A new way to build a deck

**Scott Patterson** · 08-21-2007, 08:41 PM

This was on the same house that had the creative rafter notching.

Note the 2x4 along the bottom of the guardrail. From the top of the 2x4 to the top of the guard rail was 29". Just step up and over.

Similar Threads:

**Bruce Breedlove** · 08-21-2007, 10:45 PM

kerf - (n) the cut, notch or groove made by a saw

A kerf occurs when the cuts for a notch extend past the notched area. Kerfs are most commonly made with a circular saw. The "carpenter" cuts past the notch area so the blade makes a complete cut at the bottom of the cut (but cuts into the area beyond the notch). This is laziness on the part of the carpenter. It is too much extra effort for him to put down the circular saw and pick up a hand saw to complete the cut properly.

A kerf reduces the effective width or thickness of a piece of lumber. A kerf can also cause high stresses in the wood resulting in splits or checks that emanate from the kerf (as seen in the second pic). Kerfs are also a great place for moisture to penetrate the wood further reducing the strength of the lumber over time.

David Banks · 08-22-2007, 03:11 AM

Not a good idea to notch guardrail post anyway.

Frank Kunselman · 08-22-2007, 08:38 AM

Why is it some framers don't seem to understand the concept of supporting all members of a girder or beam?

Both members of the edge beam must be supported or let an engineer determine the appropriate method for tying them together to carry the imposed loads. Had he used a 6x6 with a full notch (without the kerf) I'd say OK.

**brian schmitt** · 08-22-2007, 09:40 AM

scott,
the top of the guardrail has to be 36" minimun above the deck surface on a s.f.d. if that is 36" i don't see a violation as you describe?

**Scott Patterson** · 08-22-2007, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by brian schmitt

scott,
the top of the guardrail has to be 36" minimun above the deck surface on a s.f.d. if that is 36" i don't see a violation as you describe?

Yes, it is 36" from the top of the GR to the deck. The problem is with the horizontal 2x4 at the bottom. This now creates a step so that a person or child could step up up on it and then it is only 29" from the top of the GR to the top of the 2x4. Horizontal boards are a no no on deck guardrails.

It is just not safe.

**Jerry Peck** · 08-22-2007, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

Horizontal boards are a no no on deck guardrails.

It is just not safe.

And that's the way to address it, because it is acceptable to 'code' - "code" is "minimum" life safety, not 'good', not 'better' and certainly not 'best' practices.

imported_John Smith · 08-22-2007, 05:02 PM

Its amazing what a trip to Home Depot, a circular saw, and a six pack of Busch light can do.

**brian schmitt** · 08-23-2007, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

Yes, it is 36" from the top of the GR to the deck. The problem is with the horizontal 2x4 at the bottom. This now creates a step so that a person or child could step up up on it and then it is only 29" from the top of the GR to the top of the 2x4. Horizontal boards are a no no on deck guardrails.

It is just not safe.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

And that's the way to address it, because it is acceptable to 'code' - "code" is "minimum" life safety, not 'good', not 'better' and certainly not 'best' practices.

i think the arrangement sucks but it is legal. it's like a guardrail being required at 30" not 29". at my age a fall from either could hurt so where do you draw the line. i would like to have the freedom to enforce "stupid" but that term is not codified. keep up the good work by identifying stupid

**Jerry Peck** · 08-23-2007, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by brian schmitt

identifying stupid

Talk about "stupid" ...

What about the required height of 42" for all except one and two family dwellings or within dwelling units?

If 36" is "safe" in ones own home, then 36" is "safe" at one place of enjoyment/work/etc.

If 42" is "safe" at ones place of enjoyment/work/etc., and 36" is "not safe" there, then 36" is "not safe" at home.

It is one thing to say 'But at home one has control over ones own domain.', however, if that were the case, then why require a guardrail at all and why not leave it up to the owner to protect ones own?

Oh? You say 'But ... 36" is required at home.', yeah, so why require an already recognized "not safe" height at home. If the reasoning is that the code is letting the owner protect his own (and guests), then why not let him 'build whatever', of course, though, there would have to be a few conditions ... such as (but not limited to): a) the owner would have to be the "builder", not just 'buying a house built by another to anther's specifications; b) the house could never be sold without first having a new buyer be made aware of all said deficiencies and signing a waiver releasing all responsibility from the previous owner and accepting all responsibility onto themselves.

Ohhh ... I can just see the eyes of insurance companies lighting up on that thought ... 'Hot dang, now there is something to increase rates over ... '.

So, identifying "stupid" begins with identifying "stupid" non-conforming items between the codes, all of which are "supposedly" designed for minimum protection of life, health, and safety.