Hanging a rectangular Intex Ultra Frame Pool directly from the pool deck

Jump to latest Follow Reply
gwegan said:
Jonas

Reinforcing the deck or dropping it by 1/4" will make little difference. The connections in the deck or the deck itself, will fail at some point. And the failure occurred with just a static force applied. The dynamic force will be significantly greater. The pool as designed uses the mass of the water itself to keep the pool structure together. Build the pool as designed and hide it under the deck.
Click to expand...
Yes. Sooner or later the screws will pull out of the wood. If to do this I would need to use this bults, and they would need to go all the way trough with a nut on the other end.

b26d4008a65f3a73d43cde241d2f712f.jpg

465bb4a2d2f171b897188da6222a56e4.jpg



Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk
 
Earlier someone asked how i did my calculation. When i run the numbers again i could see that i did an error. The weight of the water will be as a triangle with the base same as the water depth.
I had to do the calculations using the metric system that i am familliar to. The result was 550lb on each pole on the metal frame. (Everey legg having 2 poles)

pool-forces%20calculation%202.jpg
 
Maybe I have a 40 years chrisis or I'm just stubborn. But I will go at it again. This time much more slowly. After I'm done with the calculations and build I will fill the pool 1/3 and use one day of checking everything. Then I will fill to 2/3 and check. There will be a lot of reinforcement because of my mistake not counting on the momentum forces that was twisting the structure.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk
 
I know you want to try and make this work, but everyone here is telling you it won't. Personally I'd surrender, swallow my pride and use the frame that came with the pool which is specifically designed for the water load. Someone already posted here a very nice design of a deck around the standard frame, go with it and save yourself time, money and aggravation. In the end you'll pretty much have what you wanted originally, a pool with a nice deck around it, with a slight chance of rust which you can be proactive and try and deal with later on and prevent.
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
I know. But i would need to do a massive rebuild of the deck. The post holding the deck would be in the way of the metal support posts from pool. So i need to relocate all deck supports.

I was going to fall back on the original metal frame, but i got som input from a builder and he said it will be alot of work, the pool will need to wait until next year.

He also was not surprised that it failed. He pointed out the week parts in a few secounds :-(

The concrete is not big enough either. So the metal leg will be outside the concrete on the short sides. So its worth another shoot.
 
We haven't desided exactly how to to everything. But using a aluminium rail instead of wood has come up. I will only use go trough bolts with nuts.

But it was not the top rail in wood that failed it was on the sides. But the top rail without go through bult would have failed eventually. But i would probably have seen it in time to fix it.

I didn't take a picture from the other side before I fixed it. But I will try to do a illustration later.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk
 
Jonas:

I like the calcs. We are on the same page here. My remaining concern is a continuous top cord. that has the effect of transferring those outward forces throughout the structure. in effect the mass of the water in the pool by its outward force around the entire pool structure stabilizes the pool. The top cord is even more important in distributing the dynamic forces so any one location does not take the full brunt of the dynamic force.
 
Ok so long since I calculated without computer. Does this seam right? I'm thinking that the water missing on the outside of the liner is what my frame has to compensate for. Like this, if I digg the pool down in the ground, there will be no force on the frame at all. Someone out there that could verify my calculations?

a53cf35ba9ab062ee9293f60f06ba4cb.jpg


Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk
 
1188 kg = 2619 Punds and that is for the whole beam. Originally the shortside is lifted by 3 legs, two poles on each legg gives 6 holes in the liner plus the corners. So I will have a total of 8 bults to carry this weight. 2619 / 8 = 327 lb/bult .

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk
 

Enjoying this content?

Support TFP with a donation.

Give Support
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread Status
Hello , This thread has been inactive for over 60 days. New postings here are unlikely to be seen or responded to by other members. For better visibility, consider Starting A New Thread.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply