FAO Hama, MonkeyD and other hippy treehuggy types

[Amelanchier]

Ok next question, if I go with rod bracing, how many, distance between rods?

 

Hard to say Andy. I vauguely remember a rule of thumb involving twice the diameter but I can't find the source. The 2008 draft revised BS3998 suggests the following with regard to materials but declines to be definitive on position:

 

Annex G

Support for weak structures

G.1 General

One of two types of rod should be used when providing support bracing within a tree:

a) Threaded rod: a metal bar threaded along its length with a wood screw thread should be screwed into a lead hole 1 mm to 2 mm smaller in diameter than the rod and extending into sound wood either side of the structural weakness for at least half the diameter of the second stem/branch. This form of rod should be used only where the wood is free from decay. After screwing the rod into the lead hole excess metal should be cut off flush with the bark;

b) Bolt, nuts and washers: a long, unthreaded metal shank should be placed through a predrilled hole 1 mm to 2 mm larger than its diameter. The ends of the rod should be threaded with a metal screw so that they can be secured as appropriate with washers and nuts. The washers should be counter-sunk to the cambium and the nuts should be secured to hold the parts of the tree together. This treatment should be used for soft wooded species, e.g. Populus spp, Salix spp and Aesculus spp. Washers should be at least 2½ times the diameter of the bolt.

 

And, as its in a conservation area, and the trunk would require drilling, and given that drilling is invasive, would i need to notify the TO?

 

Yep. Standard six weeks notice under S211.

[Andy Collins]

Very good Tony, well in fact both tony's (or is the plural Tonies?)

This info has made my mind up as to my course of action now. Sometimes you get something whirring in your head, and its good to just mull it over and over with others til the mud settles and you can see through again.

Be emailing the TO tomorrow and invite him on a site visit, run through all these points, hopefully make a decision based on the info received here, then see that takes me. Cheers again guys:thumbup:

[Marcus B-T]

Some info: In terms of oaks and types of failure, with Q. robur the most likely type of faiure with this kind of tree is limb failure. If it doesn't have any large and long limbs on it with cavitated areas behind the upper part of the limb union there is unlikely to be a failure. If the tree still has a decent canopy on it in this state it indicates good functional wood in the root systema and up the stem. The rate of retrenchment is key in these cases, what you need to avoid is these larger limbs, height is less of an issue, since you have already indicted it is reduced agianst DBH, and it is in a sheltered location. It may be that there is no reason to do any work. The problem with the attributes seen with VTA is that they may be historical and happened when the tree had a larger canopy, but without a full picture or a site visit it is very hard to say.

 

When it comes to Q. petraea and also some of the upright hybrids it is different thes often do retain a thicker canopy that becomes an issue and causes basal failure once you get to 80-90% basal dysfunction. They are less predictable as well since they tend to have a fuller canopy and look very healthy with a fuller canopy but this makes them more prone to basal failure. What amazes me is the small amount of functional wood Q. petraea can get away with.

 

Regards

 

Marcus

[Marcus B-T]

On a different note I saw some fantistic structures recently where trees blown over by storms where re-errected and held upright with tripods, not cheap though.

 

Marcus

[Andy Collins]

Thank you Marcus, interesting information and duly noted. This particular tree appears to be very healthy (given the trunks condition) the target below comprises of a new park fencing, the area is not accessed except by myself and maybe the gardener. I'm in favour of leaving well be tbh, just wanted opinions from those with more experience on veterans. Thank you all:thumbup1:

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

The problem with the attributes seen with VTA is that they may be historical and happened when the tree had a larger canopy, but without a full picture or a site visit it is very hard to say.

 

Regards

 

Marcus

 

You underestimate the ability of a practiced VTA practitioner to distinguish between historical and active VTA symptoms. you should word things differently, unless of course your saying that VTA system is not that good?

 

NO.... you wouldnt would you?

[Marcus B-T]

I have used vta since some of the first papers came out and still continue to use it. I did use the phrase "may be unclear" and i would only give the broad outline information as above based on a photo. The issue is that if a branch is removed today then all that it caused becomes historical today. Without a site visit this is uncertain.

[Andy Collins]

If I get time at the back end of this week, I'll try and get back for some pics from t'other side. I value all opinions, else I wouldn't have asked, and my T/O's opinion will be sought and added to the equation.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I have used vta since some of the first papers came out and still continue to use it. I did use the phrase "may be unclear" and i would only give the broad outline information as above based on a photo. The issue is that if a branch is removed today then all that it caused becomes historical today. Without a site visit this is uncertain.

 

I agree, in my explaining the Hose pipe buckles, i am merely offering Andy an oportunity to look and observe the potential defect to look for here in his case.

 

I just wanted to make sure that no one thinks VTA is flawed, I am rather keen on it!

 

we all know how easy it can be to mis interprate!