Archives and Museum Informatics 13: 273–290, 1999/2001.

273
© 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

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 mater-
ials 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 affinity 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 finishes 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 preserva-
tion, restoration, or stabilization program. This chapter introduces a variety of
technologies developed to preserve or restore wood and wood products in struc-
tures. The four objectives of the chapter are: (1) to define the agents of wood
deterioration, especially in structures, (2) to introduce the variety of finishes 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 field 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 efficient and
effective utilization of this tremendous amount of wood.
The US Forest Service’s 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 identi-
fying and controlling insects and fungi respectively. They can assist with selecting
chemical controls for specific 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 specific question or assist in finding 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 hemicellu-
lose. 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 digest-
ible glucose. Lignin, an amorphous polymer, makes up 30 to 35% of the weight
of wood. Lignin’s role in wood is to bond bundles of cellulose together to form
the rigid cell wall. Hemicelluloses are a group of five and six carbon sugars that
assist the bond formation in the growing cell between the cellulose and lignin.
These three primary chemicals provide wood’s 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) fire. Deterioration caused by biolo-
gical 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 mill-
work 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 intro-
duced into the United States from Asia and is difficult 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 ground-
up 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 significantly 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 recon-
struction 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 meta-
bolic 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 identified 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 cellu-
lose 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, mois-
ture 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
sufficient strength remains, the partially decayed wood may be serviceable and may
have acceptable performance indefinitely. 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. Non-
decay 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 fire. 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 1/4-
inch 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 unpro-
tected 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 even-
tually develop into macroscopic cracks and checks in the wood surface. Warping,
cupping, grain raising, and nail loosening also result from the effect of cyclic mois-
ture 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 finishes such as paints, and solid color stains which screen out ultravi-
olet light are effective at preventing weathering of wood. Details on wood finishes
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 struc-
tures 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 first 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 difficult to
achieve. Controlling moisture in wood structures involves a systematic approach
that provides protection against infiltration from groundwater, rain, plumbing
leaks, and condensation (Verral and Amburgey, 1978). Ground water in found-
ations 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 flashing 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 flooring subfloors, 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 infiltration 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) finishes 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 pres-
sure treatment and diffusible preservatives. A brief discussion on fire retardant
treatments is also included.

WOOD FINISHES

The main reasons for finishing 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
finish is based on a variety of factors including coating film 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 finish coats
used (Cassens and Fiest, 1991). In other words, no coating is completely moisture
proof. The role of a finish 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 finish.
Wood finishes are divided into two general categories: (1) opaque coatings
(paints and solid color stains) and (2) “natural” finishes such as water repellents
(WR) water repellent preservatives (WRP), oils, and semi-transparent penetrating
stains. The effectiveness of several types of generic finishes in excluding water
vapor infiltration into wood are shown in Table I. The table is based on three
coats of finish 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 finishes 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 film traps moisture, retards drying and
280 JOSEPH R. LOFERSKI

Table I. Moisture excluding effectiveness of finishes based on three

coats and 14 days exposure to 90% RH (from Cassens and fiest,
1991)

Finish Effectiveness
rating

Epoxy finish – clear 91

Epoxy paint – gloss 87
Aluminum flake-pigmented urethane varnish 84
(oil-modified)
Aluminum paint (linseed-phenolic-menhaden) 82
Enamel paint – satin (soya-tung) 80
∗ 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 finish 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 film 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 finishing 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 manufacturer’s instructions. Then use the “band-aid test” to verify
that the finishes are compatible. Apply a band-aid to the surface, wait 1 minute,
and then quickly tear off the band-aid. If any finish comes off with the band-aid,
the finishes 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) fire
retardant coatings, and (2) pressure impregnation with fire 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 fire resistant coating, however, may be more useful
in existing structures. Many coatings are available to protect wood from fire. The
coatings protect wood in one of two ways. Intumescent coatings are low density
films that expand away from the wood surface upon exposure to fire, thereby, insu-
lating 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 fire retardant coatings are often based on
silicates, urea resins, or polyvinyl emulsions. The fire retardant charcoal producing
coatings include ammonium phosphate and sodium borate. Oil based fire retardant
alkyd and pigmented paints often use chlorinated paraffins and antimony trioxide
fire retardant chemicals and inert materials including zinc borate, mica, kaolin,
and inorganic pigments (Wood Handbook, 1987). Many fire retardant finishes are
intended for interior use because they are often water soluble and leach out of
wood that is exposed to flowing water such as roof shingles. Therefore, for exterior
applications and for environments that regularly exceed 80% relative humidity only
leach resistant exterior fire-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 artificial durability and
resistance to decay and insects. This section contains information on natural and
artificially 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 Moderately resistant Slightly or non-resistant

