• 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 ledger through veneer

Sifu

Sifu

SAWHORSE
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
3,349
I don't permit deck ledger attachment through brick veneer to be the means of support for a deck. However I ran into one today that begs a question. Older home built with brick veneer but the brick is a solid aggregate. The new deck will be built against the existing house which has a basement. So if they make the deck free-standing the footings will not be on undisturbed soil (unless they excavate 9' deep) so I gotta wonder if in this case the brick attachment is a better option. Very low trib area (4') so the load would be light. Since the brick is not a clay brick but an aggregate I think that might be the better option. Thoughts?
 
I can. I just don't want to. I know what they will say. And I try to not over-burden builders/owners if its not necessary. I am the only one in any nearby jurisdiction who enforces this to begin with even though at a meeting last year a BIA engineer told a room of a hundred inspectors not to permit bearing through brick veneer. When I questioned him on a different subject concerning brick bearing his answer was that those particular brick were load bearing so it was acceptable. Thats what set me to thinking this way.
 
You cannot attach to brick veneer period. If you have a composite wall there are methods for attachment. Maybe freestanding with a spread footing? I am not picturing the aggregate very well. Is it structural or veneer?
 
If it is veneer it doesn't matter what the brick material is. Veneer is only allowed to carry it's own weight. The secondary problem is that you can collapse the air space behind the veneer if you torque the bolts too much.
 
It is a veneer. So far its two against. I just didn't know if since the brick was not a clay and instead a solid agg. it would make any difference. One problem I have with attaching to veneer is the choice between not tightening the bolts or crushing the airspace/veneer but if the brick is capable of being load bearing the need to tighten them down so much is not as great.
 
New footers, bolts, veneers or sky hooks, I think you have to say "engineer or architect" to the applicant.
 
= ~ = ~

Sifu,



Agree with the others!......A RDP design is required here!......Not much

wiggle room because of the conditions you have mentioned.

~ = ~ =
 
Attach to the structure behind the veneer.

IMO, a competent contractor could figure out how to do this reasonably.

I think engineering might be overkill.

And it might not.
 
Maybe I wasn't clear in the original post. I do not permit attaching through veneer to the structure behind or directly to the veneer. The reason is that even attaching through the veneer the bolts act as a lever and load the veneer, as well as potentially crushing the air-space. That position has been backed up by the BIA engineers, though I have seen some DP's design it otherwise. I was looking for alternates in this case becuase the brick appears to be load bearing and the extremely light loads. The consensus seems to be no exceptions. I am going to explore one other possibility with the spread footings.
 
Sifu said:
Maybe I wasn't clear in the original post. I do not permit attaching through veneer to the structure behind or directly to the veneer. The reason is that even attaching through the veneer the bolts act as a lever and load the veneer, as well as potentially crushing the air-space. That position has been backed up by the BIA engineers, though I have seen some DP's design it otherwise. I was looking for alternates in this case becuase the brick appears to be load bearing and the extremely light loads. The consensus seems to be no exceptions. I am going to explore one other possibility with the spread footings.
Click to expand...
By not allowing connection through veneers to structural members, you are making up code.
 
As long as the attachment to the structure behind the brick veneer does not rest on the brick veneer I am ok with it. I have yet to see someone provide me this detail.
 
jar546 said:
To or through brick veneer requires an RDP since it is beyond the prescriptive method of the IRC. Call it overkill, I call it compliance per the written code.
Click to expand...
The requirement is that non-prescriptive elements be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice. Not that they be designed by a registered design professional.

In other words, prayer isn't an acceptable method of structural attachment.

But the proper Simpson hanger is.

Regardless of who specifies it.
 
Simpson makes a holdown for this application that attaches to building floor joist to the deck joist just have to drill thru venner and rim joist. How old is basement? after several years ground may be able to support the footings for the deck.
 
brudgers said:
The requirement is that non-prescriptive elements be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice. Not that they be designed by a registered design professional.

In other words, prayer isn't an acceptable method of structural attachment.

But the proper Simpson hanger is.

Regardless of who specifies it.
Click to expand...
If there is an engineered piece of equipment that is designed specifically for the application and/or approved by the ICC with a Legacy/ICC-ES report then not a problem. The engineering was already done as long as it fits the specific application.

Joe Contractor telling me he is going to use a 4" x 1/4" angle iron will need an RDP.
 
The design of non-perscriptive elements for submittal to building departments in many states does require the the services of a registered design professional regardless of the code text so verify your states requirements prior to following that advice. Additionally, Simpsons' product specifier manual as well as their ES code reports are very specific about how their "pre-engineered" products are used and in many cases require further design of the load resisting systems they are supported by. However, Brudgers is correct that the code does not specifically require it.

So how high up the wall does the brick veneer go? If not very high, could it be perscriptively supported in another fashion, maybe an angle iron lintel, just above the deck ledger to allow removal of the veneer at this location so the ledger could be flashed over and installed against the wall? Maybe more arduous than it's worth.

Short of that I would have the soil adjacent to the existing foundation compactiont tested. The soil should be capable of supporting enough load for spread footings of a deck. You may need a few extra or to add an addittional mid-span beam to shorten the tributary at the wall line but could still be a less expensive option than design.

ZIG
 
Simpson-Strongtie DOES offer a (lateral load connector) to attach the floor joists to

the deck joists, however, since most; not all, contractors do not know about these

loads & requirements, someone who DOES know will need to specify all of the

components needed. This lateral load connector also requires a compliant type of

threaded rod, washers & nuts.

http://strongtie.com/products/connectors/DTT2.asp



Also, Simpson-Strongtie offers a Deck Framing Connection "GUIDE".

http://www.safestronghome.com/deck/



IMO, a guide does not necessarily mean code compliant, therefore, a RDP would be

required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top