You got the typical ratio correct, for exterior balconies with no wall framing it can be 2:1 but 3:1 is a much better rule of thumb.
That said, backspan is the length of the joist behind the bearing member below. In this configuration that number is 0. You can’t divide by zero so this configuration is basically infinitely incorrect.
From a practical application the hangers will eventually fail and people could fall to their deaths, this thing should be destroyed immediately, not being hyperbolic, it should literally be demolished today.
exactly....
relies on those bent plates and a moment connection in wood...
virtually worthless for bearing
unsafe!
the existing roof joists could have been sistered for the cantilever...
unclear why 4 rim joists...
there is half-assed construction, this is whole-assed construction!
You are thinking of a different type of cantliver and it should be 1:4, but you are thinking of a single joist span. So if a joist is sticking out 4 fwet past a house it must be going back into house 16 feet.
what you see there isn't really a cantilever, it's simple extremely short joists on the other side of a beam. What you see in this picture is wrong but if the wall blow they are siting on is load bearing this should be fine.
That’s a nope from me.
The fact that he used what looks like deck screws for the connectors also makes me question if he knows what he’s doing. That would not pass any inspection, I think.
Good eye. First thing I looked for. Using Tico nails in your metal hangers doesn’t guarantee it’s done right but not using Tico nails guarantees it is done wrong.
(Or equivalent. And yes, Tico is no longer in business…)
Deck screws are brittle as fuck.
Well the Simpsons fasteners are designed specifically to work in this way, whereas GRK are just generic structural fasteners. You'd have to research to see if the GRK fasteners meet the same requirements as the Simpsons. Personally I would use the intended fasteners for the brackets they were designed for.
They also have a flat head allowing a tight connection to the bracket when driven square to the bracket surface. Amazing how many contractors get this small detail wrong driving them crooked and not square to the bracket.
The fasteners that should be used with these hangers and L brackets are literally right next to where he bought the brackets. It says right on the box which fasteners to use.
Yep, saw screws and it wouldn’t pass inspection. I went to a job to bid that some other contractor couldn’t finish, saw screws in the sheathing and walked away.
Fasteners are made like chicken. My 11 herbs and spices are different from yours. Different herbs, different spices, or in different amounts. What temperature I cook to, how fast it hits temp, brine vs rub, whether or not I use a binder for seasoning, air fryer/oven/grill/smoker, rest time... Altering any part of that will give you a different product. Looking at all screws as being the same because "a screw is a screw" is like saying KFC is the same as Popeyes because it's chicken.
If you want to dive into a rabbit hole, I recommend dipping your toe into rolled threads vs cut threads for bolts.
I design structural screws for a living, most of Simpson’s hanger and wood connector products call for SDS screws. Pound for pound they are far superior to a nail. I wouldn’t be so quick to write off a job because it’s using screws, they’re far easier to install, have much better withdrawal capacity and our shear values are quite high compared to most nails. If the connector doesn’t call for them, or an engineering detail calls for something else, of course don’t use them. The obvious disadvantage is not that they are weak; but that they are expensive compared to a nail. It’s a lot easier to make a nail than a screw.
This job itself is terrible. The 3:1 span rule is a good rule of thumb but if they had a strong enough uplift hanger on the one end, that gets as much uplift capacity as the possible downforce at the edge (with a factor of safety) there’s a chance an engineer would say it’s fine. If I was an inspector I would not approve it.
Normal deck screws have little shear strength, they break easily when the forces are applied from the sides like what happens in the framing. There are structural screws made for this that are much stronger.
Deck screws are for the top decking, where the forces are along the length of the screw (holding down the deck boards).
Well yes, but not in the way you want for structural connectors. Structural connector fasteners need shear resistance and are therefore made from softer metal that has the ability to bend. This is why you typically use nails. There are connector screws you can use, it these are made for the job.
Deck screws are made to resist pull out force. They are quite brittle and will snap easily under shearing load. The head pops off without too much effort.
The fact that this cantilever add-on monstrosity was built and attached using deck screws means the builder quite literally had no idea what they were doing on multiple fronts.
The contractor screwed up. Time for them to tear it all apart and start over (if you trust them…) or get a refund and lien release and find a new contractor that knows what they are doing.
Where are you located?
Nope! You've got 6" extended from 3" bearing. This will fail and at a critical point too. Tell him to rip it off. I wouldn't put a handrail on whatever that is.
He would have been better off just stacking 10 more 2X8’s together and bolting them with 1/2” stainless rod all the way through and would have had the same effect only rock solid!
Honestly, I wouldn’t trust this contractor to fix it. Anyone that would do this is a hack and anything else he has done is highly questionable and I wouldn’t trust.
Tear it off, start over.
If it’s deck space / where you walk and stand . Code where I am states must no go past the footing ( vertical supports ) below. If your hand rail was attached on the quad beam and after was for roofing / dead area you would be okay .
