Archives and Museum Informatics 13: 273290, 1999/2001. 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

273

Technologies for Wood Preservation in Historic Preservation

JOSEPH R. LOFERSKI
Departmet of Wood Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, USA

Abstract. Because of the abundant forests of the world, wood is one of the most common materials found in historic buildings. Wood is relatively easy to fabricate into beams, columns, and roof systems using simple hand tools. However, because of its biological origin, wood is one of the most complex constructions materials. It is produced by thousands of different species of trees, and each type of wood has unique properties. Wood has an afnity for moisture and this can lead to biological deterioration caused by insects and decay fungi. This chapter presents information on understanding and preventing the mechanisms of wood deterioration in historic buildings. The chapter includes a discussion of wood preservation and technology, including wood nishes and wood preservative treatments, diffusible preservatives, and naturally durable wood species. A brief discussion about the repair of deteriorated timbers in buildings is also included.

Introduction Wood was widely used to construct structures and artifacts that today are considered historic. Since colonial times, buildings in North America have been largely or completely built of wood. Even masonry buildings contain many wood components such as moldings, doors, windows and cabinets. Wood is abundant, easy to work, and if properly used, wood is long-lasting. However, because of its biological origin, wood is susceptible to deterioration from a variety of causes. Understanding why wood deteriorates is fundamental to establishing a preservation, restoration, or stabilization program. This chapter introduces a variety of technologies developed to preserve or restore wood and wood products in structures. The four objectives of the chapter are: (1) to dene the agents of wood deterioration, especially in structures, (2) to introduce the variety of nishes to protect wood in exterior environments, (3) to provide an understanding of wood durability including naturally resistant species and modern wood preservatives, particularly those that can be applied in-situ in buildings, and (4) to examine methods for restoring deteriorated wood. Wood utilization is a eld of active research in the United States and abroad. Each year in the United States more wood is used in construction of new buildings and restoring existing buildings than all other construction materials combined, measured on either a weight or volume basis. Researchers at govern-

274

JOSEPH R. LOFERSKI

ment, university and industrial laboratories throughout the United States and the world have developed a wide variety of techniques to foster the efcient and effective utilization of this tremendous amount of wood. The US Forest Services Forest Products Research Laboratory (FPL) in Madison, Wisconsin, was established in 1910 to conduct general research on wood and its utilization. Since that time, the FPL has developed and accumulated a vast resource of information and knowledge on construction problems and practices. Although most of this information is intended for the modern forest products industry, some information is directly applicable to preserving historic structures. The FPL has scientists who specialize in virtually every aspect of wood utilization. Another important resource for conservators of historic structures is the wood science/wood technology departments located at universities throughout the United States, particularly, but not limited to, the Land Grant Universities. Similar to the FPL, the university wood science departments employ scientists who specialize in understanding the performance of wood in all its applications including in buildings. Furthermore, entomologists and plant pathologists are experts at identifying and controlling insects and fungi respectively. They can assist with selecting chemical controls for specic applications in historic structures. When facing an unknown situation with wood products in buildings, the Cooperative Extension Service is also a valuable resource. Local Extension agents can often answer a specic question or assist in nding an expert on wood at a local or state university. Industrial laboratories often conduct proprietary research and, therefore, may be less useful to conservators with general wood related problems. Wood Deterioration Wood consists of three primary organic polymers: cellulose, lignin, and hemicellulose. These polymers make up the cell wall and are remarkably similar in all timber species. Cellulose, the primary constituent, represents approximately 50% of the weight of wood and is a linear polymer of 10,000 to 30,000 glucose molecules bonded end-to-end. The chemical bonds in cellulose are extremely stable and most organisms do not possess the enzymes needed to break cellulose down into digestible glucose. Lignin, an amorphous polymer, makes up 30 to 35% of the weight of wood. Lignins role in wood is to bond bundles of cellulose together to form the rigid cell wall. Hemicelluloses are a group of ve and six carbon sugars that assist the bond formation in the growing cell between the cellulose and lignin. These three primary chemicals provide woods characteristic strength and stiffness. The secondary chemicals in wood include the broad category of chemicals called extractives and inorganics called ash. Extractives occur only in the heartwood and can be dissolved and removed (i.e. extracted) from wood with water, alcohol, or other solvents. The heartwood of some wood species contain extractives that provide resistance to deterioration.

TECHNOLOGIES FOR WOOD PRESERVATION IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION

275

The primary causes of wood deterioration are (1) biological, (2) weathering and photo degradation, (3) chemical, and (4) re. Deterioration caused by biological organisms is the biggest and most serious problem faced by architectural conservators and building owners. Biological deterioration is quiet, usually slow, and often progresses for years before the problem is discovered by the buildings owner. Severely deteriorated joists, sill plates, columns, beams, and exterior millwork are common symptoms of biological deterioration in buildings. The three primary biological agents of deterioration are insects, decay fungi, and non-decay fungi including stains, molds, and mildew.

