Buelligan
Registered User
2009 IRC does not allow support on a brick veneer. We have an achitect who wants to go through the brick and the band with 1/2" carriage bolts. We feel the load will be on the brick not the band. Any thoughts?
-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
Deck ledger attachment on brick veneer wall.
- Thread starter Buelligan
- Start date
The gap is too long for the bolts to resist the vertical load. The brick veneer should not carry any vertical loads.
It will be necessary to penetrate the veneer with something that can cantilever the gap.
Suggest that he talk to an engineer. While the laws may say that the architect can perform his own engineering, it appears that the architect hasn't been thinking about the problem.
It will be necessary to penetrate the veneer with something that can cantilever the gap.
Suggest that he talk to an engineer. While the laws may say that the architect can perform his own engineering, it appears that the architect hasn't been thinking about the problem.
Francis Vineyard
Registered User
Buelligan,
Use through bolts, NOT carriage bolts. Cut pipe the length from the face of the brick to the band and deburr ends, put a heavy flat washer over the pipe end between the brick and board; assemble in regular fashion. See link discussing this application;
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=199800&page=6
Use through bolts, NOT carriage bolts. Cut pipe the length from the face of the brick to the band and deburr ends, put a heavy flat washer over the pipe end between the brick and board; assemble in regular fashion. See link discussing this application;
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=199800&page=6
I have already not allowed this several times for various reasons such as the obvious brick veneer is not allowed to support more than its own weight, allowing a ledger board to be tightened against the brick veneer will then push the brick veneer inwards, bolts going through 4-5 inches of brick veneer and then into the rim joist is far too great a span for a bolt and will also transfer weight onto the brick and the idea usually lost when doing a ledger for a deck is that when you attach a ledger to a rim joist it creates a BEAM which I believe is the intention here. Having a gap/void between the rim and ledger does not a beam make.
I have seen some pretty creative solutions though but usually I just get the builder/architect to pour small haunches with the foundation to be able to attach either a beam or if needed a column to.
I have seen some pretty creative solutions though but usually I just get the builder/architect to pour small haunches with the foundation to be able to attach either a beam or if needed a column to.
Installing a pipe does nothing unless there is a way to fix the pipe at one or both ends. In addition the pipe should be checked to see if it is strong enough. This is a classic situation where the plan checker askes for engineering calculations. This situation is not covered by the prescriptive provisions of the IRC.
Architect1281
Gold Member
Through Bolts are generally meant to be used in tension or compression transferring thier loads into the frame
Lag Bolts generall transmit thier loads by tension and into the wood based on withdrawal (tension mostly but of the wood)
Both provide load transfer by either single or double shear (the vertical loads)
the proposed extension arms suggested will add excentric non axial moment arms into the equation.
axial is bowlig ball held overhead arm straight up
shear / withdrawal is bowling ball two hands hold to chest (most like a ledger)
bolts extended through no load on masonry is like holding the bowling ball in the palm of you hand arm fully extended-
excentric non axial - FEEL THE BURN
Imagine the failure!!
Lag Bolts generall transmit thier loads by tension and into the wood based on withdrawal (tension mostly but of the wood)
Both provide load transfer by either single or double shear (the vertical loads)
the proposed extension arms suggested will add excentric non axial moment arms into the equation.
axial is bowlig ball held overhead arm straight up
shear / withdrawal is bowling ball two hands hold to chest (most like a ledger)
bolts extended through no load on masonry is like holding the bowling ball in the palm of you hand arm fully extended-
excentric non axial - FEEL THE BURN
Imagine the failure!!
Francis Vineyard
Registered User
Though I have red tag this a number of times, eventually an engineer can be found to sign off on it. Not saying I approve, it's a battle with so many done this way.
http://www.deckmagazine.com/pdf/2007/0703/0703qa.pdf
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=building+standards+of+pratice+ledger+brick+veneer&d=5042450649846836&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=b96c5975,e694383f
http://www.deckmagazine.com/pdf/2007/0703/0703qa.pdf
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=building+standards+of+pratice+ledger+brick+veneer&d=5042450649846836&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=b96c5975,e694383f
JBI
Registered User
Arch1281 - Used to do a lot of bowling in my youth. Nice analogy.
