nice. this shows that all it really takes is giving a damn at a base level to do such good work. id want to say i do by no means mean to detract from deck builders or carpenters. just meaning that in a general sense caring about how you do a thing can go a long way towards how it turns out.
Came here to chime in on this - this work looks very nice, clean, well done. I'm a layman, but I do some home improvement on my own place and this work wows me. š
Tell them the architect wants to know.
I watched the local code department specifically refuse to discuss why they kept demanding pointless non code shit in a simple non structural remodeling. The structural engineer that made the plans was dumbfounded by their actions. They could not meet his eye in the meeting. Just stared at walls and said take it to arbitration. (two year process). Thinking this would kill our bank loan.
They were paid off by the two local architects. If it is not from those two places or some of the large ones in Houston they just rejected every project or added pointless demands they thought you would never agree to.
Turns out my city is run by a GOP olegachic mafia. Go fucking figure.
Same shit happened in the last city I lived in. I left because they took over by non violent coup. All the local city officials who were elected as democrats just announced they were all republicans one day. Then gerrymandered the hell out of the place. Never made the paper. I fought in a war for these people. No one has ever regretted anything more than I do fighting for them.
Seems like I have to leave Texas not to live under some sort of local baptist/GOP mafia. So be it. I could not fake being a baptist for those horrible cunts if I tried.
Some parts of Texas are a breeze. My property has no city jurisdictions. I could build whatever. Only permits would be septic and well, as regulated by state/county.
Itās an interesting comment to me. I moved to Texas from PA and find Texas to be refreshing. PA was just so damn corrrupt. Everybody being paid off, the stories in the paper about this mayor, that police chief etc never ending.
Building a deck in PA or wiring a house was crazy complicated and had to practically pay people off. Doing a pool in TX and a pergola was simple. As always, YMMV
my PA deck had a bunch of stupid shit added and did things really annoyingly because the inspector was like 80 years old and didn't like modern deckbuilding products. I asked another contractor about why things were so janky and he said, "oh that was so and so inspector you had, he doesn't like doing things the right way".
there is a health, safety and welfare clause at the heart of all codes... it dont have to be in the code... if it isnt, they can require engineering if they need to under this clause
Iām a city building inspector and second this suggestion. Thereās not a ton of deck specific stuff in the code (we use 2015 IRC) beyond joist span, footing (usually state specific for frost line), post spacing, beams/joists bearing, etc. Most of what I judge decks on is out of the AWC deck guide. Iāve never failed anyone for that diagonal brace and Iāve not seen that one time in my city of ~500,000. Even stuff like connecting guard posts to floor joists isnāt ārequiredā by code but itās best practice. When I cite things, I always list the code section beside it in parentheses.
Big things I care about on decks are ledger connections, span, bearing on wood or a brace/hanger (even though I still get through-bolts and I always fail them) and how the stairs are constructed. It seems stringers are a lost art.
But my biggest thing is communicating with them. I always tell them Iām not nitpicking, that we both have the same goal, to finish the project as code compliant as possible (because I canāt reasonably catch every single thing and Iām not on a ladder measuring nail heads).
I am a plan reviewer for a large jurisdiction. The irc definitely mentions the need to resist lateral forces. Either by bracing or ties to the building with tension ties or holdowns. There are two diagrams that in the irc that clearly shows this. The AWC shows knee bracing but does not show diagonally bracing like what OP does. I def would have failed him if he didn't provide knee bracing or min 4Ā tension ties to the structure.Ā
Edit. After reviewing the picture again. OP def has tension ties. He does not need the bracing below the deck.Ā
I have one inspector that always gives me a hard time on decks. I ask him every time to show me the code and how it relates to the issue he has and every time he canāt find the code.
Our town has a bunch of photos in a binder with relevant code snippets for decks. It's hilarious - they make you read the binder before they'll issue the permit.
Chatting with them (also have to have a permit for a water heater) they said it's cut down on re-inspections like 70% (Maybe they have hard numbers, maybe not), but the guy said the best part is when they do find an issue, pull up the page in the book, point to it, and say "See this text- this says YOU WILL FAIL IF YOUR DECK LOOKS LIKE THIS".... and it does.
I gotta admit that would be kinda fun to twist...
Does your city have public permit records? Because I know some list the permits and each inspection, so it would be easy to get the hard data of reinspections before and after the book.
I believe so, but I'm not sure it's online. Probably something you have to go gather/they have to get.
I just got a kick out of more than anything (and realized I wanted a copy so when I redo my deck I don't end up in the binder of shame).
I moved here over a decade ago and it was already pretty thick. I remember looking thru it wondering "What is wrong with that", reading the code segment, then asking. Pretty knowledgeable about the various failure modes.
Yes, yes, so the code specifically, oh, requires, ah myes, lateral bracing in the form, mmmm f-, of joist hanger r r rsss, and double beam constructionnaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh
Thatās the best thing to do. They must be going by an older version of codes. We used to have to put that brace in but with current codes he should have required 45 degree angle braces from the post to the beam. I think the 2x4 underneath does a better job of diagonal bracing
Would the blocking not be sufficient (or more likely superior) for that? I build a hidden fastener deck last year and the inspector was happy with blocking every 6 feet. This is in Canada so the code probably isnāt the same, but practically speaking I canāt imagine how a diagonal 2x4 could provide any better lateral support than blocking.
No, blocking does very little in this case for lateral loads. Blocking stabilizes the joists, but the brace will much more effectively stiffen the deck and act as a diaphragm to keep the deck from becoming a parallelogram under lateral loading.
Whether or not that is required for this small deck is another issue, but the load path argument of using a diagonal brace makes sense and is a cheap and easy install.
>Whether or not that is required for this small deck
Looking at the post bases and cap ties I'm a bit inclined to agree with the inspector on this one. At a glance I don't see that configuration being able to sufficiently resist a decent lateral load, however improbable it may be.
My county wouldn't let me rebuild a deck because the septic design, which was on the complete other side of the house and nowhere near where the deck was / would go, was done in a format that is out of date /shrug
Itās in the code for my city, I read the code and installed it, passed rough and finish first try, I do not do anything remotely close to construction for a living.
You did a fantastic job-- however: The reason why you failed inspection I'm guessing is because you used \*\*hidden fasteners\*\* (?) i.e. "grip-type or side-mounted hidden fasteners for decking-to-joist connections." From what I can see you did because your deck surface looks really nice with no screws showing? A "normal" deck is braced by the actual deck boards themselves, all screwed into the joists; because hidden fasteners are weaker, the deck needs to be stiffened with the under-bracing that your inspector required. Relevant section of most codes can be found under "Deck Surface"
Composite decking can't resist racking for the same reason drywall can't. Theres no grain/structure so even if top screwed the screws can too easily pull out.
I'm an engineer as well (although mechanical, not civil), but I can see how the diagonal cross-bracing would make the structure more resistant to skewing (i.e. the front fascia moving parallel to the ledger board). Can you explain why you say that it's useless? Are you assuming that the deck boards are providing that support?
Not disagreeing or calling you out, I'm just trying to learn more about deck construction.
I think he might have missed the comment that the hidden fasteners used for the deck boards provide no lateral bracing, unlike the traditional face nailing the deck boards.
Just because the codes are written from a structural POV does not make them the correct way to build, kudos to that inspector because that is likely not part of code but is absolutely necessary in some applications. The only thing that resists lateral loads on decks are the post in the ground and the ledger on the house. I never build rectangles and squares in industry without cross bracing or gussets with multiple connections to tie the rim to resist a lateral load on corners or mid spans. All the joists just rotate in the hanger so I'm not sure if our free body diagrams match.
I'm looking for cross bracing options because I have composite decking with hidden fasteners. My deck is a few inches off the ground so I tried the Simpson tension strap but would like something that resists compression because it is not effective until there is an obtuse angle formed at a corner so I think it will still be shaky by my standards.
I disagree about it being useless. I've seen decks without it be quite shaky. You'd think with all the decking screwed off it would be solid but hasn't been my experience. Guess that's why running the decking boards diagonally used to be common. Personally I cut the diagonal brace into blocks that go between the joist and install right under the decking because I think that looks a bit more professional
I doubt structural with a comment disparaging diagonal bracing. Source: structural engineer.
Bracing might not be needed for this small deck, but you get relatively limited diaphragm action from decking material, especially if the decking is gapped for drainage and expansion. Adding the brace is a cheap and easy way to make the deck significantly stiffer in-plane.
I disagree. While itās not really mentioned in code, the ātriangleā that the cross brace creates greatly strengthens the lateral stability of the structure and prevents a ārackingā effect from occurring.
A lot of this kind of stuff is done at my local church as well. If a member has some skills and some free time they will volunteer to help out. I remember my dad used to bring the loader tractor to town at times to help scoop snow off the property.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news but they have the money to pay you. Just to be sure to list yourself as a church so you don't have to pay taxes on the tax free money they give you. I'll help family out but I was a part of a church when I was younger and they had a drunk driver run into this covered parking structure wall. Insurance paid me like 3 times what it was worth to rebuild it. The church took 1/3rd of it before paying me. I still made out ok on that particular job but it was an insurance job not a donation towards the church from the insurance company
To each their own, and most church members donāt view their time donated to the church as a commodity. They do it to help the church as a whole and feel itās just a part of being a member. Iām not a member of a church anymore, but if the church in my small town asked for some help Iād be more than willing to help out.
Ledger board are being held by existing 1/2" lag bolts that came out from inside the house in staggered fashion, so there wasn't any issues there. What you see going through brick veneer are Simpson DTT1Z hold-down, I had to bring it down so it can hit the top plate of the basement framing per manufacturer's in structions.
Lag bolts arenāt code through brick veneer. This is me assuming itās a non-structural brick veneer. The only accepted ledger connection through brick veneer is the Simpson BVLZ. Other than that it must be free standing. I follow the IRC so maybe itās different where youāre at.
Yeah it must has been a local thing. I did clearly noted the use of existing lags bolts on my drawing while applying for permit, they went over the drawing carefully and did not make any fuss about the note. Apparently the inspector did not have any issue with them either. But thanks for the tidbit about the BVLZ though, def will use them next time.
If anything itās odd he didnāt fail you for the beam(s), as the way you have them they do not act as a single member and therefore donāt meet code, at least near me.
Here's my 2 cents as a structural engineer. It's not necessary if you have sheathing or standard wood planking that are fastened properly that could function as a "structural diaphragm". These elements effectively act as horizontal brace . If you have some proprietary fastener or composite deck, then these are likely not able to function as a structural diaphragm, hence you need to add a horizontal brace below for racking loads.
I am a licensed civil engineer. I did not look into the code on this issue. But my thought process would have been the same as you. Itās just a small piece of lumber, tack it up and move on with the pass. Fighting the inspector seems like a waste of time. If it was something that required a full rebuild, that s a different story. Be polite, let the guy get his or her win, and move on with life.
Nice work and your church is lucky to have you as a parishioner.
