Durability Design of Wood Construction

Greg C. Foliente*, Robert H. Leicester*, Chi-hsiang Wang*, Colin Mackenzie# and

Ivan Cole*
*
CSIRO Manufacturing and Infrastructure Technology, Highett 3190, Australia
#
Timber Queensland Ltd, Fortitude Valley 4006, Australia

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

Durability of a product, component, or system is its capacity to perform for a specified

period of time the function for which it was intended, whether it be structural safety,
serviceability, amenity, or aesthetic. Wood is often perceived as a non-durable material
because it can be susceptible to decay and termite attack etc. When a steel or reinforced
concrete construction fails through structural collapse, even if the cause of failure is related
to material deterioration, the event is deemed unexpected and the typical response is to
blame the structural engineer concerned. However, should a wood construction fail, the
general public perception is that this is an expected consequence arising from the use of
wood. The blame is placed on the material and not on the designer and/or builder, even if
the cause of the problem is inappropriate use, incorrect detailing, or a building mistake.

Durability is one of the most important considerations in the use of wood in construction.
Lack of durability has often been cited as one of the "disadvantages" of wood for certain
applications. Consumers, building designers, and asset owners have always been concerned
with durability considerations, but the increasing focus on [life-cycle cost analysis in recent
years has further heightened interest in prolonging the effective service life and controlling
the overall maintenance costs of products used in construction]. Recent events like the
earthquakes in Northridge, California (1994), and Kobe, Japan (1995), have also increased
awareness of the effect of the material aging process on structural performance in extreme
events. Most wood houses that either collapsed or were heavily damaged during the Kobe
earthquake had bio-deteriorated wood members.

To address these concerns, building regulators in some parts of the world are now seriously
considering explicitly including durability requirements in future building codes (e.g. in
Australia and Canada). The 1992 New Zealand building code was the first to include a
durability-related clause in its mandatory requirements (2). When durability requirements
are explicitly stated in a building code, a considerable amount of data and information are
needed on the durability of building materials and components to demonstrate compliance
and facilitate product acceptance, design, and performance evaluation. This also means that
standardized methods of testing and/or computation are needed. It is possible that in the
future, building and construction products that do not address durability issues could lose
market share and could be shut out of international markets that demand durability
performance data and/or information.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the International Association for
Building Materials and Structures (RILEM), and the International Council for Research and
Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB), among others, have technical committees
and working groups involved in developing methods and guidelines for life-cycle design,
service life planning and prediction, and facilities maintenance and management
(11,12,16,20). All of these topics require durability related information and knowledge.
Without any established standards, designers can only turn to published guidelines such as
CSA S478-95 from the Canadian Standards Association (6), BSI 7543 from the British
Standards Institution (3), the Architectural Institute of Japan's guide for service life
planning of buildings (1) and the European Commission Guidance Paper on durability and
the construction products directive (8).

Despite these active developments in establishing guidelines and standards, however, there
have been concerns about the quality and reliability of durability data and information
currently available for most building materials and components (2) and the accuracy and
reliability of current service life prediction models. Current methods for design and service
life planning are highly simplified; except in a few cases, they do not consider fundamental
mechanisms of degradation and the specific factors that affect these mechanisms. The
availability of degradation models for different types of durability attack can provide
insights into the critical parameters that affect product performance most. If they are
validated or calibrated to experimental and/or in-service performance data, these models
would be useful in developing formalized durability design procedures and improving
prescriptive guidelines and requirements.

Unfortunately, the development of degradation models in wood construction has not

received as much research attention as models for concrete and steel construction. To
remedy this situation, the Australian wood industry (through the Forest and Wood Products
Research and Development Corporation [FWPRDC]) has engaged a multi-disciplinary
group of researchers in a large national project to develop engineered design procedures for
wood construction (11). These procedures are based on probabilistic prediction models of
degradation. This means that both input and output to durability modeling and analysis are
given in statistical terms (e.g., with mean and variability values). It is important to
appreciate that within a probabilistic model, all decisions can be based on controlled risk,
the essential measure of all building performance. For example, one can choose an
acceptable risk of structural failure due to degradation of 5% or acceptable risk of
‘excessive’ member deformation due to degradation of 25%.