Buelligan - Agree with the majority here, bad idea.
Buelligan - Agree with the majority here, bad idea.
Mac
Gold Member
Why poke a bunch of holes in the house?
I still don't understand why people think htey need to fasten the deck to the building...
I still don't understand why people think htey need to fasten the deck to the building...
jar546
Forum Coordinator
Tell the architect to get a PE to stamp it
Robert Ellenberg
Registered User
Just a suggestion for those who want to attach it properly and minimize the water intrusion. Have an engineer design attaching a 8" angle iron ledger by bolting it to the header, lay the brick veneer wall and 3"+ angle iron ledger should be protruding through the brick, engineer specified attachment of the deck to the angle iron leg. You should be able to flash the brick on top of the angle iron to prevent any water from getting to the wood header.
CornFieldCode
Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15
Agree with most here. If it is a deck with the joist only a few feet from final grade, why not simply auger a hole to frost depth and place concrete? Then set a post and a beam. It never ceases to amaze me that some must complicate building. The concrete posts next to the structure could sit on the footings. Am I missing something here?
Yankee
Registered User
R311.5 Construction.
R311.5.1 Attachment. Exterior landings, decks, balconies, stairs and similar facilities shall be positively anchored to the primary structure to resist both vertical and lateral forces or shall be designed to be self-supporting. Attachment shall not be accomplished by use of toenails or nails subject to withdrawal.
Somewhere I thought I read that decks/landings outside of egress doors had to be attached to the building, but I don't see it here, maybe it was here and taken out.
R311.5.1 Attachment. Exterior landings, decks, balconies, stairs and similar facilities shall be positively anchored to the primary structure to resist both vertical and lateral forces or shall be designed to be self-supporting. Attachment shall not be accomplished by use of toenails or nails subject to withdrawal.
Somewhere I thought I read that decks/landings outside of egress doors had to be attached to the building, but I don't see it here, maybe it was here and taken out.
Jobsaver
Registered User
AF & PA website link to www.awc.org:
DCA 6 - Prescriptive Residential Deck Construction Guide - 2009 IRC Version Free Download - PDF
Includes guidance on provisions of the International Residential Code (IRC) pertaining to single level residential wood deck construction. Provisions contained in this document that are not included in the IRC are considered good practice recommendations.
Page 12:
DCA 6 - Prescriptive Residential Deck Construction Guide - 2009 IRC Version Free Download - PDF
Includes guidance on provisions of the International Residential Code (IRC) pertaining to single level residential wood deck construction. Provisions contained in this document that are not included in the IRC are considered good practice recommendations.
Page 12:
Mac
Gold Member
After reading up a little, I see conflict in the codes (shocking!).
"Means of Egress R311.2.1 - Required exterior exit balconies, stairs and similar exit facilities shall be positively anchored to the primary structure." Does this mean non-required exit facilities (decks) must also be attached? Suppose the deck does not include steps to grade, and it is not a real exit?
"R502.2.2 Decks - Where positive connection cannot be verified.... decks shall be self-supporting." This section sounds like it applies to this instance, where the brick veneer isn't supposed to support anything.
Then there's DCA #6, page 14, "Free Standing Decks" that explains how it's done.
Each approach (fasten with engineering vs don't) has good code-wise support.
"Means of Egress R311.2.1 - Required exterior exit balconies, stairs and similar exit facilities shall be positively anchored to the primary structure." Does this mean non-required exit facilities (decks) must also be attached? Suppose the deck does not include steps to grade, and it is not a real exit?
"R502.2.2 Decks - Where positive connection cannot be verified.... decks shall be self-supporting." This section sounds like it applies to this instance, where the brick veneer isn't supposed to support anything.
Then there's DCA #6, page 14, "Free Standing Decks" that explains how it's done.
Each approach (fasten with engineering vs don't) has good code-wise support.
Robert Ellenberg
Registered User
I don't read any code conflicts.
The first section you quote specifically says "stairs and similar exit facilities" and they would certainly include non-required exit facilities.
Since a deck isn't required to have steps (and therefore is not an exit), one without them could be self supporting. If it has steps, it would have to have a positive connection.
