Beech co-dominant branches. Compression / stress fractures?

[Gary Prentice]

Have you a link to the fasteners for that system? I'm not sure it's recognised over here

[treeseer]

Have you a link to the fasteners for that system? I'm not sure it's recognised over here

 

bLIMEY! try google Rigguy, Inc >> Solving Your Challenges Through Innovative Solutions and file:///C:/Users/guy/Downloads/sp3062-2wedgegripde__.pdf

 

They're not well (enough) recognised over here either, because of ultraconservative interests choking information flow, to resist changing their scripts.

 

Ergo, a 9/16" hole is 'standard', instead of a 1/4" hole. In a beech, Liriodendron, soft maple, you know the result. Lovely.

 

Utterly befuddling to a through-cabling arborist that a uk guidebook on vet tree mgt. has 40 pages on pruning and barely 40 words on supplemental support. Cultural taboos carry weight over here too--some places have a lot more lopping going on, while others have trended away; it's no longer the style.

Edited March 27, 2014 by treeseer

[David Humphries]

Utterly befuddling to a through-cabling arborist that a uk guidebook on vet tree mgt. has 40 pages on pruning and barely 40 words on supplemental support. Cultural taboos carry weight over here too--some places have a lot more lopping going on, while others have trended away; it's no longer the style.

 

50 words actually (if you include the title & the associated BS numbers that is) 'Management of weak structures' on page 170

 

 

 

.

[fagus]

Mmm, the unions wouldn't bother me. Classic case of putting bungalow under a large tree, I would hazard a guess that the roots were affected when that property was put in. A lack of good advice at the time methinks.

I would take some weight off. Though I am sure it would help bracing acknowledges there is a fault in the tree.

The safe option that close was the tree or the bungalow, not both. certainly needs regular inspection.

Mind you if that was the case it would fall away from the bungalow,what is on the other side?

[treeseer]

David, thanks for the math check. I underestimated that guidance by 20%; mea maxima culpa.

 

fagus, why would you take some weight off? I am sure those pruning works would acknowledge there is a fault in the tree. More info on tree and site conditions needed to make a prognosis.

 

I've worked on many trees that were much larger and much closer to a residence. The owners were not cowering under their beds in fear of that proximity.

[treesrus]

for this reason, and the proximity to structures, i would recommend removal and replace with something more suitable.

[daltontrees]

Mmm, the unions wouldn't bother me. Classic case of putting bungalow under a large tree, I would hazard a guess that the roots were affected when that property was put in. A lack of good advice at the time methinks.

I would take some weight off. Though I am sure it would help bracing acknowledges there is a fault in the tree.

The safe option that close was the tree or the bungalow, not both. certainly needs regular inspection.

Mind you if that was the case it would fall away from the bungalow,what is on the other side?

 

I neither agreeing nor diagreeing with you, I am just curious about something. If you took off enough weight to make a significant difference to the splitting force of teh dead load on the basal compression fork, wouldn't that cause the stem to straighten up, transferring compression into the fork and putting unaccustomed loads onto the narrow zone of adaptive growth at the poinbt of included bark? Wouldn't cambium at the margin be crushed?

 

Or do you mean that removing weight would be done to remove wind forces? Or both?

 

I see the base of treesrus's failed tree is fluted and has perhaps pockets of decay or dead bark that might have contributed to failure through dessication or decay. The OP's butt ('scuse the expression) looks mint by comparison.

[treesrus]

I see the base of treesrus's failed tree is fluted and has perhaps pockets of decay or dead bark that might have contributed to failure through dessication or decay. The OP's butt ('scuse the expression) looks mint by comparison.

this beech i reckon is considerably older, and did have some small pockets of decay. but why wait on this potentially occuring with OP's tree, in twenty years a replacement tree would fill the space nicely.

[Gary Prentice]

bLIMEY! try google Rigguy, Inc >> Solving Your Challenges Through Innovative Solutions and file:///C:/Users/guy/Downloads/sp3062-2wedgegripde__.pdf

 

They're not well (enough) recognised over here either, because of ultraconservative interests choking information flow, to resist changing their scripts.

 

Ergo, a 9/16" hole is 'standard', instead of a 1/4" hole. In a beech, Liriodendron, soft maple, you know the result. Lovely.

 

.

 

Thanks Guy,

 

I think you've given me this link before and I didn't look at our standard then, to see if it's actually compliant over here. I don't think it is but I'll have to have a look.

[hesslemount]

Any takes on using the more flexible cobra (I think it's called) system allowing more flexibility than bracing which I'm not keen on for various reasons. The ridge of bark below the crotch gives me some reassurance that it's not truly incurred to base of stem. Building works and a build up of soil at base is a worry.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk