# Deck Lateral Load Protection



## Glenn (Jul 18, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Where is the lateral restraint with threaded rod?


Not required and now proven as useless as a prescriptive minimum standard.

Read this summer's issue of Wood Design Focus from the Forest Products Society.  Tests from Dr. Bender, Dr. Woeste and their peers reveal the truth.  Properly connected ledgers with lag screws resisted four times the lateral load that could be generated by humans and they stopped the test because the joists ripped down their center.  Here's some quotes for you.

"Deck ledgers were attached with 0.5-inch diameter lag screws in a staggered pattern as specified in IRC Table R502.2.2.1. The research basis for the IRC provisions was Carradine et al. (2007;; 2008). The deck ledger-to-house attachment appeared to be adequate for the conditions studied. When no tension hold-down connectors were used, the outer two lag screws carried most of the withdrawal load with no visible signs of failure (Figure 6)."

"These results point to the effectiveness of 0.5-in diameter lag screws when selected and installed per the IRC deck ledger connection provisions in Table

R502.2.2.1 (ICC 2009b)."

Building code professionals must STOP promoting this madness.  More information to come to this forum soon.  We must humbly undo our assumptions of the past and be willing to learn as we go into the future.

Here's is a video regarding the history and implications of the lateral load anchor debacle.  I will be created a new video soon explaining what we have since learned.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 18, 2013)

Until it is removed from the adopted code, it will be enforced.


----------



## atkins (Jul 18, 2013)

Thanks Glenn.  Your Video was very informative.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 18, 2013)

Glenn said:
			
		

> Not required and now proven as useless as a prescriptive minimum standard.Read this summer's issue of Wood Design Focus from the Forest Products Society.  Tests from Dr. Bender, Dr. Woeste and their peers reveal the truth.  Properly connected ledgers with lag screws resisted four times the lateral load that could be generated by humans and they stopped the test because the joists ripped down their center.  Here's some quotes for you.
> 
> "Deck ledgers were attached with 0.5-inch diameter lag screws in a staggered pattern as specified in IRC Table R502.2.2.1. The research basis for the IRC provisions was Carradine et al. (2007;; 2008). The deck ledger-to-house attachment appeared to be adequate for the conditions studied. When no tension hold-down connectors were used, the outer two lag screws carried most of the withdrawal load with no visible signs of failure (Figure 6)."
> 
> ...


Good video, valid points.  With those of us that have the 2009, we can either have it built prescriptively or have it engineered.  Even with the 2012, we are only given one option that is prescriptive if they don't want to make it a free standing deck.  Without getting engineering, the only option is to have them install the anchors with threaded rod.  If there is a kitchen with a tile floor then I guess they will be making it a free standing deck.  They have options just like everyone else so I don't see the big deal.  Don't want to rip apart your ceiling?  Make it free standing.  Simple solution.

As far as a deck having ledgers on 3 sides, I see no reason to provide the connectors.  In most cases this has never been an issue.  Once in a while we get a deck that is attached to the foundation and not framing. That is always interesting.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 18, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Until it is removed from the adopted code, it will be enforced.


Please recognize that it is not required by the unamended IRC.  It is a detail that is "permitted".  If someone installs one, you can't make them remove it.  Please read the section carefully.  It was NEVER put in the IRC as a mandatory provision.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 18, 2013)

Jar,

a 12 x 12 deck was tested by Dr. Bender.  He loaded it with occupants up to 40 psf and had them sway in unison.  He measured the maximum uniformly distributed lateral load the entire deck would experience.  He determined it to be 12 psf and is recommending that to ASCE 7.  At 12 psf x 144 sf, the people could generate 1728 lbs.  The deck had perpendicular decking and deflected 7 inches before the enertia of the deck became stronger than be people.

Dr. Woeste tested two identical 12 x 12 decks.  One with hold downs, one without.  The hold downs made essentially no difference.  The deck lag connected according to the IRC was pulled with up to 7,000 lbs and deflected over 17 inches at the midspan.  The joists split lengthwise.  The deck was essentially destroyed.  The ledger and the band joist did not budge.

People could only generate 1728 lbs

Tested up to 7,000 lbs.

(NOTE: these are not forces at the hold down locations, these are lateral forces of the deck as a whole)

Ledger with lag screws did the job beautifully; the rim joist was not pulled from the house.  The rim joist had no visible damage what-so-ever.

We must release the decking industry from the hostage of hold-down anchors.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 18, 2013)

We require the anchors in addition to the ledger attachment because there is no prescriptive method other than that.  Most of our deck failures are from rotted ledger and band joists but hopefully proper flashing will eliminate or remove it.  Basically we give 2 choices for a deck:

1) Hire an engineer or architect to specify all structural aspects

2) Follow the IRC, WFCM and utilize the DCA6 prescriptively.

Since decks are post and beam, they are not prescriptive per the IRC so we direct them to use the DCA6 and realize that the tables in the IRC for spans are not for wet use.  The effectiveness of the anchors with threaded rod are a moot point because from a liability standpoint, I could not easily defend myself and my company in a court of law since decks are not prescriptive to begin with and we are allowed to accept other proven, established methods through the AWC.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 18, 2013)

Here is the link to purchase a subscription to Wood Design Focus.  I anticipate I will enjoy my recent subscription...I throughly enjoyed this summer's edition with four articles from our nation's top wood engineering researchers all dedicated to lateral loads on decks.

Forest Products Society


----------



## Glenn (Jul 18, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> we are allowed to accept other proven, established methods through the AWC.


The lateral load anchors are not "proven".  That is the point.  They only thing close to proven regarding them is that they are useless.

Results from the testing show that in fact, as the deck deformed shape under heavy loads, the anchor on the opposite side from the load direction was actually put in compression from the rotation of the joist.

You are correct on your other points.  Technically...decks aren't even post and beam (post-frame construction) because even that construction utilizes girts and full height bracing for lateral restraint.

Here is a technical article from the National Frame Build Association that points to the many features and components of post-frame construction that work to resist lateral loads.  At the same time, a deck does not recieve the wind loads nor have the mass for siesmic that a full building would have.  Lateral loads on decks must considered holistically (sliding, overturning, deformation) like you would a shear wall or a post-frame building.  My point is that they are unique structures, that will likely wind up in time to have their own recognized construction method.  Throwing hold-downs with a made-up load value at decks is not the solution.  If anything...it has distractred manufacturers, associations and researches from being able to freely find the solutions.

http://nfba.org/Resources/content/pfda.html


----------



## globe trekker (Jul 18, 2013)

So essentially, ..if an AHJ has not amended their IRC (or CBC for the west coasters), to require an

RDP to design a deck, or to refer using the DCA-06 / WFCM , then the madness WILL continue,

until a Deck Bildin' Code comes out?

.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 18, 2013)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> So essentially, ..if an AHJ has not amended their IRC (or CBC for the west coasters), to require anRDP to design a deck, or to refer using the DCA-06 / WFCM , then the madness WILL continue,
> 
> until a Deck Bildin' Code comes out?
> 
> .


Pretty much sums it up.  As a responsible code official, the best stance is the most prescriptive or find engineering.  For whatever reason the lateral restraint devices are not liked, they still help when the rest of the ledger board and rim rot out as I have seen way too many times.  They can't hurt and they are prescriptive.  The best advice is to change the code if you don't like it.  Otherwise, it is a small, insignificant item in the grand scale of code problems.  So when someone refuses to put them in we just say, build it free standing or get an engineer to sign off on your lateral restraint.  Simple


----------



## Glenn (Jul 18, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Otherwise, it is a small, insignificant item in the grand scale of code problems.


Couldn't disagree more.

1)  We have a structural detail that was put in the IRC in a matter of 46 days and was never proven or fully vetted and turns out to be completely inaccurate.  That is a HUGE problem when it comes to the validity of the IRC for governments to lean to with any level of confidence.  Subsequent testing proves this, and yet code officials (as you have stated above) look to these provisions to protect their "liability".  The lateral load debacle is evidence to a run-away code where unfounded structural designs, using proprietary products, are included on nearly a whim.

2)  With all respect, it's not all about our (code administrators) perspective.  What we do, we do for our neighbors...our countrymen.  The decking industry would not at all agree with your statement of it being an "insignificant item".  This has been devasting to the decking industry.  We would be obtuse to not recognize and respect that.

3)  I am working on changing these provisions in 2015.  If one were to read the test results, I would hope for their support at the final hearings.

Jeff, I do understand, however, the concerns that a lack of deck codes creates for us code officials.  Have no doubt...I do understand.

OP, I'll comment on your specific photos soon.  That's the least I owe you for highjacking your thread.  My apologies.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 18, 2013)

Glenn said:
			
		

> Couldn't disagree more.1)  We have a structural detail that was put in the IRC in a matter of 46 days and was never proven or fully vetted and turns out to be completely inaccurate.  That is a HUGE problem when it comes to the validity of the IRC for governments to lean to with any level of confidence.  Subsequent testing proves this, and yet code officials (as you have stated above) look to these provisions to protect their "liability".  The lateral load debacle is evidence to a run-away code where unfounded structural designs, using proprietary products, are included on nearly a whim.
> 
> 2)  With all respect, it's not all about our (code administrators) perspective.  What we do, we do for our neighbors...our countrymen.  The decking industry would not at all agree with your statement of it being an "insignificant item".  This has been devasting to the decking industry.  We would be obtuse to not recognize and respect that.
> 
> ...


I understand your passion and its validity.  I agree the current code is lacking in this area.  If you take away that prescriptive method then we are left with engineering or freestanding as an alternative.  I hope that your proposal addresses the fix and not just removing something that is "unproven".  Everyone has options and we give deck builders options.  Unfortunately the deck is not fully prescriptive by design so we do the best we can with what we have.  Look at garage portal framing for compliance.  It is an option we have prescriptively in the IRC that is based on testing and placed into the code as an option when you cannot prescriptively meet certain dimensional requirements.  Do the same for decks.

There are simply too many deck failures for multiple reasons and they get a lot of press and cause a lot of tragedy for a lot of people.  The lateral anchor system does not hurt and in 95% of the decks that we permit, are easily installed.  So deck builders still have some options if this option won't work.  Freestanding or engineer stamp.  No matter what contractor bids the job, they will all have to so the same thing and have the same options.

This is a monetary issue for contractors which is not a code factor that we are allowed to consider.  I can easily find an engineer to stamp up a deck connection system that addresses both vertical and lateral loads for a couple of hundred bucks and once you get one on board, they usually cut a break for repetitive work unless the job is complicated.

So we need to find a way to make it prescriptive or hire an RDP.


----------



## globe trekker (Jul 18, 2013)

> So we need to find a way to make it prescriptive or hire an RDP.


I can tell you from first hand experience & knowledge, that requiring an RDP to design a deck, in

some jurisdictions, is not an option (if you want to remain employed in that location). To even

suggest that avenue is blasphemous (to some contractors).

I am not in favor of having yet another code to purchase and become familiar with, only to

have contractors either go find an RDP for sale, or to start making telephone calls to the

"powers-that-be" complaining. That said, ..some type of legitimate, recognized standards

need to come in to play at some point. And yes, ..standards with pictures and dimensions to

show to the masses.

.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 18, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> This is a monetary issue for contractors which is not a code factor that we are allowed to consider.


I hate to do it...but...

"R101.3 Intent:  The purpose of this code is to establish minimum reqirements to safeguard the public safety, health and general welfare through affordability, ...."

Both those terms speak to cost.  "Affordability" even gets first billing in the list.  Like Brad Pitt or Morgan Freeman would.  The best damn code in the world is just ink on paper if no one is willing to follow it.  Same goes for any laws of a democracy.  They can only go as far as the people will accept.

I don't see the point of using old rotten decks with non-flashed ledgers nailed to cantilevered band joists as a basis for arguing this topic.  If I were to judge the performance of a ledger attached according to today's code for ledger attachments (just the fastening table), I would look at a deck built to those standards, like what Dr.'s Bender and Woeste tested.  Those code-installed deck ledgers held against loads 4X what humans can create.  I would not look to a deck built decades ago to gauge performance of today's ledger connections.

