Open Forum

Are you still holding temperature and humidity constant everywhere? Curious how others are thinking about this…

I’ve been having a lot of conversations lately with facilities and conservation teams who feel a bit stuck between:

• Maintaining tightly controlled, constant conditions (typically around ~70°F / 50% RH)
• And the reality of rising energy costs + systems that are constantly “chasing” those setpoints

In a lot of cases, it’s not that people want to change—it’s that:

• There’s uncertainty around risk to collections
• And it’s not clear how to make changes without major system overhauls

There’s an upcoming Cultural Facility Shared Practice Meeting that’s digging into this topic, including:

• Research from TU Eindhoven on more flexible (“dynamic”) climate control approaches
• Real-world examples where museums reduced energy use significantly while maintaining (or improving) stability
• How teams are approaching this without ripping out existing systems

They’re also collecting a short questionnaire ahead of the session to get a sense of where institutions are today—should make for a more grounded discussion.

One thing I’m especially curious about:

Where are you on this spectrum right now?

• Keeping conditions constant across spaces?
• Starting to experiment with seasonal or more flexible ranges?
• Or somewhere in between but unsure how far to push it?

Would be great to hear how others are navigating this internally—especially between facilities and conservation teams.

If you want to join (or share your perspective in advance), here are the details:
April 28, 12pm ET / 9am PT
https://facilityissues.com/ci-sp-26-04/

------------------------------
Joseph Upjohn 
Museum Energy Consultant

Dyseco
------------------------------

Hi Joseph,

We maintain a 70/50 Vault at all times. Our system takes readings every 5 minutes and adjusts as needed.  At only 36,000 cubic feet it is not difficult to maintain. I've been watching the conversation regarding energy conservation vs object safety for a few years but still feel safer with the older guidelines.

Hi Dennis, 

One other aspect we've been looking at, separate from energy, is how objects respond mechanically over time under different control strategies.

When conditions are held very tightly at a fixed point like 70/50, materials aren't experiencing much day-to-day movement. That can feel "safe," but it also means the system is optimized for constancy rather than resilience.

In a number of cases, the bigger risk shows up during an unexpected event, equipment failure, a rapid weather shift, or loss of control, where conditions move quickly outside that narrow band.

What some of the newer research is suggesting is that when variation is introduced in a slow, controlled way (within safe boundaries), materials are less exposed to abrupt stress during those events compared to systems that are constantly correcting back to a fixed point and then suddenly lose control.

So it becomes less about allowing wide swings, and more about:
how to minimize harmful rates of change, especially in worst-case scenarios.

That's been an interesting angle in a few discussions lately. Curious if that aligns at all with what you've seen.

Also, thank you @Bruce, for the insights and research references!

Hi Dennis,

Great question. In a vault setting like yours, it typically doesn't mean abandoning 70/50 altogether. It's more about how tightly and uniformly that target is applied. A couple of practical ways this shows up:

• Zoning by collection type – instead of one uniform setpoint across the entire vault, some institutions are starting to define slightly different "climate classes" depending on what's stored (e.g. more tolerant materials vs. more sensitive ones), and controlling those zones independently.

• Controlled setpoint bands vs. single point targets – rather than holding exactly 70/50 at all times, the system could allow a narrow, controlled range and focus on avoiding rapid corrections. That reduces the constant cycling you mentioned while still staying well within conservation-safe limits.

• Smoother control logic – instead of reacting every few minutes to hit a fixed number, the system would prioritize gradual adjustment and stability over time, so you don't get the continuous "chasing" behavior, which expends big energy.

In smaller volumes like your vault, you already have an advantage because control is easier. But it becomes interesting when you start asking: are all objects benefiting equally from the same level of tightness, or could some flexibility be introduced without increasing risk?

Out of curiosity-do you have a mix of object types in that vault? And if so, are you able to treat them differently from a control standpoint, or is everything currently managed as one uniform environment?

Hi @Dennis - I want to share with you a recording link to the webinar session my CEO, Professor Rick Kramer, presented last week with the Cultural Facilities Issues monthly working group. There were over 75 people registered representing over 50 museums or cultural facility-related partners. 

We had a really stimulating conversation around:

• Environmental control strategies for collections spaces
• Energy reduction without compromising preservation
• Seasonal setpoint optimization
• BAS monitoring and operational workflows
• Practical lessons learned from real museum facilities

For anyone who wants to revisit the discussion-you can access the full recording here:

Dynamic Climate Control Case Studies - Facility Issues