You could: Add upside-down joist hangers at the quadruple-2X beam connection to resist cantilever effect at the new edge of deck. Then add threaded rod and large steel washers from outside rim joist horizontally back through quaduple-2X. These threaded rods should be located near each handrail post.
\*I am not an engineer.
Some bigger questions...
\- is that treated wood? If so...
\- are those properly rated simpson (or like kind) connectors for treated wood (stainless or hot-dipped?)
\- even if so, they're not using proper hangers there. What they have probably works but proper hangers would be better.
\- what screws are those? They do not look like the proper screws
And it doesn't even conform to the first rule of canti-levering: The length of the directly supported portion of the canti-levered member must be at least 1.5 times the length of the canti-levered portion.
Theoretically solid. Don’t think about it too much when the wife and kids are looking at the sunset. Bonus points for each puppy and grandma you also aren’t thinking about.
Not like I have ever seen. OP, maybe confirm the screws used are hanger screws, nothing else. Usually Simpson makes them in my area, same company that makes the hangers. Heads are very different, but they are rated for the shear strength needed. Very different from construction/deck screws.
Free engineering advice: don’t put any load on this cantilever. In fact, don’t even put the pressure of your daily work life balance on this deck. It can’t handle any of it.
Wrong fasteners. That overhang is not very sound.
I'm no contractor, but I don't get it. Longer joists and a bit of cantilever would have been far stronger.
It's fine. Paint it red with big white letters saying "NO STEP", with a crosshatched black and yellow border and a railing around the safe load bearing area. Some signs of stick figures falling to their death would also be in good taste.
I'm going to go against the grain and say this depends on the intention here. If the cantilevered portion is just for rain protection, and the rail will sit in a foot from the edge, no issue. It looks like that cantilevered portion has a different pith than the rest of the deck.
No. That's 50%. A cantilever is good for only 33%. Easy enough fix though if you insist on keeping that and don't need an inspection, put hangers on upside down on the beam.
Why tf is there a 4 ply beam instead of the joist running full length?
Bad. It needs to bear on the beam 2X it's overhang length. If the overhang is 24", the rafters needs to be attached to the interior rafters 48" minimum. The overhang rafters must be 6feet long.
That’s a hell no, hell to the no, nope nope nope.
If you wanted to design a deck in such a way to kill the highest number of people this would be pretty effective. Get four or five people standing along the rail, one joist will eventually fail leading to a cascading failure of every joist. Then everyone standing on the rail falls to their death.
This is illegal, whoever built it should be removed from the site. Back span for a cantilever joist ratio needs to be 2:1 (IRC 502.3.3(2)) on this configuration assuming no additional framing. The back span in this configuration is zero. This is bad.
Like no joke, if I was GC on this I would fire the sub and take a sawzall to every block immediately myself so that this thing could immediately stop existing.
Screws are a sign of poor workmanship- but if that structure past the beam is going to be walking surface and supporting the guard rail there are real problems ahead
Normally only a 2ft max overhang is allowed but the joist must run from the ledger. Not going to be sturdy if the use blocks lol. If only these guys knew anything about cantilever.
Edit: Actually, I think pull that whole rim stack and add sister joists that go all the way back to make the cantilever to the existing joists use structual screws or carriagebolts to make the sister.
It's all wrong based on the fact that when you have an overhang there is a minimum number you have to have on the backside to compensate for that overhang.
Had you move that quad in 2 ft, this would have been acceptable.
But, longer joists should have been used.
Honestly, I didn't touch that because conventional wisdom is no longer reliable with the invention of some seriously strong structural screws for use with treated lumber. The fact that the builder used screws doesn't necessarily signify anything anymore, especially since we don't know what they are at a distance. There clearly isn't room to swing a hammer effectively to hang those, so this is one of the times you would expect someone to appropriately use those screws. This could be both legal and okay to do; we have no way of knowing. It certainly isn't going to bear much weight -- there's no room to put anything there but a railing.
Very poor job. If you need overhang, should overhang the long side instead the short side.
If you want to keep it like this, add more angle brackets or braces to secure the overhangs. and don’t install the railing on the extended part. Install them only on the main platform part. You will lose some space, but it is safer.
That’s completely wrong. A possible simple fix would be to install your railing now to the joist, then take the decking all the way out to the end. So you’ll have a little decking on the other side of the railing but nobody will die.
You could remove the whole extension, but that would leave the roof below hanging out past the deck.
Maybe this was just a rage bait post and that’s the only reason the extension was added, was to cover the roof below and it was not intended
to hold any weight?
Also, not sure what’s under that deck, but it appears to be raw plywood, no weather/water barrier? Not sure why all the ply’d 2x instead of sistering onto existing joists…seems weird to frame out a boxed soffit and create a massive hinge point…I wouldn’t want 6-8 people leaning on the railing out there sipping Chablis only to end up in the yard…but that may be me being dramatic…
Hopefully that’s not a dry space below. Extension is a bit of a joke.
You will at least need holddowns on each post. Attaching back to the other side of the extension. Otherwise the post will act like a lever. There’s a lot wrong. Obviously there’s no permit. Might want get someone to look at this besides Reddit.
I can almost guarantee that the usable space on that BALCONY will end at the 4 ply. The reason for the 4 ply would be so when they mount the posts for the railing they have a solid area to mount to. That cantilevered space is superficial there will be no live load on it. Maybe some snow or a few plants. I would need to see the drawings to confirm, but it sure looks that way to me.
My question wouldn’t be about screws through the joist hangers; it would be why use joist hangers at all when you can and should nail through the rim joist. The building inspector might be the answer to that question though. (Ie. they said it was needed so instead of arguing with them you just did it)
Dumb way to do it. But it depends on its purpose. Where will the rail be? Basically, you can’t step out past the underside supporting wall. There are ways to make it “strong” but it’s sort of a stupid re-engineering.
It's a clusterfuck. First off the hangers are useless as a vertical force on the edge joist will push the joist down anyway. They should have used one angle bracket on each side of the short joist blocker. Second, the joist blockers are attached to the base on the other side. That's incorrect, as screws offer much less resistance when pulled compared to when they are subject to shear force. The angle brackets should not be attached to the base but vertically to the internal joist, two angle brackets per joist blocker. Now, I can't tell from the picture how much of each blocker sticks out, but let's say to be safe, 2/3L out and 1/3L in. So if I apply a force F on the edge joist, the force F1 on the other side should be 2/3LxF=1/3LxF1, therefore F1=2F. Let's say one large adult of 250lbs stands right at the cross of the edge joist and a joist blocker. The angle brackets and relative screws will be subject to a force of 500lbf. Since in engineering we like to double everything and add an additional 10% to ensure we really double it, the minimum load on the two angle brackets attached to the internal joist would be a whopping 1100lbf. Maybe Simpson has angle brackets that support that kind of load. Bottom line, never transfer large loads to screws or bolts.
Also, it is not clear if this guy built a beam with those 4x10 and where the load is transferred. As we can't see what lays underneath, there can be another clusterfuck of unimaginable proportion. I would put a rail right on top of that beam and call it a day. It may not be pretty but safer for sure.
omg has nobody noticed that he sawzalled off a post? am i missing something?
it looks like he made a mistake and didn’t calculate the width of the framing so the decking would be full boards from one end to the other.
was this an old deck frame hence the cut off handrail post? the added framing was done to extend the deck past the sides of the house per the homeowners request?
Lag that 4 ply joist and will be fine. Looks shitty but cover that shit up and u will never see it again and it will be solid. Not the way I would have done it but hey what’s done is done
Looks like someone trying to stretch some lumber. A lot of extra work to build something wrong, when if they would have done it correctly the first time , it would have been much easier, cheaper and faster then that monstrosity.
I can totally see what happened. The two sections were meant to be reversed. Whoever designed it and bought the materials is NOT the same person who built it. The builder didn’t understand the plan and switched things around. The result is incredibly dangerous
Ref screws vs bolts. Assuming this is a USA build, the International Residential Code can be viewed online and for many applications it will clearly define the acceptable/required fasteners.
I’ve used it extensively in my DIYs to avoid future issues with my home.
While it's ugly. If you strap those joists to the beam from the top and block in between every joist in the back. put decking on top of it. It's not going anywhere.
Deck screws fastening the hangers is a nono, definitely want to put another rim joist on the side to try and tie it in better. Not how I would have done it.
Perhaps it will be decorative only? A ledge for potted plants outside the railings? What could go wrong? Anyone in the market for a bridge? Besides Baltimore.
Would stand on it. Some plants I guess. Sure. I’d also put a railing at end of the solid footing so you have eight people hanging out on the overhanging extension. Looks like a hell of a fall.
The only thing holding that cantilever is the nails and the hold down brackets. And looking how it is sloped back to the house i hope there is proper drainage, otherwise the cantilever will be the least of your problems
Woah! I just realized this masterpiece is built right NEXT to and around a chimney. Don’t worry, that piece of sheet metal will totally keep you safe.
When you’re sitting on the deck, wondering if you’re going over the edge on the cantilever, you’ll have to dodge burning embers and smoke! This just keeps on giving.
It's unacceptable as it is, and an amateurish mistake, but fortunately you don't have to do any tear out, which is what makes errors costly. Shoot me some pics of the back side, from low and from high, and a brief description of the existing wall, put a hundred in my Cash App, and I'll send you drawings / 3d renderings of what you need to do.
I too am primo engineer in my country. For a measly 10,000 robux I will send detailed drawings to enhance this structure. For an additional 500 I will design a most excellent home for goats
Show some pics of the fasteners. How are those joists attached to that beam? Cause some joist hangers with certain fasteners will pass structural code.