INSECTS

The main insects of concern in buildings are termites, carpenter ants, powder-post beetles, and the old house borers. In the United States, most insect damage is done by subterranean termites which require direct soil contact and an abundant moisture source. The recently introduced formosian termite however, attacks dry or wet wood above or below ground line. This organism was accidentally introduced into the United States from Asia and is difcult to control in buildings because soil treatments that work well for subterranean termites are ineffective on formosian termites because of their above-ground mode of entry into the building. Whole-building fumigation is, perhaps, the most effective way to control formosian termites. Termites tunnel in wood and are capable of digesting it. They excavate the interior of wood elements and, in advanced stages, produce an extreme strength loss. Carpenter ants use wood for nesting by tunneling into it and ejecting the groundup wood dust, called frass, out of the tunnel holes. They forage for food outside of the nest sites. Therefore, because they do not ingest the wood, they can live inside wood which has been treated with some of the chemicals that are toxic to termites, powder post beetles, and old house borers. Both subterranean termites and carpenter ants prefer to colonize moist or wet wood. Some wood boring beetles, however, are capable of infesting new and old dry wood in service. Powder post beetles (lyctids and anobiids) and the old house borer are notable examples. Anobiids attack both hardwoods and softwoods, and are often found in older buildings. Lyctids prefer new hardwoods and often attack recently-processed lumber. Powder post beetles produce-inch diameter holes and slowly remove the wood cell wall by tunneling. Because of their small size, it takes many generations of insects to signicantly affect the strength of wood. Despite its name, the old house borer prefers new softwoods and produces oval-shaped tunnels, approximately 1/4-inch in diameter. Both lyctids and the old house borer can be inadvertently introduced into buildings by infested wood used in reconstruction or renovation. The wood boring insects lay their eggs in wood. The larvae hatch and feed inside the wood, thereby producing tunnels. Some insect species feed for periods from 4 months to 12 years before they transform into adults and

276

JOSEPH R. LOFERSKI

emerge through exit holes on the wood surface. Determining whether or not exit holes in wood were produced by a recent active infestation or by insects that left the wood long ago is an important step before selecting a prevention/control program. Furthermore, many insects only attack recently-felled/killed trees and do not infest wood in-service. Architectural wood processed from such trees contains the gallery holes from insects that left the wood long ago and, therefore, are not a threat to the building. Williams (1988) provides a valuable table for diagnosing and identifying insect damage in wood based on the size and shape of the exit holes. Chemical controls for insects are discussed later in this chapter.
DECAY FUNGI

Decay fungi are primitive plants that lack chlorophyll and derive their metabolic energy by decomposing the wood cell wall chemicals into their constituent molecules, which are readily digestible. From an economic viewpoint, decay fungi cause far more damage to wood in buildings than do insects. Two broad classes of decay fungi are recognized by the way they attack wood and the residue they leave behind: brown and white rotting fungi. Brown rotting fungi prefer softwoods and attack the cellulose component of the cell wall. They are capable of cleaving the cellulose molecule into glucose molecules, which are easily digested. Therefore, they leave behind the lignin component of the cell wall, which is dark brown in color, hence the name of brown rots. The surface of wood attacked by brown rots is easily identied by its brown color and cross grain cracks, giving the wood a charred appearance. The white rotting fungi prefer hardwoods and attack both the lignin and cellulose components of the cell wall. The affected wood appears whitish in color, often with black streaks that delineate the zone of decay. In advanced white rot decay, the wood is very soft, spongy, light in color, and shrinks in an unusual manner as if it imploded. Decay fungi cause a severe and rapid strength loss in wood. Therefore, structural elements that are decayed should be evaluated carefully to maintain structural safety. Both the brown and white rot decay fungi require liquid water and high, moisture content (greater than 25% but less than complete saturation) to colonize wood. This means that by simply keeping wood dry, decay fungi cannot attack wood. Furthermore, drying wood that has been attacked by decay causes the fungi to become dormant. Upon drying, further damage to the wood is stopped, and if sufcient strength remains, the partially decayed wood may be serviceable and may have acceptable performance indenitely. If, however, the wood ever becomes wet, the fungi will reactivate and will continue to destroy the wood.

TECHNOLOGIES FOR WOOD PRESERVATION IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION

277

NON - DECAY FUNGI

Molds, stains, and mildew are examples of non-decay fungi that feed on starches and sugars in the wood cells rather than on the cell wall material itself. Nondecay fungi require less water than do the decay fungi and can live in wood with 20% moisture content. They discolor the sapwood, heartwood, and the surface of infected wood with a wide range of colors from bright yellow, to blue-green, to black. Although they are of concern primarily from a cosmetic viewpoint, their presence in wood structures indicates excessive moisture, and potentially a perfect environment for attack by insects, decay fungi, or both.
NON - BIOLOGICAL DETERIORATION

Non-biological agents of deterioration include photodegradation and weathering, exposure to chemicals, and re. The surface of wood that is exposed to the exterior environment slowly erodes from the combined action of sunlight and water. This weathering of wood, in the absence of decay fungi, removes approximately 1/4inch of wood surface per century (Fiest, 1988). Changes in the wood chemical components and the presence of non-decay staining fungi cause a color change from yellow or brown to light gray on unprotected wood surfaces. Furthermore, mechanical damage to the wood surface is caused by repeated shrinking and swelling associated with the cyclic drying and wetting of the wood from exposure to rain, dew, and relative humidity. The cyclic shrinking and swelling produces microscopic cracks in the cell walls which eventually develop into macroscopic cracks and checks in the wood surface. Warping, cupping, grain raising, and nail loosening also result from the effect of cyclic moisture content changes in unprotected exterior wood products. Fiest (1988) provides and excellent discussion on the causes of weathering and methods of control. Water repellents and water repellent preservatives slow down the effects of weathering and opaque nishes such as paints, and solid color stains which screen out ultraviolet light are effective at preventing weathering of wood. Details on wood nishes for exterior environments are presented later in this chapter.
CHEMICAL DETERIORATION

