This paper was originally published in Conference Booklet.

Please quote as:

Ł. Bratasz, ‘ALLOWABLE MICROCLIMATIC VARIATIONS IN MUSEUMS AND

HISTORIC BUILDINGS: REVIEWING THE GUIDELINES’, International Scientific
Workshop, Heritage Science and Sustainable Development for the Preservation of Art and
Cultural Assets - On the Way to the GREEN Museum, Rathgen-Forschungslabor, Berlin,
2013

ALLOWABLE MICROCLIMATIC VARIATIONS IN MUSEUMS AND

HISTORIC BUILDINGS: REVIEWING THE GUIDELINES

Łukasz Bratasz

The National Museum in Krakow, al. 3-go Maja 1, 30-062 Kraków, Poland

The Jerzy Haber Institute of Catalysis and Surface Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences,

ul. Niezapominajek 8, 30-239 Kraków, Poland

E-mail: ncbratas@cyf-kr-edu.pl

ABSTRACT

Environmental standards for cultural heritage collections have been much debated in recent

years. The interest in the issue has been driven by the growing movement towards green

museums, that is, managing indoor museum environments in a responsible and efficient

manner, especially in terms of reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions but at the

same time maintaining high standards of collection care. This paper provides a brief

progression through two fundamental approaches to establish the allowable ranges of climatic

variations – an analysis of the mechanical response of painted wood, the category of heritage

objects most vulnerable to relative humidity and temperature fluctuations, and an analysis of
1
the historic climate to which the objects have acclimatised. The climate specifications and

standards based on both these approaches are reviewed.

KEYWORDS

Painted wood, physical damage, allowable humidity variations, energy effiecency

2
INTRODUCTION

Environmental standards for cultural heritage collections on display, in storage or in transit

have been much debated in recent years. The transcriptions of two roundtables of the

International Institute for Conservation: ‘Climate Change and Museum Collections’ in 2008

and ‘The Plus/Minus Dilemma: The Way Forward in Environmental Guidelines’ in 2010

illustrate the problems discussed [1,2]. The interest in the issue has been driven by the

growing movement towards green museums, that is, managing indoor museum environments

in a responsible and efficient manner, especially in terms of reducing energy consumption and

carbon emissions but at the same time maintaining high standards of collection care.

Heritage science and conservation practice has developed two fundamental approaches to

establish the allowable ranges of climatic variations – an analysis of the mechanical response

of heritage objects most vulnerable to relative humidity (RH) and temperature fluctuations,

and an analysis of the historic climate to which the objects have acclimatised.

Since painted wood is generally regarded as requiring particularly tight climate control, much

research has focused on understanding the response of this category of objects to changes in

ambient environmental conditions and the results have strongly influenced devising

guidelines on allowable microclimatic variations in museums. Two fundamental conditions of

concern are analyzed here: external or internal restraint that prevents wood from swelling and

shrinking across its grain in response to RH fluctuations, and differences in the dimensional

response of the wood substrate and the pictorial layer to these fluctuations.

In turn, the acclimatisation of sensitive objects to the environment within which they have

been preserved for a long time has been also widely used to establish the criteria for climate

control. Michalski [3] coined the term ‘proofed fluctuation’ defined as the pattern of largest

RH or temperature fluctuations to which the object has been exposed in the past. It was

3
assumed that the risk of physical damage beyond that already accumulated from fluctuations

which do not go beyond the proofed pattern is extremely low. The proofed fluctuation concept

eliminates any need for elaborate mechanical response calculations and offers a risk

assessment based just on past climate records. The concept was explicitly expressed in many

standards and recommendations on the control of indoor environmental conditions.

CLIMATE SPECIFICATIONS BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF

STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OF PAINTED WOOD

Painted wooden objects are complex multi-layer structures composed of humidity-sensitive

materials – wood, animal glue, gesso and paints which respond dimensionally to variations in

RH and temperature in their environment. All materials constituting the painted wood are

humidity sensitive: they shrink when they lose moisture and swell when they gain moisture. A

notable effect is, however, that each material responds differently to the loss and gain of

moisture. The mismatch in the response of gesso and unrestrained wood substrate, especially

in the most responsive tangential direction of the wood, has been identified as the worst case

condition for fracturing of the pictorial layer: upon desiccation, the shrinkage of wood

overrides that of the less responsive gesso which experiences compression, whereas upon

wood swelling the gesso layer experiences tension. If the elongation of a wood support goes

beyond the critical level, the gesso can crack.