The probabilistic models can include consideration of both natural variability in the
relevant parameters (e.g., biodeterioration resistance of wood, climate effects) and the
uncertainty in our modelling concepts (e.g., form of the model equation and/or a model that
lacks a relevant parameter). Moreover, the models can be formulated to include data from
any source, including expectations originating from engineering experience. Thus, with the
use of these probabilistic models, performance stated in risk terms can be used as criteria
for:

* Developing an engineered durability design method;

* Assessing innovative building systems;
* Finding cost-optimized design;
* Managing infrastructure and building assets.

For example, one could use the model to assess the risk that a wood utility pole might fail
in bending due to decay before an acceptable time period then use this information to plan
a maintenance or retrofit program, if needed. Alternatively, one could use the model to
determine when a utility pole might reach an unacceptable failure probability in bending
due to decay and then plan the next pole inspection before this time.

This article provides a brief overview of different approaches to durability design and
describes key aspects of the Australian approach to developing an engineered [approach –
too many "approaches"] to durability design of wood construction. Although the given
examples of applications are for Australian conditions, the project concept and framework
and the durability modelling principles presented here could also be applicable to other
countries. Technical details of the concepts and models described are given in a number of
CSIRO-FWPRDC reports and publications (13-15).

METHODS OF DURABILITY DESIGN

Figure 1 shows a typical aging effect on the strength of a structural member or connection
over a period of time. When its performance falls below an acceptable limit, the product
can be said to have reached the end of its service life, and a decision can be made whether it
should be replaced, repaired/rehabilitated, or recycled. Product service life can be
prolonged by maintenance or other positive user intervention.

The traditional way to design durable wood construction is to follow good design and
building practice in terms of do's and don'ts, based on either an industry best practice guide
(e.g., 5,7,17,18) or building code requirements. These recommendations or requirements
are prescriptive solutions and they have evolved from historical performance and
experience (see Path A and bottom block in Fig. 2). In cases or situations that are not
covered by a building practice manual, durability design is very much an art; thus, design
solutions vary from person to person. The expected performance in designs for durability
are not specified; thus, design cannot be optimized and any innovation carries with it an
uncertain risk of disaster. The recent billion-dollar decay damage to wood-framed
condominiums in British Columbia, Canada, is an example of the potential risks associated
with the application of designs based solely on experience [I'm lost here – if it was based on
experience, then how did it go wrong – you said there were don'ts - ?? Explanation was
actually given in the following sentence …]. One of the primary causes of this problem was
the gradual evolving of wall systems that have been built though the years; it has not been
noticed that the new walls do not allow the evaporation of any rainwater that accidentally
entered the walls (4).

To provide a somewhat quantified approach (i.e., a rough attempt for an engineered design;
middle block in Figure 2), the proposed ISO 'Factor Method' is being developed to estimate
the service life of a building product, based on the basic reference service life multiplied by
various factors that account for agents related to inherent quality characteristics,
environment, and operating conditions. Unfortunately, the input values used in this model
are a combination of "educated estimates" and "guess-estimates" - from the basic reference
service life values to the modification factors - and the expected performance is not
quantified.

Figure 2 shows an idealized diagram of how a general prediction model or an analysis

based on "first principles" (i.e., considering fundamental characteristics of processes and
response) can be used to develop an engineering design procedure and eventually to
develop or improve simplified prescriptive design rules [so is this the "best" path of the 3?
YES]. Current methods have been exclusively formulated via Path A. The present work is
primarily focused on the development of prediction models, which are calibrated using the
available durability knowledge base (Path C) as described earlier. Ultimately, the models
will be used to improve prescriptive durability design rules either directly or through an
engineering design procedure (Paths E and D).

