# deck ledger through veneer



## Sifu (May 14, 2012)

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?


----------



## pwood (May 14, 2012)

can you say "engineering"?


----------



## Sifu (May 14, 2012)

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.


----------



## Daddy-0- (May 14, 2012)

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?


----------



## Daddy-0- (May 14, 2012)

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.


----------



## Sifu (May 14, 2012)

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.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (May 14, 2012)

A repeat; http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?3045-Deck-ledger-attachment-on-brick-veneer-wall&highlight=deck+veneer

Francis


----------



## Mac (May 15, 2012)

New footers, bolts, veneers or sky hooks, I think you have to say "engineer or architect" to the applicant.


----------



## fatboy (May 15, 2012)

I side with any options listed above.....


----------



## north star (May 15, 2012)

*= ~ = ~*

Sifu,



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

wiggle room because of the conditions you have mentioned.

*~ = ~ =*


----------



## brudgers (May 15, 2012)

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.


----------



## Sifu (May 16, 2012)

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.


----------



## brudgers (May 17, 2012)

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.


  By not allowing connection through veneers to structural members, you are making up code.


----------



## rktect 1 (May 17, 2012)

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 (May 17, 2012)

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.


----------



## brudgers (May 17, 2012)

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.


  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.


----------



## David Henderson (May 17, 2012)

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.


----------



## rktect 1 (May 17, 2012)

I'd love a link to this simpson hold down.  Really I would.


----------



## jar546 (May 17, 2012)

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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## zigmark (May 17, 2012)

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


----------



## jar546 (May 17, 2012)

*R703.7.3 *Lintels.Masonry veneer shall not support any vertical

load other than the dead load of the veneer above.


----------



## globe trekker (May 17, 2012)

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.


----------



## jar546 (May 17, 2012)

Since this has not been brought up yet, I will post again:

*R703.7.3 *Lintels.Masonry veneer shall not support any vertical

load other than the dead load of the veneer above.


----------



## David Henderson (May 17, 2012)

rktect1

 2 of them DTT2 and a HDQ8 the DTT2 can also be used as a post and joist connector


----------



## David Henderson (May 17, 2012)

Jar would'nt be a verticle load. If done properly no load on veneer at all


----------



## jar546 (May 17, 2012)

David Henderson said:
			
		

> Jar would'nt be a verticle load. If done properly no load on veneer at all


One can only hope this is the type of design submitted


----------



## brudgers (May 17, 2012)

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.


  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.


----------



## brudgers (May 17, 2012)

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.


  The DTT2 typically comes as a kit with the proper bolts, etc.


----------



## jar546 (May 17, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The DTT2 typically comes as a kit with the proper bolts, etc.


They do come as a kit with the hardware attached to the DTT2 in a plastic bag, threaded rod is also provided by Simpson


----------



## globe trekker (May 17, 2012)

Who is going to be the one to specify what is compliant for all loads, components,

attachments, or approved methods since the AHJ cannot?


----------



## rktect 1 (May 17, 2012)

David Henderson said:
			
		

> rktect1  2 of them DTT2 and a HDQ8 the DTT2 can also be used as a post and joist connector


You can not use that to attach a deck to brick veneer.


----------



## brudgers (May 17, 2012)

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?


  If the AHJ can't recognize compliance, an engineer's seal doesn't make a difference.


----------



## jar546 (May 17, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> If the AHJ can't recognize compliance, an engineer's seal doesn't make a difference.


It probably will to an extent during deposition


----------



## zigmark (May 17, 2012)

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


----------



## brudgers (May 17, 2012)

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


  Flashing it properly is left as an exercise for the reader.


----------



## Sifu (May 18, 2012)

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.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (May 18, 2012)

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.


Maine Deck Bracket

Francis


----------



## Daddy-0- (May 19, 2012)

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!


----------



## north star (May 19, 2012)

*= = =*

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.

*+ + +*


----------



## georgia plans exam (May 23, 2012)

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


----------



## Builder Bob (May 23, 2012)

2101.2.6 Masonry veneer. Masonry veneer shall comply

with the provisions of Chapter 14 or Chapter 6 of ACI

530/ASCE 5/TMS 402.

and lintels 2104.1.5

2006 IBC


----------



## Pcinspector1 (May 23, 2012)

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?


----------



## Francis Vineyard (May 23, 2012)

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


1402.1 Would the definition of veneer be sufficient?

Francis


----------



## georgia plans exam (May 24, 2012)

View attachment 1351

	

		
			
		

		
	
Here is the detail the architect submitted. (I hope this works)GPE

View attachment 581


View attachment 581


/monthly_2012_05/CanopyVeneer.jpg.0c9aade6594234a4e686844888483da8.jpg


----------



## tmurray (May 24, 2012)

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?


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).


----------



## dhengr (May 24, 2012)

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.


----------



## georgia plans exam (May 24, 2012)

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


----------

