Maintaining a deck in a hot climate

Peter Lynch wrote:

> The material I'll use will be pressure treated pine, as alternatives
> such as redwood are not available.

There is a product we use here in New Mexico called Trex. It is a
composite of wood and platics that bears up in our high heat and UV
areas. My deck is concrete and I do not worry about heat retention as
we have extremely low humidity so the temperature drops very quickly at
night. Also, during the day, it is much too hot to sit out in sum
without shade. In the shade the concrete is cool.

See is you can locate a supplier of Trex or similar product. What are
your neighbors using on their decks?

Bill

I too have a deck that needs rework and have some questions.

The old deck has PT lumber that needs to be replaced. Considering that
the new PT lumber is treated with a different treatment, what changes
does one need to perform to mix old and new PT lumber in the same deck?

TMT


justice wrote:
> I live in South Alabama and its hot here, gets up to 100 every year
> with high humidity. I have a 50'x 14' wood deck on the 2nd floor of my
> house. I built on the edge of the woods so the back is partially shaded
> by trees and is 22ft off the ground. It was built in 1990. Last month I
> decided it was looking pretty ratty, some ends twisted up a little,
> large checks and cracks but still servicable and not rotted.
>
> It is just pressure treated pine and was built when we built the house
> by my contractor. He used straight nails and not deck nails, so many
> started popping out and were starting to stick up past the surface. We
> didn't take real good care of it, we cleaned it and water treated it
> every 2 or 3 years and stained it 3 times.
>
> So now I have just finished rebuilding it and didn't want to spend a
> lot of money. I pulled all the boards and about 1/2 to 2/3 were good on
> the back side, meaning like new, since the checks didn't go far into the
> top, I planed all the boards removing about 5/16 they were all 2" x 6"
> making the back side look like new and the old front, now the back not
> so bad. I had to buy about $400 worth of new boards, many were 2"x4"
> because I tossed the whole rail system and redesigned it making more
> supports and used horizontal bars as rails. Electrical conduit, primed
> and painted green. Gives a much better view, looks much better and is
> much stronger. All the trusses were in very good condition. 2"x10" and
> the supports are PT telephone poles and are like new. I paid about $1
> per foot and used 35' poles.
>
> I used deck screws this time and would recommend that you use deck
> screws instead of nails. A lot of the boards are warped especially the
> new ones and the screws pull them down and hold better when they are not
> If a board gets problems its easy to pull and replace. The hardest part
> was pulling the old boards with the nails, most pulled through.
>
> I checked consumers report and bough the best semi-transparent stain
> recommended, Olympic Maximum 5 year, I used a natural tone redwood
> color. In the sun it is hot on the feet, too hot to stand on barefoot.
> When it rains there is no water soak just puddles. I also checked many
> deck building articles and the consensus is that it doesn't matter if
> the grain ring is down or up. (the Cup), although its better to put the
> cup so the high side is up, after 5 years or so they all change, some go
> flat, some cup and some bow but not enough to matter if the water repels
> off.
>
> It looks great and I expect another 15 years out of it.
>
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > Somebody wrote:
> >
> > >The size of the deck will be about 5m x 4.5m (18' x 12') and will
> > >have to support about 1 ton: people, furniture etc. but no tub or
> > >other localised "heavy spots". I don't need a barbeque area.
> > >
> > >My main concern is the durability of the materials used, primarily
> > >because of the high daytime temperatures and UV exposure. Given
> > >people's experience of decking in similar environments, such as
> > >arizona or NM, is this sensible, or would I be better off going
> > >for a concrete patio - which seems to be the more popular alternative
> > >with my neighbours?
> >
> >
> > Different horses for different courses.
> >
> > Having built a concrete patio, it would be the way I'd go.
> >
> > I used wood to built a sun roof over the concrete patio.
> >
> > Made for great BBQ's BTW.
> >
> > Lew

Thanks for responding.

Actually the decking is in fine shape...it is the substructure that is
showing rot.

That is why I will be replacing the rotted submembers and keeping the
decking.

Any recommendations for subframe materials?

Why no galvanized nails?

What would you recommend?

Thanks

TMT



Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >I too have a deck that needs rework and have some questions.
> >
> > The old deck has PT lumber that needs to be replaced. Considering that
> > the new PT lumber is treated with a different treatment, what changes
> > does one need to perform to mix old and new PT lumber in the same deck?
> >
> > TMT
>
> Fasteners. You don't use galvanized nails. Check McFeelys for
> recommendations.
>
> Are you replacing a few boards or the entire top deck? If the entire top,
> take a look at some of the other materials available, like mahogany or ipe.
> More expensive, but will last longer.

Thanks again for the reply.

I also note that my deck also has metal hangers for some of the
structural members.

I would consider that one would have to avoid using these metal hangers
with the new PT treated wood....correct?

If so, what replacements are there?

TMT


Prometheus wrote:
> On 9 Jun 2006 22:17:30 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for responding.
> >
> >Actually the decking is in fine shape...it is the substructure that is
> >showing rot.
> >
> >That is why I will be replacing the rotted submembers and keeping the
> >decking.
> >
> >Any recommendations for subframe materials?
>
> PT is fine, it's just different now that they eliminated the arsenic.
>
> >Why no galvanized nails?
>
> Because they rust away very quickly in the new PT wood, and are not
> acceptable fasteners.
>
> >What would you recommend?
>
> Not my recommendation- the requirements as given by the PT
> manufacturers. You have to have triple-coated or stainless steel
> screws. They're expensive, but cheaper than a lawsuit if someone
> falls off your deck because the structure collapsed.

A product you might consider is Grail Coat.
http://www.grailcoat.com/index.php?p=deck.htm I was going to
apply it over 3/4" waterprof OSB.
I considered it here and didn't use it because it is only available in
units and I was just a hair over and would have the cost of purchasing
a second unit.

I ended up using a product by Timberteck
http://www.timbertech.com/products/floorizonplank.aspx
It is tounge and grove and looks great after 3 years. No maintenance.
Bill T

Peter Lynch wrote:
> I'm considering building a deck at my house in spain. The climate
> is hot/arid (up to 40 C, about 110 F) during the summer and a short
> cold winter with occasional snow, maybe down to -10.
> The material I'll use will be pressure treated pine, as alternatives
> such as redwood are not available.
> The deck will be in direct sunlight from the east and south, it's
> shaded by the house to the west.
>
> The size of the deck will be about 5m x 4.5m (18' x 12') and will
> have to support about 1 ton: people, furniture etc. but no tub or
> other localised "heavy spots". I don't need a barbeque area.
>
> My main concern is the durability of the materials used, primarily
> because of the high daytime temperatures and UV exposure. Given
> people's experience of decking in similar environments, such as
> arizona or NM, is this sensible, or would I be better off going
> for a concrete patio - which seems to be the more popular alternative
> with my neighbours?
>
> Your views and experiences would be very welcome.
> Pete
>

I guess a little off topic, but I've got a long lost friend who moved to
Spain - Salamanca? Are you near there?

- jbd

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Peter Lynch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> snip
>
> >
> > The size of the deck will be about 5m x 4.5m (18' x 12') and will
> > have to support about 1 ton: people, furniture etc. but no tub or
> > other localised "heavy spots". I don't need a barbeque area.
> >
> > My main concern is the durability of the materials used, primarily
> > because of the high daytime temperatures and UV exposure. Given
> > people's experience of decking in similar environments, such as
> > arizona or NM, is this sensible, or would I be better off going
> > for a concrete patio - which seems to be the more popular alternative
> > with my neighbours?
>
> I would certainly go with the wood. I live in Houston and while the temp
> des not regularily hit 110F in the summer, 100+F is normal. I seriousely
> doubt a few more degrees will make a critical difference.
>
> If exposed to direct sunlight wood will fade
>
> A concrete patio ecposed to direct sunlight is going to absorbe and radiate
> heat perhaps all night long and would be too hot to stand on bare footed in
> the summer.
>
> Ultimately the wood would be cooler.
>
>
>
I'm near Houston, TX, and have built a couple of wood decks. I used PT
wood (pine), firmly secured at every joist with ring shank nails. I
made sure when I nailed the boards that I put the cup
(potential/probable problems) DOWN. I power wash as necessary to remove
the inevitable mildew and treat with Thompson's and/or an equivalent.

With that kind of installation and treatment I've found a deck can be
good looking after quite a few years, 10-15, at least.

The one I have now is about 500 sq. ft. over my pond/lake (2+ acres, so
which do I call it?) and after 7 years of above care it still looks
good.

Tex

I live in South Alabama and its hot here, gets up to 100 every year
with high humidity. I have a 50'x 14' wood deck on the 2nd floor of my
house. I built on the edge of the woods so the back is partially shaded
by trees and is 22ft off the ground. It was built in 1990. Last month I
decided it was looking pretty ratty, some ends twisted up a little,
large checks and cracks but still servicable and not rotted.

It is just pressure treated pine and was built when we built the house
by my contractor. He used straight nails and not deck nails, so many
started popping out and were starting to stick up past the surface. We
didn't take real good care of it, we cleaned it and water treated it
every 2 or 3 years and stained it 3 times.

So now I have just finished rebuilding it and didn't want to spend a
lot of money. I pulled all the boards and about 1/2 to 2/3 were good on
the back side, meaning like new, since the checks didn't go far into the
top, I planed all the boards removing about 5/16 they were all 2" x 6"
making the back side look like new and the old front, now the back not
so bad. I had to buy about $400 worth of new boards, many were 2"x4"
because I tossed the whole rail system and redesigned it making more
supports and used horizontal bars as rails. Electrical conduit, primed
and painted green. Gives a much better view, looks much better and is
much stronger. All the trusses were in very good condition. 2"x10" and
the supports are PT telephone poles and are like new. I paid about $1
per foot and used 35' poles.

I used deck screws this time and would recommend that you use deck
screws instead of nails. A lot of the boards are warped especially the
new ones and the screws pull them down and hold better when they are not
If a board gets problems its easy to pull and replace. The hardest part
was pulling the old boards with the nails, most pulled through.

I checked consumers report and bough the best semi-transparent stain
recommended, Olympic Maximum 5 year, I used a natural tone redwood
color. In the sun it is hot on the feet, too hot to stand on barefoot.
When it rains there is no water soak just puddles. I also checked many
deck building articles and the consensus is that it doesn't matter if
the grain ring is down or up. (the Cup), although its better to put the
cup so the high side is up, after 5 years or so they all change, some go
flat, some cup and some bow but not enough to matter if the water repels
off.

It looks great and I expect another 15 years out of it.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
>
> >The size of the deck will be about 5m x 4.5m (18' x 12') and will
> >have to support about 1 ton: people, furniture etc. but no tub or
> >other localised "heavy spots". I don't need a barbeque area.
> >
> >My main concern is the durability of the materials used, primarily
> >because of the high daytime temperatures and UV exposure. Given
> >people's experience of decking in similar environments, such as
> >arizona or NM, is this sensible, or would I be better off going
> >for a concrete patio - which seems to be the more popular alternative
> >with my neighbours?
>
>
> Different horses for different courses.
>
> Having built a concrete patio, it would be the way I'd go.
>
> I used wood to built a sun roof over the concrete patio.
>
> Made for great BBQ's BTW.
>
> Lew

"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I also note that my deck also has metal hangers for some of the
> structural members.
>
> I would consider that one would have to avoid using these metal hangers
> with the new PT treated wood....correct?
>
> If so, what replacements are there?

McFeelys carries stainless steel

Somebody wrote:

>The size of the deck will be about 5m x 4.5m (18' x 12') and will
>have to support about 1 ton: people, furniture etc. but no tub or
>other localised "heavy spots". I don't need a barbeque area.
>
>My main concern is the durability of the materials used, primarily
>because of the high daytime temperatures and UV exposure. Given
>people's experience of decking in similar environments, such as
>arizona or NM, is this sensible, or would I be better off going
>for a concrete patio - which seems to be the more popular alternative
>with my neighbours?


Different horses for different courses.

