Welcome! Please use the navigational links to explore our website.
PartsASAP LogoCompany Logo (800) 853-2651

Shop Now

   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver

Attention Forum Users: On the 28th of December 2023 at 9:00am Central Time, we will be taking the forums down for maintenance while we prepare the new forums for your use. Please click here for more information.

Tool Talk Discussion Forum

O/T Concrete question regarding in-ground piling

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
Ebbsspeed

09-09-2005 08:50:21




Report to Moderator

I am in the process of planning for a pole barn, and will be pouring pilings to set the poles on. My question is, does it affect the concrete at all if I pour it directly into the holein the ground, or should I be using some kind of cardboard tube form in the hole. Not sure if the soil, wicking the moisture out of the concrete, will affect it's curing at all. Thanks!




[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
RayP(MI)

09-10-2005 15:19:52




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T Concrete question regarding in-ground pili in reply to Ebbsspeed, 09-09-2005 08:50:21  
Here in Michigan, it is not recommended that the poles sit in a "boot" made of concrete. Water accumulates, and prematurely rots the posts. In answer to your question, a pier poured directly into a hole has greater holding power than one that is poured in a tube form. I learned that from an engineer who was pouring piers for massive industrial machines. In practice, your best and easiest solution is to get concrete "cookies" from the lumber yard specifically for the purpose, place in the bottom of the hole, and place post directly on them. Local requirements are for at least 48" depth to top of concrete pad.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
nitehunter

09-10-2005 06:15:39




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T Concrete question regarding in-ground pili in reply to Ebbsspeed, 09-09-2005 08:50:21  
Most builders around here use the precast pads that the lumberyards carry specifically for that purpose. Just tie a string on them, lower them in the hole, and set the pole. Some builders also drive a few pole barn spikes about halfway in on the sides of the bottom of the pole, then pour a sack of dry sackrete around the pole before backfilling.The moisture in the ground will set the 'crete. This keeps the pole from heaving up, and the pad keeps the pole from going down.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Robert in W. Mi.

09-10-2005 05:46:29




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T Concrete question regarding in-ground pili in reply to Ebbsspeed, 09-09-2005 08:50:21  
These are worth a look,

Robert



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
David - OR

09-10-2005 08:13:41




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T Concrete question regarding in-ground pili in reply to Robert in W. Mi., 09-10-2005 05:46:29  
The "Perma-Column" product bothers me, because it is exactly the kind of brilliant idea "pier to set the posts on" that "everyone" thinks is going to get them out of ground embedding the posts, and the attendant problems with pressure treating, rot, etc. I admit it, I've thought of this idea myself.

But how are you going to get significant moment transfer through those two 1/2 inch bolts and two wood screws, joining the steel post brackets to the wood posts? Why won't the poles just split in two right through the bolt line? (Moment transfer is essential to provide resistance to wind loads in a pole building.) This sort of post bracket can provide a modest moment capacity, but not enough for the most usual side-wall wind loading in a pole barn.

After study of "Perma-Column's" engineering manuals, I discovered that they've made a critical assumption which is NOT true of many pole barns.

Quoting directly from their engineering manual:

"The notes at the bottom of the chart describe the assumptions and conditions to which
these maximum vertical loads apply. This chart assumes columns with full lateral
bracing and only major axis bending. It is also important to note that the structural
analogs used to create these charts have a support at the top of the post to simulate
resistance to horizontal loads due to diaphragm action. The Perma-Column assemblies
are not designed for �flagpole� situations where no support at the top of the posts can be
expected. Additional wind bracing or kneebraces may need to be added to the overall
building design if no diaphragm resistance is present. This is especially important to keep
in mind when using the PC6600 as a replacement post. The overall building design
should be evaluated to verify that the replacement post is adequate."

A simple pole barn, without a plywood/drywall ceiling and without plywood sheathing on the roof, does NOT provide diaphragm resistance. The poles ARE loaded in a flagpole fashion (the tops can move perpendicular to the wall of the building). The greatest moment load is at the bottom of the post, not in the middle (as it would be with a stud in a stud wall, and is it is assumed to be in Perma-Column's analysis).

Even if plywood were used on the roof, the end restraints on the resulting roof/ceiling diaphragm are suspect. The perpendicular walls can sway parallel to their own axis, since they are not designed as shear walls. This may allow the whole diaphragm to move enough in high winds to void the idea that the tops of the posts are "supported", and the posts at the center of the wall subjected to the wind loading may indeed fail at the post/pier junction.

In short, if you plan to side and roof your pole barn with plywood, the Perma-Column product may work for you very well. If you want to use girts, sheet metal, trusses, and no knee bracing, you are outside the design envelope of the Perma-Column, and you still need to embed the wood posts.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bill in NorthCentral PA

09-12-2005 05:55:43




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T Concrete question regarding in-ground pili in reply to David - OR, 09-10-2005 08:13:41  
A properly framed and sheeted pole barn DOES resist lateral forced both perpindicular and parallel to the major axis. The truss framing is such that the entire roof framing system, including bracing, acts as one component. This means that for a pole to more "IN" or "OUT" from the building, the entire building would have to move. The minor axis (along the wall) is braced by the sheeting, done properly.

Steel sheeting, screwed at the proper (usually 30") spacing, in the flats of the steel accomplishes all needed bracing quite well, baring too many openings, etc. Although it is often debated, screws should be installed in the flats of the roofing / siding with a driver that does not overdrive the washers. Nailing in the ribs severly limits the bracing action of the steel.

Best of luck on the project.
Bill

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Leland

09-10-2005 03:14:30




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T Concrete question regarding in-ground pili in reply to Ebbsspeed, 09-09-2005 08:50:21  
Just put a layer about 6"thick of 1 inch white rock this will protect poles from moisture damage you don't really need to spend extra money for crete it's really a waste that you instead could invest into the building it's self our pour a partial floor .



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
David - OR

09-09-2005 17:59:51




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T Concrete question regarding in-ground pili in reply to Ebbsspeed, 09-09-2005 08:50:21  
"Pilings to set the poles on"??

The whole point of "pole building" is that the embedment of the poles in the soil allows the poles to withstand a moment developed by forces perpendicular to the wall. This in turn avoids the need for knee braces, shear walls, or other means for providing resistance to lateral forces. It lets you use thin sheet metal for siding instead of plywood, for example.

If you keep the pole entirely out of the ground, as by setting it on a concrete piling, what you are building becomes no longer a "pole barn", but instead a "timber frame" barn. You must now incorporate proper bracing in the frame design, and you must also arrange for uplift and sliding resistance at the juncture of the pole and concrete pier. (These issues are neatly taken care of by the soil embedded poles in a normal "pole barn".)

Some pole construction, particularly in soft soils, uses concrete pads poured the bottom of the hole, to help spread out the downward forces and better resist vertical gravity loads. If the top of the pad is below the frost line, no form is really needed, as the pad only needs to be a foot thick and is the conrete is not heavily stressed. (The bottom of the pad should always be below the frostline, to avoid frost heaving).

Alternatively, you may be planning on setting the poles in the ground and back-filling AROUND them with concrete. This makes for a fairly strong solution, although the constant contact with concrete tends to rot the posts. If you dig the holes with an auger so that the sides of the hole are vertical, you do not need a form. The quality of the concrete does not need to be very high, done this way.

If you really do want to use piers, and any portion of the pier extends above the frostline, then I would consider it mandatory to use a form. You absolutely want vertical walls on your piers if the area you live in is subject to the ground freezing. You do NOT want walls shaped like the wide-on-top, narrow on bottom holes that naturally result from digging a hole with a shovel. Vertical walls on your piers, or even better, walls that slant inward from bottom to top, prevents the pier from being spit out of the ground like a watermelon seed, due to the action of frost.

40 years ago, when we were living in Upper Michigan, my Dad repaired an old timber frame barn on our property by jacking up the sills, digging out the now rotted cedar posts (by hand), and filling the resulting conical holes with concrete.

Each freeze cycle thereafter would "jack" his piers up about about 1 inch (due to the slanting sides). Enough dirt would fall back into the hole that the pier would not settle back to where it was, leaving it raised up and out of level. After 5 years or so of this, many of the piers were way off the correct grade, and some were tilted off plumb so badly that the sills were sliding off them.

At that point, I was old enough to help him jack up the frame, shovel enough dirt away from the piers to pull them out with a chain and our 9N tractor, and haul the useless, conical piers off to a convenient gully for disposal. All my Dad's work of 5 years before had been wasted, and we had build all new piers with Sonotubes. My dad, feeling the folly of learning something the hard way, joked that one of those dis-functional conical piers should be used in the future as his tombstone.

The barn is still standing proud, 35 years later, on the replacement piers that we set with Sonotubes.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
ebbsspeed

09-11-2005 17:50:06




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T Concrete question regarding in-ground pili in reply to David - OR, 09-09-2005 17:59:51  
I'm planning on diagonal bracing of all the walls to deal with the wind (horizontal) loading. The concrete will have vertical 2X2 pieces of angle iron embedded in it, that will be bolted to the bottom of the posts.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
David - OR

09-12-2005 06:10:21




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T Concrete question regarding in-ground pili in reply to ebbsspeed, 09-11-2005 17:50:06  
Diagnonal bracing in the walls will not provide resistance to lateral forces unless you have a viable ceiling diaphragm. This can be a sheathed ceiling or (in some cases) a properly braced set of trusses with a plywood on the roof. A metal roofed barn with open trusses does not qualify.

2x2 angle iron in the concrete might or might not be adequate for uplift/sliding forces. You need at least a foot of embedment plus at least 1.5 inches of concrete cover to the side. The steel should be at least 1/4 inch thick. It would be nice to have some sort of perpendicular element at the end of the angle or angles, so that you have something more than "the sword in the stone" to keep the angle from pulling out. Look at Simpson's concrete hold downs for examples.

Two angle irons, one on each side of the post, with at least two 1/2 inch bolts going through both angle irons and the post, provides a much stronger connection (double shear), than would a single such angle iron.

Diagonal bracing in the walls is only as strong as the connections between the bracing members and the posts. Nailing in a couple of 2x6's isn't good enough.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bill in NorthCentral PA

09-09-2005 17:18:03




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T Concrete question regarding in-ground pili in reply to Ebbsspeed, 09-09-2005 08:50:21  
I agree with snappie - or some square reuseable plywood and lumber forms. In any case, tamp your backfill very well.

Good luck,

Bill



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
snappie

09-09-2005 09:35:28




Report to Moderator
 Re: O/T Concrete question regarding in-ground pili in reply to Ebbsspeed, 09-09-2005 08:50:21  
use sono [sp] tube, its made for that purpose. if you live where there is frost, the frost will grip the rough sides of the concrete and lift the pileing. the frost doesn't need to get under it if the sides are rough.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:


TRACTOR PARTS TRACTOR MANUALS
We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2023 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters

Website Accessibility Policy