No ledger board (none)

[David D. Whitt]

No ledger board. The joist hangers are attached directly to the rim joist.
Question: Why would this be inappropriate? I have DCA6-09 from the American Wood Counsel.

Similar Threads:

• From the old board, Sprayed Panels
• From the old board, Acceptable Repairs
• From the old board, Wet Panel
• The new board looks great
• Tip 1: A different view of the board.

[Billy Stephens]

No ledger board. The joist hangers are attached directly to the rim joist.
Question: Why would this be inappropriate? I have DCA6-09 from the American Wood Counsel.

.
Because it is Load Bearing.

To be corrected ( as shown) load bearing in ground set below the frost line post needs attached to support this end of the deck.
.

[David D. Whitt]

Billy,
The joist hangers are bearing the load from the deck and the ledger board is bolted to the rim joist. If the ledger board of the deck is a nominal size to the rim joist, why then is the ledger board necessary? We take a 2x? and bolt it to the house then nail hangers to it. Why not bypass bolting a board to the house and nail directly to the rim joist?

[Ken Rowe]

The joist hangers are not nailed to the rim joist. They're nailed to the siding. It's also missing the appropriate flashing and not all the nail holes are utilized in the joist hangers. It's a 10pm news story waiting to happen.

[Jack Feldmann]

Is that siding we see, or is it flashing? Obviously there are several nail holes left to be filled (with appropriate size and type of fastener), but if it is flashing and not siding, It might be strong enough to hold the deck up.

It might be better than some decks I see that have a ledger board held up with 4 or 5 nails instead of bolts.

[David D. Whitt]

The joist hangers are not nailed to the rim joist. They're nailed to the siding. It's also missing the appropriate flashing and not all the nail holes are utilized in the joist hangers. It's a 10pm news story waiting to happen.

All
I addressed both of those issues in the report to the homeowner. The deck builder put aluminum fascia metal, used AS the flashing, up under the Vynal siding on the home and ran it down directly in front of the rim joist. The joist hanger is nailed into the rim joist through what they consider flashing. The only thing between the joist hanger and the rim joist IS the metal.
My question still remains the same. Regardless of what other issues that anyone sees, Why can the joist hangers not be nailed directly into the rim joist? the answer I do not wish to have, and which is the obvious one is that, "thats what the code reads."
Please do not misunderstand me, the code writers and developers must have had a reason in mind when they wrote that there is to be a ledger board, I just want to know what that is. This is the kind of historical perspective that i look for when explaining these things to the guy who built the deck and i do not have a answer other than, thats what the code reads. I have built decks but not to the extent that I have seen every situation.

[David D. Whitt]

Is that siding we see, or is it flashing? Obviously there are several nail holes left to be filled (with appropriate size and type of fastener), but if it is flashing and not siding, It might be strong enough to hold the deck up.

It might be better than some decks I see that have a ledger board held up with 4 or 5 nails instead of bolts.

It is flashing. I addresed the issue that even though the flashing may be protecting the majority of the rim/sill that the nail holes penetrating THROUGH the flashing could be an issue. Where with a ledger board you may have 14+ big holes the joist hangers have hundreds of small holes that water can get into and that the flashing is typically used to move water away from the house/rim/ledger and the penetrations in the ledger. He is going to fill all of the holes as required in the hangers.

Hypothesis: Would a ledger board be called out because there are several different applications for deck design and the deck rulemakers wanted to cover all of the possible avenues with one approach. Maybe they understand that more times than not, a contractor will not remove the siding back to the rim joist in order to attach the hangers, if even used.
Thanks

[Garry Sorrells]

Wood Council wants you to use as much wood as possible?

[Ken Rowe]

The flashing doesn't do any good once they nailed through it. Water will follow the nails into the rim joist causing rot. This is only one reason why a stepped out ledger board is preferred.

Why can the joist hangers not be nailed directly into the rim joist? Because it can't be appropriately flashed.

[Jack Feldmann]

From a strength standpoint, I think it's probably OK. However, as Ken pointed out, each nail puts a hole in the flashing, kind of defeating the purpose.

HOWEVER #2, when you put a ledger board over the flashing, you poke a bunch of holes in it from the bolts that hold the ledger board to the rim joist, and hanger nails that go thru the hanger, ledger, and flashing. IF you nail a 2x2 for the joists to rest on, you put at least three nails at each joist, some may go thru the flashing too.

Seems like flashing gets a bunch of holes in it no matter what application you do.

[Vern Heiler]

Without a deck ledger board, there is no way to protect the rim joist with flashing.

[James Duffin]

Here is what NC says about attaching a deck to a house. It does not say you have to have a ledger board. Only a treated band.

3. When attached to a structure, the structure to which
attached shall have a treated wood band for the length of
the deck or corrosion-resistant flashing shall be used to
prevent moisture from coming in contact with the untreated framing of the structure.

[brian schmitt]

no ledger board required. counterflash the flashing if you want!

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

I don't see one bolt. No boltie no hangie, just like no tickie no laundry.

[brian schmitt]

I don't see one bolt. No boltie no hangie, just like no tickie no laundry.

watson,
you have gone over the edge! baby talk? seek help! positive attachment is what you are required to have and a simpson hanger just might qualify!

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

All
Why can the joist hangers not be nailed directly into the rim joist? the answer I do not wish to have, and which is the obvious one is that, "thats what the code reads."

Because the rim joist or band joist is not a beam.

It would not have been designed to handle the additional loads and forces (a mere rim or band joist). Just as you double up to make a header in a floor assembly where there will be an opening such for a stair - That bolted on board becomes a made beam or header.

Band joists/rim joists may be nailed - the uplift, sheer, etc. from the attached deck may also pull the band joist out at its fastener points, or fail from the stress. Dead load of the deck itself, live loading (motion activities of the load on the deck), the snow, rain, wind, straight winds, etc. The deck support may well have to be larger in size - as indoor floor assembly isn't generally subject to straight winds indoors, massive uplift, rain and/or snow loads, or that percipitation flowing off the roof.

The second bolted board/made beam/header distributes the force(s) load(s) transfered via the hangers deck side and the deck joists themselves, without compromising the integrity of the original structure. You have lumber in different directions - its not like you have continuous joists extending from the floor assembly in the house out to form the deck with an intermediate support.

You might be interested in downloading (free) and reviewing some of the OTHER materials at the American Wood Council (awc.org). You might start with their basic overall conventional lumber framing guide, then work forward from there and further explore the characterisics and properties of lumber, etc. Perhaps if you better understood the framing and construction of the building - you might better understand the requirements for attaching a deck to same.

[Billy Stephens]

Billy,
The joist hangers are bearing the load from the deck and the ledger board is bolted to the rim joist. If the ledger board of the deck is a nominal size to the rim joist, why then is the ledger board necessary? We take a 2x? and bolt it to the house then nail hangers to it. Why not bypass bolting a board to the house and nail directly to the rim joist?

.
The Joist Hangers distribute the load to the ledger board ( they do not carry the load but distribute it to the ledger.)

If the ledger board is not bolted lateral and extraction forces are applied to pull the deck away from the structure as well as the downward load.
.
A rim joist alone is not designed nor sufficiency secured to the structure to accomplish the greater loads required to support a deck and it's intended live loads.
.
.
.

[Ray Thornburg]

The real question is can a beam sitting on a continuous block wall support the load imposed on it....( I assume it is a 2x 10 rim joist but it may be even bigger such as a 4x12) which I believe is yes

[David D. Whitt]

The real question is can a beam sitting on a continuous block wall support the load imposed on it....( I assume it is a 2x 10 rim joist but it may be even bigger such as a 4x12) which I believe is yes

Ray,

It is a 2x10.

[Ray Thornburg]

When I look at that picture more closely I begin to realize why they didn't put that nail in the joist hanger.....it is because it would have hit the concrete block.....it appears that the foundation vent was brought to the top of the last course in which case the joists are hanging down below the rim joist. The chalk line you see in the pic is where they knew the block stopped. This type of instillation is improper in my opinion. It needs additional support from below now that they have done it that way.

[John Kogel]

The flashing is not right going down behind the hangers like that. It should have a right angle bend resting on top of the joist ends, so that water runs out away from the wall. This keeps the joist ends dry. Done right, the flashing does not get punctured by a bunch of nails.

[David D. Whitt]

When I look at that picture more closely I begin to realize why they didn't put that nail in the joist hanger.....it is because it would have hit the concrete block.....it appears that the foundation vent was brought to the top of the last course in which case the joists are hanging down below the rim joist. The chalk line you see in the pic is where they knew the block stopped. This type of instillation is improper in my opinion. It needs additional support from below now that they have done it that way.

OMG you are correct. I pulled the original inspection photos. This is a reinspection. I did the first inspection in March of last year and condemed the deck. I noted improper attachment o the house, no bolts, no hangers etc. The Bank replaced it with what we are discussing now. Here are the original pictures from the first inspection along with the two from my first post.
Thank you Ray

[Ray Thornburg]

Looks like they lowered the deck.....anyway.....It wouldn't be too hard to fix a problem like this......a good carpenter could fix this in a couple of hours

[Stuart Brooks]

It was a cheap and quick fix that was supposed to look good. Since a bank was involved, I assume the house was selling "as is" so there would be no recourse to the buyer. I attached photo indicating the approximate top of foundation wall behind the metal flashing. I did that before I saw the "before" pictures.

[Bruce King]

How long are the deck joists?

Looks like a ledger needs to be well bolted to the block wall under those joists. Then metal shims to provide some actual support at each joist.

If the deck is large, the bolts should go all the way through the block and through another ledger that is on the other side.

[Stuart Brooks]

As per Bruce's suggestion. Another alternative is to set posts and a beam a foot or so away from the foundation to take the load of the deck.

[Garry Sorrells]

It was a cheap and quick fix that was supposed to look good. Since a bank was involved, I assume the house was selling "as is" so there would be no recourse to the buyer. I attached photo indicating the approximate top of foundation wall behind the metal flashing. I did that before I saw the "before" pictures.

I don't know about cheep-quick fix.
Look at before and after picts closely. It really looks like there is all new materials. Bottom of deck boards look fresh, joists have grading stamps visible, joists are in different locations. Looks like they rebuilt the deck????? And you didn't have any idea if the ledger board had any attachments due to flashing did you???

David were the materials replaced?

[Ray Thornburg]

Around here house foundations are only about a foot below grade .....simply but a beam under the ends of the joists and support it with 4x4s directly on top of the house footing which should be sticking out about six inches.....throw some concrete around it and maybe a few lag bolts and you're done...cheap....easy and since there is low clearance under the deck nobody will ever even see the supports unless they bend over

[Alex Damgaard]

The vertical support of this installation is questionable, the lack of lateral support (the primary cause of deck collapses) is obvious. The most current edition of the IRC gives a prescriptive detail for a ledger connected assembly when supported by a wall. It requires a minimum of 2 hold-down tension devices (each with 1500 lbs of allowble stress design) attached to the floor framing inside the house. R502.2.2.3 speaks to this. Figure R502.2.2.3 is the provided detail.

There is a non-prescriptive provision for not using a ledger: R502.2.2.2 Alternate deck ledger connections. "Deck ledger connections not conforming to Table R502.2.2.1 (ledger fastener schedule and type) shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice."

I think it would be hard to find an engineer that would buy off on the installation in question.

Alex Damgaard
Austin Area Inspections

[Alex Damgaard]

Here is that detail.

[James Duffin]

The requirements seem to vary from state to state as the NC version of the IRC has no such requirements as shown in your picture. Also it states that lateral bracing is only required of the deck is over 4' high and then only on the side parallel to the house if the deck is attached to the house.

[Alex Damgaard]

The detail that I posted is a new requirement.
Even if the house was built to an old standard, joist hangers and toe nails provide no pull strength (lateral support). This deck is designed to pull away from the house.

Alex Damgaard

[brian schmitt]

The detail that I posted is a new requirement.
Even if the house was built to an old standard, joist hangers and toe nails provide no pull strength (lateral support). This deck is designed to pull away from the house.

Alex Damgaard

i would check the listing on simpson double shear (hint, hint) nailing hangers before i made such a statement as to the lack of lateral support.

[James Duffin]

This is what the NC code says. Notice the last sentence in bold that excludes the requirement in this section.


RS02.2.2 Decks.