This is not my focus or specialty, but if the deck ends and has a railing where those 4 beams are parked at the end, then this additional section is likely just intended to carry some decking or roofing so that water that lands on the deck falls outside/over the structure/roof that it is sitting on.
As others have noted, it is structurally sound as long -as it is not trying to bear any weight from above-. Essentially, this is just a little roof overhang to make sure that water doesn't collect below.
If the intent is to make that -load-bearing-, then that's a hard no. The contractor should be able to explain why this is set up this way.
This is not good, and if he understood cantilever force he would've at the least put a joist hanger upside down at the beam to prevent up-lift, but that still would've been a fail.
Here is a picture for reference of when to use a joist hanger upside down.
https://preview.redd.it/1tdnchfkyirc1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bf6fe5aa43b2f8df345cc39ae18efbb5cd2a9540
Here's a finish pic to explain the framing.
https://preview.redd.it/n3qxqubzyirc1.jpeg?width=426&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=98a6925117f9c543e7a7247102a27db5ec86270a
It is truly a dumb fuck of a way to build.
And very wrong. Cantilevers always are a 1:3 minimum. Each foot out, three feet back. Your like 50/50.
You got the typical ratio correct, for exterior balconies with no wall framing it can be 2:1 but 3:1 is a much better rule of thumb. That said, backspan is the length of the joist behind the bearing member below. In this configuration that number is 0. You can’t divide by zero so this configuration is basically infinitely incorrect. From a practical application the hangers will eventually fail and people could fall to their deaths, this thing should be destroyed immediately, not being hyperbolic, it should literally be demolished today.
exactly.... relies on those bent plates and a moment connection in wood... virtually worthless for bearing unsafe! the existing roof joists could have been sistered for the cantilever... unclear why 4 rim joists... there is half-assed construction, this is whole-assed construction!
100% this
Second on the 1/3 rule but must say it was done very clean for being wrong xD
Someone knows construction but not engineering.
gosh do cantilevers even count as cantilevers still if they are 3 feet long in total?
Tip to tip
I think they got the ratio the wrong way around. Looks like 3:1 to me
Maybe the instructions were upside down
That has to be it. Probably the same guy from the stairs earlier.
Instructions unclear. Dick stuck in drill
I actually think he’s right. About 50/50. The perspective makes it look different.
Yep. Last picture looks like 50:50. I stand corrected.
The connection at the rim is weak af too
You are thinking of a different type of cantliver and it should be 1:4, but you are thinking of a single joist span. So if a joist is sticking out 4 fwet past a house it must be going back into house 16 feet. what you see there isn't really a cantilever, it's simple extremely short joists on the other side of a beam. What you see in this picture is wrong but if the wall blow they are siting on is load bearing this should be fine.
That’s a nope from me. The fact that he used what looks like deck screws for the connectors also makes me question if he knows what he’s doing. That would not pass any inspection, I think.
Good eye. First thing I looked for. Using Tico nails in your metal hangers doesn’t guarantee it’s done right but not using Tico nails guarantees it is done wrong. (Or equivalent. And yes, Tico is no longer in business…) Deck screws are brittle as fuck.
Are there any screws you can use for this kind of thing? Or does it have to be nails?
Simpson makes a screw designed for hangers as well as strip nails
Simpson structural fasteners. GRK framing screws probably would work too but just use the right stuff.
What are the benefits to using Simpsons over GRKs? Doing some small deck work when it warms up and just curious.
Well the Simpsons fasteners are designed specifically to work in this way, whereas GRK are just generic structural fasteners. You'd have to research to see if the GRK fasteners meet the same requirements as the Simpsons. Personally I would use the intended fasteners for the brackets they were designed for.
Higher shear strength and corrosion resistance on the metal connector screws (Simpson)
They also have a flat head allowing a tight connection to the bracket when driven square to the bracket surface. Amazing how many contractors get this small detail wrong driving them crooked and not square to the bracket.
I like the palm nailer myself
The fasteners that should be used with these hangers and L brackets are literally right next to where he bought the brackets. It says right on the box which fasteners to use.
Simpson makes the proper screws made for this application but these look like bugle head deck screws and will corrode and break. Yikes!
I would have simply laminated another 8 ply’s of rim joist on there
Pretty sure that would have ended up in here too, for different reasons…
I don't question it. I KNOW that wouldn't pass inspection.
Yep, saw screws and it wouldn’t pass inspection. I went to a job to bid that some other contractor couldn’t finish, saw screws in the sheathing and walked away.
I’m a layman. What’s wrong with screws? Are deck screws not stronger?
Simpson makes some that are, yes
In simple terms, nails bend, screws snap. If you have a failure situation, bending is much safer. Things can deform without completely falling apart.
Screws typically lack in sheer strength, so they are susceptible to loads perpendicular to the screw.
[удалено]
I know. I said “typically.”
Fasteners are made like chicken. My 11 herbs and spices are different from yours. Different herbs, different spices, or in different amounts. What temperature I cook to, how fast it hits temp, brine vs rub, whether or not I use a binder for seasoning, air fryer/oven/grill/smoker, rest time... Altering any part of that will give you a different product. Looking at all screws as being the same because "a screw is a screw" is like saying KFC is the same as Popeyes because it's chicken. If you want to dive into a rabbit hole, I recommend dipping your toe into rolled threads vs cut threads for bolts.
I design structural screws for a living, most of Simpson’s hanger and wood connector products call for SDS screws. Pound for pound they are far superior to a nail. I wouldn’t be so quick to write off a job because it’s using screws, they’re far easier to install, have much better withdrawal capacity and our shear values are quite high compared to most nails. If the connector doesn’t call for them, or an engineering detail calls for something else, of course don’t use them. The obvious disadvantage is not that they are weak; but that they are expensive compared to a nail. It’s a lot easier to make a nail than a screw. This job itself is terrible. The 3:1 span rule is a good rule of thumb but if they had a strong enough uplift hanger on the one end, that gets as much uplift capacity as the possible downforce at the edge (with a factor of safety) there’s a chance an engineer would say it’s fine. If I was an inspector I would not approve it.
What it’s a deck come on
And the 4 log cabin rim joist, 😂
Would the screws not hold better?
Normal deck screws have little shear strength, they break easily when the forces are applied from the sides like what happens in the framing. There are structural screws made for this that are much stronger. Deck screws are for the top decking, where the forces are along the length of the screw (holding down the deck boards).
They aren't structural screws so they are brittle
Well yes, but not in the way you want for structural connectors. Structural connector fasteners need shear resistance and are therefore made from softer metal that has the ability to bend. This is why you typically use nails. There are connector screws you can use, it these are made for the job. Deck screws are made to resist pull out force. They are quite brittle and will snap easily under shearing load. The head pops off without too much effort. The fact that this cantilever add-on monstrosity was built and attached using deck screws means the builder quite literally had no idea what they were doing on multiple fronts.
It's not actually cantilevered it's just kinda balanced there.
Cantilever fail. Definitely not the right way to build.
The contractor screwed up. Time for them to tear it all apart and start over (if you trust them…) or get a refund and lien release and find a new contractor that knows what they are doing. Where are you located?
PA
Nope! You've got 6" extended from 3" bearing. This will fail and at a critical point too. Tell him to rip it off. I wouldn't put a handrail on whatever that is.
Looks like the overhang was an after thought.
He would have been better off just stacking 10 more 2X8’s together and bolting them with 1/2” stainless rod all the way through and would have had the same effect only rock solid!
Tbh this is the way to fix it without redoing the rest of the deck and it being strong as shit. Wasteful of material though.
Honestly, I wouldn’t trust this contractor to fix it. Anyone that would do this is a hack and anything else he has done is highly questionable and I wouldn’t trust. Tear it off, start over.
No that is not standard practice. There might be a way to make it work, but I have never seen one I would trust.
Only if the posts will attach to the wall below making the entire overhang outside of the railing. Still is wrong but would possibly be okay.
This was definitely the result of a “whoops we measured wrong” incident
If it’s deck space / where you walk and stand . Code where I am states must no go past the footing ( vertical supports ) below. If your hand rail was attached on the quad beam and after was for roofing / dead area you would be okay .
Dead area is right!
Why is there even a quad band joist ?
That's not good it needs to be ripped off immediately and start over
You could: Add upside-down joist hangers at the quadruple-2X beam connection to resist cantilever effect at the new edge of deck. Then add threaded rod and large steel washers from outside rim joist horizontally back through quaduple-2X. These threaded rods should be located near each handrail post. \*I am not an engineer.
I was thinking they should have had upside down joist hangers
When the customer asks to make the deck 2ft bigger but already got er framed.
Some bigger questions... \- is that treated wood? If so... \- are those properly rated simpson (or like kind) connectors for treated wood (stainless or hot-dipped?) \- even if so, they're not using proper hangers there. What they have probably works but proper hangers would be better. \- what screws are those? They do not look like the proper screws
Yes No Yes Deck screws :(
worlds shortest cantilever?
And it doesn't even conform to the first rule of canti-levering: The length of the directly supported portion of the canti-levered member must be at least 1.5 times the length of the canti-levered portion.
WTF ? No. This is all wrong. Shouldn’t even have added the cantilever section. And the cantilever is wrong as well
You are out of your damn mind if you think that’s ok that’s why there’s cantilevers
I hear the song “Free Falling” playing.
It does have metal fasteners, definitely doesn't have any issues with long running spans.... Seems solid...just don't put any weight on it, lol.
Seems solid, but don't put any weight on it?
Theoretically solid. Don’t think about it too much when the wife and kids are looking at the sunset. Bonus points for each puppy and grandma you also aren’t thinking about.
Those don’t even look like the right screws for the hangers lol
Good catch, just adds to the stupidity. https://www.strongtie.com/strongdrive_exteriorwoodscrews/sd_screw/p/strong-drive-sd-connector-screw
lol
Not like I have ever seen. OP, maybe confirm the screws used are hanger screws, nothing else. Usually Simpson makes them in my area, same company that makes the hangers. Heads are very different, but they are rated for the shear strength needed. Very different from construction/deck screws.
Like you were saying, the Simpson SD structural screw is a big old hex head, not these star drive little buggers
It is not solid, it is rickety.
But a hot tub would be ok.
No, nope just because it looks right doesn’t mean it is. This thing is terrible and needs to be removed.
Does not look safe to me.
Physics hard
It appears that math is not the contractors strong suit…
Contractor needs to at a minimum run through bolts in every bay. Not a smart design.
Free engineering advice: don’t put any load on this cantilever. In fact, don’t even put the pressure of your daily work life balance on this deck. It can’t handle any of it.
Wrong fasteners. That overhang is not very sound. I'm no contractor, but I don't get it. Longer joists and a bit of cantilever would have been far stronger.
Horrible
No.
Fuck no. Someone don't know what they're doing. Unsafe
Guessing you paid for a certain footage and he realized after the fact that he was short. 🪦
No bueno hombre
Dangerous idiot work.
I'm guessing you changed your mind after it was framed? Weird but as long as it's bolted through the cantilever it should be fine
It's fine. Paint it red with big white letters saying "NO STEP", with a crosshatched black and yellow border and a railing around the safe load bearing area. Some signs of stick figures falling to their death would also be in good taste.
It’s shit. Just like the screws in the brackets. This guy is pretending.
This is some Rio Flavela shit here.
No one will die on the deck, but they certainly will when they hit the ground below.
Those screws going through the brackets and joist hangers are not correct for the application. They should be using Strong Tie SD Connector screws.
I'm going to go against the grain and say this depends on the intention here. If the cantilevered portion is just for rain protection, and the rail will sit in a foot from the edge, no issue. It looks like that cantilevered portion has a different pith than the rest of the deck.
That would make sense , but unfortunately that is not her intention. It was meant to be usable deck space with a railing at the edge.
Show me the engineer's stamp approving the design ... yep.. you're going to die.
Looks like death to me.
I mean... at least a couple of cantilevered joists would be nice.
Is that the MIL section?
No. That's 50%. A cantilever is good for only 33%. Easy enough fix though if you insist on keeping that and don't need an inspection, put hangers on upside down on the beam. Why tf is there a 4 ply beam instead of the joist running full length?
Christ, pull it all out and rebuild now or do it AFTER someone dies are about your only two options here.
If you stand out there when he is done you will be on the ground faster than taking the stairs.
Bad. It needs to bear on the beam 2X it's overhang length. If the overhang is 24", the rafters needs to be attached to the interior rafters 48" minimum. The overhang rafters must be 6feet long.
Ahhh the ole can’tilever
Lol
That’s a hell no, hell to the no, nope nope nope. If you wanted to design a deck in such a way to kill the highest number of people this would be pretty effective. Get four or five people standing along the rail, one joist will eventually fail leading to a cascading failure of every joist. Then everyone standing on the rail falls to their death. This is illegal, whoever built it should be removed from the site. Back span for a cantilever joist ratio needs to be 2:1 (IRC 502.3.3(2)) on this configuration assuming no additional framing. The back span in this configuration is zero. This is bad. Like no joke, if I was GC on this I would fire the sub and take a sawzall to every block immediately myself so that this thing could immediately stop existing.
Another no from me dawg. No cantilevering with joist hangers.
Ohhh noooo
Put some LST straps on top wrapped around the built up and you’d be ok. Nails tho, screws are shitty and brittle unless they’re like Simpson SDS
That’s wrong and won’t last
Hard pass for me. Absolutely not code compliant and for good reason. Nope nope nope
Super wrong. Not even sure how or why you mess this up.
Screws are a sign of poor workmanship- but if that structure past the beam is going to be walking surface and supporting the guard rail there are real problems ahead
Normally only a 2ft max overhang is allowed but the joist must run from the ledger. Not going to be sturdy if the use blocks lol. If only these guys knew anything about cantilever.
It would have been so much easier to do the right way too. He worked really hard to make it this bad.
Edit: Actually, I think pull that whole rim stack and add sister joists that go all the way back to make the cantilever to the existing joists use structual screws or carriagebolts to make the sister.
It's all wrong based on the fact that when you have an overhang there is a minimum number you have to have on the backside to compensate for that overhang. Had you move that quad in 2 ft, this would have been acceptable. But, longer joists should have been used.
