SECURING of BREAK-ENDANGERED TREE CROWNS Klaus Schröder Urban Forestry Service - Osnabrück
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
76 International Congress on The Trees of History SECURING OF BREAK-ENDANGERED TREE CROWNS Klaus Schröder Urban Forestry Service - Osnabrück Abstract Breaking-off of crown parts, forks and large branches are the most common types of failure of urban trees (WILDE, 1996), resulting in substantial damage to objects and persons. Additionally, the trees are also often irreversibly damaged. Reasons for this type of failure usually include bark in forks, decay or fractures in branches. As an alternative to lop crowns or felling hazardous trees, systems for securing of break-endangered tree crowns were developed. One of the first of these systems was the double belt System Osnabrück, conceived by the green-department of the City of Osnabrück, Germany (SCHRÖDER, 1990). Introduction Creatures of nature are normally adapted to withstand weather because regular recurrent situations have resulted in optimising processes of permanent adaption and selection over a long period of time. As an example of such creations of nature, trees are often exposed to extreme weather and they must resist storm, rain, snow and ice. Forces with an impact of some tons must be withstood. The experience of arborists shows, that straight grown trees, as well as certain types of branches best resist the rigours of the weather, whereas other shapes fail in this respect under the same conditions. Rugged tree crowns can be achieved with simple methods such as planting correctly grown trees and proper breeding pruning adapted to the actual development of the trees. Consequently, the implementation of crown securing systems would not become necessary. However, in case of the old tree population with problematic crowns preventive measures cannot help and it is for these old trees that crown securing systems have been developed. In Germany, the law requires that the breaking-off of parts of trees must be prevented, according to the decision of the Federal Court from 21. January 1965 concerning the legal duty to maintain safety. It states amongst other things, that the responsible party must remove trees and parts thereof which endanger traffic, particularly in those cases when these are no longer steadfast or parts thereof are in danger of breaking off (BRELOER 1996). Securing break-endangered crowns is therefore an alternative to felling or lop crowns and offers an acceptable implementation of the law which requires the removal of above mentioned dangers. Left illustration: So called pressure forks are optimised for withstanding pressure in the forking area. Nonetheless, the narrowest point between the stems is exposed to great tension in the contact zone when the stems are bent by weather. The cross section shows, that there is bark enclosed in the contact area of the fork and only the outer annual rings have grown together. This type of fork breaks relatively often under traction power. Therefore, securing is important in most cases. Central illustration: So called tension forks are normally naturally well-formed. These are not at risk of breaking any more often than other healthy parts of trees. Right illustration: The installation of a crown securing system (break-securing) works like the pivot of a seesaw. The swing of the stems away from each other is transformed and results in pressure on the forking, for which this area is optimally shaped. Consequently, the break can be avoided. (Illustration by / comments according to MATTHECK) Torino, April 1st - 2 nd, 2004 77 Illustration of Crown Securing Systems (Figures and parts of the text in support of the German rules and regulations for tree care methods - volume 2001 ZTV-Baumpflege- Ausgabe 2001-) Crown Anchoring System: Made of threaded bolts, steel cable, and fastening material. NONE-injury free installation. The extent of injury caused by the installation of crown anchoring systems is so great that this system should not be used in the future Hollow Rope Securing Systems: Made of braided synthetic fibre. The rope is spliced back through the hollow rope and is fixed by tension. Therefore, no additional fastening elements are necessary (Single Component Securing System). Injury free installation. (VETTER & WESSOLLY, 1994) Band Securing System (Gurtbandsicherung): Made of woven synthetic fibres, and slung around those parts of the tree crown which are to be secured. The belt is locked with a buckle (Single Component Securing System). Injury free installation. (SINN, 1989) Multi Component Securing System (Double Belt Securing System): Made of separate belts, with a loop on each end. Most of these products consist of a strong, outer holding belt and a second inner fastening belt, which includes a stretch element in some cases. The connecting elements (e.g. synthetic hollow ropes, steel cable) are pulled through the end loops. Injury free installation. (SCHRÖDER, 1993) 78 International Congress