Deck Collapse Season 2025

[jar546]

It is officially deck collapse season 2025. This year starts off with the same old stories. What are your thoughts on this video?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Stay tuned for another exciting deck collapse near you ...

And people get upset when we ask for details instead of just issuing deck permits based on a sketch that looks like something a kindergartner might have drawn.

 

[bill1952]

I just yesterday applied for a building and zoning permit for a porch (deck with roof) extension. 8 letter sized pages of drawings. Other than plot for zoning he didn't look at them and issued permit. Of course there was no ledger since it was an addition to a porch and it seems issues around ledgers are a part of a lot of these.

 

[jar546]

I just yesterday applied for a building and zoning permit for a porch (deck with roof) extension. 8 letter sized pages of drawings. Other than plot for zoning he didn't look at them and issued permit. Of course there was no ledger since it was an addition to a porch and it seems issues around ledgers are a part of a lot of these.

So no plan review at all? Just issue based on the fact the knows and trusts you, or simple laziness?

 

[bill1952]

It's a rural one man 4 jurisdiction zoning and building department. I think zoning is more important to the community than building, understandbly. Property MN maintenance is not except by neighbors. And yes, it's my 4th project in 6 years, and we are pretty well acquainted. I think he's pleased I applied for a permit - many dont. We talked about decks and ledgers and piers. I'm just using PT 6x6s on gravel - but they will be UC4C treated. And he mentioned notching beams, not bolting, which was shown in my drawings. He did suggest I should have grouped all the work in one permit to save a few hundred over $50-60k worth of work over 6 or 7 years. Contrary to the tone of many posts here I do try to do my diy projects correctly, complying with codes, and hopefully good aesthetics. It sometimes feels that no one here has builders that want to comply with code, that they all want to get away with non-compliance work.

Life in the country.

 

[jar546]

It's a rural one man 4 jurisdiction zoning and building department. I think zoning is more important to the community than building, understandbly. Property MN maintenance is not except by neighbors. And yes, it's my 4th project in 6 years, and we are pretty well acquainted. I think he's pleased I applied for a permit - many dont. We talked about decks and ledgers and piers. I'm just using PT 6x6s on gravel - but they will be UC4C treated. And he mentioned notching beams, not bolting, which was shown in my drawings. He did suggest I should have grouped all the work in one permit to save a few hundred over $50-60k worth of work over 6 or 7 years. Contrary to the tone of many posts here I do try to do my diy projects correctly, complying with codes, and hopefully good aesthetics. It sometimes feels that no one here has builders that want to comply with code, that they all want to get away with non-compliance work.

Life in the country.

Life in the country. Understood. I still take issue with no plan review. We all make mistakes. If that is how the review process works, I can only assume the inspection process is not much better. Your post inspired me to write an article today.

 

[bill1952]

I've been calling for a final on last two projects since March. He'll do that when he does porch.

Yes, we all make mistakes. Hopefully I'll catch my plan mistakes during construction. I'm trying to fix what I consider mistakes on original 1994 porch. The posts supporting the roof - 60 psf snow here so important - are sitting on just the 5/4 x 6 decking - no framing under it. Will add blocking so not just flooring supporting roof. I don't think there were inspections then. Just permits. Built a bedroom addition for m.i.l. in mid 80s in adjacent jurisdiction - no inspections - just a permit. Trying to decide if I also add metal pedestals (?) under existing or only new posts.

 

[TheCommish]

I much rather catch mistake in plan review than in the field. Much teeth mashing and grumblings when there is a do over.

Yesterday I stop at a job permit had not been issued yet. above ground pool deck in progress. Gently chastised the contractor for no permit in hand. Ask the contract about the gate which he was goin to put a the top of the stairway swinging in.

Long discussion about pool enclosures, requirements and proper code compliance, of course he had on one just like this in xxx town and it was fine in swinging at the top of the stairway. Explained to Mr. contractor regardless what was allowed in another jurisdiction the code does not support that type of installation.

In the end the contractor was happy I stopped by.

