Piling Restoration

Has anyone had experience with this?

HOME - SnapJackets

I'm not familiar with those but the prices don't look bad. I've seen socks that go around rotten piles that they pump concrete into. I like the idea of these better. They would have a finished look. You thinking of them for your dock?

Larry M said:

I'm not familiar with those but the price don't look bad. I've seen socks that go around rotten piles that they pump concrete into. I like the idea of these better. They would have a finished look. You thinking of them for your dock?

Click to expand...

Yes, if they offer it on the west coast. I have 3 pilings that need to be replaced and to replace them with steel (wood is no longer acceptable here in Washington State) at a cost of 5K per piling. The permit process takes over a year and pilings can only be driven in a 3-monyh period (Oct-Dec) and only if there is not an early fish run.

This would appear to solve all those issues.....

I contacted them for more information.

I would be interested to know how this works out.

I saw them on Shipshape TV last Saturday. Look at the current episode to see how they work. Looks like a nice way to fix pilings.

Alaskan Sea-Duction said:

Yes, if they offer it on the west coast. I have 3 pilings that need to be replaced and to replace them with steel (wood is no longer acceptable here in Washington State) at a cost of 5K per piling.

Click to expand...

Tom, why did I think that your dock was on the south side of the river in OR? Is it in St. Helens?

No, on the northside (eastside) down river from Longview....

Alaskan Sea-Duction said:

Has anyone had experience with this?

HOME - SnapJackets

Click to expand...

Overall, looks like a good product. However, in Googling the price I see ~$500 per pole and throw in the labor to install and add the concrete, that gets AWFUL expensive.

Here in St. Pete I can get a piling installed for $300, material and labor.

I use the black "plastic" wrap, called piling wrap. My guy cleaned the pole, applied the wrap, labor and materials for $30 a piling, primarily for bug protection. They still get barnacles, but a bit easier to knock off.

Would suspect the SnapJackets would get barnacles, too. However for the price of a Snapjacket, I could replace 2 or 3 pilings.

And FWIW, I just replaced 9 of my pilings and the decking that was approaching 30 years old. WAY better cost effectiveness just replace the piling, using treated 2x6s and the wrap. Total bill for that, including the wood decking, and new supports for a 12 x 18 deck was $1800.

In South La, we use PVC or plastic corrigated drainage pipe about 4 inches larger than the diameter of the piling. Cut pipe long enough to cover beaver like cut in piling about 24" above rot from mud line up. Split pipe lengthwise and tie wrap the split pipe around piling. Pipe must sit on bottom of ocean floor. Than just fill with bags of cement. Don't even have to mix the cement. Cheap and will last until your grandchildren have to deal with it.

Tom,

Take a look at this product:

https://www.strongtie.com/products/rps/fx70

I have some experience with it. I believe it would suit your needs and should be readily available on the West Coast.

Interesting... thanks you for share.. On my marina we have 6 pile on need of replacement.. we ask for metal sleeves or replacement and nothing come below 5K...
I gonna investigate a little more about this system...

Seevee said:

Overall, looks like a good product. However, in Googling the price I see ~$500 per pole and throw in the labor to install and add the concrete, that gets AWFUL expensive.

Here in St. Pete I can get a piling installed for $300, material and labor.

I use the black "plastic" wrap, called piling wrap. My guy cleaned the pole, applied the wrap, labor and materials for $30 a piling, primarily for bug protection. They still get barnacles, but a bit easier to knock off.

Would suspect the SnapJackets would get barnacles, too. However for the price of a Snapjacket, I could replace 2 or 3 pilings.

And FWIW, I just replaced 9 of my pilings and the decking that was approaching 30 years old. WAY better cost effectiveness just replace the piling, using treated 2x6s and the wrap. Total bill for that, including the wood decking, and new supports for a 12 x 18 deck was $1800.

Click to expand...

Pilings here in the PNW and specifically the Washington side of the Columbia River are about $5,000 per steel piling.

When replacing or a new piling it must be steel. This seems to be a little more cost effective.

Hi guys. Just noticed this thread. I'm with SnapJacket Piling Restoration Systems.
Would be happy to answer any questions about piling repair techniques and of course any questions of our product.

What ddalme said. Sure seems to work down here, judging from the numbers of these repairs I see. I understand that the areas of maximum wood piling deterioration are 1) in the splash zone; and 2) at the mud line. Getting a good "seal" at the "mud line" (pushing the jacket into and below the water line) may be problematic in areas where the bottom isn't mud, but gravel or other hard pan. I'm guessing somebody in the business has figured this out or maybe, in reality, its a non-issue.

Papertrail said:

Hi guys. Just noticed this thread. I'm with SnapJacket Piling Restoration Systems.
Would be happy to answer any questions about piling repair techniques and of course any questions of our product.

Click to expand...

PM sent

sbu22 said:

What ddalme said. Sure seems to work down here, judging from the numbers of these repairs I see. I understand that the areas of maximum wood piling deterioration are 1) in the splash zone; and 2) at the mud line. Getting a good "seal" at the "mud line" (pushing the jacket into and below the water line) may be problematic in areas where the bottom isn't mud, but gravel or other hard pan. I'm guessing somebody in the business has figured this out or maybe, in reality, its a non-issue.

Click to expand...

Every area of the country has piling deterioration problems, but the issues are accelerated in warm climate areas. This is because instead of just a few cold water tolerant marine organisms, all of the nasty wood destroying organisms live in warmer waters. We see pilings deteriorate worst along the high and low tide mark. This gives the piling the distinctive hourglass shape.
Below the mud line the piling will look nearly new. The lack of oxygen means the WDO cannot survive.
We recommend excavating 4-6 inches of sand/mud from the bottom of the piling. (with a standard powerwasher) Go as far as it takes to get to "good piling. Once the PVC jacket is attached, the sand will naturally fill in around it.

This is usually all it takes to get a good seal at the bottom before you start pouring concrete.

Alaskan Sea-Duction said:

Yes, if they offer it on the west coast. I have 3 pilings that need to be replaced and to replace them with steel (wood is no longer acceptable here in Washington State) at a cost of 5K per piling. The permit process takes over a year and pilings can only be driven in a 3-monyh period (Oct-Dec) and only if there is not an early fish run.................

Click to expand...

It seems to me that Washington State is becoming more and more anti-pleasure boating.

What reasons do thy give for these restrictions?

They are very anti boating. The reason given it protects the environment and fish.

WesK said:

It seems to me that Washington State is becoming more and more anti-pleasure boating.

What reasons do thy give for these restrictions?

Click to expand...

Restricting wood use is not uncommon due to environmental pressures. You will likely see more of this in the future because its part of an evolution that's been happening for a long time.
In the old days, marine pilings were double treated with Creosote and a cocktail of chromium, copper and arsenic (CCA). This double layer was very effective against wood boring organisms because it was very toxic to all living things. There are pilings in use today that look brand new yet they are 50 years old.
However, we later learned that Creosote was a carcinogen and therefore banned. So we were only left with the CCA. This leaves the piling vulnerable to some wood destroying organisms as it has little affect on some species. With this change pilings were now lasting just half the amount of time.

Today, do to increasing environmental pressure modern pilings manufactures don't put the same level of CCA in the wood they used to, further reducing the life expectancy. As a result we have seen some pilings in Florida and Louisiana last less than 10 years.
Keep in mind that from the very first day the piling goes in the water, it starts leaching these toxic chemicals. Permanently encasing the piling in concrete immediately stops this and is better for the environment.
It gets way more technical than that, but hopefully that explains things a bit.

Washington DNR's pricipals regarding the prohibition of treated wood in water:

• From an engineering standpoint, structures require fewer metal pilings than wood, which means less impact to the nearshore environment.(May or may not be true depending on design criteria; these people clearly know nothing about marine structures)
• Metal pilings have a longer life span than wood pilings, reducing the need to disturb habitat with more frequent replacements.(Once again - depends)
• Alternative materials eliminate potential impacts to water and sediment quality that would otherwise result from the use of treated wood.(Ever heard of BPA & dioxin? EPA's Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Creosote (Case 0139) had great difficulty making the case against creosote in the marine environment - but they still just don't like it)
• Safer for herring spawn. (OK - I assume Washington DNR knows something about herring spawning)
• Eliminates related impacts from the use of treated wood, such as environmental damage and cost of disposal at the end of its life cycle. (Not that EPA could find, try as they might)
• All state and federal agencies consistently recommend avoiding the use of treated wood. (Here's the clincher! In the environmental regulators' echo chamber, this gets applause!)

WesK said:

It seems to me that Washington State is becoming more and more anti-pleasure boating.

What reasons do thy give for these restrictions?

Click to expand...

The state is NOT anti-boating, but they are very strict (overly in some cases) in regards to environmental impacts.

The issue with the pilings is/was the creosote that was used as a preservative. Highly toxic stuff (which is why it worked so well).

Finally, I am not sure that most of the impacts are actually on the commercial marine industry rather than the recreational boaters.

Papertrail said:

It gets way more technical than that, but hopefully that explains things a bit.

Click to expand...

Your answer was a whole lot more informative and authoritative than mine was. I should read ahead before replying.

And, of course, the CCA "non-ban" ban is based on potential exposure of children to arsenic from CCA treated lumber on playgrounds. Read the literature and you will not find the linkage between CCA and aquatic/benthic damage.

So - if it's not "safe" for children in playgrounds, it naturally follows that it should be prohibited from piers and docks. Sheesh!

Boating itself is bad for the environment. Maybe boating should be banned. Ships hit and kill whales. Maybe shipping should be banned.

Actually, it's humans that are bad for the environment. Without humans, the planet would get along just fine.

So WA seems to be taking the lead in inconveniencing boaters (oh, I'm sorry, I meant to say "protecting the environment". Banning effective bottom paint and now dock pilings. I'm surprised it wasn't California.

Why does it take a year to get a permit to replace a dock piling? What happens to safety in that year? What happens when someone can't afford $5K replacement pilings?

WesK said:

Why does it take a year to get a permit to replace a dock piling? What happens to safety in that year? What happens when someone can't afford $5K replacement pilings?

Click to expand...

I don't want to speak to all the anti-environmental protection sentiment. But it takes a long time to get permits because in WA there are a number of entities that have to approve it. It depends on where it is, but in my marina for example, we have to deal with the Army Corp of Engineers, the WA State Dept of Natural Resources, the county, the city, and because of our marinas location in relation to a wetland, the EPA. Our marina is a home owners association. Part of the marina is on tidal lands that we own but part is on marine lands leased from the WA state DNR.

Because there are so many agencies involved, it took about 10 years to get permission to dredge the portion of the marina that was silting up. It took any number of hearings, studies, reviews, and then more hearings, studies and reviews. Solutions that were acceptable to one agency, weren't OK with another. Solve one problem, and we then had to renegotiate a different solution with another.

In the end, we came up with a solution that would allow us to create an underwater berm that would help restore a wetland, keep our marina from silting up in the future (hopefully). The process was long, expensive, and frustrating. The solution was expensive and time consuming.

I certainly didn't enjoy paying for the process and the final construction. However, when all is said and done, it should result is an improved wetland, improved fish run, and a marina that won't silt up.

If you are a land owner on Puget Sound that can't afford to maintain your dock, then your dock falls apart. If you are a land owner on Puget Sound that can't afford your property tax, then you have liens placed on your property. If the roof on your house has to be replaced you better be able to afford to replace that roof with a roof system that complies with the local building codes. If you can't, then you can't afford that house. The same is true with a dock.

Seems to me you likely could have come up with the answer to that question all on your own.

It takes a long time to get marine permits anywhere.

Treated lumber/pilings were banned in New Jersey and I bet a lot of other places decades (at least one plus) ago.

The issue is the psuedo feel good "science" that these rules/decisions are based on and the almost unimaginable (to the uniniated) red tape that these agencies produce and gleefully enforce.

It takes a DECADE for for dhays' marina to get the permits to drege his marina? That's the time it took to fight WWII - twice.

Well there are thousands of wood pilings in the Columbia River, many well over 50-100 years old. I have never read a report where piling were the direct or in-direct cause of any pollution and/or fish killings.


You would think if it were that bad, Washington and Oregon would have pulled them long ago. Its BS to justify the jobs at DNR and the EPA.

sbu22 said:

The issue is the psuedo feel good "science" that these rules/decisions are based on and the almost unimaginable (to the uniniated) red tape that these agencies produce and gleefully enforce.

It takes a DECADE for for dhays' marina to get the permits to drege his marina? That's the time it took to fight WWII - twice.

Click to expand...

I believe the promise to cut regulations and red tape had a big impact on the results of the last Presidential election.

One of the reasons manufacturing has gone offshore is the red tape a company has to put up with to build a factory in the USA. If I wanted to manufacture widgets, I wouldn't put up with a ten year permitting process, I would build a factory in a third world country and be selling widgets in a few months.

So what about concrete pilings? Too many fish killed running head first into them?