Deck to existing house 2

[JStructsteel]

Got a new deck against a existing brick veneer house. The existing deck is reported to have a ledger outside the veneer thru bolted to the structure. Code does not allow deck ledger to be supported on masonry or stone. Architect wants to do the new ledger the same, but I dont see how its not bearing on the brick. Also, if a sandwich type connection, how do you not collapse the air space.

To me, the brick has to be cut and ledger let into the brick to the rim joist.

The new deck is big, LL reaction is 400lbs/ft and 80lbs/ft DL.

Any other great ideas?

Client does not want a beam line close to the house. I thought about turning the framing, but then I would have beam point loads at the house.

Any other ideas?

 

[Dvdt18]

Perhaps the Simpson Strong Tie BVLZ? Unsure if they'd have approval in your state yet, but may be worth consideration if it meets the loading.

https://www.strongtie.com/deckconnectors_decks/bvl_plate/p/bvlz#LoadTables

 

[XR250]

The code is inconsistent. It says not to bear on the brick yet allows thru-bolted ledgers in veneer.
If the original ledger has been working, I would re-use it.
I usually bolt thru the brick based on code bolt size and spacing. Let's face it, the brick has a ton of capacity unless you are over a lintel - in which case, that need to be sized adequately for the additional load.

 

[STrctPono]

You must be referencing IRC 2012 Section 507.9.1.1.

I think Dvdt18 has got it right. That simpson strong tie connector would work.

 

[XR250]

I considered using the BVLZ on a recent job but ended up simply bearing the bolts on the brick. The connector is expensive and looks pretty fiddly to install correctly. My money says the old school way has a ton more capacity in most situations.

 

[phamENG]

XR250 - one issue can be the code reviewers and inspectors. More and more of them are freaking out if you suggest using the brick veneer for anything more than just pretty siding. I think there's a good reason for that in general, but for a modest residential deck a few feet off the ground it's usually not a big deal if the workmanship is good and materials are in good shape. Anything more than about 8 feet off the ground gets a bit dicey, though. It's pretty rare for veneer ties to 1) be installed correctly and 2) be made of a corrosion resistant material so it's a safe bet you have a 3-5/8" thick unbraced masonry panel to work with. Gets a bit dicey if it's very tall.

 

[XR250]

It's pretty rare for veneer ties to 1) be installed correctly and 2) be made of a corrosion resistant material so it's a safe bet you have a 3-5/8" thick unbraced masonry panel to work with.

I def. agree with this statement as many houses I have been involved with completely lacked ties. That being said, I have yet to see a buckled veneer wall in my 29 years in this business and I have looked at over 5,000 houses. I'll run the numbers on an 8 ft. tall, pinned, pinned wall next time I run into this and see how it pans out.

Regardless, the code still contradicts itself. It allows a thru bolted ledger connection which clearly is using the brick as bearing yet it explicitly does not allow the brick to be bearing.

 

[JStructsteel]

Thanks for all the replies. Based on my loads, the BVLZ would be at 14" o.c., and is alot of work. I agree the code is subjective on this issue, but thru bolt is the better of the 2.

 

[SteelPE]

That Simpson connector definitely looks fiddly. It seems like a good idea that would be highly reliant on the ability of the installer. Capacities are not that large either. So you are basically going to need them installed at 16" o.c. Also, what happens if, for whatever reason, you don't hit the rim joist?

Seems like installing a separate post system adjacent to the structure would be required. That's going to be a really tough sell to the client. Good luck with that.

 

[RWW0002]

The code is inconsistent. It says not to bear on the brick yet allows thru-bolted ledgers in veneer.

Is it though? I do not see where the prescriptive requirements of IRC 2012 or later allows the thru-bolted connection in veneer and DCA 6 specifically prohibits it based on my reading.

When this has been brought up on here in the past there seems to be a spit between those who feel like the brick should be fine for some small loads and those that feel that no load at all should be imparted to brick veneer based on the quality of residential brick construction.
Locally, our code officials will not allow a thru-bolt connection to the ledger (but they do allow some pretty abysmal details trying to justify keeping load off the brick..)

I have suggested the BVLZ in the past but have a little concern about lateral capacity parallel to the exterior wall. While the BVLZ appears to be a good (although a bit cumbersome) solution for vertical load transfer, it does not do much for you for lateral load. Although it is easy enough to address code-prescribed lateral load perpendicular to the brick wall with Simpson DTT ties or similar, there is definitely some "longitudinal" lateral load demand that has been addressed in the past with the inherent lateral capacity of standard ledger connections (to rim or to brick). I worry a bit about losing that capacity with this type of connection.

 

[XR250]

 

[XR250]

That Simpson connector definitely looks fiddly. It seems like a good idea that would be highly reliant on the ability of the installer. Capacities are not that large either. So you are basically going to need them installed at 16" o.c. Also, what happens if, for whatever reason, you don't hit the rim joist?

Exactly or if the rim joist is some crappy 1" OSB or just an I-joist (another reason I hate I-joist floor systems!)

 

[RWW0002]

That chart does not look familiar, may be a NC only addendum...

Personally I feel like supporting deck ledgers from veneer (for in plane load and gravity load) seems like a reasonable approach in most cases, especially if load perpendicular to the wall is addressed separately with thru-wall ties of some kind.

Prescriptive codes like the IRC, with some exceptions, seem to disagree though.