Mike Holmes "Make It Right"

Understood. It seems very easy to say that someone is always wrong, but not so easy to illustrate exactly what was violated.

A deck is a very small structure and does not have many main components, so it would seem very easy to point out where these errors were made, or what codes were violated. Since this cannot be done, then one could reasonably assume all is OK with his decks, etc…

Yes it would also be very easy for you to do so to limit the chance of you not understanding the seriousness of pointing out what is wrong on the MB. It goes to safety, proper approved practice and many many other things that makes the show entertaining to the average Home Owner. However giving them the wrong info is not and will never be accepted.
Not so to real Contractors, Home Inspectors or Real Estate Agents that every day have to explain what the rules are.
When or where you built the deck also does as Greg has pointed out. Still does not make it right.
Disclaimer says None of the practices should be used for comprehensive advice.

So Greg, If you don’t need to use lag bolts what is allowed? If you don’t mind me asking.

[FONT=Helvetica-Black][size=2] Platforms Subject to Snow and Occupancy Loads[/size][/FONT]

**[size=2][FONT=Helvetica-Black]1) **[/FONT][/size][FONT=PalatinoLinotype][size=2]Balconies, decks and other accessible exterior platforms intended for an[/size][/FONT]

[FONT=PalatinoLinotype,Italic][size=2]occupancy [/size][/FONT][FONT=PalatinoLinotype][size=2]and subject to snow loads shall be designed to carry the specified roof snow[/size][/FONT]

[size=2][FONT=PalatinoLinotype]load or 1.9 kPa, whichever is greater, where the platform, or each segregated area of[/FONT][/size]

[size=2][FONT=PalatinoLinotype]the platform, serves a single
[/FONT][/size][FONT=PalatinoLinotype,Italic][size=2]dwelling unit[/size][/FONT][FONT=PalatinoLinotype][size=2]. (See Appendix A.)[/size][/FONT]

[FONT=PalatinoLinotype][size=4]This was pulled from the National Building Code of Canada[/size][/FONT]
[size=4]I know and you know that bolting the deck to the home is better but no where in the code does it say to use bolts. According to an engineer I spoke with if you have four nails every 16" along the ledger it will exceed the 1.9 kPa that is required.[/size]

I never excepted nails to hold the ledger board in my reports .

Ledger Board Fasteners

It is very important that you use the correct size and type of fasteners to install your ledger board. Your deck will depend on the load carrying capacity of these screws or bolts to support hundreds of pounds and prevent the deck from ripping away from the house. The most common method is to install ½” lag bolts with washers or carriage bolts with washers. You will usually need the length of the bolt to be at least 4”-6" to penetrate through the 2x ledger board, the house sheathing and into the solid house rim. Never counter sink bolts. This will significantly weaken the ledger board. In a ledger board application, a ½” x 4” lag bolt was tested to provide 180 lbs support of allowable shear load per screw.

Well I am glad he did not listen to that advice. Do you still require the proper spacing and proper graspable handrail or is that different also?
Whenever possible I recommend free standing deck design to keep from attaching to the home for obvious reasons.
Your comment on Codes shows me clearly why it is a minimum.

More on Mike ,I have these all on disk. Sorry this is the best I can do.

2009 Deck Code Changes - Pay Attention!

  [comments (27)](http://www.finehomebuilding.com/item/7839/2009-deck-code-changes-pay-attention#comment_list)         May 21st, 2009 in [Blogs](http://www.finehomebuilding.com/blogs)                               
             [http://www.finehomebuilding.com/assets/avatars/Guertin_sqs.jpg](http://www.finehomebuilding.com/profile/MikeGuertin)              **[Mike Guertin](http://www.finehomebuilding.com/profile/MikeGuertin)**, editorial advisor     

Add Comment

Share This
The 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) has a number of big changes when it comes to framing decks. If your state, county or town will be adopting the ’09 IRC you’d better take a look at a copy of the code before you get a code violation.
The changes are all related to how you connect the ledger to the building. For one, there’s now a prescriptive chart for fastener patterns, no more ‘rule of thumb’ bolt or lag screw frequency. You just match the depth of your deck to your fastener of choice (1/2 inch lag screw, 1/2 inch thru-bolt or 1/2 inch thru-bolt with stacked washer space) and you’re good to go. But you are going to need a structural engineer if you want to bolt your deck ledger to anything but a 2x rim joist or a 1 inch thick Douglas Fir LVL rim. This means you have to know how the floor is framed when adding a deck to an existing building. Plus if the rim joist is concealed on the inside, you have to provide some sort of visual access for inspections – get out the [hole saw

And if you never noticed the one code provision that’s been included in the IRC for years in section R502.2.2 that says: “Where supported by attachment to an exterior wall, decks shall be positively anchored to the primary structure and designed for both vertical and LATERAL loads as applicable” then you will when you look at the new section R502.2.2.3 Deck lateral load connection. There’s a new prescriptive lateral load connection option you can use to keep the deck from pulling away from the building. Even though you are not required to use the detail, it will most likely trigger the notion in your local building official’s head that “Hey, I should enforce something.” And unless you have an engineered alternative solution, your local inspector may require that you use the connection as detailed.
Take a second look at the drawing above – the detail uses a long threaded rod that connects the floor joist of the house to the floor joist of the deck. On the bright side, you only have to install a couple of these on each deck (yeah, even if it’s just a 4 ft wide landing deck). The trick of course will be finding the brackets; they aren’t commonly stocked yet. Right now there are only 2 available – the Simpson Strongtie DTT2Z and USP’s DTB-TZ – that meet the 1500 lb. load requirement.
If you don’t have your copy of the 2009 IRC you can get most of the information from the 2007 supplement to the 2006 IRC online at the ICC website. Check out pages 34 – 36 for the deck sections.
There are other provisions in the new deck section of the code that eliminate mounting a ledger to a cantilevered floor and prohibit mounting girders to a ledgers, and a few other things. So before you get a violation notice and have a bear of a time revamping your deck frame to meet the new code, keep apprised of your local adoption schedule for the 2009 IRC and check it out.
*Editor’s note: If you are planning to take on a deck project this summer, in addition to the 2009 IRC, you’ll want to consult our new Deck Planning Center. The IRC covers the code, our planning center covers everything else. *

Have a look


2013 Deck Failures - See our new gallery format
2013 Hall of Shame - See our new gallery format
We welcome you to our website

Well I guess there will be a lot more decks built as free standing.

Is an engineer required to design Part 9 structures? Does Mike use an engineer with the decks he builds? I’ve seen some where he stated he did.

How did he do this exactly with the decks he built? Please explain with reference to the OBC.

All of this looks great Roy, but hearsay doesn’t mean much. Are the comments made by an engineer? Can you specify. Thanks Roy.

What information is wrong with respect to the decks he has built? Does he not use an engineer who designs the deck? Is Mike not a real contractor?

Is the IRC used in Canada? Does it override the OBC? Are there any violations based on the OBC?

Perhaps bolting was to exceed the OBC. Can you verify with the engineer how 4 nails will exceed the 40 psf? How are they prevented to be pulled out? Would he stamp this design if this was used to capacity? Can you check with him since safety is a primary concern. Would he recommend this as a standard?

Yes!!! Since I know the location well, it can still apply to Ontario since we always state the most up to date information we can find.
A deck collapse is under review for Ontario and was in the news. With this one it was clearly passed by the AHJ.
As for the 1.9 kpa this is not what we want to recommend = 40 psi load as this is a minimum.

What if this balcony or platform is part of a passageway? Does this still hold to 40 psf? Some balconies and platforms fall into this category. What would you use then?

Ron please let us know where you are from so we can compare apples to apples at least in regards to the minimum codes.

I am in Ontario. Does the OBC refer to this code? If so can you specify where it says to use this instead of the OBC for decks? Thanks.

Can you specify any info on that deck collapse. Do you have a link to the case? It would be interesting to see the data.

When you say the 40psf is not what you recommend, what are you implying? To use 100 psf LL? Thanks.