# Current residential deck code



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 19, 2018)

Is anyone enforcing the handrail set at 34-38"above the tread? Oh ya!

You getting that riser installed so a 4-inch sphere can't pass? Yep!

And that lateral support, I'm sure you enforcing this gem, come on, you the only one! How you enforcing it on an existing project with the inside ceiling covered? I'm sure your getting 100% compliance.

I have not passed a deck that meets current ICC 2012 code on the first inspection since I've been here, having to do multiple inspections to get compliance. 

I bet your doing way better than me, aren't you?


----------



## classicT (Dec 19, 2018)

We are getting it...plus WA State upped the live load to 60psf

Check out the Simpson DTT1Z for the lateral load connectors.

https://www.strongtie.com/resources/product-installers-guide/dtt1z-installation


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 19, 2018)

Another sore subject, the local yards are not stocking the DTT1Z's  or the the DTT2Z's. They would have to order them directly from Simpson.


----------



## steveray (Dec 20, 2018)

HD carries them here....full kit with the lags and everything...


----------



## Glenn (Dec 20, 2018)

The lateral load anchor is smoke in mirrors.  It does nothing to address the sway of a deck, and it is a completely unproven concept.  It's a braced wall with hold downs but no wood structural panel and no load assumptions based on actual design.  I have been involved with decks for over 20 years, first as a deck builder.  Please take 14 minutes to watch my video that reveals the truth behind the lateral load anchor.  It is not all you may believe it to be.  Yes, we have a very under-educated nation in proper deck construction.  I have over 16 hours of deck code education available online and in person that would shock most anyone that "knows how to build deck" (which is everyone...everyone thinks they can build a "simple" deck)

The anchor is NOT required.  It is merely permitted, but it is a big trick to make everyone think otherwise.  It is an embarrassment of 100 years of code development.  Don't believe me...watch the video before you commit.  I am very well researched on this subject.


----------



## classicT (Dec 20, 2018)

Glenn said:


> The lateral load anchor is smoke in mirrors.  It does nothing to address the sway of a deck, and it is a completely unproven concept.  It's a braced wall with hold downs but no wood structural panel and no load assumptions based on actual design.  I have been involved with decks for over 20 years, first as a deck builder.  Please take 14 minutes to watch my video that reveals the truth behind the lateral load anchor.  It is not all you may believe it to be.  Yes, we have a very under-educated nation in proper deck construction.  I have over 16 hours of deck code education available online and in person that would shock most anyone that "knows how to build deck" (which is everyone...everyone thinks they can build a "simple" deck)
> 
> The anchor is NOT required.  It is merely permitted, but it is a big trick to make everyone think otherwise.  It is an embarrassment of 100 years of code development.  Don't believe me...watch the video before you commit.  I am very well researched on this subject.


Glenn - Any info on why a change wasn't made in the 2015 I-Codes? Your video is compelling.


----------



## JCraver (Dec 20, 2018)

Good video.

Knee braces on the outer posts / beam are all we need for lateral movement.  Decks don't generally fail sideways, they fail straight out or straight down.

Almost anybody can look at this issue and tell you that these anchors do nothing for lateral movement.  They would surely work for perpendicular movement (the deck/band board pulling straight away from the house, like every photo you see of deck failures when it's overloaded with drunk college kids), but I'm pretty sure lag bolts will (and have, for a long, long time) do just fine there too.  Because in almost every one of those pictures/failures that you see, water got between the ledger and the band and all the pull out whatever fastener that was there had has went away.  Correct flashing and/or waterproofing details for the ledger-to-building connection are way more important.


----------



## Glenn (Dec 20, 2018)

Ty J. said:


> Glenn - Any info on why a change wasn't made in the 2015 I-Codes? Your video is compelling.


Well... I was there at the hearings, and I tried.  The video couldn't be played at the hearing, so I had to hope people saw it first.  However, the Washington State research wasn't published until after the first hearing.  So time was limited.  The research was the validation I needed to really make the argument.  It was my first time at the hearings for code development, so regardless of my qualifications, no one knew me.  The other people that were known, that have a stake in this detail staying in the code, and those that just believed the well marketed headlines about deck failures being solved by these miracle devices...well...they just had more power.  It's not always what you know, but who you know...

Now I'm deep in fighting against strong forces at it again.  This time with a guard post "permitted" illustration showing hold downs on every guard post being proposed for 2021 IRC.  Same deal... a "permitted" illustration that is going to appear as a requirement.  While there are many scary guards being built, there are many, many ways to build them without a proprietary product connected to every post.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 20, 2018)

JCraver said:


> Knee braces on the outer posts / beam are all we need for lateral movement.





JCraver said:


> Correct flashing and/or waterproofing details for the ledger-to-building connection are way more important.



Both good points!


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 20, 2018)

Glenn, Great information, I encourage all to view the posted video in post #5.

Thanks Glenn!

Now back to our regular programming, 
1) Handrail enforcement? YES, enforcing this. Receiving minor push back from contractors.
2) Stair riser blocking (only allowing a 4-inch sphere pass through)? YES, enforcing this. Receiving constant push back from contractors.
3) Lateral support meeting? NO. Contractors are not complying with this except for a few installing 45° corner bracing.


----------



## Robert (Dec 20, 2018)

Glenn...great video! It seems the anchors are best suited for withdrawal. In existing floor framing conditions where fasteners are unknown, the anchors could be beneficial. For example, I have seen shear walls nailed as required to the floor plate (everyone looks at ply. shear nailing but miss the floor plate nailing to the joists/blocking below) but only has a few nails going into the rim joist. Therefore the rim joist has very little holding it to the floor and wall framing....thus can be pulled away from the building. There are also cases of no rim joist with just blocking (floor joists parallel to deck framing), and the blocking attachment is unknown, and can have just a couple of toenails holding it in place for withdrawal. As in all connections, it's important to know what you are connecting into....and if we don't have that information (concealed) then these anchors could be beneficial.


----------



## Glenn (Dec 20, 2018)

Ahh...but what about returns at the end of the handrails?  No one likes that one it seems...

"Handrail enforcement? YES, enforcing this. Receiving minor push back from contractors."


----------



## Keystone (Dec 20, 2018)

Yes the tension devices are a falicy as they are pushed. However lateral movement is addressed in 2015, sort of, blocking above girder(s).

Also, WYE bracing AKA Knee Bracing is a method of addressing it but not mandatory for attached decks, per DCA6.

Decks passing final inspection the first time, . I wish it was so. The handrail height and grasp ability and return ends and opening sizes and deck landing dimensions and proper nails and sizes spin hangers and non-notched posts and flashing and ledger fastener spacing per code or manufacture and fastening girder every 16" OC and on and on and on.

Glenn, good video.


----------



## Glenn (Dec 20, 2018)

I apologize for hijacking this thread.  Please don't commit on my video here, but rather discuss the OP's topic.  How far do you administer current deck codes?

Please go to this old thread when I first posted about deck lateral loads and comment there.  I reposted the video above in the old thread.  The first video in the old thread is not as comprehensive as the one I just posted.  https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.co...teral-load-research-results.9400/#post-112578

I would love to hear your comments to the OP's original question.  He just hit a nerve with that lateral load anchor...  oops...


----------



## rogerpa (Dec 20, 2018)

Michigan has deleted these 'advertisements' for "permitted" methods from our code because too many inspectors don't know the difference between permitted and required.


----------



## Glenn (Dec 20, 2018)

rogerpa said:


> Michigan has deleted these 'advertisements' for "permitted" methods from our code because too many inspectors don't know the difference between permitted and required.


Do you have more information about this?  It is one of our primary arguments.  I found this online about Michigan amendments but it doesn't seem to amend the figure or the reference to it out of the 2015 IRC.  https://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/lara_bcc_2015_residential_code_502813_7.pdf


----------



## Sifu (Dec 21, 2018)

NC residential code had detailed sections for methods of lateral bracing.  I found it pretty useful.  Haven't looked at it lately so not sure if it is still there or if they drank the Simpson kool-aid too.
Few decks pass review the first time, fewer still pass inspections.


----------



## steveray (Dec 21, 2018)

While I have shown people that "those" connectors are accepted (guilty)....I will suggest that there are other ways of accomplishing it if the applicant seems like they will be able to figure it out....

Biggest inspection issues:
1. Improper fasteners in hangers (deck screws, 1.5" nails, etc.)
2. Improper handrails (not graspable or returns)
3. Blocking at cantilevers.
4. Ledger flashing


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 21, 2018)

steveray said:


> 4. Ledger flashing



This is a big issue, some deck builders do not like cutting into the sheet goods used to cover the wall to install flashing.


----------



## Sifu (Dec 21, 2018)

I would add over-spanned beams.  Most that come in to me are under sized.


----------



## Robert (Dec 21, 2018)

How many of you are seeing Deck2Wall spacers? They eliminate flashing & hold the ledger off the building by 5/8" for air circulation. Any issues with these other then the penetrations needing to be caulked?


----------



## khsmith55 (Dec 22, 2018)

Robert said:


> How many of you are seeing Deck2Wall spacers? They eliminate flashing & hold the ledger off the building by 5/8" for air circulation. Any issues with these other then the penetrations needing to be caulked?


----------



## khsmith55 (Dec 22, 2018)

Not familiar with Deck2Wall spacers but I have been using Simpson BP1 (think 3.5"x3.5"x 3/8" washer) spacers at each bolt between the ledger and siding for over 15 years with great results (idiot proof).


