# Be safe out there



## ICE (Jul 3, 2011)

one side






the other and no, that dark spot is not a nail head.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 3, 2011)

There is no lateral support for the bottom of the girder.  This could result in a failure.  Would suggest bracing bottom of beam up to the deck joists.

The column also looks like it is a 2x.  Suggest column size is inadequate.


----------



## TimNY (Jul 3, 2011)

Yeah, I think the the 2-2x10 girder may be a little overspanned, too.

Not a big fan of balusters installed that way.. but I can see it is a low budget project.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 3, 2011)

Do not see enough detail to say for shure but I do not see how the railing on the deck can resist the required horizontal loads.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 3, 2011)

All the columns appear to be temporary 2x4s except perhaps the center.

Question; do you require engineer acceptance for the pools at the foot of this ascending slope or do you have a standard for your area?


----------



## ICE (Jul 3, 2011)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> All the columns appear to be temporary 2x4s except perhaps the center.Question; do you require engineer acceptance for the pools at the foot of this ascending slope or do you have a standard for your area?


We do have standard pool plans and they include a design for a surcharge and the contractor built to that design.  This particular situation fell outside the parameters outlined in the standard surcharge plan so the contractor then had to hire a separate engineer to re-engineer the pool wall.  The engineer added #5 bars.  I forget the exact layout but the steel was 4" oc. with #4 & #5 mixed.  The wall and floor thickness went way up as well.

I have a question.  Do you require special inspection for pool shot-crete?

The center post is hanging off the beam.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 3, 2011)

If the pool is permitted under the IBC then Table 1704.4 requires inspection of shotcreteing work.


----------



## ICE (Jul 4, 2011)

Mark K said:
			
		

> If the pool is permitted under the IBC then Table 1704.4 requires inspection of shotcreteing work.


It has been in the code for a long time and this is the first year that we have required it.


----------



## ICE (Jul 4, 2011)

TimNY said:
			
		

> Yeah, I think the the 2-2x10 girder may be a little overspanned, too.Not a big fan of balusters installed that way.. but I can see it is a low budget project.


Low budget?  I bet they are spending $85k on this back yard.  There are two 60' long retaining walls behind the pool.  One wall is 3' high and the other is 14'.


----------



## NH09 (Jul 5, 2011)

Are those joists 2x6 ?


----------



## ICE (Jul 5, 2011)

NH09 said:
			
		

> Are those joists 2x6 ?


No.  I can't tell from the picture but I think they are 2"x10".  I haven't gotten to inspecting the deck.  They didn't have a permit for the deck.


----------



## MarcusGeiser (Jul 7, 2011)

Looks designed to dump everyone right into the pool at the completion party.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 7, 2011)

Question for thought.

Could the center post footing loads be a negative impact on the sidewall of the pool. I am of the understanding a footing will excert loads at a 45 degree angle away from the bottom and be spread over the supporting soils.


----------



## ICE (Jul 7, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Question for thought.Could the center post footing loads be a negative impact on the sidewall of the pool. I am of the understanding a footing will excert loads at a 45 degree angle away from the bottom and be spread over the supporting soils.


The footings are not dug in these pictures.  They have them now and they are as deep as the pool.  You are correct about the 45 degree angle.


----------



## Frankyh (Jul 7, 2011)

I'm new here in this forum and everything i read is really nice.

I learned a lot here.

Just want to say Thanks.


----------



## ICE (Jul 7, 2011)

Frankyh said:
			
		

> I'm new here in this forum and everything i read is really nice.I learned a lot here.
> 
> Just want to say Thanks.


Welcome Frank,

You will find this forum different than most.  I have perused many and this place stands out from the rest.  The folks here are polite, helpful and many are just downright entertaining.  I can't say that about any other forum.  You get polite, knowledgeable and stodgy at some and others are too rude to include.  Heck we even have poets.

Bring on questions and answers.  Pictures are always fun.


----------



## ICE (Jul 7, 2011)

So far nobody has mentioned that the temporary support cleats are not nailed to the beam.  The support posts are 2"x4".  If a workman fell into one, the whole mess could come down.


----------



## 4thorns (Jul 8, 2011)

TimNY "Yeah, I think the the 2-2x10 girder may be a little overspanned, too."

My first instinct was a double 2x girder as well. I just couldn't figure out why in the second picture it looks like there are 2 members coming from left to right but to the right of the support there seems to only be one. Look at the bottom of the beam to the left of the support and compare it to the right of the support. No separation of the 2 plys on the right side, continuous grain. Then it hit me like a ton of bricks. The apparent separation of the 2 members is nothing more than a string!


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Jul 18, 2011)

ICE they're everywhere!

New SFD with deck and 2nd story covered porch not on plans.  Cripes!

File too large to post here; http://s1105.photobucket.com/albums/h354/4justice2/


----------



## ICE (Jul 19, 2011)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> New SFD with deck and 2nd story covered porch not on plans.  Cripes!File too large to post here; http://s1105.photobucket.com/albums/h354/4justice2/


I'll help with the picture.  This is worth seeing.


----------