Wood is affected by chemicals in two general ways. First, polar chemicals such as water, alcohols, and polar solvents that penetrate dry wood, swell the cell wall network. Upon removal of the swelling liquid, the wood shrinks to nearly its original dimensions. This shrinking/swelling phenomenon is almost completely reversible if the wood is free and unconstrained from moving. However, if constrained from moving by the construction, wood will split apart and crack. This effect is often seen as split panels in antique furniture. The second way chemicals affect wood is by permanently modifying and breaking down the wood cell wall chemical substances, producing serious loss

278

JOSEPH R. LOFERSKI

of strength. In general, wood is resistant to mild acids (pH above 3.0) at room temperatures and is prone to deterioration if exposed to acids at higher temperatures (50 C) or acids with low pH (2 or less). Therefore, wood is surprisingly resistant to acid rain (Williams, 1987). Basic solutions react with hemicelluloses and dissolve lignin. Therefore, wood should not be in direct contact with basic solutions of pH of 9.0 or higher, as severe and rapid strength loss will occur. Several excellent references are available on the topic of chemical deterioration of wood, including Baker (1982) and Meyer and Kellogg (1982). An associated problem with exposure to chemicals is metal fastener corrosion. Since wood structures are often held together by metal fasteners (nails, bolts, screws), chemicals that react with the fasteners can destroy the structural integrity of a building even though the wood itself was not attacked. Salt is an example of a chemical that can reduce the fastener cross section, but it does not attack the cell wall chemicals.

Technology for Preservation The rst and most important line of defense for protecting architectural wood from deterioration is to keep wood dry (below 15% moisture content). Because the primary biological agents of deterioration require liquid water, simply keeping wood dry provides centuries of protection. Lack of moisture is the main reason so many ancient, wooden Egyptian artifacts have survived. However, in the temperate climate of the northern hemisphere, this simple goal is often very difcult to achieve. Controlling moisture in wood structures involves a systematic approach that provides protection against inltration from groundwater, rain, plumbing leaks, and condensation (Verral and Amburgey, 1978). Ground water in foundations and crawl spaces is controlled by site drainage away from the foundation, and properly maintained gutters and down spouts that drain away from the building. Condensation control includes vapor barriers, insulation, ventilation, and moderate instead of excessive air cooling in warm humid climates (Tenwolde and Mei, 1986). The building envelope should protect wood from contact with precipitation. Water trapping joints, improper ashing and leaking roofs are three ways wood is exposed to water from rain. Finally, wetting by piped water is a common, but entirely preventable, cause of wood deterioration in buildings. Major plumbing leaks are often quickly repaired and the wood has time to dry before insects or decay fungi get established. Slow leaks that keep adjacent wood continuously moist can produce the ideal conditions for decay of wood ooring suboors, joists, and any other wood products. Recent advances in electronics have resulted in inexpensive, accurate hand-held electrical resistance moisture meters. These meters are very useful for detecting and monitoring moisture in architectural wood products. These meters provide an instantaneous measurement of moisture in wood and are accurate in the range of 6% to 30% MC. Architectural conservators who regularly deal with wood buildings should purchase and become familiar with the proper procedures for using such

TECHNOLOGIES FOR WOOD PRESERVATION IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION

279

meters. A systematic moisture monitoring program will provide an accurate record of the woods moisture content and will detect excessive levels of moisture which are warning signs of potential decay and insect damage. The cause of excessive moisture should be determined and corrected and is usually related to one of four methods of inltration listed above. Wood Preservation If wood cannot be kept dry, then wood preservation techniques must be used to provide long-term protection. This section provides information on (1) nishes for extending the service life of wood that is not in ground contact but is exposed to the exterior environment, (2) naturally resistant species for low to moderate deterioration situations, and (3) preservative treated wood products including pressure treatment and diffusible preservatives. A brief discussion on re retardant treatments is also included.
WOOD FINISHES

The main reasons for nishing wood in exterior environments are (1) to reduce the effect of weathering by protecting against degradation from ultraviolet light and minimizing absorption of water in liquid and vapor forms and (2) to enhance the appearance of the wood surface. The moisture excluding effectiveness of a wood nish is based on a variety of factors including coating lm thickness, type of pigment, chemical composition of the solvent, vapor pressure gradient, and length of exposure (Cassens and Fiest, 1991). The amount of protection also depends on the type of exposure. However, because wood is a hygroscopic material, there is no way to completely eliminate the changing moisture content of wood in response to changing relative humidity, regardless of the number of nish coats used (Cassens and Fiest, 1991). In other words, no coating is completely moisture proof. The role of a nish is to slow down the rate of moisture content changes in wood. Stopping absorption of liquid water is somewhat easier than stopping water vapor absorption because the small size of water molecules in vapor form allows them to penetrate any micro-voids in the nish. Wood nishes are divided into two general categories: (1) opaque coatings (paints and solid color stains) and (2) natural nishes such as water repellents (WR) water repellent preservatives (WRP), oils, and semi-transparent penetrating stains. The effectiveness of several types of generic nishes in excluding water vapor inltration into wood are shown in Table I. The table is based on three coats of nish applied to wood and subsequently exposed to 90% relative humidity for 14 days. Porous paints, including latex and most oil-based paints and the natural penetrating nishes usually provide little or no protection against water vapor penetration. Furthermore, porous paints permit entry of liquid water. If water penetrates cracks or voids in the paint, the lm traps moisture, retards drying and

