# Lateral load connectors



## NH09 (Dec 9, 2010)

I was wondering how other jurisdictions are enforcing section R502.2.2.3 - Lateral load connectors. Initially we were requiring that all decks have at least 2 lateral load connectors, but after further research and a rather vague code interpretation from the ICC we determined that they would not be required in all cases. The only time we require them now is when the lagging requirements of section R502.2.2.1 cannot be met. Any thoughts?


----------



## Yankee (Dec 9, 2010)

I don't believe they are required when there is other provision for lateral as the wording is "shall be permitted to be in accordance with Figure R502.2.2.3", so that diagram is just one way of providing the lateral support required under 502.2.2


----------



## KZQuixote (Dec 9, 2010)

I'm thinking that because figure R502.2.2.3 shows the lags AND the tension devices they're discounting the ability of the joist hangers to provide lateral load support. While I agree with Yankee's comment about Fig 502.2.2.3 being only one way to accomplish the lateral load support, I doubt that you could just omit the tension devices in favor of the lags. The concerns addressed in the foot notes of Table 502.2.2.1 seem to imply that the lags are more to provide vertical shear rather than pull out.

NH09,

Would you be willing to post the vague interpretation you got from the ICC?

Bill


----------



## Mark K (Dec 9, 2010)

The tension device keeps the deck from pulling away from the building.  The joist hangers are not going to be effective in resisting this tension.

Unless the deck is braced by some other means this connection is essential.


----------



## NH09 (Dec 9, 2010)

Sure Bill - Here it is:

QUESTION:  My question is when is a lateral load connector required? In section R502.2.2 Decks, it is stated that "decks shall be positively anchored...for lateral loads" Does this mean that the only option is a connector like the one in figure R502.2.2.3, or that the lag bolts will suffice as lateral load connectors. Does the seismic or wind zone matter when requiring one of these connectors? Do any factors come into play when requiring lateral load connectors, such as height or a deck connected to the primary structure on two walls? This is really more than one question, but there seem to be many interpretations on this code section and I want to make sure I am enforcing it correctly.

ANSWER:   Decks that are supported by the primary structure, in order to satisfy R502.2.2 with respect to both vertical and lateral loads, are permitted to be connected with lag bolts. The must be as prescribed by Sections R502.2.2.1.1 and Table R502.2.2.1. The seismic, wind or height, as design factors for the proposed deck, are not issues in this case. Outside of these prescriptive parameters, accepted engineering practices are permitted.

Maybe I'm being harsh by saying this is vague, but it seems to say that if you can accomplish the lagging required in R502.2.2.1 then the lateral load connectors are not required - simple enough. But I would think that when the lagging requirements cannot be met, then more than 2 lateral load connectors would be required to secure the deck to the primary structure, especially on a large deck.  I wonder how we are supposed to determine these additional connections (lags, pins, etc.).


----------



## KZQuixote (Dec 9, 2010)

ICC said: "ANSWER: Decks that are supported by the primary structure, in order to satisfy R502.2.2 with respect to both vertical and lateral loads, are permitted to be connected with lag bolts. The must be as prescribed by Sections R502.2.2.1.1 and Table R502.2.2.1. The seismic, wind or height, as design factors for the proposed deck, are not issues in this case. Outside of these prescriptive parameters, accepted engineering practices are permitted."

That's just plain Gibberish! If this was the real skinny why did they draw in the tension devices at all? I think the whole tension requirement is bogus. While I've repaired several decks that failed in shear or pull away because the ledgers were just nailed on. I've never seen the joists pull out of the hangers.

The requirement for lags is a good addition. The tension members are unnecessary piece of over engineering that will add significantly to the cost of any deck.

IMHO

Bill


----------



## NH09 (Dec 9, 2010)

Agreed, I really hope they clean up the deck section in the 2011 edition.


----------



## Yankee (Dec 9, 2010)

I did not mean to imply that the lags, joist hangers or bolts were suppling the lateral load resistance. I don't believe that to be the case.

I can think of two other common ways 1.) when the deck has two sides against the house and 2.) when the deck is supplied with diagonal bracing.

There probably are other traditional ways of supplying the lateral load resistance


----------



## NH09 (Dec 9, 2010)

There are a lot of different conditions that come into play, such as Yankee said about 2 sides being anchored to the house. It would be nice if the ICC could at least come up with some triggering factors for requiring the lateral load connectors IE: only 1 side anchored to the house, a certain height above grade, more than xx square feet etc. I also have a problem with the "hold down devices shall be provided in not less than two locations per deck" requirement - theres a big difference in the weight of a six foot deck versus a forty foot deck, not to mention the amount of people you can fit on the larger deck.


----------



## Mark K (Dec 9, 2010)

You need something other than the lag bolts for a lateral connection.  The lag may hold the ledger to the building but the deck joists hangers are not effective in holding the joists to the ledger.

The need for this tie is more critical when you can experience high wind or earthquake loading but you still need some form of connection to deal with more mundane loads.

More than two lateral ties would be appropriate for larger decks but when they tried to implement this as a proscriptive provisions they had to simplify it and as a result made it less safe.

What the detail in the IRC does not address is the case when the floor joists are parallel to the exterior wall.

These provisions suffer from the fact that they are attempting to write proscriptive provisions that address many variations.  In addition


----------



## KZQuixote (Dec 9, 2010)

Hi Mark,

"What the detail in the IRC does not address is the case when the floor joists are parallel to the exterior wall."

You're right they missed that one entirely, however in that case at least each piece of decking is, or should be, fastened to the ledger.

Bill


----------



## GHRoberts (Dec 9, 2010)

I found this comment by an author of some book about the code

"When researching for my book Deck Construction Based on the 2009 International Residential Code, I often spoke with the International Code Council’s (ICC’s) technical staff regarding this new figure. They agreed that this detail is not intended for every deck built under the IRC, but only for those that require lateral load resistance greater than the band-joist-to-floor-system connections provide. Of course, that isn’t necessarily easy to quantify."

He also made comments about joists being parallel to the walls.

Since he claimed to speak with the technical staff, I would have expected him to give more guidance.

As an engineer I would ignore the entire issue as there is not enough information to indicate a standard to design to.


----------



## KZQuixote (Dec 9, 2010)

George wrote: "As an engineer I would ignore the entire issue as there is not enough information to indicate a standard to design to."

I'm with you George.

If'n it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Sure would be good to nail this one down before I end up on the receiving end of a correction notice.

Bill


----------



## peach (Dec 11, 2010)

around here, it sounds like builders are going to start doing free standing decks and no longer attach them... since the decks are usually built at the end of the job, no one wants to remove ceilings to install these devices... (but I think they are a good idea for attached decks).


----------



## Robert Ellenberg (Dec 11, 2010)

I also searched the internet and found a website devoted exclusively to decks that had this discussion.  One interesting additional note they had in explaining the requirement for the connectors was this, "Historically the bolted connection of the ledger board to the house rim was supposed to resist all the vertical shear forces and lateral loads that would pull the deck away from the house. The new code was developed to prevent the house rim from ripping away from the house by anchoring the deck to the house floor system"


----------



## Yankee (Dec 11, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> around here, it sounds like builders are going to start doing free standing decks and no longer attach them... since the decks are usually built at the end of the job, no one wants to remove ceilings to install these devices... (but I think they are a good idea for attached decks).


Mmmm, , have they found out yet that they will need to excavate to the bottom of the house footing to place piers for the free standing deck : ) ?


----------



## DRP (Dec 11, 2010)

Yup, on our present job the backfill is open at the moment and I'll drop 6x6's down to the bottom on PT wood footings and run a couple of horizontals and diagonals below grade to hold it all in place during backfill. This house has open web floor trusses which would have complicated attachment further. This also allows me to run the joists and decking the desired direction.


----------



## KZQuixote (Dec 11, 2010)

Can you say Huge Waste of money? How about diverted attention to real issues?

All of us have been alerted about this or that party where several/numerous folks were injured when a deck parted company from the main structure.  I doubt any body can document such a failure to anything more than nails in pull out or failure because of deterioration of the deck framing itself.

Bill


----------



## Paul Sweet (Dec 13, 2010)

I wouldn't be too worried about pullout of lag bolts in lumber rim joists, as long as the subfloor is nailed to the rim.  I'd be more concerned about pullout with the OSB rims that are used with I-joists.


----------



## DRP (Dec 13, 2010)

In the field, very often there is a small strip of plywood under the wall at one rim thanks to modular 4' dimensions and 47.5" T&G subfloor. I know what you're supposed to do but it isn't often done that way. Is the connection of sole plate to rim sufficient?


----------



## High Desert (Dec 13, 2010)

By the way, can anyone tell me where those 2 tension devices are to be located? The code just says "Hold-down tension devices shall be installed in not less than two locations per deck."


