• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Deck Collapses in the U.S.: Building Codes and Safety Concerns

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,786
Location
Not where I really want to be
In the United States, reports of deck collapses seem to be increasingly common, raising questions about the efficacy and rigor of current building codes, particularly as they relate to deck construction and maintenance. While building codes vary slightly by state, the general framework remains consistent across all 50 states. Yet, despite these guidelines, deck-related accidents persist, occasionally leading to catastrophic injuries.

Deck Maintenance and Building Codes

After the construction of a deck, its ongoing maintenance largely remains the responsibility of the property owner. The reality is that once the deck is erected, regulatory oversight is minimal. Some argue that if existing building codes were stricter and more comprehensive, they could significantly extend the life span of wooden decks. This, in turn, could reduce the frequency of collapses and the associated injuries.

Safety Implications

Deck collapses are not mere structural failures. They have serious, often life-altering implications for those involved. Many victims of these incidents suffer severe injuries, some even being left in critical condition. As public spaces or areas for relaxation and family gatherings, decks should epitomize safety. The rising number of collapses casts a shadow over this once-assumed safety.

The Role of the Deck Industry

When exploring the reasons behind the frequency of deck collapses, it's important to consider all factors, including the role of industry stakeholders in influencing building codes. The International Code Council (ICC) plays a significant role in shaping building codes, and like many standard-setting organizations, it collaborates with industry representatives to ensure that codes are both safe and practical.

It's worth noting that the deck industry, like many other sectors, has a voice in the ICC's code development process. While industry input is essential for practical and up-to-date regulations, there are concerns that commercial agendas might sometimes overshadow safety priorities. Without suggesting direct impropriety, it's crucial for stakeholders and the public to be aware of and question any potential conflicts of interest.

Conclusion

Ensuring the safety and durability of decks in the U.S. requires a collaborative effort between regulatory bodies, industry representatives, and homeowners. While building codes provide a foundational framework, it's vital to continually assess and update them, always prioritizing public safety above all else. As the conversation around deck safety evolves, it's imperative to maintain transparency, impartiality, and a commitment to the well-being of all.
 
Said many times....

Decks are exposed to the worst conditions of rain, snow, salt, ice, wind etc.,, face live loads closer to max capacity than most other floors, support dancers, fire-pits, kitchens and planters filled with earth, rely on mechanical connections that must be perfectly detailed, are often unregulated, and often built by the lowest bidder (the real pros get priced out), who bought his new circular saw yesterday when he picked up his business cards. Not to mention the absolute lack of maintenance.

This is not an unfair representation of what is submitted for decks. Now, I place much of this on consumers, who look at this proposal and say "yeah, just like that" as they write the check for the really good deal before the contractor even shows up. BTW, this was submitted by a contractor, not the homeowner. (I saw this yesterday but it did not come to my AHJ, but a nearby one.)

1694095846724.png
 
steveray said:
So the beams are hanging off the ledger? At least it looks like they headered at the cantilever...
Click to expand...
So here is an ugly truth. Many AHJ's want you to "work with them". Provide the needed info for them, redline, redline, redline! ISSUE THE PERMIT! Tell them what beam to use, tell them which hanger, add some bolts to the ledger etc., ignore the concentrated loads..."it'll work". That is fine to a limited extent. There is some stuff on this drawing that we all know would work but doesn't meet code, and I see plans like this get approved with redlines (but not enough, or even without any), which just teaches the applicants that this is acceptable. To me it is not. So a plan like this makes it to the field, and the poor inspector shows up and says "WHAT?". Then they either become the bad guy, or worse, figure it made it through plan review so it must be good. I won't hang an inspector out like that, or the homeowner, even if the homeowner drew it up.
 
Sifu said:
So here is an ugly truth. Many AHJ's want you to "work with them". Provide the needed info for them, redline, redline, redline! ISSUE THE PERMIT! Tell them what beam to use, tell them which hanger, add some bolts to the ledger etc., ignore the concentrated loads..."it'll work". That is fine to a limited extent. There is some stuff on this drawing that we all know would work but doesn't meet code, and I see plans like this get approved with redlines (but not enough, or even without any), which just teaches the applicants that this is acceptable. To me it is not. So a plan like this makes it to the field, and the poor inspector shows up and says "WHAT?". Then they either become the bad guy, or worse, figure it made it through plan review so it must be good. I won't hang an inspector out like that, or the homeowner, even if the homeowner drew it up.
Click to expand...
I get it...We try not to approve violations on the plans, what we may be able to accept in the field is slightly different...

R301.1 Application​

Buildings and structures, and parts thereof, shall be constructed to safely support all loads, including dead loads, live loads, roof loads, flood loads, snow loads, wind loads and seismic loads as prescribed by this code.
 
This was approved with 13 redline comments and a handout. (not by me)

1694179815065.png
 
If that is the way you want to go then just publish the handout and make it over the counter.
 
