Wood balcony rail post 1

[design62713]

I have always designed solid pressure treated solid (4x4 or 6x6) post for balcony rail post or deck rail post or handrail post. My client is asking if they can use pressure treated (2)2x4 or (2)2x6 post rather because it is cheaper. If there a provision in NDS or IBC about about this (must use solid post under such applications)? I am located in Washington, DC. Thanks in advance.

 

[Lion06]

I don't know of any code requirement for it be a single, solid piece, but trying to get the shear flow to work out with the load causing weak axis bending on a double 2x4 or double 2x6 may be difficult to achieve.

 

[Bagman2524]

Shouldn't matter as long as it is capable of supporting the design loads of 200 lbs. concentrated load or 50 plf uniform load.

There is ample precedent in the history of science for the overwhelming bulk of the scientific community strongly believing in imaginary entities postulated by a favovered theory. -Michael Behe

 

[CANPRO]

holy moly, I thought I had cheap clients.

Is it really that much cheaper? The workers have make the twice the cuts now and nail it all together

 

[design62713]

Thank you all. CANEIT, as you know, whatever we do it is never enough for the clients.

 

[CANPRO]

I hear ya, and honestly I find this one of the most frustrating parts of my job...when clients have me look into their bad ideas and I have to humor them because they're paying the bill.

But this is truly stupid. I looked at pressure treated lumber prices in my area...

A 4x4 (10') costs around $12.50 and you can get two posts out of it. A 2x4 (8') costs around $5, and you need to buy 2 get to the same two posts. So a grand total of $2.50 savings on material, or $1.25/post. Assuming the total cost of the carpenter is around $60/hr, he has to turn that 2x4 into a 4x4 in less than 2.5 minutes just to break even (which he can most likely do especially if making more than a few at a time). This doesn't count in the cost of the galvanized nails, or your time to look into it. The material savings on the 2x6 vs 6x6 are a bit better at about $4/post. I just think there are better ways to save money...not to mention I think the built-up post would look like crap.

 

[a2mfk]

Ridiculous... The client wasted more money talking about this and having you post this message then could possibly be saves. And that is uglier than a solid post.

Quick google showed that option may be more expensive (home depot, Florida):


4 in. x 4 in. x 8 ft. #2 Pine Pressure-Treated Lumber
Model # 256276
3.9 / 5
3.9/5
11 Reviews

$6.77 / each




WeatherShield 2 x 4 x 8 #2 Prime Prime Pressure-Treated Lumber
Model # 2211253
Store SKU # 167929
4.5 out of 5
(6)
Write a Review

$3.47 / each

 

[RFreund]

While I agree with the general theme, it probably means that the contractor has leftover treated 2x from the bottom plates they installed earlier on the project and is planing to use those. None-the-less, the comments are still valid. Make sure the fasteners are galvanized...

EIT

http://www.HowToEngineer.com

 

[dhengr]

Design62713:
The biggest problem is making the connection at the base of the post, and any cobbled together post will only complicate that part of the design. Every contractor or homeowner has or comes up with some crazy ideas to save a penny and cost dollars. With experience, you get quick on your feet and can shoot these down with a simple explanation, and not hurt too many feelings. Some of these things are just not worth wasting your time on, and you have to be quick to bring this to the fore. Don’t forget to mention that you expect to be paid for your wasted time, over and above, the normal structural design; and $100 of your time and effort does not match up well with a $4/post savings in material, unless they are willing to pay you extra for this effort.

However, if you are a designer and don’t know how to do this structural design to meet the current codes and standards, maybe you shouldn’t be doing this type of design. A good source on residential deck design is AFPA’s, Design for Code Acceptance #6, “Prescriptive Residential Wood Deck Construction Guide,” based on the 2009 IRC.