Stresses induced due to the changes in RH are not limited to the pictorial layer only. The

wood substrate may also experience stress due to a restraint on its dimensional response

resulting from the excessively rigid construction restricting movement, or by assembling

wood elements with different mutual orientation of their fibre direction. Wood can also

experience internal restraint as the moisture diffusion is not instantaneous and uneven

moisture change induces uneven dimensional response, when the outer parts of the wood

4
respond more quickly than the interior to variations in ambient RH. Uneven dimensional

response in opposite faces of decorated panels due to a lower permeability of the

painted face to the moisture flow is another cause of restraint. The constraint of wood from

free movement can cause deformation and cracking of the wood, and subsequent cracking and

flaking of the pictorial layer.

The concept that a stable climate offers long-term stability for painted wood has, for a long

time, been derived from practical observations. However, only relatively recently were two

key issues – the dimensional response of the objects to changes in temperature and RH, and

the critical levels of strain at which materials begin to deform plastically or fail physically –

systematically examined. Mecklenburg et al. [4] proposed the yield strain as ‘failure criterion’

for wood substrate or pictorial layer, that is, allowable RH variations should not cause strains

exceeding the yield strain so that the response of the materials should at all times stay in the

elastic (reversible) region. Analysis of the damaging impact of RH variations on painted wood

was further refined by taking into account vulnerability of the pictorial layer to fatigue

fracture – a consequence of the cumulative strain effects [5]. Cyclically repeated RH

fluctuations in museums and historic interiors may range from slow seasonal change, caused

by an RH decrease in winter due to heating and a return to a higher RH level in summer, to

brief RH fluctuations, even under an hour in duration, arising from the opening and closing of

doors and windows, the flow of visitors, or the operation of intermittent heating.

The structural analysis of painted wood has allowed maps of allowable RH variations to be

produced which take into account their amplitude, duration and starting RH level [4-6] as well

as proposing environmental specifications for collections of historic objects [7,8].

The most general conclusion from review of existing data is that moderate variations within

the approximate RH range 50 ± 15% are safe. This safe range was derived using the extremes

of conservative criteria of the materials’ yield and fatigue fracture, and assumptions of worst

5
case wooden substrate response. As such, the range provides a cautious ‘baseline’ for the

environmental standards for safe display of painted wood. This baseline can be re-defined

when the understanding of critical strain levels is refined with advances in experimental

research on physical fracture in painted wood. A thorough overview of the issue is provided

by the author in the recent review [9].

THE ACCLIMATIZATION CONCEPT: TARGET TEMPERATURE AND RH

RANGES BASED ON PAST CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

The acclimatisation of painted wood to a particular indoor environment within which it has

been preserved has been a well-established concept in the conservation field. It was assumed

that the risk of further physical damage (beyond that already accumulated in the past) from

fluctuations smaller than the past pattern of extreme fluctuations is extremely low. If the past

fluctuation was enough to cause fracture, the object has fractured, and the crack opens and

closes reducing the stress which would be otherwise engendered in the undamaged material.

Traditionally, the acclimatisation concept was the basis for recommendations that past climate

conditions should be retained as accurately as possible when vulnerable objects are moved

from their usual location for restoration or exhibition. With the growing use of electronic

monitoring systems, long-term surveys to understand RH and temperature levels and

fluctuations have become easier and can be undertaken on a wider scale. The accumulated

data can be mathematically processed to establish more quantitative target microclimates

suitable for the preservation of vulnerable objects by specifying average levels of climatic

parameters, their seasonal drift as well as bands of tolerable short-term fluctuations

superimposed on these average levels [10]. The acclimatisation concept was also explicitly

expressed in several recommendations and standards on choice and control of the indoor

6
environmental conditions favouring conservation of sensitive historic materials, which are

discussed in detail below.

It should be stressed at this point that the harmlessness of the pre-existing climatic conditions

has been a key assumption in the approach. The assumption has to be carefully checked in

each case, as physical damage can be cumulative rather than catastrophic, therefore

fluctuations, even if not exceeding the historic levels, can involve risk of damage.

Conservation treatments can erase safety margins of objects achieved by their acclimatisation

to the historic conditions. If cracks in polychrome sculpture, furniture or panel paintings act as

expansion joints relieving stress in the objects, the consolidation of the objects may make

them more vulnerable to climate fluctuations. Treatments can also change, sometime radically,

the dimensional and mechanical properties of the original artistic materials.

The assessment of safety of objects achieved by their acclimatisation to the historic conditions

– especially those most valuable or vulnerable to damage in the collection need to be surveyed

– can be increasingly supported by scientific methods of direct tracing climate-induced

damage: non-invasive, simple, economic and capable of operating in real-world conditions in

museums or historic buildings. The idea is to record an observable related to damage (damage

indicator) of an object in a continuous way or at a specified time interval rather than to

monitor the environment which affects the object. The acoustic emission method, which is

based on monitoring the energy released as sound waves during fracture processes in

materials, has been particularly successful in direct tracing the fracturing intensity in wooden

heritage objects exposed to variations in temperature and RH [11].

SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS

Specifications and standards generally contain recommendations on three principal

components by which the indoor climate is statistically represented: long-term average levels

7
usually over one year, seasonal cycles and short-term fluctuations. The table below shows a

selection of standards and specifications for temperature and RH since the 1970s - to ensure

the safe preservation of materials and objects sensitive to moisture-induced damage. The

earlier history and development of recommendations for the climate in museums is described

by Erhardt et al. [12].

The most general tendency is the gradual development of such recommendations from single-

value targets and conservative tolerances to more rational, science-based approaches allowing

seasonal changes and broader short-term fluctuations. The specifications have gradually

recognised that the recommended temperature does not need to be at a universal value of

around 20 oC dictated by human comfort. The widest range was specified by the National

Trust in the UK in which the lower limit of the allowable range was set at 5 oC to prevent the

risk of frozen pipes.

The specifications reflect a general belief that RH should be as near constant as possible and

that the middle RH region (close to 50%) is optimum being close to annual outdoor average in

those parts of the world where guidelines were written. However, there is also awareness that

objects stored for significant periods of time in environments where the average annual RH

deviates from the central value of 50% RH might have become acclimatised to the conditions.

Therefore, any change from a particular historic climatic environment may be problematic,

even though the new conditions may appear optimum for long-term preservation.

The same approach is to the RH variations of various time scales from a yearly cycle to short-

term fluctuations. Authors of the early recommendations on the narrow ranges of RH

variations stated openly that they were based on what could be expected of air-conditioning

systems rather than on any knowledge of what objects could tolerate without damage [13].

With the growing understanding of the effects of climate conditions on materials and objects,

broader ranges of RH variations have been increasingly accepted. The allowable ranges were

8
also recommended to be based on not ideal historic conditions if the collection survived well

in them, the assumption in such specification being that the decision on the harmlessness or

otherwise of historic conditions is made by conservation professionals carrying out a

condition survey for the most vulnerable and/or valuable objects. The ASHRAE

specifications went one step further by specifying five classes of climate quality and explicitly

providing which climate related risks are avoided in each class and which are present [8].

These specifications also state that the long-term RH level can be either 50% (for

international consistency) or it can be the local historic average RH (for the museum's

permanent collection).

CONCLUSIONS

The most general conclusion from the scientific research and preventive conservation practice

discussed in this paper is that the increasing criticism of the fundamentalist concept of the

strict control of museum climate has led, since the 1980s, to more relaxed specifications

which have allowed individual long-term targets for specific collections, seasonal changes

and broader ranges of short-term fluctuations.

Each sensitive object with its individual original structure and conservation history,

acclimatised to a particular environment in which it has been exposed, needs individual levels

and ranges of temperature and RH. However, the body of scientific evidence indicates that

moderate variations within the approximate range 50 ± 15% are safe. The quoted allowable

RH variation corresponds to the class of control B of the ASHRAE classification in the Table.

This class of control is often the only possible moderate-cost strategy in historic buildings –

also in use by museums – of limited potential for tighter climate control.

Further broadening of the allowable variations might result from the observations that objects

survived remarkably well in conditions which were far from ‘ideal’. Therefore, climate

9
specifications based on the acclimatisation concept remain a useful tool, especially when

electronic monitoring systems can provide long-term past climate records in remarkable detail.

