Michael G. Sanders

Supplemental Treatments for Timber Bridge Components

A series of joint treatments on southern pine, red oak, and yellow-poplar were evaluated. These included treatments applied in holes that were subsequently capped, treatments applied to bolt holes and/or bolts, treatments applied to felt pads located between wooden members, and treatments applied directly to the surfaces of the joints. Water-soluble diffusible systems applied in holes adjacent to joints generally performed more poorly than expected because of the lack of rainfall during the exposure period. The notable exception was a copper-borate paste applied directly to the joint area. Application of a solvent-borne copper naphthenate with or without a water repellent to felt pads was also very effective. Water repellent alone and fumigant treatments gave unsatisfactory performance over the long term. To simulate hazards encountered by piling, kiln-dried untreated southern pine pole stubs that received various supplemental treatments were placed in the field for 41 months. Upon groundline evaluation of these test specimens, it was noted that seven preservatives or combinations of preservatives looked very favorable. The following treatments yielded sound stubs with no evidence of decay or insect attack: (1) copper-borate paste applied to the surface at and below groundline; (2) copper-borate paste applied to the surface at and below groundline plus boron rods inserted into holes near groundline; (3) copper-borate paste applied to the surface at and below groundline plus fumigant inserted into holes near groundline; (4) pentachlorophenol grease applied to the surface at and below groundline; (5) fluoride paste applied to the surface at and below groundline; (6) fluoride paste applied to the surface at and below groundline plus boron rods inserted into holes near groundline; and (7) fluoride paste applied to the surface at and below groundline plus fumigant inserted into holes near groundline.