• 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 Fastener Placement Video

Glenn

Registered User
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
889
Location
Denver
#deckcodes2021 has begun! With the publishing of my 2021 IRC deck code and construction book, confirmed by ICC now for an April release, I'm doing a major deck code education campaign this year through BuildingCodeCollege.com

I've got three Live Webinars already on the schedule for March, that are unlike any other deck code education anywhere. (go check out the titles)

I'm also updating my 4-course, 12-hour series, Building Code for Building Decks to the 2021 IRC. Here is the DRAFT video from session 6 of Ledgers and Lateral Loads. It's not ready yet, but will be soon.

This is the quality and style of ALL Live Webinars and On-Demand Courses at BuildingCodeCollege.com

 
Nice sample. But i have a question. The opening picture shows the ledger bolts stacked one above the other, but the diagrams show the staggered. Is that significant?
 
Thankd Glenn, passed it on to my guys, timely of course, decks will be coming out of the ground soon! ;) ;);)
 
I would not have a second story deck that was held in place by lag bolts. I'm not a fan of patio covers that are lag bolted to a building.

There is never a convincing explanation as to what is beyond the wall finish....so what exactly did you hit? You don't know do you. Well Glen, perhaps you do but the majority just drill with abandon. Plumbing, electrical or whatever can move or get drilled.

You should hear the contractors when I tell them to protect CSST on both sides of an exterior wall.
 
Nice sample. But i have a question. The opening picture shows the ledger bolts stacked one above the other, but the diagrams show the staggered. Is that significant?
The cover photo is above code, with twice as many fasteners. It's just a photo I had. I should try to get one that matches code. They could remove one fastener from each pair and still comply.
 
I would not have a second story deck that was held in place by lag bolts. I'm not a fan of patio covers that are lag bolted to a building.

There is never a convincing explanation as to what is beyond the wall finish....so what exactly did you hit? You don't know do you. Well Glen, perhaps you do but the majority just drill with abandon. Plumbing, electrical or whatever can move or get drilled.

You should hear the contractors when I tell them to protect CSST on both sides of an exterior wall.
All good points. This is the 6th video of nine in this Course. The one before it speaks to your point about visibility of the connection.
 
Just wondering what you say about decks not connected to a building. Like one by a trailer or an on ground pool. Are they required to be stamped plans?
 
Just wondering what you say about decks not connected to a building. Like one by a trailer or an on ground pool. Are they required to be stamped plans?
Can it be built per the prescriptive code? Right out of the IRC/IBC?

In my shop, if they can, no stamp required, if they can't, need a RDP stamp.
 
You should hear the contractors when I tell them to protect CSST on both sides of an exterior wall.
What does CSST stand for? Construction site safety technician? Corrugated stainless steel tubing?
Thanks
 
Glen, your mission which you have accepted is to fix this mess so us BO can enforce something safe and has some practicality and sense to it


i fixed the typos, no I was not inebriated, just a bad day and failed spell check
 
Last edited:
Just wondering what you say about decks not connected to a building. Like one by a trailer or an on ground pool. Are they required to be stamped plans?
Just finished the video on Lateral Bracing. There's nothing in the code. But there is nothing in the code for bracing any deck.
 
Glen, your mission which you have accepted is tyo fix this mess osus BO can enfoce somthing safe and has some practicality and sense to it
I'm trying. But its hard to fix a problem people aren't aware of, so education is a big of this mission. This code is based on testing from 2006. There's been no research since, so I have no leg to stand on in code proposal testimony. I'm going to try again in the 2024 IRC.
 
I'm trying. But its hard to fix a problem people aren't aware of, so education is a big of this mission. This code is based on testing from 2006. There's been no research since, so I have no leg to stand on in code proposal testimony. I'm going to try again in the 2024 IRC.
So testing gave us information on the almot impossible lag bolt placement, which I would venture is rarely enforced. Does this coincide with real world failures?
 
This is a fantastic video and I really appreciate it. If I were still in Pennsylvania, this would be an invaluable tool for not just good inspection for for good building. Please keep up the great work and you have really established yourself as a leader in the world of decks. Thank you for sharing with us.
 
No decks in FL?

Not where I'm at. Everything is brick paver & concrete patios. There is such an issue with uplift in my wind zone (170mph) that they are beyond rare and if present usually on the ground near docks and boat lifts. All home construction is CMU/Tie Beam/Grade Beam, at grade with no basement or raised foundation so everything is a step-down from grade. I'm in a completely different world compared to where I came from. Even a flag pole has to be engineered.
 
Decks are an on-going frustration for me. One thing I have noticed in multiple AHJ's is the desire to provide a "rapid review" (call it whatever you want), for things like decks and basements. I get it, they are a homeowner driven permit, homeowners vote, the frenzy to provide customer service, I get all of that. Because of that I am currently not involved with them much. Here is the problem; the plans are awful. I am not saying the contractors, or even the homeowners aren't capable of building them well, but they certainly could use help with plan prep. I have seen countless checklists, most of which are awesome, but RARELY adhered to. Instead I see chicken scratch, no dimensions, complete lack of understanding of tributary areas, beam spans, ledgers...the list could go on. So what I see is the poor SOB who is doing the review, under pressure to issue a "rapid" permit, ends up doing the bulk of the design work to "help out the customer". I like helping customers, but every time it happens, the bar for good design and construction practices goes down a little more. And if the plans examiner doesn't understand these things???

We do dozens of deck permits a week. They never stop! Just for giggles I opened up 3 or 4 of them to see what is being submitted. Not one would have made it off my desk (see why I don't have to do them?). Most get passed and sent to the field with few if any comments. So what is the result? Is the inspector catching all the issues in the field? Is that the way it should work? In my opinion, a deck review should take great pains to eliminate inspection issues for both the inspector and poor customer. I saw several missing beam sizes, caisson sizes, spans, not to mention all the silly details like beam bearing, guard and stair details. IF the inspector sees this, and poor customer now has to spend more time and money to fix them, have we provide the coveted customer service? If that is the situation, just remove the review altogether and stop with the illusion that we are trying to provide a better product.

Decks, like most other aspects of construction, are a team endeavor. The builder needs to have skill, the inspector needs to be interested and knowledgeable, and the plans examiner needs to spend time on it and be willing to "hold it up". If the builder doesn't do their job, the plans examiner should point that out. If the builder and the plans examiner don't do their job, the inspector should point it out. I rarely see all three parties do an adequate job.

So what is the solution? Better code-yes. Better plan examination-yes, Better inspections-yes. But I think we can all benefit the most if we stopped treating decks as an after-thought. They are on a vast majority of homes, they are places where people gather. They are exposed to the worst weather imaginable. They are often built by people with little knowledge. I don't believe it is a customer service to produce a bad product in the name of expediency.

Better code will have little effect on the product if better education and enforcement don't take place. And none of it will matter if the AHJ doesn't take them seriously.

Just my humble opinion. Keep up the never-ending and sometimes thankless work Glen. It is appreciated.
 
Decks are an on-going frustration for me. One thing I have noticed in multiple AHJ's is the desire to provide a "rapid review" (call it whatever you want), for things like decks and basements. I get it, they are a homeowner driven permit, homeowners vote, the frenzy to provide customer service, I get all of that. Because of that I am currently not involved with them much. Here is the problem; the plans are awful. I am not saying the contractors, or even the homeowners aren't capable of building them well, but they certainly could use help with plan prep. I have seen countless checklists, most of which are awesome, but RARELY adhered to. Instead I see chicken scratch, no dimensions, complete lack of understanding of tributary areas, beam spans, ledgers...the list could go on. So what I see is the poor SOB who is doing the review, under pressure to issue a "rapid" permit, ends up doing the bulk of the design work to "help out the customer". I like helping customers, but every time it happens, the bar for good design and construction practices goes down a little more. And if the plans examiner doesn't understand these things???

We do dozens of deck permits a week. They never stop! Just for giggles I opened up 3 or 4 of them to see what is being submitted. Not one would have made it off my desk (see why I don't have to do them?). Most get passed and sent to the field with few if any comments. So what is the result? Is the inspector catching all the issues in the field? Is that the way it should work? In my opinion, a deck review should take great pains to eliminate inspection issues for both the inspector and poor customer. I saw several missing beam sizes, caisson sizes, spans, not to mention all the silly details like beam bearing, guard and stair details. IF the inspector sees this, and poor customer now has to spend more time and money to fix them, have we provide the coveted customer service? If that is the situation, just remove the review altogether and stop with the illusion that we are trying to provide a better product.

Decks, like most other aspects of construction, are a team endeavor. The builder needs to have skill, the inspector needs to be interested and knowledgeable, and the plans examiner needs to spend time on it and be willing to "hold it up". If the builder doesn't do their job, the plans examiner should point that out. If the builder and the plans examiner don't do their job, the inspector should point it out. I rarely see all three parties do an adequate job.

So what is the solution? Better code-yes. Better plan examination-yes, Better inspections-yes. But I think we can all benefit the most if we stopped treating decks as an after-thought. They are on a vast majority of homes, they are places where people gather. They are exposed to the worst weather imaginable. They are often built by people with little knowledge. I don't believe it is a customer service to produce a bad product in the name of expediency.

Better code will have little effect on the product if better education and enforcement don't take place. And none of it will matter if the AHJ doesn't take them seriously.

Just my humble opinion. Keep up the never-ending and sometimes thankless work Glen. It is appreciated.
Curiosity, in reference to the statement, "Better code-yes". When reviewing a deck submittal, all tributary loads, (floor, guardrail, handrail, decking and stairs), should be calculated to meet the standards per the IRC. All mechanical fasteners/ composite materials should be tested and approved with an ESRI- Report number or tested by an approved testing agency. Long winded question, but what recommendations would you suggest for a code change or additional codes? I agree with you, you can provide all the checklists, images and how to information, but it will only assist customers who are willing to use the information to build their deck.
Great day!
 
So testing gave us information on the almot impossible lag bolt placement, which I would venture is rarely enforced. Does this coincide with real world failures?
There's more to the chaos in the history than I reveal in the video. The testing gave us the information that got it in the 2009 IRC and at that time you simply kept fasteners 2 inches away from top and bottom of the ledger. In 2012, proponents got edge distance limitations from the NDS (wood engineering) included, and that's when the figures and tables with all the crazy fastening placement rules came to be.

So what we have is Frankenstein. We have code validated by testing, that's been merged with engineering, and that's useless in practice.

I'd like to see the ledger provisions scraped and rebuilt. Trying to patch this monster is proving difficult.
 
Top