FHB Logo Facebook LinkedIn Email Pinterest Twitter X Instagram Tiktok YouTube Plus Icon Close Icon Navigation Search Icon Navigation Search Icon Arrow Down Icon Video Guide Icon Article Guide Icon Modal Close Icon Guide Search Icon Skip to content
Subscribe
Log In
  • How-To
  • Design
  • Tools & Materials
  • Restoration
  • Videos
  • Blogs
  • Forum
  • Magazine
  • Members
  • FHB House
  • Podcast
Log In

Discussion Forum

Discussion Forum

How to raise height of top deck without re-building the infrastructure

deckhelpneeded | Posted in Construction Techniques on September 14, 2015 10:30am

We are homeowners in Maryland. We recently hired a contractor to re-build our old, decaying two-story deck from the ground up, including new foundations. We need advice from a deck expert on how to raise the level of the top deck without re-building the infrastructure.

We asked for the deck to be build exactly as it was, with two exceptions: the railing had to be to code and the supports could be 6×6 pine rather than steel columns.

The existing top deck had the decking running parallel to the house and it was flush with the bottom of the doors.

Against my better judgment, we allowed them to do the work while we were out of the country but reachable by e-mail. Not that I would have detected the height issue from the height of the supports or the rim joist anyway.

So we get home and the deck is 3.5 inches below the bottom of the door. It is ugly and not what we wanted. Yes, we know that a step-down is “best practice” so as to prevent rain and snow from coming under the door. The old deck was there for 40 years and there was no evidence of water damage. There is a very deep overhang with gutters running over the deck and rain and snow rarely reach that area. We can sit under the overhang when it is raining and not get wet.

We brought this to the attention of the contractor and they said, “well that’s what the plans show” and you signed a contract agreeing to what the plans show. They directed our attention to the drawing on the top left corner of page 4. I consulted an architect and he said yes, that shows a drop-down. He also said that drawings 5 and 6 can also indicate that the new deck is aligned flush with the existing first floor. i.e. “First floor deck @ elevation 0″. There is however no information in the set stating what elevation 0″ means or aligns with.” Further, drawing 1 on page 1 shows the bottom of the deck as level with the bottom of the doors. The line marked “first floor deck” is level with the bottom of the doors. It also has a “0” at that line. An unnumbered drawing on page 1 shows both decks from an oblique angle and shows both decks flush with the doors. They are both drawn the same way, showing decks flush with the doors. And that is how the bottom deck was built. If the top deck was to have been different, i.e., with a step-down, why were they drawn the same way?

We have no training in architectural or engineering drafting so we had no way of knowing what that drawing meant. As it differed from what we had requested, we feel they should have brought it to our attention, explained why they wanted to do it that way, and it ultimately should have been our choice.

At best, it is ambiguous and given that we repeatedly said we wanted it built the way it was, we feel that she should correct this. She is refusing to re-build the infrastructure so we have come up with two alternative ways to raise the height of the deck:

Our two ideas are to remove the decking, increase the height of the joists (attaching with metal straps wrapped around both pieces and tie-in plates) and and then replacing the decking OR add 2x4s to top of decking and add a second layer of decking on top of that; dimensions to be confirmed).

Her engineer to do the drawings and we are to deal with the permit revision.

Would either of these methods work? Is one better than the other? Is there another method we should try?

Thanks.

 

Reply
  • X
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • pinterest
  • email
  • add to favorites Log in or Sign up to save your favorite articles

Replies

  1. DanH | Sep 14, 2015 01:21pm | #1

    What is the composition & dimensions of the joists and decking?

    1. deckhelpneeded | Sep 14, 2015 02:33pm | #2

      All Southern yellow pine. The joists are 2 x 10 (and 12 feet in length);  the decking is 5/4 x 6. I realize there will be a weight issue but we have been told by the contractor in the past that as long as there is nothing in the IRC to prohibit a design feature, and a certified engineer signs off on it, it will be approved by the county, I bought the 2015 IRC which was adopted by our county back in July and I don't see anything about this (not surprisingly) so as long as the engineer signs off on the additional weight and structural soundness, it should be approved by the county. 

      1. DanH | Sep 15, 2015 08:31pm | #3

        Note that if you deck over then any leaves or pine needles that find their way through the top layer will be trapped in the middle.  You will also create a realtively attractive squirrel run.

        1. deckhelpneeded | Sep 16, 2015 02:07pm | #10

          We were thinking that might be the case, plus it would be a lot of extra weight, so we were wondering if we could remove every second or third piece of decking from that lower deck. Yes, we know birds might nest there but from our point of view, that would be a plus!

  2. User avater
    deadnuts | Sep 15, 2015 08:55pm | #4

    Is your new P.T. decking installed with nails or screws?

    1. deckhelpneeded | Sep 16, 2015 01:48pm | #7

      Screws

      1. User avater
        deadnuts | Sep 16, 2015 10:53pm | #15

        I wouldn't raise the deck myself, but if you must, then:

        Okay; good that it'sscrewed decking because removing and reinstalling the decking w/o damage should not be much of an issue. Hoiwever I wouldn't put a bunch of plates and straps on to hold the new joist pad ups.

        I would recommend screwing the joist pad ups with 1/4" dia. SPAX or SIMPSON coated structural scews. I would 7/8" counter bore all the pad ups at about 24" O.C. at a depth of 1/3 of the pad. I would pre drill all the P.T. pad on a drill press in the shop and it won't take that long to do. INstall these pad up with PL adhesive on edge and with a screw lenght twice the remaining depth of the counter bored socket. This should allow you to use a reasonalbe lenght screw of about 4". Simpson makes a 4" coated hex drive that should work fine. I would then flash all the tops of these pad ups with Vykor flashign tape before reinstalling decking. This will seal the screw sockets as well as protect the joists. Using Vykor tape on top of joists is good policy on any P.T. joinst deck anyhow.

        What about your railing (if installed)? Won't padding up the deck effect your code required railing ht?

  3. User avater
    Mike_Mahan | Sep 16, 2015 10:25am | #5

    Why not just jack the whole thing up?

    You could jack it up and extend the posts. Either replace them or come up with a creative way to extend them either with plinth blocks at the bottom or some sort of corbel at the top. This might take some creative hardware solutions but it seem better than dealing with the joists or decking itself. Without details on the framing it's hard to offer anything more specific.

    1. deckhelpneeded | Sep 16, 2015 01:53pm | #8

      I agree that new posts (and raising the ledger board) would be the best thing to do. The contractor is refusing to make any modifications to the infrastructure. In fact, at this point, she is refusing to do anything at all and in a very aggressive move, took all the remaining lumber away one day in advance of a scheduled meeting to discuss the situation even though she hasn't finished other work that needs to be done. I don't know how to read this but it doesn't feel as though she wants to resolve the situation.

      Mucking with the infrastructure is beyond our capabilities, whereas we could quite easily remove the existing decking, add 2x4s to the top of the 2x10 joists with tie-in plates,and then put the decking back down.

      The framing on the upper level consists of four 6x6 PT SYP supports that hold up a pair of 2x10 joists. On the house side, there is a standard ledger board with joist hangers. Then the 2x10 joists and the decking on top of that. 

  4. DanH | Sep 16, 2015 12:25pm | #6

    I would only deck over if there are no current or future trees nearby of a height that would allow either leaves or rodents to get to the deck.

    Removing the decking and adding "shims" to the tops of the joists is probably preferable.  If screws were used on the decking then it should be possible to salvage most of the existing decking. 

    The "shims" should be whatever height is needed to raise the deck to the desired height.  If a 2x4 (3.5 inchs of height when on edge) works that's good.  Otherwise it would probably be necessary to rip a wider piece to the appropriate height.  If the wood (I'm presuming treated) must be ripped then the cut edge should be treated with "wood preservative" to insure the integrity of the wood.

    Fastening would be a bit of a problem.  Strapping of some sort could be used, but if it goes over the top it will leave lumps.  Better would be flat nailer plates on the side, but these would be more tedious to install.  Long screws could be used, but they would likely have to be countersunk slightly (screws longer than 3.5" tend to not have flat heads), adding a rot vulnerability.  Or one could toenail/toe screw.  Be sure whatever hardware you use is rated for treated lumber.

    1. deckhelpneeded | Sep 16, 2015 01:59pm | #9

      There is a 125-yr-old red oak next to the deck (yes, we've had it inspected at regular intervals). There are definitely squirrels on the deck. 

      What you are suggesting is what we are thinking is the way to go. Helpful to know that we should treat the cut edge, if we need to cut it. 

      We were thinking of 7 inch tie-in plates on both sides of each joist, spaced maybe 5 inches apart (the span is 12 feet) so there would be 24 tie-in plates for each joist (12 on each side). Is that what you mean by a flat nailer plate? 

      All dependent on the permitting people approving this, which is dependent on the engineer drawing the plans and signing off. Since the engineer works for the contractor and the contractor seems disinterested in resolving the situation, I don't know what we will do. We don't have any more money, we have an unfinished deck....and a huge knot in my stomach over all of this.

    2. deckhelpneeded | Sep 16, 2015 02:14pm | #11

      We think this is the best apporach. We were thinking of using 7 inch tie-in plates (is that what you mean by nailer plates?). With a five inch space between, so on each side of the joist, there would be 12 plates (the span is 12 feet). 

      We were planning to use screws but 3.5 inch screws would go right through the joist...no? The actual size of a 2 x 10 is 1.5 inches and the tie-in plates are about .04 inches so a screw that long would be too long. Or are you thinking we would be attaching from the top down through to the 2x10? Maybe we should be doing both. Nailng through the top and doing the tie-in plates. 

      Good to know we need to treat the edge of the shims if we rip them. I hadn't thought of that. 

      1. DanH | Sep 16, 2015 04:20pm | #12

        For screws I was thinking top-down.  You'd need 4.5" or 5" screws to go through the 3.5" 2x4s and have enough length left for attachment.

        1. User avater
          deadnuts | Sep 16, 2015 10:56pm | #16

          why 2x4?

          If the exisiting deck is 3.5" below the door, then you wouldn't be padding up with a full P.T. 2x4 because you have to account for the thickness of the decking.

      2. mark122 | Sep 16, 2015 10:18pm | #13

        can you post some pictures of the deck? overview, bottom of the deck floor needing raised, and tops side?

        1. User avater
          deadnuts | Sep 16, 2015 10:37pm | #14

          Yes; please post some pictures for Mark122.

          His reading comprehension is severly challenged. Pictures and comic book style dialogue have a better chance of keeping him in the loop.

          1. mark122 | Sep 18, 2015 04:11pm | #29

            My reading comprehension?

            Dumbnuts reads the post and says: 

            "If the exisiting deck is 3.5" below the door, then you wouldn't be padding up with a full P.T. 2x4 because you have to account for the thickness of the decking."

            Numbnuts, once you remove the decking (5/4 decking roughly 1") then how much lower is the deck structure going to be?

            let me answer this for you because you clearly cant work this one out, 4.5"

            Place 2x4 (3.5") on its side, screwed to the 2x10's. how for below the door is the deck now?

            let me help you out, 1".

            now we take the decking and put it back on. presto! the decking is right at the bottom of the door, good thing you didnt go fix this one...

            No wonder you need an engineer for EVERYTHING you do.

          2. User avater
            deadnuts | Sep 18, 2015 06:36pm | #30

            Read the orginal post genius.

            The OP states his second considered option: "...OR add 2x4s to top of decking". Which part of "to top of decking" do you not understand?

          3. mark122 | Sep 18, 2015 10:13pm | #33

            oh please

            you were questioning dan specifically refering to 2x4's on their sides. 

            the entire conversation is about "padding" (your architectural vocabulary) the joist to gain the step down from the new deck.

            its ok dumbnuts. i wont beat you over the head with it. just do the world a favor, keep hiring your engineer for anything you do and dont stry from that.

        2. deckhelpneeded | Sep 17, 2015 07:03am | #17

          Yes, later today we can take some pix and post them.

          When I was losing sleep over this last night, I came up with another idea. Apparently, you can buy 2 x 14 dimensional lumber. The actual size is 13.25. The current joists are 2 x 10 (actual size 9.25). So that takes us up four inches, which is too much. Total we need to go up 3.5 inches.

          So what if we go to the lumberyard, order 2 x 14x, have them rip 3/4 inch off, replace the joists, then put the decking back on?

          In other words, put in taller joists rather than trying to pad the joists?

          1. DanH | Sep 17, 2015 07:14am | #18

            A 12-foot PT 2x14 weighs about 92 pounds.  How high off the ground is this deck?

          2. deckhelpneeded | Sep 17, 2015 09:15am | #20

            The top deck is about 132 inches off the ground (the lower deck is 30 inches off the ground and the top deck is 8.5 feet above the lower deck). 

            The four footers are 16 inches in diameter. 

            The weight of the 12 ft 2 x 10 is 66 lbs. I'm getting 88 lbs for the 2 x 16: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/green-kiln-dried-pressure-treated-lumber-weights-d_1860.html

            So figure the 2 x 14 (even before it is ripped to size) is 88 to be on the safe side. That means adding 22 lbs of weight to each of 16 joists - about 352 lbs. Figure 400 max?

            The plans say:

            ALL CONCRETE WILL HAVE A MIN. 28 DAY

            COMPRESSION STRENGTH OF 3000PSI

            2. ALL SOIL BEARING CAPACITIES ARE ASSUMED

            TO BE A MIN OF 2000 PSF.

            3. CONCRETE FOOTINGS ARE SIZED WITHIN THE

            DRAWING HOWEVER THEY SHALL NOT BE

            LESS THAN OUTLINED IN IRC2012 TABLE R403.1

            We would have a professional engineer amend the plans and sign off on them (as required by our county law) so the county can approve them. 

          3. deckhelpneeded | Sep 17, 2015 09:51am | #22

            Just re-counted - there are 22 joists, not 16. So it would be an additional 484 lbs of weight. 

            Photos of understructure here. 

            Those cross-braces are supposed to be 2x10 per the plans. We don't know why they didn't use 2 x 10. We have asked but have received no response. 

          4. DanH | Sep 17, 2015 04:21pm | #25

            There is no need for those cross-braces to be anything larger than 2x4.

          5. deckhelpneeded | Sep 17, 2015 05:10pm | #26

            I know. I was just pointing out that the plans say 2 x 10, and here the contractor is saying (of the height) it is per plans. Well, then everything should be per the plans. 

            We specifically asked for 2x10s because we wanted the deck to look as it did before, and because birds nested atop those 2x10s, which we really liked. I know - most people do not like that. We do. And we explained that over and over, and yet they put in 2x4s. 

          6. User avater
            deadnuts | Sep 17, 2015 10:05pm | #28

            localized amnesia

            deckhelpneeded wrote:

            I know. I was just pointing out that the plans say 2 x 10, and here the contractor is saying (of the height) it is per plans.

            Huh. I thought you couldn't understand technical drawings.

          7. DanH | Sep 17, 2015 04:17pm | #24

            I'm not worried about the weight of the structure, I'm thinking about the work required to lift a bunch of 90 pound joists 11 feet into the air and secure them.  Not a job I'd jump into.

          8. deckhelpneeded | Sep 17, 2015 05:12pm | #27

            I hear you. I am not looking forward to this at all. I think we will need to rig up something with ropes and pulleys 

  5. suburbanguy | Sep 17, 2015 09:14am | #19

    Forget About It

    You're losing sleep and want to go to an unbelievable amount of work over 3 1/2 inches!!?  How can it be UGLY if everything else is as it was originally?   A 3 1/2 inch difference does not make something UGLY.   I'm sorry but I think that you're making a mountain out of a molehill.  I suspect the contractor thinks the same and has labelled you as a "difficult" customer. 

