 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | reply to AVD
Re: Any deck expererts here? said by AVD:technically that's considered an "overhanging beam".
A true cantilever on a significant structure is very rare.
I understand what you are saying, but IMHO you are partially incorrect.
quote:
can·ti·le·ver (kntl-vr, -vr)
n.
1. A projecting structure, such as a beam, that is supported at one end and carries a load at the other end or along its length.
2. A member, such as a beam, that projects beyond a fulcrum and is supported by a balancing member or a downward force behind the fulcrum.
3. A bracket or block supporting a balcony or cornice.
The entire 2x12 in this case is an overhanging beam as you state. The portion that extends past the post is a cantilever. The fact that the board continues on past the post to the other post does not change the fact that the other portion is a cantilever. Using it as a verb, it would also be correct to say the deck edge is cantilevered. |
|
cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | reply to rbnice1
said by rbnice1:I have talked to the local inspectors and they said they follow 2009 IRC.
...
Just because it meets code doesn't mean its really right... So I am going by the codes but looking for input on what others think need to be changed. You may be interested in this publication by the American Wood Council. They're the guys that get wood thinking about wood. And the publication is based on 2009 IRC. |
|
 Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | reply to guppy_fish
said by guppy_fish:I think you would be better off spend the couple hundred to have engineering plans that will have no surprises, meets code and easy for the home builder to installed the header board leaving the deck framing for later, thought that's a code issue, you can't have a door open to a drop off, that will a have to be boarded off
I think you are 100 percent right. The OP would be well served to spend the couple hundred and get engineering plans that meet his local codes and his needs. |
|
|
|
garys_2kPremium
join:2004-05-07
Farmington, MI Reviews:
 ·callwithus
·Callcentric
| said by Jack_in_VA:said by guppy_fish:I think you would be better off spend the couple hundred to have engineering plans that will have no surprises, meets code and easy for the home builder to installed the header board leaving the deck framing for later, thought that's a code issue, you can't have a door open to a drop off, that will a have to be boarded off
I think you are 100 percent right. The OP would be well served to spend the couple hundred and get engineering plans that meet his local codes and his needs. Another +1 here! I may have a house built in the near future and I'm NOT going to want to modify it or do any DIY structural stuff to it. Putting a few dollars into a professional plan will be the only way I'm going to want to go. |
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to cdru
ok where is the downward force or balancing member in your example? |
|
cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | said by AVD:ok where is the downward force or balancing member in your example? With this deck example, the downward force would be the weight of the deck as well as however the beam is fastened to the far post. The near post becomes the fulcrum and the length from the fulcrum to the overhanging end is the cantilever.
I know what you are getting at. And in the most strictest of structural engineering terms you are correct. In general engineering terms, or in most architectural terms, as well as in terms of what a building inspector and every deck how-to book ever made I'm also correct. |
|
| reply to rbnice1
If you want a good source about decks... (it requires purchased membership).
»www.finehomebuilding.com/pages/b···deck.asp
BTW, my deck was rebuilt (9'x18') because the builder never flashed the deck to the house (I guess in 1987 there was no "inspector" $$ wink wink). In the rebuild, they didn't put in new pilings for posts (originally, they sat on cement and block wall).
They just did new decking and wall that deck attached to, along with kickplate and flashing.
If I had the money (don't we all), I'd have them rip out the cement patio below, support the deck, put in new Sonoco tubes for pilings (below frost line) and support not only the main beam (like the two in yours) but add corners near house (making it almost free standing and not just lagged to house structure). And do nice hardscaping underneath...
I am in a townhome, so this is overkill by most. Yet the same style homes in another county had fatality when the deck collapsed (a 10x20 deck). They've revised codes here, and now no new deck (or repair/remodel) can be less than 3' from side structure (corner of inside wall). My deck would now be 9'x15'! (neighbor's wall on south side...deck is attached there...new codes say no-no).
--
Splat |
|
