To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!

Poles in ground vs on concrete posts

Radix2

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2014
Messages
1,853
Location
the thumb!, MI
I just took down an old pole barn. It looked fine and straight. All the poles had rotted through. The metal and the framing held it up as everything at the ground was being consumed. I am not sure of the age, I'm guessing it was put up in the early 70s. We took it down to make room, no idea it was just sitting there. The skirt board was getting bad, evidently the poles were the same.

Actually I should say some contractors took it down, they wanted the old rusty metal and did all the work for the metal as payment. So don't throw that stuff away ! It is really popular these days!
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!
OP
T

toyotadriver

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
1,586
Ssdave, I don't disagree with your comments and I believe this can all be distilled down to money. Pole buildings are fast and inexpensive compared to other types of construction. It is however not permanent. It satisfies an immediate need and functions quite well.

My comment about ford vs chevy alluded to the fact that there will always be two camps that are unlikely to agree any time soon.



In my case, it's not about money. It's about building a open air covered storage space. I have plenty of workshop area in the 30x40. I need some extra weather protected storage for a camper, boat, and tractor implements but I want to be able to walk into the covered storage area from any direction...other than the shop side.

I believe that poles in the ground is what I need to do for proper structural support.

Thanks to all who contributed useful ideas and recommendations. If anyone has any further recommendations for ways to prolong the life of posts in ground, please contribute.
 

lakeroadster

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
5,166
Location
Central Colorado
I just took down an old pole barn. It looked fine and straight. All the poles had rotted through.

It's like everything else, the quality and longevity of the end product is based on the quality of the materials initially used and the design / implementation / construction of the building.

  • Laminated columns or 6 x 6's?
  • Pressure treated?
  • Extent of pressure treating?
  • Good drainage or sitting in a swamp?
  • Overhang on building to keep moisture away from columns?
  • Gutters on building to keep moisture away from columns?
  • Humid muggy wet climate or built in a arid climate?

My dad built a pole barn in the 60's when I was a kid. Built the entire building ourselves, hand made the trusses and everything else except for roofing materials and nails. He used oak trees for columns. Not dimensional lumber, oak trees. We lived in a woods in Ohio, a swampy wet woods. Within 15 years the columns were rotted badly.

I can't compare that design to current state of the art pole barn construction.... or even pole barns built back then using treated or creosoted posts.

But I could have simply just posted here that "My dad's pole barn columns rotted in less than 15 years."

Paul Harvey had a saying for this: "And now you know, the rest of the story".
 

Radix2

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2014
Messages
1,853
Location
the thumb!, MI
It's like everything else, the quality and longevity of the end product is based on the quality of the materials initially used and the design / implementation / construction of the building.

  • Laminated columns or 6 x 6's?
  • Pressure treated?
  • Extent of pressure treating?
  • Good drainage or sitting in a swamp?
  • Overhang on building to keep moisture away from columns?
  • Gutters on building to keep moisture away from columns?
  • Humid muggy wet climate or built in a arid climate?

My dad built a pole barn in the 60's when I was a kid. Built the entire building ourselves, hand made the trusses and everything else except for roofing materials and nails. He used oak trees for columns. Not dimensional lumber, oak trees. We lived in a woods in Ohio, a swampy wet woods. Within 15 years the columns were rotted badly.

I can't compare that design to current state of the art pole barn construction.... or even pole barns built back then using treated or creosoted posts.

But I could have simply just posted here that "My dad's pole barn columns rotted in less than 15 years."

Paul Harvey had a saying for this: "And now you know, the rest of the story".

all valid questions, the point of my story was more the fact that from appearances, it looked just fine sitting on rotted stubs - as there were observations above that so many barns are around looking OK.

Your build also brings up a another relevant point - if you were not right on top of it you would have had inappropriate treated lumber used, and you had a proper company doing the work. I don't think your experience is atypical.

I was looking at a $30,000 deck my neighbor had done. Yep, the tags on the posts all said they were the non-ground contact type. Not to mention that even the ground contact comes in different quality. He talked to the builder - "that's what we always use" and then claims not to know any better...

so there is "state of the art" and then there is "state of whats built" the guys on here are way ahead of the curve, but you gotta stay on em or you will get hurt.



And being built in the early '70s put it at 40+ years old -pretty much within the stated life of buried treated lumber, so not an example of unreasonable concern as you imply. Could been built earlier, could have rotted out a long time ago. Ground is all sand, but has high seasonal water table.
 
Last edited:

lakeroadster

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
5,166
Location
Central Colorado
Lester Buildings.. Sorry, Can't Recommend Them

Your build also brings up a another relevant point - if you were not right on top of it you would have had inappropriate treated lumber used, and you had a proper company doing the work. I don't think your experience is atypical.

Agreed.

I learned a lot from my experience. Basically that even with a reputable company, the general contractor is where the rubber meets the road... or incorrect lumber meets the dirt. ;)

The ***** is, in my case, the reputable company, Lester Buildings, selects the GC, you can't build the barn unless you use their GC, but if their GC screws up, they won't stand by the product unless their GC fixes the problem.

So if he and his crew are incompetent... you really have no recourse.

And being built in the early '70s put it at 40+ years old -pretty much within the stated life of buried treated lumber, so not an example of unreasonable concern as you imply. Could been built earlier, could have rotted out a long time ago. Ground is all sand, but has high seasonal water table.

My barn has a 50 year warranty. But to your point: Unless the topic points I addressed above were addressed, the 40+ years may have been pre-mature rot?

Correct?

-
  • Laminated columns or 6 x 6's?
  • Pressure treated?
  • Extent of pressure treating?
  • Good drainage or sitting in a swamp?
  • Overhang on building to keep moisture away from columns?
  • Gutters on building to keep moisture away from columns?
  • Humid muggy wet climate or built in a arid climate?
 

Radix2

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2014
Messages
1,853
Location
the thumb!, MI
Re: Lester Buildings.. Sorry, Can't Recommend Them

My barn has a 50 year warranty. But to your point: Unless the topic points I addressed above were addressed, the 40+ years may have been pre-mature rot?

Correct?

-
  • Laminated columns or 6 x 6's?
  • Pressure treated?
  • Extent of pressure treating?
  • Good drainage or sitting in a swamp?
  • Overhang on building to keep moisture away from columns?
  • Gutters on building to keep moisture away from columns?
  • Humid muggy wet climate or built in a arid climate?

correct,

That brings up another point. What else needs to happen to have a properly executed pole building with a "permanent" life - 50+ years if that is what is desired and expected - beyond the choice of poles?

your list is somewhat beyond what I would consider typical for pole barn builds - no gutters, no overhangs, climate is "seasonal" (wet and humid here) and the soil is what is were it lays - what should be the estimate for all those built like that?

My barn was here before I bought the place, but I would think that if the people who built it were told it would only last till 2015, they would not be surprised. Had I not needed the space, it would be there still unless some storm made the deficiencies an issue.
 
OP
T

toyotadriver

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
1,586
On this train of thought, power poles sit in the ground for many years and when they are replaced, they don't seem to be rotted below the surface.
 

alskdjfhg

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
61
Location
Houston TX
On this train of thought, power poles sit in the ground for many years and when they are replaced, they don't seem to be rotted below the surface.
Left in long enough they will, ive got the rotten off ones to prove it. They should be replaced long before they get to that point.

Although I think creosote is a better preservative than CCA, but I'm not an expert
 

Pig9r

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
60
I have used old telephone poles to hang pipe gates on. The section that comes out of the ground is usually the best because the creosote settles in the bottom of the poles. One I used has a date nail from he 40's and it was solid and heavy.

As far as columns, the company that built my barn uses these: http://www.graberpost.com/images/laminatecolumnbrochure.pdf
 

justanengineer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
7,722
Location
Motor City
Poles on columns vs buried makes no structural difference, if it did then every flagpole, wind turbine, and many pole barns built in tornado country would have issues.