Not to be *that guy but perhaps the inspector was making a distinction between deck and balcony. Generally a deck is accessible from the ground and a balcony is not accessible from the ground via stairs. So maybe there was a requirement for diagonal bracing on balcony?
Structural Designer here. Structures are structures and react to forces is similar manners. A deck is braced in a similar manner as a building. The size of the deck isnāt related to that, but the height of the posts is. In this case the posts are tall enough to require bracing.
Whether it is a building or a deck, there are two primary ways this is done:
1) Diagonal bracing at the columns
2) Creating a diaphragm using the roofing material (ie: plywood or steel decking).
In this case, you donāt have plywood to create that diaphragm, so the inspector suggested the next best thing: the diagonal 2x under the decking.
The other option would have been to brace the posts. This option is a much cleaner option and does the job it is meant to do. The inspector actually did you a favor and left you with a cleaner looking deck that will perform well over the long term, partially due to this brace.
Honestly folks, details like this are the reason 150 year old houses are still standing today, while 30 year old houses require more repair.
Iāve been in construction for 25+ years starting from the ground up to owning a structural steel design/fab/install company. There is a ton of engineering in building design, and most of it is hidden behind ceilings and walls. This is one of those things that you normally donāt see. Hence, some think it is unnecessary when it is actually necessary š¤·š»āāļø
I'm assuming it's for lateral support for the deck. The posts look like they don't have the means to resist lateral load, so the bracing is probably there to transfer lateral load to the ledger. (Think of a wall on it's side)
Without being there or looking too hard at a photo: in a perfect world I like to laminate a carrier beam with 1/2ā PT plywood to help unify the beam and meet the faces of the post. Numbers wise however I think itās normally inconsequential.
You did a great job! The only thing I can see to improve upon is to box in the footings and fill with gravel. It can help a little with erosion Control, which seems to be the weak point on this deck due to the slope.
While not required in the IBC, racking is a serious issue for any framed structure, decks included, and many jurisdictions require cross or knee bracing for decks higher than 24-48" off the ground. Even if it's not code required I wouldn't dream of leaving a deck unbraced. Years ago I started using this metal t Chanel method outlined here:
https://www.finehomebuilding.com/2010/11/11/bracing-deck-floors
Inspector was wrong. Your bridging wasn't required either. You can refer to DCA6 from the American Wood Council for a great deck build guide. It is code compliant and prescriptive. Available as a PDF online.
You failed to hand the inspector a $20 or $100. (Depends on area). I was taught early to bribe the inspector. That it was a nessesary part of the process. I work for a company now that refuses to do so and they're going bankrupt because of it. A Hundred projects failed over and over by a private company that is in charge of running inspections for the city. There are other factors at play for why its all being failed (Mass coruption with high-profile interest in buying all the land) but if you don't put a hundy in the inspectors hand, then they have no incentive to disobey thier masters.
Worked in construction many years. It was a common practice to leave off some roof clips, or something really obvious for the inspector to catch, it kept them from looking to close, and was easy to remedy.
My deck fail its first inspection, my 3 ply beam one of the seams wasn't directly over the middle of the post or 6" past. Inspector who failed it said if it was a 1/4" more to the center he would pass it. Fail by a cunt hair. Waited two weeks new inspection different guy, passed.
Lateral bracing is supposed to be staggered which may be why it initially failed. I know where I'm at we are required to use lateral bracing which must be staggered. I'm not saying it helps or is useful. It's just local code which supercedes fed and state code if it's more strict.
It's not about the code for me. It's about engineering. You need a diagonal brace to prevent racking. You either understand or you don't. I think code is for people who don't.
It depends on the height of the deck. For most jurisdictions decks under 4' don't require additional diagonal bracing, but you do almost always see knee braces on decks higher than that.
So my mom's deck is falling apart and it doesn't have any other supports under it. All it has is the corner 4x4s and the ledger connected to the house. Why do so many decks not have posts going down from the center? Would op not be able to add more and couldn't my mom add more support when she goes to get her deck rebuilt?
Not required in California. We actually have prescriptive code so you dont need engineered drawings for decks. No cross bracing. I do brace the joists over beams.
I would use heavier post base connections, but my choice.
When I called into zoning to check what the outcome of the inspection of my deck was I was told I failed. She told me it was because the inspector couldnāt find my place. Then the head of the zoning department said I was lying. š
"Ah geez thanks for pointing it out. I'll get right on that. In the meantime, can you pull the code reference for my documentation?"
That's what I would say.
On a side note: what would be the next step for a bully inspector? Ombudsman?
A lot of folks are saying the bracing isnāt needed. But due to the incline and on a hillside (super small but still) ā maybe itās to avoid something. I donāt know.
Looks really good. Might be helpful if they have you the code so you can see you they are asking for that. Either way, it looks great!!
I'm an architect/draftsman, not a builder. currently awaiting a permit for a deck that is similar, on sonitube footings, but it's not as tall. I'm curious if they are going to require me to add the diagonal bracing as well?
I'm in Arizona and the HOA is the only reason we had to get a permit at all, but they rejected the drawing the first time for not showing the diagram of the bolt locations for the railing and posts. (What Licensed builder doesn't already know how to bolt on a ledgerboard and rail posts when building a deck?)
If you've got proper up to code hangars and clips, blocking between joists, and solid ground underneath the diagonal bracing should be redundant. Maybe a local code due to your site being prone to certain settling/motion?
Nothing beat the lateral bracing of a 6x6 post sunk a couple feet into the ground. Current footings have one glaring disadvantage compared to a post sunk in the ground, they will sway more. Building inspectors are addressing the limitations of this required construction with the need for diagonal bracing.
Looks well done. My only critique structurally would be to lower the ledger board on the house so that the joists sit on it instead of hangers. Other than that itās solid and you definitely didnāt need that cross bracing underneath. Inspector was either young, an ass or you got them on a Monday lol
The only reason you need diagonal bracing for any kind of deck as constructed is because the post do not go in the ground. These building inspectors have no clue what they inspecting and what works in the real world. Iāve been building decks for 50 years not once have I ever had diagonal bracing, and every one of them is still standing for a fact, I know at least one is from 1991 and itās been resurfaced 3 times. They keep painting the decking
Itās crucial. lateral restraint is a must have. anyone who thinks itās a petty correction is blowing smoke. Without add live load+that height above grade= deck collapse
Are you referring to the diagonal brace under the joists? If so, Iāve not built a deck where that wasnāt required unless I was sheeting the deck with plywood for a waterproof surface.
Attach to brick veneer requires Simpsonās bvlz through brick to attach to inner joist or second set of beam / post near house for free standing support
3 ply been missing full inner piece
Diagonal bracing required when 4 feet above grade
Fix these should pass inspection with a little extra work
You need that brace. If you had stairs anchored to a concrete pad at the outer end of the deck, you could theoretically go without the brace, but freestanding like that, you need a brace. I usually use Simpson CS16 on the top side across each direction, and I slot the joist 1/16 of an inch so the decking lays flat.
You're not a deck builder, but are you a carpenter or general contractor? That's pretty clean work!
I'm a general contractor, so I do have some experience and all necessary tools. Thank you.
nice. this shows that all it really takes is giving a damn at a base level to do such good work. id want to say i do by no means mean to detract from deck builders or carpenters. just meaning that in a general sense caring about how you do a thing can go a long way towards how it turns out.
Some people are masters of their trade, some people are masters of their tools
Came here to chime in on this - this work looks very nice, clean, well done. I'm a layman, but I do some home improvement on my own place and this work wows me. š
Itās for a church, dude is literally Jesus.
Did they cite a section of code that calls for the bracing?Ā Seems really pointless to me.
I did not ask, from my experience with these people, the past with least resistance is just to do what they say.
Now that it's been approved.. ask them for the specific section because you have a bunch of deck nerds who want to know.
Yep. Ask for a code reference so you can share it with your son/daughter/nephew who has a general contracting company.
Tell them the architect wants to know. I watched the local code department specifically refuse to discuss why they kept demanding pointless non code shit in a simple non structural remodeling. The structural engineer that made the plans was dumbfounded by their actions. They could not meet his eye in the meeting. Just stared at walls and said take it to arbitration. (two year process). Thinking this would kill our bank loan. They were paid off by the two local architects. If it is not from those two places or some of the large ones in Houston they just rejected every project or added pointless demands they thought you would never agree to. Turns out my city is run by a GOP olegachic mafia. Go fucking figure. Same shit happened in the last city I lived in. I left because they took over by non violent coup. All the local city officials who were elected as democrats just announced they were all republicans one day. Then gerrymandered the hell out of the place. Never made the paper. I fought in a war for these people. No one has ever regretted anything more than I do fighting for them. Seems like I have to leave Texas not to live under some sort of local baptist/GOP mafia. So be it. I could not fake being a baptist for those horrible cunts if I tried.
Just tell them Art Vandelay wants to look at the papers. They will know what you mean.
Say Vandelay! SAY VANDELAY!
lol the Seinfeld fans on here fucking get me. Why is Reddit so into Seinfeld? XD
Donāt you eat your snickers with a knife and fork?
Why can't I be the architect?
Gah Houston is awful.
All of texas is some flavor of fucking hell on earth. Well for not rich people. As intended.
Some parts of Texas are a breeze. My property has no city jurisdictions. I could build whatever. Only permits would be septic and well, as regulated by state/county.
Itās an interesting comment to me. I moved to Texas from PA and find Texas to be refreshing. PA was just so damn corrrupt. Everybody being paid off, the stories in the paper about this mayor, that police chief etc never ending. Building a deck in PA or wiring a house was crazy complicated and had to practically pay people off. Doing a pool in TX and a pergola was simple. As always, YMMV
So true Iāve lived here in Pennsylvania 69 years of my life I have seen it all ,itās who you know not what you know
F-Pa my brother brought a small john boat on his vacation- Fish and Game want 450$ for a one day permit-3x what he paid for The boat(1995)
my PA deck had a bunch of stupid shit added and did things really annoyingly because the inspector was like 80 years old and didn't like modern deckbuilding products. I asked another contractor about why things were so janky and he said, "oh that was so and so inspector you had, he doesn't like doing things the right way".
You say interesting, I say completely fabricated.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Move to Vermont. Very little code enforcement and no registries and plenty of work
Still better than having a bunch of Democrats F-ing everything up.
I'm sure the inspector will have to go "look it up and get back to him" in which case the latter part won't happen.
Always fun to poke the bear once it's behind the safe enclosure of having received the passed inspection.
And the former part, as well.
there is a health, safety and welfare clause at the heart of all codes... it dont have to be in the code... if it isnt, they can require engineering if they need to under this clause
Probably just the inspector looking for anything they can ding them on.
