Wood Framed Porches - Beam connection to Pile 1

[StructuralJoe]

Hello everyone,

An engineer in our office is struggling to remember where he saw this change, but mentioned he remembers a code change requiring a double 2x8 beam to be "notched" to a round timber pile. We have always face mounted these members. Our client is a contractor and has always face mounted these beams with 2 bolts thru the member to the pile. Now he cant remember where he saw this change, maybe a Continuing Ed presentation or a Simpson bulletin or a magazine article

Has anyone heard of this and if so can they share the location in code where there change is mandated?

We are in Florida and I have checked NDS and FBC and I find no mention of this change.

Thasnks in advance!

 

[TheDW]

Page 10 of this maybe?

[URL unfurl="true"]https://awc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/AWC-DCA62012-DeckGuide-1405.pdf[/url]

 

[jayrod12]

Honestly a bit of a notch in the pile for a seat is a far preferable detail anyway. I hate relying on splitting failure modes when it's not necessary.

 

[TheDW]

I always show that detail with a notch/bearing to avoid cross grain tension.

From memory, NDS doesn't 'forbid' details applying cross grain tension, they just say to avoid it whenever possible, so this might not show up in the NDS as forbidden.

 

[JoelTXCive]

FEMA has guidelines on Beam-to-pile connections, but I think they are just best practices and are not directly tied to a building code. Also, if you are not in a coastal region, then they definitely do not apply.

Attached are two articles with good background info.

Journal of Light Construction - "Piling it On"

FEMA Wood Pile-to-Beam Connections Technical Fact Sheet No. 3.3

 

[JoelTXCive]

Here's the JLC article.....

 

[StructuralJoe]

Thanks TheDW,

Its my underrstanding that presciptive is intended for non-engineers to build. It has always been my understanding that engineered designs are allowed to use this connection.

I agree notching is a better option, but it affects the clients cost and therefore the owners cost. The original design from 35 years ago has worked this entire time, and this is a update of decking, framing and guard rail system so I dont see a need to change from this design if my NDS Table 11a capacities show that it works, I have to believe it will be fine.

So far it only seems to be for "presciptive design" and therefore if the calculations works we should be fine as far as code is concerned.

Does anyone disagre?

Thanks in advance for the prompt responses from everyone, I love this forum!

 

[TheDW]

I agree x is a better option, but it affects the clients cost and therefore the owners cost. The original design from 35 years ago has worked this entire time

I've got an inbox full of emails from contractors saying this!

All the guidance out there says its a bad idea, but again, its not explicitly forbidden as far as I'm aware. You've got to pick your battles in residential and this is a detail that I prefer to do correctly.

 

[StructuralJoe]

Agreed, TheDW, I completely agree

 

[XR250]

I usually cannot get the numbers to work out without a notch

 

[jayrod12]

I usually cannot get the numbers to work out without a notch

My experience as well.

 

[jerseyshore]

I agree with everyone above. Running calculations on uplift capacity of 2 thru-bolts into a timber pile is often hard to make work, let alone trying to get the much higher downward forces resisted.

The NJ IRC explicitly states that deck beams must bear on a notch of a wood post. It's a much better connection anyway.