Cause and Effects of HVAC Systems and Applications on Historic Buildings

Material Information

Cause and Effects of HVAC Systems and Applications on Historic Buildings
Spotts, Glenn Arthur
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
1 online resource (102 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Master's ( M.Arch.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Committee Chair:
Prugh, Peter E.
Committee Co-Chair:
Siebein, Gary W.
Committee Members:
Gold, Martin A.
Graduation Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Art museums ( jstor )
Buildings ( jstor )
Condensation ( jstor )
Forests ( jstor )
Halls ( jstor )
Heating ventilation and cooling ( jstor )
Historic buildings ( jstor )
Historic preservation ( jstor )
Humidity ( jstor )
Museums ( jstor )
Architecture -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
historic, hvac, independence, monticello, mount, museum, poplar, preservation
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
Architecture thesis, M.Arch.


With my background in engineering and my current study in architecture, I chose a thesis which incorporates both of these fields. It also includes the field of historical preservation, which I have included in my choice of electives. I have applied for a Certificate in Preservation for graduation as well. The thesis intended to study the effects of the decisions made in the past concerning the installation of HVAC systems into historic buildings, specifically those historic structures used primarily as house museums. These museums use, for the most part, historic homes or historic public buildings these structures to house museum artifacts belonging to the building or are from the building?s time period. The museum attitude of strictly controlling temperature and humidity for the preservation of those artifacts has done much to destroy the most important artifact, the building itself. These structures were never built to accommodate the air conditioning methods of today. Ductwork and equipment may often be hidden or plated in unimportant areas, but the acts of the cooling in warm summer humid conditions has created many adverse effects. For example, exterior walls have been damaged from the inside of the walls due to wood rot from water condensing inside with the change in dew points. Nails and other metal work are rusting. The end result of just these two examples has cased a rapid increase in the destruction of the structures due to age. The thesis will begin with a history of the preservation movement and the reasons decisions such as the strict museum interior conditions were made. The project will then move into the effects of these decisions and the problems that have been created due to those decisions. Next will be a discussion of some of the solutions that have already been studied to relieve these conditions. Two good examples of places I have visited to discuss this situation are Independence Hall if Philadelphia, Pa., and Monticello near Charlottesville, Va. Independence Hall is experimenting with computer controlled equipment which will anticipate weather conditions and adjust interior temperatures with the interior wall dew point as the controlling influence. Monticello is experimenting with window coatings and other less costly methods of preserving the building while maintaining some sort of interior conditioning. The simple solution of no conditioning at all will also be studies, although this idea has limitations, especially since most of the current historic sites have already been conditioned. Mount Vernon was the last major hold out, but systems were installed there a number of years ago. Final conclusions for the paper will follow, much of which will be future study proposals. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis (M.Arch.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Adviser: Prugh, Peter E.
Co-adviser: Siebein, Gary W.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Glenn Arthur Spotts

Record Information

Source Institution:
Rights Management:
Copyright Glenn Arthur Spotts. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
LD1780 2008 ( lcc )


This item has the following downloads:

Full Text




2 2008 Glenn Arthur Spotts


3 To my Mother, Geraldine M. Spo tts, for all her support in what has become a very long road to completion of my architectural studies. Without her support the road would have had no end.


4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the m emb ers of my supervisory committee Peter E. Prugh, Gary W. Siebein, and Martin Gold for their help, advice and encouragement. Endless appreciation must be extended to Professor Prugh for his continue d support, efforts, and extreme patience during some very stressful personal even ts in my life during my education at the University of Florida. Without his unwavering support, this fina l project would certa inly not exist. Special thanks go to Becky Hudson, Graduate Pr ogram Assistant, for all the paperwork she performed on my behalf. Her many extra hours of work for my benefit can never be repaid. Thanks also must go to all those in th e Graduate School and the Department of Architecture, many of whom I w ill never know by name, who helped me get the time needed to complete all of my architectural studies. To all those who have anything to do with the daily operations of this great University of Florida, from those who provide and maintain ou r buildings to the library teams that supply the vast research opportunities of a first class university I can only say a humble Thank you. To all who assisted me in my research, site visits, telephon e calls, and letters I give my gratitude. Even if the sites are not mentioned directly in the case st udies due to redundant information, their help in my understanding of the problems as situations will always be a foundation for understanding that I ha d to develop for this project. Finally I thank my mother, without her assistance and support during the hard times I would not have been able to complete this project.


5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................6 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................7 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................9 2 EARLY HISTORY OF THE US PRESERVATI ON MOVEMENT..................................... 11 3 EARLY CONTROL SYSTEMS............................................................................................ 25 4 THE PROBLEMS..................................................................................................................28 5 GENERAL SOLUTIONS PROVIDED BY THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION ............................................................................................... 30 6 CASE STUDY METHOD...................................................................................................... 32 7 INDEPENDENCE HALL CASE STUDY............................................................................. 34 8 MONTICELLO CASE STUDY............................................................................................. 37 9 MOUNT VERNON CASE STUDY...................................................................................... 39 10 POPLAR FOREST CASE STUDY........................................................................................ 41 11 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................... 43 APPENDIX MOUNT VERNON STUDY DATA............................................................................................. 44 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................100 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................101


6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Point of Honor, Lynchburg, VA..........................................................................................9 1-2 Point of Honor artifacts................................................................................................... .....9 1-3 Poplar Forest, Lynchburg, VA...........................................................................................10 2-1 Touro Synagogue 1827......................................................................................................12 2-2 Strictland Tower addition, I ndependence Hall, P hiladelphia............................................ 12 2-3 The Mount Vernon Ladies Association of the Union....................................................... 12 2-4 Paul Revere House, Boston, MA....................................................................................... 14 2-5 W.S. Appleton....................................................................................................................15 2-9 Drayton Hall, Charlestown, SC.........................................................................................19 2-10 The Great Hall-Drayton Hall, Charleston, SC................................................................... 20 3-1 Nineteenth century coal fired System................................................................................ 27 4-1 Cold climate conditions.....................................................................................................29 4-2 Hot climat e conditions .......................................................................................................29 10-1 Virgin brick walls Poplar Forest, Lynchburg, VA...........................................................41


7 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Architecture CAUSE AND EFFECTS OF HVAC SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS ON HISTORIC BUILDINGS By Glenn Arthur Spotts May 2008 Chair: Peter E. Prugh Major: Architecture With my background in engineering and my cu rrent study in architecture, I chose a thesis which incorporates both of these fields. It al so includes the field of historical preservation, which I have included in my choi ce of electives. I have applied for a Certificate in Preservation for graduation as well. The thesis intended to study the effects of the decisions ma de in the past concerning the installation of HVAC systems into historic buildings, specifically those historic structures used primarily as house museums. These museums use, for the most part, historic homes or historic public buildings these structures to house museum artifacts belongi ng to the building or are from the buildings time period. The museum attitude of strictly controlling temperature and humidity for the preservation of those arti facts has done much to destroy th e most important artifact, the building itself. These structures were never built to accommodate the air conditioning methods of today. Ductwork and equipment may often be hidden or plated in unim portant areas, but the acts of the cooling in warm summer humid condi tions has created many adverse effects. For example, exterior walls have been damaged from the inside of the wall s due to wood rot from water condensing inside with the change in dew poi nts. Nails and other metal work are rusting.


