APPENDIX B 



MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF ROUND WOOD PILES 



TREATED WITH PRESERVATIVES FOR USE IN SALTWATER 



1 . Source of Information 



The Civil Engineering Laboratory at the Naval Construction Battalion 

 Center, Port Hueneme, California, investigated the effects of various commer- 

 cial preservative treatments on the mechanical properties of wood. The in- 

 vestigation and results are described below in excerpts from Eaton, Drelicharz 

 and Roe (1978). 



2. Preservative Treatments 



"Thirty-five peeled Douglas fir logs as nearly alike as feasible were 

 selected from on-hand supplies and cut into pieces approximately 30 feet long, 

 nominally 12 inches in diameter at the butt end and 7 inches in diameter at 

 the tip end. These were separated into seven lots of five piles each. The 

 seven different lot treatments were: 



(a) Untreated, 



(b) standard creosote treatment, 



(c) ACA, 2.5 lb/cu ft of sapwood, 



(d) ACA, 1 lb/cu ft of sapwood, followed by kiln drying, followed 

 by standard creosote treatment, 



(e) ACA, 1 lb/cu ft of sapwood, followed by air drying, followed 

 by standard creosote treatment, 



(f) CCA, 1 lb/cu ft of sapwood, followed by kiln drying, followed 

 by standard creosote treatment, and 



(g) CCA, 1 lb/cu ft of sapwood, followed by air drying, followed 

 by standard creosote treatment. 



All preservative retentions met the minimum American Wood Preservers' Associ- 

 ation requirements except for the dual-treated CCA + creosote, both air- and 

 kiln-dried (see Table 1)." 



"Forty peeled southern pine logs as nearly alike as feasible were selected 

 from on-hand supplies and cut into forty pieces approximately 30 feet long, 12 

 inches in diameter at the butt end, and 7 inches in diameter at the tip end. 

 These were separated into eight lots of five piles each. Seven lots were 

 given the same levels of treatment as the seven lots of fir. An eighth treat- 

 ment - 2.5 lb of CCA/cu ft of sapwood - was used on the remaining eighth lot. 

 All preservative retentions met the minimum American Wood Preservers' Associ- 

 ation requirements." 



Note that the retentions for some preservatives were well above the speci- 

 fied minimums . 



407 



