'Let in' deck beam?

Reply

  #1  
Old 05-03-16, 08:59 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 3
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
'Let in' deck beam?

Background

I am thinking of building a deck for our 1.5 year old home. The deck will be approximately ~220 sq. ft., 8.5 feet above grade, and over the unfinished walk-out basement. The height of the deck requires that I get a permit - and I need some help to validate the advice I am getting from the plan examiner in the town's permit area.

Initially I was thinking of having two rows of pier/posts to support the deck - with the first row of piers to be about 1.5' from the home. The plan examiner discouraged me from this idea, as the soil close to the home is likely not 'settled' as the home is new.

Next I was thinking about a ledger (bolted to rim joist/blocking inside the basement). The examiner is not too thrilled with the idea, but agrees that this is likely the only option. So we are okay on that front.

Concern - need help

The current stairway plan calls for a 3.5' x 3.5' landing. Initially I went with ledgers / post to support the landing as well. However the examiner is suggesting that I 'let in' the beams that support the landing instead of ledgers i.e., have the beams go through brick veneer to inside the basement and support it with a 2-2X4 posts between studs. He is suggesting this as the landing falls in a corner that has walls on two sides.

I am concerned with the approach above as I have not seen many examples of this online. Also concerned with water/moisture getting into the basement.

Anyone out there that has 'let in' deck beams successfully?Name:  mthe_man deck.jpg
Views: 289
Size:  27.2 KB
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 05-03-16, 09:09 AM
XSleeper's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 23,115
Received 190 Votes on 179 Posts
If you have a brick veneer, you MUST build a freestanding deck. The talk about the soil being less compacted next to the house may be true, but a wide footing under the pier will help with that. Regarding the let in beam, you should absolutely NOT cut into the brick in any manner. Your plan examiner is a doofus.

Go by this guide and you can't go wrong. http://www.awc.org/pdf/codes-standar...Guide-1405.pdf

See Figure 12 and 21... footings for piers

See Figure 17... free standing only with brick veneer.
 
  #3  
Old 05-03-16, 09:25 AM
Handyone's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: U.S.
Posts: 5,451
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
with the first row of piers to be about 1.5' from the home. The plan examiner discouraged me from this idea, as the soil close to the home is likely not 'settled'
The examiner has a valid point. The footings or piers must be sitting on undisturbed soil.

I don't understand why the brick cannot be cut through and the "ledger" be an integral part of the wall, a let in beam. Maybe X can help me there...
 
  #4  
Old 05-03-16, 09:34 AM
XSleeper's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 23,115
Received 190 Votes on 179 Posts
Ok, maybe "doofus" was a littke strong. It can be... just a stupid idea IMO. How are you going to flash a hole in the brick? It's creating the same sort of leakage problems that a cantilevered deck would have. Bad idea when a free standing deck avoids that issue completely.

Figure 21 (above) covers the footings being on undisturbed soil with 5 ft of the foundation.

Edit: I honestly didn't look at the plan much before replying, but I see now the way the landing would require piers all in close proximity. Still think freestanding would be best, most trouble free solution.
 

Last edited by XSleeper; 05-03-16 at 09:50 AM.
  #5  
Old 05-03-16, 09:50 AM
Handyone's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: U.S.
Posts: 5,451
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Thanks, got it. Sounds like the examiner discourages the free standing, but can't reject it. Also sounds like some digging is in order.
 
  #6  
Old 05-03-16, 12:24 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 3
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Thanks Handyone/XSleeper for your replies!

Any concerns with having a pier in such close proximity to the foundation? The deck guide that XSleeper shared previously specifies that the post footings be at the same elevation as the house footing if located closer than 5 feet - but doesn't specify any minimum distances from the foundation wall.

@XSleeper: LOL at doofus comment
 
  #7  
Old 05-03-16, 12:34 PM
XSleeper's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 23,115
Received 190 Votes on 179 Posts
The post can be as close to the wall as you like... just needs to be on a footing thats at the same level as existing, if it's within 5ft. The purpose is obviously to avoid putting a footing on disturbed ground, but also to avoid putting any side pressure on the existing wall.
 
  #8  
Old 05-04-16, 11:43 AM
Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 578
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
I certainly agree with what others have said about not using the beam through the brick veneer. Much like Xsleeper I feel it should be built freestanding. Yes the soil will be disturbed near the existing building but since the footings will be at the basement level it shouldn't be that difficult to dig through the disturbed soil to get to solid soil, that's actually a code requirement to be an undisturbed soil at the same depth as the homes footings.
 
  #9  
Old 05-04-16, 11:49 AM
Group Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: WI/MN
Posts: 19,308
Received 46 Votes on 43 Posts
Just not a fan of punching holes in buildings to potentially allow water inside. Hence, one more vote for freestanding.
 
  #10  
Old 05-09-16, 09:50 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 3
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Thanks for all your feedback - I think the consensus here is clear!!

So, I went back and spoke to the plan examiner, who in turn pointed me to page 27 in the document linked below;
https://www.london.ca/business/Permi...012_r001.3.pdf

It clearly shows a beam 'let in' and supported inside the home...sigh! Apparently this material is referenced by all local municipalities. The conversation continues...
 
  #11  
Old 05-09-16, 10:15 AM
XSleeper's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 23,115
Received 190 Votes on 179 Posts
yes, it is one way of doing it... that's not the point... so don't argue that with him. The other way to do it is freestanding on footings that are level with existing footings, which avoids potenting leakage, or potentual damage to brick. They cannot insist you do it one way or the other when both ways will meet code. Take the problem free option unless you like the idea of punching a hole in your brick.
 
  #12  
Old 05-10-16, 06:44 AM
Handyone's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: U.S.
Posts: 5,451
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Apparently this material is referenced by all local municipalities
I think what the engineers are telling you is that the let in beam is a better method.
We are calling the freestanding method problem free only because of possible water intrusion, but that doesn't mean it will be more stable.
The freestanding might or might not be trouble free, depending on whether the footings closest to the house decide to start sinking. I welcome any comments.
 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes
 
Ask a Question
Question Title:
Description: