We are currently piling a dock (7*3m) and I'm considering the construction of the deck. Initially, I thought of framing with 45*195 pressure-treated timber at 60 cm centers, and then laying the deck lengthwise with 28*120 decking boards, but I'm starting to think it might be simpler and perhaps just as costly to lay the deck directly crosswise with 45*195. I assume the 3m span requires a middle beam to prevent flexing, and this could be solved by framing a "cross," i.e., a beam dividing the stone crib lengthwise and breadthwise.
Does anyone have any comments on this or other great tips? One idea was to order untreated and rough-cut timber from a local sawmill in large dimensions and use this for the deck, then oil it, and it should last many years before rotting. As mentioned, grateful for any input!
Does anyone have any comments on this or other great tips? One idea was to order untreated and rough-cut timber from a local sawmill in large dimensions and use this for the deck, then oil it, and it should last many years before rotting. As mentioned, grateful for any input!
Isn't it common to have a 2 m distance between the supports under the beams when building a deck? That would then mean you should have the center beam supported in some way or dimension it not to have it.
Keep in mind that different directions of the decking give different impressions of the pier. Decking in the length direction of the pier gives the impression of a longer pier, while decking in the width direction gives a wider impression. The standard is to lay it in the width direction.
Keep in mind that different directions of the decking give different impressions of the pier. Decking in the length direction of the pier gives the impression of a longer pier, while decking in the width direction gives a wider impression. The standard is to lay it in the width direction.
Okay, the concepts seem to be used a bit differently depending on the country you are in. It concerns a tightly piled jetty, meaning spruce logs are piled about 6 meters into the bottom to a "chest" measuring (7x3m), which is then fastened with threaded rods and filled with stone. The height is about 1.2 meters above the average water level. On top of this, the deck will be built. I don't think the direction the decking is laid has much significance for durability in this case.
Last edited:
Ok, I get the concept.
I would still say that all the bridges I've seen built by "pros" using this concept have the decking laid lengthwise. But as you said, it has less significance in your case.
What is good about having floor joists crosswise (and thus decking lengthwise) is that it's easy to let the bridge deck have an overhang of about half a meter. If you then need support beams lengthwise as a base for the floor joists, it depends a bit on what you have to anchor into in the stone crib itself. Normally, you let some posts extend up a bit so that support beams can be attached to them.
I would still say that all the bridges I've seen built by "pros" using this concept have the decking laid lengthwise. But as you said, it has less significance in your case.
What is good about having floor joists crosswise (and thus decking lengthwise) is that it's easy to let the bridge deck have an overhang of about half a meter. If you then need support beams lengthwise as a base for the floor joists, it depends a bit on what you have to anchor into in the stone crib itself. Normally, you let some posts extend up a bit so that support beams can be attached to them.