on The Trees of History Multi component securing system - double belt System Osnabrück: broad belts, tightly fixed around the trunks (or the trunk and the branch), absorb the power occurring in mobile parts of the crown and divert it into stable tree parts. Elasticity and high breaking force are the best requirements for using synthetic fibres in crown securing systems. In this case (left ill.) all components are made of polyester fibres. The connecting element is a hollow rope, but every other suitable connecting element can be considered. Therefore the double belt securing systems provide a variety of possibilities. The stretching element in the fastening belt (right ill.) prevents the secured tree parts from growing over the belt (Ill.: KREKELAAR) In 1997 beech trees were examined in an urban forest in Osnabrück. In these trees double belt securing systems had been installed six years ago. Results of the wood-biological investigations prove that It can be stated that even after six years, no damage to the trees resulted from the installation of the crown securing system. (STOBBE, DUJESIEFKEN & SCHRÖDER, 2000) Break-securing / Fall-securing Methods of crown securing should be functionally differentiated according to whether these prohibit breakage or prevent parts of trees from falling down. (SCHRÖDER, 2002; SPATZ, 2003). While break-securing aims at preventing parts of the crown in the first place whereas fall-securing is designed to prevent a part of the crown from falling down after it has come to a break, despite the attachment of a break-securing system. Fall-securing thus aims at keeping the branch up in the tree. Installation Before installing a crown securing system one should be examined, whether pruning of the tree crown is necessary or possible. Break-securing systems should be installed at a height of 2/3 of the secured part of the crown, if possible in a triangular connection. When a single break-protection is applied, an additional ring connection should also be used in order to lessen the risk of a twisting break. Install at right angles from the axes of the parts of the tree crown. The natural mobility of the secured parts of the tree crowns should be taken into consideration, in order to further encouraged the adaptive growth in the now mechanically burdened parts of the tree. Calculation The calculation of break protection systems shown below is founded upon the following securing philosophies: Crown securing systems (break protection systems are meant here, the author) be dimensioned tree equitable if the earliest point at which they fail is the point at which the secured crown part in mechanically healthy condition would fail under the same stress (BETHGE, MATTHECK & SCHRÖDER, 1993). Accordingly, where a branch- or forking defect is assumed, a crown securing system (break protection system authors note) must withstand as much stress as the corresponding structure in a mechanically healthy condition could hold (SPATZ, 2003). Break protections should be calculated in according with the following calculation formula: (BETHGE, MATTHECK & SCHRÖDER, 1993) Torino, April 1st - 2 nd, 2004 79 Illustration: GEMEIN s indicates the medium bending strength (Biegebruch) of green woods. These values B originate from the American and English literature (LAVERS, 1983; US FOREST PRODUCTS LABORATORY, 1987). They are presented in Mpa, for use in the above formula they should be converted into kp/cm² (and therefore multiplied by 10,2) in order to reach the bearing capacity tonnage (t) of crown securing systems common in arboriculture. R equals the radius of the secured part at its base (or the potential point of fracture) and h (2/3 of the total length) represents the distance between the break-securing to be applied and the base of the tree part to be secured. The following table, based on the above mentioned formula, has been developed in order to help practitioners with actual set-ups on location, with consultation and with financial estimates. It allows to rapidly and exactly working out the dimension of necessary break-securing systems (SCHRÖDER 2004). The relatively common H/D-ratio values of 20, 30 and 40 (Height [total length] / Diameter) were applied to the crown parts. As an example the table is shown with the H/D-ratio of 40. All tables can be downloaded from internet under www.demetra.net . 80 International Congress on The Trees of History Table for the Dimension of Break-Protections Example: H/D-Ratio:40 Precautionary advice Conditions for the application of the tables must be a generally right angle binding of the break-securing to the tree part to be secured and its securing in 2/3 of the total length. Because not all conditions of a tree or the influence of weather at the particular location can be taken into account, it is recommended to estimate the factors of dimension generously. This means that if in doubt select a higher collapse load than necessary! With regard to the tables, this would result in choosing a lower H/D-ratio.