Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spring Hill (Nashville), TN
    Posts
    5,827

    Default A new way to build a deck

    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:
    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    Elite MGA Home Inspector E&O Insurance
    Scott Patterson, ACI
    Spring Hill, TN
    www.traceinspections.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    1,217

    Default Re: A new way to build a deck

    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.

    Last edited by Bruce Breedlove; 08-21-2007 at 10:55 PM.
    "Baseball is like church. Many attend but few understand." Leo Durocher
    Bruce Breedlove
    www.avaloninspection.com

  3. #3
    David Banks's Avatar
    David Banks Guest

    Default Re: A new way to build a deck

    Not a good idea to notch guardrail post anyway.


  4. #4
    Frank Kunselman's Avatar
    Frank Kunselman Guest

    Default Re: A new way to build a deck

    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.


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    state of jefferson
    Posts
    520

    Default Re: A new way to build a deck

    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?


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Spring Hill (Nashville), TN
    Posts
    5,827

    Default Re: A new way to build a deck

    Quote Originally Posted by brian schmitt View Post
    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.

    Scott Patterson, ACI
    Spring Hill, TN
    www.traceinspections.com

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    25,304

    Default Re: A new way to build a deck

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Patterson View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  8. #8
    imported_John Smith's Avatar
    imported_John Smith Guest

    Default Re: A new way to build a deck

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


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    state of jefferson
    Posts
    520

    Talking Re: A new way to build a deck

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Patterson View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    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


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    25,304

    Default Re: A new way to build a deck

    Quote Originally Posted by brian schmitt View Post
    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.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  11. #11
    Brian M Jones's Avatar
    Brian M Jones Guest

    Default Re: A new way to build a deck

    Methinks I like the code up here a lot better..........42 inches no matter what builing the deck is on..home, office, where-ever.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •