Research was conducted to evaluate the decking performance of northeastern United States wood species treated with copper based preservatives. Decking specimens were treated with one of four wood preservatives and exposed near Madison, Wisconsin. Specimens were evaluated for biological attack and dimensional stability. After 10 years, none of the preservative treated specimens had fungal decay. All of the untreated Southern Pine specimens were severely decayed within 5 years, but untreated specimens of other species were much slower to decay. Surface mold was most commonly observed on untreated specimens, but was also sometimes present on preservative treated wood. Warp and checking were greatest in red maple and least in eastern white pine. Although all wood species/preservative combinations were decay resistant, concerns with appearance and dimensional stability may make red maple and balsam fir less desirable for use as decking. Eastern white pine appears to be the northeastern species most suitable for use in decking.
AWPA. 2002. Commodity specification A, sawn products. Book of Standards. Selma, AL: American Wood Preservers’ Association.
2.
AWPA, 2014. Evaluation Standards E7, E8, E9, E16, E21, E23, E25 and E26. Book of Standards. Birmingham, AL: American Wood Protection Association.
3.
BornemannT, BrischkeC and AlfredsenG. 2013. Climatic impacts on the moisture performance of wooden decking and facades. Document No. IRG/WP 13-20518. Int. Research Group on Wood Preservation, Stockholm, Sweden.
4.
BrelidPL and EdlundML. 2013. Durability of alternatives to CCA-treated wood. 2013. Results from field tests after 11 years exposure. Document No. IRG/WP 13-30633. Int. Research Group on Wood Preservation, Stockholm, Sweden.
5.
BrischkeC and RappA.O. 2010. Potential impacts of climate change on wood deterioration.International Wood Products Journal, 1(2), pp. 85–92.
6.
CarllCG. 2009. Decay hazard (Scheffer) index values calculated from 1971–2000 climate normal data. General Technical Report FPL–GTR–179. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 17 p.
7.
CrawfordDM, DeGrootRC and GjovikLR. 1999. Ten-year performance of treated northeastern softwoods in aboveground and ground-contact exposures. Res. Pap. FPL-RP-578. Madison, WI: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory. 9 p.
8.
EngelundET, KlamerM, VenasMT and LindegaardB. 2012. Long term durability of the heartwood of seven common softwood species in above ground conditions. Document No. IRG/WP 12-10771. Int. Research Group on Wood Preservation, Stockholm, Sweden.
9.
GjovikLR and SchumannDr. 1992. Treatability of native softwood species of the northeastern United States. Res. Pap. FPL–RP–508. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 20 p.
10.
LebowST, HalversonSA and HatfieldCA. 2005. Treatability of underutilized northeastern species with CCA and alternative wood preservatives. Research Note FPL–RN–0300. Madison, WI: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 5 p.
11.
LebowST, WoodwardBM, HalversonSA and ArangoR. 2010. Stake tests of northeastern species treated with copper-based preservatives: Five-year results. Research Note FPL–RN–0314. Madison, WI: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, 17 p.
12.
LindegaardB and MorsingN. 2003. Natural durability of European wood species for exterior use above ground. Document No. IRG/WP 03-10499. Int. Research Group on Wood Preservation, Stockholm, Sweden.
13.
MilitzH, BroertjesM and BloomCJ. 1998. Moisture content development in lap-joints of different wood species in outside exposure trials. Document No. IRG/WP 98-20143, Int. Research Group on Wood Preservation, Stockholm, Sweden.
14.
MorrisPI and IngramJK. 2012. Twenty-year performance of decking with two levels of preservative penetration.Forest Products Journal, 62(7/8), pp. 566–70.
15.
MorrisPI and WangJ. 2011. Scheffer index as preferred method to define decay risk zones for above ground wood in building codes.International Wood Products Journal, 2(2), pp. 67–70.
16.
RichardsMJ and McNamaraWS. 1997. The field performance of CCA-C treated sawn refractory softwoods from North America. lRG/WP/40085. Inter. Res. Group on Wood Preservation, IRG Secretariat, Stockholm, Sweden.
17.
RichardsMJ and InwardsRD. 1989. Treatability with CCA and initiation of field performance testing of refractory softwoods.Proc. of the Canadian Wood Preservation Association. Vancouver, B.C. 10:144–178.
18.
SmithWB. 1986. Treatability of several northeastern species with chromated copper arsenate wood preservative.Forest Products Journal, 36(7/8), pp. 63–69.
19.
SmithWB, AbdullahN, HerdmanD and DeGrootRC. 1996. Preservative treatment of red maple.Forest Products Journal, 46(3), pp. 35–41.
20.
WestinM, JermerJ, EdlundML, BrelidPL and JohanssonI. 2010. Field trials of wood preservatives in UC3 retention. Part 1. Durability after 13 years in and above ground. Document IRG/WP 10-30548. Int. Research Group on Wood Preservation, Stockholm, Sweden.
