![]() |
STUCCO |
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||
|
The
Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco
Historical
Background
Stucco has been used since ancient times. Still widely used throughout the world, it is one of the most common of traditional building materials. Up until the late 1800's, stucco, like mortar, was primarily lime-based, but the popularization of portland cement changed the composition of stucco, as well as mortar, to a harder material. Historically, the term "plaster" has often been interchangeable with "stucco"; the term is still favored by many, particularly when referring to the traditional lime-based coating. By the nineteenth century "stucco," although originally denoting fine interior ornamental plasterwork, had gained wide acceptance in the United States to describe exterior plastering. "Render" and "rendering" are also terms used to describe stucco, especially in Great Britain. Other historic treatments and coatings related to stucco in that they consist at least in part of a similarly plastic or malleable material include: parging and pargeting, wattle and daub, "cob" or chalk mud, pise de terre, rammed earth, briquete entre poteaux or bousillage, half-timbering, and adobe. All of these are regional variations on traditional mixtures of mud, clay, lime, chalk, cement, gravel or straw. Many are still used today.
The
introduction of the many revival styles of architecture
around the turn of the twentieth century, combined with
the improvement and increased availability of portland
cement resulted in a "craze" for stucco as a
building material in the United States. Beginning about
1890 and gaining momentum into the 1930s and 1940s, stucco
was associated with certain historic architectural styles,
including: Prairie; Art Deco, and Art Moderne; Spanish
Colonial, Mission, Pueblo, Mediterranean, English Cotswold
Cottage, and Tudor Revival styles; as well as the
ubiquitous bungalow and "four-square" house. The
fad for Spanish Colonial Revival, and other variations on
this theme, was especially important in furthering stucco
as a building material in the United States during this
period, since stucco clearly looked like adobe. Although
stucco buildings were especially prevalent in California,
the Southwest and Florida, ostensibly because of their
Spanish heritage, this period also spawned stucco-coated,
revival-style buildings all over the United States and
Canada. The popularity of stucco as a cheap, and readily
available material meant that by the 1920s, it was used
for an increasing variety of building types. Resort
hotels, apartment buildings, private mansions and movie
theaters, railroad stations, and even gas stations and
tourist courts took advantage of the "romance"
of period styles, and adopted the stucco construction that
had become synonymous with these styles. Stucco
has traditionally been popular for a variety of reasons.
It was an inexpensive material that could simulate finely
dressed stonework, especially when "scored" or
"lined" in the European tradition. A stucco
coating over a less finished and less costly substrate
such as rubblestone, fieldstone, brick, log or wood frame,
gave the building the appearance of being a more expensive
and important structure. As a weather-repellent coating,
stucco protected the building from wind and rain
penetration, and also offered a certain amount of fire
protection. While stucco was usually applied during
construction as part of the building design, particularly
over rubblestone or fieldstone, in some instances it was
added later to protect the structure, or when a rise in
the owner's social status demanded a comparable rise in
his standard of living. Before
the mid-to-late nineteenth century, stucco consisted
primarily of hydrated or slaked lime, water and sand, with
straw or animal hair included as a binder. Natural cements
were frequently used in stucco mixes after their discovery
in the United States during the 1820s. Portland cement was
first manufactured in the United States in 1871, and it
gradually replaced natural cement. After about 1900, most
stucco was composed primarily of portland cement, mixed
with some lime. With the addition of portland cement,
stucco became even more versatile and durable. No longer
used just as a coating for a substantial material like
masonry or log, stucco could now be applied over wood or
metal lath attached to a light wood frame. With this
increased strength, stucco ceased to be just a veneer and
became a more integral part of the building structure. Today,
gypsum, which is hydrated calcium sulfate or sulfate of
lime, has to a great extent replaced lime Gypsum is
preferred because it hardens faster and has less shrinkage
than lime. Lime is generally used only in the finish coat
in contemporary stucco work. The
composition of stucco depended on local custom and
available materials. Stucco often contained substantial
amounts of mud or clay, marble or brick dust, or even
sawdust, and an array of additives ranging from animal
blood or urine, to eggs, keratin or gluesize (animal
hooves and horns), varnish, wheat paste, sugar, salt,
sodium silicate, alum, tallow, linseed oil, beeswax, and
wine, beer, or rye whiskey. Waxes, fats and oils were
included to introduce water-repellent properties, sugary
materials reduced the amount of water needed and slowed
down the setting time, and alcohol acted as an air
entrainer. All of these additives contributed to the
strength and durability of the stucco. The
appearance of much stucco was determined by the color of
the sand--or sometimes burnt clay--used in the mix, but
often stucco was also tinted with natural pigments, or the
surface whitewashed or color-washed after stuccoing was
completed. Brick dust could provide color, and other
coloring materials that were not affected by lime, mostly
mineral pigments, could be added to the mix for the final
finish coat. Stucco was also marbled or
marbleized--stained to look like stone by diluting oil of
vitriol (sulfuric acid) with water, and mixing this with a
yellow ochre, or another color. As the twentieth century
progressed, manufactured or synthetic pigments were added
at the factory to some prepared stucco mixes. Stucco
is applied directly, without lath, to masonry substrates
such as brick, stone, concrete or hollow tile. But on wood
structures, stucco, like its interior counterpart plaster,
must be applied over lath in order to obtain an adequate
key to hold the stucco. Thus, when applied over a log
structure, stucco is laid on horizontal wood lath that has
been nailed on vertical wood furring strips attached to
the logs. If it is applied over a wood frame structure,
stucco may be applied to wood or metal lath nailed
directly to the wood frame; it may also be placed on lath
that has been attached to furring strips. The furring
strips are themselves laid over building paper covering
the wood sheathing.