I've also seen roof rafter's rot from poorly flashed chimney sidewalls.  I don't use that point to argue that we should have additional rafters in case some rot.  I would look at the issue causing such rot...the flashing.  If the flashing were to be enhanced in the code (i.e. ledger table that enhanced the ledger connections from that of the past) I wouldn't diminish my opinion of new construction with the new flashing because poorly built jobs of the past rotted the rafters out.  Essentially saying this.  You shouldn't judge an IRC 09 ledger connection made according to the IRC table based on performance of decks built prior to that table.  You should judge the connections in the table on the most current information of how connections according to that table are performing.  That would be the research tests I am pointing you to.  If you have a case study of a deck built since that new table, without hold downs, and it failed...I would love to learn of it.  The current argument, however, would be like using home fire statistics from pre-sprinkler homes, to argue that current sprinkler provisions are not sufficient.

I don't know why you keep mention DP or freestanding.  Here's the breakdown.

-The IRC requires all structures (even decks) to resist the loads applicable to them.  No snow design in Florida.

-A "permitted" method to resist undefined lateral loads is to slap some metal up there (i.e. the hold down anchors).  You should be "less" comfortable with this simply from the knowledge that indeed it's unfounded.  Ignorance was bliss kind of thing.

-There is nothing in the IRC that tells you as a building official that the ledger fastening according to the table doesn't resist lateral loads.  I hope everyone assumed at least "some" lateral restraint could be generated by the withdrawal resistance of lag screws into the band joist.  Try to pull the ledger off laterally with your hands?  You can't...because it resists lateral loads.  No one questioned the ledger's ability to do that until this lateral detail was presented and the code development committee asked.  We finally have the answer.

-Now you have a well-respected research report that tells you the lag screw connection of the ledger according to the IRC table can and does indeed resist lateral loads of 4X what humans can produce.  It's a prescriptive connection, and testing shows it performs.  What's the problem?  As far as being a means to hold a deck to a rotten band joist/ledger, R301 directs us that structures must resist loads as applicable to the design.  I know of no direction what-so-ever in the IRC that would allow us to require a structure to resist a "what if" situation where the structure has rotten ten years from now.  Perhaps in the property maintenance code?  If you want to stop those old, poorly-built decks from falling off homes from decades of rot, encourage a deck inspection and repair program.  That would be great!  Unnecessarily driving up the cost of a new deck definitely isn't going to help get those old ones replaced (not with a permit at least).

Don't punish new, properly built decks, based on performance of old, rotten, poorly built decks.

Man...careful saying "lateral loads" around me these days.  I can't wait until I can summarize these test results and share them with you all.  It is eye-opening.


----------



## STB (Jul 18, 2013)

Glenn said:
			
		

> Not required and now proven as useless as a prescriptive minimum standard.Read this summer's issue of Wood Design Focus from the Forest Products Society.  Tests from Dr. Bender, Dr. Woeste and their peers reveal the truth.  Properly connected ledgers with lag screws resisted four times the lateral load that could be generated by humans and they stopped the test because the joists ripped down their center.  Here's some quotes for you.
> 
> "Deck ledgers were attached with 0.5-inch diameter lag screws in a staggered pattern as specified in IRC Table R502.2.2.1. The research basis for the IRC provisions was Carradine et al. (2007;; 2008). The deck ledger-to-house attachment appeared to be adequate for the conditions studied. When no tension hold-down connectors were used, the outer two lag screws carried most of the withdrawal load with no visible signs of failure (Figure 6)."
> 
> ...


First, the design values in the Table quoted above is for vertical loads.  No where does it state that the bolting or lag screws requirements is for the resistance of lateral loading.

Second, I cannot respect someone who promotes a video using "illegal" deck construction in an attempt to promote their agenda.  Decks supported by cantileverd house joist, really.... and floor joists that are running parallel with the house band, one can only assume that there are perpendicular girders that you can clearly see that are supported by a post at one end and by the ledger at the other end.  Try researching R502.2.2.2.

And last (probably not) the video states that the connection of the ledger to the rim joist is a "solid" connection and failure of the rim joist to house sill connection is what must be focused on.  How about the weak point being moved in the opposite direction to where the joists attach to the ledger.  Lets see, I TOENAIL my deck joist to the ledger and then I install my joist hangers to the manufacturer's specifications which states to install NAILS in every hole.  I'm good, right?  NOT...see R502.2.2 "Such attachment shall not be accomplished by the use of toenails or nails subject to withdrawal."  Seems Simpson, who has agreed in the past, states that their joist hangers are not designed to resist lateral loading since the NAILS would be subject to withdrawal.  So there is a significant flaw in your pursuit to ban the lateral load connectors, which for now being required by code is a step in the right direction.

These structures (decks) are built on "stilts".  If a lateral failure happens, the post and beam construction cannot provide resistence.  At least the tie down devices afford some protection to the safety of the building occupant.  It seems that these devices are being exploited by saying how am I suppose to install these if I cannot nail the sub floor 6"o.c.  Solution: "Where positive connection to the primary building structure cannot be verified during inspection, decks shall be self-supporting."  Simple.  And anyone who says otherwise needs to go back to school and learn how to construct a deck.

Oh, and as far as it not being about the code administrators, well it is.  17 years enforcing the code I have never met a contractor who hasn't attempted to use the term "it was inspected" to get out of something they screwed up.  So until the construction industry has something to lose such as a license or there way of making a living when they do something wrong, the blame will ALWAYS be passed onto the code official.  And when I stop finding blatant code violations such as lag bolts being installed with a hammer, or 2" lags being installed into an 1-1/2" ledger board, maybe then you can talk me into supporting your cause.  The $50.00 bucks for 2 tie down devices or using up the scraps to make a deck free standing is a lot cheaper then watching a family with kids and their friends get hurt due to a collapse that could have  been prevented.

PS:  Is youtube and accredited testing agency?


----------



## jar546 (Jul 18, 2013)

STB said:
			
		

> First, the design values in the Table quoted above is for vertical loads.  No where does it state that the bolting or lag screws requirements is for the resistance of lateral loading.Second, I cannot respect someone who promotes a video using "illegal" deck construction in an attempt to promote their agenda.  Decks supported by cantileverd house joist, really.... and floor joists that are running parallel with the house band, one can only assume that there are perpendicular girders that you can clearly see that are supported by a post at one end and by the ledger at the other end.  Try researching R502.2.2.2.
> 
> And last (probably not) the video states that the connection of the ledger to the rim joist is a "solid" connection and failure of the rim joist to house sill connection is what must be focused on.  How about the weak point being moved in the opposite direction to where the joists attach to the ledger.  Lets see, I TOENAIL my deck joist to the ledger and then I install my joist hangers to the manufacturer's specifications which states to install NAILS in every hole.  I'm good, right?  NOT...see R502.2.2 "Such attachment shall not be accomplished by the use of toenails or nails subject to withdrawal."  Seems Simpson, who has agreed in the past, states that their joist hangers are not designed to resist lateral loading since the NAILS would be subject to withdrawal.  So there is a significant flaw in your pursuit to ban the lateral load connectors, which for now being required by code is a step in the right direction.
> 
> ...


After some quiet time and research, including a call into Simpson, I could not agree more with your opinion.

I am starting to see through the fog and do realize that you have picked up on something very important.  Every day joist hangars are not rated for lateral load.  There are simply no design specifications for this at all.  The ledger can stay in place and provide lots of vertical shear strength but nothing is keeping the joists from pulling away from the ledger.  This is the biggest flaw and the reason that I can certainly see the need for anchoring into the house.

Next, I could not understand why the big push to remove the lateral restraint devices from the code and make it appear as though they were useless with no basis.  The fact is that unless the deck is free standing/self supporting, the lateral restraint is the only thing that has any rating whatsoever.  Although there may not be testing data, there is data to prove lateral restraint.

I am making an assumption but I agree with STB and believe there is actually a biased agenda here for the following reasons:

1) The education you provide is mostly specific to decks.  Only 1 program which is a deck program has approved ICC credits.

2) Heavy involvement with NADRA.  Why a 50% discount to NADRA but only 25% to ICC members?  There must be a connection or alliance to do that.

3) The lateral restraint devices have been a bone of contention for deck builders and this is a great angle and way to try to eliminate them.

In other words (opinion, not fact) this appears to be a front to get the lateral restraint anchors removed from the code to increase the profit margin of the deck builder and make decks more affordable by reducing code requirements.  Very simple, yet effective method that many contractor associations use to lobby.  That is again my opinion based on what I am reading.  It just makes no sense for someone to be so adamant and focused on 1 issue.

As of now, it is still in the IRC and still the only prescriptive method other than building a free standing deck.  If you don't want to pay for engineering fees or build a free standing deck then use associating funding to perform testing that will show compliance with the code for lateral loading.  Sorry to be... actually I am not sorry, it is simply my opinion.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 18, 2013)

Glenn said:
			
		

> -The IRC requires all structures (even decks) to resist the loads applicable to them.  No snow design in Florida.
> 
> Man...careful saying "lateral loads" around me these days.  I can't wait until I can summarize these test results and share them with you all.  It is eye-opening.


1) Lets talk uplift and 170mph wind zone in Florida if you want to.

2) "Lateral Loads".  Put your association money into research, testing and development to prove your case and get the code changed by fixing the problem, not just worrying about removing something that make your job more expensive and harder.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 19, 2013)

STB said:
			
		

> First, the design values in the Table quoted above is for vertical loads.  No where does it state that the bolting or lag screws requirements is for the resistance of lateral loading.Second, I cannot respect someone who promotes a video using "illegal" deck construction in an attempt to promote their agenda.  Decks supported by cantileverd house joist, really.... and floor joists that are running parallel with the house band, one can only assume that there are perpendicular girders that you can clearly see that are supported by a post at one end and by the ledger at the other end.  Try researching R502.2.2.2.
> 
> And last (probably not) the video states that the connection of the ledger to the rim joist is a "solid" connection and failure of the rim joist to house sill connection is what must be focused on.  How about the weak point being moved in the opposite direction to where the joists attach to the ledger.  Lets see, I TOENAIL my deck joist to the ledger and then I install my joist hangers to the manufacturer's specifications which states to install NAILS in every hole.  I'm good, right?  NOT...see R502.2.2 "Such attachment shall not be accomplished by the use of toenails or nails subject to withdrawal."  Seems Simpson, who has agreed in the past, states that their joist hangers are not designed to resist lateral loading since the NAILS would be subject to withdrawal.  So there is a significant flaw in your pursuit to ban the lateral load connectors, which for now being required by code is a step in the right direction.
> 
> ...


I will try to respond to your post, but don't know why the personal attacks were necessary...

1)  The only table "quoted above" is a quote from Dr. Frank Woeste from Virginia Tech in regards to his testing of that table's connections for it's capability to resist lateral loads.  He was looking for answers and found some.  I was trying to share that, but it's copyrighted by the Forest Products Society.  I paid my $60 for the subscription to read it.  I was sharing the information.  These are not my tests.  I provided the link for you to get the information if you wished.  I stated that I will make another video explaining it, in case you don't want to pay for the articles.  I don't understand how that is so horrible?

2)  I have no idea what "illegal" deck you are referring to.  I don't know what you mean in your reference to decks attached to cantilevers or parallel floor joists.  You've lost me on #2.  I have no "agenda" except good code for decks.  I am an actively employed plans analyst for a Colorado city.  I do the rest of my work for the decking industry on nights and weekends, most voluntary.  I was a deck builder before being a code geek.  My heart will always be with the decking industry, as I know that life first hand, and have a lot of experience with deck/code, and they have no one else to speak for them in the code arena.  I honestly don't understand what points you are trying to make in your #2 comment.  My video is exactly what I said it is and what you quoted me saying, "the history and implications of the lateral load anchor".

3) "and last (probably not)"  The band joist to framing connection was the concern of the IRC code development committee during the public hearings for the 2007 supplement.  I thought that was clear in the video when I show the ICC document from the hearings.  That is the "history" that I am explaining as to how this got in the code in the first place.  I have no disagreement that more research could be had regarding the joist to ledger, but that is not what drove the lateral anchor detail into the code.  That is not part of the "history and implications" of the lateral load provisions, or the subject of my video.

I really don't understand the rest of your post.  I too have been an inspector (now plans analyst) and I deal everyday with contractors and homeowners that don't understand code.  That is why I am working so hard to bring them education and demystify deck construction and codes.  I honestly don't understand the hostility.

My youtube video is not testing and is not the testing I am referring to.  Again, you've lost me completely on those remarks.  If you are trying to honestly communicate, please rephrase and I will try to respond as best I can.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jul 19, 2013)

STB said:
			
		

> Oh, and as far as it not being about the code administrators, well it is.  17 years enforcing the code I have never met a contractor who hasn't attempted to use the term "it was inspected" to get out of something they screwed up.  So until the construction industry has something to lose such as a license or there way of making a living when they do something wrong, the blame will ALWAYS be passed onto the code official.  And when I stop finding blatant *code violations such as lag bolts being installed with a hammer, or 2" lags being installed into an 1-1/2" ledger board*, maybe then you can talk me into supporting your cause.  The $50.00 bucks for 2 tie down devices or using up the scraps to make a deck free standing is a lot cheaper then watching a family with kids and their friends get hurt due to a collapse that could have  been prevented.


How does crap-work have something to do with this discussion? Are you implying that lateral bracing prevents shoddy workmanship? It IS the duty of the inspector to confirm work is done properly to code. If that means pulling lags or what have you then so be it. I've had to demonstrate proper hardware in my time. You pick 'em, I'll pull 'em.

What I WILL parallel you on is visibility of work done correctly. A lot of what Simpson provides is stopgap protection from crap work. The notion that strong post and beam construction can't be made to handle common loads, thereby being tied with hardware, I think is a boondoggle. A brace cut into a post shelf and through bolted with bridge washers is a hell of a strong thing. It is just solid carpentry, not artisan level expression.

To GLENN: Sometimes things can be TOO affordable (read cheap) and if your profit margin is 50 bucks in hardware maybe it should not be done. I lump the (exclusive) deck contractors in with vinyl siding guys and window retrofitters. Go to a trade show and bang! your a specialist.

Am I to believe that $15,000 in cedar and i'pe blows the budget for the cost of the hardware?

Brent.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 19, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> After some quiet time and research, including a call into Simpson, I could not agree more with your opinion.I am starting to see through the fog and do realize that you have picked up on something very important.  Every day joist hangars are not rated for lateral load.  There are simply no design specifications for this at all.  The ledger can stay in place and provide lots of vertical shear strength but nothing is keeping the joists from pulling away from the ledger.  This is the biggest flaw and the reason that I can certainly see the need for anchoring into the house.
> 
> Next, I could not understand why the big push to remove the lateral restraint devices from the code and make it appear as though they were useless with no basis.  The fact is that unless the deck is free standing/self supporting, the lateral restraint is the only thing that has any rating whatsoever.  Although there may not be testing data, there is data to prove lateral restraint.
> 
> ...


The only purpose for my video is to explain the history of how the lateral load provisions got in the code.  I wonder if either you or STB even watched it.  I even state in the video that lateral loads are unknown, and that many decks may need additional lateral support.  I am not so sure about the small ones sitting on the ground.  I challenge code officials to better understand why this became in their code and to use discretion in their application.  I never make any mention to removing it.  At the time the video was made, there was no data regarding lateral loads.  Now there is.  That is exciting.  I was sharing it with the forum.  I provided the link to buy the article.  I cannot give it to you.  It is not mine.  Testing has been done now for lateral loads by two respected research institutions and many respected researchers.  We have new information.  Why are you so against it when you haven't even read it?

As for the attacks on a working code administrator who created an online school to teach building codes...well...bit hurtful...but I will try to respectfully explain.  I did mention this already in the welcome new member thread, but I will try to explain further.  http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/welcome-forum/2790-welcome-new-members-6.html

1)  Yes, right now I only have online classes for decks.  That is what I have the most knowledge in.  It is my niche.  I have been providing code education for decks since 2007, and affiliated myself with NADRA in 2010 as a volunteer advisor.  I wrote the ICC deck/code book before any affiliation with NADRA.  I struggled with the ICC technical editors with the commentary for the lateral load detail, as we were all confused.  I have done my research on the topic of deck code and continue to.  There is no hidden evil in my work.  Read my personal letter of why I was motivated to write the book.  DECKCODES.COM | SaferDecks  I brought code education to deck builders through my relationship with NADRA.  I was asked to put them online so members could get the education without flying across country.  I figured I might as well structure something bigger for the future, and thus not limit the school to decks.  I did that and sought my ICC approval.  I have been teaching code officials deck code as well, so I figured why not make it accessible for both.  I have been working with other code administrators to develop classes for my school.  I am not an expert in everything.  This stuff takes time...why knock me for that.  I even offered the classes for free to members here.  I welcomed feedback.  I still do.  If you want to knock my classes, please try them first.

2) Yes, there is a connection to NADRA.  The classes were developed for their Master Deck Professional Certification.  Dog groomers have professional certifications...deck builders didn't.  I have worked to bring up the professionalism of the industry and I work with NADRA to do that.  Here is the thread explaining this...  http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/certifications/10122-nations-first-master-deck-professionals.html  I wish to educate. NADRA certifies.  Their certification requires other verifications like insurance and any required state licensing.  Thus they have to be a member to get certified.  To work with that and still get folks educated, I offered the discount to their members.  It's hard to get contractors to seek education in their own time, thus I have given them a break.  This also promotes membership.  I think professional should be members of their professional associations and take part in their industry.  I have maintained my own personal ICC and ICC chapter membership, outside of the city's membership.  Thus, I also wish to support ICC membership.  So I decided for a discount there.  Code folks have more motivation to get education, as I can offer CEU's.  I do wish to make a future for my family so I don't discount the classes as much.  Simple.  Again...why attack me for this?  It's not cheap to put together and run what I have and if the code folks can subsidize it from their government budget for the contractors to learn code...I'm all for it.  I still have two deck classes to finish, but I have set that aside since last year so I could represent the industry in code modification this year.  It has taken all my time and much of my life.  I am not evil for this, as you seem to portray... ??

3) There is no angle in my education except to teach the intent and purpose of the code...not just the words.  That's what my lateral load video does.  It explains the "why" behind the words of the lateral load detail.  The further testing I am sharing from WSU and VT speaks to that.  That is knowledge...not reciting a code section.  Yes, NADRA will try to remove the "shall be permitted" detail based on tests that have been recently completed by research institutions regarding lateral loads.  The results are surprising, and were even to the researchers.  Again...I have done all I can to point you to that information in the summer article of Wood Design Focus by the Forest Product Society.  This is the basis for what I have proposed in the IRC and will testify to during the hearings in October.

If you would allow me to share more information about these exciting new test results, I would like to.  Please don't demonize me for this.  We should not be afraid to question our actions, interpretations and our code in the face of contrary information.  I won't at least.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 19, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> 1) Lets talk uplift and 170mph wind zone in Florida if you want to.2) "Lateral Loads".  Put your association money into research, testing and development to prove your case and get the code changed by fixing the problem, not just worrying about removing something that make your job more expensive and harder.


1) What?  If you're building a deck in a 170 mph wind zone, then you've entirely exceeded the IRC prescriptive limits.  Perhaps I did not articulate my point.  In the tests I have referred to, Dr. Bender did show how to calculate lateral loads on decks in high wind or special wind regions.  I never mentioned uplift.  I am not aware of research in that regard.  You missed the whole point of my reference to Florida.  You don't design to snow in Florida, but you design to 30 psf in Denver.  For lateral, we should design according to what's applicable.  Dr. Bender's research revealed a 12 psf uniformly distributed load as the mark for lateral live loads.  Woeste's testing showed a lag-screwed ledger handled that load with cup of coffee in one hand.  The testing gets us closer to basing lateral restraint systems based on the actual anticipated loads, and helps us realize how ineffective the hold downs are in regard to how they were thought to work.  This can now tie lateral load to deck size to occupancy load...like every other load is handled.  Two points of 1500lbs on a 200 sf deck and also on a 2000 square foot deck might have been good when we had no data.  Now we have data that can determine how much lateral load is applicable to each deck...like snow load in CO or FL...  We should not be afraid of learning something new.  The articles in the Wood Design Focus are very eye-opening.

2)  Uh...that was the point of my first post on this thread.  Research and testing has been done to prove my case.  Thank you WSU, VT, Dr. Bender and Woeste (and their colleagues).  It seems that point has been missed under all the negative conclusions about me.  I encourage anyone with interest in wood engineering research to subscribe to the journal.  I posted the link previously in this thread.

I tell you Jeff...I thought you would have liked my sharing that new research on your forum...  I know you at least respect Dr. Woeste's contributions to the decking industry...  One of the best things about this forum (I thought) was the freedom to challenge status quo and have an engaging conversation about it.  I've had no replies regarding this new research I quoted...rather just attacks at my online classes, mentioned in my video that was only posted here to give the history that lead to the research.  The code development committee in 2007 asked for it.  We finally have it.

I won't post here again, clinging to some respect to the OP.  I will prepare some information and start a new thread regarding these tests.  I hope that Dr. Woeste will chime in and get the gratitude and respect he deserves for conducting them.  I hope we can have positive and engaging conversation in that thread, without my putting in a mouth guard.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 19, 2013)

Glenn, Like I told you in my PM concerning this thread that we both seemed to hijack, don't take this personally and understand that perception vs intention is always a stumbling block.

With your post above we can definitively see the connection to the deck industry and that says a lot.  This includes the association work that you do.  There is nothing wrong with that.  I will sound like a broken record but here it goes.

1) The technicality of the matter is that the IRC does not cover all deck building issues, specifically structural requirements prescriptively.  We all agree on that.

2) The IRC does require the deck to be able to withstand all loads imposed, including lateral displacement.  Again, all agree.

3) Decks, by design and use have lateral loads.  The lateral load must be controlled.  I am pretty sure we all still agree on this.

4) Outside the ledger board, joist hangars are the only connection point for joists (99% of the time) to the ledger board.  Common sense.

5) Joist hangars are not designed nor have any specification for lateral loads.  Mostly shear and uplift.  Still making sense & factual?

6) There is no quantifiable data published by any agency specifying lateral loads for decks.  There may have been private testing, but no data that is widely accepted and available to all RDPs.

7) Other than building a self supporting deck, the only prescriptive way to provide lateral load protection is through the tie-backs with threaded rod that connect to the joists inside and out.

8) I am not aware of any unbiased, comprehensive testing that proves that the tie-backs with threaded rod have no value and provide no protection whatsoever.

9) NADRA wants to remove the "shall be permitted" part of the code without providing an alternative.  It is simply to make things easier for them vs what is right for the customer and safety.

10) Something is better than nothing and each connector is capable of handling 1825 pounds of force per the Simpson catalogue.

11) The ledger if properly attached to the rim joist will probably not go anywhere when there is excessive lateral loads applied but the same cannot be said for the joist hangars.

12) Using a product such as Simpson's DTT2 connectors does, in fact provide lateral load protection, although we still don't know exactly how much there is as there is no formula or data that can cover all situations.

I commend the code panel for putting something into place that has a positive effect and covers an unknown value, yet provides some degree of lateral movement protection.  Maybe it covers more lateral protection than they will ever need but again, for $50 I would much rather err on the side of safety.  With so many corrosion issues and flashing problems as a result, it is inevitable that there will be future deck failures.  It is also nice to know that there is a 2nd level of protection available.

If you have a finished house with a tile floor and gypsum finished below, make the deck free standing and call it a day.

So as I eluded to before, find another acceptable method through widely recognized testing agencies that are not biased and get the code changed when you find something better.  Until then, leave well enough alone and tell NADRA to step up to the plate and help fund the testing and development.

As far as the 14 deck permits that we have outstanding right now.  I am positive that we will have 14 sets of DTT2 or similar products installed before they have a C of O and if I get 1 complaint from a contractor, that would be a lot.  This was only an issue the first 18 months of the code change.  Now it is just part of the norm.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 19, 2013)

Glenn said:
			
		

> 1) What?  If you're building a deck in a 170 mph wind zone, then you've entirely exceeded the IRC prescriptive limits.  Perhaps I did not articulate my point.  In the tests I have referred to, Dr. Bender did show how to calculate lateral loads on decks in high wind or special wind regions.  I never mentioned uplift.  I am not aware of research in that regard.  You missed the whole point of my reference to Florida.  You don't design to snow in Florida, but you design to 30 psf in Denver.  For lateral, we should design according to what's applicable.  Dr. Bender's research revealed a 12 psf uniformly distributed load as the mark for lateral live loads.  Woeste's testing showed a lag-screwed ledger handled that load with cup of coffee in one hand.  The testing gets us closer to basing lateral restraint systems based on the actual anticipated loads, and helps us realize how ineffective the hold downs are in regard to how they were thought to work.  This can now tie lateral load to deck size to occupancy load...like every other load is handled.  Two points of 1500lbs on a 200 sf deck and also on a 2000 square foot deck might have been good when we had no data.  Now we have data that can determine how much lateral load is applicable to each deck...like snow load in CO or FL...  We should not be afraid of learning something new.  The articles in the Wood Design Focus are very eye-opening.2)  Uh...that was the point of my first post on this thread.  Research and testing has been done to prove my case.  Thank you WSU, VT, Dr. Bender and Woeste (and their colleagues).  It seems that point has been missed under all the negative conclusions about me.  I encourage anyone with interest in wood engineering research to subscribe to the journal.  I posted the link previously in this thread.
> 
> I tell you Jeff...I thought you would have liked my sharing that new research on your forum...  I know you at least respect Dr. Woeste's contributions to the decking industry...  *One of the best things about this forum (I thought) was the freedom to challenge status quo and have an engaging conversation about it*.  I've had no replies regarding this new research I quoted...rather just attacks at my online classes, mentioned in my video that was only posted here to give the history that lead to the research.  The code development committee in 2007 asked for it.  We finally have it.
> 
> I won't post here again, clinging to some respect to the OP.  I will prepare some information and start a new thread regarding these tests.  I hope that Dr. Woeste will chime in and get the gratitude and respect he deserves for conducting them.  I hope we can have positive and engaging conversation in that thread, without my putting in a mouth guard.


I don't have to agree with you.  I am allowed to disagree with you.  You can state your case and I can state mine.  You don't have to agree with me.  I think we both agree on a lot of things but I am seeing something that you may not be.  You are free to post videos, data, or anything code related that you want.  You can put your company educational website in your signature if you want for advertising and that is perfectly fine with me.  You are a Sawhorse so you have more freedoms and privileges than regular members.  I see no reason to stop posting because someone disagrees with you.

Remember when you first posted a training video?  People were all over you about the content.  You took the criticism and move on and may have even changed the way you put your programs together.  Who knows.  This is no different, it is a learning process for all of us.  So go ahead and post whatever it is that you want to.  It will probably enlighten all of us and I am sure most of us will learn something.

My main bone of contention is that the fact a contractor based organization is trying to reduce a minimum standard without finding an alternative method to replace it with is biased and questionable at best.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 19, 2013)

Here is another link to a pdf from Simpson that shows a method that can be used when access to sheathing is not available when using the DTT2 tie-back anchors with threaded rod.  This appears to be an acceptable method if the deck builder does not want to hire an engineer or build a self supporting deck.

http://www.strongtie.com/ftp/bulletins/T-DECKLATLOAD11.pdf


----------



## jar546 (Jul 19, 2013)

I am hoping that there will be some eye opening data.  Here is what I have read so far that stands out:



> Dr. Bender said that while important discoveries were made, they were not comprehensive enough to use as a basis for modifications to the current lateral-load details provided in the IRC. The results were limited by the few conditions tested. More tests are needed, but there is a lack of funding to perform them.


The above statement was from this link:  The 2015 IRC and Decks - Codes And Standards - Professional Deck Builder Magazine


----------



## Glenn (Jul 19, 2013)

Here's another quote from the VT testing, asked no one.



> In both tests, splitting of the top edges of the deck joists was the main source of damage, and was caused by the couple from the deck screws that induced stresses perpendicular to the grain. Splitting propagated along the longitudinal axis of the wood. Each deck joist completely split, to the depth of screw penetration, from the load drag strut to the ledger board. Significant yielding and fracture of deck board screws was also observed in this region. Minimal joist splitting and screw yielding was seen in the region from the load drag strut to the outer deck beam. In both tests, no damage was observed in the deck ledger to house rim board connection. A maximum separation of 0.1 inches when hold-downs were used and 0.15 inches when hold-downs were not used was recorded between the deck ledger and diaphragm rim board at the tension chord of the deck. No damage was observed in the simulated house diaphragm.


The reference to "both tests" means one ledger with hold downs and one without.

I so wish this article was free to all...it is such important information.  Please consider subscribing to Wood Design Focus and help support these researchers.

I simply wish to get you all thinking about the information that is sure to get mainstream in due time.  Indeed the hold downs made no difference in the testing...the only thing left to cling to is "structural redundancy".  We should be willing to challenge that with questions and discussion.