 

[bill1952]

Of course better to catch in planning but it's not all black or white. In my case, same person draws the plans, builds it, and then lives there, not to mention being a bit of a code geek. Much different than separate hourly paid planner, low bid builder, and uniformed owner. Hard to believe every project irrespective of the designer, get exactly the same amount of plan review.

 

[socaldano]

Stay tuned for another exciting deck collapse near you ...

And people get upset when we ask for details instead of just issuing deck permits based on a sketch that looks like something a kindergartner might have drawn.

Two weeks after I completed construction, my patio roof took a direct hit from an EF2 tornado — and it held up without damage. That’s not just luck; it’s a testament to minimally reasonable design and construction by skilled guys exceeding minimum requirements. Had I replaced the roof with the old style metal and fiberglass or metal, the EF2 would have ripped it apart.


So I sometimes question the arbitrary and capricious assumptions often made in these failure cases. In the incident referenced, the subheadline reveals the truth — this was not a failure of construction quality, but of excessive live load, likely due to over-occupancy and possibly high-impact movement like jumping or dancing. Residential decks are not designed for uncontrolled overloading.


Let’s remember: even the World Trade Center, engineered by the best architects and structural engineers in the world, ultimately collapsed not from bad design, but because the load on weakened floors exceeded what the floors below were rated to bear. That’s called pancaking — and it happened by extreme, unpredictable events or stupid people doing stupid things. At a recent public event I attended, the fire marshal enforced capacity limits not based on room size, but on how many people could safely evacuate through the existing rated exits. That’s rational regulation.

So no — a deck should not be required to survive gross negligence or defy the laws of physics. That would be like blaming car manufacturers because someone forgot a child in the back seat. I’ve had multiple inspectors tell me my work far exceeds code expectations, often done at little additional cost. I have had other inspectors behave hostile and irrationally.

In most deck cases, I ask the carpenter why we don't do something as simple as adding two or three 4x4 vertical posts or a vertical 2x4x¼" steel tube could have increased the live load rating dramatically and prevented failure. They tell me its not needed.

The aforementioned flat patio roof may be able to support 10–15 people lying out evenly — but one large person jumping up and down can cause impact loads far exceeding the static rating, and that’s what often leads to failure. Such as the broken toilet bowls and other "failures" when I have a 300+ lb tenant, which never happen for normal sized tenants.

I have had many narrative arguments with people in various professions.... By blaming this on bad design, you encourage unreasonable inspectors or review staff to fail what would be perfectly reasonable work. In two cases CREATING an unsafe situation.. 1. by discouraging owners and contractors from getting permits due to overzealous or unreasonable inspectors or 2. Cause unreasonable cost increases, rework and expensive 3rd party plans under the false flag of "safety".

So I ask, instead of the narrative, describe the most common causes of these failures... 1. exceeding structure capacity. 2. insufficient mounting to building 3. insufficient ???? and what you would recommend to suggest or demand on the plans. Even as simply as requiring a mounted plaque that states "This residential deck is designed for a maximum of 120lbs/sq foot, no more than 10 people and no dancing or jumping increasing vertical load". You can't fix stupid, but you can try to educate....

 

[socaldano]

I’d like to ask for your support in helping improve construction quality and consistency across different municipalities.
One of the biggest challenges contractors face is that many small cities and towns have unwritten or orally communicated inspection standards that vary from place to place. While I always strive to exceed minimum code requirements and often happy to follow inspector guidance — especially when the changes are minimal in cost or time — it becomes frustrating when a job is failed for not meeting a personal or undocumented preference that is not communicated ahead of time, and he often claims that EVERYONE does it this way or they are not doing their job.
To help bridge this gap, I’d like to see cities compiling and sharing general construction examples with comments noting common reasons for inspection failures and what inspector expectations are. To assist in smooth and successful permit/construction/inspections. When you know what to expect, the relationship improves.
For instance, a local inspector “requires a mushroom-bottomed post hole”. Not been asked to do that yet, but I will do that whenever possible. Or Water Heater “expansion tank required” or "3/4" pipe from expansion relief valve to within 4 inches of ground". Some plans that the city likes with identifying information removed, and a list of engineers who have done project plans submitted to the City. With the goal to help contractors better understand what local inspectors are looking for so they can build to a higher standard the first time. A great opportunity to present an "ask" without being hostile by failing the work. Would you be willing to allow me to include non-specific examples of your expectations or inspection notes, purely for educational purposes?This kind of transparency could reduce re-inspections, improve compliance/quality and build trust between inspectors and builders.