    It is indeed unfortunate that your specific instructions were not transmitted to the person who did the drawings.  My best adice is just to live with it.  No one else will notice or care.

    1. deckhelpneeded | Sep 17, 2015 09:28am | #21

      At the doors, it is super ugly. Will post pix later today. 

      The original design was quite elegant - the smooth transition from the inside to the outside looked great. Now it looks ugly. 

      The contractor can think whatever she wants. It was her job to build what we asked for as long as it was within code and if she thought it should be done differently, point that out and give us the choice. It is our 25k and we have to live with this deck for 20+ years. She's already made it clear that she won't fix it so we are figuring out how to fix it ourselves within our own capabilities, so what difference does it make what the contractor thinks? As best we can tell, she isn't even planning to finish the remaining work under the contract and we will have to do that work, too. 

      Let's leave the contractor out of this discussion. I was asking how WE could fix it within our capabilities. The contractor is not going to be involved. The only thing we asked her to do is to have her engineer revise and sign off on the modification so we could take the plans to the permitting office for approval. 

    2. deckhelpneeded | Sep 17, 2015 10:01am | #23

      I am really not concerned with what other people notice. I am concerned with how we feel about it and we think it looks terrible and is a tripping hazard. It cost 25k and we didn't get what we asked for and have to live with it for a really long time. 

      Incidentally, the plans are ambiguous at best. Yes, there is a small, unlabeled technical drawing that we now know (having consulted an architect) shows a step-down though not as large as built. However, three other drawings show both upper and lower deck flush with the bottom of the doors. There is own drawing that shows both decks from an oblique angle and the upper and lower deck are both drawn exactly the same way - wth the deck flush with the bottom of the doors. When the plans were sent to me, I told the contractor that I did not know how to read plans. If those plans showed something other than what we requested, it should have been explained to us. There were two design elements that were not drawn as requested but these required no expertise (one was a missing set of steps - pretty easy to spot). But to expect a homeowner to be able to understand technical drawings? 

  6. wmheinz | Sep 18, 2015 07:57pm | #31

    Live with it....

    Unless you are willing to pay the full cost of redoing the deck. 

    In almost every arbitration case I've been involved (mostly as an expert witness, thank god), details matter the most...  If "the drawing on the top left corner of page 4" is the ledger detail showing the exact location of the decking and deck framing relative to the interior floor elevation, it would be the most important drawing in the set related to this problem.  I assume, from your description, they did the drawings.  They have an obligation to make sure it's clear to you what is going on, but their arguement will be that the detail specifically shows how it's to be built. 

    If that's the case, I think your bacon is fried in dealing with the contractor - whatever they will do to keep a customer satisfied is the limit to which they will likely go.  All of the proposals I have seen will likely double the labor costs of the construction (get engineer approval, remove the decking, reframe or modify every joist, reinstall all of the decking).  I didn't see any discussion of the handrails..have they been installed yet?

    Even if they did make a mistake on the deck elevation, the cost to correct it would likely be deemed excessive by an arbiter.  And don't even think about a lawyer on this size of a project...it will eat up any costs you think you will get from the contractor.

    A great example:  Our local homeowners' association contracted to have a swimming pool built.  In addition to being a recreational pool, we needed it for the local swim team.  It was to be 25 yards long and wide enough for 6 lanes.  They built a 25 METER pool. UUUGGGHHH!!  It wasn't measured until it was nearing completion and, even though the contract specifically stated it was to be 25 yards, the cost to make the change was deemed an excessive penalty to rebuild the entire pool.  We were able to negotiate some other pool extras (lane lines, floaties, etc) because they wanted to satisfy us as much as possible....but we were the only team in the league with a pool that was 6' longer than everyone else...seperate records had to be kept, separate qualifying times, etc..

    If you are willing to fork over the entire reconstruction expense, then go for it. Otherwise, my advice (40 years as an architect) is to learn to live with it and move on. 

    1. wmheinz | Sep 18, 2015 08:10pm | #32

      Sorry...didn't see there was a second page of comments..

      and had resolved the issue with the contractor.  Consider yourself very lucky this contractor is willing to go this far to make you happy...not a lot of contractors would be willing to donate that much labor to the project.  They deserve your recommendation for making it right with you.. 

      1. User avater
        deadnuts | Sep 19, 2015 09:09am | #34

        before you read too much into it

        I don't think "the" contractor resolved the issue. Apparently the  orignial architect/contractor met with her engineer and  owner on site to provide a permittable resolution. It could be another contractor that will do the re-work. I guessing that will not be for free. The homeowner also never indicated the engineered solution was "donated".

        see reply #23 from deckhelpneeded:

        "The contractor is not going to be involved. The only thing we asked her to do is to have her engineer revise and sign off on the modification so we could take the plans to the permitting office for approval."

  7. kaseylynn603 | Dec 15, 2019 09:00pm | #35

    Hey there. Can you tell me how you guys eventually were able to raise the deck? We had someone build us a small deck with a 10 inch step down!!! We need to raise it and I’d like not to have to totally rebuild it.

Log in or create an account to post a comment.

Sign up Log in

Become a member and get full access to FineHomebuilding.com

Video Shorts

Categories

  • Business
  • Code Questions
  • Construction Techniques
  • Energy, Heating & Insulation
  • General Discussion
  • Help/Work Wanted
  • Photo Gallery
  • Reader Classified
  • Tools for Home Building

Discussion Forum

Recent Posts and Replies

  • |
  • |
  • |
  • |
  • |
  • |
View More Create Post

Up Next

Video Shorts

Featured Story

Tool Test: You Need a Drywall Sander

We tried out a range of rotary and random-orbit sanders to compare their dust collection, quality of finish, and user fatigue after hours of sanding.

Featured Video

SawStop's Portable Tablesaw is Bigger and Better Than Before

The 10-in. Jobsite Saw PRO has a wider table, a new dust-control port, and a more versatile fence, along with the same reliable safety mechanism included in all SawStop tablesaws.

Related Stories

  • Podcast Episode 684: Masonry Heaters, Whole-House Ventilation, and Porch Flooring
  • FHB Podcast Segment: Repairing an Old Home While Maintaining Its Integrity
  • Tools and Gear for the Moms Who Get it Done
  • An Easier Method for Mitered Head Casings

Highlights

Fine Homebuilding All Access
Fine Homebuilding Podcast
Tool Tech
Plus, get an extra 20% off with code GIFT20

"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.

Get home building tips, offers, and expert advice in your inbox

Signing you up...

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
See all newsletters
See all newsletters

Fine Homebuilding Magazine

  • Issue 331 - June 2025
    • A More Resilient Roof
    • Tool Test: You Need a Drywall Sander
    • Ducted vs. Ductless Heat Pumps
  • Issue 330 - April/May 2025
    • Deck Details for Durability
    • FAQs on HPWHs
    • 10 Tips for a Long-Lasting Paint Job
  • Issue 329 - Feb/Mar 2025
    • Smart Foundation for a Small Addition
    • A Kominka Comes West
    • Making Small Kitchens Work
  • Issue 328 - Dec/Jan 2024
    • How a Pro Replaces Columns
    • Passive House 3.0
    • Tool Test: Compact Line Lasers
  • Issue 327 - November 2024
    • Repairing Damaged Walls and Ceilings
    • Plumbing Protection
    • Talking Shop

Fine Home Building

Newsletter Sign-up

  • Fine Homebuilding

    Home building tips, offers, and expert advice in your inbox.

  • Green Building Advisor

    Building science and energy efficiency advice, plus special offers, in your inbox.

  • Old House Journal

    Repair, renovation, and restoration tips, plus special offers, in your inbox.

Signing you up...

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
See all newsletters

Follow

  • Fine Homebuilding

    Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.

    Start Free Trial Now
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • X
    • LinkedIn
  • GBA Prime

    Get instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.

    Start Free Trial Now
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
  • Old House Journal

    Learn how to restore, repair, update, and decorate your home.

    Subscribe Now
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • X
  • Fine Homebuilding

    Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.

    Start Free Trial Now
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • X
    • LinkedIn
  • GBA Prime

    Get instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.

    Start Free Trial Now
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
  • Old House Journal

    Learn how to restore, repair, update, and decorate your home.

    Subscribe Now
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • X

Membership & Magazine

  • Online Archive
  • Start Free Trial
  • Magazine Subscription
  • Magazine Renewal
  • Gift a Subscription
  • Customer Support
  • Privacy Preferences
  • About
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Careers
  • Terms of Use
  • Site Map
  • Do not sell or share my information
  • Privacy Policy
  • Accessibility
  • California Privacy Rights

© 2025 Active Interest Media. All rights reserved.

Fine Homebuilding receives a commission for items purchased through links on this site, including Amazon Associates and other affiliate advertising programs.

  • Home Group
  • Antique Trader
  • Arts & Crafts Homes
  • Bank Note Reporter
  • Cabin Life
  • Cuisine at Home
  • Fine Gardening
  • Fine Woodworking
  • Green Building Advisor
  • Garden Gate
  • Horticulture
  • Keep Craft Alive
  • Log Home Living
  • Military Trader/Vehicles
  • Numismatic News
  • Numismaster
  • Old Cars Weekly
  • Old House Journal
  • Period Homes
  • Popular Woodworking
  • Script
  • ShopNotes
  • Sports Collectors Digest
  • Threads
  • Timber Home Living
  • Traditional Building
  • Woodsmith
  • World Coin News
  • Writer's Digest
Active Interest Media logo
X
X
This is a dialog window which overlays the main content of the page. The modal window is a 'site map' of the most critical areas of the site. Pressing the Escape (ESC) button will close the modal and bring you back to where you were on the page.

Main Menu

  • How-To
  • Design
  • Tools & Materials
  • Video
  • Blogs
  • Forum
  • Project Guides
  • Reader Projects
  • Magazine
  • Members
  • FHB House

Podcasts

  • FHB Podcast
  • ProTalk

Webinars

  • Upcoming and On-Demand

Podcasts

  • FHB Podcast
  • ProTalk

Webinars

  • Upcoming and On-Demand

Popular Topics

  • Kitchens
  • Business
  • Bedrooms
  • Roofs
  • Architecture and Design
  • Green Building
  • Decks
  • Framing
  • Safety
  • Remodeling
  • Bathrooms
  • Windows
  • Tilework
  • Ceilings
  • HVAC

Magazine

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Magazine Index
  • Subscribe
  • Online Archive
  • Author Guidelines

All Access

  • Member Home
  • Start Free Trial
  • Gift Membership

Online Learning

  • Courses
  • Project Guides
  • Reader Projects
  • Podcast

More

  • FHB Ambassadors
  • FHB House
  • Customer Support

Account

  • Log In
  • Join

Newsletter

Get home building tips, offers, and expert advice in your inbox

Signing you up...

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
See all newsletters
See all newsletters

Follow

  • X
  • YouTube
  • instagram
  • facebook
  • pinterest
  • Tiktok

Join All Access

Become a member and get instant access to thousands of videos, how-tos, tool reviews, and design features.

Start Your Free Trial

Subscribe

FHB Magazine

Start your subscription today and save up to 81%

Subscribe

Enjoy unlimited access to Fine Homebuilding. Join Now

Already a member? Log in

We hope you’ve enjoyed your free articles. To keep reading, become a member today.

Get complete site access to expert advice, how-to videos, Code Check, and more, plus the print magazine.

Start your FREE trial

Already a member? Log in

Privacy Policy Update

We use cookies, pixels, script and other tracking technologies to analyze and improve our service, to improve and personalize content, and for advertising to you. We also share information about your use of our site with third-party social media, advertising and analytics partners. You can view our Privacy Policy here and our Terms of Use here.

Cookies

Analytics

These cookies help us track site metrics to improve our sites and provide a better user experience.

Advertising/Social Media

These cookies are used to serve advertisements aligned with your interests.

Essential

These cookies are required to provide basic functions like page navigation and access to secure areas of the website.

Delete My Data

Delete all cookies and associated data