Like
interior wall plaster, stucco has traditionally been
applied as a multiple-layer process, sometimes consisting
of two coats, but more commonly as three. Whether applied
directly to a masonry substrate or onto wood or metal
lath, this consists of a first "scratch" or
"pricking-up" coat, followed by a second scratch
coat, sometimes referred to as a "floating" or
"brown" coat, followed finally by the
"finishing" coat. Up until the late-nineteenth
century, the first and the second coats were of much the
same composition, generally consisting of lime, or natural
cement, sand, perhaps clay, and one or more of the
additives previously mentioned. Straw or animal hair was
usually added to the first coat as a binder. The third, or
finishing coat, consisted primarily of a very fine mesh
grade of lime and sand, and sometimes pigment. As already
noted, after the 1820s, natural cement was also a common
ingredient in stucco until it was replaced by portland
cement. Both masonry and wood lath must be kept wet or
damp to ensure a good bond with the stucco. Wetting these
materials helps to prevent them from pulling moisture out
of the stucco too rapidly, which results in cracking, loss
of bond, and generally poor quality stuccowork. Until
the early-twentieth century when a variety of novelty
finishes or textures were introduced, the last coat of
stucco was commonly given a smooth, troweled finish, and
then scored or lined in imitation of ashlar. The illusion
of masonry joints was sometimes enhanced by a thin line of
white lime putty, graphite, or some other pigment. Some
nineteenth century buildings feature a water table or
raised foundation of roughcast stucco that differentiates
it from the stucco surface above, which is smooth and
scored. Other novelty or textured finishes associated with
the "period" or revival styles of the
early-twentieth century include: the English cottage
finish, adobe and Spanish, pebble-dashed or dry-dash
surface, fan and sponge texture, reticulated and
vermiculated, roughcast (or wet dash), and sgraffito. Although
A. J. Downing alluded to stuccoed houses in Pennsylvania
that had survived for over a century in relatively good
condition, historic stucco is inherently not a
particularly permanent or long-lasting building material.
