• 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 through veneer

jar546 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Don't misunderstand me, some people can do it right without a seal, some people can't do it right whether they have one or not. Those who are going to do it right are probably going to be removing some bricks.
 
globe trekker said:
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.
Click to expand...
The DTT2 typically comes as a kit with the proper bolts, etc.
 
Who is going to be the one to specify what is compliant for all loads, components,

attachments, or approved methods since the AHJ cannot?
 
David Henderson said:
rktect1 2 of them DTT2 and a HDQ8 the DTT2 can also be used as a post and joist connector
Click to expand...
You can not use that to attach a deck to brick veneer.
 
globe trekker said:
Who is going to be the one to specify what is compliant for all loads, components, attachments, or approved methods since the AHJ cannot?
Click to expand...
If the AHJ can't recognize compliance, an engineer's seal doesn't make a difference.
 
Brudgers-

I couldn't agree more with your last statement.

Jar-

In my example the lintel was soley responsible for supporting the veneer above the deck ledger. This would allow the removal of the veneer at the ledger line and allow the ledger for the deck to be attached to the structure conventionaly with nothing bearing on the veneer and eliminating the noncompliant attachment over veneer. Seems arduaous but would be perscriptivly compliant.

ZIG
 
zigmark said:
Brudgers- In my example the lintel was soley responsible for supporting the veneer above the deck ledger. This would allow the removal of the veneer at the ledger line and allow the ledger for the deck to be attached to the structure conventionaly with nothing bearing on the veneer and eliminating the noncompliant attachment over veneer. Seems arduaous but would be perscriptivly compliant. ZIG
Click to expand...
Flashing it properly is left as an exercise for the reader.
 
I thought the DTT2 was a tension tie only, used for lateral bracing not gravity loads in shear. However I was at a seminar yesterday and the engineer who taught it did mention a device that installs between the structure and the deck, through the veneer, basically a stand-off device that will work in some cases. I don't know what device he was talking about and have had no time to research it. For the project in the OP I won't sign off on attachment to or through without a design.
 
Sifu said:
I thought the DTT2 was a tension tie only, used for lateral bracing not gravity loads in shear. However I was at a seminar yesterday and the engineer who taught it did mention a device that installs between the structure and the deck, through the veneer, basically a stand-off device that will work in some cases. I don't know what device he was talking about and have had no time to research it. For the project in the OP I won't sign off on attachment to or through without a design.
Click to expand...
Maine Deck Bracket

Francis
 
When the contractors here have to attach a porch roof to a brick face we allow them lag 2X8 P.T. blocks to the studs then tooth around the blocks with the brick. This way the roof is attached to and supported by the blocks not the veneer. The blocks are hidden above the ceiling of the porch. Works great. decks are a lot harder. Like I said earlier...spread footing and freestand the motha!
 
= = =

Sifu,

There have been a lot of opinions and viewpoints submitted on your OP.

Some say that a "non-engineered" solution could be achieved.......IMO,

I do not necessarily disagree with having a "non-engineered" workable

and SAFE application for your deck project, however, if I were in your

shoes I would defer to requiring an engineered design.....REASON: I

believe that you are not required to design anything, and if, or "when"

something were to happen, then you would be at least partially culpable.

I would not want that kind of exposure on me, but in your situation,

you may be o.k. with it.

My position is and would be, get an RDP design for this project......If

your BO wants to allow an "non-engineered" design, then have the

contractor [ <---- ??? ] submit something that is overkill in its

nature and go from there.

FWIW, ...here again, this is just what I would do......I am sure

that you are well within your "rights" to ask for the RDP design.

+ + +
 
I should probably ask this in the commercial building section but, I'm having trouble finding an equivalent section to R703.7.3 in the 2006 IBC. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Thanks,

GPE
 
Did I just see a Holmes on Homes show last weekend where they attached a ledger to brick and drill through the ledger, brick an into the concrete foundation or did I miss something. Then I saw no deck handrail or risers on the deck. Canada has some different codes apparently?
 
georgia plans exam said:
I should probably ask this in the commercial building section but, I'm having trouble finding an equivalent section to R703.7.3 in the 2006 IBC. Can anyone point me in the right direction?Thanks,

GPE
Click to expand...
1402.1 Would the definition of veneer be sufficient?

Francis
 
Pcinspector1 said:
Did I just see a Holmes on Homes show last weekend where they attached a ledger to brick and drill through the ledger, brick an into the concrete foundation or did I miss something. Then I saw no deck handrail or risers on the deck. Canada has some different codes apparently?
Click to expand...
Yes, we have the National Building Code of Canada. Risers are not required on a deck and neither are handrails. Guards 32" high are required on on decks higher than 2' from the adjacent ground surface and when a deck exceeds 6' in hight the guards must be a minimum of 42" high. Handrails are required on stairs, but not the deck itself. Also, please don't assume Mike Holmes builds things to code as there is rarely a show that I do not see a code violation (He's a plumber by trade FYI).
 
GPExam:

That Arch’s. detail is not a good detail. The primary problem with any ledger or canopy attachments through brick veneer is the potential of imparting lateral loads on the veneer perpendicular to the plane of the veneer, either tension or compression; then secondly that lateral loads parallel to the plane of the veneer, shearing forces in the plane of the veneer, some can be tolerated; finally vert. loads on the veneer, some of which usually can be accommodated, witness lintel loads. But, all of this needs some engineering attention and proper detailing, thus it is just not allowed in a prescriptive code like the IRC, there’s just too much change of misuse, or misapplication.

The top 2x blocking will put an outward tension on the veneer which can not be tolerated, and it plugs the drainage plane behind the brick veneer. The bottom attachment should be at the bottom soffit or bottom chord of the little canopy truss where the reaction actually occurs. There should be horiz. framing in the interior light gage steel stud wall which through bolts can attach to and take the canopy loads into that wall structure. And, there should be a solid spacer at each bolt which prevent them from flexing the veneer inward when they are tightened. If you can line the canopy framing up with the interior studs, the bolting might go into the stud flange. The through bolts might be threaded studs, lock nutted to the stud flange, and the solid spacer applied, while the brick is being laid up. But, this also might cause some water transmission to the interior, therefore special attention to flashing or caulking, etc. Then the canopy trusses are attached to these studs. They should also put some longitudinal framing members at the outed corners (t&b) of the canopy, so these can’t deflect independently w.r.t. each other, like a 2x6 sub-fascia.
 
dhengr,

I absolutely agree that the architects detail is no good. That why I will be requiring an engineer to submit a detail that works. I guarantee it won't match this detail.

thanks for the replies,

GPE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top