Figure 2 is a durability design adaptation of long-established methods in structural design

(see parallel examples in each block) (10). Because there are no formalized design
procedures for durability (i.e., middle and right blocks in Fig. 2 – [implies there "are"
formalized… in left block – is that true? YES, formalized in guidelines/manuals and/or a
building code] ), when there is a durability failure in wood construction it is easy to say "It
cannot be helped," (with a shrug perhaps) and blame wood instead, as pointed out in the
opening paragraph of this article. But if predictive models of degradation are available,
these can be used to develop durability design procedures based on specified risk of failure,
as indicated earlier. ]

TOWARDS AN ENGINEERED APPROACH TO DURABILITY DESIGN

At the core of developing engineered methods of durability design is the need for predictive
models of degradation in wood construction. Thus, the first and most important task of the
Australian national durability project was to develop probabilistic prediction models of the
effects of various durability hazards [on the performance of wood construction – hazards
"on" (don’t know what you’d like to do here; original sentence seemed OK)]. Typical
examples [of what we would like to be able to predict] are shown schematically in Figure 3,
right-most blocks. Initially, the following durability hazards are being considered:

 Decay
 Termite attack
 Corrosion (of connectors)
In the future, it is planned to include other hazards such as attack by marine [borers and
insects, and chemical and mechanical degradation].

Typical input parameters for design are those that relate to the hazard, building location,
building construction, building element, and maintenance programs (or user action) (Fig. 3,
left-most blocks). Performance criteria will be classified as structural collapse,
unserviceability (such as excessive deflections, water entry, or loss of material), or aesthetic
deterioration (Fig. 3, right-most blocks).

In developing the attack models, a holistic approach to characterizing the factors that affect
degradation in wood construction has been followed. Detailed climate data have been
collected and related to microclimate within the house, and eventually to local element
condition (Fig. 4). This process requires climate sub-models that relate global climate data
to a specific site, from external climate to microclimate within the house, and from
microclimate in the cavity to moisture conditions of the timber (Fig. 4). Climate data that
have been collected include rainfall, temperature, relative humidity, wind, evaporation,
cloud cover, and various components of solar radiation. Microclimate data being monitored
in cavities of selected houses in locations with tropical, subtropical, and temperate climates
are temperature and relative humidity; also being monitored are material response
parameters including time of wetness and moisture content of selected timbers. Conditions
that are conducive to degradation (initiation and/or acceleration) are being investigated.

Global environment parameters are derived by interpolating climate data from about 130
Meteorological Bureau stations scattered around Australia. These data, combined with
local terrain and shelter effects, are used to derive local climate conditions for fully exposed
construction. For partially exposed construction, the effects of sheltering, such as illustrated
in Figure 5, have a significant effect and must be evaluated quantitatively.

Most of the important climate environment parameters can be derived from temperature
and humidity data. In addition, it is necessary to have procedures for estimating the
concentration of salt and other pollutants in the air.

WOOD DECAY

For purposes of modelling and design, we have divided the cases for decay attack as
follows:

 Decay of wood in ground contact;

 Decay of wood above the ground, exposed to weather;
 Decay of wood above the ground, protected or sheltered from the weather.

Except for measurement and monitoring of microclimate conditions, modeling work on the
last case has just started; thus, it is not covered in this article. From microbiological
considerations it would appear that decay cannot initiate without the effects of wetting by
free moisture; i.e., high humidity alone is not enough of a trigger. The free moisture may
arise from rainwater ingress, leakage from domestic sources, or condensation. In the
absence of other information, the decay equations developed for exposed construction
would appear to be a useful starting point.

In-Ground Decay

In the case of in-ground decay, we have developed a design procedure that includes an in-
ground decay hazard map and a method to take into account the effects of various
parameters on in-ground decay. These parameters include:

 Location (to predict climate factors);

 Timber species and/or in-ground durability classification;
 Type of wood (heartwood, corewood, or sapwood) and sapwood thickness;
 Preservative treatment;
 External maintenance treatment;
 Diameter (in the case of round poles).

