I'm slightly curious if anyone can share experiences about how "regular" timber versus decking holds up in a porch or stairs compared to pressure-treated counterparts. Also welcome if someone has experience with larch and other materials. Assume these are maintained with oil in a similar way...

It would be fun to hear your experiences...
 
I have a pier where I've mixed regular with pressure-treated wood, and it is taken up every autumn. After 7 years, I see no difference between the beams, but some do crack more. However, that has to do with how good the timber was from the start and not whether it was pressure-treated.
 
If you compare pressure-treated and untreated wood of the same species, you can often see a significant difference in lifespan outdoors. Pressure-treated wood lasts many times longer. I have experience with both piers and decks!
 
When it comes to lärk, the wood is naturally impregnated and does not need to be treated. However, if you do not treat it, the color will change to silver gray, but it is very durable. It is also worth noting that today's lärk is not of the same quality as it was 10-15 years ago. Today, it is often fast-growing lärk from Poland, etc. It is not often you come across genuine SIBIRISK lärk that has grown under Siberian conditions, which makes the lärk harder and denser.
 
Thanks for the responses everyone.

anaitis said:
If you compare pressure-treated and untreated wood of the same type, you usually see a significant difference in outdoor lifespan. Pressure-treated wood lasts many times longer. I have experience with both docks and patios!
Many times longer? I thought it was maybe 10-15% longer. I'm going to have some surplus timber for a relatively large staircase and possibly a patio. I've heard that really dense wood is at least as good as treated wood, but I'm a bit unsure about the truth of this.

Bonan said:
As for larch, the wood is naturally impregnated and doesn't need to be treated. If you don't treat it, the color will change to silver-gray, but it is very durable.
Thanks, good info...
 
Regarding the larch, the studies that have been conducted are in Russia, which is also a major exporter of the larch. They also showed that larch is excellent in anaerobic environments but not significantly better than, for example, high-quality pine in aerobic environments. Heartwood pine even had better properties than lower-quality larch. There is a pole test done/in progress in Sweden, but I actually don't know how it has gone. In short, Anders, build with untreated wood but make sure it is well-ventilated (high-quality pine that has a good chance to dry weathers approximately 1mm/10 years if it is unprotected according to Swedish studies). If you also treat the wood (oil or paint), it will last well enough anyway.

Best regards,

Martin
 
janwide
Does this mean that one might as well build a deck with non-pressure treated wood if one maintains it with oiling etc.?
 
it really means nothing, but sure. I have a wooden deck built in the early 70s on the property that is still in excellent condition, oiled every three years or so (not more often, at least). The problem is that high-quality timber is more expensive than pressure-treated wood. However, it's worth considering that the ventilation around the deck must be good/very good for it to work. The deck in the example above is 1.5-2.5m above the ground. However, it does work.

Best regards,

Martin
 
Click here to reply
Vi vill skicka notiser för ämnen du bevakar och händelser som berör dig.