Regular maintenance is required to keep it in good
condition. Unfortunately, many older or historic buildings
are not always accorded this kind of care. Because
building owners knew stucco to be a protective, but also
somewhat fragile coating, they employed a variety of means
to prolong its usefulness. The most common treatment was
to whitewash stucco, often annually. The lime in the
whitewash offered protection and stability and helped to
harden the stucco. Most importantly, it filled hairline
cracks before they could develop into larger cracks and
let in moisture. To improve water repellency, stucco
buildings were also sometimes coated with paraffin,
another type of wax, or other stucco-like coatings, such
as oil mastics. Most
stucco deterioration is the result of water infiltration
into the building structure, either through the roof,
around chimneys, window and door openings, or excessive
ground water or moisture penetrating through, or splashing
up from the foundation. Potential causes of deterioration
include: ground settlement lintel and door frame
settlement, inadequate or leaking gutters and downspouts,
intrusive vegetation, moisture migration within walls due
to interior condensation and humidity, vapor drive
problems caused by furnace, bathroom and kitchen vents,
and rising damp resulting from excessive ground water and
poor drainage around the foundation. Water infiltration
will cause wood lath to rot, and metal lath and nails to
rust, which eventually will cause stucco to lose its bond
and pull away from its substrate. After
the cause of deterioration has been identified, any
necessary repairs to the building should be made first
before repairing the stucco. Such work is likely to
include repairs designed to keep excessive water away from
the stucco, such as roof, gutter, downspout and flashing
repairs, improving drainage, and redirecting rainwater
runoff and splash-back away from the building. Horizontal
areas such as the tops of parapet walls or chimneys are
particularly vulnerable to water infiltration, and may
require modifications to their original design, such as
the addition of flashing to correct the problem. Previous
repairs inexpertly carried out may have caused additional
deterioration, particularly if executed in portland
cement, which tends to be very rigid, and therefore
incompatible with early, mostly soft lime-based stucco
that is more "flexible." Incompatible repairs,
external vibration caused by traffic or construction, or
building settlement can also result in cracks which permit
the entrance of water and cause the stucco to fail. Before
beginning any stucco repair, an assessment of the stucco
should be undertaken to determine the extent of the
damage, and how much must be replaced or repaired. Testing
should be carried out systematically on all elevations of
the building to determine the overall condition of the
stucco. Some areas in need of repair will be clearly
evidenced by missing sections of stucco or stucco layers.
Bulging or cracked areas are obvious places to begin.
Unsound, punky or soft areas that have lost their key will
echo with a hollow sound when tapped gently with a wooden
or acrylic hammer or mallet. Analysis
of the historic stucco will provide useful information on
its primary ingredients and their proportions, and will
help to ensure that the new replacement stucco will
duplicate the old in strength, composition, color and
texture as closely as possible. However, unless authentic,
period restoration is required, it may not be worthwhile,
nor in many instances possible, to attempt to duplicate
all of the ingredients (particularly some of the
additives), in creating the new stucco mortar. Some items
are no longer available, and others, notably sand and
lime--the major components of traditional stucco--have
changed radically over time. For example, most sand used
in contemporary masonry work is manufactured sand, because
river sand, which was used historically, is difficult to
obtain today in many parts of the country. The physical
and visual qualities of manufactured sand versus river
sand, are quite different, and this affects the way stucco
works, as well as the way it looks. The same is true of
lime, which is frequently replaced by gypsum in modern
stucco mixes. And even if identification of all the items
in the historic stucco mix were possible, the analysis
would still not reveal how the original stucco was mixed
and applied. There
are, however, simple tests that can be carried out on a
small piece of stucco to determine its basic makeup. A
dilute solution of hydrochloric (muriatic) acid will
dissolve lime-based stucco, but not portland cement.
Although the use of portland cement became common after
1900, there are no precise cutoff dates, as stuccoing
practices varied among individual plasterers, and from
region to region. Some plasterers began using portland
cement in the 1880s, but others may have continued to
favor lime stucco well into the early twentieth century.
While it is safe to assume that a late-eighteenth or
early-nineteenth century stucco is lime-based,
late-nineteenth or early-twentieth century stucco may be
based on either lime or portland cement. Another important
factor to take into consideration is that an early
lime-stucco building is likely to have been repaired many
times over the ensuing years, and it is probable that at
least some of these patches consist of portland cement. Once
the extent of damage has been determined, a number of
repair options may be considered. Small hairline cracks
usually are not serious and may be sealed with a thin
slurry coat consisting of the finish coat ingredients, or
even with a coat of paint or whitewash. Commercially
available caulking compounds are not suitable materials
for patching hairline cracks. Because their consistency
and texture is unlike that of stucco, they tend to weather
differently, and attract more dirt; as a result, repairs
made with caulking compounds may be highly visible, and
unsightly. Larger cracks will have to be cut out in
preparation for more extensive repair. Most stucco repairs
will require the skill and expertise of a professional
plasterer. In
the interest of saving or preserving as much as possible
of the historic stucco, patching rather than wholesale
replacement is preferable. When repairing heavily textured
surfaces, it is not usually necessary to replace an entire
wall section, as the textured finish, if well-executed,
tends to conceal patches, and helps them to blend in with
the existing stucco. However, because of the nature of
smooth-finished stucco, patching a number of small areas