The models for decay are based on data obtained from tests on small clear wood specimens
located in different Australian climatic zones. The in-ground specimens were monitored for
about 30 years and the exposed aboveground specimens for about 10 years. Most of the
specimens were from outer heartwood timber. The studies involved about 80 species and 5
preservatives, although not all species or preservatives were used for all the tests. In
addition, the effects of several maintenance treatments were assessed from a study of 60 in-
ground poles located at the Wedding Bells test site in New South Wales.

Using the data, Australian species were grouped into four in-ground deterioration classes.
Figure 6 shows a typical plot of decay rates for each durability class (Class 1 is the most
durable) from a Sydney test site. Idealized but quantified models for the rate of decay were
derived (Fig. 7). The basic lag and base decay equation are for untreated wood while the lag
and decay equation when there is maintenance are for treated wood.

The inground decay climate index, which is the basis of the national hazard map shown in
Figure 8, is a function of mean annual temperature and annual rainfall. The effect of soil
moisture is considered indirectly through a modification based on time periods without
rainfall, i.e. sites are classified by the number of months in a year during which the rainfall
is less than 5 mm.

It is assumed that decayed wood has no strength, while undecayed wood has its full initial
strength. This assumption is still under investigation. These models were derived for
corewood, outer heartwood, and treated and untreated sapwood. [These models are then
combined with an assumed attack scenario and attack pattern, such as that shown in Figure
8, to estimate the effective loss with time of the effective structural cross section and hence
strength capacity such as shown in Figure 1. – clunky sentence – is it possible to clarify? Is
load capacity shown in figure 1? YES].
This methodology has been used in generating values of durability modification factor
<I>k<->D<-><I> [fig. 1 has an uppercase D in kD – which is correct?] (Fig. 1) for wood in
ground contact, such as poles and posts, for a specified design service life (say 20 years and
50 years). Table 1 shows an example output from this procedure for Australian timber
poles, hardwood and softwood, with and without preservative treatment (AS 1604.1 is an
Australian Standard for timber preservation; H4 and H5 are different levels of treatment).
The durability degradation factor in the table can be used in conventional structural design
by multiplying it with other wood design modification factors (e.g., moisture, duration of
load, etc.) to obtain an effective design strength capacity. Similar tables are generated for
different zones in Figure 8.

Aboveground Decay

In exposed (aboveground) situations, a proposed design procedure includes an aboveground

decay hazard map and a method to take into account the effects of various parameters on
aboveground decay. These modification factors include:

 A natural durability parameter (representing each aboveground decay durability class);

 A wood parameter (for heartwood, corewood, or sapwood);
 An assembly parameter (for decay susceptibility of contact faces in joints or splitting
tendency of members);
 A paint parameter;
 A thickness parameter.

The aboveground decay climate index, which is the basis of the national hazard map shown
in Figure 10, is a function of mean annual temperature, number of rain days per year, and
mean annual vapor pressure deficit. The key difference between this new index and that
originally proposed by Scheffer (19) for aboveground decay is the consideration of mean
annual vapour pressure deficit in the former. This means that the rate of drying has been
explicitly considered in the new index; this has been found to be especially appropriate for
Australia.

A format for, and sample method of, specifying parameters related to shelter effects (Fig.
5), such as adjacent building walls, roofs, fences, and trees, has been proposed.

TERMITE ATTACK

The model for termites was developed initially as a model to reflect the opinions of experts
such as researchers and pest controllers. This model takes into account the following
parameters in predicting the time to attack a house:

 Geographical location (via mean annual temperature);

 Age of suburbs [why suburbs? What about cities? Am I missing something here This
really means surrounding development/neighbourhood];
 Building construction;
 Type of termite barrier, if any;
 Inspection frequency;
 Number of potential nest sites;
 Food sources;
 Soil type.

From this model, an average estimate of the time to attack destructively is derived. The
total time to attack has been divided into four sequential event times defined as follows
(Fig. 11):

 Stage 1: the time taken for the establishment of a mature colony, within 50 m of the
target house;
 Stage 2: the time taken for the termite foraging galleries to progress to a house that is 20
m from the nest site;
 Stage 3: the time taken for termites to penetrate or bypass a chemical or mechanical
barrier, if any;
 Stage 4: the time taken (after penetrating the barrier) to reach and cause failure of a
timber member.

The average estimate of the time is then used in a probabilistic model that predicts the
probability of attack depending on the age of the house. The model has been calibrated with
data obtained from a termite survey of 5,000 houses chosen at random around Australia
(this set of data is also referred to as the Termite Tally).

Two termite hazard maps of Australia have been developed. In one map, the zonation is
based only on the mean annual temperature. In the other map, the zonation is based on
agro-ecological regions. In addition to mean annual temperature, the use of agro-ecological
classifications inherently takes into account the effects of rainfall, soil type, and possibly
vegetation. An analysis of data from the Termite Tally, however, shows that rainfall has
little or no effect on the termite hazard. A preliminary unified termite hazard map has been
produced based on these two maps.

The model predicts that for the possible variety of scenarios in Australia, there is an
extremely wide range of risks involved. Hence, ignoring the application of this model and
treating all scenarios as similar can lead to very inefficient and/or very risky design
procedures and building regulations.

A novel aspect of the model is that it introduces a parameter that represents the historical
memory of an interviewee when obtaining data such as that reported in the Termite Tally.
Application of the model shows that the effects of the differences between the true and
apparent risks of attack may not be significant for low-risk scenarios such as in the design
of house frames; however, there may be significant errors (on the unsafe side) in high-risk
scenarios, such as in the design of fencing and noise abatement structures, if the differences
between true and apparent risks are not taken into account.
The current model can be used with confidence to make quantitative predictions when the
conditions are average. However, when dealing with extremely high or extremely low risks,
the form of the risk functions have only been roughly investigated. Further surveys and
interviews of additional experts are needed. Fortunately, the format for collecting expert
opinion allows for the introduction of new parameters and concepts regarding termite attack
as these become apparent.

One option for implementing our new insights and understanding of risk of termite attack is
to recommend design details (e.g., use of physical or chemical barrier) and required actions
(e.g., type and frequency of inspections) for wood construction in each hazard zone such
that there is a uniform risk of attack Australia-wide (this should be at an acceptably low
level).

CORROSION OF FASTENERS

The effects of corrosion may be considered as a loss in the cross section of connectors,
which in turn can be used to assess the residual strength of a connector. It is convenient to
separate consideration of corrosion into two types. These will be termed "embedded
corrosion" and "exposed corrosion," depending on whether the surface of the connectors is
in contact with wood or the atmosphere (Fig. 12).

For the case of metal embedded in wood, the input parameters for the model include:

 Building location (for the effect of several climate parameters);

 Fastener location, either outdoors or within a building envelope;
 Type of fastener metal;
 Natural acidity (pH) of timber.

For the case of metal exposed to atmospheric corrosion, the input parameters for the model
include:

 Building location (for the effect of several climate parameters);

 Fastener location, either outdoors or within the building envelope;
 In the case of attack by airborne salt, the required information includes distance from
the seacoast, classification of the nearby coastal zone, and the degree of shelter from
surf-generated spray;
 For the case of attack by airborne pollutants, the required information includes the
distance from the polluting source and the nature of the polluting industry;
 Type of fastener metal.

The corrosion of exposed steel has been extensively studied and is a very complex matter.
Corrosion is related to the condensation of moisture on the surface of the steel and depends
not only on climate parameters, but also on whether there are deposits of salt on the metal.
For example, a deposition of sodium chloride on a metal surface can cause condensation to
occur at relative humidities as low as 75 percent. For deposits of magnesium chloride, the
corresponding relative humidity is 35 percent.

Figure 13 shows the significant influence of salinity and sea-state activity on corrosivity.
Surf sea is worse than normal sea because of surf-generated salt. The peak value of
corrosivity is at the coastline, and this then decreases exponentially with distance from the
coast. The coastal zonation of the Australian coastline for this purpose is shown in Figure
14. Rain or strong winds can remove salt from a metal surface.