280
Table I. Moisture excluding effectiveness of nishes based on three coats and 14 days exposure to 90% RH (from Cassens and est, 1991) Finish Effectiveness rating 91 87 84 82 80

JOSEPH R. LOFERSKI

Epoxy nish clear Epoxy paint gloss Aluminum ake-pigmented urethane varnish (oil-modied) Aluminum paint (linseed-phenolic-menhaden) Enamel paint satin (soya-tung)

Porous paints such as latex and low-luster or breather-type oil-

based paints usually afford little protection against water vapor.

promotes conditions favorable for decay fungi growth. Therefore, paints are not preservatives. In the past 10 years, several manufacturers have developed water repellents (WP) and water repellent preservatives (WRP) for use on wood. These materials typically contain a fungicide (WRP only), a drying oil, a solvent such as mineral spirits or turpentine, and a small amount of water repellent material such as wax or glycol. The water repellent component reduces the absorption of liquid water into the wood. Water repellents and WRPs are very useful for extending the life of wood products exposed to the exterior environment by reducing the amount of absorbed water. Their preservative function, however, is only at the surface and therefore WRPs are effective for controlling mildew but are not effective at stopping decay or insect damage. Recent research has shown the effectiveness of a three-step nish system involving a paintable water repellent preservative applied to bare new or existing wood before priming and painting. This is especially effective on butt-joints, corners, and window sash. The three-step treatment keeps water from penetrating the wood and therefore minimizes swelling/shrinking of the wood. The life of paint is extended because the lm is not subjected to extensive movement of the substrate. Read the label carefully to be sure that the water repellent preservative is paintable because paint may not adhere properly on some formulations. A simple way to test the compatibility of the nishing products is to apply the products to a small test area in the same sequence that will be used on the entire surface (i.e. water-repellent, primer, paint). Let each coat dry completely according to manufacturers instructions. Then use the band-aid test to verify that the nishes are compatible. Apply a band-aid to the surface, wait 1 minute, and then quickly tear off the band-aid. If any nish comes off with the band-aid, the nishes are incompatible and you should try another combination.

TECHNOLOGIES FOR WOOD PRESERVATION IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION

281

CAUTION

Lead-based paints were widely used in historic and modern structures until the late 1970s. Conservators should be aware of the health hazards associated with lead paint exposure, particularly to children. If lead paint must be removed from surfaces, professionals should be contacted to do the job. Never sand or burn lead paint off the surface, as the resulting sanding dust or smoke is toxic. Lead paint removal will be an area of concern in the 1990s and beyond.
FIRE RETARDANT COATINGS

Two methods are available for modifying the combustibility of wood (1) re retardant coatings, and (2) pressure impregnation with re resistant chemicals. The latter method is an industrial process that involves inserting wood into a treating cylinder and using high pressure to force chemicals into the wood. This method is of limited use in historic structures because the structure must be dismantled to gain access to the wood. The re resistant coating, however, may be more useful in existing structures. Many coatings are available to protect wood from re. The coatings protect wood in one of two ways. Intumescent coatings are low density lms that expand away from the wood surface upon exposure to re, thereby, insulating the wood from high temperatures. Other coatings are formulated to promote rapid decomposition of the wood surface (producing charcoal) instead of forming volatile combustible gases. Water soluble re retardant coatings are often based on silicates, urea resins, or polyvinyl emulsions. The re retardant charcoal producing coatings include ammonium phosphate and sodium borate. Oil based re retardant alkyd and pigmented paints often use chlorinated parafns and antimony trioxide re retardant chemicals and inert materials including zinc borate, mica, kaolin, and inorganic pigments (Wood Handbook, 1987). Many re retardant nishes are intended for interior use because they are often water soluble and leach out of wood that is exposed to owing water such as roof shingles. Therefore, for exterior applications and for environments that regularly exceed 80% relative humidity only leach resistant exterior re-retardant coatings should be used (Holmes and Knispel, 1981).
WOOD DURABILITY

Durable wood is naturally produced by some tree species. The wood of certain other species can be treated with chemicals to provide articial durability and resistance to decay and insects. This section contains information on natural and articially treated wood products. Naturally durable wood is found in the heartwood of some tree species. The durability is caused by toxic chemicals, which are produced by the living tree and deposited in the cell wall of the heartwood. Table II shows groupings of some common domestic North American tree species according to the decay resistance

282

JOSEPH R. LOFERSKI

Table II. Grouping of some domestic woods according to approximate relative heartwood decay resistance (reprinted from Wood Handbook, 1987) Resistant or very resistant Bald cypress (old growth) Catalpa Cedars Cherry, black Chestnut Cypress, Arizona Junipers Locust, black1 Mesquite Mulberry, red1 Oak: (White, Bur, Chestnut, Oregon white) Osage, orange1 Redwood Sassafras Walnut, black Yew, Pacic1 Moderately resistant Bald cypress (young growth) Douglas-r Honeylocust Larch, western Oak, swamp, chestnut Pine, eastern white Southern pine: Longleaf, Slash Tamarack Slightly or non-resistant Alder Ashes Basswood Beech Birches Buckeye Butternet Cottonwood Elms Hackberry Hemlocks Hickories Magnolia Maples Oaks (red & black species) Pines (other than longleaf slash and eastern white) Poplars Spruces Sweetgum True rs Willows Yellow-poplar

1 These woods have exceptionally high decay resistance.

of their heartwood. The table is based on wood that came from large, old growth trees with a high proportion of heartwood. The wood from second growth trees of even the most resistant species contains a higher percentage of sapwood and therefore their resistance may not equal that of old growth trees. Furthermore, critical levels of toxic extractives may require centuries to develop in wood. Baldcypress and southern pines are notable examples of species whose decay resistance has changed markedly from old growth to second growth trees. Premature failure from decay is evident on some historic restorations which used shingles, shakes, and clapboards from new growth wood to replace the original members which may have lasted a century or more with little deterioration. When using naturally decay resistant wood species, care should be taken to specify and use heartwood only. For applications above ground where mild decay hazard exists (i.e. no water trapping joints, good rain run-off, etc.), select one of the species in the resistant

TECHNOLOGIES FOR WOOD PRESERVATION IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION

283

to moderately resistant categories. For severe decay hazard situations (i.e. ground contact), and for critical structural members where failure could be catastrophic and life threatening, preservative treated wood with the correct level of treatment is often required and preferred. Wood species classied in the non-resistant category should not be used in unprotected environments as their life span may be as short as two or three years. Furthermore, the resistance of species listed in Table II is for natural decay resistance and not necessarily insect resistance. For example, the heartwood of redwood, old growth cypress, and junipers, are resistant to subterranean termites. However, many decay resistant woods are susceptible to attack by the Formosan termite, including redwood, western red cedar, and white oak (Mannesman, 1973). Also in some species, such as western red cedar, the toxic extractives are leachable in water. This implies that contact with owing water, as in roof shingles, will reduce the level of decay resistance over time. Dip treatments with a preservative may extend the life of decay resistant woods (Schaffer et al., 1971). With naturally decay resistant woods, water repellents and water repellent preservatives are especially effective for preventing absorption of water into the wood, particularly in above ground applications and therefore such treatments will help protect wood from decay. Since the water repellent treatment is applied only to the wood surface, it is not effective in ground contact or if exposed to a continuous moisture source.

PRESERVATIVE TREATMENTS

There are a wide variety of chemicals available for treating wood to provide varying degrees of decay and insect resistance. In the United States, all of these chemical preservatives are under constant review by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the reader should be certain that the chemicals he or she is using or specifying are currently approved by the EPA. Wood preservation is an area of active research at government, university and industrial laboratories and new developments, products, and trade names are continually emerging. The subject of wood protection covers a wide range of interests, from antistain products for use by sawmills to pressure treated wood for structural uses. This section is intended to provide an overview on wood preservatives that are promising for application in historic preservation. The chemistry of wood preservatives is beyond the scope of this chapter, but more information can be found in the references. Preston (1988) discusses new chemical protection agents for wood products and Gutzmer (1991) reports on the results of termite exposure tests of a wide variety of wood preservative chemicals; some tests have been in progress since 1930. Historically, wood protection with chemicals has been accomplished by two basic methods: pressure impregnation and topical application (soaking and brushon). Recently, diffusible preservatives have been introduced, which are capable

284

JOSEPH R. LOFERSKI

of migrating by diffusion throughout a piece of wood that has received a dip or brush-on treatment. The three methods are discussed next. Pressure treating is the most effective method of applying preservatives to wood. In this process, the wood is placed in a treating cylinder, ooded with preservative, and subjected to extremely high pressure to force the chemical deep into the cell walls of the wood. The amount of chemicals retained by the wood determines the level of toxicity and is regulated by the manufacturers treating schedule (i.e. pressure, and time). After treatment, the operator applies a vacuum to remove excess chemicals from the wood surface. The pressure treating process produces a shell of treated wood around an untreated core deep within the piece. Therefore, when pressure treated wood is cut, untreated wood may be exposed and this wood is subject to deterioration from decay, and insects. Oil-borne and water-borne preservatives have been used for many years in the US to pressure treat wood. An advantage of the oil-borne preservatives is the water repellent properties of the treated wood. Recently, the oil-borne preservative pentachlorophenol has been restricted by the EPA to industrial uses such as utility poles and, because of its toxicity, should not be used in structures occupied by humans or animals. Likewise, creosote, which has been used for more than a century to treat railroad cross-ties, should not be used in buildings because of its toxicity. Other oil-borne preservative systems are emerging, including copper naphthenate. However, retention standards are still being developed because of some poor eld test performances (DeGroot, 1988). In the past 20 years, water-borne preservatives have become common in the US. The main water-borne chemical preservative for pressure treating wood in the United States is chromated copper arsenate (CCA). Because of environmental concerns, other ammoniacal copper formulations that lack arsenic have found commercial success outside the United States (Preston, 1988). Emulsied preservation systems involving zinc naphthenate and copper napthenate are being developed but wood that has been pressure treated with these chemicals is not yet commercially available. The use of CCA treated wood in buildings is relatively safe because the CCA chemically bonds to the wood cell wall upon drying after treatment. Once the wood has dried, the chemical becomes insoluble in water and will not leach out of the wood. CCA pressure treated wood is generally available in three levels of chemical retention based on a members intended use: foundation grade (0.6 lbs retention/ft3 ) ground contact grade (0.4 lbs/ft3 ), and above ground use (0.2 lbs/ft3 ). For quality assurance, each piece should be grade stamped or tagged by the American Wood Preservers Association or other agencies to indicate the level of chemical retention and the intended use. Because CCA treated wood is green colored, its use in renovation of historic structures is usually limited to hidden, high hazard applications such as ground contact foundation members, and painted stock such as windows and stairs. CCA treated wood can be painted after the wood is thoroughly dried. Since the wood is

