This is rock solid engineering, but I would’ve done differently, I would use his box steel on all of the foundation members all the way down to 6 inches above ground level bolted to a concrete rebar foundation below ground. The two foundation members at the end can’t be cantilevered to hold the deck. It’s stronger, and more streamline because steel is King an engineering framework, anyway great show, keep on rocking.
This is why all homes should come with a manual. And all homeowners should be required to read the manual - word will get around when Insurance companies start rejecting claims because the home owner was told the weight capacity of the deck and ignored it.
If it were my house I would have run 2 canted WF's at the corners below the interior floor joists and deck joists perpendicular to that to match top of floor and save money and the steel would be outside of the thermal envelope. Same cant. but way cheaper without special fabrication.
The deck frame wouldn't have changed much, and you two WF's would have cost as much, or more than the 1 12" tube.....there is no savings in your thoughts
Great implementation of so many good principles of both architecture as well as the engineering that makes it possible. Quick question Steve. "View wise", I support your decision for the horizontal members between balusters. I wanted to do the same on my cantilevered deck, but was discouraged by 3 people not to do it, because children love to use them as a ladder. How would you answer those objections?
I don't think you should counter those objections if deck is at a height that falling from over the rail is enough to hurt them. Even quite small children can climb well enough to make it over the rail shown in the video, and it's nearly impossible to superviser children 100% o the time, so I think you have been well advised. If you wanted to have horizontal members, you could have fitted them behind some safety glass so you get the appearance without the risk.
Couple things. First, go look up the definition of cantilever. Second, a hot tub (close to 4000lbs) and one, too many people out there taking a cool pic and we will see the true strength of the four studs closest to the house. This is terrible engineering at best and dangerous at worst. Better add a couple columns to the outside corners of this one buddy or you’re going to have a lawsuit in your future.
Yeah definitely not a very efficient way to achieve the result. I'm sure it's technically engineered for the load, but like you say, probably not as much margin as typical. You can see it move when he bounces.
The column of that deck is humongous.
It looks great!!
This is rock solid engineering, but I would’ve done differently, I would use his box steel on all of the foundation members all the way down to 6 inches above ground level bolted to a concrete rebar foundation below ground. The two foundation members at the end can’t be cantilevered to hold the deck. It’s stronger, and more streamline because steel is King an engineering framework, anyway great show, keep on rocking.
That will be a nice view! Who was the Structual on that?
Will this be able to support 20,000 lbs of water?
My first thought!! Just wait until someone tries to put a hot tub on it.
This is why all homes should come with a manual. And all homeowners should be required to read the manual - word will get around when Insurance companies start rejecting claims because the home owner was told the weight capacity of the deck and ignored it.
If it were my house I would have run 2 canted WF's at the corners below the interior floor joists and deck joists perpendicular to that to match top of floor and save money and the steel would be outside of the thermal envelope. Same cant. but way cheaper without special fabrication.
The deck frame wouldn't have changed much, and you two WF's would have cost as much, or more than the 1 12" tube.....there is no savings in your thoughts
@@stevenbaczekarchitect9431 OK Steve
Great video, pretty kool design and setup. How much total weight can this balcony hold?
Great implementation of so many good principles of both architecture as well as the engineering that makes it possible. Quick question Steve. "View wise", I support your decision for the horizontal members between balusters. I wanted to do the same on my cantilevered deck, but was discouraged by 3 people not to do it, because children love to use them as a ladder. How would you answer those objections?
I don't think you should counter those objections if deck is at a height that falling from over the rail is enough to hurt them. Even quite small children can climb well enough to make it over the rail shown in the video, and it's nearly impossible to superviser children 100% o the time, so I think you have been well advised. If you wanted to have horizontal members, you could have fitted them behind some safety glass so you get the appearance without the risk.
Nice
Thank you
Am planning to build our deck similar to this, can I use tubular steel instead?
$40,000 deck?
This is not example of cantilevered
Exactly
Couple things. First, go look up the definition of cantilever. Second, a hot tub (close to 4000lbs) and one, too many people out there taking a cool pic and we will see the true strength of the four studs closest to the house. This is terrible engineering at best and dangerous at worst. Better add a couple columns to the outside corners of this one buddy or you’re going to have a lawsuit in your future.
Yeah definitely not a very efficient way to achieve the result. I'm sure it's technically engineered for the load, but like you say, probably not as much margin as typical. You can see it move when he bounces.