house timber treatment when did it start?
thing
find any markings on the wood.....the floor boards are treated as they
are marked
Anybody know or know where to look for on the web / ask about dates
when legally you had to treat framing?
regards,
Thing
geraldc
wrote:
Depends on the type of timber.
Framing doesnt have to be treated just has to be dry before lining
now.
pete stringer
thing <th...@thing.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:3AEFAA8E...@thing.dyndns.org...
Don't know about the legality, but from my experience, framing timber was
treated from the late 50's onwards.
Often at that time the floor boards and joists weren't, and continued to be
of rimu or matai, as if somehow the builder didn't yet quite trust the new
fangled tanalising process. Look in your ceilng cavity, has the timber been
stamped there? If your framing has a slight greenish tinge and is in good
shape, no rot or borer etc, it will at 1967 most likely have been trreated.
Treated timber often seems to be quite stringy and tough compared with
untreated.
thing
Some timber is marked HTH treated, some marked PINEX, the markings arnt
frequent though
If there was a doubt then I could simply borer bomb....every October? but I'd
like to avoid filling my house cavities with ikky chemicals and poisons if
there is no need.
Ive found no rot at all, cant say it looks green.
Steven
pete stringer
thing <th...@thing.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:3AEFBA0F...@thing.dyndns.org...
> Thanks Pete, this was my understanding.
>
> Some timber is marked HTH treated, some marked PINEX, the markings arnt
> frequent though
then you're sweet, it has been treated.
> If there was a doubt then I could simply borer bomb....every October? but
I'd
> like to avoid filling my house cavities with ikky chemicals and poisons if
> there is no need.
Bombs are generally almost a complete waste of money. If you don't have
borer why bother?
> Ive found no rot at all, cant say it looks green.
You'd need to see it a good light.
thing
paranoid.........
:]
Steven
John Cawston
Preservation and the relative building codes predate 1967 for P radiata.
However, you may have a house with native timber framing or other species
not requiring treatment. Easiest way to check is to talk to the local
District Council people involved with building consents.
Or do a search for the NZ Timber Preservation Council.
JC
Ray Greene
wrote:
>Thanks Pete, this was my understanding.
>
>Some timber is marked HTH treated, some marked PINEX, the markings arnt
>frequent though
>
>If there was a doubt then I could simply borer bomb....every October? but I'd
>like to avoid filling my house cavities with ikky chemicals and poisons if
>there is no need.
>
>Ive found no rot at all, cant say it looks green.
Don't get your treatments confused. The green stuff is tanalised
timber, it's treated with copper, chrome and arsenic and is used where
pine is exposed to the ground or the weather. Bugs don't like it
either.
Pine framing was boric treated with much less toxic chemicals just to
keep out borer. It provides no resistance to rot.
I read somewhere that boric treatment was a bit of a scam to sell
chemicals. Seems that borer aren't all that attracted to nice dry
timber, which is why kiln drying is now all that's required.
Many timbers need no treatment for rot or bugs as thay are naturally
resistant. Pinus radiata is basically crap, but NZ is awfully good at
growing it and we have found ways to treat it so that it's good enough
to build houses out of :-)
Ray Greene.
Mr Bond
> However, you may have a house with native timber framing or other species
> not requiring treatment. Easiest way to check is to talk to the local
> District Council people involved with building consents.
Personally, rather than taking someones 'opinion' I would 'pull the file'
that the district council has on you property, one I looked at in the North
Shore City council recently had plans, specifications and in some instances
building brochures on pretty much everything that needed a consent since the
farm was subdivided back in the early 50s....
It amazing the stuff they keep in some instances. I know that Manukau City
Council did a big, 'we're upgrading to microfiche' mission some time in the
late 70s, early 80s which means a lot of the really good stuff got biffed,
with the more legal documents [such as rates notices, consent applications
etc] got kept.
