacements of missing parts (of conservation
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 177
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 identification of new work from existing fabric may be
difficult 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 deficiencies. 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

Plate 10.
Honest repair to Roman
walls in Barcelona
SS repairs in so much as they have the potential to alter the performance of the wall, and
28,3 more specifically, 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 specification with high permeability, low strength
178 bricks could act in a sacrificial manner and therefore aid the ultimate performance and
survival of the historic masonry, whilst fulfilling the principle of honesty and
distinguishability.

Honest repair: rebuilding masonry

Reconstruction and rebuilding of masonry must be based upon solid evidence. If
significant 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 influenced 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 ramifications 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: profiled masonry

The replication and reconstruction of tracery and other moulded masonry must be based
on evidence (i.e. sufficient existing profile 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 sufficiently 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 sufficient 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 Minster’s 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 As previously mentioned criticism could, however, be made that they detract from the
28,3 integrity and beauty of the structure. It is the author’s 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
180 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 building’s 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 façade Building
patched with brick and tile”. conservation
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. 181
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 finishes (tooling) to natural stone

The principle of honesty of repair also poses questions about finish techniques to
natural stone. The majority of natural stone would have been finished with tooling
effects derived from the masons’ chisels and force with which they are used.
Chisels claws and punches all create different finishes 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 finish to be applied should take guidance from the surrounding existing
masonry. It is evident that very similar finish techniques applied to geologically
similar replacement stone, could lead to indistinguisability. The use of variation in
tooling finishes 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 finishes
weather back. The decision to identify new works through finishes may only therefore
be satisfactory within shorter time frames.
Plate 13 illustrates very poor quality surface finish to natural stone. The finish has
been created with the use of an angle grinder and bears little relation to the tooled
finish 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 façade could be required if the
structural integrity is compromised, however, this situation is not common. The
decision to replace the complete façade is generally aesthetically driven. This approach
is philosophically difficult 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 Hill’s (1995) concept of
this being a “living” building then the ethical concept of integrity of structure would
potentially override the aforementioned principles.
SS
28,3

182

Plate 13.
Poor quality applied
finishes to natural stone,
bearing no relation to the
original finish (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 conflict
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 finish 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 difficult.
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 oversimplification of the materials is however,
unhelpful. That being said, mortar specification 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 Building
aggregate and the basic mix proportions. conservation
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 modifies 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 183
is considerably greater than their modern counterparts, with variability in the firing 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 specification approach. These types of specification 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, flexural 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 sufficient 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 finish effects, but this still does not
reconcile the problem of honesty once the finish 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) defines 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 significant 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 benefits for retaining nylon and stainless steel dowels. However,
alternative approaches can generally be utilised with similar results. Well specified 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.
SS Earl (2006, p. 172) cites the Burra Charter (1999, article 15) indicating that “Non
28,3 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 difficult
to remedy. If the wall core is to be grouted, the hydraulicity of the grouting material
184 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 sufficiently 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 difficult, 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
significantly 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, flexural 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

Deflecting, 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 difficult 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 benefit 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 defined 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 and properly deposited and stored”. One of the most common uses of recording and
28,3 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.
186 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 building’s 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 definitive answers for masonry repair and should
be seen as a mechanism to stimulate discussion between all parties involved in these
processes. It is the author’s 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 ramifications 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 confident that if all parties involved in the repair of historic masonry Building
structures undertake an evaluation of their repair strategies, set against the philosophical conservation
“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 187
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., Banfill, 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.
SS Hughes, P. (1986), “The need for old buildings to breathe”, SPAB News Spring, Vol. 18, pp. 1-3.
28,3 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,
188 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: Confidential 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