----------



## NH09 (Dec 14, 2010)

Just a little update, I resubmitted my question (with some changes) regarding lateral load connectors to the ICC yesterday:

QUESTION:  I had asked in June about when a lateral load connector was required, and received this answer: Decks that are supported by the primary structure, in order to satisfy R502.2.2 with respect to both vertical and lateral loads, are permitted to be connected with lag bolts. The must be as prescribed by Sections R502.2.2.1.1 and Table R502.2.2.1. The seismic, wind or height, as design factors for the proposed deck, are not issues in this case. Outside of these prescriptive parameters, accepted engineering practices are permitted. To ensure that I am interpreting this correctly, if the ledger fastening detailed in table R502.2.2.1 can be accomplished, then no lateral load connector is required. If it cannot, I would guess that two lateral load connectors would not be enough to support the ledger - what determines the addtional fastening neccesary? and would any other fastener (hilti pin for example) meet the lateral load connector requirement?

ANSWERlease re-phrase your question, it is not clear what it is you are asking. Provide a detail sketch if you feel it would be helpful.

This may take a while...


----------



## GHRoberts (Dec 14, 2010)

NH09 ---

I suspect you are asking the ICC to practice engineering. They seem reluctant to do so. That is proper.

So if the ICC guy is an engineer licensed in one state, can he give advice in another state and claim he is not practicing engineering ?


----------



## GHRoberts (Dec 14, 2010)

duplicate ...


----------



## KZQuixote (Dec 14, 2010)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> NH09 ---I suspect you are asking the ICC to practice engineering. They seem reluctant to do so. That is proper.
> 
> So if the ICC guy is an engineer licensed in one state, can he give advice in another state and claim he is not practicing engineering ?


I don't think so! He's just asking the ICC, engineer or not, to explain their less than clear code section.

Are you suggesting that only an engineer can explain the building code?

Bill


----------



## Yankee (Dec 14, 2010)

I expect this is the part that ICC finds unclear ~

_"If it cannot, I would guess that two lateral load connectors would not be enough to support the ledger - what determines the addtional fastening neccesary? and would any other fastener (hilti pin for example) meet the lateral load connector requirement?"_

I suggest leaving this out of the question and seeing if an answer is forthcoming.


----------



## GHRoberts (Dec 14, 2010)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> I don't think so! He's just asking the ICC, engineer or not, to explain their less than clear code section. Are you suggesting that only an engineer can explain the building code?
> 
> Bill


No. I am saying that comments by licensed engineers may be regarded as practicing engineering without a license in states where they are not licensed.


----------



## NH09 (Dec 15, 2010)

I wasn't asking the ICC to practice engineering GH, but to clarify how we would determine what additional connections would be necessary when using lateral load connectors. I attempted to clarify my question and received a response:

Mr. Rangel (ICC),

Myself and other inspectors have been struggling with the new lateral load connector requirement, some inspectors are convinced they required on every deck, some say they are not needed unless an engineer has required them. From your initial answer (June) I had assumed that if the lagging requirements can be met, then no lateral load connectors would be required –simple enough. However, if the lagging requirements cannot be met can I assume that two lateral load connectors (regardless of the size of the deck) are sufficient to fasten the deck to the house? And if they are not, how would I determine the additional fastening means for the ledger? I apologize if the question is unclear, but this new requirement has been very confusing.

ANSWER: Two lateral load connectors, as depicted in Figure R502.2.2.3, are the minimum number required if this method is utilized. Additional connectors and or other fastening means, based on an engineering analysis, may be required as a result of the size of the deck.

At this point, I will do the following when presented with a deck application:

1.) Inform the applicant they must meet the lagging requirements of section R502.2.2.1, or

2.) Build a freestanding deck, or

3.) Have an engineer design their deck, and let the engineer determine if any lateral load connectors are necessary.

I really believe the ICC could have done a better job with this section.


----------



## High Desert (Dec 15, 2010)

Just a point, the ICC does not write the codes...we do as members of ICC. I spoke against this code change at the Rochester hearings but it was passed anyway. The section is broken and needs to be fixed.


----------



## GHRoberts (Dec 15, 2010)

NH09 said:
			
		

> I wasn't asking the ICC to practice engineering GH, but to clarify how we would determine what additional connections would be necessary when using lateral load connectors.


I never said you did.

What you did do was ask them a legal question. That is: What does your adaption of the ICC code as law mean? Perhaps you were asking them to practice law without the proper license.

---

If I ask my neighbor, if a 2x6 will span a certain distance. He can answer without practicing engineering because I have no expectation that he has knowledge of engineering.