Having built a concrete patio, it would be the way I'd go.

I used wood to built a sun roof over the concrete patio.

Made for great BBQ's BTW.

Lew

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> Thanks again for the reply.
>
> I also note that my deck also has metal hangers for some of the
> structural members.
>
> I would consider that one would have to avoid using these metal hangers
> with the new PT treated wood....correct?
>
> If so, what replacements are there?
>

Triple coated hangers.


--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]
(Remove -SPAM- to send email)

"Peter Lynch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

snip

>
> The size of the deck will be about 5m x 4.5m (18' x 12') and will
> have to support about 1 ton: people, furniture etc. but no tub or
> other localised "heavy spots". I don't need a barbeque area.
>
> My main concern is the durability of the materials used, primarily
> because of the high daytime temperatures and UV exposure. Given
> people's experience of decking in similar environments, such as
> arizona or NM, is this sensible, or would I be better off going
> for a concrete patio - which seems to be the more popular alternative
> with my neighbours?

I would certainly go with the wood. I live in Houston and while the temp
des not regularily hit 110F in the summer, 100+F is normal. I seriousely
doubt a few more degrees will make a critical difference.

If exposed to direct sunlight wood will fade

A concrete patio ecposed to direct sunlight is going to absorbe and radiate
heat perhaps all night long and would be too hot to stand on bare footed in
the summer.

Ultimately the wood would be cooler.

"Tex" <tex@my_isp.net> wrote in message
> I have found PT pine deck boards securely fastened to a solid water
> contact PT pine sub-structure to be quite durable, even in our Houston-
> area hot, humid climate. I do have to pressure wash it periodically
> because of mildew and then re-treat with a water sealer.
>
> With that treatment and after 7 years it still looks good.

Since we are getting back on topic. there was mention about a patio instead
of a deck. That would be my first choice. Much less maintenance, no chance
of rodents taking up residence under a low deck. Yes, you do have the heat
sink effect in a hot and sunny climate, but that is the only down side I can
think of.

"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Should look great- opt for brick or stone, and it'll give you an
> organic look, especially if you find some that have been tumbled a bit
> and have some variation in color and size. Harder to lay than
> standardized pavers, but nicer to look at in the end. Concrete can
> always be painted as well, though I wouldn't trust it to hold up for
> the long term.
>

Or perhaps the stamped concrete. It can be colored also.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> I'm considering building a deck at my house in spain. The climate
> is hot/arid (up to 40 C, about 110 F) during the summer and a short
> cold winter with occasional snow, maybe down to -10.
> The material I'll use will be pressure treated pine, as alternatives
> such as redwood are not available.
> The deck will be in direct sunlight from the east and south, it's
> shaded by the house to the west.
>
> The size of the deck will be about 5m x 4.5m (18' x 12') and will
> have to support about 1 ton: people, furniture etc. but no tub or
> other localised "heavy spots". I don't need a barbeque area.
>
> My main concern is the durability of the materials used, primarily
> because of the high daytime temperatures and UV exposure. Given
> people's experience of decking in similar environments, such as
> arizona or NM, is this sensible, or would I be better off going
> for a concrete patio - which seems to be the more popular alternative
> with my neighbours?
>
> Your views and experiences would be very welcome.
> Pete

Pete, I live in New Zealand, in the northern part. We don't get the kind of
frosts here, but I dare say our sun is probably stronger, UV wise, than
anything you'll get in Spain.
One thing I can tell you for sure: people avoid building pine decks like the
plague, except maybe for absolutely poor people or those who just don't know
any better. It weathers too much, and it doesn't stay stable when it's out in
the weather like that. At the very least you'll need to put lots of oil based
stain on it, or similar.

If that was me, and pine was really all that was available, I think I'd go for
concrete and put terracotta or slate on it. 22 square meteres, hell that's 2.2
cubes of concrete at 4 inches (and you only need 3, max, and one steel mat
unless you want to park the range rover on it) - cheaper than buying the
timber, probably.

-P.

--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com

"Tex" <tex@my_isp.net> wrote in message
>
> The one I have now is about 500 sq. ft. over my pond/lake (2+ acres, so
> which do I call it?)

