Horse Chesnut with cracks

[treequip]

You can run the chain through polly hose to stop it chafing the tree.

 

Once installed you can always get an annual inspection contract

 

Andy

[Bundle 2]

I still think the modern alternatives are superior to chain for a number of reasons and the inclusion of a shock absorption element could be well used in these situations I have seen failure arrested by such systems and they work well but as we know, it is not intended to prevent failure. The last thing you want to happen is for the " dumping " of a load ( force ) creating massive transverse loading in the stem affected and effectively failing twice...a bit like the story of the broomstick that wont stop washing the floor at the behest of the sorcerers apprentice; the solution was to cut it in half but it got up , twice, and continued at 2 x the work rate!!

There are other aspects that would make the products superior imo...eg, the fatigue/loading indicator strands.

It goes without saying btw that such an installation, whilst not designed to be loaded ( except in the case of failure ) would require to be inspected in the very least in accordance to the manu's specifications.

At this point, I want to say that a thorough examination of the " defect " as it has been described needs to be carried out.

[Tully]

I still think the modern alternatives are superior to chain for a number of reasons and the inclusion of a shock absorption element could be well used in these situations I have seen failure arrested by such systems and they work well but as we know, it is not intended to prevent failure. The last thing you want to happen is for the " dumping " of a load ( force ) creating massive transverse loading in the stem affected and effectively failing twice...a bit like the story of the broomstick that wont stop washing the floor at the behest of the sorcerers apprentice; the solution was to cut it in half but it got up , twice, and continued at 2 x the work rate!!

There are other aspects that would make the products superior imo...eg, the fatigue/loading indicator strands.

It goes without saying btw that such an installation, whilst not designed to be loaded ( except in the case of failure ) would require to be inspected in the very least in accordance to the manu's specifications.

At this point, I want to say that a thorough examination of the " defect " as it has been described needs to be carried out.

 

I agree.... so why are we disregarding a slight tip reduction to lessen the shock loading capabilities on the bracing system? Obviously aesthetics may come into it but since the tree is in a school and by the looks from the pictures a road lies besides the tree it, to me, would seem like the sensible option.

[Bundle 2]

Then you have missed the point....

[Mesterh]

A catch chain? what would you attach it too? I'm guessing the tree so you are going to be messing with the trees current state or its adaptive growth." whether it runs through a polly hose or not.

 

It looks like a decent sized limb which would take a hell of a lot to stop it hitting the deck.

 

I'd probably go with what others have said in either reduce the weight or cable brace it.

[Bundle 2]

It is bracing mate...but noy there to mess with adaptive growth processes as it is an inert system...or did yoyu just not get that bit!!?

Remember we dont know whether the crack is cause for concern...I get tired of hazard tree experts popping left , right and center...it really doesnt help!!

[Mesterh]

Allright calm down calm down!

 

I never dis say I was a hazard tree expert.

 

I retract my statement in my previous post and say just remove the limb problem or not

[Marc]

It is bracing mate...but noy there to mess with adaptive growth processes as it is an inert system...or did yoyu just not get that bit!!?

Remember we dont know whether the crack is cause for concern...I get tired of hazard tree experts popping left , right and center...it really doesnt help!!

 

Intresting is this another product to a cobra brace? or is it basically the same thing in principle? We've set 4ton and i beleieve there is even 8 ton systems out there, generally loose so that the tree still moves and try's to adpat to the defect if you know what i mean.

 

I agree no one can make an accurate assesment of the tree in this thread, I'm deffinetly not an expert yet I am intrested does that mean i shouldn't post my opinions or observations?

[ecolojim]

I cant believe panties are getting in a twist yet again! Im feeling a certain 'Im right so nobody else can be' vibe and its not condusive to a happy home. Group Hug!

 

anyway. personally, looking at it from a physics and common sense POV since I dont have the arb pedigree of you guys, there is a prospective hazard and a prospective target. one or both need to be mitigated.

 

if the path (target) cannot be, then the 'prospective' hazard must be.

 

options already mentioned are reduction, removal or visible means of support (of varying kinds)

 

I certainly cant see why reduction and bracing cant be utilised together, as bracing cannot reduce or control torsional stresses through the limb. the bracing only takes weight in one plane.

 

position of the brace on the hazard limb in relation to the limb's vertical attitude will also be crucial. for example a mature or older ceder of lebanon with a branch of almost perfectly horizontal plane, if braced somewhere in the region of its centre of balance, will remove almost all loading at the trunk union mitigating its failure, whereas adding it at points of great imbalance only serves to create a fulcrum point about which loads and forces have changed somewhat. This could be a positive or a negative effect.

This branch appears to go almost straight upward. any 'bracing' would therefore logically need to go towards the upper end and be more 'fall arrest' than support. If the angles at any point between bracing points and length of free 'cord/wire/boa/whatever' between those points plus any elongation suggests that upon failure, any part of the limb could or would get within x distance of the ground, then I would certainly consider removing the limb altogether.

 

however, the removal of the limb would be foolhardy if the crack can be inspected and deemed not to fail. there is the added point of the tree's location adding a certain extra weighting to its risk and fate.

 

IMO lives are worth more than trees, and what method of hazard mitigation at this stage is pretty academic. the first thing HAS to be a full assessment of the defect.

[scudmonster]

I agree, the only way to treat your customers is by giving them best advice and if this means telling them not to touch it then so be. Honesty is the best policy.

If you are worried about the limb a thin wont hurt. Personally I wouldn't brace as then your client is admitting there is a flaw in the tree. This will also lead to having to maintain a brace.