This is an old cantilevered deck, which has been extended by bolting new joists to the old ones, and then adding a beam on the far end of the deck. The design of this deck kind of sent my mind for a loop. What are your thoughts?
My gut says that a beam, on the house side, should be installed on the existing columns to support the weight on that side.
I would agree it’s not good. I guess they are using the old joist at the connection to the house? The bolting I would thing would need to be more of them. Also it’s hard to tell but the if it’s not all three boards of the beam need securing to make them act as one. There are also not visible metal connectors so how is it all being held together?
Andrew,
Try looking at as two separate decks. The new deck has a cantilever toward the original deck, looks like 2 ft. The new deck is self supported and joined back to the original deck. The original deck is carrying its original load and for the most part acting independently. The real issue is local code.
Does anyone think the 2x4 laying on its side in pic #1 and being used to support the ends deck joist is adequate?
Not me.
I don’t remark on adequacy. Besides are the original joist cantilevered into the house?
No, I see a gap behind the joist.
Really? Why not? It’s inadequate support. A 2x4 laying flat provides minimal support and should be called out, at least with the probability of future sagging or even complete failure if there were 35 people dancing on the deck…
Exactly my thoughts as I read the above.
Besides the flat 2x4 at ledger, IMO more fasteners should be added to the sistered joist.
And what if those 35 people just got back from Dairy Queen after their weight watcher’s convention? Or my wife’s family???
It looks like the double thru bolts into the original, bearing supported, joists should be adequate bearing. Hopefully this work was per an engineered drawing and inspected per const. permit.
All good stuff…I understand your points about the 2x4. And it is strange, but we’re not code enforcement.
I don’t think the 2x4 is there for support the deck. If it were, imagine how much it would be deflected. Clearly, if the 2x4 were deflected 3" or 4" like it was supporting the weight of the deck, I would call that a defect.
Still…your comments were good. I continue to learn from you.
Looks as if the person responsible may have gotten the idea from a neighbor. Just goes to show that two minds are now on the same path…
The joists that are sistered require a flitch plate of some type and some add’l engineering as I see it. There is no ledger on the building side suggesting the joists are in fact cantilevered in some manner, presumably from within the buildings floor.
Requires further evaluation by a licensed structural engineer.
All, Thank you for the great insight and thoughts.
The 2x4 didn’t appear to have any structural purpose because of the cantilevered joists coming from the house. Also, the new joists were attached to the beam using hurricane clips.
Mike
Not sure, but you may be seeing a gap behind the added joist.
The real question is whether this repair has been engineered. If the previous cantilever joists that the new material has been attached to have integrity, it could be adequate. It takes a lot of calculation to determine this, so you could ask if it was ok’d by an engineer. Otherwise, it would be safer to recommend an engineer’s evaluation, or just like you said, recommend beam support at the wall.
I ended up recommending evaluation by an engineer due to the bolted connections and to make sure that the original cantilevered joists were not overloaded.
good call