Bruce Hamilton
>I assumed my 1967 house has treated timber frameing, however I cannot
>find any markings on the wood.....the floor boards are treated as they
>are marked
Actually, it's very likely that the framing is Boron treated, and the
main reason why is because the main funding agency for loans was the
State Advances Corporation, and they specified that all pinus radiata
houses should have treated framing. The alternative compounds are
copper-chrome-arsenic ( tanalising ) - which impart the green colour
other posters have mentioned. Creosote and pentachlorophenol treatments
weren't normally used on pinus house framing, but for specific woods or
exterior applications.
Many people I've spoken too believe that no NZ home has fallen down
because borer stoped holding hands, so you could just forget about
them.
It's unlikely the framing was tanalised, as boron treatment was cheaper
and is suitable for framing ( but not exterior as it is leached by rain ).
The main interest for timber preservation arose partly because NZ has
mild winters, not the freezing temperatures that slow the borer.
There was a major inquiry into the use of water-based boron compounds
in 1952, and one consequence was the formation of the Timber Preservation
Council and the Timber Preservation Regulations in 1955. Most houses
built with loan money are likely to be treated timber.
The current situation is rather messy, as " Kiln dried " can be either
treated or untreated, and can be used for framing, but not for floors
near the ground. It can be hard to distinguish the treated grades, and
not all users are aware of the need to use treated kiln dried in some
applications.
Bruce Hamilton
Jason M
wrote:
>Ive found no rot at all, cant say it looks green.
Pinus radiata for framing would not be green, it's usually boric
treated (H1).
Douglas Fir does not need treatment for framing.
Tanalised H3 is green and is used for pinus weatherboards and timber
exposed to the weather but not in the ground.
There is another H3 treatment which is clear.
H4 or H5 treatment is needed for pinus in the ground, and it's very
green and the sawdust is rather nasty if you breathe (or eat) it.
Some time around 1980 there was an alternative H3 timber treatment
that didn't work, and many houses built then went rotten. People don't
like to talk about that because claims could be made.
I'd say, don't worry at all unless you see borer holes or hear ticking
noises in October.
Jason M
BlueShift
>On Wed, 02 May 2001 19:41:03 +1200, thing <th...@thing.dyndns.org>
>wrote:
>
>>Ive found no rot at all, cant say it looks green.
>
>Pinus radiata for framing would not be green, it's usually boric
>treated (H1).
Boric treated timber has a pinkish tinge. If you can find an uncut end
piece it will be fairly obviously pink (same goes for green with
tanalised).
>Douglas Fir does not need treatment for framing.
>
>Tanalised H3 is green and is used for pinus weatherboards and timber
>exposed to the weather but not in the ground.
>
>There is another H3 treatment which is clear.
>
>H4 or H5 treatment is needed for pinus in the ground, and it's very
>green and the sawdust is rather nasty if you breathe (or eat) it.
>
>Some time around 1980 there was an alternative H3 timber treatment
>that didn't work, and many houses built then went rotten. People don't
>like to talk about that because claims could be made.
>
>I'd say, don't worry at all unless you see borer holes or hear ticking
>noises in October.
>
>Jason M
>
BlueShift
-+-+-+--+-+-+-
Getting closer
==============
The best way to get information on
Usenet isn't to ask a question,
but to post the wrong information
==============
pete stringer
Bruce Hamilton <B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz> wrote in message
news:3aefdf04...@Newshost.comnet.co.nz...
> thing <th...@thing.dyndns.org> wrote:
> >I assumed my 1967 house has treated timber frameing, however I cannot
> >find any markings on the wood.....the floor boards are treated as they
> >are marked
>
> Actually, it's very likely that the framing is Boron treated, and the
> main reason why is because the main funding agency for loans was the
> State Advances Corporation, and they specified that all pinus radiata
> houses should have treated framing. The alternative compounds are
> copper-chrome-arsenic ( tanalising ) - which impart the green colour
> other posters have mentioned. Creosote and pentachlorophenol treatments
> weren't normally used on pinus house framing, but for specific woods or
> exterior applications.
Was HTH not a tanalith treatment?
> Many people I've spoken too believe that no NZ home has fallen down
> because borer stoped holding hands, so you could just forget about
> them.