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. Such attachment shall not be accomplished by the
use of toenails or nails subject to withdrawal. Where positive
connection to the primary building structure cannot be verified
during inspection, decks shall be self- supporting. For
decks with cantilevered framing members, connections to
exterior walls or other framing members, shall be designed
and constructed to resist uplift resulting from the full live load
specified in Table R301.5 acting on the cantilevered portion
of the deck. Exterior decks shall he permitted to he constructed

in accordance with Appendix M

[Alex Damgaard]

Deck collapses are rare. Usually they are from nailed or rotten (improperly flashed) ledgers. My statement that the deck pictured was designed to pull away from the house may have been a bit overly critical, I would use different phasing on a report. Brian Schmitt is right to call me on it. The most relevant thing I would like to communicate about wall supported decks is that lateral support with tension ties is a new requirement and not easily achieved in existing decks, or to new decks installed on an existing house. Attached is my correspondence with Simpson Strong Tie technical support regarding the matter.

Alex Damgaard

[Robert Hronek]

Rim joists are nailed to the end of the floor joists. A ledger board needs to be bolted to the floor joist becuase nails are not strong enough. So how is it a nailed rim joist would be strong enough to support the deck?

[Steve Duchene]

Aluminum flashing can not be used with ACQ lumber as the treatment will deteriorate the metal. It needs to be galvanized or isolated from the wood.

[Garry Sorrells]

Aluminum flashing can not be used with ACQ lumber as the treatment will deteriorate the metal. It needs to be galvanized or isolated from the wood.

Actually you really need to use stainless steel.
If you look at the nitty gritty of the manufacture testing reports you will find that the pt wood with CU if in wet conditions requires SS to prevent reaction between products.
If the PT wood is not subject to wetting then they say that galvanized is OK but must be dipped and not electro coated.
Non metal-coated materials work within certain limitations.
Ceramic coated is supposed to be OK but in practical application I find that with screws that the thread edges have the coating stripped off when you drive them in leaving the metal exposed.
When the change came into effect I became concerned about longevity of the hardware and fastners that I was going to be using, did not want call backs and wanted to be building for the long term. So I dug deep into the testing and found that the customer was going to be hit with a big increase in cost for the stainless steel hardware and fastners needed. Thanks to the tree huggers and our government.

I have been looking at the lumber and fasteners used a lot more closely and noting it to clients. If you are in a dry climate then the concern is diminished.

Sorry for any miss direction of the original thread and discussion. This Cu PT crap has really gotten under my skin as of late.

[Ray Thornburg]

The problem with stainless steel is that it is a very soft metal and probably should not be used for structural strength....it's ok for screwing deck boards to the floor joist though.....you'll just have to pre bore the holes to keep the heads from twisting off....I like to use the painted deck screws and paslode nails where needed

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

The problem with stainless steel is that it is a very soft metal and probably should not be used for structural strength....

Please explain and support this statement.


Missed your introduction (was there one?), and profile is blank, on what basis do you make such statements?

[Ray Thornburg]

Hey there Mr. Watson....I'm a home builder from South Carolina...I thought this was common knowledge about stainless steel.....anyway....while I do not have time to research this at this time I will say that there is a common misconceived notion that stainless steel is strong or stronger than other metals.....anybody who has ever worked on a car or tried to turn a stainless steel screw knows how soft it is...(just ask your machinist). I know they make different grades of every metal and maybe they make a grade that has a suitable shear strength.....Or maybe you could just use more fasteners. Can you find a stainless steel nail or screw that specifically says it can be used for structural applications? I can only find "approved for exterior use" or something like that. I am ready to stand corrected if need be.

[David D. Whitt]

I don't know about cheep-quick fix.
Look at before and after picts closely. It really looks like there is all new materials. Bottom of deck boards look fresh, joists have grading stamps visible, joists are in different locations. Looks like they rebuilt the deck????? And you didn't have any idea if the ledger board had any attachments due to flashing did you???

David were the materials replaced?

Sorry Gary I stopped getting notifications about this thread and did not see your post. The "builder" reconstructed it the exact same way he took the old one down. All new materials were used. There was no ledger board. After I addressed the issues on this message board, I went to my client and recommended that the ledger board be added to the deck. I have not heard anything since.
I know that a ledger board is needed and as always, clarification comes from great discussions like what this board offers. I certainly gain more than I give at this time, but appreciate all those who take their valuable time to help clarify and even in some instances give constructive (not destructive) criticism to those of us not as experienced or just in need of help.

Thank you very much for your time. ((()))