8 The end result of just these two examples has ca sed a rapid increase in the destruction of the structures due to age. The thesis will begin with a history of the preservation movement and the reasons decisions such as the strict museum interior c onditions were made. The project will then move into the effects of these decisions and the problems that have been created due to those decisions. Next will be a discussion of some of the solutions that have already been studied to relieve these conditions. Two good examples of places I have visited to discuss this situation are Independence Hall if Philadelphia, Pa., and Monti cello near Charlottesville, Va. Independence Hall is experimenting with computer controlle d equipment which will anticipate weather conditions and adjust interior te mperatures with the interior wall dew point as the controlling influence. Monticello is experimenting with window coatings and other less costly methods of preserving the building while maintaining some sort of interior conditioning. The simple solution of no conditioning at all will also be studies, although th is idea has limitations, especially since most of the cu rrent historic sites have alread y been conditioned. Mount Vernon was the last major hold out, but systems were in stalled there a number of years ago. Final conclusions for the paper will follow, much of which will be future study proposals.


9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Lynchburg, Va. Modern HVAC system s create humidity and condensation problems that were of no concern to the Abreathing @ buildings built prior to the advent of air conditioning. Condensation created by the diffe rences in temperature and humi dity from outdoors to indoors is causing extensive damage to interiors of walls and to wooden window sills and framing. In effect, the protection of the arti facts introduced into the historic building is destroying the most valuable artifact of all, the historic building itself. Figure 1-1. Point of Honor, Lynchburg, VA Figure 1-2. Point of Honor artifacts The study will examine the history of the pr eservation movement in the United States, from its private initiatives to gove rnment involvement in order to evaluate the init ial purposes of


10 the movement, the evolution of the its goals as more and varied groups joined the movement, and the values of the present that effect the decisions of historic preservation. After this evaluation of how and why the current conditions in preserved historic buildings exist, details of the problems created by these decisions will be examined. Fina lly the most recent suggestions now available from industry and the National Trust for Hi storic Preservation will be evaluated. The thrust of the work will be to evaluate the appropriateness of the methods we now use, to suggest new evaluation criteria that might be tter suit preservationist needs now that the current problems are becoming more evident, and finally to determine, evaluate, and suggest some new methods of heating and cooling historic buildings As a working model I will be using Poplar Forest, the second home of Thomas Jefferson. This historic preservation project is a major private restoration project that will be ongoing fo r the next two decades. A decision concerning its HVAC needs will be made within the next three years. It is hoped that this work may be of some benefit to the restoration plan. Figure 1-3. Poplar Forest, Lynchburg, VA


11 CHAPTER 2 EARLY HISTORY OF THE US PRESERVATION MOVEMENT Early restoration projects in th e United States were the respo n sibility of individuals, civic groups, and on rare occasions, stat e or local governments. Two of the earliest known projects involved restorations in 1827 a nd 1828 respectively. The estate of Abraham Touro, a Newport, Rhode Island Shipper, was responsible for the re storation of Touro Synagogue. In the same time period, the city government of Philadelphia hire d William Strickland to reconstruct the tower (removed in 1790) of the Old State House, now known as Independence Hall, which had been purchased by the city in 1816 from the Commonw ealth of Pennsylvania. Strickland used the Georgian Style for the tower rather than a desi gn which would have more suited the tastes of 1828. Other projects of the time period included the restoration of Nassau Hall at Princeton University in 1855. Having been damaged by fire, it was considered important because the Continental Congress had met there in 1783. Only five years earlier, in 1850, the legislature of New York had purchased the Hasbrouck House, a site used by Washington as his headquarters in Newburgh, New York during the Revolutionary War.1 From these early i ndependent efforts at preservation developed patterns th at would begin to define the c ourse of preservation. Aside from the private religious project of the Tour o Synagogue, organizational efforts were involved in preservation projects, either in the form of an educational institution, or a form of lower government, e.g. state or local government. Anot her important path take n was the selection of sites for preservation projects. Patriotic events and patriotic heroes were the subjects of preservation projects. 1William J. Murtagh, Keeping Time (Pittstown, NJ, 1988), pp.26-28


12 Figure 2-1. Touro Synagogue 1827 Figure 2-2. Strictland Tower additi on, Independence Hall, Philadelphia Figure 2-3. The Mount Vernon Ladi es Association of the Union


13 Following these guidelines, The Mount Ver non Ladies Association of the Union was formed in 1853 by Ann Pamela Cunningham for the purpose of saving Mount Vernon from being developed as a hotel area. The significant difference between this project and previous projects in the United States had to do with the type of organization involved. After both the federal government and the government of the Co mmonwealth of Virginia refused to purchase the property, Miss Cunningham formed the Association to raise funds first in the South, and later all through the United States. The Association was so successful, that it was able to purchase the property within five years. But just as important as achieving its goal was the effects the project had on the preservation movement in the United Stat es. First, it cemented the ideas of using only patriotically significant sites and personalities as worthy of preservation, and secondly, it brought forward the idea that private citizen s organizations were best suited for preservation projects. In addition, the success of the association caused othe r similar organizations to pattern their own organizations after the Association. Examples are the Ladies Hermitage Association for the preservation after Andrew Jack sons home and Washingtons Headquarters Project at Valley Forge, organized by Mrs. William Holstein of Pennsylvania. 2 Although lower governments occasionally participated in the financing of these projects, such as the purchase of Hermitage by the state of Tennessee in 1856 or a gift of $5000 to the Ladies Hermitage Association in 1908, government participation would not be at an influential level until we ll into the Twentieth Century.3 Around the turn of the century a new interest began to emerge which would extend the interests of preservation from stric tly patriotic associations to intere st in intrinsic aesthetic value. 2William J. Murtagh, Keeping Time, (Pittstown, NJ, 1988), pp. 28-30 3Ibid., p. 52