If I ask the AHJ the same question. He can answer with a response based on the prescriptive code tables and not be practicing engineering. If he does any math and I expect he has the ability to do the correct math he is practicing engineering

If I answer the question, I am always practicing engineering, because I have a license.

Most professions work that way.


----------



## High Desert (Dec 15, 2010)

GHRoberts, *the code is not law* for ICC. They promulgate and publish the codes, which are a suggested set of construction standards. So you're saying that ICC cannot render their interpretation of any code section without either practicing law or engineering? That's absurd.


----------



## Jobsaver (Dec 15, 2010)

GHRoberts: Is it necessary to interrupt every thread with your diatribe about practicing engineering without a license?


----------



## Yankee (Dec 15, 2010)

NH09 said:
			
		

> At this point, I will do the following when presented with a deck application:
> 
> 1.) Inform the applicant they must meet the lagging requirements of section R502.2.2.1, or
> 
> ...


sounds good to me


----------



## NH09 (Dec 17, 2010)

You may be overthinking this GH, I was asking the ICC to clarify a code section that has puzzled inspectors in my area since the 2009 IRC came out. If the ICC can't provide a code interpretation without practicing engineering (or law for that matter) then we are all in trouble. It sounds like the ICC rushed this code change through and the only ones benefiting are a certain deck hardware manufacturer and structural engineers.


----------



## NH09 (Dec 17, 2010)

You may be overthinking this GH, I was asking the ICC to clarify a code section that has puzzled inspectors in my area since the 2009 IRC came out. If the ICC can't provide a code interpretation without practicing engineering (or law for that matter) then we are all in trouble. It sounds like the ICC rushed this code change through and the only ones benefiting are a certain deck hardware manufacturer and structural engineers.


----------



## GHRoberts (Dec 17, 2010)

NH09 said:
			
		

> You may be overthinking this GH, I was asking the ICC to clarify a code section that has puzzled inspectors in my area since the 2009 IRC came out. If the ICC can't provide a code interpretation without practicing engineering (or law for that matter) then we are all in trouble. It sounds like the ICC rushed this code change through and the only ones benefiting are a certain deck hardware manufacturer and structural engineers.


Why would your AHJ ask the jurisdiction to adopt a law that the AHJ did not understand? (Seems to be a common occurance.)

Overall the ICC writes prescriptions that can be used to show code compliance. Those who do not want to use the prescriptions can do engineering.

I think this deck prescription is lacking in suitability (seems to be a common view), so I would do engineering. The same engineering that I did prior to this prescription.

The only good part is that AHJs can not require engineering.

---

If you want the ICC to answer questions, do not ask engineering or legal questions. You should hire a local engineer or lawyer for those questions.


----------



## Yankee (Dec 17, 2010)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> The only good part is that AHJs can not require engineering.


Au contraire! AHJ may require engineering.


----------



## NH09 (Dec 17, 2010)

Section R106.1 authorizes the building official to require review by a registered design professional, we also have a state rsa (can't find it at the moment) that requires the design professional be licensed in New Hampshire. Anytime a project falls outside the scope of the code or there are existing conditions we cannot verify, we ask the applicant to consult an engineer. I certainly have no problem requesting an engineer review deck plans if the prescribed lagging requirement cannot be met or the deck is not freestanding - I just wanted to make sure that is what the ICC intended.

R106.1 Submittal documents.

Submittal documents consisting of construction documents , and other data shall be submitted in two or more sets with each application for a permit. The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed. Where special conditions exist, the building official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional .


----------



## dhengr (Dec 22, 2010)

Let me offer a little insight on lateral load connectors and decks.  I are a registered ingeneer and I can even stamp and sign plans in some states; but I promise not to do your ingineering for you, or to pretend that I are a bldg. inspector, although I am one, if you promise not to do any engineering (shades of GH), but you should have a good deal of engineering insight to do your job well.  Finely, you have to help me out a bit with the latest code editions the exact wording of the code sections you site, the tables and drawings if that’s important to your arguement.  I’ve been designing structures and foundations of all types for about 45 years, and have a pretty good handle on the intent of the codes from the structural standpoint.  But, I’ve given up trying to keep up with the changes or the rate of change of the codes.  IMHO the code business has become a rather large industry unto itself, the codes are becoming less and less intelligible, trying to cover every situation with more and more complexity to the point that no one can interpret them any more, and with a few exceptions there isn’t real much evidence that we are really producing better structures, we’re just adding layers of confusion.  This is mostly to our detriment, because neither you nor I can any longer figure out how to understand and interpret them and do our job properly.

The house sub-fl. diaphragm must be adequately nailed to the joists, blocking and rim joist; and the rim joist must be adequately nailed to the sill plate or double top pl.; that’s what gives the rim joist the ability to take some lateral load from the deck if needs be.  I think your tables will show that through bolts with washers are somewhat stronger than lag bolts (pull through vs. pull out with short screw embedment), in holding the ledger to the bldg., and neither of these fasteners should be cantilevered from the rim joist and solid sheathing through insulation board and/or siding to the ledger for proper support w.r.t. vertical deck loads.  And, don’t forget proper ledger flashing.  For vertical loads the lag bolts must be regularly spaced and of adequate number and size to make the ledger act as if a continuously supported shelf as it picks up deck joist loading.  Lag bolts to widely spaced get overloaded and cause the ledger to act as a beam btwn. the widely spaced fasteners, not particularly desirable.

Joist hangers are primarily designed for vert. loading from the joists, but they do have some ability to resist lateral loads (shear loads parallel to the ledger) and they even have some small ability to resist tension loads down the length of the joist, just not much.  The deck can see lateral loads from wind on exposed surfaces, floor structure, guard rails, and privacy walls; earthquakes where the center of mass is some distance from the bldg. and might include DL, snow load, LL as part of that mass; and 4 or 5 - 300 lb. linemen standing out at the railing and swaying back and forth in a drunken group hug, plus all the other people out on the deck dancing to the same music.  Now, for the sake of the point that I am trying to make, assume two different decks: one which runs out 10' perpendicular to the bldg. and 12 or 14' along the bldg. and the center of mass is out at 5-6' from the bldg. with the linemen out at 10'; vs. a deck which runs out 18' perpendicular to the bldg. and only 10 or 12' along the bldg.  Any of these potential lateral loadings is trying to rip the deck away from the rim joist/fl. system; causing tension at one edge (corner) of the deck and compression into the bldg. at the other deck corner.  Given the nature of the beast, the tension loads will be concentrated in the outermost 2 or 4 joists, tending to rip them away from the buidling.  I submit that I can most likely make the 10x12 deck work without any special tension hardware, but the 18x12 deck will most likely need special tension hardware and bracing out at its far end.  I would probably attach this hardware to the 1st or 2nd interior joist on each edge of the deck since I don’t know which direction the lat. load might be applied.  These same connector sets should probably be attached to interior joist or blocking becuase their concentrated loads will overload the rim joist alone.  Thus, IRC says at least two sets of connectors, one near each corner, if you chose this method.  My interpretation: they are not saying you have to have those tension connectors, they are saying you might need them, and you better be smart enough to know when you do, and do something about it in your deck design.


----------



## Yankee (Dec 22, 2010)

Thanks dhengr, you remind me that it is sometimes beneficial to stand back a few feet from the codebook and get a feel for the overall situation.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Feb 17, 2011)

Reference: 2009 IRC fig. 502.2.2.3

R502.2.2 Where supported by attachment to an exterior wall, decks shall be positively anchored to the primary structure and designed for both vertical and lateral loads as applicable.

R502.9 Where posts and beam or girder construction is used to support floor framing, positive connections shall be provided to ensure against uplift and lateral displacement.

Reference: Simpson Strong-Tie Deck Framing Connection Guide; Hurricane Ties addresses R502.7 & R502.9 Uplift & Lateral displacement

Post to Beam connectors and through bolts with washers addresses R502.9 – Lateral support

Reference: DCA6-09 page C9

While Item 7 of DCA 6 Minimum Requirements states that the document does not address wind or seismic design issues, some interpret R502.2.2 to be applicable in all cases since lateral loads can be developed by other sources including people moving or dancing o a deck. Another interpretation is that the term “as applicable” in R502.2.2 means the provision is only required for code prescribed loads. The only code prescribed lateral loads are wind and seismic. 

We will adopt 2009 IRC on March 1st and I just started updating our deck sheet and am of the opinion that the connector shown in figure is required for wind and seismic loads where applicable. The other perspective is to infer “what if’s”.

Do you agree or disagree?