Regarding pole longevity in the ground, the local climate is hugely important. Down south where the ground stays relatively dry there's not much issue, up here where the muck is perpetually wet modern PT poles simply don't last well beyond ~15 years and utility poles barely hit 10 before needing replaced. Thank the EPA, modern poles simply ****.

As another poster mentioned, you really can't tell the condition of poles without doing serious digging. I've repaired many pole buildings and they usually don't rot at the surface too much. Usually I find the rot to actually be the lesser issue, it's very common for poles and the concrete base they're sitting on to sink slightly, racking the building and making other repairs necessary. Sadly, most folks are oblivious, so long as it's standing they'll defend their pole barn as cheaper = better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

mrobins297aaa

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
3,283
Location
south east michigan
Poles on columns vs buried makes no structural difference, if it did then every flagpole, wind turbine, and many pole barns built in tornado country would have issues.

Regarding pole longevity in the ground, the local climate is hugely important. Down south where the ground stays relatively dry there's not much issue, up here where the muck is perpetually wet modern PT poles simply don't last well beyond ~15 years and utility poles barely hit 10 before needing replaced. Thank the EPA, modern poles simply ****.

As another poster mentioned, you really can't tell the condition of poles without doing serious digging. I've repaired many pole buildings and they usually don't rot at the surface too much. Usually I find the rot to actually be the lesser issue, it's very common for poles and the concrete base they're sitting on to sink slightly, racking the building and making other repairs necessary. Sadly, most folks are oblivious, so long as it's standing they'll defend their pole barn as cheaper = better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lakeroadster posted this link in another thread this study contradicts most everything you just posted.

https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2013/fpl_2013_lebow001.pdf
 
Last edited:

readhead

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2012
Messages
6,185
Location
Durango, Co.
Interesting read. Now let's apply that to real life. We can be conservative and use fifty years for serviceable life. You just bought your dream property for retirement and one of the selling points was a large shop building. The building looks great and was built in 1970. Oops. It has a life of three years. Nobody told you that did they. It's a great looking big building. But not a permanent one.
 

mrobins297aaa

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
3,283
Location
south east michigan
Interesting read. Now let's apply that to real life. We can be conservative and use fifty years for serviceable life. You just bought your dream property for retirement and one of the selling points was a large shop building. The building looks great and was built in 1970. Oops. It has a life of three years. Nobody told you that did they. It's a great looking big building. But not a permanent one.

Nope sorry that is real life, treated posts in the ground. I'll tell what is also real life. I live in rural se Michigan and this is pole barn heaven. I see 100's of these pole barns and what I don't see are any of them falling over or collapsing. Now do some of them have rotted post, I'm sure there are some. but I see more stick build barns with footings and studded walls that look racked and ready to fall over.

any pole barn that's 50 years old is going to look like ****, The siding isn't even warranty for that long. It's not going to look great.

As far as the dream property, well that's what home inspectors are for, the barn is just like any other part of the purchase that needs inspection like the well, septic, furnace, roof......
and what's the definition of permanent?, the only one I would accept would be all masonry it's the only thing that comes close.
A pole barn may not have the longevity of a barn with footings and studded walls, but it pretty darn close and a heck of a lot cheaper.
 

lakeroadster

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
5,166
Location
Central Colorado
Permanent...

Interesting read. Now let's apply that to real life. We can be conservative and use fifty years for serviceable life. You just bought your dream property for retirement and one of the selling points was a large shop building. The building looks great and was built in 1970. Oops. It has a life of three years. Nobody told you that did they. It's a great looking big building. But not a permanent one.

"The building looks great" ... "It has a life of 3 years"... the poles maybe, but not the building.

"Now let's apply that to real life" Have the rotted poles replaced in 50 years

You folks that don't like poles in the ground act like the building is a throw away if the poles rot out. Textbook "Throw the baby out with the bath water".