14 Buildings were now being looked upon as historic artifacts in their own right, as architectural history. The first such project was the John Whipple House rest ored by the Ipswich Massachusetts Historical Society in 1898. The purpose of the rest oration was simply to retain the English heritage of the area from the Seventeenth Century. The Paul Revere House in Boston was a restoration project in 1905 that firmly established this new path as a permanent addition to the preservation movement. Although Paul Revere was a patriotic figure, th e motivating force of the restorat ion was the saving of the oldest frame building in Boston. Architect ural interests were just as str ong in this project as were the heroic interests. One of the prominent persons in the restoration project was William Sumner Appleton. As a historian he was a strong force in preserving New England artifacts. He founded the Society for the Preservation of New Engla nd Antiquities in 1910 which would be a powerful force in the future path of historical preservation in the United States.4 Figure 2-4. Paul Reve re House, Boston, MA 4William J. Murtagh, Keeping Time, (Pittstown, NJ, 1988), pp. 31-32


15 Figure 2-5. W.S. Appleton During this early period of the Twentieth Cent ury, the ideas of patriotic buildings and artifact architecture merged and matured. The Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities placed as much importance on interi or furnishings and artifacts as they did on buildings. It established house-museums all over New England. These house-museums showcased architecture, furnishings, and history on an equal footing. During this period the historic room also emerged. In 1924, the Metropolitan Museum of Art opened its American Wing to display American interiors. The Philadelphia Museum of art followed shortly thereafter with a similar exhibition. At about the same time, du Pont heir H. F. du Pont began collecting furnishings from the Un ited States and later from all over the world. As his collection grew, he built extensions to his estate home in Wilmington, Delaware to house his pieces in rooms built specifically to mirror the pieces = original settings. He periodically opened the home to the public until the museum was completed in 1951, at which time it was opened on a regular basis.5 This interest in furnishings as well as the historic and architectural preservation moved the house-museum from New England to throughout the United States. 5William J. Murtagh, Keeping Time, (Pittstown, NJ, 1988), pp. 78-82


16 Soon after the Metropolitan Museum of art bega n its exhibits of furnishings, the largest private restoration project the country had ev er seen began in Williamsburg, Va. in 1926. The inspiration of W. A. R. Goodw in, rector of the Bruton Pari sh Church in Williamsburg, and financed by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., the projects goal was the restoration of an entire colonial town, including landscape, homes, pu blic buildings, and streets. Not only was it the largest, but it was part, along with Henry Fords Greenfield Village in Dearborn, Michigan, of the beginning of a new and expanded path for preservation kno wn as outdoor museums. The projects goal was enormous, to use all the methods of preservation available to return an entire colonial town, now engulfed by the modern 1926 city, back to the ap pearance of the mid-Eighteenth Century. The purpose of this enterprise is echoed in The Colonial Williamsburg Motto, That the Future May Learn from the Past. 6 Imbedded in this motto were the feelings of Goodwin toward Williamsburg as Athe Cradle of the Republic@ and the birthplace of liberty7 and Rockefellers thoughts of patriotism.8 Williamsburg would not only be a mu seum. It would bring alive the crafts, technology, methods, mores, architecture, furnishings, dress, and countless other factors, and marry them to history, patriotism, and educa tion. It would create an educational Mecca for the public, and even more importantly, for pres ervationists to learn ex isting methods and to develop new methods of their profession. All of the important methods of preservation would be used at Williamsburg; reconstruction, rehabili tation, restoration and adaptive use. These methods are sometimes contradictory and will be shown to affect the HVAC problems that will come later in the thesis. It is therefore importa nt to define the above four terms in accordance with The National Trust for Historic Preservation. 6William J. Murtagh, Keeping Time, (Pittstown, NJ, 1988), p.36. 7Ibid. 8Ibid., p. 96


17 Figure 2-5. Goodwin & Rockefeller Figure 2-6. William & Mary College, Williamsburg, VA Figure 2-7. Capitol Building, Williamsburg, VA


18 Figure 2-8. Governors Palace in terior artifacts, Williamsburg, VA Reconstruction. The act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail of a vanished building. Rehabilitation. The act or process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration which makes possible an e fficient contemporary use while preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its histor ical, architectural, and cultural values. Restoration. The act or process of a ccurately recovering the form and details of a property and its setting as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of removal of later work or by the replacement of missing earlier work. Adaptive Use. The process of converting a building to a use other than that for which it was designed, e.g., changing a factory into hous ing. Such a conversion is accomplished with varying alterations to the building. At this point in the history of preservation in the United States it can be seen that the path taken by the movement is merging the original ideals of patriotism and hero worship, as promoted by the Ann Pamela Cunningham and the Mount Vernon Ladies Association of the Union, the architectural, aesthetic, and educat ional passions of William Sumner Appleton and


19 the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities and the inco rporation of historic rooms into Appleton=s house museums as influenced by th e Metropolitan Museum of art and Henry Francis du Ponts Wintert hur Museum. Using the four methods described above, how will all of this be accomplished? Each group that has added to this eclectic path has its own agenda to fulfill. Should preservation follow a purist, as for example Drayton Hall in South Carolina, where preservation is done in the most exacting manner to return the building to as close as possible to the original state? Or should preservation be more lenient and move a bit toward rehabilitation of the buildings? One might even question the fact of restoration itself. After restoration of a house-museum is comple te, it will no longer be used for a house as originally intended. It will be a museum. Public accommodations must be made for comfort, safety, and security. Protection of artif acts from temperature and humidity must be accommodated. Is this not more towards adaptive use than restoration? Figure 2-9. Drayton Ha ll, Charlestown, SC


20 Figure 2-10. The Great HallDrayton Hall, Charleston, SC Before these problems can be analyzed, two ot her agencies need to be introduced as important to the path taken to bring the preser vation movement to the pos ition it is in today, The Federal Government and the National Trust for Hi storic Preservation. Since these two agencies become involved in preservation over the same time period, and since they are intertwined in their functions, this work will deal with them t ogether. However, it is important to remember that The National Trust is an independent orga nization of private citi zens, even though it is charted by Congress. The Federal Governments first interests in preservation began with the preservation of Federal Lands. In 1872 it set as ide Yellowstone National Park. After some other preservation land projects in the Western United States, mana gement of the concerns was taken over by the National Park Service in 1916, formed for that exact purpose. Although th is had no influence on the topics of this study at the time, the govern ments efforts in historic preservation would eventually fall under the National Park Service. The Federal Governments first major step into historic preservation occurred in 1933 as part of Franklin Roosevelts New Deal programs to pull the United States out of The Great Depression. Charles Peterson of the National Park Service proposed a program to create an architectural archive which woul d put out of work draftsman


