I am looking to construct an archway in the garden. I have the design
all worked out and it will be lashed together with rope and secured to
the ground with concrete footings - probably with some soil to cover
the top of the concrete.
The question is - what wood do I use for the construction? I have
found the following options :
"Grown from the Eucalyptus Grandis tree these poles have a natural
taper over their length. They are also very strong, their density is
similar to oak, and their natural appearance make them perfect for a
variety of uses. All poles are stripped of bark, Tanalith E treated,
and are far stronger than bamboo or machine round alternatives. They
are strong enough to be used in building construction."
or
Telegraph poles - ACQ treated, new. A choice here appears to be either
stripped of bark and supplied as is, or machined to give a uniform
finish.
or
Chestnut from a managed woodland in East Sussex. Not treated, but can
have the bark stripped if required.
My criteria would be (in order) Long lasting (Ie. not rotting through
at the base) and natural looking. I am guessing the first option
(Eucalyptus) is imported so would prefer something 'local' (at least
from this country!). And I am lead to believe the heart wood of
Chestnut is such that it will not rot for a long time without needing
to be treated.
Any advice or opinions (or resources!) would be helpful!
Thanks,
David.
No wrote:
> David - Some more info about your project may be useful. The lashed
> together part will have many scratching their heads. Also, the
> descriptions sound like logs/poles not lumber. Assuming thats the case.
The lashings would be done in rope - so the whole structure would be
tied together.
So I am after a 'rustic' look, but it's difficult to descirbe how it
will look.
To try and give you an idea it will be 4 poles in total, about 6metres
(20 feet?) long. Taking 2 poles, you lean the top in to give you a
triangle, 90 degree angle at the top between the two, and tie them
together at the top. Repeat with the other pair. Put the two
'triangles' together and then you seperate them at the top, keeping the
feet together to form 90 degrees between the two 'triangles' and tie
together. Around this frame you then create a rope latice.
The inspiration is drawn from a gateway I saw on a scout camp once, but
I have never ever found a reference or picture of it since.
> The chestnut is pretty rare if it really is chestnut (American). I have
> a cottage that was originally built with American chestnut posts set
> right into the dirt. 100 years later they were still intact. All
> chestnut these days is really a different species I believe. Someone
> correct me if I'm wrong.
Ahh - indeed, as someone else has mentioned I am in the UK.
> So, tell us if you are looking for bark stripped poles, poles with bark
> or just lumber. If just lumber then redwood, cedar, mahogany, ipe would
> all be fine choices.
Not sure on the definition of lumber to be honest, but poles it should
be. No real preference on being stripped or not.
> Also - You want to not use concrete. Gravel at bottom of hole and tight
> pack dirt around to hold it. Have you ever seen a telephone pole in
> concrete? Concrete will accelerate the deterioration.
Interesting - not thought about that approach, but the poles would be
at an angle. on the plus side they will only need to support
themselves, plus whatever plants I grow over it.
Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 12 Jun 2006 03:55:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >I am looking to construct an archway in the garden.
>
> Larch - no question. Cheap, usable and so chock-full of natural
> turpentine that it lasts well in the UK climate.
Haven't found a Larch supplier - the ones I have found have been
difficult enough!!
> I would never use anything pressure treated, tanalised or tanalith
> treated. There's enough undisposable toxic waste around without making
> more of it. Also the stuff still rots if you ever drill holes through
> it.
No holes in the wood, but a natural product would get my vote if it
will last.
> >Chestnut from a managed woodland in East Sussex. Not treated, but can
> >have the bark stripped if required.
>
> Chestnut is very good for garden furniture, but not what I'd choose for
> a structure like this. You can do good work in it, but it's brittle in
> thin sections. Think about it for tables or seating though.
>From my other reply I think you can get a better idea of what I am
doing now, so the poles would not be thin or split in any way.
> >Telegraph poles - ACQ treated, new. A choice here appears to be either
> >stripped of bark and supplied as is, or machined to give a uniform
> >finish.
>
> Telegraph poles last because of how they're treated. You don't want that
> smell in a summer garden (likewise railway sleepers).
Agreed - but the smelly ones are treated with Tar - which can leak,
will smell, and will always look terrible!
So would you go with the Chestnut then?
I don't think the OP is from the good ol US of A, unless there's and East
Sussex somewhere that I don't know about.
His lumber/timber/log needs and choices may be different.