----------



## steveray (Jan 7, 2019)

Bumping this.....Anyone requiring frost protection or at least a footing/slab/concrete landing at the bottom of deck stairs? I know it is in DCA 6 and could make it into code, I am just having a hard time with it as I have never seen it cause an issue....


----------



## Keystone (Jan 7, 2019)

Speaking of bumping, I was asked to bump requesting a landing and I do agree about not hearing this being an issue.


----------



## steveray (Jan 7, 2019)

If grade is decent I do not request a formal "landing".....


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 7, 2019)

steveray said:


> Bumping this.....Anyone requiring frost protection or at least a footing/slab/concrete landing at the bottom of deck stairs?



Requiring the slab at the base of the stairs but no frost protection below it, if that's the Q. 

Will also allow paver's.


----------



## Sifu (Jan 7, 2019)

What Steveray said.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 7, 2019)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Requiring the slab at the base of the stairs but no frost protection below it, if that's the Q.
> 
> Will also allow paver's.



Ditto


----------



## steveray (Jan 8, 2019)

We (CT) have amended the FP section:

(Amd) R403.1.4.1 Frost protection. Except where otherwise protected from frost, foundation
walls, piers and other permanent supports of buildings and structures shall be protected from frost
by one or more of the following methods:
1. Extended below the frost line specified in Table R301.2.(1).
2. Constructed in accordance with Section R403.3.
3. Constructed in accordance with ASCE 32.
4. Erected on solid rock.
Exceptions:
1. Protection of freestanding accessory structures with an area of 600 square feet (56 m2) or
less, of light-frame construction, with an eave height of 10 feet (3048 mm) or less shall not
be required.
2. Protection of freestanding accessory structures with an area of 400 square feet (37 m2) or
less, of other than light-frame construction, with an eave height of 10 feet (3048 mm) or
less shall not be required.
3. Decks not supported by a dwelling need not be provided with footings that extend below
the frost line.
4. The footing for the grade level termination of stairs or ramps attached to decks or landings,
whether the deck or landing is supported by a dwelling or not, shall only be required to be
placed at least 12 inches (305 mm) below the undisturbed ground surface in accordance
with R403.1.4.
Footings shall not bear on frozen soil unless the frozen condition is permanent.

Which is just some really weird language IMO....


----------



## steveray (Jan 8, 2019)

f. Cantilevered spans not exceeding the nominal depth of the joist are permitted.

I have always used the balcony cantilever chart, but now that we have the specific deck joist chart, can we not allow any cantilevers greater than the depth of the joist for decks?


----------



## classicT (Jan 8, 2019)

steveray said:


> f. Cantilevered spans not exceeding the nominal depth of the joist are permitted.
> 
> I have always used the balcony cantilever chart, but now that we have the specific deck joist chart, can we not allow any cantilevers greater than the depth of the joist for decks?


R507.5 - ... Deck joists shall be permitted to cantilever not greater than one-forth of the actual adjacent span.


----------



## steveray (Jan 8, 2019)

Code provisions that conflict....Say it ain't so....

Update: there was errata here (that I just found) and I guess what it is trying to say is that you can use the joist spacing for no cantilever for a cantilever up to the depth of the joist. More than that you use the other table (up to the 1/4)


----------



## tmurray (Jan 8, 2019)

Robert said:


> How many of you are seeing Deck2Wall spacers? They eliminate flashing & hold the ledger off the building by 5/8" for air circulation. Any issues with these other then the penetrations needing to be caulked?


You mean not everyone uses old hockey pucks?


----------



## tmurray (Jan 8, 2019)

steveray said:


> Bumping this.....Anyone requiring frost protection or at least a footing/slab/concrete landing at the bottom of deck stairs? I know it is in DCA 6 and could make it into code, I am just having a hard time with it as I have never seen it cause an issue....


We have never required it here and I have not heard of any issues.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 8, 2019)

IRC 2015, R507.5 Adjacent span...So a 14-ft FJ span ÷ 4 = 3.5-ft. 

We have a maximum cantilever of 3-ft as a general rule, looks like I'll have to look at this again. 

Is there no blocking between the cantilever required anymore?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 8, 2019)

tmurray said:


> You mean not everyone uses old hockey pucks?



Stack of washers maybe?

Hockey pucks are made in Yugoslavia, can't afford the tariffs?


----------



## rogerpa (Jan 10, 2019)

Glenn said:


> Do you have more information about this?  It is one of our primary arguments.  I found this online about Michigan amendments but it doesn't seem to amend the figure or the reference to it out of the 2015 IRC.  https://www.michigan.gov/documents/lara/lara_bcc_2015_residential_code_502813_7.pdf


Glenn. email me at rogerpahba at gmail.com. I have information for you.


----------