 

[jar546]

So I sometimes question the arbitrary and capricious assumptions often made in these failure cases. In the incident referenced, the subheadline reveals the truth — this was not a failure of construction quality, but of excessive live load, likely due to over-occupancy and possibly high-impact movement like jumping or dancing. Residential decks are not designed for uncontrolled overloading.

In the example that I provided, there were not a lot of people on the deck, and post inspection revealed code corners were cut. You can't control all loading scenarios, but you can meet the minimum standards.

 

[socaldano]

I much rather catch mistake in plan review than in the field. Much teeth mashing and grumblings when there is a do over.

Yesterday I stop at a job permit had not been issued yet. above ground pool deck in progress. Gently chastised the contractor for no permit in hand. Ask the contract about the gate which he was goin to put a the top of the stairway swinging in.

Long discussion about pool enclosures, requirements and proper code compliance, of course he had on one just like this in xxx town and it was fine in swinging at the top of the stairway. Explained to Mr. contractor regardless what was allowed in another jurisdiction the code does not support that type of installation.

In the end the contractor was happy I stopped by.

In the example that I provided, there were not a lot of people on the deck, and post inspection revealed code corners were cut. You can't control all loading scenarios, but you can meet the minimum standards.

I remember when my boss was complaining to the engineer about the overhead rail sizing.. the engineer said it would hold a locomotive (it was for moving sides of beef from the dock to the cooler). But he wanted to make sure nobody ever could overload it. I always want to know what corners were cut, so I can try to avoid the same. As I don't like when they have the board mounted to the side of the house with no support underneath... I like overkill where I would mount a 4x4 holding up that beam...just doesn't look pretty. Like the original poster mentioned the gate that swings out (OK, now I add to my tick list, always make sure the gate swings the correct direction when for kid safety... I hate having to do rework, do it right the first time every time).

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Big thing for us is that Canadian Codes require deck posts to be 6x6. Ever'body watches 'murrican home shows and uses 4x4's.
Consistently, year after year, one of my top 10 code infractions.
That and folks using wood screws on post brackets.
Or attaching everything with wood screws.

 

[steveray]

To help bridge this gap, I’d like to see cities compiling and sharing general construction examples with comments noting common reasons for inspection failures and what inspector expectations are. To assist in smooth and successful permit/construction/inspections. When you know what to expect, the relationship improves.

While I do agree this would help, I am going to require more people than I have to make this happen or way more expensive permit software...Funny how people want government to solve their problems and then complain when it takes too long or gets too expensive....Love to be the BO of Fantasyland....

 

[steveray]

Looked good, but no bearing it looks like at the posts which doesn't bode well for a proper ledger....

 

[Sifu]

Brought it up before, but new thread gets it again. IMO, in many cased AHJ's are their own worst enemy on these. Many AHJ's institute a quick permit type of review, basically a one day review and issuance. No problem with that, but many times they staff the review position (if they do one) with someone that may not be as adept as needed. In all cases it seems the emphasis is to get permits out the door at any cost, structural adequacy included. I think quick permits AND adequate review is possible, but the "will", and the "skill" to do must both be in place. Often one or both is lacking.

In the case of ledgers, I think the code has buried its head in the sand. You can have bolting schedules and flashing figures until the cows come home, but IMO there should be some emphasis on what it is all attached to, and how it is attached. One might believe they are good to go when they see some bolt heads on the outside of the ledger, but if that load path isn't complete they may be useless. Easy to verify on most new buildings, but difficult on retro-builds.

 

[Joe.B]

Love to be the BO of Fantasyland....

 

[tmurray]

Last fall I submitted a permit application for a large new deck at my house. The next day the local building official called me to go over my beam and joist sizing. Luckily everything was right (that would have been embarrassing if wasn't).

As the provincial chief building official, I am probably the person who it makes the most sense to skip a plan review on, but he didn't.