Lastly going back to the R311.2.1 section, "positively anchored to the primary structure" definitely could not be met by hanging it to the brick veneer--it is not structure. However, I believe you could make the deck self supporting and run bolts through the veneer to the structure. In that instance the bolts would be serving as positive anchor and not support.
On 2nd thought, the positive anchoring has to resist vertical loads per R311.2 so my above idea is incorrect. Back to the 8" angle iron idea.
The first section you quote specifically says "stairs and similar exit facilities" and they would certainly include non-required exit facilities.
Since a deck isn't required to have steps (and therefore is not an exit), one without them could be self supporting. If it has steps, it would have to have a positive connection.
Lastly going back to the R311.2.1 section, "positively anchored to the primary structure" definitely could not be met by hanging it to the brick veneer--it is not structure. However, I believe you could make the deck self supporting and run bolts through the veneer to the structure. In that instance the bolts would be serving as positive anchor and not support.
On 2nd thought, the positive anchoring has to resist vertical loads per R311.2 so my above idea is incorrect. Back to the 8" angle iron idea.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mac
Gold Member
If the 3 foot "Exit Door Required" in R311.4.1 is provided elsewhere, then the house is already compliant, and R311 doesn't apply to our deck. It would be more appropriately governed by R502.2.2.
Robert Ellenberg
Registered User
As a designer and builder, my focus is on getting it right the first time and though I don't use any brick veneer presently, I have done a lot in the past. However, this thread started me thinking about how I attach decks over siding and I'd like to go back to some of the suggestions given above.
Mark K. said, "It will be necessary to penetrate the veneer with something that can cantilever the gap." and then there was the suggestion of the bolts and pipes which does that in theory and perhaps could be engineered if you used enough bolts. rktect 1 stated he believed the intent was to create a beam and the language of R311 states "positively anchored to the primary structure".
Would you question the attachment if the ledger board was bolted through siding? If the house is built with a layer of foam on the exterior to create a thermal break and has a slight gap for the drainage plane, the ledger could easily be cantilevered out 1.5". Not a lot as opposed to 4" with the brick but is very similar and at best is sandwiching a piece of foam in there. This could easily be rectified by removing the siding and foam behind the ledger and adding a piece of dimensional lumber and flashing it properly.
Any thoughts on how some of you view this?
Mark K. said, "It will be necessary to penetrate the veneer with something that can cantilever the gap." and then there was the suggestion of the bolts and pipes which does that in theory and perhaps could be engineered if you used enough bolts. rktect 1 stated he believed the intent was to create a beam and the language of R311 states "positively anchored to the primary structure".
Would you question the attachment if the ledger board was bolted through siding? If the house is built with a layer of foam on the exterior to create a thermal break and has a slight gap for the drainage plane, the ledger could easily be cantilevered out 1.5". Not a lot as opposed to 4" with the brick but is very similar and at best is sandwiching a piece of foam in there. This could easily be rectified by removing the siding and foam behind the ledger and adding a piece of dimensional lumber and flashing it properly.
Any thoughts on how some of you view this?
Have you seen the ledger bolting article by Woeste, et al from JLC several years ago? I do remember several spaced ledger assemblies were tested.
I got the flier for this conference yesterday, looks to be a good one... they will be discussing this there;
http://www.cpe.vt.edu/sdww/
Does Dr Woeste know of this forum?
I got the flier for this conference yesterday, looks to be a good one... they will be discussing this there;
http://www.cpe.vt.edu/sdww/
Does Dr Woeste know of this forum?
Daddy-0-
Moderator
No deck attachment or any other heavy equipment attachment with brick veneer period because when you tighten the bolts you can implode the brick into the air gap. We do not allow it at all. Deck must be freestanding if there is brick veneer.
Francis Vineyard
Registered User
Robert, if you haven't done so download DCA6-09 at awc.org, good reference material.Robert Ellenberg said:
From that document; "Maximum stacked washers; ½ inch.
Wood structural panel sheathing, gypsum board sheathing, or foam sheathing not exceeding on inch thickness shall be permitted. The maximum distance between the face of the ledger board and the face of the band joist shall be one inch."
Last edited by a moderator: