search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
74 | Feature: Treated Wood Performance


SUMMARY


■The WPA/BRE field trial has run for seven years


■There are two UK test sites ■Spruce, larch, Douglas fir and pine are being tested


■The next inspection will be in three years’ time


MAGNIFICENT SEVEN An independent scientific study carried out by WPA and BRE confirms treated wood performance


Above left: The WPA field trial site Birnie Wood in Scotland Above right: The seven year inspection of an incised spruce post at the BRE Garston site


In 2015 the Wood Protection Association (WPA) in collaboration with the Building Research Establishment (BRE), commissioned a long-term controlled field trial of sawn and pressure treated British softwood. The purpose was to test the performance of ground contact fencing timbers in a robust and independent study – the results of which would help to:


• Gain valuable input into the future development of industry technical


standards


• Support the WPA Benchmark quality approval scheme for treated wood


• Build lasting confidence in preservative treated British softwood species in this


application as a capable, reliable and quality product


Seven years on and the findings are very positive – they are showing that wood, preservative treated correctly for its end use, can be trusted to perform in the field.


TEST CRITERIA AND RESULTS There are 80 untreated posts and 600 treated posts (treated in accordance with WPA


TTJ | July/August 2022 | www.ttjonline.com


Benchmark quality criteria) each installed at two UK test sites with differing soil conditions. Matched samples of spruce (un- incised and incised), larch, Douglas fir and pine are being tested.


The BRE performance assessment of the timber after seven years has shown slightly different results from each site, but the overall outcomes are similar:


• Significant failure of untreated fence posts at both test sites


• No significant signs of change or deterioration in the inspected treated posts


at either site


• In the case of incised and treated spruce, there were no signs of deterioration at


either site


An Information Sheet giving further details of the year seven inspection of this study can be downloaded from the WPA website.


CONCLUSION SUMMARY


Seven years is a significant period in terms of drawing conclusions from the inspection data. The fact that treated posts are still performing


FURTHER INFORMATION For further information on the innovative


WPA Field Trial or any other matter relating to industrial wood treatment, please go to https://www.thewpa.org.uk or email us via contact@thewpa.org.uk


well after seven years’ service in two very different sets of ground conditions clearly contradicts the anecdotal ‘conclusions’ being drawn by some in the fencing sector – that following the widespread switch from CCA to copper organic preservatives 12-14 years ago, early failures of posts after three to four years were due to the inferior performance of the new preservatives. Clearly, there must have been other factors involved.


All posts were reinstalled into their holes and the field trial continues until the next inspection. This will be in three years’ time in March 2025, after 10 years in ground contact – these results will be of further interest to all in the timber industry. ■


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85