# Bad deck



## steveray (Jan 9, 2014)

Hi.   I was searching for builders and ran across this picture from one of the advertisement sites.  Is it safe to have a support against the house for a rasied deck like they do in the front-right of the upper deck in the picture?   Would this be against code?

I would think that you need a 4x4 post supporting from the ground.    If that is the case, I will avoid this builder.

Thank you.

That was the Email I just got....I will have to try to post the pic tomorrow......Stay Tuned!


----------



## north star (Jan 9, 2014)

*= + = + =*



Without a picture, I cannot determine what you are referring to.

It is my understanding that the deck must be properly attached

 to the structure [  i.e. - actually properly attached to the structural

components  ],  or properly supported with posts / columns.

Our resident Deck expert ***Glenn*** may provide some more detailed

information.

Now,  about that picture...     

*= + = + =*


----------



## Glenn (Jan 10, 2014)

Deck? deck?  Did someone say deck?

Sounds like a fun conversation, but I will await the photo and the "thousand words" it will bring.


----------



## cda (Jan 10, 2014)

Report: No problems seen, clean windshield used.


----------



## fatboy (Jan 10, 2014)

Need picture..........and Glenn's comments!


----------



## RJJ (Jan 10, 2014)

OK I give up! What deck?


----------



## steveray (Jan 10, 2014)

A little funny looking because the easiest way I could think to do it was a pic of the email from a citizen....I think he was right to be concerned....


----------



## steveray (Jan 10, 2014)

Bottom rise looks off, no graspable handrail and does not extend to the last riser, open risers, 2 stringers? ballusters look crooked (maybe 4" or greater), "gusset" holding up deck, and it doesn't look like anything actually "bears" on the posts.....


----------



## Glenn (Jan 10, 2014)

Wow!  Bad deck indeed (upper)

If I had to guess.  I would think the upper deck was built previously, and the lower deck is the one "showcased" by the builder.  Looks like when it was built, he had the bright idea of getting the post out of the way and thus...the corbel thing.  Or I guess it could have been the other way around.

The code would not "prohibit" the angled supporting post, but it would expect it to be engineered.  My gut is pretty confident this one's not engineered.

There is a townhouse development in Golden Colorado, up on a hill, that overlooks Hwy 58 (right near Coors).  All the deck have angled supports, but the angles are not as steep and they extend to the foundation (to avoid putting the lateral force on the wood studs)  Engineered and it works.

What folks don't think about is that the same lateral force the post puts against the house, is a lateral force pulling the deck away from the house.  Decks have been getting all kinds of attention about lateral "live" loads, but a design like this creates a lateral "dead" load at the ledger.  This kind of design is when I can see the purpose in the hold-down anchor mess that came into the 2009 IRC and that lag screws to a band joist probably aren't enough.

I've got some more to share, but I'm off to take my kids to school and man the crosswalk right now.


----------



## mjesse (Jan 10, 2014)

steveray said:
			
		

> Bottom rise looks off, no graspable handrail and does not extend to the last riser, open risers, 2 stringers? ballusters look crooked (maybe 4" or greater), "gusset" holding up deck, and it doesn't look like anything actually "bears" on the posts.....


Agree with all of this.

Definitely worth a visit. Bring your red tags!


----------



## steveray (Jan 10, 2014)

I don't think it is in my town...a citizen sent me the email with the picture that the "contractor" is using as advertising......Glad the homeowner knew well enough to stay away...



			
				mjesse said:
			
		

> Agree with all of this.Definitely worth a visit. Bring your red tags!


----------



## steveray (Jan 10, 2014)

I agree with the engineered part Glenn....if GR was to put his CT stamp on it...I might have to accept the structural parts of it.....


----------



## mjesse (Jan 10, 2014)

steveray said:
			
		

> ... the picture that the "contractor" is using as advertising......


Always put your best foot forward. Yikes!


----------