The committee asked for a "study about the band joist connection to the house".  They got the lateral load anchor instead.  Now we have the study they asked for and the answer is:

"No damage was observed in the simulated house diaphragm".  i.e the band joist.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 19, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> I am hoping that there will be some eye opening data.  Here is what I have read so far that stands out:The above statement was from this link:  The 2015 IRC and Decks - Codes And Standards - Professional Deck Builder Magazine


Jeff...did you catch who the author was of that article?  It might be familiar...  It was written before the final research reports I have been sharing here were in my hands.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 19, 2013)

So my assumption (yes we all know what it is when one assumes) is that NADRA is hoping that testing will reveal that there is no need for lateral restraint as long as the ledger is properly installed and does not fail by itself or with the band joist.  This way they can get rid of that pesky "troublesome" language about the prescriptive method of attachment that unscrupulous, uninformed, pathetic code officials make them install when they don't really have to.  My guess is that Simpson will have a new connector to address this issue by then that won't require invasive attachment into the interior of the structure.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 19, 2013)

Glenn said:
			
		

> Jeff...did you catch who the author was of that article?  It might be familiar...  It was written before the final research reports I have been sharing here were in my hands.


Why yes I did, that is why I provide the link and that is how I found the paper.  I believe you are the author who is the technical representative of NADRA and represents them at the ICC hearings for code changes.  Who better to represent contractors at the ICC hearings than a code official!


----------



## Glenn (Jul 19, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Who better to represent contractors at the ICC hearings than a code official!


Agreed.  I understand code very well, and I have been in their shoes as a deck builder.  I also listen to them...someone should.  Thanks!  I also represent my City and my ICC chapter.

Please understand, however, NADRA is not a contractor's association.  It is the North American Deck and Railing Association.  Our membership is the industry, not just the contractors.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 19, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> So my assumption (yes we all know what it is when one assumes) is that NADRA is hoping that testing will reveal that there is no need for lateral restraint as long as the ledger is properly installed and does not fail by itself or with the band joist.  This way they can get rid of that pesky "troublesome" language about the prescriptive method of attachment that unscrupulous, uninformed, pathetic code officials make them install when they don't really have to.  My guess is that Simpson will have a new connector to address this issue by then that won't require invasive attachment into the interior of the structure.


Now we have new information.  Why's that so bad.  I've read the testing reports, so I know well what they reveal.  I am the one that encouraged NADRA that now is the time to bring the answer to the question asked by the committee in 2007.  Does the ledger to band joist connection resist lateral loads?  Just pretend for a minute they do...why is that so horrible?


----------



## Glenn (Jul 19, 2013)

I have been following this lateral load provision since if first came to the 09 IRC.  This article from late 2009 discusses how it got in the IRC and it's implications.

New Code for Resisting Lateral Loads - Codes And Standards, Structure, Engineering, Building Science - Professional Deck Builder Magazine

I mentioned before, it was the committee response for "study of the band joist connection" that drove this provision.  When the public commenter brought the lateral load detail in response, they brought the following argument:



> Deck failures do occur where the deck is attached to the rim joist for lateral loads, but the rim is not adequately anchored into the floor system. Positive anchorage of the deck joists to the floor framing addresses this potential failure. The figure is based on a similar figure from FEMA 232.”


The argument from the proponent to get this in the IRC was about concern for the rim joist connection to the floor system.  This is what I describe in my video.

Now we have testing that says neither the ledger connection to band joist or band joist connection to house failed at loads 4 times that greater than occupants can generate.

This is what I am trying to get your attention to.  If there are other lateral load concerns (like nails in hangers), let's address them.  But let's not have any more research, products, or alternatives based on code provisions included in the IRC that have been subsequently found inaccurate.  If I have a deck with a ledger that is 30 ft. long, I've got at least 23 joists, 1500 lb hold downs on only two joists doesn't seem like an appropriate design.  Let's talk about what is.  Perhaps screws in hangers...

In the meantime, we should remove what we know is not necessary and provide more freedom to research and innovation to not be based on 1500 lbs in two locations.  And let's relieve the decking industry a little.  It's not all about the cost of the hold downs, it's the cost of their installation.  In regions with finished basements or second floor decks it adds an interior remodel aspect of the job.  With engineered floor joists, (six feet in of blocking) that can be a big deal.

--Of the four lateral load articles I reference, all of them were guided in some way by the current code language of two 1500 lbs connections.  Future research should not be bound by that any longer.

--ICC ES has already worked on acceptance criteria for alternative methods for getting two 1500 lb concentrated load connections.  Why?  Why do we want this in the code until 2018 to continue to mislead innovation to creating a product equivalent to an IRC load of 1500 lbs that turns out is not really the target.  Why?  We need a clean slate.

I think I've provided enough information here to show that this subject does need further discussion and development.  We do not have the answer yet, but it is not 1500 lbs in two locations according to the most recently released information.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 19, 2013)

NOTE:

I have mis-credited some of the testing that occurred.  All the testing occurred at Washington State University, not Virginia Tech.  Dr. Woeste was not the lead researcher, it was Dr. Bender.

My apologies for any misleading in credit or location as to how the testing was handled.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 19, 2013)

When this situation is resolved, the next thread started needs to ask the vinyl railing manufacturers how an aluminum plate and 4 screws for the base of a railing vertical support constitutes meeting a 200# limit and how were we suppose to inspect this to being with.  Anyway, no more hijacking, we can start another thread for that.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 19, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> When this situation is resolved, the next thread started needs to ask the vinyl railing manufacturers how an aluminum plate and 4 screws for the base of a railing vertical support constitutes meeting a 200# limit and how were we suppose to inspect this to being with.  Anyway, no more hijacking, we can start another thread for that.


Manufactured guard assemblies often omit testing of the connection point to the floor they serve, under the disclaimer of "we don't know how they built it".  Other times when the connection is tested, in the fine print of the testing, you will find that plate was connected to concrete.  There is a lot of discussion to have regarding guards.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jul 22, 2013)

We use the"Prescriptive Residential Wood Deck Construction Guide based on the 2009 IRC" put out by the American Forest & Paper Asoc. It requires lateral load connection.

But what about porches (covered deck). Does everyone require lateral load connections for porches? Usualy there is no rot problem then. Also you don't get snow and rain except some on the edges. Should I go by the IRC or the deck guide?


----------



## Yankee (Jul 23, 2013)

diagonal bracing


----------