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No wrote:
>
>> So, tell us if you are looking for bark stripped poles, poles with
>> bark or just lumber. If just lumber then redwood, cedar, mahogany, ipe
>> would all be fine choices.
>
> Don't forget cypress.
>
> --
> It's turtles, all the way down
[email protected] wrote:
> I am looking to construct an archway in the garden. I have the design
> all worked out and it will be lashed together with rope and secured to
> the ground with concrete footings - probably with some soil to cover
> the top of the concrete.
>
> The question is - what wood do I use for the construction? I have
> found the following options :
>
> "Grown from the Eucalyptus Grandis tree these poles have a natural
> taper over their length. They are also very strong, their density is
> similar to oak, and their natural appearance make them perfect for a
> variety of uses. All poles are stripped of bark, Tanalith E treated,
> and are far stronger than bamboo or machine round alternatives. They
> are strong enough to be used in building construction."
>
> or
>
> Telegraph poles - ACQ treated, new. A choice here appears to be either
> stripped of bark and supplied as is, or machined to give a uniform
> finish.
>
> or
>
> Chestnut from a managed woodland in East Sussex. Not treated, but can
> have the bark stripped if required.
>
> My criteria would be (in order) Long lasting (Ie. not rotting through
> at the base) and natural looking. I am guessing the first option
> (Eucalyptus) is imported so would prefer something 'local' (at least
> from this country!). And I am lead to believe the heart wood of
> Chestnut is such that it will not rot for a long time without needing
> to be treated.
>
> Any advice or opinions (or resources!) would be helpful!
>
> Thanks,
> David.
>
David - Some more info about your project may be useful. The lashed
together part will have many scratching their heads. Also, the
descriptions sound like logs/poles not lumber. Assuming thats the case.
The chestnut is pretty rare if it really is chestnut (American). I have
a cottage that was originally built with American chestnut posts set
right into the dirt. 100 years later they were still intact. All
chestnut these days is really a different species I believe. Someone
correct me if I'm wrong.
Another good wood would be locust. It may be too wild looking for what
you want. Your "telegraph" poles option - Those are usually pine or fir.
ACQ treated makes them more rot resistant. This wood is commonly used on
decks. I know nothing about eucalyptus wood.
So, tell us if you are looking for bark stripped poles, poles with bark
or just lumber. If just lumber then redwood, cedar, mahogany, ipe would
all be fine choices.
Also - You want to not use concrete. Gravel at bottom of hole and tight
pack dirt around to hold it. Have you ever seen a telephone pole in
concrete? Concrete will accelerate the deterioration.
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
<[email protected]> schreef
> So would you go with the Chestnut then?
***
I suppose so. Lots of Chestnut used for outdoor applications.
Your construction won't be load bearing, so it should be allright.
Do keep in mind that only the heartwood is durable, so if you start with a
pole you will lose quite a bit of the initial diameter over time.
PvR
On 12 Jun 2006 03:55:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>I am looking to construct an archway in the garden.
Larch - no question. Cheap, usable and so chock-full of natural
turpentine that it lasts well in the UK climate.
I would never use anything pressure treated, tanalised or tanalith
treated. There's enough undisposable toxic waste around without making
more of it. Also the stuff still rots if you ever drill holes through
it.
>Chestnut from a managed woodland in East Sussex. Not treated, but can
>have the bark stripped if required.
Chestnut is very good for garden furniture, but not what I'd choose for
a structure like this. You can do good work in it, but it's brittle in
thin sections. Think about it for tables or seating though.
>Telegraph poles - ACQ treated, new. A choice here appears to be either
>stripped of bark and supplied as is, or machined to give a uniform
>finish.
Telegraph poles last because of how they're treated. You don't want that
smell in a summer garden (likewise railway sleepers).
On 14 Jun 2006 16:21:36 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>Haven't found a Larch supplier - the ones I have found have been
>difficult enough!!
Bendrey Bros. if you're near Bristol
http://www.bendreybrothers.co.uk/
>>From my other reply I think you can get a better idea of what I am
>doing now, so the poles would not be thin or split in any way.
Your poles sound thin, IMHO. Thin, as in I'd ideally be looking for
coppiced poles that grew this diameter, and using them with the bark
still on.
I probably wouldn't use chestnut here as I'd have to saw it down into
such narrow sections (visually) that I could break one if I ever hit it
with a wheelbarrow or even a hefty dog.