Most trees fail in adverse weather, no rocket science in that.
Brisbane is "on the rounds" for regular adverse weather with a history of cyclonic conditions.
Do you think there's a standard that buildings in this area must be designed for wind speed?
Of course there is.
And would it not then be prudent to ensure that trees be able to stand up to the same treatment?
So when assessing trees wouldn't it be prudent to know the wind history and look at the tree from that perspective?
Of course it would, if we build something that has to stand up to a certain level of wind then it becomes pretty much accepted that everything should. So saying a regular 80km/h wind blew over that tree is simply not on and was predictable, and the other two trees are standing.
There's a standard.
Quote:
Australian
Standard AS 1170, Part 2 ?SAA Loading Code Wind Forces?).
|
But ask at your council, there'd be something about it, find out what it is. Houses etc built out there have to be to a design standard, be good if there's some material on it.
The hard part is assessing the tree, like those New Farm Jacarandas and all the hoohaa/testing about whether they stay or go, who's got a way of finding out if they'll blow over? Is there a way to test them for that?
That is the key, when you know how to do that without destroying the tree or what's near it then you got something.
But then, if you know it's going to fail in a 110km/h wind and it's healthy what would you do? That becomes a whole new ethical issue to some, but not for me. It's no secret, short fat trees are safest ... maybe more bottle trees then.