The two approaches can be also combined so that maintaining the past microclimate in terms

of levels, seasonal cycles and fluctuations of temperature and RH is recommended on the one

hand, but the ‘absolute’ allowable variations based on the mechanical behaviour of paintings

are defined on the other. As a result very stable past microclimates will not lead to an

argument for unnecessarily strict future targets for climate control.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This review article was prepared as a part of research within National Grant No UMO-

2001/01/B/HS2/02586.

REFERENCES

1. Climate Change and Museum Collections, a discussion held on September 17, 2008

London, edited transcription, International Institute of Conservation. Available at:

http://www.iiconservation.org/dialogues/IIC_climate_change_transcript.pdf (accessed

15 August 2012).

2. The Plus/Minus Dilemma: The Way Forward in Environmental Guidelines, a

discussion held on May 13, 2010 Milwaukee Wisconsin, USA, edited transcription,

International Institute of Conservation. Available at:

http://www.iiconservation.org/dialogues/Plus_Minus_trans.pdf (accessed 15 August

2012).

10
3. Michalski, S., ‘The ideal climate, risk management, the ASHRAE chapter, proofed

fluctuations, and towards a full risk analysis model’, in Proceedings of Experts’

Roundtable on Sustainable Climate Management Strategies, Tenerife, 2007, ed. F.

Boersma, Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles (2009). Available at:

http://www.getty.edu/conservation/science/climate/climate_expertsroundtable.html

(accessed 15 August 2011).

4. Mecklenburg, M.F., Tumosa, C.S., and Erhardt, D., ‘Structural response of painted

wood surfaces to changes in ambient relative humidity’, in Painted Wood: History and

Conservation, ed. V. Dorge and F. C. Howlett, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los

Angeles (1998) 464-483.

5. Rachwał, B., Bratasz, Ł., Krzemień, L., Łukomski, M., and Kozłowski, R., ‘Fatigue

damage of the gesso layer in panel paintings subjected to changing climate

conditions’, Strain DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1305.2012.00844.x

6. Jakieła, S., Bratasz, Ł., and Kozłowski, R., ‘Numerical modelling of moisture

movement and related stress field in lime wood subjected to changing climate

conditions’, Wood Science and Technology 42 (2008) 21-37.

7. Erhardt, D. and Mecklenburg, M., ‘Relative humidity re-examined’, in Preventive

Conservation Practice, Theory and Research, ed. A. Roy and P. Smith, International

Institute of Conservation, London (1994) 32–38.

8. ‘Museums, Galleries, Archives and Libraries’, in ASHRAE Handbook – HVAC

Applications, ed. M.S. Owen, ASHRAE – American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,

and Air-Conditioning Engineers Inc, Atlanta (2007) Chapter 21.

9. Bratasz, Ł., ‘Allowable microclimatic variations for painted wood’, Studies in

Conservation, DOI 10.1179/2047058412Y.0000000061

11
10. Bratasz, Ł., Kozłowski, R., and Camuffo, D., ‘Target microclimate for preservation

derived from past indoor conditions’, in Contributions to the Museum Microclimates

Conference, ed. T. Padfield and K. Borchersen, The National Museum of Denmark,

Copenhagen (2007) 129-134.

11. Łukomski, M., Czop, J., Bratasz, Ł., and Strojecki, M., ‘Acoustic Emission monitoring:

on the path to rational strategies for the collection care’, in Proceedings of this

conference.

12. Erhardt, D., Tumosa, C.S., and Mecklenburg, M.F., ‘Applying science to the question

of museum climate’, in Contributions to the Museum Microclimates Conference, ed. T.

Padfield and K. Borchersen, The National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen (2007)

11-18.

13. Thomson, G., The Museum Environment, 2nd edn, Butterworths-Heinemann, London

(1986) 268-269.

14. Lafontaine, R.H., Environmental Norms for Canadian Museums, Art Galleries and

Archive, Technical Bulletin No.5, Canadian Conservation Institute, Ottawa (1979).

15. Staniforth, S., Hayes, B., and Bullock, L., ‘Appropriate technologies for relative

humidity control for museum collections housed in historic buildings’, in: Preventive

Conservation Practice, Theory and Research, ed. A. Roy and P. Smith, International

Institute of Conservation, London (1994) 123–128.

16. Staniforth, S., ‘Relative Humidity as an Agent of Deterioration’, in: The National

Trust Manual of Housekeeping, ed. K. Lithgow, H. Lloyd, J. Parry, S. Staniforth & N.

Seeley, The National Trust, Amsterdam (2006) pp. 113.

17. NMDC guiding principles for reducing museums’ carbon footprint, National Museum

Directors’s Conference (NMDC) UK (2009). Available at:

12
 http://www.nationalmuseums.org.uk/media/documents/what_we_do_documents/guidi

ng_principles_reducing_carbon_footprint.pdf (accessed 15 August 2012).

18. EN 15757:2010. Conservation of Cultural Property - Specifications for temperature

and relative humidity to limit climate-induced mechanical damage in organic

hygroscopic materials, European Committee for Standardisation, Brussels (2010).

13
BIOGRAPHY

Łukasz Bratasz graduated in physics from the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland in

1996, and received a PhD in 2002 from the same university. In the same year he joined the

staff of the Institute of Catalysis and Surface Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences,

Krakow, where he is a research fellow. Since 2007, he has worked as the senior scientist at

the Laboratory of Analysis and Non-Destructive Testing of Artefacts in the National Museum

in Krakow. His research focuses on the response of materials to changes in environmental

parameters. Email: ncbratas@cyf-kr.edu.pl

TABLE CAPTION

Selection of international standards and specifications since the 1970s for temperature and

relative humidity

14
Year Source or Institution Temperature RH [%] Remarks Reference
issuing the specification [oC]
Long- Seasonal Short-term
term cycle fluctuations
average

1978 Garry Thompson’s book 19 (winter) 50 or 55 - ±5 Class 1 - appropriate for major national [13]
‘The Museum museums, old or new, and also for all
up to 24
Environment’ important new museum buildings
(summer)

reasonably 40 - 70 Class 2 – aimed at avoiding major

constant to dangers whilst keeping costs and
stabilise RH alteration to a minimum, for example,
climate control in historic houses and
churches may have to be limited to class
2 specifications

1979 Canadian Conservation 21 between 38 - 55 ±2 The allowed seasonal changeover of the [14]
Institute 47 and 53 set points is 1 oC and 5% RH per month,
(seasonal
respectively.
variation
from 20 to Occasional variations of ±5% RH are
25 allowed) tolerable if these are the exception.

50 – 65 (alarm level The recommended strategy involved

1994 National Trust 5 - 22 58 [15]
1) control of RH to as constant level as
possible principally by adjusting heat
40 – 75 (alarm level input.

15
 2)

1999 American Society of 15 - 25 50 no ±5 Class of control AA – No risk of [8]

Heating, Refrigerating, mechanical damage to most artifacts and
or
and Air-Conditioning paintings.
Engineers Inc. historic
(ASHRAE) yearly no ±10 Class of control A – Small risk of
average mechanical damage to high-vulnerability
+10 in ±5 artifacts; no mechanical risk to most
summer artifacts, paintings.
-10 in
winter

+10 in ±10 Class of control B – Moderate risk of

summer mechanical damage to high-vulnerability
artifacts; tiny risk to most paintings.
-10 in
winter

25 - 75 Class of control C - High risk of

mechanical damage to high-vulnerability
artifacts; moderate risk to most paintings.

below 75 Class of control D - High risk of sudden

or cumulative mechanical damage to
most artifacts and paintings because of
low-humidity fracture.

2006 National Trust 5 - 22 50 - 65 - - The earlier fixed set point of 58% RH [16]
was replaced with a target range. The RH
set point should be adjustable in each
room and depend on the conditions to
which the collection has acclimatised.

16
2007 Smithsonian Institution 21 45 - ±8 [12]

2009 National Museum 16 - 25 40 - 60 Specifications for the majority of objects [17]

Directors’ Conference containing hygroscopic material.
UK However, panel paintings are listed
among more sensitive materials which
require specific and tight RH control.

2010 European standard EN no historic historic ±10 * This cycle is obtained by calculating, [18]
15757:2010 specification yearly seasonal or target for each RH reading, the central moving
average cycle* average (MA) which is the mean of RH
range
readings taken in 15 days before and
calculated
after the time at which the average is
from the
computed.
historic
climate** ** The lower and upper limits of the
target range of RH fluctuations are
(whichever
determined as the 7th and 93rd
greater)
percentiles of the fluctuations recorded in
the monitoring period, respectively.
A fluctuation is calculated relative to
MA, i.e. the seasonal cycle rather than
the yearly average value.

17