I am planning to build a dock deck and have a question regarding the dimension needed for the floor joists. The span they need to support is about 2.5 m. Is 45*145 enough, or do I need to increase the dimension? I have searched online for this information without finding any tables or formulas, so I'm asking here instead. The deck isn't a garden deck but will be a superstructure on a tightly piled dock filled with stone. The dock dimensions are 3*7 m, and as mentioned, the span the joists need to support is approximately 2.5m.
Thanks for that link - awesome. But p. 16 talks about glulam, but if I'm interpreting the table correctly on p.14, I should be able to go down to 45*145 with cc40, it should handle a free span of 2.63. I prefer to reduce the dimensions to build as little as possible in height.
Thanks for the link - awesome. But page 16 talks about glulam, but if I interpret the table correctly on page 14, I should be able to go down to 45*145 with cc40, it should handle a free span of 2.63. I prefer to reduce the dimension to build as little as possible in height.
Page 14 it should be, of course. Also matches with 45x145 at cc40.
note also that this is with 22mm decking, I don't know which one you intended to use, but it feels like going to 28mm would probably make 45x145 @ 2.5m feasible even with cc60 or maybe even 45x120 with cc40 (although I haven't tried it myself, especially the latter I would probably want to try before building it that way)
Is another support (page 15) not possible? then 45x120 is no problem, maybe you could even get by with 95...
I'm just working on my deck and using 45 x 145 beams propped up on garden slabs. I placed the end blocks first, and when you walk around on the beams spanning over 3 meters, it wobbled a lot. Of course, there isn't any decking there yet, but I would have chosen to over-dimension to avoid the wobble.
Was the bridge stone-filled in the middle? Can't you set support posts on the stones which are screwed perpendicularly to the beams? NTR/A-rated wood should last a long time even if it gets really wet.
Yes, the bridge is stone-filled in the middle but there are quite a few tons of stone, and I expect it will settle/sink a bit into the bottom, so I don't really believe in using it as a base.
I was thinking of 28 mm decking, but I saw that there is also a 34 mm option and I could consider that.
I have just finished my porch (the railing is not done, but the picture is from yesterday so a bit more has happened) in 34x145, a nice dimension for decking I think:
Even nicer is what we did on the decking/dock at the country house, we used 45x195 as decking (but only 45x145/170 in the frame):
Then it suddenly doesn’t matter so much if it's cc60 or cc85
Ullberg, I have also considered using 45×195 but excluded it due to cost reasons, but maybe the difference won't be that significant in the end if you can space the studs more than cc60. The feel is definitely different than with regular decking wood. It should also withstand weather better. I might need to rethink this again. Nice job by the way!!
Well, the calculation compared to 28-trall (or even worse, 22mm) didn't look entirely fun, but when we compared it to 34mm trall, the difference wasn't huge, and being so close to the sea (the Baltic Sea is right behind me in the picture) it felt nice to have A instead of AB as trall.
The seller at the local XL-bygg looked somewhat skeptical when we explained what we were going to use the whole bunch of 45x195 in 5.1m lengths for, but was probably happy to sell. For my part, I was a bit sad that I no longer work at a building materials store, but the margin on pressure-treated wood is quite tight, so the employee discount wouldn't have made much of a difference...
Just checking the Byggmax website and reading that decking timber 34x145 class AB costs 22.95 per lpm (28x120 costs 10.95 lpm) while structural timber 45x145 class A costs 25.95 per lpm. Is there really any reason to use 34x145?? It feels like that dimension is completely off in terms of pricing in every way.
My memory from the time in retail is that 34x145 is not a price-pressed dimension (unlike other decking dimensions and the most common construction dimensions), and thus has a higher margin.
In connection with the construction I just did, I got slightly better prices from an old colleague who is back working in building retail, and then once again 34 became cheaper than 45 (I guess he applied a straight margin with me).
But otherwise, not really, in my small porch construction, I think 45 would have looked a bit too bulky, but your measurements are more like what we used in the countryside and then it just looks wonderfully sturdy with 45 (according to me). However, I would advise you to go up to 45x195 for the proportions to be better, or at least consider doing so. (and where I shopped, there was practically no difference in square meter pricing between the different 45-dimensions, but maybe there is at byggmax?)
/U
PS: One downside, trying to "press" a 45x195 straight is not recommended, so ensuring you get really nice straight lumber becomes even more important (although a 34x145 is also not entirely easy to persuade, but at least easier...)
was just on Byggmax's website, and see that there's a big difference, 154 SEK/m2 for 45x145 and 219 SEK/m2 for 45x195, guessing that it was a more expensive 145 rather than a cheap 195 at the local sawmill in the countryside...
The price I see for 45x145 on Byggmax is also only 22.40, i.e., a few cents cheaper than 34x145...
Yes, it is indeed the case that we further north have to pay higher prices due to higher transport costs, which can feel a bit strange since the majority of the timber is likely harvested in the forests around here.
Click here to reply
Vi vill skicka notiser för ämnen du bevakar och händelser som berör dig.
