# Deck Beam Flashing



## Arey85 (Jan 3, 2010)

I've used Ice and water barrier or zip tape in the past. Nobody's going to see it. And it's cheap


----------



## fornews (Dec 12, 2010)

Arey85 said:


> I've used Ice and water barrier or zip tape in the past. Nobody's going to see it. And it's cheap


Thank you

Zip tape ??
What Ice and water barrier are you referring to ?


----------



## dpach (May 12, 2009)

I am putting the finishing touches on a new cedar deck and I have a triple 2x12" beam with two seams. I used BlueSkin that is a rubber surfaced/tar backing skin that you peel and stick over the beam. I used the enhancement glue that you can apply about 20 minutes before the blueskin for better adhesion. Comes in 4", 6" and 9" widths.

I actually did all the floor joists also to protect them where the deck floor screws go in. The tar backing prevents water from penetrating the wood around the screw holes.

Cost me about $250 to do the entire deck (beam and all joists). Cheap protection against future rot.

Of course, I'm wrapping the beam in cedar also, so you won't see the blueskin.

Good luck!


----------



## Arey85 (Jan 3, 2010)

Zip tape is a weather shield tape used to seal plywood panels on roofing and wall sheathing manufactured by advantech a sub company from huber building product. You can google zip system and you'll see what I mean. That stuff is so good I use it everywhere. Around door and window flanges, over roofing step flashing. It's great 
Ice and water is the stuff you put down on the roof before the felt paper on the first course to protect against ice dams. Buy a roll and cut it into strips and place it over your beams and joists.


----------



## Tom Struble (Dec 29, 2008)

dpach said:


> Of course, I'm wrapping the beam in cedar also, so you won't see the blueskin.



:huh:how ya gonna keep water from between the cedar and treated?


----------



## 12penny (Nov 21, 2008)

dpach said:


> I am putting the finishing touches on a new cedar deck and I have a triple 2x12" beam with two seams. I used BlueSkin that is a rubber surfaced/tar backing skin that you peel and stick over the beam. I used the enhancement glue that you can apply about 20 minutes before the blueskin for better adhesion. Comes in 4", 6" and 9" widths.
> 
> I actually did all the floor joists also to protect them where the deck floor screws go in. The tar backing prevents water from penetrating the wood around the screw holes.
> 
> ...


 

What goes between the cedar wrap and the beam?


----------



## 12penny (Nov 21, 2008)

dpach....you didnt hang that deck off the cantilever did you?


----------



## Knucklez (Oct 21, 2007)

where do you buy the blue stuff from?


----------



## fornews (Dec 12, 2010)

dpach said:


> I am putting the finishing touches on a new cedar deck and I have a triple 2x12" beam with two seams. I used BlueSkin that is a rubber surfaced/tar backing skin that you peel and stick over the beam. I used the enhancement glue that you can apply about 20 minutes before the blueskin for better adhesion. Comes in 4", 6" and 9" widths.
> 
> I actually did all the floor joists also to protect them where the deck floor screws go in. The tar backing prevents water from penetrating the wood around the screw holes.
> 
> ...


Is what you used different then what I found ?
It says not to be exposed to UV more then six weeks.

http://www.henry.com/fileadmin/pdf/current/tds/BH200WB4_techdata.pdf

Thank you


----------



## fornews (Dec 12, 2010)

Arey85 said:


> Zip tape is a weather shield tape used to seal plywood panels on roofing and wall sheathing manufactured by advantech a sub company from huber building product. You can google zip system and you'll see what I mean. That stuff is so good I use it everywhere. Around door and window flanges, over roofing step flashing. It's great
> Ice and water is the stuff you put down on the roof before the felt paper on the first course to protect against ice dams. Buy a roll and cut it into strips and place it over your beams and joists.


So I googled "zip tape weathershield" and this thread was in first position.
Amazing 

I couldn't find anything regarding UV capability from zipsystem.com.
It seems this stuff is intended for window and roofs.
Or am I missing something with this product ?

Thank you,


----------



## dpach (May 12, 2009)

Tom Struble said:


> :huh:how ya gonna keep water from between the cedar and treated?


Easy....1/2 thick by 2 inch wide cedar furring strips (spacer) every 2 feet that leaves a 1/2 inch gap between the cedar and PT for drainage and evaporation of moisture. That's how I'm wrapping the entire pressure treated framing. Local building inspector really liked the idea and is recommending it to others.