21 and architects back to work. This was the beginn ing of the Historic Amer ican Buildings Survey (HABS) program. Funding lasted only three months, from November 1933 to February, 1934, but the results were impressive enough to re fund the program again on a permanent basis in 1935. With this program historic sites would be catalogued, do cumented, stored, and made accessible to the public. 9 Such information would prove most valuable for future preservation programs, public and private. After World War II the preservation move ment had a need for a national nonprofit organization to lead and manage the growing popular support of the movement. To this end the National Council for Historic Sites was formed in 1947. One of the first efforts of the National Council was to promote the formation of an or ganization chartered by Congress and truly on a national level. The measure was successful and on October 26, 1949 a bill was signed forming the National Trust for Historic Preservation. So on thereafter, the National Council was dissolved in favor of the National Trust. Since that time the Trust has acquired and administered many historic properties and provi des guidelines and research for all phases and types of preservation.10 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 is probably the single most important effort made by government for the preservati on movement. The purpose of the bill is to recognize the heritage of the Un ited States. It did this by stating three aspect s of the bill: The movement must recognize the importance of architecture, design and esthetics as well as historic and cultural values. The movement must go beyond individual bu ildings and look at historic and architecturally valued areas and districts. 9William J. Murtagh, Keeping Time, (Pittstown, NJ, 1988), pp. 55-57 10Ibid., pp. 39-55


22 These efforts would be promoted by economic conditions and tax policies.11 Most of the direct input to the preservation movement since the 1966 act has been in the form of tax bills written to provide tax relief to owners of prospective historic properties that engage in some type of preservati on, as originally stipul ated in the third goal of the bill. But government is a many sided figure, and its responsibilities go far beyond that of preserving American heritage. It is also responsible fo r the health and safety of its citizens in a modern world. To that end, codes and regulations are found at every level of government. If the public is to enter these buildings, they must be able to do so safely, and under the laws governing all other public buildings. Fire, structure, passage, handicapped c oncerns, and air quality are but a few of the concerns facing a hist oric preservation project of today. That is, of course, assuming it is open to the public. But even if the projec t was purely a private measure, laws would still apply to jurisdictions ranging fr om local fire departments thro ugh run-off regulations of local governments. These concerns are becoming increasi ng problems in Historic Districts, such as Historic Charleston, in Charleston, South Carolina. As one of the earliest historic districts, formed by local government in 1931, it has become a model for other districts to follow, especially after the encour agement of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. This brief history was meant to describe how the preservation movement has evolved into the position it is in today. Independent moveme nts in the early 1800's dea ling for the most part in patriotic historic places and pe ople moved into an era of aesthetic and architectural objectives. Education entered and pushed the envelope ever wider to include room museums, furnishings, and an increasing public touring of thes e expanded house-museums. The success of Williamsburg, Virginia provided the way for outdoor museums to increase in number. 11Ibid., pp. 64-66


23 Government concern provided a documented lis t of many perspective historic preservation projects, and then provided funds and tax incentives to allow the movement to grow even larger, and very importantly, to include la rge districts. This inclusion meant that all four measures of preservation discussed earlier would be used a nd become more acceptable. While adaptive use may severely disturb the pure preserva tionist, it is essential if an entire district is to be declared a historic zone. It mandates the coexistence of the historic with the modern. So, too, does the modern use of house-museums. Government regulations for safety must consider a housemuseum a museum and no longer a house. Fire protection, lighting, secu rity, HVAC, safety, and structural concerns all move preservation away from pure restoration toward rehabilitation or even adaptive use. The purest site for preser vation in the United States may well be Drayton Hall in South Carolina. Owned by the Nati onal Trust, and thus funded by the Federal Government itself, it is said to only repair st ructure and deteriorated material as minimally needed. The building is said to be displayed wi thout furnishings, or additions of any other kind. It is a true example of pure restoration. Yet one need only enter the basement at the beginning of a tour to find electric lights, sprinklers, and computers. Stru cture on the second floor is being stiffened by huge steel I-beams, which are not very historic. One can onl y conclude that pure preservation does not exist in an era past the time the build ing was originally built. The artifacts that have become so import ant to the preservati on movement from the room-museum to the house-museum to outdoor museums play a major part in decisions that will need to be made in the future. Museums like th e Metropolitan Museum of Art are able to display its artifacts in a completely controlled environm ent in a modern building, but structures designed in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries are ill suited for the addition of such modern temperature and humidity control systems.


24 The addition of such systems causes problems with the addition of non-historic elements, condensation problems, sealing ve rsus breathing problems, and although not a major topic of this study, the space utilization problems and original material loss problems of installing the equipment in a manner that will allow for prope r performance. These concerns need to be balanced with the preservation of the artifact s, and sometimes even their existence in the museum. Often artifacts are loan s from patrons or other museums. If adequate security, safety, and environmental protections are not installe d in a house-museum, lending of an artifact may not take place. Another concer n is the patronage of the museum by the general public. Most of these museums, even those run by the National Trust, rely on admission revenues and gift shop funds for their survival. If comfort levels are not adequate attendance will fall, followed directly by revenues. The importance of artifacts to preservation, government approval and support for educational preservation, the need for support funds, and the growi ng acceptance of a full rage of preservation from restoration to rehabilitation and adaptive use, have all lead to the standard use of environmental control systems in historic bu ildings. The study will now examine the ways in which temperature was originally regulated in these structures, compare these ways to the changes needed to adapt them to controlled environmental systems, and assess the damage that these adaptations have had on the historic buildings that have installed them.


