Tree Tech Consulting    The Knothole  Hop To Forum Categories  General Arboriculture    Risk Assessment methods

Closed Topic Closed
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Risk Assessment methods
 Login/Join 
RCA #354
BCMA #PD0008b
Administrator
posted
I have been working on a basic software calculator that will take known data points and yield results for several popular risk formulas. I currently have the Bartlett modified formula for strength, and Mattheckâ™s t/R formula.

What other methods or formula do you use? What should be included as part of a structural analysis, in your opinion?

--
Russ Carlson, RCA
 
Posts: 287 | Location: Bear, DE USA | Registered: Wednesday June 18, 2003Report This Post
<Scott Cullen>
posted
The Wessolly formulae would suggest that t/R is overly conservative without a consideration of wind load and lever arm length.

You could also do Mattheck's "critivcal root plate" ratios and H/D ratios.
 
Report This Post
RCA #354
BCMA #PD0008b
Administrator
posted Hide Post
The critical root plate is already in a module for root assessment. The H/D would be a good one to add.

In a post in another threat you mentioned this. However, in that context- root loss- the H/D does not mean much. It applies to the probability of breakage in poorly tapered stem, and has little (nothing?) to do with root stability. While an argument might be made that the right taper in the trunk reflects a better developed root system, that is not what Mattheck has reported, and there is no data for North American trees.

--
Russ Carlson, RCA

[This message was edited by Russ Carlson on Tuesday June 24, 2003 at 10:23 PM.]
 
Posts: 287 | Location: Bear, DE USA | Registered: Wednesday June 18, 2003Report This Post
<Scott>
posted
I'm away from home and will be on the road a few days. I'll double check the Mattheck H/D material as it relates to root stability.

BTW I'm getting a readable character set now though something is funny about the proportions and the punctuation at end of sentence is high relative to the base of the characters on the "line." I notice that now some of the formatting icons are gone though some of the descriptive bubbles pop up for those spaces.
 
Report This Post
<Scott>
posted
BTW are there North Americvan data for t/R? The Bartlett formula is a strength loss formula but I believe Mattheck arrived at his "critical" t/R by observing failed trees.
 
Report This Post
<Scott>
posted
OK, the strange character set is back along with the missing formatting icons.

I looked at the "Pauli" book which introduces the H/D concept. It is quite unclear about uprooting vs trunk fracture. In fact it uses neither term. It uses "failure" and "fall over." The "archery model" graphics seem to include the roots.

Recall that Mattheck's theories rest on the Axiom of Uniform Stress which suggests to Claus that the tree should be a chain of equally strong links. A good H/D ratio would suggest, I think< that both trunk and root system are well formed.

It does apply to a tree without decay or root disturbanc

I have a Google translated paper from the German original on the Karlsruhe website but I have to reformat it before I can check it out. Claus had submitted H/D papers to ARnoldia (that one was never published) and Arboricultural Journal. Anybody know if the AJ piece was published? MAybe we shouls inquire at UKTC.

SC
 
Report This Post
RCA #354
BCMA #PD0008b
Administrator
posted Hide Post
quote:
Recall that Mattheck's theories rest on the Axiom of Uniform Stress which suggests to Claus that the tree should be a chain of equally strong links. A good H/D ratio would suggest, I think< that both trunk and root system are well formed.


What Mattheck is short on mentioning is that AoUS applies to a stabilized tree. Unfortunately, once the tree gorws wood in place, it stays there until it literally rots. And sometimes trees donâ™t respond too quickly or to well to events. So we canâ™t always know if the current condition has been stabilized by AoUS. Thatâ™s a big assumption to make.

I can accept H/D ratios for trunk stability in general, but I think there are too many variables yet to draw conclusions about the root system from it. How many times have we looked at a tree that looks fine, but we know it had a trench cut 8 feet away three years ago, with no sign on the surface. To say it works for natural trees, but maybe not in the landscape makes it useless to me for predicting root stability.

--
Russ Carlson
Bear, DE USA
 
Posts: 287 | Location: Bear, DE USA | Registered: Wednesday June 18, 2003Report This Post
<Scott>
posted
The limitation you describe for "tipping" or "overturning" stability, that is no damage subsequent to natural growth which created the observed H/D ratio, is equally limiting in aeessing trunk resistance to fracture. Mattheck clearly says it is applicable to "undecayed" trees.

H/D is one potentially useful tool in the kit. Usefullness is quite related to the other tools it is used with, most importantly the judgment of judgment of the assessor.

You are quite correct that there may be a lag between any observed conditions and the stimuli they are related to. An example is using Mattheck's "trunk fracture monent" approach to estimating wind load. If a trunk is hollow has the tree adjusted to applied loads with adaptive growth? or it it vulnerable? The associated formulae and questions are in detail in my paper the the Proceedings of the Tree Structure and Biomechanics Conference.

SC
 
Report This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  

Closed Topic Closed

Tree Tech Consulting    The Knothole  Hop To Forum Categories  General Arboriculture    Risk Assessment methods

© 1997-2003 Tree Tech Consulting. All messages are the property of the original author.