I've seen at least one that was in fact in dire danger of just that. The
framing was absolutely shot.
> The current situation is rather messy, as " Kiln dried " can be either
> treated or untreated, and can be used for framing, but not for floors
> near the ground. It can be hard to distinguish the treated grades, and
> not all users are aware of the need to use treated kiln dried in some
> applications.
Any one that spends $big bucks on building a house and relies on kiln dried
timber is IMO asking for substantial grief down the line.
The only thing kiln dried timber has going for it is that at the time of
drying, it will likely be free of insect pest. I don't believe that it will
be sufficiently dry to guarantee that it will never be subject to borer
attack, ( from memory it is dried to about 20% moisture content, and that
seems to satisfy MAF for export requirements but I think will still subject
to borer at that level.) but most likely it will be rotten before borer will
ever be a problem, if it is in contact with dampness at all. I believe that
there are a number of dwellings now that are about to cost owners $big
because inferior timbers, ie not tanalised have been used in exterior walls,
particularly in the trendy foam plastic clad false stucco design where
dampness and poor ventilation have combined to cause major rot problems. A
friends house is a good example of the problem, remodelled about fifteen yrs
ago, and a squishy mess in exterior walls now.
Even in a 1960's dwelling of mine I am now replacing timber in the roof
structure where lead heads have leaked causing rot. A decent tanalised
3( old ratings)or better , and it wouldn't be a problem.
Ray Greene
against rot kiln-dried timber is no different to boric treated.
If framing is getting damp anough to rot then something is seriously
wrong with the design or condition of the house, and the ceiling,
internal linings and insulation are going to suffer too.
Leaking rooves need to be repaired. Using tanalised rafters would just
mean that the water would keep getting in until something else was
damaged. I have sympathy for your problem though, it can be a bugger
of a job repairing a roof. Is the damage very bad?
As for the foam plastic stuff, I've never had much faith in it.
"Trendy" materials like that should come with a meaningful guarantee
covering damage caused by leaks etc. In fact I thought there were
regulations covering that sort of thing.
Ray Greene.
pete stringer
Ray Greene <ra...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:9cqguh$88p$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Framing is practically never tanalised anyway so for protection
> against rot kiln-dried timber is no different to boric treated.
From the rot pov one is as bad as the other.
>
> If framing is getting damp anough to rot then something is seriously
> wrong with the design or condition of the house, and the ceiling,
> internal linings and insulation are going to suffer too.
>
> Leaking rooves need to be repaired. Using tanalised rafters would just
> mean that the water would keep getting in until something else was
> damaged. I have sympathy for your problem though, it can be a bugger
> of a job repairing a roof. Is the damage very bad?
Once the lead heads start to move they let in a little water no noticable
leaks, but over time enough to start black fungal rot.
Many houses built in the 50s & 60s don't seem to have the building paper
lining under the iron.
I think that now I'm aware of the problem I should probably replace all the
lead heads, which might save the iron from going into holes round the nails
and doing more damage to the rafters etc for another decade or so.
> As for the foam plastic stuff, I've never had much faith in it.
> "Trendy" materials like that should come with a meaningful guarantee
> covering damage caused by leaks etc. In fact I thought there were
> regulations covering that sort of thing.
I think there was a Fair Go programme or similar on the foam cladding a few
months ago. Certainly I do not think my mates house is unusual, but it
appears the foam sheets were placed directly onto the framing. A little
leakage from the windows [suggesting inadequate flashing/fitting perhaps]
and several years down the track its a rotten wall! I think it would
possibly be ok if it was treated like brick and a ventilated cavity left
between cladding and framing.
thing
>
> I've seen at least one that was in fact in dire danger of just that. The
> framing was absolutely shot.
>
Yep, the only reason houses havnt fallen down is that ppl repaired them, ive
seen some that were being sold and about ready to fall over, i poked my screw
driver clean through one pile, it was so rotten only the shell was left and i
could see daylight.............
Another one was propped up with new beams as the old ones had gone....just
propped on the earth that is......