TECHNOLOGIES FOR WOOD PRESERVATION IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION

285

saturated with water during the treating process, drying can take months before the moisture content is low enough to paint. Alternatively, the treated wood is commercially available in a kiln dry condition (approximately 15% MC) called kiln dried after treatment (KDAT). Although CCA treated wood is highly resistant to biological deterioration it is prone to mechanical damage (cracks, splits, etc.) from cyclic moisture changes. Therefore, for exposed applications as in decks, a water repellent/WRP should be used to minimize moisture induced shrinking/swelling caused by weathering. Caution: Never burn treated wood. The smoke and ashes are toxic. Burial of wood scraps at an approved landll is usually the best disposal method. Also, as with all pesticides, care should be used when handling or cutting CCA treated wood. Avoid breathing the sawdust and minimize skin contact. Consumer data information sheets are available from treated wood retailers that discuss the proper use and handling of CCA treated wood. Non-pressure applications of preservative chemicals, including dips and brush-on, are not as effective as pressure treatments because the chemicals cannot penetrate deeply into the wood. Consequently, the level of chemical retention is less than that of pressure treatments. Non-pressure preservative treatments, however, may be useful for wood in existing buildings for low decay hazard situations where little protection is required. Practical non-pressure treatments involve (1) brush-on or dips, (2) soaking in water- or oil-based preservatives, or (3) diffusion with water borne preservatives. Flooding the surface of wood with a preservative by brushing or dipping is the simplest method of application. The goal is to coat thoroughly every crack and check in the wood with preservative to minimize access for decay fungi. The penetration is usually less than 1/10 inch into side grain but much greater penetration (as much as 3 inches) into end grain is possible. Dipping wood for a few seconds to minutes in a preservative usually provides better penetration than brushing. Brushon or dipped wood is often used to extend the life of window sash, millwork, shingles, and siding. As described previously, water repellent formulations, which include a preservative, are particularly effective for protecting wood that is not in ground contact and is only briey exposed to moisture. Soaking involves cold or hot soaking of dried wood in a preservative solution for hours or days. Low viscosity oils and waterborne preservatives can be used. This treatment is used for fences, lumber, and timbers for log construction. Better penetration and retention of chemicals is achieved by soaking as compared to brief dipping. Pine species treat better than most other timber species. Soaking to preserve wood has limited applications in historic preservation, but may be useful in restoration and reconstruction, particularly for log structures and fences.

286
DIFFUSIBLE PRESERVATIVES

JOSEPH R. LOFERSKI

A third type of preservative treatment involves the use of boron compounds and may be of interest for use in preserving historic structures. Borates (boron oxides) have been used for years as a re-retardant treatment for wood. Over 40 years ago, borates were found to be toxic to decay fungi and wood-boring insects, but the chemical is not considered to be toxic to mammals. Borates have been used for years by sawmills to dip lumber to prevent staining fungi from coloring wood before drying. Borate wood preservatives may revolutionize the wood preservation industry in the United States. Borate treated wood is paintable, non-corrosive to metal fasteners, machinable, and resistant to re, insects, decay, and stain fungi. Wood can be pressure-treated with borates, but a novel application method of interest in historic preservation is the spray- or dip-diffusion method. Because of its unique properties, borate preservatives are capable of diffusing from the surface of wood into the interior of the piece. The process works best for wet lumber (MC > 30%) where the moisture in the wood serves as the vehicle for diffusion. Research has shown that several weeks after treatment, the preservative penetrates throughout the cross-section, even in species that are difcult to treat by other methods (Bianchini, 1988). Therefore, even if cut or sawed, untreated wood will not be exposed. A manual for using Borate products for wood preservation is available from US Borax Corporation. Log home manufacturers have developed several Borate formulations for treating green logs. Perma-Clink Systems Inc. of Knoxville, Tennessee has recently introduced a product called Bora-Care that uses a glycerin and water solution to allow the borate chemicals to diffuse into dry wood. Borate rods intended for use in existing structures are also available. Both of these chemicals may be useful to help protect joists or other members which are exposed to hazardous environments as in damp basements. One disadvantage of borate-treated wood is that the borates are soluble in water and can leach out of treated wood if exposed to owing water. Researchers are currently studying ways to x the borates to the wood cell wall to produce a leach-resistant preservative. Therefore, borate-treated wood should be used for interior, above ground applications only. If used in an exterior application, the wood must be protected from constant wetting by water repellents or paints.
REPAIR OF DETERIORATED TIMBER

Compared to wood nishing and preservation, the eld of timber repair in modern or historic buildings has not received much attention by researchers. One reason for this situation is that the government funding agencies, and the wood preservation and wood nishing industries are most interested in developing products and processes for the tremendous volume of new wood products produced annually in the United States. However, in todays preservation philosophy, it is important

TECHNOLOGIES FOR WOOD PRESERVATION IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION

287

to restore the structural performance or appearance of a deteriorated member without damaging the character of the building, and, preferably without altering or removing historic building fabric. Several techniques have been developed to repair deteriorated timbers in buildings. This section discusses some techniques. Before beginning a repair, an assessment must be made to answer the following questions: (1) Why did the member deteriorate in the rst place? The cause of deterioration should be addressed and corrected before conducting any repairs. This step is particularly important if moisture is involved. Otherwise, the newly repaired or replaced member will also deteriorate. Failure to recognize this step is analogous to solving a symptom without curing the disease. (2) Should the deteriorated timber be repaired, replaced, or left alone to continue in its current capacity? If the member is to be replaced or left in its current capacity, the cause of the deterioration should be identied and corrected. Furthermore, if replacement is selected, consideration should be given to the advantages and disadvantages of using naturally durable wood or preservative treated wood. (3) What method should be used to repair the deteriorated member? The remainder of this section addresses this question. Repair of structural members can be grouped into three categories as follows: joinery methods, mechanically fastened methods, and adhesive methods. Joinery methods involve replacing damaged wood by splicing new wood into the deteriorated member using scarf, tenon, or dovetail joints as commonly used by traditional timber framers and furniture builders. This type of repair is considered by many conservationists to be the most acceptable repair method. In the past ten years, consumer interest in new timber frame buildings has produced a small but viable timber frame building industry in the United States. Timber framers are capable of joining solid sawed timbers (usually of oak or pine) in large structural sizes (i.e. 10-in 10-in 30-feet) with mortise and tenon, dovetail, or scarf joints to build precisely t structures similar to those produced by craftsmen from centuries past. Modern timber framers can compete in todays economy because of advances in modern woodworking tools such as the chain mortiser and the portable bandsaw tenoner. The Timber Framers Guild can be contacted to obtain names of specic companies who specialize in heavy timber repair work. According to Mettem and Robinson (1991), the advantages and disadvantages of the joinery method of repair are: Advantages: replace timber with timber, the methods do not detract from the nature of the building, and they maintain a historical visual image. Disadvantages: limited structural performance; requires highly skilled labor; some original material is lost; and such repairs can be misleading to future generations. Mechanically fastened methods involve the use of engineered timber connectors which are commonly used in modern structures. Examples are bolted metal side plates, itch beams, bolted joints, and spliced on members attached with bolts, screws, or nails. If well designed and detailed, such repairs can be straight forward

288

JOSEPH R. LOFERSKI

and honest, showing good contemporary workmanship, (Mettem and Robinson, 1991). An advantage of these fasteners is that they are designed using todays accepted engineering practice as dened in building codes and by the National Design Specication for Wood Construction (1991). Another advantage is that these repairs may also be reversible, indicating that, if in the future, a better repair method is developed, the mechanically fastened repair can be removed with minimal damage to the timber. The disadvantages include potential overstiffening of the structure, leading to serviceability problems such as excessive oor vibration. Furthermore, the mechanically fastened joints may be unattractive and incompatible with the historic building. Adhesive methods are the newest repair techniques and have applications for both structural and non-structural situations. Advances in epoxy resin formulations in the last two decades coupled with adhesive repair techniques developed for concrete and other materials, have fostered the application to wood structures. Nonstructural epoxy repairs are used to consolidate and reinforce deteriorated wood members such as window and door frames, cornices, capitals, and other decorative architectural components. Epoxy resins are typically available as low viscosity liquids or high viscosity putty or paste. The low viscosity liquids penetrate cracks and checks in the deteriorated wood and reinforce the weakened wood. The high viscosity putty or paste is applied with a trowel or similar tool and is used to replace missing wood by building up and forming it into the desired shape. Structural repairs, in addition to the epoxy, often involve metallic or nonmetallic reinforcements. The structural repairs can be accomplished with pressure injection methods or resin ller/matrix methods. The general technique is to remove some damaged wood from the member by drilling holes or sawing channels. Metallic or non-metallic reinforcement materials (rods or plates) are inserted into the voids and the epoxy is applied to adhere the reinforcement to the wood. The injection method can also be used to x loose joints, and ll splits or cracks since epoxy is a good gap-lling material. Metallic reinforcements are often made of steel. Non-metallic reinforcements are often made of berglass. Stumes (1979) has developed a design procedure called the Wood Epoxy Repair (WER) system and User Manual to design structural epoxy repairs. Avent (1986a, 1986b) discusses factors that inuence the strength of repaired timber and a presents design procedure for specic joint repairs. Mettem and Robinson (1991) discuss the results of a recent research program on the effectiveness of various types of epoxy/reinforcement repairs. Some concerns regarding epoxy repairs of timbers are related to longevity and non-reversibility. Because wood is continually shrinking and swelling from cyclic humidity and, since the reinforcement materials expand and contract with changes in temperature at a different rate than wood, some critics fear that, over time, the repair may lose strength because of a bond failure. Ironically, conservationists are concerned that the epoxy repair is too permanent and non-reversible if a better

TECHNOLOGIES FOR WOOD PRESERVATION IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION

289

repair method is developed in the future. Furthermore, as stated previously, the cause of the deterioration must be corrected before attempting repairs. Otherwise the remaining original wood will continue to deteriorate. More research is needed in this area to address some of these concerns.

Summary Wood is a biological material and is prone to deterioration from a variety of causes, especially by decay fungi and insects. There are no magic wands, for protecting wood in historic buildings from deterioration. Protection involves a systematic approach that starts with moisture control because most wood attacking organisms require an abundant moisture source. Finishes, including water repellents, can be used to help protect wood in mild deterioration environments, such as above ground situations. Durable wood, including heartwood from naturally durable species and chemically treated wood can be used to replace deteriorated wood in moderate to high hazard locations such as ground contact. Several repair methods are available to restore deteriorated wood. However, the cause of deterioration should be corrected, otherwise the repairs may only solve the symptoms rather than the disease, leading to premature failures and additional repairs.