----------



## dpach (May 12, 2009)

12penny said:


> dpach....you didnt hang that deck off the cantilever did you?


 
No, there's a double joist that runs out from the house (under the post) on each end of the canteliver and a double joist running along the canteliver between these other two (with a 1/2 gap between the canteliver and parallel double joist). Everything is fully up to code (all permits in place and inspectiond done). Not saying its perfect, but the inspector said its one of the best build decks he's inspected in 20 yrs.


----------



## dpach (May 12, 2009)

Knucklez said:


> where do you buy the blue stuff from?


 
Both Home depot and our local lumber store have it. Was easy to work with and I really liked the idea of the tar backing that basically seals around any screws going through it.


----------



## dpach (May 12, 2009)

fornews said:


> Is what you used different then what I found ?
> It says not to be exposed to UV more then six weeks.
> 
> http://www.henry.com/fileadmin/pdf/current/tds/BH200WB4_techdata.pdf
> ...


That's the stuff. I read that too and did some research with local builders before installing. I also looked at 3 decks all over 4 years old that used this on their joists. Everyone was just like the day it was installed.

The local builders I spoke with said the warning is there because under direct UV rays for prolonged periods, the top blue "skin" can get fine crack lines (shrinkage and degradation and they've rarely seen it), but its really the tar backing that prevents moisture from getting through. (The blue "skin" helps shed rapid moisture) And the tar/ashpalt backing is not affected by UV's (just like what's under shingles). Even the builders who have seen it exposed from fall to the next spring say the only thing they've noticed is that with the UV's, the "Skin" tends to shrink a little and can cause it to come loose from the substrate. That is why they recommended using the Bakkor adhesive with it.

I built the framing and installed the flooring last summer. It's now 9 mths later as I'm finishing the custom railings, etc and I had to take off a couple floor boards to finish a railing section, and the Blueskin looked just like the day I put it on 9 mths ago. Even the ends of the beam which have been exposed look like the day it went on. The builders told me that its direct sunlight under prolonged exposure, and the 1/4 inch or so deck spacing isn't going to allow enough UV's through for prolonged periods because the sun is always moving across the sky (different angles).

The thing I wanted to protect the most was the screw holes from the floor boards. The framing I used was actually the old-style CCA pressure treated that is recommended for below ground level (instead of the ACQ stuff). This has much more resistance to moisture and rot from surface moisture. But the darn screw holes is what let's moisture into the wood. The tar/asphalt backing on this is the key that seals around each screw. I didn't want to use a wrap like Typar strips, etc because they don't seal around screw holes.

Here's a pic from a couple days ago. As you can see, it looks just like day one.

Of course, this is only what I've done. I'm sure there's those who will recommend other things which may work better.


----------



## fornews (Dec 12, 2010)

dpach said:


> Both Home depot and our local lumber store have it. Was easy to work with and I really liked the idea of the tar backing that basically seals around any screws going through it.


I didn't see any such in our local HD though I did see for sale on the internet.

What is your location ? I'm mostly curious about location regarding UV.

Did you look at Grace Vycor Deck Protector which does have UV capability?
The Blue seems to be about half the cost though.

Thank you.


----------



## Gary in WA (Mar 11, 2009)

For anyone building a deck, there is a Deck Code for 2009 which most areas will soon be under: http://www.awc.org/Publications/DCA/DCA6/DCA6-09.pdf

dpach, Fig. 28, hope your stringers are Southern Pine only for the span and minimum tread depth. Fig. 34 is also pertinent for you...... IF under the minimum safety Code.

Gary


----------



## dpach (May 12, 2009)

GBR in WA said:


> For anyone building a deck, there is a Deck Code for 2009 which most areas will soon be under: http://www.awc.org/Publications/DCA/DCA6/DCA6-09.pdf
> 
> dpach, Fig. 28, hope your stringers are Southern Pine only for the span and minimum tread depth. Fig. 34 is also pertinent for you...... IF under the minimum safety Code.
> 
> Gary


 
The Stringers you see are cedar (for cosmetic match for the rest of the deck). What you don't see are the 2x12 pressure treated stringers lamintated to the cedar for the strength. So in a 36" stair width, it goes 2x12 cedar with 2x12 pressure treated lamintated to it (1/2inch spacer between for water drainage), 16" span, then another 2x12 pressure treated, 16" span, then another outside stringer set up like the first one. So basically, 5 stringers within 36 inches. The tread depth is 11 inches (so no step overhang required for a much cleaner look) and the stringer has the required 5 inches at the narrowest points (where run meets the riser). The building inspector was more than impressed with the way its been done. Of course, all this was passed when I applied for the permit.