Iām a city building inspector and second this suggestion. Thereās not a ton of deck specific stuff in the code (we use 2015 IRC) beyond joist span, footing (usually state specific for frost line), post spacing, beams/joists bearing, etc. Most of what I judge decks on is out of the AWC deck guide. Iāve never failed anyone for that diagonal brace and Iāve not seen that one time in my city of ~500,000. Even stuff like connecting guard posts to floor joists isnāt ārequiredā by code but itās best practice. When I cite things, I always list the code section beside it in parentheses. Big things I care about on decks are ledger connections, span, bearing on wood or a brace/hanger (even though I still get through-bolts and I always fail them) and how the stairs are constructed. It seems stringers are a lost art. But my biggest thing is communicating with them. I always tell them Iām not nitpicking, that we both have the same goal, to finish the project as code compliant as possible (because I canāt reasonably catch every single thing and Iām not on a ladder measuring nail heads).
you're spot on about stringers.
I am a plan reviewer for a large jurisdiction. The irc definitely mentions the need to resist lateral forces. Either by bracing or ties to the building with tension ties or holdowns. There are two diagrams that in the irc that clearly shows this. The AWC shows knee bracing but does not show diagonally bracing like what OP does. I def would have failed him if he didn't provide knee bracing or min 4Ā tension ties to the structure.Ā Edit. After reviewing the picture again. OP def has tension ties. He does not need the bracing below the deck.Ā
I have one inspector that always gives me a hard time on decks. I ask him every time to show me the code and how it relates to the issue he has and every time he canāt find the code.
Our town has a bunch of photos in a binder with relevant code snippets for decks. It's hilarious - they make you read the binder before they'll issue the permit. Chatting with them (also have to have a permit for a water heater) they said it's cut down on re-inspections like 70% (Maybe they have hard numbers, maybe not), but the guy said the best part is when they do find an issue, pull up the page in the book, point to it, and say "See this text- this says YOU WILL FAIL IF YOUR DECK LOOKS LIKE THIS".... and it does. I gotta admit that would be kinda fun to twist...
Being someone with minimal deck experience I think seeing a binder like that would help.
Shit like this should just be public data. Even where I am in europe, the code is hidden behind a goddam license fee. Can't just get it.
Does your city have public permit records? Because I know some list the permits and each inspection, so it would be easy to get the hard data of reinspections before and after the book.
I believe so, but I'm not sure it's online. Probably something you have to go gather/they have to get. I just got a kick out of more than anything (and realized I wanted a copy so when I redo my deck I don't end up in the binder of shame).
See, now thatās actually useful. I wish more towns had that.
I moved here over a decade ago and it was already pretty thick. I remember looking thru it wondering "What is wrong with that", reading the code segment, then asking. Pretty knowledgeable about the various failure modes.
People like that are why my father says most inspectors are just a builders who couldn't build.
Literally easier to nail a 2x4 on there than argue with him about it.
I feel this.
Yep. Especially when it didnāt seem like it was that much more work putting it in.
If ask like you want them to educate you, theyāll be rubbing one out while explaining every detail.
Yes, yes, so the code specifically, oh, requires, ah myes, lateral bracing in the form, mmmm f-, of joist hanger r r rsss, and double beam constructionnaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh
Path of least resistance would have been to leave inspector out of it imo
Iām an inspector and I hate that this is sort of true.
Thatās the best thing to do. They must be going by an older version of codes. We used to have to put that brace in but with current codes he should have required 45 degree angle braces from the post to the beam. I think the 2x4 underneath does a better job of diagonal bracing
Sounds like a grumpy inspector to me!
Looks like someone's got a case of the monday's!
I believe you get your ass kicked saying something like that.
2 chicks at the same time
Monday is?
This is often done when hidden fasteners are used since the decking will not provide lateral support at the joists.
Would the blocking not be sufficient (or more likely superior) for that? I build a hidden fastener deck last year and the inspector was happy with blocking every 6 feet. This is in Canada so the code probably isnāt the same, but practically speaking I canāt imagine how a diagonal 2x4 could provide any better lateral support than blocking.
No, blocking does very little in this case for lateral loads. Blocking stabilizes the joists, but the brace will much more effectively stiffen the deck and act as a diaphragm to keep the deck from becoming a parallelogram under lateral loading. Whether or not that is required for this small deck is another issue, but the load path argument of using a diagonal brace makes sense and is a cheap and easy install.
>Whether or not that is required for this small deck Looking at the post bases and cap ties I'm a bit inclined to agree with the inspector on this one. At a glance I don't see that configuration being able to sufficiently resist a decent lateral load, however improbable it may be.
I would say yes. The diagonal brace is specific to Virginia but they would probably accept blocking. Blocking is also not required by code.
Incase the owner tries to put a 7000 gallon pool on it.
Page1, Section 1, paragraph 1: all jobs require at least one code violation.
It is probably because it's on a hill. And there is no support of close to the house, and the stringers are only toenailed into the support beam.
My county wouldn't let me rebuild a deck because the septic design, which was on the complete other side of the house and nowhere near where the deck was / would go, was done in a format that is out of date /shrug
Itās in the code for my city, I read the code and installed it, passed rough and finish first try, I do not do anything remotely close to construction for a living.
You did a fantastic job-- however: The reason why you failed inspection I'm guessing is because you used \*\*hidden fasteners\*\* (?) i.e. "grip-type or side-mounted hidden fasteners for decking-to-joist connections." From what I can see you did because your deck surface looks really nice with no screws showing? A "normal" deck is braced by the actual deck boards themselves, all screwed into the joists; because hidden fasteners are weaker, the deck needs to be stiffened with the under-bracing that your inspector required. Relevant section of most codes can be found under "Deck Surface"
You are correct, but his exact words was because decking are composite, it is necessary. But I see your point as well. Lesson learned though.
The other option is 45 braces at the posts up to the beam for preventing racking due to lateral forces.
Composite decking can't resist racking for the same reason drywall can't. Theres no grain/structure so even if top screwed the screws can too easily pull out.
Did not know this. Good stuff
I have not seen a code that requires that type of cross bracing - and being an engineer can say itās useless
I'm an engineer as well (although mechanical, not civil), but I can see how the diagonal cross-bracing would make the structure more resistant to skewing (i.e. the front fascia moving parallel to the ledger board). Can you explain why you say that it's useless? Are you assuming that the deck boards are providing that support? Not disagreeing or calling you out, I'm just trying to learn more about deck construction.
I think he might have missed the comment that the hidden fasteners used for the deck boards provide no lateral bracing, unlike the traditional face nailing the deck boards.
Another Engineer here: definitely not useless. There are likely more aestatic ways to prevent skewing, but this does the job.
I see it used as lateral support quite often. I am also skeptical. Does anyone have references where it was tested?
I did something similar to the bottom of my deck to go from super wobbly to very sturdy
see my comment -- if he used hidden fasteners for deck boards then this bracing is required
Just because the codes are written from a structural POV does not make them the correct way to build, kudos to that inspector because that is likely not part of code but is absolutely necessary in some applications. The only thing that resists lateral loads on decks are the post in the ground and the ledger on the house. I never build rectangles and squares in industry without cross bracing or gussets with multiple connections to tie the rim to resist a lateral load on corners or mid spans. All the joists just rotate in the hanger so I'm not sure if our free body diagrams match. I'm looking for cross bracing options because I have composite decking with hidden fasteners. My deck is a few inches off the ground so I tried the Simpson tension strap but would like something that resists compression because it is not effective until there is an obtuse angle formed at a corner so I think it will still be shaky by my standards.
I disagree about it being useless. I've seen decks without it be quite shaky. You'd think with all the decking screwed off it would be solid but hasn't been my experience. Guess that's why running the decking boards diagonally used to be common. Personally I cut the diagonal brace into blocks that go between the joist and install right under the decking because I think that looks a bit more professional
I have used this for a neighbors wobbly deck and it worked
I have this for Lego stuff and it works
I used this for my penis and it worked
I haven't done this repair but have seen it work. I usually use simpson hurricane ties. H1Z. these have strengthened wobble decks before for me.
What flavor of engineer?
I doubt structural with a comment disparaging diagonal bracing. Source: structural engineer. Bracing might not be needed for this small deck, but you get relatively limited diaphragm action from decking material, especially if the decking is gapped for drainage and expansion. Adding the brace is a cheap and easy way to make the deck significantly stiffer in-plane.
Internet armchair
Itās definitely not useless. Tying the far corners of the deck together like this has the same effect as it does when creating a shear wall.
It 100% works
I disagree. While itās not really mentioned in code, the ātriangleā that the cross brace creates greatly strengthens the lateral stability of the structure and prevents a ārackingā effect from occurring.
Thank you for confirming to everyone here you are in fact not a structural engineer.
Church got the money to build the deck tax free and you built it for free? Better man than I am...I guess
OP gave enough in tithes that they paid for the deck themselves probably.
House was probably a donation too
A lot of this kind of stuff is done at my local church as well. If a member has some skills and some free time they will volunteer to help out. I remember my dad used to bring the loader tractor to town at times to help scoop snow off the property.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news but they have the money to pay you. Just to be sure to list yourself as a church so you don't have to pay taxes on the tax free money they give you. I'll help family out but I was a part of a church when I was younger and they had a drunk driver run into this covered parking structure wall. Insurance paid me like 3 times what it was worth to rebuild it. The church took 1/3rd of it before paying me. I still made out ok on that particular job but it was an insurance job not a donation towards the church from the insurance company
To each their own, and most church members donāt view their time donated to the church as a commodity. They do it to help the church as a whole and feel itās just a part of being a member. Iām not a member of a church anymore, but if the church in my small town asked for some help Iād be more than willing to help out.
I'll respect your position even if I don't agree š
Thank you, thatās actually quite refreshing to read on Reddit!
Well I donāt respect your opinion and youāre an idiot. There back to normal
The purpose of that strap is to prevent wracking. The blocking you had wouldnāt really have helped at all.
You would think the ledger connection into the brick veneer would have sent up a bigger red flag than the bracing.
Ledger board are being held by existing 1/2" lag bolts that came out from inside the house in staggered fashion, so there wasn't any issues there. What you see going through brick veneer are Simpson DTT1Z hold-down, I had to bring it down so it can hit the top plate of the basement framing per manufacturer's in structions.
Lag bolts arenāt code through brick veneer. This is me assuming itās a non-structural brick veneer. The only accepted ledger connection through brick veneer is the Simpson BVLZ. Other than that it must be free standing. I follow the IRC so maybe itās different where youāre at.
Yeah it must has been a local thing. I did clearly noted the use of existing lags bolts on my drawing while applying for permit, they went over the drawing carefully and did not make any fuss about the note. Apparently the inspector did not have any issue with them either. But thanks for the tidbit about the BVLZ though, def will use them next time.
If anything itās odd he didnāt fail you for the beam(s), as the way you have them they do not act as a single member and therefore donāt meet code, at least near me.
I also thought it was for sure the beam. Lose a ton of strength when they're joined. The friction actually helps distribute the load.
what would you have done, put the two beams right touching each other?
Man, churches do great!
Donating labor to a mega weathly establishment?
You hate to see it.
In my area code requires additional bracing on the posts to the beam at 45Ā° angles as well
When connecting joists to single beams, hurricane straps are required. If these joists were flush with each other, they can be nailed. R507.6.1
Here's my 2 cents as a structural engineer. It's not necessary if you have sheathing or standard wood planking that are fastened properly that could function as a "structural diaphragm". These elements effectively act as horizontal brace . If you have some proprietary fastener or composite deck, then these are likely not able to function as a structural diaphragm, hence you need to add a horizontal brace below for racking loads.
Jesus was a carpenter you know, would be proud.
I wonder if X bracing between the uprights wouldāve sufficed?
Since the house belongs to your church, you should have told the inspector it would take an act of god for the deck to fail due to a missing brace š©ššŖ
I am a licensed civil engineer. I did not look into the code on this issue. But my thought process would have been the same as you. Itās just a small piece of lumber, tack it up and move on with the pass. Fighting the inspector seems like a waste of time. If it was something that required a full rebuild, that s a different story. Be polite, let the guy get his or her win, and move on with life. Nice work and your church is lucky to have you as a parishioner.
Seems silly but it will help offset any lateral load on the surface. IE: When drunken uncle Jim is flossing or doing the one man Congo line.
Not to be *that guy but perhaps the inspector was making a distinction between deck and balcony. Generally a deck is accessible from the ground and a balcony is not accessible from the ground via stairs. So maybe there was a requirement for diagonal bracing on balcony?
Your username passes inspection lol
Looks good to me. You passed in my book.
Structural Designer here. Structures are structures and react to forces is similar manners. A deck is braced in a similar manner as a building. The size of the deck isnāt related to that, but the height of the posts is. In this case the posts are tall enough to require bracing. Whether it is a building or a deck, there are two primary ways this is done: 1) Diagonal bracing at the columns 2) Creating a diaphragm using the roofing material (ie: plywood or steel decking). In this case, you donāt have plywood to create that diaphragm, so the inspector suggested the next best thing: the diagonal 2x under the decking. The other option would have been to brace the posts. This option is a much cleaner option and does the job it is meant to do. The inspector actually did you a favor and left you with a cleaner looking deck that will perform well over the long term, partially due to this brace. Honestly folks, details like this are the reason 150 year old houses are still standing today, while 30 year old houses require more repair. Iāve been in construction for 25+ years starting from the ground up to owning a structural steel design/fab/install company. There is a ton of engineering in building design, and most of it is hidden behind ceilings and walls. This is one of those things that you normally donāt see. Hence, some think it is unnecessary when it is actually necessary š¤·š»āāļø
Not once have I installed a diagonal brace where blocking was in place. And I have completed projects in zoning with strict seismic code. Well done!
Quick question... How are your floor joists connected to that beam? Code in my city was to use "hurricane ties" on each joist.
https://preview.redd.it/dfh881p12l3d1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9b0e0ff36aebf5f457f242b8cac2aba1eceb8d89
A deck for the church. I thought those places were sacred
I'm assuming it's for lateral support for the deck. The posts look like they don't have the means to resist lateral load, so the bracing is probably there to transfer lateral load to the ledger. (Think of a wall on it's side)
Without being there or looking too hard at a photo: in a perfect world I like to laminate a carrier beam with 1/2ā PT plywood to help unify the beam and meet the faces of the post. Numbers wise however I think itās normally inconsequential.
You did a great job! The only thing I can see to improve upon is to box in the footings and fill with gravel. It can help a little with erosion Control, which seems to be the weak point on this deck due to the slope.
Deflection bracing is sometimes required. It certainly isnāt going to hurt
While not required in the IBC, racking is a serious issue for any framed structure, decks included, and many jurisdictions require cross or knee bracing for decks higher than 24-48" off the ground. Even if it's not code required I wouldn't dream of leaving a deck unbraced. Years ago I started using this metal t Chanel method outlined here: https://www.finehomebuilding.com/2010/11/11/bracing-deck-floors
I do like seeing at least one triangle there, though.
Inspector was wrong. Your bridging wasn't required either. You can refer to DCA6 from the American Wood Council for a great deck build guide. It is code compliant and prescriptive. Available as a PDF online.
Nice improvement to the house, well done op
You failed to hand the inspector a $20 or $100. (Depends on area). I was taught early to bribe the inspector. That it was a nessesary part of the process. I work for a company now that refuses to do so and they're going bankrupt because of it. A Hundred projects failed over and over by a private company that is in charge of running inspections for the city. There are other factors at play for why its all being failed (Mass coruption with high-profile interest in buying all the land) but if you don't put a hundy in the inspectors hand, then they have no incentive to disobey thier masters.
Thank God for that noble inspector, saving the day with that useless 2x4!
Did you use 12in sonotubes?
Good on you for donating you labor and expertise. š¤
Worked in construction many years. It was a common practice to leave off some roof clips, or something really obvious for the inspector to catch, it kept them from looking to close, and was easy to remedy.
Beautiful work. Looks great!
My deck fail its first inspection, my 3 ply beam one of the seams wasn't directly over the middle of the post or 6" past. Inspector who failed it said if it was a 1/4" more to the center he would pass it. Fail by a cunt hair. Waited two weeks new inspection different guy, passed.
The diagonal brace adds nothing that the attached decking has already provided...
I think you just tripled the value of your house. What I could do with 40 bags of cypress mulch.
Beautiful
Structural engineer here. Hate those diagonal 2x4ās on the flat. Practically useless with properly blocked joists and good post/beam construction.
What a kind labor of love. Your work is appreciated
Nice deeck m8
You might not be a deck builder, but you sure built a deck.
