• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Piling foundation

alaskajoe

Registered User
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
53
Location
Alaska
We have a majority of residential construction using piling foundations. Bearing depth usually varies between 6-10 feet below grade. Mainly creosote piling varying between 6 and 12 inches in diameter driven into muskeg until piling meets refusal. With the scarcity of creosote many have been going to steel piling. It has been usually 6" steel pipe with a saddle welded on top to accommodate beams. I have someone proposing to use 3" schedule 40 driven to refusal with a rated pile driver in approximately 9 feet of muskeg. I can not find anything that would prohibit this diameter piling. It is a 16 x 20 dwelling with a small storage loft. So it is not that large.
 
We have a majority of residential construction using piling foundations. Bearing depth usually varies between 6-10 feet below grade. Mainly creosote piling varying between 6 and 12 inches in diameter driven into muskeg until piling meets refusal. With the scarcity of creosote many have been going to steel piling. It has been usually 6" steel pipe with a saddle welded on top to accommodate beams. I have someone proposing to use 3" schedule 40 driven to refusal with a rated pile driver in approximately 9 feet of muskeg. I can not find anything that would prohibit this diameter piling. It is a 16 x 20 dwelling with a small storage loft. So it is not that large.
Steel pipe, right? Not PVC I hope.

It is non-prescriptive, so I'd say where approved by an engineer.
 
Concrete piles are not feasible in muskeg. Steel piles are common practice for sheds porches and decks around here. It is just that a dwelling is being proposed , albeit a small one. It can easily be calculated the load bearing of each pile with the specs on what piece of equipment is pushing them in the ground. The person has done his calculations and it far exceeds required bearing for this structure. Helical piers are not used much around here yet. I really cant see anything that would prohibit this as long as we verify his calculations.
 
Steel piles are commonly used in many conditions, but this is not something that is addressed in the IRC. A registered engineer should design this system.

For this type of construction you need a geotechnical report to establish capacity.

The engineer and the geotechnical engineer will consider what needs to be done to protect against corrosion in this type of construction
 
Steel piles are commonly used in many conditions, but this is not something that is addressed in the IRC. A registered engineer should design this system.

For this type of construction you need a geotechnical report to establish capacity.

The engineer and the geotechnical engineer will consider what needs to be done to protect against corrosion in this type of construction
This post is 100% accurate. Nothing prescriptive with pilings. You can't just dream something up because it sounds good or that is how someone else did it.
 
You can't just dream something up because it sounds good or that is how someone else did it.
I'd say that's how we got to where we are today. More recently we rely on engineers for way too much. There's another forum thread about a missing header in a gable topped wall and it's a quandary because there's no canned, engineered description of the header for that situation.....and apparently, imagination is out of the question. It was funny to see....the builder couldn't put in a header because he couldn't find one in the IRC....the inspector couldn't require one because he couldn't find one in the IRC....would somebody with a spare $1000.00 please get an engineer!!!

The Alaskans build with piles because mud is a poor support. There's no IRC code for that so they need an engineer???? Igloos are just a thing of the past. How about yurts? And then there's mud huts.

My guess is that in much of Alaska building officials don't enforce codes so much as people tolerate building officials.
 
Last edited:
Part of the challenge of our current system is that much of the enforcement of our building codes is delegated to individuals who must interpret often very technical systems but who lack an in-depth understanding of the technology. This does not mean we need to replace the existing inspectors with engineers but there is a need for engineers to play a bigger role in training and supervising the inspectors.

We got to our current system through a system of experiments that have been informed by the engineering knowledge available at the time. Experience with problems shaped our understanding of how things worked. This is science. The opposite is magic. The problem with magic is that it does not always produce the desired result and in many instances results in wasted effort that made somebody feel good.

Stating that we do not need engineers is equivalent to expressing a belief in magic.

It is interesting that the belief that engineers are not needed predominately occurs on smaller projects predominately those constructed of wood framing. You do not see this attitude on large projects. The why likely has to do with the fact that these projects are often more tolerant of problems but I believe that certain personalities tend to gravitate towards these projects.

Yes some projects can be built following prescriptive rules. This just means that you need to understand the limits of the prescriptive rules. The problem is that many individuals do not understand the limits of these rules or do not want to recognize them and want to practice magic while at the same time the regulations are driven by a belief in science.
 


We got to our current system through a system of experiments that have been informed by the engineering knowledge available at the time.
And that explains the hydrogen in the Hindenburg.

It's not my contention that we don't need engineers. We don't always need engineers. When we need someone to blame, the engineer that performed the value engineering is a welcome candidate....if we need a header for a window, need it be engineered or is the wave of the wand sufficient?

I have been exposed to the work of engineers for ....well I'm in the third decade. There's been more than one dufus engineer in my sights. Now that engineers have lobbied their way into structural observations their true color is showing. Engineer's stamps should be green.
 
Last edited:
This does not mean we need to replace the existing inspectors with engineers but there is a need for engineers to play a bigger role in training and supervising the inspectors.
Every engineer from any discipline should be required to labor as an inspector for a period of three years prior to being allowed to obtain a license to practice engineering. That would ameliorate the built environment. 1. Entrenched, lousy inspectors would fade away. 2. Ineffectual, lousy engineers would be exposed early.

That would enhance the worth of a $600 structural observation and alleviate the never ending struggle to find competent inspectors.

As to training and supervision of inspectors, where I work there is mostly none. If a contractor complains about a correction, the inspector may get some supervision....if nobody complains, an inspector is free to water board and torture.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SDS
Yes some projects can be built following prescriptive rules. This just means that you need to understand the limits of the prescriptive rules. The problem is that many individuals do not understand the limits of these rules or do not want to recognize them and want to practice magic while at the same time the regulations are driven by a belief in science.
If you understood prescriptive codes then you would also know that there are limits in the prescriptive code which is why we have to bump some projects to require a licensed design professional. Prescriptive codes come from engineering.
 
Every engineer from any discipline should be required to labor as an inspector for a period of three years prior to being allowed to obtain a license to practice engineering. That would ameliorate the built environment. 1. Entrenched, lousy inspectors would fade away. 2. Ineffectual, lousy engineers would be exposed early.

That would enhance the worth of a $600 structural observation and alleviate the never ending struggle to find competent inspectors.

As to training and supervision of inspectors, where I work there is mostly none. If a contractor complains about a correction, the inspector may get some supervision....if nobody complains, an inspector is free to water board and torture.

take it a step farther, engineers are no more architects then architects are engineers, the same with inspectors. Yet architects by education and experience have to know (be aware of) all disciplines and where to bring in consultants. DB contractors on the other hand rely (only want to) on code minimums and want to call their own shots. Inspectors and AHJ's are caught in the middle and are of varying backgrounds, without them the public would lack minimum protection, relying on Hammarabbi and the "suits" to deal with "mistakes" and what qualifies as a mistake.
 
Part of the challenge of our current system is that much of the enforcement of our building codes is delegated to individuals who must interpret often very technical systems but who lack an in-depth understanding of the technology. This does not mean we need to replace the existing inspectors with engineers but there is a need for engineers to play a bigger role in training and supervising the inspectors.

We got to our current system through a system of experiments that have been informed by the engineering knowledge available at the time. Experience with problems shaped our understanding of how things worked. This is science. The opposite is magic. The problem with magic is that it does not always produce the desired result and in many instances results in wasted effort that made somebody feel good.

Stating that we do not need engineers is equivalent to expressing a belief in magic.

It is interesting that the belief that engineers are not needed predominately occurs on smaller projects predominately those constructed of wood framing. You do not see this attitude on large projects. The why likely has to do with the fact that these projects are often more tolerant of problems but I believe that certain personalities tend to gravitate towards these projects.

Yes some projects can be built following prescriptive rules Steel Piling Services Saudi Arabia. This just means that you need to understand the limits of the prescriptive rules. The problem is that many individuals do not understand the limits of these rules or do not want to recognize them and want to practice magic while at the same time the regulations are driven by a belief in science.
I have a project where I need to model concrete piles as part of my foundation design. Revit does not have any concrete piles under foundation options but only steel piles. Is the best way to model concrete piles as concrete columns? Has anyone done this before?
 
Does Alaska even have a Residential Code? All I could find was the "Alaska Building Code", IBC based.
 
Does Alaska even have a Residential Code? All I could find was the "Alaska Building Code", IBC based.
I don't believe it does, but lending institutions seem to require dwellings to comply with the IRC if they want a mortgage. Or so it was explained to me by an Alaskan owner builder.

And some cities may have a 1 and 2 family dwelling code.
 
Top