For some of us the logic is this simple: A pole barn is less expensive, and it has a 50 year warranty. I'll be dead in 50 years. I'm covered.
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!

readhead

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2012
Messages
6,185
Location
Durango, Co.
I think that the only way to resolve this fairly is to require each individual to supply their own dead horse upon which to apply a sound beating.
 

mrobins297aaa

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
3,283
Location
south east michigan
Just for anybody that doesn't want to read the full test report


"Conclusions
Long-term post and lumber durability tests provide insight into the expected durability of wood
products that have been treated to AWPA standards and properly handled during construction.
This review of the durability data from a test site in southern Mississippi indicates that the expected
durability of creosote-treated wood is in excess of 50 years, and that of wood treated with pentachlorophenol,
ACZA, or CCA exceeds 60 years. No failures have occurred in lumber specimens
treated to intermediate or high retentions of pentachlorophenol, ACZA, or CCA formulations.
Conversely, comparison of the results
from this site to reports from other locations suggests that these results might underestimate potential
durability in more northern climates."
 

mrobins297aaa

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
3,283
Location
south east michigan
I think that the only way to resolve this fairly is to require each individual to supply their own dead horse upon which to apply a sound beating.

yeah I suppose, I don't think it's a chev versus ford but more like a chev versus a Cadillac.........lol, or why snap-on when a craftsman will do
 

mrobins297aaa

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
3,283
Location
south east michigan
If your wondering why I posted this someone pm me and ask me to post the whole conclusion, there was one more paragraph that I left out


ok there it is, I left it out to shorten the post, there only two items in there the mechanical loads (which nobody knows anyway and any guess would be just conjecture) and potential damage during construction, which was already cover in the first post, and goes without saying, the stuff has to be installed properly or none of the data means anything.


"However, the post
specimens indicated durability in excess of 60 years, even at retentions substantially below those
currently used commercially. Some caution is needed in extrapolating the durability observed in
these test specimens to in-service structures, as the specimens are not subjected to the same mechanical
loads or potential damage during construction."
 
Last edited:

Sticks McGee

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2015
Messages
470
Location
Trail Creek, IN
One thing to mention I haven't seen in this thread is the frost line. Whatever you rest the pole on make sure the bottom of that is below the frost line. You can pour a concrete pad 24" thick but if it isn't resting below the frost line the freezing and thawing of the ground will move it and raise or drop it. I built an addition on a deck two years ago. When the existing deck was built there was no permit used. The structure was solid as hell but the inspector told me that I would have to fully support the addition with itself and no weight of it could impede the old structure. I could attach to it but not any weight bearing. Code was to support it with posts. The holes for the posts had to be at least 36" deep as 36 is the frost line. I went 42" deep. He told me that once I had my holes dug to call for the inspection. He came out and looked at the holes and measured them. I was all good. He told me to pour a footing in the bottom of each hole a minimum of 6" thick. He told me it could be thicker and it could come up to the surface or beyond or anywhere in between but at least 6" thick. I told him ok I would pour the footings then I would call him for another inspection. He told me I didn't have to. He only told me to leave part of the underneath open so he could see my framing and ledger board but all other aspects could be completely finished. he told me that the old structure could not support any of the new because they had no way to verify how deep the holes were or what they were sitting on.
 

justanengineer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
7,722
Location
Motor City
Lakeroadster posted this link in another thread this study contradicts most everything you just posted.

https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2013/fpl_2013_lebow001.pdf

Yup, some members pop up regularly to beat the "my purchase is ALWAYS the best choice" drum blindly, best to ignore them IMHO. FWIW, much of government and university "research" is the same bad drivel, sadly I've done my share organizing that tax-writeoff for the corporate dayjob.

That report is comical for various assertions, one of the more humorous is below. The reason its humorous is that my grandfather's mill produced these exact poles for decades, along with cedar shaker roof shingles (guaranteed 50 years, 50 years ago), wooden drainage tile, and several other treated wood products, life expectancy on poles was never half what that report claims. If they were then most of the utility posts in small town America would be early 20th century, farmers would almost NEVER need to install new fence posts, and quite a few other common tasks would be unnecessary. Pole barn companies also wouldnt need so dam much fine print in their warranties regarding above vs below grade...

Exposure data from this site provide insight into the dura- bility of treated wood from tree species important to Canada and the northern United States. Nota- bly, red and white pine posts that were soaked in creosote solution had an estimated service life exceeding 70 years

I see 100's of these pole barns and what I don't see are any of them falling over or collapsing.....and what's the definition of permanent?, the only one I would accept would be all masonry it's the only thing that comes close.
A pole barn may not have the longevity of a barn with footings and studded walls, but it pretty darn close and a heck of a lot cheaper.

Who is talking about a structural collapse? Pole barns like any other structure are designed to be self-supporting - ie. cut the poles at ground level and they'll probably stand fine for years. They do lose a big chunk of their rigidity however so are susceptible to wind and snow loads, but theyre not going to simply collapse without extreme circumstances. Usually they slowly lean and folks attempt various jacking, cabling, or other repair means then call for help. The standard fix we do on pole buildings is to lift the building, cut the poles, and anchor them to piers, not an easy nor cheap solution to hire done but sometimes warranted vs replacing the building. Of the buildings we've done, most are 70s-early 90s construction with few older than that, most were taken down long ago.

The distinction between permanent and temporary structures is that with maintenance, a permanent structure is designed to remain structurally sound almost indefinitely. In my area for example there are quite a few stick-built homes and public buildings dating back to the 18th and early 19th centuries, I live in one atm thats pre-Civil War. Pole buildings and other temporary structures by comparison are designed with the understanding that they will be replaced in ** years or be structurally unsound, not to be confused with collapsing, but not nearly as strong as they once were. Given that building costs are pretty comparable between smaller finished stick and pole buildings, for most GJ'ers pole shops simply dont make much sense IMHO. OTOH, if someone needs a hangar or large barn sure....but those are other forums entirely. :thumbup:
 

mrobins297aaa

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
3,283
Location
south east michigan
Yup, some members pop up regularly to beat the "my purchase is ALWAYS the best choice" drum blindly, best to ignore them IMHO. FWIW, much of government and university "research" is the same bad drivel, sadly I've done my share organizing that tax-writeoff for the corporate dayjob.

That report is comical for various assertions, one of the more humorous is below. The reason its humorous is that my grandfather's mill produced these exact poles for decades, along with cedar shaker roof shingles (guaranteed 50 years, 50 years ago), wooden drainage tile, and several other treated wood products, life expectancy on poles was never half what that report claims. If they were then most of the utility posts in small town America would be early 20th century, farmers would almost NEVER need to install new fence posts, and quite a few other common tasks would be unnecessary. Pole barn companies also wouldnt need so dam much fine print in their warranties regarding above vs below grade...





Who is talking about a structural collapse? Pole barns like any other structure are designed to be self-supporting - ie. cut the poles at ground level and they'll probably stand fine for years. They do lose a big chunk of their rigidity however so are susceptible to wind and snow loads, but theyre not going to simply collapse without extreme circumstances. Usually they slowly lean and folks attempt various jacking, cabling, or other repair means then call for help. The standard fix we do on pole buildings is to lift the building, cut the poles, and anchor them to piers, not an easy nor cheap solution to hire done but sometimes warranted vs replacing the building. Of the buildings we've done, most are 70s-early 90s construction with few older than that, most were taken down long ago.

The distinction between permanent and temporary structures is that with maintenance, a permanent structure is designed to remain structurally sound almost indefinitely. In my area for example there are quite a few stick-built homes and public buildings dating back to the 18th and early 19th centuries, I live in one atm thats pre-Civil War. Pole buildings and other temporary structures by comparison are designed with the understanding that they will be replaced in ** years or be structurally unsound, not to be confused with collapsing, but not nearly as strong as they once were. Given that building costs are pretty comparable between smaller finished stick and pole buildings, for most GJ'ers pole shops simply dont make much sense IMHO. OTOH, if someone needs a hangar or large barn sure....but those are other forums entirely. :thumbup:

well I still stand by what I said, I never said you were wrong I just said that most of what you posted contradicted the study.
I never beat any drums about pole barns being the best, I just said they were a cheaper alternative to stick built. and almost just as good.:thumbup:
 

lakeroadster

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
5,166
Location
Central Colorado
... most of the utility posts in small town America would be early 20th century, farmers would almost NEVER need to install new fence posts...

Comparing utility posts & fence posts to modern day treated laminated columns is laughable. Especially from an "Engineer" ignoring an actual study.

Good site drainage and the protection the building provides from moisture is the key to longevity... neither of those is a consideration for utility posts, fence posts.
 

justanengineer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
7,722
Location
Motor City
Comparing utility posts & fence posts to modern day treated laminated columns is laughable. Especially from an "Engineer" ignoring an actual study.

1. Your "study" is about utility and fence posts, YOU were the one making the comparison.

2. This engineer actually has professional experience in pole manufacturing, pole building construction, and end of life pole replacement among other areas. Please share with us how many poles you've ground?

3. Blindly accepting work posted by the govt as fact simply shows ignorance and inexperience in technical matters. Its much the same as citing wikipedia due to the large amount of known mistakes. Industry works to govt regs, NOT govt studies bc proving govt studies flawed (ala EPA emission regs) does no good - still gotta meet the regs.

You can quit blindly beating the drum now. Nobody cares how you spend your money and yes there are often better choices.
 
Last edited:

lakeroadster

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
5,166
Location
Central Colorado
You can quit blindly beating the drum now. Nobody cares how you spend your money and yes there are often better choices.

And once again you look past the important points made in the reference article, and by the members posting here... and then start with the insults.

Good site drainage and the protection the building provides from moisture is the key to longevity... neither of those is a consideration for utility posts, fence posts.
 
Last edited:

jives

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
2,811
Location
Central NY
Couple of fine old timber frame barns down the road from me. One has already collapsed. The other, owned by a friend, is being renovated for tens of thousands of dollars. Yup, it is about 130 years old, but has been in ongoing failure for some 40 years. The failure, of course, is the crumbling stone foundation and rotting sill plates. Bet those old farmers though that rock foundation was, well, solid as a rock.

Sink osage orange or greenheart posts into the ground and never look back.
 

Radix2

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2014
Messages
1,853
Location
the thumb!, MI
Good site drainage and the protection the building provides from moisture is the key to longevity... neither of those is a consideration for utility posts, fence posts.

I have another anecdotal data point that your comment reminded me of. In addition to the barn above, I have quite a few electrical poles that have got attention during my build, with lines moved and poles replaced.

I noticed that the poles had dates on them from the 1980s all the way back to 1934. the '34 poles got my attention since the farms in this area didn't get electricity until after the war, and my property was not platted until the early 40's and first built on until the early 50's ...so I have been trying to see if any of the old timers know why there are such old poles here..


Anyway - the land around the shore here is sand over a clay layer - depending on the terrain, the sand may be 20' deep or zero.. It just so happens that these two old poles, which have avoided being replaced like the others - are the poles in the wash on the lot line. Unlike all the other poles that are planted in nice coarse sand (as was the barn) these poles are sunk right into slippery clay and it is saturated most of the year (the ravine runs with water for 3-4 months a year).

So to further confound the issue, here is an example of horrible drainage and yet extreme life. - they needed to put a taller pole where one of the '34's was and when they pulled the oldster, it was as still good as new.

I think the clay and water has kept out all the oxygen, and just like those great old logs they pull out of the bottom of rivers, it has preserved them.

The other old pole was abandoned when I went to underground feed, and they let me keep it as a bit of history...so we will see just how long those 1930 creosote poles can last.
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!
Top Bottom