Plan check says use 60psf deck Live load?

[shacked]

I recently submitted structural plans and calculations for a 2 story addition in Southern California and I used 40psf for the deck design live load. Deck & not balcony.

The plan check corrections came back and he wants me to use 60psf for the 2nd floor deck design.

So in the 2016 CBC Table 1607.1 #5, balconies & decks, load is same as occupancy served but ASCE 7-10 Table 4-1 Balconies 7 decks specify 1.5x live load for occupancy served.

Which code governs?

 

[JAE]

Perhaps a reaction to this: Berkeley Balcony Collapse

Typically the code that governs is the code that the government entity adopted for that jurisdiction.

If they adopted the CBC, then that code would govern. The ASCE 7 is not a code but a standard and is typically out-referenced by an adopted building code.
The CBC may possibly say something like: "use criteria herein or use ASCE 7, whichever is more strict."



Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[epoxybot]

Maybe this will answer the question. Fall out of the Berkeley Balcony collapse. Link

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I don't think the plan checker is being unreasonable here. As others have mentioned balconies are under a bit of scrutiny these days. This may not be a balcony, but the difference between a deck and a balcony isn't really all that well defined, is it? Probably why ASCE is treating them the same.

That being said, technically I believe the CBC should govern unless the jurisdiction adopted modifications.

 

[JAE]

So epoxybot's link shows that the CBC has taken an emergency alteration to its code where it now dictates 1.5 times occupancy served... consistent with ASCE 7.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[msquared48]

1.5 x 40 psf LL for residential floors is 60 psf.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[shacked]

Thanks guys. This is what irritates me about some of the plan check that I receive.
As stated on the article from AWC these changes apply to, "multifamily residential, hotels, motels, state-owned buildings and public schools in California."

This is a single family residential house. Also the plans are very clear that it is not a balcony and it is clearly specified on the plans and Architectural plans as a covered 2nd floor deck. It is detailed accordingly on my plans as supported on a beam shared with the floor joists and a deck beam at the edge.

Also it would appear to me that the intent behind this change is related to Balconies located in areas of high use. Some of these guys don't take their nose out of the book long enough to actually think for themselves let along have a little common sense.