Nailing rim joist to Ijoists

[markert2523]

Howdy,

I'm building a cabin with concrete block foundation walls and ijoists that are not cantilevered.  I've asked the contractor to use the LSL engineered wood rim material and I just want to know if nailing the rim to the ends of the ijoists is sufficient.  I will be attaching a ledger board for an elevated deck along the entire front of the cabin (60 feet) and will be using ledgerlok fasteners and some through bolts for attaching the ledger to the rim.  I just want to make sure that nailing the rim to the ijoists is sufficient.  I do plan on using some simpson lateral devices to tie the deck joists to the main ijoists as shown in the detail below:



Any thoughts?

Thanks

[MushCreek]

As far as I know, the only way to attach them is with hangers specifically made for your I-joists. The hangers made for regular lumber won't be the right size. I don't think nails driven in to the end of an I-joist would have enough strength. The manufacturer of the joists will have very specific instructions.

[Don_P]

Do find and follow the manufacturers directions. Typically it is an 8d nail from rimboard into the end of the top amnd bottom flange and 8's every 6" along the rim toenailed into the mudsill. The plywood floor sheathing should not be less than 16" wide. As you have figured out the rim is not well attached to the joist by end grain nails in withdrawal so work it out and don't end up with that 2" rip of sheathing on the far side of the floor, won't be much of anything holding the rim on.

If possible I prefer running 6x6's from the footing up to and notched to support the porch ledger, put it on a post rather than hanging a floor system in the weather on what I just described above.

I believe there is a detail for the lateral restraint that has solid web fill on the I joist in the mounting area, again as per I joist manufacturer.

[markert2523]

Thanks for the replies.

I like the idea of the posts along the walls and sitting on the footers.  The footers are extra wide and extend a good foot beyond the wall.  I think I will just do it all.  Nailed rim, ledgerlok's, lateral stabilizers nailed to blocking on the ijoists and notched posts on the footers.  Then all I have to worry about is that tall foundation wall 

[Don_P]

Another thought occured today, make sure you understand the flashing detail required. Think like a raindrop running down the wall and always lap shingle fashion to direct water out. Also the typical galvanized flashing at the big box does not have a ZMax grade coating so it is not technically compatible with treated lumber, I switched to vinyl flashing when that light bulb went on. Not crazy about it, but at least it doesn't corrode.

[roadtripray]

Also consider using spacers between your deck and the house, as well.  Forgive me if I just didn't understand what you and your drawing says, but it looks like you'll have the deck ledger right against the rim, which gives nowhere for the water to go.  Granted the flashing will help, but you still have a tight connection there and a chance for water to pool, puddle, or otherwise stay on the deck ledger, rotting it and/or the rim joist away until any fasteners you used would not have anything left to grip.

There is a blog article at finehomebuilding.com that discusses some of the options, and another article that claims to properly interpret the IRC 2009 as requiring spacers, unless you use an engineered product or have stamped plans.

I was planning on doing the spacer route, but I'm eager to learn about using flashing instead just to consider all alternatives.  I hope you'll post what you ultimately decide to do and your reasons so I can learn from your experience.

Peace,
Ray

[rick91351]

.....................................snip..........................................................
There is a blog article at finehomebuilding.com that discusses some of the options, and another article that claims to properly interpret the IRC 2009 as requiring spacers, unless you use an engineered product or have stamped plans.
......................................snip..........................................................
Peace,
Ray

You bring up a good point.  We just picked up a new set of stamped plans both front and rear 'porch decks' show bolting directly to both the foundation and the column ledgers without spacers.  Engineering calls for 2X10's treated.   The engineered set this plan replaced also showed the same manor.  Same engineer different architect.  Both plans however the they are not a true 'deck' but a covered porch or patio.     

[markert2523]

Hmmm, I hadn't considered the spacing issue.  But it is a 12' deep deck covered with a continuous roof, so really it is a covered porch---just 11' off the ground.

Thanks for the ideas

[Don_P]

and another article that claims to properly interpret the IRC 2009 as requiring spacers, unless you use an engineered product or have stamped plans.