25 CHAPTER 3 EARLY CONTROL SYSTEMS Buildings of the Eighteenth Century used the natural effects of the elements and surroundings to control temperatures Thick walls were often used to absorb the sun during the day and allow heat to pass into the building du ring evening hours. Windows were placed in a manner that would allow the natura l heat and light pass into room s during daylight hours. For summer conditions deciduous trees were placed strate gically to provide shade in summer yet allow light and heat penetration during the wi nter seasons. Windows took advantage of cross ventilation. Porches and large overhangs were common. In extr emely hot areas, living spaces were raised to the second floors, as for example in some of the elegant homes of Louisiana and Charleston, South Carolina. Clothing was utilized to a much greater extent than in modern climate controlled times. In winter months when the only heat source woul d have been a fireplace or possibly a Franklin Style stove in the fireplace, heavy layers of woolen clothing would provide the extended protection needed from the cold temperatures. In summer periods, it is ironic to note that some of the heavier clothing was also used for coolin g. Linens were worn under what now would be considered heavy woolen clothing. This would cause heavy perspiration to the wearer. The linens would collect this moisture. The wool weave was porous allowing breezes to pass through and blow over the wet linen creating a cooling effect due to the evaporating moisture. Winter conditions rarely provide d temperatures inside to ri se appreciably above outdoor temperatures due to the limited amount of sunlig ht in winter and the gross inefficiencies of fireplaces. Similarly, summer temp eratures inside and outside were nearly constant. The effect of this was that the materials of the building were allowed to expand and contract with the


26 seasons.1 Nineteenth Century improvements to h eating and ventilating did produce a larger differential temperature between the interior and exterior of the building, especially in winter heating conditions. These newer conditions rarely produced apprec iable damage to the building however. This was due to a number of factors. First the greatest temperature differential occurred during the winter months when outdoor humidity levels are generally at much lower levels, especially in Northern climates that re quire larger amounts of heating. Coal furnaces tended to produce a dry heat when hot air systems we re used. If boilers were used to produce hot water or steam for heating, humidity levels w ould still not rise appr eciably inside because methods of creating a A tight @ building were not yet available. There was enough air infiltrating into the cracks of doors, windows, and general cr acks to dissipate any added humidity created by occupants or internal equipment. Without the humidity, which is at th e heart of condensation problems, the buildings were not in danger. During summer periods, the Nineteenth Century improvements were principally better methods of ventilation, using skylights, and forced air electric fans. This too would not create ap preciable differences be tween outdoor or indoor conditions, and once again the building would be allowed to expand and contract normally.2 Twentieth Century technology brought us the greatest, the most effective and the most damaging aspects to HVAC systems for historic buildings. Air conditioning is probably the most critical of these innovations. Along with air conditioning came methods of reducing the added energy needed to operate it. Buildings became more airtight with the use of new insulations, caulking, and thermal glazing. With these new efficiencies came integrated systems to provide interior climate control, fire s uppression, lighting air filtration, security and 1Sharon C. Park, A Preservation Briefs #24, (US Dept. of the Interior, 1990), p. 2 2Sharon C. Park, A Preservation Briefs #24, (US Dept of the Interior, 1990), p. 2


27 temperature and humidity control. Vapor barrie rs were also available to protect the new buildings designed with this new technology.3 All of these new innovations may have at first seemed made to order for historic buildings, especially the historic house-museum which had grown to be so popular. Security could be co mbined with government mandated fire safety equipment. Total control of interior clim ate conditions would allow full time control and monitoring for the peace of mind of lenders of artifacts to thes e museums. But a tremendous problem grew from the installa tion of all of this control. Figure 3-1. Nineteenth ce ntury coal fired system 3Ibid., p. 3


28 CHAPTER 4 THE PROBLEMS Large tem perature differentials were crea ted between outdoor and indoor conditions. Warm temperatures tend to move toward cooler areas. In a si milar manner moist conditions tend to move toward dryer conditions. This natural migration is contro lled in modern buildings with the use of vapor barriers, installe d at the time of construction. In a historic structure, vapor barriers are seldom possible. Pres ervationists will remove as little of the original materials of a structure as possible. The idea of removing original wall cove rings, paints, or even worse, plaster is unthinkable. And since these material s cannot normally be remo ved, the idea of energy savings with the use of insulation is also not pr actical. The results of these limitations include low humidity conditions in winter that may crack wooden furniture and trim, unless humidification measures are taken. If humidification is used in wi nter months, moisture tends to condense on the cold windows, dripping onto sill s and window frames causing premature rotting conditions. Moisture may also travel through wa lls and condense on inner cooler walls. This condensation may cause a rotting of wooden frames and beams; corrosion of metal anchors, nails, or lath; peeling of paint; generation of efflorescence and salt deposits on masonry; and cracks from freezing conditions.1 Summer conditions allow the flows of humidity in the opposite direction. Humid outdoor conditions will cause humidity to migrate into the lower humidity controlled spaces through walls and window openings. As the humid air hits the cooler interior walls condensation occurs, causing th e same problems as described in the winter conditions with indoor humidity ad ditions. Condensation on the exterior of the usually single glass panes drips onto frames and sills as before. 1Sharon C. Park, APreservation Briefs #24, (US Dept of the Interior, 1990), p. 4


29 Figure 4-1. Cold climate conditions Figure 4-2. Hot climate conditions


30 CHAPTER 5 GENERAL SOLUTIONS PROVIDED BY THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESE RVATION The question now becomes "What can be done at this stage?" Are the conditions for housing artifacts too strict? Would less heating a nd more ventilating be reasonable alternatives to both lenders of artifacts and visiting patrons? Is the house-museum a bad idea altogether? What would be the alternative? We can look at the suggestions put forth by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and others as to what can be done with the systems that now exist. The situations for each historic building vary considerably so the suggestions must also be general. Use open windows, shutters, porches, curtains and trees to reduce heating and cooling loads. Retain or upgrade existing mechanical syst ems wherever possible. Reuse radiators, upgrade boilers, upgrade ventilation, and use proper thermostats and humidistats. Increase the energy efficiency of buildings by in stalling insulation in at tics and basements. Add vapor barriers only if it can be d one without damaging existing materials. Use spaces in existing chases or closets for new mechanical systems. Be as compatible with the existing architecture as possible. Hide systems in formal spaces, and avoid commercial registers. Use slot registers for these types of spaces. Size the systems to meet the availability of shafts and closets. Multiple zones will allow for a better utility of these spaces. If possible, use under-ground vaults for mechanical equipment. Provide adequate ventilation to me chanical rooms and public spaces. Selectively install intake grills. Maintain the minimum appropriate temperature and humidity control to meet requirements without accelerating de terioration any more than necessary. Monitor the situation of deterior ation as closely as possible. Design any new system with maintenan ce and future replacement in mind. For highly significant buildings, install safety monitoring equipment, backup equipment, and moisture detectors.