Ive seen some shocking houses in Wellington......im determined to look after
mine......
regards,
Thing
Bruce Hamilton
>> copper-chrome-arsenic ( tanalising ) - which impart the green colour
>> other posters have mentioned.
Not certain what HTH was, but it's not immediately obvious at
http://www.khtp.co.nz/products/tanalised/Tanalith%20CCA.htm
who are the owners of Tanalith brand treatments, and discuss
all the major types of timber chemical treatment .
> Even in a 1960's dwelling of mine I am now replacing timber in the roof
>structure where lead heads have leaked causing rot. A decent tanalised
>3( old ratings)or better , and it wouldn't be a problem.
My understanding was that CCA was not used for framing for several
reasons, and that the main concern with pinus framing was borer,
which boron treatment does cope with on internal framing. There
are several other types of treatment, such as the Light Organic
Solvent Process with tributyl tin oxide (TBTO), that are used on
timbers not amenable to the CCA or Boron treatment.
Many of the problems with kiln dried will be the result of builders
refusing to take seriously the requirement to only store and use the
timber dry. Some other countries are moving towards a treated
grade of kiln-dried for framing, mainly to overcome concerns about
inconsist performance of the timber.
Bruce Hamilton
thing
Ive repaired my lead heads some were cracked, I will keep an eye on them if they
crack again I will need to replace
pete stringer wrote:
> Once the lead heads start to move they let in a little water no noticable
> leaks, but over time enough to start black fungal rot.
> Many houses built in the 50s & 60s don't seem to have the building paper
> lining under the iron.
> I think that now I'm aware of the problem I should probably replace all the
> lead heads, which might save the iron from going into holes round the nails
> and doing more damage to the rafters etc for another decade or so.
>
> > As for the foam plastic stuff, I've never had much faith in it.
> > "Trendy" materials like that should come with a meaningful guarantee
> > covering damage caused by leaks etc. In fact I thought there were
> > regulations covering that sort of thing.
most trendy materials seem to have so many get out clauses that i think they are
worthless. The answer IMHO is constant vigelence and small remidal jobs as they
arise.
Ive been looking at my walls and the building paper has worn out in spots.....a
nice little job when i redo the cladding.......
regards,
Thing
thing
Bruce Hamilton wrote:
> "pete stringer" <pst...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> >Bruce Hamilton <B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz> wrote in message
> >> ...The alternative compounds are
> >> copper-chrome-arsenic ( tanalising ) - which impart the green colour
> >> other posters have mentioned.
> >Was HTH not a tanalith treatment?
>
> Not certain what HTH was, but it's not immediately obvious at
> http://www.khtp.co.nz/products/tanalised/Tanalith%20CCA.htm
> who are the owners of Tanalith brand treatments, and discuss
> all the major types of timber chemical treatment .
>
H T H: Swimming Pool Chemicals Manufacturer PETERSON CHEMICALS LTD:
Wellington-Chemical Mnfrs ....Ph.Wellington(04)388 2159
? one possibility maybe they used to do wood treatment as well
regards,
Thing
thing
> Any one that spends $big bucks on building a house and relies on kiln dried
> timber is IMO asking for substantial grief down the line.
The present code says H1 or dried below 18%? for interior framing guess which
is cheaper...........
I agree but then how many people know this? Any Work I do will be/is H1 or H3 if
I think there is a danger of wetting...........
reports "say" that inspections of houses that have not been treated "show no
significant borer damage"........they dont define significant.........bloody cop
out.......I wonder what idiot paid for and accepted that report.....
significant could mean !> 100 holes or not yet fallen down..........
regards,
Thing
Malcolm Moore
wrote:
HTH - Hutt Timber and Hardware. I believe it's the name of the sawmill
that dressed and treated the timber. They stamped their name down the
length of each piece. The grade of treatment is usually only on the end
and subsequently gets cut off. HTH had a plant at Naenae in Lower Hutt
and probably elsewhere.
The original post where HTH was mentioned also referred to Pinex which is
another timber brand, not a treatment.
regards
Malcolm.