MODEL CALIBRATION

The development of durability prediction models has been based largely on a mixture of
data obtained from field tests on small clear pieces of wood and/or expert opinion. Figure
15 shows the possible sources of data for both model development and calibration. Since
in-service performance is the target of prediction, there will be more confidence in the use
of models that have been calibrated with performance data from actual construction. These
data take into account in the most realistic way the three-way interactions of product,
environment, and people (or user action) that actually occur in service. Unfortunately, there
are often not enough data from actual construction that can be used for calibration. In this
case, the opinions of people who have practical experience and/or expertise in durability
performance of timber in construction can be surveyed and combined with other available
data.

To facilitate the collection of durability data from real construction, we have established a
wood durability computer database using Microsoft Access. This database allows a detailed
and systematic method of gathering, recording, and analyzing durability data from various
sources and for various types of construction. Table 2 gives a summary of the project data
that have been obtained to date. The data from full-size field studies for in-ground decay
and corrosion can be treated very much like the data from in-service measurements.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

An engineered approach to durability design of wood construction is now possible. Key to

this is the development of probabilistic prediction models of the effects of various
durability hazards on the long-term performance of wood. These models have been
implemented in software, and are currently being calibrated with data from in-service
construction and full-size field tests. The models are easily updated when better and more
reliable data become available in the future.

In addition to being used to develop generic durability design procedures, these models
could be particularly useful for designing special one-off [jargon? I don't understand "one-
off"] constructions (e.g., a prestigious, high-profile building), evaluating non-traditional
constructions (e.g., new energy-efficient wall constructions), evaluating the consequences
of legislation (e.g., a ban on certain preservative chemicals), and making cost-optimized
decisions for physical assets that require maintenance or life-cycle cost evaluation (e.g.,
power poles and bridges).

Follow-up work will focus on the use of these models for engineering design and asset
management purposes. Models for attack by other hazards will be developed and the model
of decay attack within a building envelope will be investigated.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge project funding and contributions from the Forest and Wood
Products Research and Development Corporation (FWPRDC) and the other members of
this project team: Ivan Cole, John Thornton, Gary Johnson, Dave Gardner, Myron Cause,
Laurie Cookson, Minh Nguyen, and Craig Seath.

REFERENCES

1. Architectural Institute of Japan. 1993. The English language edition of the principal
guide for service life planning of buildings. Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan.

2. Bennett, A., Clark, S. and Benge, C. 2001. Design for durability – A review of New
Zealand practice. Proc. of CIB World Building Congress (CD-Rom). CIB, Wellington, New
Zealand.

3. British Standards Institution. 1992. BSI 743: Guide to the durability of buildings
and building elements, products and components. BSI, London, UK.

4. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 1996. Survey of building envelope

failures in the coastal climate of British Columbia. Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

5. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 1999. Wood-frame envelopes in the

coastal climate of British Columbia: best practice guide. Ottawa, Ontario,Canada.

6. Canadian Standards Association. 1995. S478-95: Guidelines on durability in

buildings - structures (design). CSA, Rexdale, ON, Canada.

7. Dost, W.A. and Botsai, E.E. 1990.Wood: Detailing for performance. 1st ed. GRDA
Publications, Mill Valley, CA.

8. European Economic Commission. 2001. Durability and the construction products

directive. Guidance Paper F. EEC, Brussels, Belgium.

9. Francis, R.A. 1996. An update on the corrosion process and protection of structural
steelwork. Steel Construction 30(3).
10. Foliente, G.C. 1998. Design of timber structures subjected to extreme loads.
Progress in Structural Engineering & Materials 1(3): 236244.

11. Foliente, G.C., Leicester, R.H., Cole, I. and Mackenzie, C. 1999. Development of a
reliability-based durability design method for timber construction. Proc. 8th International
Conf. On Durability of Building Materials and Components (8dbmc), Vol. 2. M.A. Lacasse
and D.J. Vanier, eds. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, ON, Canada: 1289–1298.

12. International Standards Organisation. 2000. ISO 15686-1: Buildings and

constructed assets - Service life planning - Part 1: General principles. ISO, Geneva,
Switzerland.

13. Leicester, R.H. 2001. Engineered durability for timber construction. Progress in
Structural Engineering & Materials, 2(3).

14. Leicester, R.H. and Wang, C-H. 2001. A probabilistic model of termite attack. Proc.
of ICOSSAR'01 Conference. Newport Beach, California, USA, Balkema Publishers,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

15. Leicester, R.H., Wang, C-H. and Foliente, G.C. 2001. A probabilistic decay attack
model of timber in-ground. Proc. of. ICOSSAR' 01 Conference. Newport Beach, California,
USA: Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

16. Masters, L.W. and Brandt, E. 1989. Systematic methodology for service life
prediction of building materials and components. Matériaux et Constructions/Materials
and Structures 22(131):385.

17. National Association of Forest Industries. 1989. Timber - Design for durability.
Timber Datafile P4. NAFI, Canberra, Australia: 31.

18. Sagot, G. 1995. Detailing for durability. In Timber Engineering STEP1. (Eds) H.J
Blass et al., Lecture A14. Centrum Hout, The Netherlands: 9.

19. Scheffer, T.C. 1971. A climate index for estimating potential for decay in wood
structures above ground. Forest Products Journal 21(10): 25–31.

20. Wyatt, D.P. and Luchini, A. 2001. Validating design life through performance
reviews. Proc. CIB World Building Congress (CD-Rom), Wellington, New Zealand.
Table 1. In-ground decay degradation factors for round poles in Zone B (e.g. Melbourne)
Durability degradation factor, kD for poles
Design
Wood Type service life Diameter Diameter Diameter
(yr) d < 250 mm 250 mm  d d > 400 mm
 400 mm
Full-length AS 1604.1 20 0.95 0.95 0.95
preservative H4 treatment 50 0.85 0.90 0.90
treated AS 1604.1 20 0.95 1.0 1.0
softwood H5 treatment 50 0.90 0.95 0.95
(Class 4)
Full-length AS 1604.1 20 0.85 0.90 0.90
preservative H4 treatment 50 0.55 0.65 0.75
treated AS 1604.1 20 0.85 0.90 0.90
softwood H5 treatment 50 0.55 0.65 0.75
(Class 1)
Full-length AS 1604.1 20 0.70 0.80 0.85
preservative H4 treatment 50 0.30 0.50 0.60
treated AS 1604.1 20 0.80 0.90 0.90
softwood H5 treatment 50 0.50 0.65 0.75
(Class 2)
Durability Class 1 20 0.85 0.90 0.90
untreated hardwood 50 0.55 0.65 0.75
Durability Class 2 20 0.60 0.75 0.80
untreated hardwood 50 0.15 0.30 0.45

Table 2. Summary of project data samples

Number of data items
Lab Field measurements In-service
Hazard type measurements measurements
Small clear Small clear Full size
In-ground decay – 5000 150 200
Exposed decay – 4000 – 1500
Termite attack – – – 5000
Corrosion 200 700 300 20

Figure 1. Aging effect on strength.

Figure 2. Schematic illustration of different durability design methods.

Figure 3. Schematic illustration of the use of prediction (attack) models and engineering
design procedure.

Figure 4. Durability prediction from climate data to local elements.

Figure 5. Illustration of the effects of sheltering on the time of wetness of exposed
construction.

Figure 6. Measured median values of decay of untreated in-ground stakes at Sydney.

Figure 7. Idealized model for attack by decay.

Figure 8. Climate zones for the decay of wood in ground contact (Zone D has the highest
hazard).

Figure 9. Examples of assumed attack patterns for in-ground poles.

Figure 10. Climate zones for the decay of wood in exposed aboveground condition (Zone
E has the highest hazard).

Figure 11. Illustration of the four time events of termite attack.

Figure 12. Types of corrosion for typical metal connectors.

Figure 13. Examples of effect of distance from sea on the corrosion of exposed steel (9).

Figure 14. Classification of coastal zones according to sea-state activity (Zone C3 has the
highest hazard).

Figure 15. Sources of data for model development and calibration.