[smartsid]

Hello,
I am building a 32x16 deck and county inspector has failed the deck framing inspection for the following reasons-

1. Deck joists over span. They said the joists cannot be longer than 14 feet. Currently mine are ~15.7 feet.

• Deck bolted to blocks on OSB. They said you are not allowed to do this because of a recent code change.

Any recommendations on how I can get both these issues fixed?

Thanks,
Sid.

 

[danpik]

Problem number one seems pretty simple. You need to shorten the span. Since we can not see how you did it I will assume you have a beam under the deck that is 15.7 feet from the ledger board. You will most likely have to install another one to break up the span into a shorter segment.

As for #2, I am not to sure what you meant by this...Deck bolted to blocks on OSB.. If you are bolting a ledger to the house, you need to cut back any siding to get to solid underlayment and then thru-bolt to the framing behind that. You will need proper flashing to keep water out of that connection point as well. It sounds like you need to ask the inspector what he wants to see in this situation.

 

[craig11152]

It sounds like you need to ask the inspector what he wants to see in this situation.

In my neck of the woods some inspectors are happy to tell you what they want to see. Some just say "its not my job to tell you how to do it. Its my job to tell if you if you did right".
We always hope for the first guy:vs_karate: not the second. :vs_OMG:

 

[Bud9051]

sid, can we get some pictures? I'm thinking a center beam the full 32', but not sure if you have the height and not sure what the bolt issue is.

Bud

 

[carpdad]

May be it is a reaction to too many failed ledgers from leaking water. OSB/ply will rot quickly and become a weak point for the deck. As it is, I think it will be faster to remove the joists and start over. Remove the ledger and cut away osb. Tar paper on the box joist then attach the ledger directly. Study how to flash this joint. Drainage block or not, poor flashing will rot the frame.

 

[smartsid]

Attached are two pics for both the issues with my comments. As seen in the first pic all the joists that are running parallel are each 15.7 feel long and the county says they cannot be longer that 14 feet. Hope this helps.

-Sid.

 

[ChuckTin]

Oh yeah. Looks like you will need to either add a 2nd set of posts at 14 feet or less out from the wall or _maybe_, just _maybe_ the inspector will accept one set of posts at 14' out with the additional 1.7' cantalevered. Maybe.
As to the deck bolted to the blocks between studs (I'm hoping that is not just OSB fastened to the studs😨) I'm guessing you will need to either bolt thru the studs or get a "Strongtite" or similar hardware that would be fastened to the stud cheeks (the wide side) and behind blocking.
When I've talked to inspectors they were reluctant to say do such-and-such-such, liability don't ya know. But if I met them half way "I'll do this, cause I understand that part, but can't figure out what want on the other. What do you suggest?"
Good luck.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[Aggie67]

Your outer support post locations aren't helping you. You could have met the span requirement (and satisfied the max cantilever requirement) by locating the line of posts at 12 feet from the house.

BUT, your bigger problem is the method of attachment to the house. What you have right now will not meet code. And even if you lag bolted into the studs, that would only be acceptable if the deck was free-standing. The code does not allow for a non-free-standing deck ledger board to be lag bolted to studs, period. The only acceptable methods are bolting to a concrete wall, to a grout-filled CMU wall, or to a dimensional lumber rim joist sitting on a sill plate. If you don't have these options, then you need to have a free standing deck, or find a non-prescriptive solution, which means getting a structural engineer involved.

 

[smartsid]

Aggie67, when you say a "free standing deck" does that mean adding another set of posts adjacent to the wall?

And thanks you all for the response. This info is really useful!

 

[woodworkbykirk]

Your outer support post locations aren't helping you. You could have met the span requirement (and satisfied the max cantilever requirement) by locating the line of posts at 12 feet from the house.

BUT, your bigger problem is the method of attachment to the house. What you have right now will not meet code. And even if you lag bolted into the studs, that would only be acceptable if the deck was free-standing. The code does not allow for a non-free-standing deck ledger board to be lag bolted to studs, period. The only acceptable methods are bolting to a concrete wall, to a grout-filled CMU wall, or to a dimensional lumber rim joist sitting on a sill plate. If you don't have these options, then you need to have a free standing deck, or find a non-prescriptive solution, which means getting a structural engineer involved.

that would be a first someone saying that having the posts set back to 12' will meet cantilever reuirements for a deck.. in canada inspectors wont allow anything more than a 16" cantilever even if its within the 6:1 ratio. locally most building officials only allow 2 x the width of the joist dimension for cantilevers

 

[Aggie67]

that would be a first someone saying that having the posts set back to 12' will meet cantilever reuirements for a deck.. in canada inspectors wont allow anything more than a 16" cantilever even if its within the 6:1 ratio. locally most building officials only allow 2 x the width of the joist dimension for cantilevers

I think I was looking at the 2006 edition. 2012 max cantilever for 2x8 joists is 2 feet for southern pine (3'5" for 2x10). 2006 allowed Lj/4.

 

[ront02769]

Your outer support post locations aren't helping you. You could have met the span requirement (and satisfied the max cantilever requirement) by locating the line of posts at 12 feet from the house.

BUT, your bigger problem is the method of attachment to the house. What you have right now will not meet code. And even if you lag bolted into the studs, that would only be acceptable if the deck was free-standing. The code does not allow for a non-free-standing deck ledger board to be lag bolted to studs, period. The only acceptable methods are bolting to a concrete wall, to a grout-filled CMU wall, or to a dimensional lumber rim joist sitting on a sill plate. If you don't have these options, then you need to have a free standing deck, or find a non-prescriptive solution, which means getting a structural engineer involved.

i am NOT a contractor or engineer....but since by definition at least in my area a free standing deck is FREE STANDING so why is it good to go if it is
lag bolted into the studs??

 

[Fix'n it]

Hello,

• Deck bolted to blocks on OSB. They said you are not allowed to do this because of a recent code change.

.

if that is what i think it is = DANGEROUS ! you get enough people on that and the deck, people, siding and sheathing will be on the ground.

how to fit it ? idk. perhaps they will let you drill through the studs and nut, bolt AND washers. this way, at least it would be BOLTED to the structure.

 

[Mingledtrash]

R507.1 Decks.
Where supported by attachment to an exterior wall, decks shall be positively anchored to the primary structure and designed for both vertical and lateral loads. Such attachment shall not be accomplished by the use of toenails or nails subject to withdrawal. Where positive connection to the primary building structure cannot be verified during inspection, decks shall be self-supporting. For decks with cantilevered framing members, connections to exterior walls or other framing members, shall be designed and constructed to resist uplift resulting from the full live load specified in Table R301.5 acting on the cantilevered portion of the deck.

You could ask the inspector if he will pass it off if you beef up those blocks in the wall to double blocks and then use sd or sds screws and screw through the studs.

R507.2.2 Alternate deck ledger connections.
Deck ledger connections not conforming to Table R507.2 shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice. Girders supporting deck joists shall not be supported on deck ledgers or band joists. Deck ledgers shall not be supported on stone or masonry veneer.

http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/irc/2012/icod_irc_2012_5_sec007.htm

 

[smartsid]

Quick update-
In order to fix this issue my contractor is going to place a 2nd beam under the joists at 14 feet and move the already installed posts back

Deck joists over span. They said the joists cannot be longer than 14 feet.

But my concern that the new beam he has placed seems to be lower than the original one (because its under the joists) and is looking ugly (pics attached).
And its going to be in my way if I decide to water-proof the deck finish of the under-ceiling at a later point .

Contractor claims that this is the only way to do it and I am looking for a 2nd opinion on whether there's a better way to do it while preserving the aesthetic-value of the deck under-ceiling.
My knowledge about these things is limited but just a thought- Would nailing the beam flat under the joists instead of vertical be an option?

Thanks,
Sid.

 

[Daniel Holzman]

This thread points out the value in preparing a scaled drawing before building, and getting the drawing approved by the local building authority before construction. I am also curious what code the building inspector is applying, those look like 4x4 posts, which do not meet the current Prescriptive Residential Deck Construction Guide, which is used by a lot of jurisdictions (mine included).

 

[Aggie67]

I'd be shocked if the AHJ accepts that solution.

 

[Msradell]

My knowledge about these things is limited but just a thought- Would nailing the beam flat under the joists instead of vertical be an option?

Thanks,
Sid.

Putting the beam flat will not work because it would have very limited strength when it was put in that axis. It has to be put vertical to give the required support. However even that will not overcome the problem of how the deck is attached to your home which is another major problem. I also agree that the posts look like they are 4x4s which I wouldn't accept either. Actually, the overspending of the joists may be what the inspector picked up on but there are many other issues that are just as bad or possibly worse in the long run.

 

[Bud9051]

Adding to the concerns Msradell mentioned, that support beam looks like double 2x12's and being 32' long it then is spliced in the middle, meaning it is effectively closer to a single 2x12 than you would want. for 32' and perhaps something less than 12" you could look at a piece of engineered lumber, possibly wider than 3".

Bud

 

[smartsid]

However even that will not overcome the problem of how the deck is attached to your home which is another major problem.

To fix this issue the contractor is going to place another set of posts right next to the wall.