Differing opinions:
http://momo.essortment.com/differencebetwe_rnpj.htm
There is a difference between a pond and a lake and it grows primarily out
of the source of creation, as with all living things - yes I said living,
but we'll get to that. A lake was made by God; a pond is always man made. As
such you might expect ponds, each being made by different men, to look a lot
different from one to another and to be stocked with different varieties of
plant and animal life from pond to pond, and you'd be right.

http://www.twingroves.district96.k12.il.us/WEtlands/LakesPonds/LakesPonds.html
Lakes and ponds are permanently wet year round. The main difference between
a lake and a pond is the size. A lake is usually defined as a body of water
large enough to have at least one wind-swept beach; ponds usually are not
large enough for winds to blow across the water and create waves to wash
away the plants that may be trying to take root. A lake is too deep for
rooted plants to grow except near the shore.


http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/bb/bb-49.htm
The term "lake" or "pond" as part of a waterbody name is arbitrary and not
based on any specific naming convention. In general, lakes tend to be larger
and/or deeper than ponds, but numerous examples exist of "ponds" that are
larger and deeper than "lakes."

"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Actually the decking is in fine shape...it is the substructure that is
> showing rot.
>
> That is why I will be replacing the rotted submembers and keeping the
> decking.
>
> Any recommendations for subframe materials?
>
> Why no galvanized nails?
>
> What would you recommend?

I don't recommend anything; that is why I said to check out McFeelys web
page as they have a lot of deck hardware and more important, good
information on how to use it. The new treatment will corrode galvanized
nails. I did read someplace that double dipped is OK but I'm not sure.

http://www.mcfeelys.com/subcat.asp?sid=559 and
http://www.mcfeelys.com/deckcalc.asp

For the subframe, I'd probably stick with pressure treated on concrete
piers. Mine is 20 years old, will probably go another 20 or more. My wife
want a new top deck just for the looks, but I'm not about to replace an
otherwise sound structure.

"Tex" <tex@my_isp.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
> I'm near Houston, TX, and have built a couple of wood decks. I used PT
> wood (pine), firmly secured at every joist with ring shank nails. I
> made sure when I nailed the boards that I put the cup
> (potential/probable problems) DOWN. I power wash as necessary to remove
> the inevitable mildew and treat with Thompson's and/or an equivalent.
>
> With that kind of installation and treatment I've found a deck can be
> good looking after quite a few years, 10-15, at least.


I built mine in 1983 with PT lumber.

On 9 Jun 2006 21:55:02 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I too have a deck that needs rework and have some questions.
>
>The old deck has PT lumber that needs to be replaced. Considering that
>the new PT lumber is treated with a different treatment, what changes
>does one need to perform to mix old and new PT lumber in the same deck?

Only change I'm aware of is that the new PT lumber requires
triple-coated or SS screws. If you use regular galvanized screws, the
lumber will eat them quickly.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

> Thanks for responding.
>
> Actually the decking is in fine shape...it is the substructure that is
> showing rot.
>
> That is why I will be replacing the rotted submembers and keeping the
> decking.
>
> Any recommendations for subframe materials?

You might want to look into structural plastic lumber, a few brands are
Polywood, Fiberforce, Trimax, and Century Board. If you google "structural
plastic lumber" you'll find others. And for the lurker who invariably is
going to pop up and say that you can't use plastic lumber for structure,
that's true for the Home Depot stuff, but it is not the only game in town.

