120,042 views ·
42 replies
120k views
42 replies
How do you think it looks best to splice decking?
About to lay decking approximately 6x6 meters of 28x120 decking
I have lengths of 3.6 and 3.90, so it takes 2 boards per "length". About 70 cm between the joists
First building a border (frame) around the outer edge
How do you consider it to look best - to have the first joint at, for example, 3.5 and the next length at 2.5 and then alternately have them every other one? Or should one try to spread the joints more randomly? I don't want general joints...
What do you think will look best?
Then I wonder if you cut the length on site (with a circular saw/plunge saw) and then attach the final frame board at the end grain, or if you make the entire frame first and cut the boards to exact length?
I have lengths of 3.6 and 3.90, so it takes 2 boards per "length". About 70 cm between the joists
First building a border (frame) around the outer edge
How do you consider it to look best - to have the first joint at, for example, 3.5 and the next length at 2.5 and then alternately have them every other one? Or should one try to spread the joints more randomly? I don't want general joints...
What do you think will look best?
Then I wonder if you cut the length on site (with a circular saw/plunge saw) and then attach the final frame board at the end grain, or if you make the entire frame first and cut the boards to exact length?
The neighbor has general gaps where the boards aren't even end-to-end. That's a no-go 
I prefer a random yet orderly distribution of the joints. Avoid many joints at exits and places with heavy foot traffic, as there will always be little splinters that can catch in socks, etc.
Never place short boards over just two joists because they will flex.
Consider 145 mm instead of 120. Much more attractive and only marginally more expensive per sqm.
I prefer a random yet orderly distribution of the joints. Avoid many joints at exits and places with heavy foot traffic, as there will always be little splinters that can catch in socks, etc.
Never place short boards over just two joists because they will flex.
Consider 145 mm instead of 120. Much more attractive and only marginally more expensive per sqm.
A general gap can look great if it is bordered by, say, 2 decking boards in the "other" direction. But this presumes that the finished surface doesn't look odd, otherwise it's a no-go.
By odd, I mean how it will look when finished, will potential furniture fit in one of the squares? Will there be a natural division, etc.
By odd, I mean how it will look when finished, will potential furniture fit in one of the squares? Will there be a natural division, etc.
Member
· Stockholm
· 1 397 posts

Spread joints with a trim, I think, look the best.
Hidden screwing seems unnecessary. Lower the screw by 5mm, and it practically disappears.
petrho said:About to install decking approximately 6x6 meters, 28x120 decking boards.
I have lengths of 3.6 and 3.90, so there will be 2 boards per "length," with about 70 cm between the joists.
First constructing a border (frame) around the outer edge.
What do you think looks best - having the first joint at, for example, 3.5, and the next length at 2.5, alternating like that? Or should one try to spread the joints more randomly? I don't want to have any continuous seams...
What do you think looks best?
Then I wonder if you cut the length on-site (with something like a circular saw/plunge saw) to then attach the last frame board at the end grain, or if you make the whole frame first and cut the boards to the exact length?

The only seam on our deck...
I use scattered joints since I have an irregular deck with many angles and rock adaptations.
If I had built a rectangular deck, then the frame variant with joints at the frame dividing the length would probably have been my choice, but such an option doesn't fit for us due to the rocks.
If I had built a rectangular deck, then the frame variant with joints at the frame dividing the length would probably have been my choice, but such an option doesn't fit for us due to the rocks.
