Timber Piling Barrier and Chemical Preservation Annual Costs Comparison.
Abstract
The currently recommended means of controlling marine borer damage of timber piling by chemical preservative systems are compared with pile barrier systems. Annual costs of untreated, creosoted, arsenical-treated, and dual-treated timber piling are estimated for fender and bearing systems in various geographical regions. Included in these estimates are the maintenance options of pile replacement and barrier system installation. Annual costs are also estimated for chemically-treated or untreated timber prewrapped with polyvinylchloride (PVC), polyethylene (PE), or precoated with polyurethane (PU). It is concluded that the most cost-effective, proven system for timber bearing piles in all regions is creosoted piling (in tropical and subtropical areas also arsenical-treated piling) protected by wrapping with PVC. The most cost-effective system for timber bearing piles, not yet proven by long-term testing, is untreated piling wrapped with PVC or PE or coated with PU before driving. The most cost-effective, proven system for fender piling in all areas is the arsenical-treated piling (in polar regions also creosoted piling) protected by PVC wrap. The most cost-effective experimental system for fender piling is untreated piling wrapped with PVC. Implications of this analysis on common timber piling usage practices at Naval shore facilities are discussed along with specific recommendations to improve those practices.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Jun 01, 1987
- Accession Number
- ADA183246
Entities
People
- D. Pendleton
- T. O'neill
Organizations
- Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center