Hold the phone, Mike didn't say that, read that post carefully.
The spacer option is just one option investigated by Dr's Woeste and Bender when they were testing deck ledger connections at Virginia Tech. I've been in that lab with them explaining the test equipment and methods and have had conversations and emails with Mike on other forums. Basically a spacer is preferred by some builders for it's abilty to drain and dry but that space comes at a steep price, the connection is weaker, which is why the gap is limited to 1/2" and the allowable spans between fasteners is reduced if using spacers, read the bottom 2 rows of table R502.2.2.1 for joist spans over 8' and compare the spaced and bolted connection to the bolted connection, notice the tighter bolt spacing if spacers are used. The spaced connections exhibited greater distortion on lower failure loads thean the unspaced connection. You can google the ledger test report by the engineering professors above with pics and explanations. So it is an option but not a requirement. These were in solid sawn, engineered lumber and connections need to be as per manufacturer directions... or support it on posts as a freestanding assembly. Technically the ledger just became a sized girder but I'll allow leeway on that one myself if the ledger is also bolted per table, the posts become "safeties" although I can tell you where the load is, load goes to stiffness. Which is stiffer the rigid post or the flexible bolt connection.

For flashing, I run flashing on the rim, underneath the ledger that laps over the finish material below, foundation or siding. This extends Several inches above the ledger. Mount the deck ledger. Lap over that flashing with another layer of flashing that extends further up the wall and is bent to cover the top edge of the ledger. The housewrap laps over this layer of flashing, the decking is applied over the flashing that covers the top of the ledger. Water running down the housewrap hits the top flashing and is directed out over the face of the ledger. If anything penetrates that layer of protection the house rim is still protected by the flashing between ledger and rim and that layer of flashing directs the water out over the face of anything below.

If there is a porch roof over this the chances of trouble are greatly reduced, grandpa built porches not decks for a reason. Less water on the decking and less splash on the siding.

I also hold the siding up off the decking 1-1/2" so the siding is not wicking up moisture from the deck surface, the flashing material is exposed to view in that gap.

[roadtripray]

Both plans however the they are not a true 'deck' but a covered porch or patio.     

That would certainly change things, I imagine.  As I'm working on my plans I plan on having a covered porch on the front, but was debating whether to do a deck or covered porch/deck on the back.  Maybe this is another point in the favor of having a roof over a porch or deck.

[roadtripray]

Hold the phone, Mike didn't say that, read that post carefully.
The spacer option is just one option investigated by Dr's Woeste and Bender when they were testing deck ledger connections at Virginia Tech. I've been in that lab with them explaining the test equipment and methods and have had conversations and emails with Mike on other forums. Basically a spacer is preferred by some builders for it's abilty to drain and dry but that space comes at a steep price, the connection is weaker, which is why the gap is limited to 1/2" and the allowable spans between fasteners is reduced if using spacers, read the bottom 2 rows of table R502.2.2.1 for joist spans over 8' and compare the spaced and bolted connection to the bolted connection, notice the tighter bolt spacing if spacers are used. The spaced connections exhibited greater distortion on lower failure loads thean the unspaced connection.

I apologize if I misquoted.  I know reading through all these requirements are daunting for a novice such as myself.  Intuitively I can't imagine that the spacers would make that big of a difference, but now that I think through it perhaps one of the differences is the friction between two continuous boards when they are bolting tight together.

I can't recall the article, but I also remember reading about some engineered product that is more or less a composite ledger board with drain holes in it.  Seems like it was some sort of plastic material that would be sandwiched between the actual deck ledger and the rim joist.  One benefit to using an engineered product is you (hopefully) can trust the prescribed connection methods so you can certainly get it right.

I live in SC just south of Charlotte, NC, and there was a deck failure at a condo that made the local news within the last few weeks.  It seems every summer you read about these things, and they are usually decks done by "professionals."  Another failure I read about years ago was in the Atlanta area and that deck if I recall was actually supported on the house side by upright members.  However when the connection to the house failed the deck toppled, so i guess it wasn't designed as a true free standing deck and relied on the connection to the house for lateral support.

Thanks!
Ray