I inspected a deck yesterday and at first glance I knew something was wrong. I observed 3x3 lumber stacked on itself to form floor joists with a span of approximately 10’. It was missing any type of post brackets as well. I wrote it up as inadequate structural components, and as a major defect further evaluation and repair by a qualified professional. Is this a proper write up?
Is that IDK about the write up or IDK about the deck?
YES… but… DEPENDS!!! Need much more detailed info about the construction. If all you know is what you told us, SOME of it, but not necessarily all of it, is wrong!! Base your narrative with that in mind.
Gotcha! I realize it’s hard to see everything from the pics. And not ALL is wrong just the two things I mentioned were from my perspective the stacked 3x3’s and the lack of brackets were my thoughts.
How was the ‘built-up beam’ assembled? Each layer Glued and Fastened? May not be wrong. Just because you can’t see something, doesn’t make it wrong.
what you are looking at is a Glulam.
I could see daylight between some of the stacked 3x3’s could not verify fastening method other than stacked one on the other.
If it was a glue lam, I would think there shouldn’t be daylight between the 3x3’s.
Actually… a Glulam is an Engineered product, thus my calling it a “built up” and Glued and Fastened… being a field made (assumed) product.
Agreed, It is a Glulam, Just never heard of one built up in the field.
The one in the pic is in a damp environment and is deteriorating.
Thanks for the information and thoughts. I appreciate the input.
Preservative-treated Glulams can be used outdoors for decks. That one doesn’t look like it meets the requirements, IMHO. And there are other defects in that picture, too.
Yeah I realize there are other issues. What else do you see? missing joist/post brackets, moisture damage to siding to name a couple. Maybe I’m missing something?? I didn’t think this was the right application for a glulam. I am fairly new to home inspection so any input is welcomed. Thanks!
I’m still new, but if there are any issues isn’t it just to recommend that it gets looked at by a qualified deck contractor? How specific does one need to be?
I am new myself only been doing this a few months. I do my best to identify the defects that exist regardless of how many or few there are. Just to make sure that I am informing the client with all the information possible. Maybe I’m doing a little more work but at least I can be sure I’m not missing anything important.
Mechanical connections at column to beam to footing or lack thereof.
Missing anti sway bracing.
Should not be connected to the home with a ledger.
Good looking deck. Seen worse. Just needs some .beefing up/
Yes it’s wrong, and as far as a major defect goes, that depends on what you describe in your report as a major defect. I consider a major defect anything that in my opinion could cost $2,000.00 or more to repair or replace, and I state this in the summary of my reports.
For me, if the deck is not built to the “Prescriptive Residential Wood Deck Construction Guide” (AKA the deck bible), then it gets written up, the only exception being if there is an engineering drawing of the deck available onsite during the inspection, that would over-ride the deck bible.
I never recommend “further evaluation” unless I see a problem that needs an Engineer. Our clients are hiring us to inspect the property and inform them of the defects found. As far as repairs, yes, all repairs should be performed by a qualified contractor in that field.
I have never seen this guide. Thank You! This will be a great guide. And I have not thought about dollar amount as a guide for major defect. What about Health and Safety? Some of those aren’t expensive to remedy but are “major”.