Contractor Talk - Professional Construction and Remodeling Forum banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
44,692 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
It's not required in the 2012 either. I'm reading the new issue of Pro deck builder right now it's says, and I quote "the 2012 IRC clarified the detail by making it "permitted" not "required"
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
44,692 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Here's an article ( Andy, if everything goes right you will still be designing my decks well into 2017 because you and I are still young and profitable ) from professional deck builder Magazine about cool chit coming in the new codes.

Looks like for once they included the industry in their decision making process.

http://www.deckmagazine.com/codes-and-standards/2015-deck-code-update.aspx
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,923 Posts
Looks like the code will no longer require the hold-downs through the ledger.. Sorry guys that's 507.2 of the IRC

Here's the new detail.

View attachment 106735
Great news. We've done about 12 or so just last year that required to bust up the ceiling for access. I do charge the customer accordingly but just hate the time it takes to do it. The questions is when the city's update there code.

Interesting detail of the metal l bracket from joist to bottom plate. I've used that technic many time on masonry walls mostly with 3/16 x 2" steel to further sure it up the deck. I had a couple of projects that I need it fork so bought about 200lf of flat stick cut and bent and drilled to have in trucks for when needed. 5" x 12" so we can 2 - 1/2" threaded rods w/hilti epoxy and either 4 - 1.5" sds or 3" sds whatever was closer. Good job Cali:thumbsup:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
44,692 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
asevereid said:
Now do you think Simpson will come up with something like a modified joist hanger with a bolting flange?
They should never allow manufacturers of structural hardware to help write structural codes. If that isn't an obvious conflict of interest I don't know what is. From what I've read, Simpson was a huge part of the existing hold-down requirement, we have now.
 

·
Hack
Joined
·
3,034 Posts
Ok, I never considered that.
Would what I recommended meet that requirement though? A tie in to the building that would allow attachment to the deck joists and ledger board, and a flange that extends below to allow bolting to the rimjoist or plate material?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,744 Posts
The first time I heard about the deck ledger hardware by Simpson was at a lumber yard trade show. Simpson was using this photo from their fastener catalog to justify the need for the hardware. I pointed out, that in the photo, the house rim was still attached to the house. Therefore, the deck ledger was just not adequately fastened to the house rim. They never were able to produce a photo showing the entire rim joist being torn away.
 

Attachments

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
44,692 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Warren said:
The first time I heard about the deck ledger hardware by Simpson was at a lumber yard trade show. Simpson was using this photo from their fastener catalog to justify the need for the hardware. I pointed out, that in the photo, the house rim was still attached to the house. Therefore, the deck ledger was just not adequately fastened to the house rim. They never were able to produce a photo showing the entire rim joist being torn away.
They never did prove there was a reason for those hold-downs accept someone just submitted it as a good idea. Huh! I wonder who that was?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
44,692 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Warren said:
The first time I heard about the deck ledger hardware by Simpson was at a lumber yard trade show. Simpson was using this photo from their fastener catalog to justify the need for the hardware. I pointed out, that in the photo, the house rim was still attached to the house. Therefore, the deck ledger was just not adequately fastened to the house rim. They never were able to produce a photo showing the entire rim joist being torn away.
Seems funny that the decking planks are running perpendicular to the beam in that picture. That would mean the joists are running parallel with the beam and the ledger is on the short wall. Either that or they blocked the joist bays at 16 centers which just doesn't make any since to me. Something isn't right there, and it's not just the ledger attachment.

Stairs Property Handrail Ladder House
 

·
Registered
Custom cabinetry
Joined
·
9,178 Posts
The first time I heard about the deck ledger hardware by Simpson was at a lumber yard trade show. Simpson was using this photo from their fastener catalog to justify the need for the hardware. I pointed out, that in the photo, the house rim was still attached to the house. Therefore, the deck ledger was just not adequately fastened to the house rim. They never were able to produce a photo showing the entire rim joist being torn away.
That's because a properly attached ledger won't fail (even without the hold downs).
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
44,692 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
RobertCDF said:
That's because a properly attached ledger won't fail (even without the hold downs).
The number one reason for deck failures is improperly flashed deck ledgers. Wood rot is always going to be the biggest issue with decks, as long as we use wood to build them. I know Robert, I just gave you plenty to chew on there!
 

·
Registered
Custom cabinetry
Joined
·
9,178 Posts
The number one reason for deck failures is improperly flashed deck ledgers. Wood rot is always going to be the biggest issue with decks, as long as we use wood to build them. I know Robert, I just gave you plenty to chew on there!
...maybe wood just sucks???... :whistling I wonder if there is a better option on the market? Could someone point me to an alternative framing method?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
748 Posts
I am not sure if any of you guys are NADRA members ... but this code change is a result of NADRA's efforts in lobbying the ICC code committee

- Glen Mathewson is technical adviser of NADRA who wrote the article in PDB and lobbied the code committee for many practical changes to the code on the behalf us as deck builders.


We all need to support NADRA and try in get local chapters started in our states/ areas ... then we will have a voice in the industry !
 

·
Talking Head
Joined
·
5,388 Posts
...maybe wood just sucks???... :whistling I wonder if there is a better option on the market? Could someone point me to an alternative framing method?


I'm sure that, if such a material ever exists, someone on CT will hint around about it in all applicable threads.:whistling:laughing:
 

·
Registered
Retired deck builder
Joined
·
6,812 Posts
I am not sure if any of you guys are NADRA members ... but this code change is a result of NADRA's efforts in lobbying the ICC code committee

- Glen Mathewson is technical adviser of NADRA who wrote the article in PDB and lobbied the code committee for many practical changes to the code on the behalf us as deck builders.


We all need to support NADRA and try in get local chapters started in our states/ areas ... then we will have a voice in the industry !
Doesn't NADRA allow folks like Simpson to be members? The org. should be only for deck builders not manufacturers, imo of course.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top