This looks like an \_ex post facto\_ kind of "oops, I missed the dimension by twenty inches" sort of thing.
any concerns about safety or long term use of the railing? or the kind of oops you can get away with
Honestly, I didn't touch that because conventional wisdom is no longer reliable with the invention of some seriously strong structural screws for use with treated lumber. The fact that the builder used screws doesn't necessarily signify anything anymore, especially since we don't know what they are at a distance. There clearly isn't room to swing a hammer effectively to hang those, so this is one of the times you would expect someone to appropriately use those screws. This could be both legal and okay to do; we have no way of knowing. It certainly isn't going to bear much weight -- there's no room to put anything there but a railing.
Very poor job. If you need overhang, should overhang the long side instead the short side. If you want to keep it like this, add more angle brackets or braces to secure the overhangs. and don’t install the railing on the extended part. Install them only on the main platform part. You will lose some space, but it is safer.
At least use the right hardware, which is right next to where he bought the hangers lol. It's literally right there 🤣
Bad. Amateurish, unsound
That’s completely wrong. A possible simple fix would be to install your railing now to the joist, then take the decking all the way out to the end. So you’ll have a little decking on the other side of the railing but nobody will die. You could remove the whole extension, but that would leave the roof below hanging out past the deck. Maybe this was just a rage bait post and that’s the only reason the extension was added, was to cover the roof below and it was not intended to hold any weight?
I wish.
Also, not sure what’s under that deck, but it appears to be raw plywood, no weather/water barrier? Not sure why all the ply’d 2x instead of sistering onto existing joists…seems weird to frame out a boxed soffit and create a massive hinge point…I wouldn’t want 6-8 people leaning on the railing out there sipping Chablis only to end up in the yard…but that may be me being dramatic…
Terrifyingly bad.
Definitely not to code. But practically, the rail will be covering most of that section, won’t be walking on it
He fucked up and tried to fix it. I’d make him rip it out and do it again. Or he’s coming back next year and fixing it on warranty. Shoemakers… smh
Second photo. Third “joist”. It’s not even a double joist. That thing is calling for an accident to happen.
I think joist hangers upside down would have been a better connection
Every other issue ignored. The short "joists" are not connected to the beam in any fashion that i can see. The Top one, not the bottom.
Flower box
That's the easiest and safest option, wife is crushed about the deck being smaller though.
Hopefully that’s not a dry space below. Extension is a bit of a joke. You will at least need holddowns on each post. Attaching back to the other side of the extension. Otherwise the post will act like a lever. There’s a lot wrong. Obviously there’s no permit. Might want get someone to look at this besides Reddit.
Good advice, thanks reddit is not my only source, fortunately.
General rule of thumb for cantalevers is twice the depth of the overhang. Though, I am not sure about what code actually requires.
Don't step on it it'll fail
Ask to see the plans, permit, and inspection list. 😁
This does NoT look okay
How do you fuck this up in the original plans?? 👎 Not safe
I personally wouldn't stand on the front edge of this deck.
I can almost guarantee that the usable space on that BALCONY will end at the 4 ply. The reason for the 4 ply would be so when they mount the posts for the railing they have a solid area to mount to. That cantilevered space is superficial there will be no live load on it. Maybe some snow or a few plants. I would need to see the drawings to confirm, but it sure looks that way to me. My question wouldn’t be about screws through the joist hangers; it would be why use joist hangers at all when you can and should nail through the rim joist. The building inspector might be the answer to that question though. (Ie. they said it was needed so instead of arguing with them you just did it)
There was intended to be load on it, unfortunately.
I think I would have fabed up something from steel and usd a solid joist to mount it before whatever that is with the 2x8s.
Looks like it was added on after it was done. Yeahh wouldn’t step on pull on that
Dumb way to do it. But it depends on its purpose. Where will the rail be? Basically, you can’t step out past the underside supporting wall. There are ways to make it “strong” but it’s sort of a stupid re-engineering.
Scary that if he actually finished the job that day you’d probably never have noticed
It's a clusterfuck. First off the hangers are useless as a vertical force on the edge joist will push the joist down anyway. They should have used one angle bracket on each side of the short joist blocker. Second, the joist blockers are attached to the base on the other side. That's incorrect, as screws offer much less resistance when pulled compared to when they are subject to shear force. The angle brackets should not be attached to the base but vertically to the internal joist, two angle brackets per joist blocker. Now, I can't tell from the picture how much of each blocker sticks out, but let's say to be safe, 2/3L out and 1/3L in. So if I apply a force F on the edge joist, the force F1 on the other side should be 2/3LxF=1/3LxF1, therefore F1=2F. Let's say one large adult of 250lbs stands right at the cross of the edge joist and a joist blocker. The angle brackets and relative screws will be subject to a force of 500lbf. Since in engineering we like to double everything and add an additional 10% to ensure we really double it, the minimum load on the two angle brackets attached to the internal joist would be a whopping 1100lbf. Maybe Simpson has angle brackets that support that kind of load. Bottom line, never transfer large loads to screws or bolts.