> Why no galvanized nails?
>
> What would you recommend?
>
> Thanks
>
> TMT
>
>
>
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> "Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >I too have a deck that needs rework and have some questions.
>> >
>> > The old deck has PT lumber that needs to be replaced. Considering that
>> > the new PT lumber is treated with a different treatment, what changes
>> > does one need to perform to mix old and new PT lumber in the same deck?
>> >
>> > TMT
>>
>> Fasteners. You don't use galvanized nails. Check McFeelys for
>> recommendations.
>>
>> Are you replacing a few boards or the entire top deck? If the entire
>> top, take a look at some of the other materials available, like mahogany
>> or ipe. More expensive, but will last longer.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 07:53:47 GMT, Peter Lynch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Yes, now I've seen the responses to my question, I'm tending towards
>a mixed approach.
>
>Originally I wanted decking rather than stone/concrete as I expected
>this would be cooler (less heat) and would also add more texture and
>a more "organic" feel to the rather desolate area to the front of the
>house - if that doesn't sound too pretentious.
>
>The comment about snakes & scorpions made me think, especialy as the
>deck would be close to the entrance. Last time I was at the house I
>found a baby scorpion inside and I know there are snakes in the area.
>
>What I'll probably end up doing is laying a patio with a pergola over
>the top and a few climbing plants trained over it to provide shade. I
>can still keep most of the organic look with this and some wooden
>railings around the perimeter.

Should look great- opt for brick or stone, and it'll give you an
organic look, especially if you find some that have been tumbled a bit
and have some variation in color and size. Harder to lay than
standardized pavers, but nicer to look at in the end. Concrete can
always be painted as well, though I wouldn't trust it to hold up for
the long term.

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 08:42:13 GMT, Peter Lynch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I'm considering building a deck at my house in spain. The climate
>is hot/arid (up to 40 C, about 110 F) during the summer and a short
>cold winter with occasional snow, maybe down to -10.
>The material I'll use will be pressure treated pine, as alternatives
>such as redwood are not available.

Don't they have nice cedar in Spain? Or is Spanish Cedar only that in
name only?

>The deck will be in direct sunlight from the east and south, it's
>shaded by the house to the west.
>
>The size of the deck will be about 5m x 4.5m (18' x 12') and will
>have to support about 1 ton: people, furniture etc. but no tub or
>other localised "heavy spots". I don't need a barbeque area.
>
>My main concern is the durability of the materials used, primarily
>because of the high daytime temperatures and UV exposure. Given
>people's experience of decking in similar environments, such as
>arizona or NM, is this sensible, or would I be better off going
>for a concrete patio - which seems to be the more popular alternative
>with my neighbours?

Unless you just really want a wooden deck, they've got no real
advantages over patios- especially when it comes to maintenance. If
you don't like the concrete option, loose laid bricks or pavers look
nice and last indefinately in most conditions. A quick search one
Google should return any number of article on how to install them, if
you don't already know, and depending on how much work you're willing
to do yourself, they can be very inexpensive.

I put in mine this last weekend (9' x 13') and the whole deal cost $15
+ gasoline. To get it that cheap was a ton of work- I removed a
100-yr old chimney one brick at a time with a brick set and a hammer,
carefully removing the mortar as I went and took it home. The bricks
were my payment for the work- which was a fair deal, as "antique"
pavers go for a premium in most markets. Then excavated the area for
the patio with a shovel, paid $15 for a yard of gravel and a ton of
sand, shoveled all that stuff into the excavation manually, screeted
the sand and laid the bricks. Took about 3 long days for the brick
reclamation and one and a half for the patio, but it would have cost
me at least a couple grand to have someone else do it. Figure about
twice as much time for the size you've got in mind- unless you have a
hard-working helper.

Concrete will cost whatever it costs- there isn't much room for
dickering there, and it's generally not a do-it-yourself job like a
deck or paver patio is for most people. Making the forms is easy, but
finishing the poured slab is an art most folks (including myself) are
not very adept at, and a big hunk of concrete is not easy to remove if
you're not happy with the results. The only real concern with the
material is that it is bland, and may crack if it is not installed
correctly- make sure you check out the contractor beforehand, as some
are much better than others, and price is not always a good indicator
with concrete.

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 09:32:05 -0700, Tim Douglass
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 09:53:49 -0500, Prometheus
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Don't they have nice cedar in Spain? Or is Spanish Cedar only that in
>>name only?
>
>Spanish Cedar is, IIRC, a species of Mahogany and not related to any
>North American cedar at all.

Even better for weather resistance then, isn't it? I guess I was
wondering why there wasn't anything but PT pine around, especially
with the relative proximity of Africa (relative compared to the US,
that is)

Then again, I know very little about Spain- other than it looks like a
nice place to live.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On 6/6/2006 10:50 PM Edwin Pawlowski mumbled something about the following:
>>
... a bunch about lakes/ponds snipped
> >
... my apologies for getting the thread off subject re: lakes/ponds, so
I'll re-answer the originally posted question in case my first attempt
got lost in the shuffle -- bear with me while I repeat. :-)

I have found PT pine deck boards securely fastened to a solid water
contact PT pine sub-structure to be quite durable, even in our Houston-
area hot, humid climate. I do have to pressure wash it periodically
because of mildew and then re-treat with a water sealer.

With that treatment and after 7 years it still looks good.

Tex

On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 09:53:49 -0500, Prometheus
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Don't they have nice cedar in Spain? Or is Spanish Cedar only that in
>name only?

Spanish Cedar is, IIRC, a species of Mahogany and not related to any
North American cedar at all.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"Too_Many_Tools" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I too have a deck that needs rework and have some questions.
>
> The old deck has PT lumber that needs to be replaced. Considering that
> the new PT lumber is treated with a different treatment, what changes
> does one need to perform to mix old and new PT lumber in the same deck?
>
> TMT

Fasteners. You don't use galvanized nails. Check McFeelys for
recommendations.

Are you replacing a few boards or the entire top deck? If the entire top,
take a look at some of the other materials available, like mahogany or ipe.
More expensive, but will last longer.

Having lived in southern Arizona for 40 years and lived with both,
I'll share some hands on experience. A wood deck is cooler in the
summer as Leon says but it needs a lot of maintenance. No finish,
surface film or oil, lasted more than 1 year due to the intense UV.
In the summer the kids were always playing on it and using the water
hose. The constant wet vs. hyper-dry cycles caused the pine to
deteriorate in just a few years. The underside was the perfect home
for many snakes, spiders, and scorpions.

Concrete on the other hand needs almost zero maintenance, an
occasional blast with the water hose does just fine. It also has no gaps
to catch and hold debris. Yes, it will get damn hot in the direct summer
sun (160+ degrees depending on its' color) but it cools rapidly when
flooded with water. If your climate is humid, like Houston, this will
be less effective than in an arid climate. Concrete can be texturized
to imitate rock or brick if you don't like the normal plain surface.
I've seen concrete patios which are 30+ years old that look like
they were poured a few years ago.

Whichever way you decide to go, remember that shade is your friend.
Trees, awnings, overhead trellis, or anything that blocks the sun will
increase your enjoyment of your patio/deck.

Art


"Peter Lynch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm considering building a deck at my house in spain. The climate
> is hot/arid (up to 40 C, about 110 F) during the summer and a short
> cold winter with occasional snow, maybe down to -10.
> The material I'll use will be pressure treated pine, as alternatives
> such as redwood are not available.
> The deck will be in direct sunlight from the east and south, it's
> shaded by the house to the west.
>
> The size of the deck will be about 5m x 4.5m (18' x 12') and will
> have to support about 1 ton: people, furniture etc. but no tub or
> other localised "heavy spots". I don't need a barbeque area.
>
> My main concern is the durability of the materials used, primarily
> because of the high daytime temperatures and UV exposure. Given
> people's experience of decking in similar environments, such as
> arizona or NM, is this sensible, or would I be better off going
> for a concrete patio - which seems to be the more popular alternative
> with my neighbours?
>
> Your views and experiences would be very welcome.
> Pete
>
> --
> ..........................................................................
> . never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
> . in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
> . doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................
>

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 03:06:17 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Should look great- opt for brick or stone, and it'll give you an
>> organic look, especially if you find some that have been tumbled a bit
>> and have some variation in color and size. Harder to lay than
>> standardized pavers, but nicer to look at in the end. Concrete can
>> always be painted as well, though I wouldn't trust it to hold up for
>> the long term.
>>
>
>Or perhaps the stamped concrete. It can be colored also.

Yeah, I imagine that would work- I've just never seen it in my neck of
the woods, so it's out of my frame of reference.

