Peter Sterken

I think that none of the tree assessment methods work and that their predictive value is close to zero

I'm glad to hear that, finally 😁

The (second version, as the first had somo paragraphs repeated) article is attached here as a pdf-file 🙂 An analysis of the “generalised tipping curve” of the SIM pulling tests, the “dynamic” SIM wind load analysis and VTA_Peter Sterken.pdf

The article is attached here as a pdf-file The abstract is: Current methods such as the Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) of Mattheck and the pulling tests of Wessolly (SIM) and others will be analysed here. A number of authors have asserted since 1998 that their “generalised tipping curve” (GTC) would predict the uprooting of trees by extrapolating small values of stembase tilt angle under a static pull, and that 100% of the maximum or critical uprooting moment (Mcrit) would be reached at 2.5º. However, evidence elucidated from literature and pulling tests strongly suggest that a very different tipping curve (similar to a curve published in 1965 by a comparatively unknown researcher) has been used instead for the pulling tests, where 1º = 100% Mcrit. That curve will be called the SIM curve herein. A number of related researchers report contradictory findings, by showing either uprooted trees that had obeyed the GTC (0.25º) or trees that had perfectly obeyed the SIM curve (1º) which is confusing. This paper also analyses highly-cited and influential proclamations regarding the GTC and the “dynamic” versus “quasi-static” WLA, that may have, quite simply, sprouted from unconscious research bias. An analysis of the “generalised tipping curve” of the SIM pulling tests, the “dynamic” SIM wind load analysis and VTA_Peter Sterken.pdf

Wonderfully said!! The following article is not as complex as the Nature one, and it also analyses some tree risk assessment methods: article tree risk assessment

if you're in the commercial forestry or simply trees, you may be interested in this article article tree risk assessment

@spuddog0507 you are totally right about that!! But at least someone needs to publish the flaws of commercial methods and criteria that have been sold, and bought, without questioning 😉

When I see your comment: likewise 😂 But: why would Nature, for God's sake, publish an article that would bore @spuddog0507 ? Mysteries of the universe.... 🤣

Thanks Jules!

Dated? Hmmm... don't think so 🙂

no, it's also about trees, pulling tests, tomography, drilling, t/R ratios, wind load analysis, etc... 🙂

Too often, arboriculture has rigidly focused on easy-to-understand, but simplistic and erroneous theories. Perhaps partially because a lot of people have made money thanks to them (which is totally understandable and respectable, in a sense). However... if we stay within the limits of those theories, then our mind will possibly not be able to devise the path of evolution. Read here the article Nature on tree risk assessment

The quest for a unified theory on biomechanical... WWW.NATURE.COM Scientific Reports - <ArticleTitle Language="En" OutputMedium="All" xml:lang="en">The quest for a unified...

Evolution is only possible thanks to scientific REvolution. Too often, arboriculture has rigidly focused on easy-to-understand, but simplistic and erroneous theories. Perhaps partially because a lot of people have made money thanks to them (which is totally understandable and respectable, in a sense). However... if we stay within the limits of those theories, then our mind will possibly not be able to devise the path of evolution.* See: Article Nature Sterken-2021-Scientific_Reports.pdf