Pole barn on plate?

[Mike476]

Just wondering is what the builder suggesting a rubble foundation?Rubble trench foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the OP was trying to avoid the use of concrete so uncertain if this is what the builder was recommending. Although it does save in the cost of a footing and frost wall it still uses concrete on top of the gravel to elevate the wooden sill from grade.

 

[EddieWalker]

The only advantage to floating the building on top of the gravel is to save money. Going cheap always leads to early failure and disappointment. It also leads to spending more money down the road, usually a lot more then you thought you would save by cutting corners. This is a really bad idea and grounds to look for another builder. Just because it was done before, and still might be done by some, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

With building, there are proven methods and techniques that have a proven history of working. While there might be some things new that improve what is done, usually they turn out to be a mistake. Stick with what works, and use the best materials available.

Eddie

 

[dave1949]

The only advantage to floating the building on top of the gravel is to save money. Going cheap always leads to early failure and disappointment. It also leads to spending more money down the road, usually a lot more then you thought you would save by cutting corners. This is a really bad idea and grounds to look for another builder. Just because it was done before, and still might be done by some, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

With building, there are proven methods and techniques that have a proven history of working. While there might be some things new that improve what is done, usually they turn out to be a mistake. Stick with what works, and use the best materials available.

Eddie

In general, I agree with this approach of using the best available materials and methods.

Sometimes though, depending on the intended use and expected use-life of a building, it doesn't make economic sense. In this area for example, a poured concrete footer and frost wall foundation is probably the longest lasting and most expensive common method. Putting a lowest-cost wood framed building on that foundation is like stacking a Yugo on top of a Mack truck. :laughing:

If the building is intended to be used to house animals for home meat production or a 4-H project, the cost of the building matters unless money is no object. It's better to have some chickens, pigs or goats in a building that will last 30-40 years than to have no animals because the cost of the building makes that impossible to do.

There are many examples of buildings from the past such as barns, textile mills, factories, etc., that were really very well built but now stand empty, falling into disrepair, because they are no longer viable for their intended use. They make great museums, but that's about all.

Even homes are susceptible to this. A home built to last 400-500 years will be very expensive to build, it could be a work of art, but I really doubt your ancestors will be the ones enjoying it, and the market value of the home will not be that much greater than what the location affords.

I don't mean to excuse slapping something together with no attention to quality, but it's good to keep perspective too.

 

[EddieWalker]

I've never understood extreme exampled when trying to make a point. This is going to be a two story building without a foundation if he goes along with the suggestion of the contractor. Bad Idea!!!! I don't know how long he wants to building to stand, and for some, a temporary building that wont last might have it's advantages, but I can't imagine that being true for too many people.

Either put the poles in the ground, or bolt the structure to concrete. Anything else is going to end up with a temporary building that is starting to decay the day the start building it.

Eddie

 

[dave1949]

Eddie, Look back at Post #21 for what I think is the best for this building:
If I were building what you describe and wanted the best combination of performance and cost, I would put in frost-depth concrete footings using sonotubes sitting on a concrete disk, and build a pole style building on top of those. That gives you the advantages of the more expensive perma columns with less cost for DIY.

The post from this morning is a general comment about building choices, not this one.

 

[Carl_NH]

Eddie, Look back at Post #21 for what I think is the best for this building:
If I were building what you describe and wanted the best combination of performance and cost, I would put in frost-depth concrete footings using sonotubes sitting on a concrete disk, and build a pole style building on top of those. That gives you the advantages of the more expensive perma columns with less cost for DIY.

Dave,

I concur but was too lazy to put this into words!

 

[dave1949]

Eddie, Look back at Post #21 for what I think is the best for this building:
If I were building what you describe and wanted the best combination of performance and cost, I would put in frost-depth concrete footings using sonotubes sitting on a concrete disk, and build a pole style building on top of those. That gives you the advantages of the more expensive perma columns with less cost for DIY.

Dave,

I concur but was too lazy to put this into words!

I shouldn't ramble on about general building techniques, foundations old and new.

 

[hr3]

I am working with a builder to design a 26X26 two story pole barn. I live in Northern New England. The gravel pad is done. I have only ever seen other people's pole barns done with the poles set into the ground, in a concrete footer, below the frost line, which I think means something like 4ft deep here.

This builder suggested that rather than setting posts in the ground, we do a "plate" consisting of pressure treated 2X8s that sit on the gravel pad, then the barn on top of that.

I am wondering if anyone has ever heard of or used this method, and if so will it hold up and be structurally sound?

Thanks in advance!

My 2 cents,, I was given several 12' by 12' skinned panels and had them sitting in a pile when I bought my tractor.. I didn't want the tractor sitting outside and couldn't afford a pad.. So I filled in an area with inch minus and put down some 6by 6 pt.. 16' wide by 32' long ... I built on that in 07 and have had almost no problems,,

OK I said almost let me explain.. The front of the building has a 12' opening with 2 swinging doors.. This year I noticed one door was starting to sag.. The wing wall on that side was sinking so I jacked it up and blocked under it,, When I built I should have run another 6by 6 under the whole front where the opening was.

Not a 2 story building like you are doing ,, Your going to have a lot more money invested than I had plus if you are in the Belfast area you will need a permit and knowing the inspectors there,, hmmm

 

[Mike476]

I think we all agree a two-story building on dirt doesn't make any sense. Most in my neck of the woods choose pole barn type construction as the most economical for hay, equipment etc. They appreciate their decision to build that way means it will have a limited life over other more conventional methods (and is a lot less work and $$) because the poles they have built off of will start to rot the day they are placed in the ground.

 

[hr3]

Then you would have something like this in 150 years maybe,,