A Comparison of Pressure Treated Wood and Cedar Signposts: Final Reports
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

For very narrow results

When looking for a specific result

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Dates

to

Document Data
Library
People
Clear All
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

A Comparison of Pressure Treated Wood and Cedar Signposts: Final Reports

Filetype[PDF-709.34 KB]


English
Details You May Also Like

Details:

  • Creators:
    Griffith, Andrew
  • Corporate Creators:
    Oregon. Dept. of Transportation. Research Group
  • Corporate Contributors:
    United States. Federal Highway Administration
  • Subject/TRT Terms:
  • Publication/ Report Number:
    OR-RD-00-07
  • Resource Type:
    Tech Report
  • Geographical Coverage:
  • TRIS Online Accession Number:
    00815927
  • OCLC Number:
    N/A
  • Edition:
    Final Report 1999
  • Corporate Publisher:
    Oregon. Dept. of Transportation. Research Unit
  • Abstract:
    This report compares the use of pressure treated wood and cedar for signposts. Both materials are being used by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), however sign crews are now primarily using Port Orford cedar posts. There are two types of pressure treated posts used by ODOT, Douglas-fir treated with Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate (ACZA) and Hem-fir treated with Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA). There are environmental concerns about the use of pressure treated wood. However, studies cited in this report have shown it is not detrimental to the environment. Based on price data provided by pressure treated wood suppliers, the purchase price for ACZA treated Douglas-fir is slightly higher than Port Orford cedar. The average disposal cost for pressure treated wood based on disposal at a landfill or waste transfer facility is slightly higher than cedar. In actual practice, sign crews dispose Port Orford cedar wastes in existing waste containers, thus eliminating the added disposal fee incurred by taking it directly to a landfill or waste transfer facility. In a survey of ODOT sign crews, they unanimously favor using Port Orford cedar posts over pressure treated posts. In Oregon State University?s wood post studies, Port Orford cedar posts lasted an average of 20 years, whereas pressure treated wood posts remained in service one-and-a-half to three times longer than Port Orford cedar. ODOT sign crews assert that only a small number of posts are replaced because of rotting, indicating a 20 year life is adequate for a signpost.
  • Format:
    PDF
  • Funding:
    SRS 549
  • Collection(s):
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:

Supporting Files

  • No Additional Files
More +

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at rosap.ntl.bts.gov