# Deck Stringer - just hangin out...



## Darren Emery (Jan 3, 2012)

I see this technique quite often these days - never have been comfortable with it.  Thoughts?

View attachment 1631


View attachment 1631


/monthly_2012_01/572953e47220b_DeckStringer.jpg.3dd3b4214b0b25b36e1cf007d4f3679b.jpg


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 3, 2012)

Are they just trying to save money by buying stringers that are 12' long instead of 14' long to do it right?


----------



## ICE (Jan 3, 2012)

The top one inch of the stringer plus the tread abuts the rim joist and without that, this would fail under it's own weight.


----------



## globe trekker (Jan 3, 2012)

Which code section does the stair stringers violate?  Possibly Section R502.6

( 2006 IRC ) - Bearing?  Min. of 1.5 inches on wood or metal.

.


----------



## ICE (Jan 3, 2012)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> Which code section does the stair stringers violate?


2009 IRC  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.


----------



## globe trekker (Jan 3, 2012)

Thanks ICE!  Darren did not mention the codes in use for his picture.

.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jan 3, 2012)

A nearby county had a large number of stair collaspe with this assembly and have integrated a fix in their deck drawings. I couldn't help but notice a potential problem with the guard post in Darrens photo.

See page 12 http://www.chesterfield.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=4142

Francis


----------



## ICE (Jan 3, 2012)

Thanks Francis, that's a useful handout.


----------



## jim baird (Jan 4, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Are they just trying to save money by buying stringers that are 12' long instead of 14' long to do it right?


Yes.

I once flagged stringers like this on a return to check corrections left by another inspector.

I did not think I could let it go, and carried the owner around to show it.  The closing was that afternoon.

Everybody got mad at me, and I was officially reprimanded, with the CO being issued over my head.

Glad I don't work for that AHJ any more.


----------



## iggentleman (Jan 4, 2012)

I was going to suggest the rail posts extend down and the board attached to them, but I see that it is one of the solutions in the Chesterfield handout.


----------



## JMORRISON (Jan 5, 2012)

Is the rim attached to the joists with just 3 or 4 face nails?


----------



## rktect 1 (Jan 5, 2012)

Sometimes you just have to say NO.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Jan 13, 2012)

Thanks Francis...we are kind of picky about our decks    I keep that pdf on the county laptop so that I can show people how to correct their violations instead of just telling them. Some of our deck requirements are more restrictive than the code because of local amendments.


----------



## steveray (Jan 17, 2012)

Now...if they had run the straps directly on and down the back side of the stringer....maybe...

Also, how do you all feel about......g. A full-depth rim joist shall be provided at the cantilevered end of the joists. Solid blocking shall be provided at the cantilever support.

Also, also.....do most of you out there allow split beams, ply, post, ply..?  Most AHJ's here do not....unless one ply works...


----------



## jar546 (Jan 17, 2012)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> A nearby county had a large number of stair collaspe with this assembly and have integrated a fix in their deck drawings. I couldn't help but notice a potential problem with the guard post in Darrens photo.See page 12 http://www.chesterfield.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=4142
> 
> Francis


Not to have thread drift, but........

I really like the handout.  I do however, have one bone to pick.

Why are they allowing girders to be side mounted to posts with just 2 bolts and no vertical support below the girder?


----------



## mark handler (Jan 17, 2012)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> I see this technique quite often these days - never have been comfortable with it.  Thoughts?


But I put in straps......


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 17, 2012)

Francis, nice handout!

IMO there should be some LS70 or other brand angled brackets used to attach to the stringer support rim!

But I'm not a RDP

pc1


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jan 17, 2012)

steveray said:
			
		

> Now...if they had run the straps directly on and down the back side of the stringer....maybe...Also, how do you all feel about......g. A full-depth rim joist shall be provided at the cantilevered end of the joists. Solid blocking shall be provided at the cantilever support.
> 
> Also, also.....do most of you out there allow split beams, ply, post, ply..? Most AHJ's here do not....unless one ply works...


Yep strapping was and is still used and accepted. Simpson didn't design the strap for this purpose and now makes a bracket; LSCZ specifically for stringers. Before then people were using LSU ZMAX coated hangers.

These hinge straps probably where installed around 1920 - 30's.














			
				jar546 said:
			
		

> Not to have thread drift, but........I really like the handout. I do however, have one bone to pick.
> 
> Why are they allowing girders to be side mounted to posts with just 2 bolts and no vertical support below the girder?


Since no matter how many times I proof read my handouts; always find mistakes later so I'll assume the same for theirs as well. Is your question in reference to page 6 to see page 10 and should be page 7? I notice page 6 is a little messy trying to separate all the details.


----------



## Moscow (Jan 17, 2012)

Great hand out Francis, I have just one question on your handout it say's on the cantilevers max of 24". It was my undertanding that cantilevers shall not exceed the nominal depth of the wood floor joist per section R502.3.3 and I can't find the 24" rule anywere in the code.

any help finding this section would be much help and I am sure the contractors would love it also.

Thanks


----------



## Yankee (Jan 17, 2012)

That is the way it has been done around here for generations, I don't like it either but I don't believe ICE's reference really works. The only way to build any deck that doesn't have "nails subject to withdrawal" is to use metal connectors.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jan 17, 2012)

Moscow said:
			
		

> Great hand out Francis, I have just one question on your handout it say's on the cantilevers max of 24". It was my undertanding that cantilevers shall not exceed the nominal depth of the wood floor joist per section R502.3.3 and I can't find the 24" rule anywere in the code.any help finding this section would be much help and I am sure the contractors would love it also.
> 
> Thanks


Hold on there fella, this is Daddy-0-'s local from Chesterfield; I'm in Charlottesville with a simple handout

Perhaps someone from Chesterfield or Henrico can chime in about that 24. I posted their handout to show the stringer attachment remedy for Darren's OP


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 18, 2012)

An darkness fell over the land, and a voice said, "Thou shall not extend a deck cantiliver beyond 1 cubit in my AHJ!", and the voice has spoken! Or I'll knock you over the head with that ACQ 2x4!!

pc1


----------



## gbhammer (Jan 18, 2012)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> An darkness fell over the land, and a voice said, "Thou shall not extend a deck cantiliver beyond 1 cubit in my AHJ!", and the voice has spoken! Or I'll knock you over the head with that ACQ 2x4!!pc1


Oh that was rich :lol:


----------