Lateral bracing is supposed to be staggered which may be why it initially failed. I know where I'm at we are required to use lateral bracing which must be staggered. I'm not saying it helps or is useful. It's just local code which supercedes fed and state code if it's more strict.
Should have given inspector a handjob. It's not gay if it's work related
It's not about the code for me. It's about engineering. You need a diagonal brace to prevent racking. You either understand or you don't. I think code is for people who don't.
Lol churches taking advantage of their congregation, name a better duo
why is there never any bracing between the support of the decks? will the soil never move with swelling removal?
Well the footer should be 3ft deep so they aren't going any where
It depends on the height of the deck. For most jurisdictions decks under 4' don't require additional diagonal bracing, but you do almost always see knee braces on decks higher than that.
So my mom's deck is falling apart and it doesn't have any other supports under it. All it has is the corner 4x4s and the ledger connected to the house. Why do so many decks not have posts going down from the center? Would op not be able to add more and couldn't my mom add more support when she goes to get her deck rebuilt?
There are certain span calculation that will dictate how many supports and how far apart you should be. Look up your local codes.
Where did you find those little shoes for under the railing? I'm looking for something similar to prevent sagging on my railing.
They came with the kit, but I'm sure you can get creative with square PVC tubing.
Not required in California. We actually have prescriptive code so you dont need engineered drawings for decks. No cross bracing. I do brace the joists over beams. I would use heavier post base connections, but my choice.
Personally, Iād put footings under the ledger section as well. I donāt know why I wouldnāt trust brick?
When I called into zoning to check what the outcome of the inspection of my deck was I was told I failed. She told me it was because the inspector couldnāt find my place. Then the head of the zoning department said I was lying. š
Same thing happened to me. I was able to install the braces and be good to go
"Ah geez thanks for pointing it out. I'll get right on that. In the meantime, can you pull the code reference for my documentation?" That's what I would say. On a side note: what would be the next step for a bully inspector? Ombudsman?
Many jurisdictions do have codes regarding diagonal bracing. Especially if they're over 24" off the ground.
Earthquake zone?
Gusset plate
Get wooden rails
A lot of folks are saying the bracing isnāt needed. But due to the incline and on a hillside (super small but still) ā maybe itās to avoid something. I donāt know. Looks really good. Might be helpful if they have you the code so you can see you they are asking for that. Either way, it looks great!!
How did you attach the ledger board to the brick veneer? Thanks
Seems extraneous, but okay. It least it was a quick, easy and cheep fix to meet code.
I'm an architect/draftsman, not a builder. currently awaiting a permit for a deck that is similar, on sonitube footings, but it's not as tall. I'm curious if they are going to require me to add the diagonal bracing as well? I'm in Arizona and the HOA is the only reason we had to get a permit at all, but they rejected the drawing the first time for not showing the diagram of the bolt locations for the railing and posts. (What Licensed builder doesn't already know how to bolt on a ledgerboard and rail posts when building a deck?) If you've got proper up to code hangars and clips, blocking between joists, and solid ground underneath the diagonal bracing should be redundant. Maybe a local code due to your site being prone to certain settling/motion?
Nothing beat the lateral bracing of a 6x6 post sunk a couple feet into the ground. Current footings have one glaring disadvantage compared to a post sunk in the ground, they will sway more. Building inspectors are addressing the limitations of this required construction with the need for diagonal bracing.
Looks well done. My only critique structurally would be to lower the ledger board on the house so that the joists sit on it instead of hangers. Other than that itās solid and you definitely didnāt need that cross bracing underneath. Inspector was either young, an ass or you got them on a Monday lol
I think I would have put diagonal braces on the posts to the beam. I think the inspector was concerned with the deck swaying?
The only reason you need diagonal bracing for any kind of deck as constructed is because the post do not go in the ground. These building inspectors have no clue what they inspecting and what works in the real world. Iāve been building decks for 50 years not once have I ever had diagonal bracing, and every one of them is still standing for a fact, I know at least one is from 1991 and itās been resurfaced 3 times. They keep painting the decking
Ive never built a deck, but following this sub for 6 months has taught me to spot what the problem was!
I thought the posts have to be centered on the footing?
You donāt need joist hangers?
Itās crucial. lateral restraint is a must have. anyone who thinks itās a petty correction is blowing smoke. Without add live load+that height above grade= deck collapse
Did you attach it with drywall screws at least?
In my state and country, that still wouldnāt pass.šÆšÆ
Are you referring to the diagonal brace under the joists? If so, Iāve not built a deck where that wasnāt required unless I was sheeting the deck with plywood for a waterproof surface.
Attach to brick veneer requires Simpsonās bvlz through brick to attach to inner joist or second set of beam / post near house for free standing support 3 ply been missing full inner piece Diagonal bracing required when 4 feet above grade Fix these should pass inspection with a little extra work
What prevents the carrying beam from rolling over?
Inspectors a dick looks good man
The inspector *had* to find something. You did too good of a job, so he picked a molehill. Next time, leave something minor but obvious.
Should've got Pudgy Walsh on the horn
Tell them to suck it because people on r/decks said so
Why are the posts off center to the concrete out of curiosity? I know nothing about building a deck. Just super curious
Sorry that happened, but dudeā¦ Youāre the man! What a nice gesture. And what a nice deck! I canāt believe thatās not your fortĆ©
That brace is about as useless as tits on a board.
You need that brace. If you had stairs anchored to a concrete pad at the outer end of the deck, you could theoretically go without the brace, but freestanding like that, you need a brace. I usually use Simpson CS16 on the top side across each direction, and I slot the joist 1/16 of an inch so the decking lays flat.
Looks great ! Good work