1st Post About 1st Deck woohoo

[PROWBY]

lol DvdHntr,

last thing I wanna do is turn it into a wog palace style deck...No concrete for this little black rabbit..

[brynk]

gday

90 x 45 laid straight onto the pavers so it is 45 high (instead of 90). this plus the decking (around about 20 thick) gives you a height of around 65, which is slightly lower than your single course of brick that represents the height of the flooring inside. if you want to bring it up a bit more you could use packers or a 70x35 to give you a height of 70+20 ~ 90 or a bit lower - 35+20 ~ 55.

jerry i reckon you could get away not even fixing the joists off to the pavers with dynas because the decking board will restrain the joists as it is fixed off. once you get over the grassed area you can use pavers or bricks dug into the ground below grass level, with a bit of mortar between em if you need more than one, to get your heights as support for the joists. these should be spaced at least the bearer spacing dictated by the code, but i would be inclined to double the number of these and 1/2 the spacing.

Unless it is floating in the air there needs to be either a termite barrier, treated timber or hardwood with less than 20% sapwood.

a good point - i am under the impression jerry is using 90x45 treated pine, which is suitable for direct ground & in-ground applications. this is the frame sorted, but the decking remains a smorgasboard just waiting to happen. it would need to be a species which is not susceptible to termite attack (ie, too dense for them to eat) - some of the more 'common' () ones from the framing code are blackbutt, ironbark, grey box, western red cedar, red gum, spotted gum, jarrah, kwila/merbau, yellow stringy (this is what we used on our deck - hrm, i should update that thread also)

the space between your deck and the outside wall of your house - now since you can't find any vents or weep holes then i reckon it is a slab on ground which puts your floor height lower than the weep-holes / dpc, but your deck must not act as a 'bridge' between the wall cavity and the deck. this means the termites must not be able to eat their way into the wall cavity without coming across a barrier they can't pass. termites will go around the barriers but they are forced to build mud tunnels because they don't like the light. during your annual inspection you see these mud tunnels to see the little shytes.

in addition to the termite protection along the wall (required unless your home's structure is made of material that isn't termite susceptible) you will also need to kill & cover the grass in totality with a material that will drain. there is a felt weed matt which is more expensive than the woven poly but i can say this stuff stands the test of time, whereas the woven poly does not

doc, the post for the termite manual is a bit of research done by the fwprdc which outlines all the various options for termite protection in aus & where they are applicable, how successful they are, etcet.

r's brynk

[PROWBY]

Hmmm,

I'm wondering with the amount of bricks required for the joist only solution, would that be cost effective at all. I mean that would bring in a total of at least 93 posts/ little bricks laid on some mud.. take away some to be cemented in with stirrups to make sure its nice and solid and hey, that looks like a s/load of work. especially trying to get all the bricks level....

I think Bearers might be a better option??? more solid at the end of the day??

thoughts anyone??

Bearers will just require me to dig out 100mm of soil so there is reasonable clearance between the deck and the ground. Then there is no reason for the matting.

P.S can anyone point me to a place in Perth that sells "felt weed matt" and how much should I be paying for it on average...

Cheers, fellas....

have a nice weekend

J..

[brynk]

you'd have to hunt around for it. it costs about 2-3 times as much as the woven poly unless you buy it in bulk. i got onto it from an upholsterer... maybe two layers of the cheaper stuff will do the trick. the biggest prob you have is that you won't be getting under there once it is built unless it is at least 300 off the ground! regardless of the method used you will still need the matting unless you kill the soil before you build the deck. or you could lay black plastic? not sure how this goes in this instance - but if it is exposed to direct sunlight it wont last more than a summer or two.

if i were building this without bearers i wouldn't even bother with concrete or stirrups under the bricks, maybe a little between if there are some that are more than two high - (and certainly if you did it would probably be more cost effective to use bearers!) - just lay them straight on the dirt/existing pavers to the correct height. once you've set the height on the first joist closest the house you can use that as a datum for the rest of your joists.

if you had pavers left over from the paving you could use them? if not you could pull some up here and there and use them as donors for the job ...

r's brynk

[DvdHntr]

90 x 45 laid straight onto the pavers so it is 45 high (instead of 90).

Doesn't he also have an area that isn't pavers? I would be worried that this area woul sink or atleast settle more than the pavers part and so would be a problem. If he wants a good deck he needs some kind of footing. The pavers may be enough but what about that other part.

[brynk]

jerry do you have a plan of the area where you wish to build? dvdhntr raises another good point about settlement. so a couple of thoughts:

- if the grassed area is further away from the house than the paved area then a small amount of settlement here will be beneficial as the deck will drain away from the house; something to consider doing regardless of the type of structure you use.

- depending on the type of soil will depend on the size of the footprint and the spacing of the masonry 'piers' - a clayey soil you should get away with 2/3 - 1 complete bearer spacing between each pier; a sandy soil and you would want to be at around 1/3 - 1/2 complete bearer spacing between each.

- if it is sand it may well be more economical to dig in the sleepers as was previously suggested by dvdhntr, as digging will be easier and the load will be spread over more surface area

r's brynk

[manoftalent]

Prowby, check this out it may help you decide on materials ..
http://www.bowens.com.au/images/SpanTable2.pdf