----------



## dhengr (Feb 17, 2011)

Francis:

I agree....   to disagree.  You guys and your darn new editions of codes, you’re outpacing me at warp speed.  I don’t even get started digesting one, when I’m getting another one rammed down my throat.  Tell your legislators not to adopt the next one and explain that they won’t have building falling down around them while doing this, you want to learn to understand the one you have now.  And then, each time the question becomes...  but there is still some unusual, unlikely, unanticipated condition that isn’t explicitly addressed by the new edition, now what do we do.  People loads do cause vertical loads and lateral loads and we better design for all reasonably anticipated lateral loads.  What the heck ever happened to a little common sense and engineering judgement and experience?  The code just sets the min. magnitude of the loads it lists, it certainly doesn’t say you don’t have to consider other possible or likely loads, and I don’t see any “what if’s” about that.  You are sorta asking that a code be written to take this experience factor into account in such a way, that any damn fool (and, I don’t mean you) can do the almost impossible without any thought or knowledge about what he/she is doing, or the consequences thereof.  As a structural engineer, I always thought that the only loads I had to design for were those which might make my structure fail, become unserviceable, seriously harm someone or not perform the function for which it was intended and being designed.  All the other loads and conditions would take care of themselves.  I never thought to scour the code to see if meteorite impacts, or tsunami waves on a high desert plateau, might affect my structure; the old common sense, judgement, experience thing again, or in accordance with well established engineering principles and practice.

To me, ‘where applicable or as applicable’ means if it is reasonably likely to occur, design for it.   That’s what your 2nd and 3rd paras. say.  While SIMPSON’S guide is a good guide for alerting you to all the potential problem details, remember they are trying to sell their hardware, it may not all be req’d.  Reread my 22DEC10 post, I give a few fairly simple examples of what to watch for or when to call for help.  Send me copies of those code sections and that SIMPSON guide so I can take a look at them.  Maybe we can discuss some other details or items to watch for.

It should be sufficient to say that the deck should be supported in such a fashion as to take all of the anticipated loadings imposed upon it, in the process of performing its intended function.   And, IF YOU do not know that means, you have no business building that deck, and you should hire someone who really does know what he/she is doing, if you want a permit.  Furthermore, this code section does not protect every damn fool from his/her ill thought out actions.

There are several pretty good deck design guides out there and I think I would just hand out copies of one of them along with the applicable code sections.  I’m not sure I would want to try rewriting the history of Structural Engineering, on my own, for public distribution.  That’s just sticking your neck out a mile, even if it is tough to sue you guys, for little gain in the public’s ability to grasp the nature of the problem.  Do this study for your own edification, to develop your own check list of what to watch for, so when you check a deck plan (I don’t like the words approve or bless in this context), you know when to tell them they need an engineer to do this if they want a permit.  You don’t need to give them your check list, but if they miss too many items on it, that might be an indication that they have no idea what they are doing and need some design and building help, and closer inspection.

The question then becomes: should we design for 10 dancing cheerleaders or 5 defensive linemen and that’s further complicated by the fact sometimes there are only three down linemen and at others they are all dancing even the linebackers.  Where do you draw the line, the code doesn’t cover this, common sense and judgement does.  So, now lets argue about the meaning of reasonably likely.

We can’t design against or codify things to prevent stupidity or to compensate for lack of knowledge.  Some of them just exist.  And, hopefully natural selection weeds them out, without the courts blaming their existence or actions on you and me.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 18, 2011)

dhengr said:
			
		

> To me, ‘where applicable or as applicable’ means if it is reasonably likely to occur, design for it.   That’s what your 2nd and 3rd paras. say.  While SIMPSON’S guide is a good guide for alerting you to all the potential problem details, remember they are trying to sell their hardware, it may not all be req’d.  Reread my 22DEC10 post, I give a few fairly simple examples of what to watch for or when to call for help.  Send me copies of those code sections and that SIMPSON guide so I can take a look at them.  Maybe we can discuss some other details or items to watch for.


Keep in mind that all Simpson connectors are alternate means and methods under the code and that generally the manufacturer's written material will be considered as describing requirements.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Feb 18, 2011)

Finally, to address concerns in high-wind zones and ensure that the rimboard is adequately anchored into the floor system (Figure 2), Section R502.2.2.3 requires positive anchorage of the deck joists to the floor framing (this provision is similar to a FEMA construction requirement):

_*Cheri B. Hainer*__ is a code-enforcement official in Fairfax County, Va._

Article; http://www.deckmagazine.com/article/47.html


----------



## Mark K (Feb 18, 2011)

There is a slight exception to what brudgers said.  Some of the simpson hardware pieces can be calculated using the code provisions for light gage metal and wood fasteners which would allow their use without constituting an alternate method of compliance.  This might result in slightly lower values.


----------