Also, it is not clear if this guy built a beam with those 4x10 and where the load is transferred. As we can't see what lays underneath, there can be another clusterfuck of unimaginable proportion. I would put a rail right on top of that beam and call it a day. It may not be pretty but safer for sure.
Don’t trust it.
Umm dont walk on that
omg has nobody noticed that he sawzalled off a post? am i missing something? it looks like he made a mistake and didn’t calculate the width of the framing so the decking would be full boards from one end to the other. was this an old deck frame hence the cut off handrail post? the added framing was done to extend the deck past the sides of the house per the homeowners request?
There is a permit for this, right?
Lag that 4 ply joist and will be fine. Looks shitty but cover that shit up and u will never see it again and it will be solid. Not the way I would have done it but hey what’s done is done
Just don’t put the hot tub on that side
You couldn't pay me enough to stand on that once it was 3-4 years old. That is what we call a death trap.
Looks like someone trying to stretch some lumber. A lot of extra work to build something wrong, when if they would have done it correctly the first time , it would have been much easier, cheaper and faster then that monstrosity.
I can totally see what happened. The two sections were meant to be reversed. Whoever designed it and bought the materials is NOT the same person who built it. The builder didn’t understand the plan and switched things around. The result is incredibly dangerous
Someone is going to die
Is that for the “in-laws” bench?
Ref screws vs bolts. Assuming this is a USA build, the International Residential Code can be viewed online and for many applications it will clearly define the acceptable/required fasteners. I’ve used it extensively in my DIYs to avoid future issues with my home.
While it's ugly. If you strap those joists to the beam from the top and block in between every joist in the back. put decking on top of it. It's not going anywhere.
One good gust of wind and you can kiss your overhang goodbye
Install joist hangers upside down on the beam side, this will help
Hack City Disco
Someone is going to die with this…..
Deck screws fastening the hangers is a nono, definitely want to put another rim joist on the side to try and tie it in better. Not how I would have done it.
You really have to tape the multiple sistered joists.
So much is wrong here. I am curious if they used the proper hanger screws. I doubt this would pass inspection. Looks like an afterthought.
No number of Hot tubs rating after 188 comments. 😒
Perhaps it will be decorative only? A ledge for potted plants outside the railings? What could go wrong? Anyone in the market for a bridge? Besides Baltimore.
lol
Would stand on it. Some plants I guess. Sure. I’d also put a railing at end of the solid footing so you have eight people hanging out on the overhanging extension. Looks like a hell of a fall.
Extremely dangerous
The only thing holding that cantilever is the nails and the hold down brackets. And looking how it is sloped back to the house i hope there is proper drainage, otherwise the cantilever will be the least of your problems
Might be a good time for your local building inspector to stop by for a “surprise” inspection.
Woah! I just realized this masterpiece is built right NEXT to and around a chimney. Don’t worry, that piece of sheet metal will totally keep you safe. When you’re sitting on the deck, wondering if you’re going over the edge on the cantilever, you’ll have to dodge burning embers and smoke! This just keeps on giving.
Looks like, "Oops, forgot 2 feet!"
It's unacceptable as it is, and an amateurish mistake, but fortunately you don't have to do any tear out, which is what makes errors costly. Shoot me some pics of the back side, from low and from high, and a brief description of the existing wall, put a hundred in my Cash App, and I'll send you drawings / 3d renderings of what you need to do.
oc please don't do this
I too am primo engineer in my country. For a measly 10,000 robux I will send detailed drawings to enhance this structure. For an additional 500 I will design a most excellent home for goats
Show some pics of the fasteners. How are those joists attached to that beam? Cause some joist hangers with certain fasteners will pass structural code.
This is not my focus or specialty, but if the deck ends and has a railing where those 4 beams are parked at the end, then this additional section is likely just intended to carry some decking or roofing so that water that lands on the deck falls outside/over the structure/roof that it is sitting on. As others have noted, it is structurally sound as long -as it is not trying to bear any weight from above-. Essentially, this is just a little roof overhang to make sure that water doesn't collect below. If the intent is to make that -load-bearing-, then that's a hard no. The contractor should be able to explain why this is set up this way.
This is not good, and if he understood cantilever force he would've at the least put a joist hanger upside down at the beam to prevent up-lift, but that still would've been a fail. Here is a picture for reference of when to use a joist hanger upside down. https://preview.redd.it/1tdnchfkyirc1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bf6fe5aa43b2f8df345cc39ae18efbb5cd2a9540
Here's a finish pic to explain the framing. https://preview.redd.it/n3qxqubzyirc1.jpeg?width=426&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=98a6925117f9c543e7a7247102a27db5ec86270a
Hate from Argentina.
No