Bald cypress (old growth) Bald cypress (young growth) Alder

Catalpa Douglas-fir Ashes
Cedars Honeylocust Basswood
Cherry, black Larch, western Beech
Chestnut Oak, swamp, chestnut Birches
Cypress, Arizona Pine, eastern white Buckeye
Junipers Southern pine: Butternet
Locust, black1 Longleaf, Slash Cottonwood
Mesquite Tamarack Elms
Hackberry
Mulberry, red1 Hemlocks
Oak: (White, Hickories
Bur, Chestnut, Magnolia
Oregon white) Maples
Osage, orange1 Oaks (red & black species)
Redwood Pines (other than longleaf
Sassafras slash and eastern white)
Walnut, black Poplars
Yew, Pacific1 Spruces
Sweetgum
True firs
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. Bald-
cypress 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 classified 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 resist-
ance 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 leach-
able in water. This implies that contact with flowing 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 anti-
stain 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 preser-
vatives 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 brush-
on). 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, flooded 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 manufacturer’s treating schedule (i.e. pres-
sure, 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 penta-
chlorophenol 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 field
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 environ-
mental concerns, other ammoniacal copper formulations that lack arsenic have
found commercial success outside the United States (Preston, 1988). Emulsified
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 member’s 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 commer-
cially 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 landfill 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 penet-
ration 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. Brush-
on 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 briefly 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 JOSEPH R. LOFERSKI

DIFFUSIBLE PRESERVATIVES

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 fire-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 fire, 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 difficult 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 flowing water. Researchers are
currently studying ways to “fix” 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 finishing and preservation, the field 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 preserva-
tion and wood finishing 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 today’s 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 first 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 identified 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 fit structures similar to those produced by craftsmen from
centuries past. Modern timber framers can compete in todayÕs economy because
of advances in modern woodworking tools such as the chain mortiser and the
portable bandsaw tenoner. The Timber Framer’s Guild can be contacted to obtain
names of specific 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 histor-
ical 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, flitch 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 today’s
accepted engineering practice as defined in building codes and by the National
Design Specification 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 over-
stiffening of the structure, leading to serviceability problems such as excessive
floor 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 penet-
rate 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 non-
metallic reinforcements. The structural repairs can be accomplished with pressure
injection methods or resin filler/matrix methods. The general technique is to
remove some damaged wood from the member by drilling holes or sawing chan-
nels. 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 fix loose joints, and fill splits or cracks
since epoxy is a good gap-filling material. Metallic reinforcements are often
made of steel. Non-metallic reinforcements are often made of fiberglass. 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 influence the strength of repaired timber and a presents
design procedure for specific 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 avail-
able 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 Preserver’s Association, American Wood Preservers Association Standards (Sterns-
ville, MD: AWPA, 1985).
United States Department of Agriculture, Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material (Wash-
ington, DC: USDA, Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook No. 72, US Government Printing
Office, 1987).
American Wood-Preserver’s 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. 207–221.
Avent, R., “Design criteria for epoxy repair of timber structures”, Journal of Structural Engineering
112(2) (1986b), pp. 222–239.
Baker, A.J., “Factors that influence the serviceability of wood structures: Chemicals”, in A. Freas
(ed.), Evaluation, Maintenance and Upgrading of Wood Structures (New York, NY: ASCE,
1982), pp. 97–106.
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. 104–106.
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. 250–253.
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. 77–81.
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. 82–88.
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 Fire-
retardant 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. 107–120.
Mettem, C.J. and G.C. Robinson, “The repair of structural timber”, in Proc. International Timber
Engineering Conference (London, England, 1991), pp. 456–465.
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. 167–173.
National Forest Products Association, National Design Specification 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 Protec-
tion Techniques and the Use of Treated Wood in Construction (Madison, WI: Forest Products
Research Society Proc. 47358, 1988), pp. 42–47.
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, “fifteen-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. 27–44.
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. 570–582.
Verrall, A.F. and T.L. Amburgey, Prevention and Control of Decay in Homes. Interagency Agreement
IAA-25–75, USDA Forest Service and HUD, Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office
(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. 67–76.
Williams, L.H., Proceeding of the Symposium Integrated Protection Against Structural Wood-
Infesting 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. 37–38.