×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Live Loads for decks and balconies - IBC 2000/2003

Live Loads for decks and balconies - IBC 2000/2003

Live Loads for decks and balconies - IBC 2000/2003

(OP)
After all the confusion about definition of "deck" versus "balcony" that endured for years under the UBC codes, the IBC supposedly cleared this up. This relates to residential and multi-family construction.

Looking at 2003 IBC Table 1607.1 (2000 IBC is similar),an exterior balcony gets a live load of 100 psf, with the exception of one or two-family residences only, not exceeding 100 sq. ft., you may use a live load of 60 psf.

I would think the OPPOSITE would make sense: a smaller balcony would have more of a chance to be crowded with people. Therefore, why isn't the live load 100 psf for 100 sq. ft or less, and 60 psf for greater than 100 sq.ft.?

Now, to make matters more confusing, read the definition of "deck" versus "balcony" - it states that "deck" is supported  on at least 2 opposing sides, i.e., it is not a cantilever affair. Now the since the Code seems to consider this more "fail-safe", it allows live load same as occupancy served (40 psf for residential/multifamily). Now isn't 40 psf unconservative? I would think it should be at least 60 psf, especially for a small deck. You could easily have a party with many people on that deck. Just because it isn't cantilevered, why allow the individual joists or edge beam more of a chance to fail?

To put things in perspective, we did a load study (sort of like cramming into a VW). Assuming everyone told the truth about their weight, it came to about 73 psf.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login



News


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close