InterNACHI


Go Back   InterNACHI Inspection Forum > Specific Inspection Topics > Structural Inspections

Notices

Structural Inspections Contains discussions about the structural portion of a home inspection. This includes foundations, framing, etc.

 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 11/14/08, 11:01 PM
rbrady's Avatar
rbrady rbrady is offline
Active Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Eureka, CA
Posts: 619
Please Note: rbrady is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Minor Cantalever Issue

Gotta love those rural properties. Homeowner, electrician, plumber, balcony builder.

This house was off-the-grid with a 10 amp 120V AC converter!

Attached with regular joist hangers!
minor-cantalever-issue-pb140014.jpg

Very nice view though.
minor-cantalever-issue-pb140088.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11/14/08, 11:29 PM
jkogel jkogel is offline
Active Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sooke, BC
Posts: 699
Please Note: jkogel is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: Minor Cantalever Issue

It looks like it's been there for a couple of years at least. They must be really into transcendental levitation!

John Kogel
www.allsafehome.ca
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11/15/08, 5:52 PM
Jeffrey R. Pope's Avatar
Jeffrey R. Pope Jeffrey R. Pope is offline
InterNACHI Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 8,050
Default Re: Minor Cantalever Issue

That kind of stuff is my worst nightmare. It's the kind of thing that kills people. . .



IF YOUR INSPECTOR IS NOT USING THERMAL IMAGING, YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE WHOLE PICTURE ®
Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
Santa Clarita CA
(661) 212-0738
Santa Clarita Home Inspection
http://www.MyInspector.net


Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11/15/08, 6:59 PM
Marcel R. Cyr's Avatar
Marcel R. Cyr Marcel R. Cyr is offline
InterNACHI Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Winslow, ME
Posts: 19,788
Default Re: Minor Cantalever Issue

Dang Jeff, the post would be in front of the door to make it right.

Recommend reversing the joist Hangers and posting the landing to two people maximum.

Marcel
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11/15/08, 7:03 PM
Richard A. Hetzel Richard A. Hetzel is offline
Unmoderated Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania
Posts: 598
Please Note: Richard A. Hetzel is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: Minor Cantalever Issue

Hey, he read somewhere that you can cantliever two feet, so that's what he did.

The joist hangers would probably take what uplift there is as they are, if they are fully nailed. At least there are joist hangers.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11/15/08, 7:09 PM
Marcel R. Cyr's Avatar
Marcel R. Cyr Marcel R. Cyr is offline
InterNACHI Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Winslow, ME
Posts: 19,788
Default Re: Minor Cantalever Issue

Richard, I guess he just remembers the two foot part and not the 2/3rd's back.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11/16/08, 1:13 AM
rbrady's Avatar
rbrady rbrady is offline
Active Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Eureka, CA
Posts: 619
Please Note: rbrady is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: Minor Cantalever Issue

It might hold now, but who knows in another 5 - 10 years when the ends of the joist get soft. Also people seem to be getting a little heavier these days! I would not want to be one of three people along that outside guardrail.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11/16/08, 1:51 AM
Jeffrey R. Pope's Avatar
Jeffrey R. Pope Jeffrey R. Pope is offline
InterNACHI Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 8,050
Default Re: Minor Cantalever Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard A. Hetzel View Post
At least there are joist hangers.
They'd be more effective if they were turned over, in this case. . .



IF YOUR INSPECTOR IS NOT USING THERMAL IMAGING, YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE WHOLE PICTURE ®
Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
Santa Clarita CA
(661) 212-0738
Santa Clarita Home Inspection
http://www.MyInspector.net


Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11/16/08, 8:18 AM
Richard A. Hetzel Richard A. Hetzel is offline
Unmoderated Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania
Posts: 598
Please Note: Richard A. Hetzel is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: Minor Cantalever Issue

If they were turned over, what would take the normal downward load? I believe joist hanger manufacturers publish uplift resistance data for joist hangers installed normally and fully nailed. It can be easily checed, and the hangers pictured may or may not be adequate to resist the uplift...however, the uplift isn't any greater in the pictured cae than if the deck were much wider...it's the same number, There's just much less of the normal main span loading to counterbalance it.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11/16/08, 8:33 AM
Marcel R. Cyr's Avatar
Marcel R. Cyr Marcel R. Cyr is offline
InterNACHI Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Winslow, ME
Posts: 19,788
Default Re: Minor Cantalever Issue

When one understands the affects of counterbalance on one of these, it is easy to relate to a cantelevered deck.
The uplift force is always reduced by the counterweight. The same force might be there, but distributed and counteracted.




Marcel
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11/16/08, 8:57 AM
Marcel R. Cyr's Avatar
Marcel R. Cyr Marcel R. Cyr is offline
InterNACHI Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Winslow, ME
Posts: 19,788
Default Re: Minor Cantalever Issue

I believe the last joist on the ends should have had one of these.




Marcel
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11/16/08, 1:19 PM
Jeffrey R. Pope's Avatar
Jeffrey R. Pope Jeffrey R. Pope is offline
InterNACHI Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 8,050
Default Re: Minor Cantalever Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard A. Hetzel View Post
If they were turned over, what would take the normal downward load?
I would never seriously suggest that the hangers be installed upside down. Marcel hit the mark.



IF YOUR INSPECTOR IS NOT USING THERMAL IMAGING, YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE WHOLE PICTURE ®
Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
Santa Clarita CA
(661) 212-0738
Santa Clarita Home Inspection
http://www.MyInspector.net


Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11/16/08, 2:28 PM
Richard A. Hetzel Richard A. Hetzel is offline
Unmoderated Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania
Posts: 598
Please Note: Richard A. Hetzel is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: Minor Cantalever Issue

Even closer to the mark would be to adhere to the uplift resistance data published by the hanger manufacturer. Hangers in normal position do have some uplift capacity, and different types of hangers have different capacities.

Marcel's crane is handsome, but the problem with a deck is different. The crane has all of the counterbalancing load all of the time. It is entirely possible for a deck to have full live load or more on the cantilever, but nothing but dead load on the main span, and the ratio could approach 10 to 1, so the hangers had best be investigated for their ability to resist uplift under such conditions. If the capacity is insufficient, some other mans of resisting uplift should be devised. Unfortunately, skyhooks don't work in that direction. =)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11/16/08, 3:23 PM
Jeffrey R. Pope's Avatar
Jeffrey R. Pope Jeffrey R. Pope is offline
InterNACHI Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 8,050
Default Re: Minor Cantalever Issue

Did you take that picture Marcel? Jumping towers was always the most dangerous part of crane operation, but this looks like a "self-raising" tower. Is that so?

Sorry for the drift. . .



IF YOUR INSPECTOR IS NOT USING THERMAL IMAGING, YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE WHOLE PICTURE ®
Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
Santa Clarita CA
(661) 212-0738
Santa Clarita Home Inspection
http://www.MyInspector.net


Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11/16/08, 3:40 PM
Marcel R. Cyr's Avatar
Marcel R. Cyr Marcel R. Cyr is offline
InterNACHI Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Winslow, ME
Posts: 19,788
Default Re: Minor Cantalever Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard A. Hetzel View Post
Even closer to the mark would be to adhere to the uplift resistance data published by the hanger manufacturer. Hangers in normal position do have some uplift capacity, and different types of hangers have different capacities.

Marcel's crane is handsome, but the problem with a deck is different. The crane has all of the counterbalancing load all of the time. It is entirely possible for a deck to have full live load or more on the cantilever, but nothing but dead load on the main span, and the ratio could approach 10 to 1, so the hangers had best be investigated for their ability to resist uplift under such conditions. If the capacity is insufficient, some other mans of resisting uplift should be devised. Unfortunately, skyhooks don't work in that direction. =)
Richard, for the sake of debate, you say that the crane has all of the counterbalancing load all of the time, yes, until the trolley picking up the load is transferred away from that balance. That is the cantilevered action.

So would be the deck to have a counter weight load all of the time, that is called the 2/3rd's balance. Backspan on cantilevered decks must be a minimum of twice the cantilevered distance.

This deck construction is wrong due to its span and the two foot maximum cantilever should not apply.

A concentrated load on the end of the cantilever has the effect of producing uplift on the joists at the first interior beam support or at the attachment to the house.

When a deck is cantilevered, the connection to the exterior wall of the house or other framing members such as a beam shall be designed and constructed to resist uplift resulting from the full live load acting on the cantilevered portion of the deck. One way of resisting these loads is with a steel twist strap at each end to prevent uplift.

Hangers do have a degree of uplift designed into them, but it is not a common practice to go around and install them upside down to compensate for the inadequate framing methods that were used to begin with.

Tech, notes from Simpson's Hangers for LU28
Minimum uplift for this hanger is 630 more than adequate for a 4'x5' deck.
  1. Uplift loads have been increased 33% and 60% for earthquake or wind loading with no further increase allowed. Divide by 1.33 and 1.60 for
    normal loading such as in cantilever construction.

The deck picture above will most likely go no where, but would you put your Architectural license stamp on this set up is my question?

My reputation as a builder could not afford such high stakes.

Because of a door below the deck, standard deck building practices have been negated.

Call it as it is. Note what is observed and move on for most.
I would not spend to much time on a report for this one.
Although not right, collapse is not on the edge.
JMHO

Marcel
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cutler-Hammer CH breaker issue Marc D. Shunk Electrical Inspections 4 5/27/07 2:04 PM
Robust views on issue of home inspectors wblakey Canadian Inspectors 0 11/24/06 5:49 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:01 AM.


Popular Sections

:

All Sections

Inspection News

InterNACHI Membership

Inspection Standards

Inspection Education

InterNACHI Inspectors

Inspection Links

 

 

 

NACHI.ORG Statistics

 

 

no new posts