Contractor Talk - Professional Construction and Remodeling Forum banner

2015 IRC 507.2 alternate lateral load connection (no more invasive hold-downs)

11487 26
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.

Text Diagram Line Technology Parallel
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
2015?

Just in time for 2016 Cal. Res. Code. For 2017.

Andy.
Good thing the cities haven't been requiring it. Looks like I will never have to do it.
ScipioAfricanus said:
2015? Just in time for 2016 Cal. Res. Code. For 2017. Andy.
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"
  • Like
Reactions: ScipioAfricanus
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
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:
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
  • Like
Reactions: Calidecks
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.
asevereid said:
Now do you think Simpson will come up with something like a modified joist hanger with a bolting flange?
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?
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

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?
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
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.
That's because a properly attached ledger won't fail (even without the hold downs).
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.
  • Like
Reactions: Calidecks
That is weird that the decking is perpendicular to the house and not parallel to the beam.
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!
RobertCDF said:
That's because a properly attached ledger won't fail (even without the hold downs).
...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?
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!
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 !


I'm sure that, if such a material ever exists, someone on CT will hint around about it in all applicable threads.:whistling:laughing:
...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?
  • Like
Reactions: RobertCDF
I'll keep my eyes open...
I'm sure that, if such a material ever exists, someone on CT will hint around about it in all applicable threads.:whistling:laughing:
Doesn't NADRA allow folks like Simpson to be members? The org. should be only for deck builders not manufacturers, imo of course.
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 !
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top