31 Prepare a proper maintenance program. Train for proper monitoring and maintenance of equipment. Also train for emergency conditions and problems. Have a proper emergency plan for the building as well as artifacts in case of an emergency. Do not install a new HVAC system if it can be avoided. Do not install a new type of system unless proper space is assured. Do not over design the system. Do not add ai r conditioning or climate control unless it is absolutely needed. Do not cut exterior historic buildi ng walls to add through the wall units. Do not damage historic finishes, or mask historic features in new installations. Do not drop ceilings or bulkheads across window openings. Do not remove repairable windows and repl ace with new. Repair them instead. Do not seal operable windows unless necessa ry for security or pollution control. Do not place new equipment on visi ble portions of historic roofs. Consider the weight of new equipmen t on the existing historic structure. Consider stresses caused by the vibration of new equipment. Do not allow condensation on windows or within walls to rot or spall adjacent historic building materials.1 1Sharon C. Park, A Preservation Briefs #24, (US Dept of the Interior, 1990), p. 12


32 CHAPTER 6 CASE STUDY METHOD This study began many years ago with my inte rest and education in engineering, and the HVAC field. As my interests and studies broa dened, I became familiar with the field of architecture. My lifelong inte rests in history lead me to museum houses and historic preservation. To start this project I first searched the lite rature for general information on the subject. As I researched deeper, I studied many museum examples, and spoke to many experts over the telephone, or sometimes had the chance to actually interview them. Finally, I started visiting museums that I thought might hold a sp ecial insight into the problem. The sites I chose to visit for this project incl uded the four that are us ed as case studies. They are Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Montic ello near Charlottesville, Virginia, Poplar Forest near Lynchburg, Virginia, and Mount Vernon, near Washingt on DC. Each was chosen for a particular reason. Independence Hall was chosen because it was undergoing the installation and testing of the most elaborate system to monitor, control, and anticipat e psychrometric conditions for indoor, outdoor, and wall interior conditions. Although only affordable for the most important historic buildings, it did provide some informa tion that may be applicable to less expensive systems in the future. Mount Vernon was chosen for exactly th e opposite reason. Although during the study Mount Vernon decided to go with an HVAC system up to that time it had done almost nothing to control conditions within the main plantation house. It was very close to being the same temperature and humidity conditions now as was in Washingtons day.


33 Monticello was chosen because it chos e to go the full HVAC path. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation decided to take the strict te mperature and humidity control standards that are used in the best artifact museums. This is most likely due to the nature of the artifacts at Monticello. Jefferson was a great collector of books and a prolific writer. Books and papers of Jefferson are in abundance at the site. He had a great love of mechanical instruments, paintings, and artifacts from the mid-west. All of these items needed strict environments for safety, so preference was given to these over the building itself. Time will tell of this was a good idea. The last case study was also a home of Thomas Jefferson, Poplar Forest. Although he only spent 2 or 3 weeks there twice a year, it wa s important to his design studies. In addition, it was damaged by a fire in the 1850s and remodeled afte r that time. In order to return it to the home Jefferson built, all the interi or wall finishes put there in th e 1850s were gutted. This left the bear walls which would easily allow for vapor barriers, insulation and other materials not normally used in historic preservation. Each case was evaluated for its particular situation and problems. Common situations and unique situations were studied in order to arrive at a final set of conclusions. Psychrometric data was prepared to aid in the analysis of the problems that arise during the decision to apply HVAC system s to historic properties.


34 CHAPTER 7 INDEPENDENCE HALL CASE STUDY Built between 1732 and 1753, the Pennsyl vania State House (now known as Independence Hall) is one of the most recognized historical buildings in the United State. It is also one of the most important from the standpo int of US heritage. The site of the Second Continental Congress, th e Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution has made it one of the most historically sacred sites in the US. But Independence Hall is also important from a historic preservation perspective. It is the site of one of the most elaborate building monitoring systems for HVAC control. Designed by William B. Rose & Associates, Inc. of Urba na Illinois, and in conjunction with Michael Eissenberg, Mechanical Engineer of the National Park Service, the system is designed to monitor both the outside and inside conditi ons of the building, factor in cl imatological data and forecast data in order to produce an internal environm ent that will not allow condensation on windows, and most importantly, inside walls. This computer programmed monitoring system has the ability to anticipate approaching conditions a nd adjusts temperatures and humidity levels accordingly. This system requires an entirely new approach to HVAC control systems. No longer will building managers consider set points for humidity and temperature. Instead they will need to allow indoor conditions to drift in response to outdoor conditions. A comfort range will be the key to controlling indoor condi tions. Comfort ranges have long been known to ventilation experts, with lower humidity levels compensating for higher temperatures. Air flow rates play an important factor here also. But with the current questioning of exactly what artifact conditions can be tolerated in a museum building, this approach has merit. It is now being proposed that drift conditions could be as much as from 80 degrees and 60% relative humidity in


35 summer to 60 degrees and 30% RH in winter m onths as was suggested to Independence Hall by Dr. Charles Bullock, Engineering Fellow for Carrier Corporation of United Technologies, a reasonable comfort condition could be maintained in historic buildings without causing undue damage to its structure. Dr. Bullock also suggests that return air systems be eliminated as much as possible. This allows a greater air flow within the building, simulating more natural ventilation. Finally, Dr. Bullock has high praises for pressurizing the build ing. This tends to force conditioned air into wall cavities and to outside conditions, keeping unwanted humidity outside. This type of system would be quite costl y, and could only be used in very important buildings. But the research by Dr. Bullock indi cates that buildings that require less costly systems could also benefit from the idea of dr ifting conditions. His study on indoor humidity level limits indicate: 1. Winter: a. Windowspotentially serious problem i. For an indoor temperature of 65F, c ondensation would likely occur (on the inside surfaces) when the outdoor temperature is less than 35F and ID RH is greater than 40%); ii. For an indoor temperature of 50F, c ondensation would likely occur (on the inside surfaces) when the outdoor temperature is less than 20F and ID RH is greater than 40%; iii. Conclusion: When OD temperature dr ops below 30F, it may be necessary to let the ID RH drop to 30% or lower. b. Walls -minor problem i. For an indoor temperature of 65F condensation would likely occur (within the walls) when the outdoor te mperature is less than 20F and ID RH is greater than 40%. For higher OD temperature, the ID RH can be higher than 40%;


36 ii. For an indoor temperature of 50F, c ondensation would occur (within the walls) when the outdoor temperature is less than 15F and ID RH is greater than 45%. For higher OD temperatures, the ID RH can be higher than 45%; iii. Conclusion: When ID temperature drops below 30F, it may be necessary to let the ID RH dorp to 40% or lower. 2. Summer a. Windowsvery minor problems i. For an indoor temperature of 75F, no condensation would occur. The ID RH could be greater than 85%; ii. For an indoor temperature of 85F, c ondensation would likely occur (on the inside surfaces) when the outdoor temp erature is less than 75F andID RH is greater than 70%; iii. For an indoor temperature of 95F, c ondensation would likely occur (on the inside surfaces) when the outdoor temperature is less than 75F and ID RH is greater than 60%; iv. Conclusion: Maintain ID temperatures below 80F and ID RH levels less than 60%. b. Wallsminor problem i. For an indoor temperature of 75F condensation would likely occur (within the walls) when the outdoor te mperature is greater than 90F and the outdoor RH is greater than 80%; ii. For an indoor temperature above 80F, condensation does not appear likely for any OD or ID RH; iii. Conclusion: Maintain ID temp eratures at 80F or higher.


37 CHAPTER 8 MONTICELLO CASE STUDY Monticello is the mountain top home designed and built by Thomas Jefferson. The home is actually a combination of tw o homes built there, the first being Jeffersons original design based on his study of Palladian architecture. Design started in 1767, construction in 1769, and the basic structure was complete d by 1784. Jefferson traveled to Europe in 1784 to 1796 as a diplomat for the United States. While ther e he studied, among other things, European architecture, especially that f ound in France. His return to th e United States began a new phase of demolition and building for the Monticello we know today. The structure was essentially complete soon after his retirement from the Presidency in 1809. On Jeffersons death the properly was wille d to Jeffersons daughter, Martha Jefferson Randolf in 1826. It then changed hands a number of times to James F. Barclay in 1831, Uriah P Levy in 1834, Jefferson Monroe Levy in 1879, and finally to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation in 1923. Monticello is a prime example of a hous e museum that has chosen to do everything possible to protect the historical artifacts contained within the home. One extremely important factor in this decision has b een the large numbers of books, owned by Jefferson, that are housed in his personal library. Although Jefferson did dona te his entire library to the US government to prime the Library of Congress, he immediately began collection books again. These books line his library and need strict humidity and temperature control to preserve. Until 1954 the HVAC system was Jeffersons design. It consisted of 18 hearths for heating and a thick wall masonry construction with an abundance of windows on all floors and all sides for ventilation. At that time a central system was insta lled, but had inadequate air flow and was undersized with a 26 ton compressor unit. Although upgraded in 1974 it remained


38 undersized. This under sizing may have actually been a benefit for the building at the expense of the historical artifacts. An undersized unit will tend to remove humidity but may not reduce sensible heat to a level that would be dangerous for the open cavities of the exterior walls. The 1954 system was state of the art at installa tion. It consisted of a dual-duct, constant volume forced air system. Hot and cold air duc ts connected to the basement with the supply ducts in the attic. Supply gril les were hidden wherever possible. Return air ran through fire place chimneys. Boilers were lo cated 100 yards from the home. In 1995 it was decided by the Thomas Jeffe rson Foundation to provide a system that would completely control the inte rior environment to museum standards. The same boilers were used, but chiller capacity was increased to 50 tons.1 Only time will tell if any damaging effects to the building will result from the increased air conditioning capacity. 1 Michael Merriam and Mindy Black, Historic Building Gets New HVAC System HPAC Heating Piping/Air Conditioning, May, 1996, pp. 87-88


39 CHAPTER 9 MOUNT VERNON CASE STUDY Mount Vernon, the home of George Washington, is one of the most visited home of a president in the United States. Built in 1757, it was purchased by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association of the Union in 1858. In 1996 an options study was begun by Dennis J. Pogue, Director of Restoration, on proposed HVAC systems for the Mansion. Mount Ve rnon had been, up to this point in time, one of the last hold outs for installi ng air conditioning systems to hist oric homes. Reasons sited for looking into possible new systems included concer ns for the detrimental impact on furnishings due to wide fluctuations in te mperature and humidity, similar con cerns for dirt and pollutants, visitor discomfort in the summer tourist season, and the inefficien t and obsolete condition of the existing system which was some direct heating in strategic places on the first floor only. Study data is included in Appendix Without cooling capabilities, inside c onditions can reach 90 degrees, with relative humidity fluctuating between 90 and 37%. Cons truction is heavy timber with wall thicknesses between 7 and 10 inches. Important to the director was the need to reduce the swings in humi dity (higher priority) and temperature for the internal artifacts as well as the comfort of the visitors and staff, but still be conscious of the concerns of condensati on inside the timber frame walls. Furniture consultants recommended a 70 de gree 50% relative humidity standard with no more than a 3 degree temperature variation and a 3% relative humidity swing, even in the most severe conditions. The director s ites recent studies that i ndicate that indicate humidity as being the most important criteria, and that wider ranges (3560%) may be acceptable as a reason to consider


40 humidistatic controls, which give priority to humidity over temperature, may be a good alternative for Mount Vernon. With these new parameters, engineers were given the task to study the options and make a recommendation as to the best t ype of system to meet Mount Ve rnons needs. They studied six types of systems. They were: Commercial AHU, Remote Water Chiller Unit Commercial AHU, Remote Condensing Unit Commercial AHU, Indoor Water Chiller Unit, River Water Commercial AHU, Commercial Split GroundCoupled Heat Pump, Vertical Well. Commercial AHU, Commercial Split GroundCoupled Heat Pump, Horizontal Grid Commercial AHU, Commercial Split Water-S ource Heat Pump, River Water Connection. Option No. 1 was chosen due to its inhe rent simplicity, reliability, and minimum requirements for changes to the landscape. Chi lled water will be supplied by a remotely located air-cooled water chiller sized at 100 tons. U nder ground piping will be used. Hot water will be supplied by an existing boiler.


41 CHAPTER 10 POPLAR FOREST CASE STUDY Poplar Forest is a second hom e of Thom as Jefferson. He began construction in 1806 on lands near Lynchburg, Virginia inherited at the deat h of his wifes father. Jefferson used it as a retreat from the large numbers of visitors that constantly inha bited Monticello and as a very private place where he said that he could go to read and to study.1 This project is run by The Corporation for Jeffersons Poplar Forest. Preservation of the site has been ongoing for over ten years and will continue for at least another twenty years. A decision will need to be made in about three years as to exactly wh at type of HVAC system would be st be suited for the project. Figure 10-1. Virgin brick wa lls Poplar Forest, Lynchburg, VA Poplar Forest is an ideal site for this type of study. Because it was damaged by fire in the 1850's, the original interior materials were repl aced at reconstruction. Al l of the 1850's interior materials have now been removed, leaving the vi rgin brickwork in place, both inside and out. That leaves the question of a va por barrier for protection from condensation open for discussion. The directors of this project are willing to do what ever is necessary to return the building to as close as possible to the origin al dwelling designed by Jefferson. To this end the discussion of a 1S. Allen Chambers, Jr., Poplar Forest and Thomas Jefferson, (Poplar Forest, 1993), pp. 4-10


42 vapor barrier may be very instructive as to how future preservationists may react to changing anything that was not original. From that point, d ecisions will need to be made as to artifacts for the building, expected visitor loa d, climate control and security. A ll of these issues will effect the decision of a proper HVAC system. There are a number of options open to them that are now under consideration. The first option is to simply do nothing. There are la rge windows around the entire home. Natural ventilation is a distinct possibili ty, especially since rest room, gift shops, and meeting buildings and offices are in other buildings on the estate. The next step would be a central fan type ventilation system. The cen ter of the building is raised allowing warm air to natu rally flow upward. A large skylight is in the center of the building. Vents around the skylight could easily hide the mechanical vents needed for a fan system. The building is not very large, and ha s only one main floor and a basement. Tours through the main floor would last under 10 minutes making the time inside bearable, even if temperatures were not at the most comfortable level. Although the basement is used for some disp lays, it is large enough to allow for some equipment and ducts should a modern HVAC system is chosen. The basement is cool year round, so air conditioning would only be required on the main floor. Since the walls were raised to their brick construction to re turn the building to the manner is was before the 1850 fire, a vapor barrier insulation installation would not be a problem as it would be on most historic projects. Dr. Bullocks studies on condensation s hould be most useful to this project, no matter how simple or how elaborate the system chosen becomes.


43 CHAPTER 11 CONCLUSIONS Before m aking any decision on installation of a HVAC system into a historic building, consider the general solutions by the Nationa l Trust for Historic Preservation listed in Chapter 5. Determine if a cooling system is actually required. Are there historic ar tifacts to consider? What materials make up the artifacts? How do they withstand humi dity? If only a few artifacts need special conditions you may want to consider re placing them with replicas and placing the valuable items into a more controlled museum setting. Is the major consideration comfor t? If so, consider natural ventilation as an alternative. Fans may be able to produce an air movement that would all adequate comfort if the visit to the area is just a short tour. If air conditioning is required, how much is nece ssary. Are strict conditions to be met? Would it be possible to use a d rifting set point to remain within a comfort range while still allowing adequate dew points within a wall? Consider an open return air system when a llowed by local fire codes. Air movement increases comfort levels on hot days. Consider a positive pressure system if air conditioning is required. The cost of pushing conditioned air though open cavity walls may in crease energy costs, but no cost could replace the historic structure. Determine the possibility of supplying visitor services in auxiliary buildings, leaving the historic structure for tour purpos es only. Short tours may not require the level of comfort a longer stay would require. Always consider the temperat ure and humidity settings wr itten by Dr. Bullock in the Independence Hall Chapter when planning heat ing or cooling system These ranges can not only save the historic building but provide energy savings as well.

















































































































PAGE 100

LIST OF REFERENCES ASHR AE, The ASHRAE Handbook, Applications, Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 1991 ASHRAE, The ASHRAE Handbook, Fundamentals Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 1993 Branham, Reyner, The Architecture of the Well-Tempered Environment. London: The Architectural Press, 1969 Bullock, Orin M., Jr., The Restoration Manual. Norwalk, CT: Silvermine Publishers, 1966 Burns, John A., AIA, Energy Conserving Features Inherent on Older Homes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develo pment and U.S. Department of the Interior, 1982 Chambers, S. Allen, Jr., Poplar Forest and Thomas Jefferson. Forest, VA: The Corporation for Jefferson=s Poplar Forest, 1993 The Corporation for Jefferson =s Poplar Forest, Notes on the State of Poplar Forest, Volume I. Forest, VA: The Corporation for Jefferson=s Poplar Forest, 1991 Cowan, Henry J., Science and Building; Structural and Envi ronmental Design in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978 Giedion, Siegfried, Mechanization Takes Command: A Cont ribution to Anonymous History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1948 Jandl, H. W., Technology of Historic American Buildings. Washington, DC: The Preservation Press National Trust for Hi storic Preservation, 1991 Kay, Gersil Newmark, Mechanical and Electrical System s for Historic Buildings. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1992 McDonald, Travis C., Jr., APreservation Briefs #35". Washingt on, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, date unknown McLaughlin, Jack, Jefferson and Monticello, The Biography of a Builder. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1988 Murtagh, William J., Keeping Time. Pittstown, NJ: The Main Street Press, 1988 Park, Sharon C., AIA, "Preservation Briefs #24" Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1990 Smith, Baird M., AIA, "Preservation Briefs #3, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1978

PAGE 101

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Glenn Arthur Spotts was born in Lykens, PA to Arthur and Geraldine Spotts in 1950. He has a younger brother, Dean. Raised in Miller sburg, PA, he graduated from Millersburg Area High School in 1968. In 1970 he graduated from the Harrisburg Area Community College with an Associate of Arts in Science degree. Employed in the microfilm industry, he worked as a shift supervisor and later became operations mana ger of the newly developed Computer Output Microfilm Division of the company. While employed, he continued his education on a part-time basis earning a second degree at the Harrisburg Area Community College, graduati ng in 1977 with an Asso ciate in Engineering degree. He then enrolled at the School of E ngineering at West Virginia University, earning a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engin eering in 1979. He went on to graduate school completing a Master of Engineering degree in 1980. Employed by E. I. DuPont de Nemours Company, he started his career as a process deve lopment engineer in the Connector Divisions Electroplating Department. He continued with po sitions in manufacturing, R&D, and pilot plant development. While in those positions, he al so started his own busin ess, first as a solar equipment retailer and installer, and late r expanding into ground water heating and air conditioning services. From there he conti nued into general cons truction, building energy efficient homes in Dauphin County, PA. With the pending sale of the Connector Division of DuPont, he began his study of architecture at the Harrisburg Area Commun ity College, earning a third associates degree, an Associ ate of Architecture. He later enrolled at the University of Florida as a graduate student working toward a Master of Architecture degree. While completing his final courses at the University of Florida he was employed by a local architecture firm, earning his IDP credits and preparing for his ar chitectural exam. He also is working toward his license as a professional engi neer. His personal in terests have included racquetball, sailing,

PAGE 102

auto racing, and, of course, following the sports teams of West Virgin ia University and the University of Florida.