Testing trees

Kevin

Kevin

Location
Ontario, Canada
Do you test every tree you climb for removal other than a visual?
Do you tap and probe each one?
I'm guilty of not testing every tree but I am going to start.
 
I'll do a visual all of the time. If I suspect a bad trunk, I thump with my hand, handsaw, stick or hammer. Another part of the thump test is to put your hand on the other side of the tree. Get a feeling for what the sound feels like. In decayed wood the dull sound will feel different.

A way to build up a stockpile of information is to go out in the wood yard and pound on a lot of logs. Do the same when a takedown is on the ground.

If you ever need to find out how thick the shell of solid wood is on a takedown. you can drill the trunk. But, most of the time, there isn't a drill available. An option is to bore into the tree with a chainsaw. Have the bar vertical. This only makes a slot in the trunk and doesn't significantly reduce the strength. This is a last resort technique.

We don't have a lot of problems with armellaria root rot here in MN. If you do in your area, a little time with a shovel is warrented.

Tom
 
I rarely 'tap and probe' a tree like it is a separate procedure. I visually inspect every tree before I climb just because it is how I do it. Fingers or whatever tool happens to be in my hand will automatically jump out and probe any suspicious looking areas. Information about tree strength and/or weakness is absorbed and processed as I'm looking at the tree and planning my climb. Root zone gets inspected as I'm putting on my gear and setting my rope (or before).
For me it's a mindset the whole time I'm on a job, not something I stop to do before the climb.
 
I do a visual inspection of every tree I climb. It may only take a few seconds for a small prune. And I always lok from the ground up 360 degees. On removals My inspection is more through. I carry biniculars, a rubber hammer for thump tests, we also own a Resistograph.
 
We drill a lot of trees. This is also done to determine whether or not a tree is a prime candidate for removal during the site inspection. Sometimes it looks bad, but the customer really wants to try to save the tree. This way you can present more information for the decision process.

If we find a problem on the first try, we'll then try two more different approaches. This way we can determine if decay is wide-spread or localized.

A simple cordless drill and 2' bit is all we usually use. With three angles, you can see quite a bit even on 5'+ DBH trees. A good thing to do is to drill a few inches and then remove the bit. This way you can check the discoloration the whole way through. We don't do this on every tree, but dangerous looking or suspicious trees for sure!
 
Drilling at the base of the tree (even Mark is only going to be able to look in at 6 foot) seems at first to be a good technique, but on reflection how much does it indicate? When we consider decay at the base, drilling may be fine, but it still needs to be intergrated into something more than a feel. Remember Roger's maple where the trunk was 90% hollow? I would likely have said no way, yet Roger sent two men up and successfully removed the tree.
Drilling also does not account for defects above drilling level. I believe Donzenalli died after the tree broke at about the 50 foot level. I would imagine he felt safe climbing above the (seen or unseen) defect, so here the "you get a feel after climbing 1000's of trees" method failed.

Michael
 
No method is 100% fool proof. "getting a feel for it" is one of the best methods out there.

I have wished I used Binoculars before. Bad thing about Big Shots and throwline. You can set a line much higher than you can thoroughly inspect.

I wouldn't knock a method because a man died. The very nature of this work guarantees that there WILL be injuries and deaths. It is our job to minimize these horrible accidents by using safe practices and erasing as many question marks as possible BEFORE climbing.
 
I may not be correct on this but I think Peter D. did not have a whole lot of time in the saddle he did have a wealth of tree and mechnaical knowlege, but I do not think he had enough experience to go with the "gut feeling" we all use so much. Many trees I have inspected, climbed and upon evaluation of it completed I wish I did not climb it. Same goes in reverse, upon inspection and gut feeling I say no. We bring in the crane and it turns out the tree was safe. These are living or were living organisoms experience can give a ton of info that would be very difficult to explain or write in a book.
 
I think Nathan hit the nail on the head. Many trees are ascended via throw line or big shot BLIND. I remember back in the day, setting a line on a scaffolding limb near the trunk but not at the juncture only to find out as I got up there,... there was a old sun scald on the top of the branch. Yahoo

We use a resisograph to test trees for customers, but rarely bring it in the field. Even with the resistograph, your not going to find EVERY defect in the tree. Only where you test it. Trees are living things and they fail sometimes unexplainably. Its unfortunate but true.
 
Yes I look at every tree carefully, alittle digging at the root flare, sounding the trunk looko at crotches with optics, boring the stem. Often this is done at time of estimate for removal anyway. My safety and my cremembers safety hinges on sound deciscion making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom