• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Deck Pier/Footing Size and Tributary Loads

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,723
Location
Not where I really want to be
Around here, we are often lucky to get soil compaction tests for commercial projects of 2,000 psf. For residential, it is beyond rare that we have tests performed (I did have 1 person pay for one within the last year) just to find out it was 1,500 psf. We could have just assumed a 1,500 psf bearing capacity right from the IRC and saved him money, but that is another story.

We consistently get deck designs that have undersized piers/footings. I usually tell people to just download the DCA-6 manual and go from there but some of the deck designs are more complicated than the simple tables that they have making it hard to use realistically.

Even when we go over the requirements for simple residential stuff, it is still not what we find when we get out there.

Yesterday's inspection for a pre-pour with 12" Sono-Tube was as follows:

Rectangle deck 16 x 32, long axis with the house.

They had planned 4 - 12" sono tubes to support the beam.

The tributary load for that worked out to 3,200# per pier. Not even close.

This is based on a live-load of 40# per deck requirements and a 10# dead load.

I was not a very popular guy yesterday. I even had to explain that a 12" sonotube is only about 75% of a square foot.

Do you guys have the same problem? It seems like most inspectors in our area just don't give a crap.
 
 
We have more of a concern with footings not deep enough on slopes than undersized. Historically there has not been a failure of simple spanned decks with plain footings 6 inches thick. For 2-tier decks I use the calculator but most of the time they are submitted 24 inches square and 10 inches thick regardless.

It may be the inspectors don't know how to use a calculator or as you say don't care.

Francis
 
Decks have allways scared me, I have seen a few fall off. I have attached my excel caculator for sono size, the unfinished draft om my guidance for decks (based on the DAC manual) and a deck templete drawing, it is amazing how many cant draw a simple deck. well I was going to but the files are to large

Any hints group?

I recomend spread footings for any deck that there is a slight chance of a roof being put on and require spread footing for anything that has a roof even the 6' farmers porch.

I find that the center pier of anyhing over 10x10 the center tube need to be at least 16" diamater

I tell customers it is easyer to fix it on paper than have to take a do over.
 
I keep my spreadsheets here; timbertoolbox.com I'd be happy to stick it there and you could link to it if you're comfortable.

I've never been comfortable with an unfooted sonotube, I can't recall a plan that didn't at least start with a 2x2x8" w/2 #4 bars ea way. Personally I prefer to bury a .60 6x6 post from footing to top of rail and avoid hinges. The decking will need replacing well before the post at which point the frame is being scrutinized again.

One of the form companies is touting "code approved" for it's forms in the glossy mags and there is an ESR that acknowledges that the form is made to hold concrete. I'm seeing houses on the net going up on these and it's "code approved", just like the ad says.
 
When manufacturers claim their product is "code approved" because they have an ESR they do not understand what an evaluation report is and they do not understand that the only approval that counts is the approval of the local building official.
 
Oh, the manufacturer knows exactly what they are doing when they print that ad.

But the other side of that is that we do not have good prescriptive guidelines for typical pier situations.
 
Another issue we contend with is when they want to frame a roof over an existing deck. Depending on what elevation they are building at, we have a ground snow load that varies from 40-55.

I make them dig up at least one pier to see what size it is. They are usually ****ed about this because most of the time it is nothing more than a 4x4 in the ground with sakrete poured around it. Something we don't allow
 
16x32 is a pretty big deck.

Plan review needs to catch it up front. 4 piers may not work, 5 or 6 might.

It's up to the designer whether to go 4 bigger piers or more of the 12" circular (or a design that utilizes soil friction against the posts).

Should not get to the construction phase when there is so much delta on the bearing capacity.
 
jar546 said:
Another issue we contend with is when they want to frame a roof over an existing deck. Depending on what elevation they are building at, we have a ground snow load that varies from 40-55.I make them dig up at least one pier to see what size it is. They are usually ****ed about this because most of the time it is nothing more than a 4x4 in the ground with sakrete poured around it. Something we don't allow
Click to expand...
Could place the new roof column footings on outside perimenter of the deck footings.

Francis
 
We fight it here a fair bit, we have decent soil, I figure most of them at 2000#psf they usually are pretty close. They can add more piers, hog out the bottom of the holes, or put bigger tubes in.....
 
jar546 said:
Do you guys have the same problem? It seems like most inspectors in our area just don't give a crap.
Click to expand...
Eveeeeery day! ...and we even make sure they are sized correctly at plan submittal. We get a lot of, "i've been doing this for twenty years and haven't needed anything bigger than an 8" footing." They often balk at the frost protection requirement when attached to a house.
 
Are we only concerned with vertical loads?

Are there conditions on where the column is hinged and how it is footed?

A picture of a pier several feet tall in a basement with a post on it supporting a girder drew comments the other day. If I have a 12" pier 4' tall into and top flush with grade and then place the post on it then there is an assumption that something is somehow different. Now start extending that post to pier connection into the air, when does your discomfort rise or does it?
 
DRP said:
Are we only concerned with vertical loads?Are there conditions on where the column is hinged and how it is footed?

A picture of a pier several feet tall in a basement with a post on it supporting a girder drew comments the other day. If I have a 12" pier 4' tall into and top flush with grade and then place the post on it then there is an assumption that something is somehow different. Now start extending that post to pier connection into the air, when does your discomfort rise or does it?
Click to expand...
My post was specific to footing sizes and did not address other issues. All other issues are also dealt with but this was specific to vertical loads. Don't forget that the 2009 IRC improved the requirements for lateral loads with R502.2.2.3 and ledger attachment addresses both vertical and lateral loading under R502.2
 
jar546 said:
Another issue we contend with is when they want to frame a roof over an existing deck. Depending on what elevation they are building at, we have a ground snow load that varies from 40-55. I make them dig up at least one pier to see what size it is. They are usually ****ed about this because most of the time it is nothing more than a 4x4 in the ground with sakrete poured around it. Something we don't allow
Click to expand...
SSTD 10-99 has buried column requirements with and without concrete. They're for uplift, but similar resistance will occur in the other direction.
 
Jar546:

Maybe one of the things you should do in permitting a deck or porch, is to make a list of a few things like a potential future roof over the deck or porch, if this is a regular problem, so you can make a determination on the lower structure, posts, piers and footing, and make this part of the file for future reference. And, at the same time they sign off on this, I would explain the need for larger structure now, for these future loads, otherwise forever hold your peace. This list might include any other areas which are typical problem areas in your experience. In working with a client at the beginning of a design project, I certainly want to know all the potential load conditions. We can’t design for or accommodate conditions we don’t know about. I would also question a little the intended use of such a large deck, large parties, dancing, etc. for increased LL considerations, joist flexibility (vibration/deflection) and for lateral load considerations. The 16' long deck joists are pretty long and they will require some special attention at the ledger at the bldg. Also, on a deck with the outer handrail 16' from the bldg. ledger beam, where a lot of wild action can occur, I would pay some special attention to lateral stability out there.

Given the 16' x 32' deck and 4 posts with 12" sonotubes, I get a larger footing load than your 3.2 kips per footing. You have over simplified your tributary area calc., thus (8' x 32')(40 + 10)/4 = 3,200 lbs., but it’s not quite that simple. The two outer corner posts have a lesser load, about 2 kips and the inner two posts have loads of about 4.8 kips, these are just off the top of my head proportions, no actual calcs., and a 4' deep pier weighs another 500 lbs. But, if the outer beam is moved in under the deck a foot or 18" which is common, and the outer corner posts are moved in so the beam cantilevers a foot or 18", also common, we could actually run some reaction calcs., and the posts would be even more highly loaded. The 12" dia. sonotube is most likely o.k. from a column strength standpoint, but the footing sized must be sized for the loads and soil bearing capacity. The 12" sonotubed could be belled out at the bottom to pick up bearing area. The biggest warning about these piers or footings is that they bear on undisturbed (virgin) soil, or at least well recompacted, at the bottom of the hole. They should not be cast on 6" of loose crap, or they become settlement problems. I would also like to see some vertical rebar in these type piers.

DCA-6 is certainly a good general knowledge guide for deck design, but you still have to read all the footnotes and read between the lines and do some interpolation at times. Like all the tables in the IRC, they cover the simplest, most basic conditions conservatively, and can be easily abused if you don’t have a reasonable idea of what’s really involved in a complete structural design.
 
Jar,

Deal with the same issue, many unhappy residents along the way. Picked up PlanAnalyst software and now cross check with that.

I believe big orange and blue box stores may have added to the problem in conjunction with the well intended weekend warriors and Johnny be Builder by utilizing positive assumptions in design values for deck calculators, hence the abundant acceptance of 10 and 12 inch piers.
 
IRC lack of prescriptive requirements for decks surprised the heck out of me when I first read it. My old code had an appendix for prescriptive deck construction that gave minimum sizes. (it also had prescriptive minimum sizes for interior pier footings as well). I have found the area MOST lacking here is deck construction. It has been an after-thought forever, they can't seem to understand that at its base it is a floor system and one that is subject to wet use and likely will be under greater stress at times than other floors. I use the booklet but for the mist part they treat it the same as the code (we don't need no stinkin' code). My old state had some pretty bad deck failures before they got on the ball. Unfortunately that may be what it takes in other places as well. BTW, the absolute minimum was 16x16x8 depending on trib size (if I remember correctly) in that code.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top