scattered over one elevation may not be a successful
repair approach unless the stucco has been previously
painted, or is to be painted following the repair work. On
unpainted stucco such patches are hard to conceal, because
they may not match exactly or blend in with the rest of
the historic stucco surface. For this reason it is
recommended, if possible, that stucco repair be carried
out in a contained or well-defined area, or if the stucco
is scored, the repair patch should be
"squared-off" in such a way as to follow
existing scoring. In some cases, especially in a highly
visible location, it may be preferable to restucco an
entire wall section or feature. In this way, any
differences between the patched area and the historic
surface will not be so readily apparent. Repair
of historic stucco generally follows most of the same
principles used in plaster repair. First, all
deteriorated, severely cracked and loose stucco should be
removed down to the lath (assuming that the lath is
securely attached to the substrate), or down to the
masonry if the stucco is directly applied to a masonry
substrate. A clean surface is necessary to obtain a good
bond between the stucco and substrate. The areas to be
patched should be cleaned of all debris with a bristle
brush, and all plant growth, dirt, loose paint, oil or
grease should be removed. If necessary, brick or stone
mortar joints should then be raked out to a depth of
approximately 5/8" to ensure a good bond between the
substrate and the new stucco. To
obtain a neat repair, the area to be patched should be
squared-off with a butt joint, using a cold chisel, a
hatchet, a diamond blade saw, or a masonry bit. Sometimes
it may be preferable to leave the area to be patched in an
irregular shape which may result in a less conspicuous
patch. Proper preparation of the area to be patched
requires very sharp tools, and extreme caution on the part
of the plasterer not to break keys of surrounding good
stucco by "over-sounding" when removing
deteriorated stucco. When
repairing lime-based stucco applied directly to masonry,
the new stucco should be applied in the same manner,
directly onto the stone or brick. The stucco will bond
onto the masonry itself without the addition of lath
because of the irregularities in the masonry or those of
its mortar joints, or because its surface has been
scratched, scored or otherwise roughened to provide an
additional key. Cutting out the old stucco at a diagonal
angle may also help secure the bond between the new and
the old stucco. For the most part it is not advisable to
insert metal lath when restuccoing historic masonry in
sound condition, as it can hasten deterioration of the
repair work. Not only will attaching the lath damage the
masonry, but the slightest moisture penetration can cause
metal lath to rust. This will cause metal to expand,
eventually resulting in spalling of the stucco, and
possibly the masonry substrate too. If
the area to be patched is properly cleaned and prepared, a
bonding agent is usually not necessary. However, a bonding
agent may be useful when repairing hairline cracks, or
when dealing with substrates that do not offer a good
bonding surface. These may include dense stone or brick,
previously painted or stuccoed masonry, or spalling brick
substrates. A good mechanical bond is always preferable to
reliance on bonding agents. Bonding agents should not be
used on a wall that is likely to remain damp or where
large amounts of salts are present. Many bonding agents do
not survive well under such conditions, and their use
could jeopardize the longevity of the stucco repair. A
stucco mix compatible with the historic stucco should be
selected after analyzing the existing stucco. It can be
adapted from a standard traditional mix of the period, or
based on one of the mixes included here. Stucco consisting
mostly of portland cement generally will not be physically
compatible with the softer, more flexible lime-rich
historic stuccos used throughout the eighteenth and much
of the nineteenth centuries. The differing expansion and
contraction rates of lime stucco and portland cement
stucco will normally cause the stucco to crack. Choosing a
stucco mix that is durable and compatible with the
historic stucco on the building is likely to involve
considerable trial and error, and probably will require a
number of test samples, and even more if it is necessary
to match the color. It is best to let the stucco test
samples weather as long as possible--ideally one year, or
at least through a change of seasons, in order to study
the durability of the mix and its compatibility with the
existing stucco, as well as the weathering of the tint if
the building will not be painted and color match is an
important factor. After
thoroughly dampening the masonry or wood lath, the first,
scratch coat should be applied to the masonry substrate,
or wood or metal lath, in a thickness that corresponds to
the original if extant, or generally about 1/4" to
3/8". The scratch coat should be scratched or
crosshatched with a comb to provide a key to hold the
second coat. It usually takes 24-72 hours, and longer in
cold weather, for each coat to dry before the next coat
can be applied. The second coat should be about the same
thickness as the first, and the total thickness of the
first two coats should generally not exceed about
5/8". This second or leveling coat should be
roughened using a wood float with a nail protruding to
provide a key for the final or finish coat. The finish
coat, about 1/4" thick, is applied after the previous
coat has initially set. If this is not feasible, the base
coat should be thoroughly dampened when the finish coat is
applied later. The finish coat should be worked to match
the texture of the original stucco. The
color of most early stucco was supplied by the aggregate
included in the mix--usually the sand. Sometimes natural
pigments were added to the mix, and eighteenth and
nineteenth-century scored stucco was often marbleized or
painted in imitation of marble or granite. Stucco was also
frequently coated with whitewash or a colorwash. This
tradition later evolved into the use of paint, its
popularity depending on the vagaries of fashion as much as
a means of concealing repairs. Because most of the early
colors were derived from nature, the resultant stucco
tints tended to ne mostly earth-toned. This was true until
the advent of brightly colored stucco in the early decades
of the twentieth century. This was the so-called
"Jazz Plaster" developed by O.A. Malone, the
"man who put color into California," and who
founded the California Stone Products Corporation in 1927.
California Stucco was revolutionary for its time as the
first stucco/plaster to contain colored pigment in its
pre-packaged factory mix. When
patching or repairing a historic stucco surface known to
have been tinted, it may be possible to determine through
visual or microscopic analysis whether the source of the
coloring is sand, cement, or pigment. Although some
pigments or aggregates used traditionally may no longer be
available, a sufficiently close color-match can generally
be approximately using sand, natural or mineral pigments,
or a combination of these. Obtaining such a match will
require testing and comparing the color of the dried test
samples with the original. Successfully combining pigments
in the dry stucco mix prepared for the finish coat
requires considerable skill. The amount of pigment must be
carefully measured for each batch of stucco. Overworking
the mix can make the pigment separate from the lime.
Changing the amount of water added to the mix, or using
water to apply the tinted finish coat, will also affect
the color of the stucco when it dries. Generally,
the color obtained by hand-mixing these ingredients will
provide a sufficiently close match to cover an entire wall
or an area distinct enough from the rest of the structure
that the color differences will not be obvious. However,
it may not work for small patches conspicuously located on
a primary elevation, where color differences will be
especially noticeable. In these instances, it may be
necessary to conceal the repairs by painting the entire
patched elevation, or even the whole building. Many
stucco buildings have been painted over the years and will
require repainting after the stucco repairs have been
made. Limewash or cement-based paint, latex paint, or
oil-based paint are appropriate coatings for stucco
buildings. The most important factor to consider when
repainting a previously painted or coated surface is that
the new paint be compatible with any coating already on
the surface. In preparation for repainting, all loose or
peeling paint or other coating material not firmly adhered
to the stucco must be removed by hand-scraping or natural
bristle brushes. The surface should then be cleaned. Cement-based
paints, most of which today contain some portland cement
and are really a type of limewash, have traditionally been
used on stucco buildings. The ingredients were easily
obtainable. Furthermore, the lime in such paints actually
bonded or joined with the stucco and provided a very
durable coating. In many regions, whitewash was applied
annually during spring cleaning. Modern, commercially
available premixed masonry and mineral-based paints may
also be used on historic stucco buildings. If
the structure must be painted for the first time to
conceal repairs, almost any of these coatings may be
acceptable depending on the situation. Latex paint, for
example, may be applied to slightly damp walls or where
there is an excess of moisture, but latex paint will not
stick to chalky or powdery areas. Oil-based, or alkyd
paints must be applied only to dry walls; new stucco must
cure up to a year before it can be painted with oil-based
paint. There
are many contemporary stucco products on the market today.
Many of them are not compatible, either physically or
visually, with historic stucco buildings. Such products
should be considered for use only after consulting with a
historic masonry specialist. However, some of these
prepackaged tinted stucco coatings may be suitable for use
on stucco buildings dating from the late-nineteenth or
early-twentieth century, as long as the color and texture
are appropriate for the period and style of the building.
While some masonry contractors may, as a matter of course,
suggest that a water-repellent coating be applied after
repairing old stucco, in most cases this should not be
necessary, since color washes and paints serve the same
purpose, and stucco itself is a protective coating. Historic
stucco buildings often exhibit multiple layers of paint or
limewash. Although some stucco surfaces may be cleaned by
water washing, the relative success of this procedure
depends on two factors: the surface texture of the stucco,
and the type of dirt to be removed. If simply removing
airborne dirt, smooth unpainted stucco, and
heavily-textured painted stucco may sometimes be cleaned
using a low-pressure water wash, supplemented by scrubbing
with soft natural bristle brushes, and possibly non-ionic
detergents. Organic plant material, such as algae and
mold, and metallic stains may be removed from stucco using
poultices and appropriate solvents. Although these same
methods may be employed to clean unpainted roughcast,
pebble-dash, or any stucco surface featuring exposed
aggregate, due to the surface irregularities, it may be
difficult to remove dirt, without also removing portions
of the decorative textured surface. Difficulty in cleaning
these surfaces may explain why so many of these textured
surfaces have been painted. Complete
replacement of the historic stucco with new stucco of
either a traditional or modern mix will probably be
necessary only in cases of extreme deterioration-- that
is, a loss of bond on over 40-50 percent of the stucco
surface. Another reason for total removal might be that
the physical and visual integrity of the historic stucco
has been so compromised by prior incompatible and
ill-conceived repairs that patching would not be
successful. When
stucco no longer exists on a building there is more
flexibility in choosing a suitable mix for the
replacement. Since compatibility of old and new stucco
will not be an issue, the most important factors to
consider are durability, color, texture and finish.
Depending on the construction and substrate of the
building, in some instances it may be acceptable to use a
relatively strong cement-based stucco mortar. This is
certainly true for many late-nineteenth and
early-twentieth century buildings, and may even be
appropriate to use on some stone substrates even if the
original mortar would have been weaker, as long as the
historic visual qualities noted above have been
replicated. Generally, the best principle to follow for a
masonry building is that the stucco mix, whether for
repair or replacement of historic stucco, should be
somewhat weaker than the masonry to which it is to be
applied in order not to damage the substrate. A
skilled professional plasterer will be familiar with the
properties of materials involved in stucco repair and will
be able to avoid some of the pitfalls that would hinder
someone less experienced. General suggestions for
successful stucco repair parallel those involving
restoration and repair of historic mortar or plaster. In
addition, the following principles are important to
remember: Most
of the oldest stucco in the U.S. dating prior to the
late-nineteenth century, will generally have a smooth,
troweled finish (sometimes called a sand or float finish),
possibly scored to resemble ashlar masonry units. Scoring
may be incised to simulate masonry joints, the scored
lines may be emphasized by black or white penciling, or
the lines may simply be drawn or painted on the surface of
the stucco. In some regions, at least as early as the
first decades of the nineteenth century, it was not
uncommon to use a roughcast finish on the foundation or
base of an otherwise smooth-surfaced building. Roughcast
was also used as an overall stucco finish for some
outbuildings, and other less important types of
structures. A
wide variety of decorative surface textures may be found
on revival style stucco buildings, particularly
residential architecture. These styles evolved in the
late-nineteenth century and peaked in popularity in the
early decades of the twentieth century. Frank Lloyd Wright
favored a smooth finish stucco, which was imitated on much
of the Prairie style architecture inspired by his work.
Some of the more picturesque surface textures include:
English Cottage or English Cotswold finish; sponge finish;
fan texture; adobe finish; and Spanish or Italian finish.
Many of these finishes and countless other regional and
personalized variations on them are still in use. The
most common early-twentieth century stucco finishes are
often found on bungalow-style houses, and include: spatter
or spatterdash (sometimes called roughcast, harling, or
wetdash), and pebble-dash or drydash. The spatterdash
finish is applied by throwing the stucco mortar against
the wall using a whisk broom or a stiff fiber brush, and
it requires considerable skill on the part of the
plasterer to achieve a consistently rough wall surface.
The mortar used to obtain this texture is usually composed
simply of a regular sand, lime, and cement mortar,
although it may sometimes contain small pebbles or crushed
stone aggregate, which replaces one-half the normal sand
content. The pebble-dash or drydash finish is accomplished
manually by the plasterer throwing or "dashing"
dry pebbles (about 1/8" to 1/4" in size), onto a
coat of stucco freshly applied by another plasterer. The
pebbles must be thrown at the wall with a scoop with
sufficient force and skill that they will stick to the
stuccoed wall. A more even or uniform surface can be
achieved by patting the stones down with a wooden float.
This finish may also be created using a texturing machine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Home Inspections | Fireplace and Woodstove Inspections | Air Leakage and Heating Efficiency Evaluations | Radon Testing | ||||||||||||||||
![]() |
Appointments available 7 days a week - Call (519) 938-8349 |
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Copyright
© 2006 Hinsperger Inspection Services Ltd |
. | ||||||||||||||||||