Balcony Question

[Larry D. Kage]

This may be helpful to some:

http://www.awc.org/Publications/DCA/DCA6/DCA6.pdf

[Richard A. Hetzel]

The deck shown appears to be approximately 4 or 5 feet wide. Therefore, the load from only 2 or 2.5 feet are carried on the single 2x beam. If the beam has a maximum span of 8 feet, snd would require a scetion modulus of approximately 11.5 to handle the uniform load. If it's a 2x8, the section modulus is about 13, and if it's a 2x10, the section modulus is about 21. Then it must handle the concentrated load from the post above, which is something on theorder of 1200 pounds. The beam appears to be a 2x8, so it is unlikely to be adequate to carry both uniform and concentrated loads.

If the maximum load on a post is 2200 pounds, depending on the load-bearing capacity of the soil, a footing size of just over 12x12 would be adquate, and a smaller foting could quite well be adequate if the soil value is more than 2,000 PSF.

The methods of connecting beam to post and ledger to building are not readily visible in the photos.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Richard A. Hetzel

The methods of connecting beam to post and ledger to building are not readily visible in the photos.

But as stated by Patrick

I did not see any lag bolts in the ledger. The footers in my opinion are to small, less than 16x16. The beam is only nailed.

Thanks for your calculations but I think we can all agree that this deck is unsafe, right?

[Richard A. Hetzel]

No, not at all. It may be perfectly safe. We don't have enough information to make that judgment.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Richard A. Hetzel

No, not at all. It may be perfectly safe. We don't have enough information to make that judgment.

Please explain. How can the nailed beam and no lack of adequate attachment of the ledger be safe?

I agree the information provided could be more extensive and it's always tough inspecting from pictures but do you think there is enough to call out further evaluation?