Thread: H4 Laminated Treated Pine Posts

They’re fine as long as you paint them well according to directions and paint seal all cut outs, ends, and bolt holes.

I have 125 x 125 Cypress Pine in my carport - haven't moved in 20 years. BF

The purpose of the lamination is to help keep the buggers straight. It certainly is an improvement on posts cut from small logs which have a tendancy to bow in all directions.

I wouldn’t hesitate to use them in that situation

Originally Posted by riverbuilder

They’re fine as long as you paint them well according to directions and paint seal all cut outs, ends, and bolt holes.

Hi River Builder,

I will be definitely be making sure that everything is double coated. Thanks for the great advice.

MJ

Originally Posted by Blackforester

I have 125 x 125 Cypress Pine in my carport - haven't moved in 20 years. BF

Thanks Black Forester, great to hear.

Originally Posted by Beardy

I wouldn’t hesitate to use them in that situation

Thank you so much Beardy,

Your comment really puts my mind at rest that I am doing the right thing.

The problem I am trying to avoid is replacing them, not for cost of the post (which is definitely an expense that I don't want) but the main reason is this is part of a job which I am doing replacing my verandah ceiling with LOSP treated Tongue and grooves boards (VJ) and once all sealed up it would be a huge job to change them out again.

I totally appreciate your feedback

MJ

Originally Posted by rustynail

The purpose of the lamination is to help keep the buggers straight. It certainly is an improvement on posts cut from small logs which have a tendancy to bow in all directions.

Not strictly true, Rusty. The purpose of laminations is to speed up the drying in a kiln. Then when you glue them back together the side benefit is slightly improved stability.

Woods and Forests South Australia started manufacturing these laminated posts back in the 70's. All posts were glued up with opposing grain configuration. In the interest of stability.
As an employee at the time, I can assure you our main concern was the amount of bent posts we were getting. The drying time was irrelevant as we were drying thick material anyway. Woods and Forests was the oldest standing plantations in the country and most of the top quality, large sizes were milled from these large trees. Yes, I agree, much quicker to dry thin than thick but the priority at the time was stability. The fact we were able to use smaller timber was a bonus.

Interesting RN. I was a director of a couple of timber companies in the late 1970's, collectively producing 3,000 m3 of laminated posts per month, and it was purely a cost decision:

• a little more sawing and waste in the sawmill,
• much faster drying time,
• fewer collapses in the drying kiln,
• costs of glue up,
• fewer degrades from subsequent movement.

Most product was exported to Japan, Korea and Germany - all very quality conscious markets.

Looking at the size of the laminated pieces they now use and I assume they have streamlined the whole process it would be a cost driven exercise now.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Interesting RN. I was a director of a couple of timber companies in the late 1970's, collectively producing 3,000 m3 of laminated posts per month, and it was purely a cost decision:

• a little more sawing and waste in the sawmill,
• much faster drying time,
• fewer collapses in the drying kiln,
• costs of glue up,
• fewer degrades from subsequent movement.

Most product was exported to Japan, Korea and Germany - all very quality conscious markets.

I guess, when you break it all down, everything comes down to a cost decision. Afterall, the purpose of the exercise was to make a quid. There are many factors that can dictate the reason for adoption of a particular method of production. Some more relevant than others in certain situations and variable mill to mill. Kiln collapse and degrade from subsequent movement are both stability factors, which, in turn, represent an unwanted down side to production and a kick in the guts to the bottom line. No self-respecting Company Director wants that.
So what does all this mean to the consumer? Nothing. He just wants a stable product at a reasonable price. He cares not if its manufactered from thick or thin, long or short, quick or slow dried. Just stable and cost effective. The OP was questioning the suitability of the product for his use. Hence my response.

Interesting discourse between Rustynail and GraemeCook.

If I had been asked, I would have said it was driven by the ability to use up "shorts" and provide stability thus adding value to what may otherwise have gone for woodchip. A local sawmill in the Upper Hunter had installed a finger jointer to reclaim small timber and tried to recoup timber in that way. I don't know if it was successful: They are no longer in business (for a different reason). It also occurs to me that with the advent of time, conditions change. Timber, especially good quality timber, is becoming less plentiful and what was once commercially viable may no longer be the case and vice versa. A lot changes in forty years!

Regards
Paul