As for Fig 34, if you are referring to the bottom post being mounted one step back from the first step, it was done for a purpose. The second step gives a wider dimension on the stringer to put the double carriage bolts through. The top rail cap is going to extent to the outside edge of the first step (so to the very bottom of the stairs) and there's going to be a decorative piece running down from the railcap end to the first step stringer made from 2x8 cedar so the first step is not a trip hazard when approaching from the side. Again, building inspector was happy with this design and actually glad I moved the first post back to the second step for a wider mounting location for the carriage bolts. 

If you were referring to the footing part of Fig.34, the bottom stair posts are mounted to 12 inch wide by 12 feet deep footings to get not only below our frost line here in the Canadian Prairies, but also below the gumbo soil we have here which heaves a between dry and wet periods. Basically, every pile under this deck goes down 12 feet. :thumbsup:


----------



## Gary in WA (Mar 11, 2009)

Ahh, that explains it. You are probably not under our IRC, here in the States. Your bottom post appears to stop short of the 12 x 12 pier, just bolted to the stringers and in a post base to the concrete. Our's would require the post itself going (below grade) to with-in 6" of the frost-line sitting on the footing (6") thick there. The stringer 2x vertical support would be attached to the post also. 
Our code would not allow a 1/2 riser at the bottom, requiring all risers to be with-in 3/8" difference of another. Your 8 treads = 88" would surpass even Southern Pine stringers maximum span of 7', here, per Code. The cedar may help somewhat, though here it is considered non-structural. So long as it passes local AHJ's, you're fine, good to go! Thanks for the further info......

Gary


----------



## dpach (May 12, 2009)

GBR in WA said:


> Ahh, that explains it. You are probably not under our IRC, here in the States. Your bottom post appears to stop short of the 12 x 12 pier, just bolted to the stringers and in a post base to the concrete. Our's would require the post itself going (below grade) to with-in 6" of the frost-line sitting on the footing (6") thick there. The stringer 2x vertical support would be attached to the post also.
> Our code would not allow a 1/2 riser at the bottom, requiring all risers to be with-in 3/8" difference of another. Your 8 treads = 88" would surpass even Southern Pine stringers maximum span of 7', here, per Code. The cedar may help somewhat, though here it is considered non-structural. So long as it passes local AHJ's, you're fine, good to go! Thanks for the further info......
> 
> Gary


Actually, there is no 1/2 riser at the bottom step; it just looks that way because you step down into the grass. The ground (at the base of the grass) to the top of the first riser is 1/16th different than the rest of the risers.

I'm surprised by your codes requiring posts to be below grade down to within 6" of frost line. Here, we get up to 6 feet of frost. They also don't recommend posts burried in concrete because concrete can absorb moisture which then transfers this to the post burried within it. There are lots of old code structures here where posts were burried in concrete (decks, fences, etc) where even the pressure treated posts are rotting off after 5-8 yrs because if the concrete absorbs moisture, the posts soaks it up and can't dry out.

This is why it is recommended to use a gavlanized post base to keep the post from contact with the concrete.

Plus we have what's referred to as gumbo soil (heavy clay) which can really heave and drop from year to year with moisture/draught. That is why piles/footings just down to the frost line or even a foot below don't pass code here. That's why I went 12 feet down (code required 10 feet).

The only thing about the deck that used to be here (built by previous owner) that was sturdy was the stairs (same 2x12 pressure treated, 18" spacing with 2x6 steps). The rest of the deck was scary (was actually 18 years old, was rotting and only had 2 steel teleposts under the same 18 foot beam (was only a double 2x10 beam). The teleposts weren't even nailed/screwed to the beam (beam just sat on the teleposts).

The deck is actually way past minimum code for our codes, so the inspectors have had no issues. But thanks for the tips.


----------

