Pole barn construction technique

[Chooglin]

I am in the middle stages of planning my new pole barn/shop. It will be 32x48x12. I am familiar with conventional post frame construction. Recently, a method of framing I am not familiar with was suggested to me. This method uses shorter post, around 6ft, with only 2ft or so above grade, then header boards and sill plates are attached to the post above grade creating a knee wall of sorts. The remainder of the wall section is constructed of 2x4 studs 16 on center and placed on top of the knee wall to form a wall section. I was told this system aids in the finishing of the inside of the building, and can be cheaper when all is said and done if you plan to finish the inside of the barn, which I do. Can anybody tell me what the name of this type of framing is, as well as pro's and con's, cost vs conventional pole barn.

I already tried doin a google search, but don't realy know the term to search for. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Ryan.

This is how I had my 28x32x10 garage built, but I had them use 2x6's for the wall studs though.

 

[rambler]

I see no difference in the buried post method and standard framing on a slab as far as the "hinge" joint you are talking about. As long as the trusses are braced properly the walls will respond in the same manner as any other wall. Picture a house with a full foundation, first floor deck, then 9' or taller walls with trusses, we have never worried about a hinge joint there.

Ah, sure.

But it is different.

The house wall is firmly anchored to the trusses on top, and the floor/slab/foundation at the bottom. The walls are single pieces of 2x wood designed to withstand a certain wind pressure .

Now, you cut those 2x studs, lift the wall, put in a horizontal 2x to create the 'knee', spike it all back together....

And that seam you created where the studs are no longer single pieces of wood will be much weaker at that unsupported seam.

Wind pressure can cave it in.

Unless you engineer for it. It needs to be a real good seam, because it is not supported by anything. The top and bottom are well suipported, but this seam is not, and typically is built weak by folks who don't see any difference.....

--->Paul

 

[davedj1]

Ah, sure.

But it is different.

The house wall is firmly anchored to the trusses on top, and the floor/slab/foundation at the bottom. The walls are single pieces of 2x wood designed to withstand a certain wind pressure .

Now, you cut those 2x studs, lift the wall, put in a horizontal 2x to create the 'knee', spike it all back together....

And that seam you created where the studs are no longer single pieces of wood will be much weaker at that unsupported seam.

Wind pressure can cave it in.

Unless you engineer for it. It needs to be a real good seam, because it is not supported by anything. The top and bottom are well suipported, but this seam is not, and typically is built weak by folks who don't see any difference.....

--->Paul

I was assuming the horizontal "beam" was at grade therefore becoming the bottom.

 

[EddieWalker]

I can think of several cases where you don't want to pour a footing. One is near mature trees that are of high value. Digging a foundation will almost certainly kill them unless you try to do root pruning. If you have utilities under the location of the building, it's easy to put in piers/posts to avoid the utilities and still support the building, almost impossible to do with a footing. If you have an underground spring it can cause a lot of problems to trench into it for a footing. My friend did this and had to reroute the spring around the building location, big bucks. Another issue is the type of soil, if the location is on top of a morraine or some area with large difficult rocks, the less you dig the less hair you'll pull out.

It's also not clear why you say piers offer less strength- it depends on the soil and how they're designed. Sky scrapers are only possible because of isolated pier techniques developed to avoid the need for continuous foundations. I think it's not possible to categorically declare one construction technique better than another without considering site specifics.

True. If you want to build under the canapy of a tree, you risk damaging the tree by digging into the ground. Since it's not something I would ever want to do, it never crossed my mind.

I also didn't consider building over utilities. I can't imagine why you would want to do that, but your right again. It's not something I would ever do, so it never crossed my mind.

Now building on an underground spring sounds like a really great idea. Once again I have to plead ignorance to never seeing the benifit of doing this.

Thank you for educating me, I enjoyed your critisisms, and even got a good laugh out of your post!! :laughing::laughing:

Eddie

 

[mattbatson]

call me crazy.
but again...sonotube about 4 or 5ft in the ground full of concrete with a foot or so above grade, metal bracket set in the top of the concrete to accept your 6x6 posts, and go from there?

now you have no worries about wood rot, no more intrusion into the ground then you would with burying 6x6 wood posts, etc...

 

[LD1]

call me crazy.
but again...sonotube about 4 or 5ft in the ground full of concrete with a foot or so above grade, metal bracket set in the top of the concrete to accept your 6x6 posts, and go from there?

now you have no worries about wood rot, no more intrusion into the ground then you would with burying 6x6 wood posts, etc...

I guess I would be skeptical of the "metal bracket attachment point to the concrete"

A lot of a strength comes from the pole being burried.

 

[mattbatson]

I guess I would be skeptical of the "metal bracket attachment point to the concrete"

A lot of a strength comes from the pole being burried.

have there been any testing of the strength of these? They are so common, I would think people would know by now if there are problems?

out of curiousity, how long do the buried poles last in general?

 

[LD1]

have there been any testing of the strength of these? They are so common, I would think people would know by now if there are problems?

out of curiousity, how long do the buried poles last in general?

The part of the pole that is burried last almost forever. The part above ground, same.

It is RIGHT where the soil/air interface is. You have to keep water from "ponding" around the top of the pole.

 

[EddieWalker]

The part of the pole that is burried last almost forever. The part above ground, same.

It is RIGHT where the soil/air interface is. You have to keep water from "ponding" around the top of the pole.

This is true with fences too. Every post that I've repaird was rotten out at ground level, but all the wood in the ground looked like it was still new. The wood above ground is weathered, but still very sound.

With a pole barn, the roof and walls protect the posts a lot more then a fence. The ground should be sloping away from the building so there is never any pooling or standing water at the posts or anywhere at the bottom of the building.

If kept dry, the posts will last a hundred plus years easily.

Eddie

 

[mattbatson]

This is true with fences too. Every post that I've repaird was rotten out at ground level, but all the wood in the ground looked like it was still new. The wood above ground is weathered, but still very sound.

With a pole barn, the roof and walls protect the posts a lot more then a fence. The ground should be sloping away from the building so there is never any pooling or standing water at the posts or anywhere at the bottom of the building.

If kept dry, the posts will last a hundred plus years easily.

Eddie

now, are we talking something like the green pt 6x6's you see at HD or lowes?

Or are we talking something else?

And are we talking about poles just buried in a hole, or poles set in concrete?

Wouldnt you want the poles in concrete, or is just buried in a hole sufficient for strength?
Maybe i should just bury posts in the ground for my foundation for the quonset hut? and not worry about concrete?

thoughts?