References
American Wood Preservers Association, American Wood Preservers Association Standards (Sternsville, MD: AWPA, 1985). United States Department of Agriculture, Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material (Washington, DC: USDA, Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook No. 72, US Government Printing Ofce, 1987). American Wood-Preservers Association, Book of Standards (Stevensville, MD: AWPA, 1987). Anonymous, TIM-BOR Treatment Manual for Wood Preservation (Los Angeles, CA: United States Borax Corporation, 1986). Avent, R., Factors affecting strength of epoxy repaired timber Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 112(2) (1986a), pp. 207221. Avent, R., Design criteria for epoxy repair of timber structures, Journal of Structural Engineering 112(2) (1986b), pp. 222239. Baker, A.J., Factors that inuence the serviceability of wood structures: Chemicals, in A. Freas (ed.), Evaluation, Maintenance and Upgrading of Wood Structures (New York, NY: ASCE, 1982), pp. 97106. Bianchini, R.J., The use of borate-treated wood in structures, in Hamel, M.P., ed., Wood Protection Techniques and the Use of Treated Wood in Construction (Forest Products Research Society Proc. 47358, 1988), pp. 104106. Buchanan, B. Restoring and treating wood shakes and shingles, New England Builder May (1988). Campbell, R.N. and J.W. Clark, Decay resistance of bald cypress heartwood, Forest Products Journal 10(5) (1960), pp. 250253. Cassens, D.L. and W.C. Feist, Exterior Wood in the South: Selection, Applications, and Finishes (USDA Forest Service, FPL-GTR-69, 1991), p. 55.

290

JOSEPH R. LOFERSKI

DeGroot, R.C., The use of naturally durable wood versus treated wood, in Hamel, M.P., ed., Wood Protection Techniques and the use of Treated Wood in Construction (Madison, WI: Proc. 47358, FPRS, 1988), pp. 7781. Feist, W.C., Weathering of wood and its control by water-repellent preservatives, in M.P. Hamel (ed.), Wood Protection Techniques and the use of Treated Wood in Construction (Madison, WI: Forest Products Research Society, 1988), pp. 8288. Gutzmer, D.I., Comparison of Wood Preservatives in Stake Tests (Madison, WI: USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. Res. Note FPL-RN-02, 1991), p. 123. Holmes, C.A. and R.O. Knispel, Exterior Weathering Durability of Some Leach Resistant Fireretardant Treatments for Wood Shingles: A Five-year Report. Res. Pap. FPL-403 (Madison, WI: USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, 1981). Kard, B.M., J.K. Mauldin and S.C. Jones, The latest on termiticides Pest Control 57(10) (1989), pp. 58, 60, 68. Mannesmann, H., Comparison of twenty one commercial wood species from North America in relation to feeding rates of the Formosan termite Cototermes Formosanus, Shirake, Material Und Organismen 8(2) (1973), pp. 107120. Mettem, C.J. and G.C. Robinson, The repair of structural timber, in Proc. International Timber Engineering Conference (London, England, 1991), pp. 456465. Meyer, R.W. and R.M. Kellogg, Structural Use of Wood in Adverse Environments (New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1982). Moodg, R.C. and G.E. Sherwood, Light-frame construction research at USDA forest products laboratory a status report, Applied Engineering In Agriculture 2(4) (1986), pp. 167173. National Forest Products Association, National Design Specication for Wood Construction 1991 (Washington, DC: National Forest Products Association, 1991). Preston, A.F., New protection agents for wood products, in M.P. Hamel (ed.), Wood Protection Techniques and the Use of Treated Wood in Construction (Madison, WI: Forest Products Research Society Proc. 47358, 1988), pp. 4247. Scheffer, T.C. and A.F. Verral, Principles of Protecting Wood Buildings from Decay (Madison, WI: USDA Forest Service, Research Paper FPL 190, 1979). Scheffer, T.C., A.F. Verrall and G. Harvey, fteen-year appraisal of dip treating for protecting exterior woodwork; effectiveness on different wood species and in various climates, Material und Organismen 6(1) (1971), pp. 2744. Stumes, P., Wood-epoxy Repair System Manual: Structural Rehabilitation of Deteriorated Timber (Fredericksburg, VA: Association for Preservation Technology, 1979). TenWolde, A. and H.T. Mei, Moisture Movement in Walls in a Warm Humid Climate. Proc. Thermal Performance of Exterior Envelopes of Buildings III (Clearwater Beach, FL: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, 1986), pp. 570582. Verrall, A.F. and T.L. Amburgey, Prevention and Control of Decay in Homes. Interagency Agreement IAA-2575, USDA Forest Service and HUD, Washington, DC, US Government Printing Ofce (1978). Williams, L.H., Wood-inhabiting insects and their control: producer and user viewpoints, in M.P. Hamel (ed.), Wood Protection Techniques and the Use of Treated Wood in Construction (Madison, WI: Forest Products Research Society, 1988), pp. 6776. Williams, L.H., Proceeding of the Symposium Integrated Protection Against Structural WoodInfesting Pests, Gulfport, MS, USDA Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station (1983). Williams, R., acid effects on accelerated wood weathering, Forest Products Journal 37(2) (1987), pp. 3738.