On 6/6/2006 10:50 PM Edwin Pawlowski mumbled something about the following:
> "Tex" <tex@my_isp.net> wrote in message
>> The one I have now is about 500 sq. ft. over my pond/lake (2+ acres, so
>> which do I call it?)
>
> Differing opinions:
> http://momo.essortment.com/differencebetwe_rnpj.htm
> There is a difference between a pond and a lake and it grows primarily out
> of the source of creation, as with all living things - yes I said living,
> but we'll get to that. A lake was made by God; a pond is always man made. As
> such you might expect ponds, each being made by different men, to look a lot
> different from one to another and to be stocked with different varieties of
> plant and animal life from pond to pond, and you'd be right.

Wow, according to this one, we have several LARGE ponds.
Just to name a few off the top of my head

Lake Mead (250 sq miles)
Lake Mohave (almost 200 sq miles)
Lake Sidney Lanier (60 sq miles)
Bogue Homa Lake (1200 acres, although it originally didn't have a damn,
it was much smaller before).

About 460 other Army Corp of Engineers lakes plus many others.

and quite a few lakes that aren't much larger than a mud puddle (that
is, if you believe in a Dog).
>
> http://www.twingroves.district96.k12.il.us/WEtlands/LakesPonds/LakesPonds.html
> Lakes and ponds are permanently wet year round. The main difference between
> a lake and a pond is the size. A lake is usually defined as a body of water
> large enough to have at least one wind-swept beach; ponds usually are not
> large enough for winds to blow across the water and create waves to wash
> away the plants that may be trying to take root. A lake is too deep for
> rooted plants to grow except near the shore.
>
>
> http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/bb/bb-49.htm
> The term "lake" or "pond" as part of a waterbody name is arbitrary and not
> based on any specific naming convention. In general, lakes tend to be larger
> and/or deeper than ponds, but numerous examples exist of "ponds" that are
> larger and deeper than "lakes."
>

This last one is the one I am most apt to use.

--
Odinn
RCOS #7 SENS BS ???

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 2006-06-09, Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Tex" <tex@my_isp.net> wrote in message
>> I have found PT pine deck boards securely fastened to a solid water
>> contact PT pine sub-structure to be quite durable, even in our Houston-
>> area hot, humid climate. I do have to pressure wash it periodically
>> because of mildew and then re-treat with a water sealer.
>>
>> With that treatment and after 7 years it still looks good.
>
> Since we are getting back on topic. there was mention about a patio instead
> of a deck. That would be my first choice. Much less maintenance, no chance
> of rodents taking up residence under a low deck. Yes, you do have the heat
> sink effect in a hot and sunny climate, but that is the only down side I can
> think of.
>
Yes, now I've seen the responses to my question, I'm tending towards
a mixed approach.

Originally I wanted decking rather than stone/concrete as I expected
this would be cooler (less heat) and would also add more texture and
a more "organic" feel to the rather desolate area to the front of the
house - if that doesn't sound too pretentious.

The comment about snakes & scorpions made me think, especialy as the
deck would be close to the entrance. Last time I was at the house I
found a baby scorpion inside and I know there are snakes in the area.

What I'll probably end up doing is laying a patio with a pergola over
the top and a few climbing plants trained over it to provide shade. I
can still keep most of the organic look with this and some wooden
railings around the perimeter.

Finally, sorry John but I've never been to Salamanca so I doubt that
I've met your friend.

thanks for the useful and constructive comments
Pete

--
..........................................................................
. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................

On 9 Jun 2006 22:17:30 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Thanks for responding.
>
>Actually the decking is in fine shape...it is the substructure that is
>showing rot.
>
>That is why I will be replacing the rotted submembers and keeping the
>decking.
>
>Any recommendations for subframe materials?

PT is fine, it's just different now that they eliminated the arsenic.

>Why no galvanized nails?

Because they rust away very quickly in the new PT wood, and are not
acceptable fasteners.

>What would you recommend?

Not my recommendation- the requirements as given by the PT
manufacturers. You have to have triple-coated or stainless steel
screws. They're expensive, but cheaper than a lawsuit if someone
falls off your deck because the structure collapsed.