Nice looking Deck...Ledger board not bolted..is this a write up?

[David Nasser]

Take a look...nice house and the deck was very sturdy.
The ledger board was not bolted......






Here's the way the ledger board is secured to the house.

[Joe Funderburk, CMI]

Looks like a roof, not a deck. Should be bolted like a deck in my opinion.

[David Nasser]

Originally Posted by jfunderburk

Looks like a roof, not a deck. Should be bolted like a deck in my opinion.

I should have said Patio.

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

Originally Posted by jfunderburk

Should be bolted like a deck in my opinion.

That is also the "opinion" of the CA Building Code.

The ledger must be bolted and the framing hardware must be bolted.

[David Nasser]

Originally Posted by jpope

That is also the "opinion" of the CA Building Code.

The ledger must be bolted and the framing hardware must be bolted.

Thanks for the reply....Im going to write it up.

[KEVIN WOOD]

Be careful David I have seen this before. Sometimes for added protection the 2x8 has a protected board over the bolts. Since this cannot be confirmed it is best to note this in the report when you write it up.
The only way to determine this is with removal of the protection board.
Problem is that it is nailed and will need to be checked by the owner of the home by prying the board away in one area to see if there are some lag bolts.

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Good catch, Kevin!

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

Originally Posted by kwood

Be careful David I have seen this before. Sometimes for added protection the 2x8 has a protected board over the bolts.

I considered that as well, however, the lack of bolts at the framing hardware is enough to defer the installation for correction.

[Mark S. Tyson]

considered that as well, however, the lack of bolts at the framing hardware is enough to defer the installation for correction.

And what data would you resource? The structure appears too be fairly new. if aft-were a pubic records search that finds the structure badoo or in compliance

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

Originally Posted by mtyson

And what data would you resource? The structure appears too be fairly new. if aft-were a pubic records search that finds the structure badoo or in compliance

I'm not sure I know what you meant by this.

CA is in Seismic Design Category (SDC) D&E for most of the state. Column bases, beam seats and ledger boards all require positive anchoring. This is generally achieved with through-bolts and/or lag-bolts. For the most part, nails do not provide the anchoring required in the higher SDC zones.

[Bob Elliott]

I agree it needs repair and bolts.

[Tim Spargo]

Not to stir the pot anymore... but the cantilever could have been an issue for many *standard* handouts (.pdf file). Most load paths are due-vertical on the deck/patio cover handouts I've seen and if a patio cover or deck is outside of the spans and configurations, this could indicate that the design would have been engineered. I would have still mentioned the obvious, as the structure lacked connection, but may have leaned toward telling the buyer to seek additional information. The individual AHJ may have approved... just a thought.


*edit* - Also, the second span from left in front of the windows looks a weeee bit far for what looks like 4x8

[Bob Elliott]

I doubt he approved those footers.

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

What's a footer? Oh, you mean footing

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Originally Posted by jpope

What's a footer? Oh, you mean footing