Sifu said:
Just how bad would the plans have to be to be rejected???
Click to expand...
This is the eternal struggle and unfortunately the answer is different in every jurisdiction.....Sometimes we might give up because the back and forth is getting us nowhere or some times we may be comfortable that the person we are dealing with knows what they are doing enough to turn them loose....Case in point...I had an old "Frenchie" carpenter that "couldn't" draw plans for an addition, but seemed like he knew what he was doing. I had him write out what he was going to do "I am going to use 2x10 floor joists spanning 12', I am going to use double 2x10 headers...." and the project came out nice....How much information do we need to determine compliance? You will never get a plan that shows everything unless everything gets engineered and I bet that still lacks also, so what is the least we can accept?

R106.1.1 Information on Construction Documents​

Construction documents shall be drawn upon suitable material. Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted where approved by the building official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined by the building official.
 
The handout, which is/should be an intake item, not a tool for the reviewer IMO, actually requires a deck plan with all the information the reviewer designed for them (beams, footings etc.).

I see my job as taking reasonable steps, in a reasonable amount of time to identify code compliance issues and do my best to verify code compliance in the planning phase, before it costs time and money for anyone. I try my best to make sure everyone has what they need to be successful in the field. Sometimes I probably go too far but I draw the line somewhere. I don't see my job as designing the deck. In the end this deck will be relatively compliant so the main goal is met, but partially based on the design of the reviewer. This brings potential liability to the AHJ and sets a terrible precedent for what is an acceptable plan. Here is the real issue, I would bet the reviewer is encouraged to do this if for no other reason than to reduce workload for an understaffed department. I think a decision is made to design it for them so it doesn't need to come back, as well as the obvious "customer service" theory (you know, the "never say no" theory?).

I would also note that based on the plan and the redlines, this deck will not pass inspection, probably two inspections because their just wasn't enough room to redline everything. When the inspection fails, the builder will say "but they didn't tell me I had to do that on the plan", which is one of my concerns over checklists to begin with. So any time saved by approving this is just given back on the back end. Exceptions aside, when the plan starts this bad the skill level is usually (not always) equivalent.
 
Sifu said:
Just how bad would the plans have to be to be rejected???
Click to expand...
Not necessarily the question, but here:
1) Not to scale
2) Not enough framing details, girder, connections, etc.
3) No footing details
4) No survey showing the location and setbacks on the parcel
5) No connector specifications
6) No address
7) No elevations
8) No stair details
 
Our perspective:
Not necessarily the question, but here:
1) Not to scale We do not care as long as it is dimensioned.
2) Not enough framing details, girder, connections, etc. Yep
3) No footing details Yep
4) No survey showing the location and setbacks on the parcel Typically a separate doc here and usually in crayon.
5) No connector specifications We don't ask for this, but if questions they need to be in the field.
6) No address It would be on the permit this plan is attached to.
7) No elevations I can do without generally unless there is a debate over guards.
8) No stair details I can do without generally.

When you make them spend all that time/ money/ effort and they don't follow the plans anyway, how much does that suck?
 
steveray said:
Our perspective:
Not necessarily the question, but here:
1) Not to scale We do not care as long as it is dimensioned.
2) Not enough framing details, girder, connections, etc. Yep
3) No footing details Yep
4) No survey showing the location and setbacks on the parcel Typically a separate doc here and usually in crayon.
5) No connector specifications We don't ask for this, but if questions they need to be in the field.
6) No address It would be on the permit this plan is attached to.
7) No elevations I can do without generally unless there is a debate over guards.
8) No stair details I can do without generally.

When you make them spend all that time/ money/ effort and they don't follow the plans anyway, how much does that suck?
Click to expand...
This is mostly my approach. I know all the different contractors, and if submitted by a good professional I know there is less need to worry about details such as stair and guard dimensions. For homeowners or truck-and-a-circ-saw types I require full details to get the problems out of the way on paper.
 
steveray said:
But if there is a survey per #4 isn't this also moot?
Click to expand...
Seriously, how difficult is it to put the address on the plans? Why is this even an argument? In the time you justify why you don't need an address, they could have added the address. Ever have several homes built off similar plans and have the contractor move the plans from one house to another in order to get changes made without revision? Put the F'n address on the plans and move on.
 
There is a rule, and then there are exceptions. A rule would be a submittal list with the required info, then the reviewer at least has some basic info. I think if a plan has a beam that is undersized, that is a starting point that can be worked with. For example, it may show a 2-ply 2x8 SYP. But upon review it is undersized. We then point them to the table (I have even been known to paste it in) or even go so far as to redline an approvable beam size. My typical comment would be to provide a beam sized in accordance with IRC t507.5. This tells them where to look and gives them options. If it is a little old lady I might help a little more, but if it is a contractor getting paid I might not. If they don't start with a beam, I won't presume to write it in. That is just my line in the sand. I don't have a set number of redlines, but not 13 redlines for a little deck, with me writing in all the important structural elements. Most of the time for something like that I will just call the applicant and explain the beam is undersized and that I could provide guidance on how to choose one. But I won't spend all day on the phone explaining 13 other problems.

I also happen to think it is unfair to those that take the time, energy and effort to do things in a professional manner, that have purchased a code book, that have skills that deserve compensation, who then get underbid by chuck-n-a-truck who got the reviewer to do all the heavy lifting. If we aren't careful we will lose the pros and everything will degrade. I would rather encourage improvement than reward ineptitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top