I received an Email this morning from a client I had been working with for some time, after he apparently did some “homework” on pole building comparisons:

“First I want to thank you for your time, quotes and for clarifying several things for me. I ended up selecting xxx out of PA. They beat your price ever so slightly but they had a lot of value-adds that I basically made my decision from, they were: 2×8 skirt board, Gable posts elevate to the top cord on the truss, both eve posts and gable posts are engineer (tuff-post), gable end trusses built with 2×4 siding nailers….”,Your quote and offering was better than xxx Pole Barns & much better than xxxxxx.”

Whenever a client orders a building kit from someone else, I feel as though I did the client a disservice. I firmly believe Hansen Pole Buildings are the best possible post frame building kit available.

I responded, “Thank you very much for letting us know. We know the folks at xxx and find them to be very professional. We wish you the best on your project. My apologies for not having had us Email back and forth to have clarified potential issues, as well as to have pointed out benefits we offer which you will not be getting.

We also use 2×8 skirt boards.

We’d done extensive research on the tuff-posts and found they were not a true AITC glulam. Basically they are several plies of 2xs nailed together with construction adhesive between them. They are what they are, and as far as warranty, we also have a lifetime warranty on the columns we provide.

Our buildings utilize a unique X bracing system on the endwall bays which negates the need to extend endwall columns and transfers the endwall wind loads into the roof diaphragm.

While the endwall steel is more than strong enough to span from bottom to top on the end trusses, we easily could have made provisions for siding nailers on the end trusses.

We tested a full roof for resistance against wind loads, as a result, we found over time, with repeated cyclic loads from wind, the screws at the eave, near the ends of the building form slots (this due to the small diameter of the screws). When the slots get long enough it creates roof leaks. http://www.hansenpolebuildings.com/blog/2012/05/design/ You may want to consider asking for a credit for the screws and ordering the screws we supply – not only are they a larger diameter, but they are powder coated.”

We know the people at xxx, as when they have clients contact them from outside of their service area, they refer them to us. Along with this, we did research their “engineered” posts. The columns they are fabricating are made of 2×6 #2 Southern Yellow Pine. The bottom portion has 6’, 10’ and 8’ pressure treated boards which are staggered. Unlike a true AITC (American Institute of Timber Construction) or APA (The Engineered Wood Association) glulams which are manufactured by registered manufacturers, these “engineered” posts do not meet the strict manufacturing requirements.

The pressure treated “base” portion is butted to the untreated upper portion. This is not a finger jointed splice. Today’s true glulams use fully water-resistant phenol-resorcinol adhesives to join the plies, rather than construction adhesives and do not require nails to hold the plies together.

Other than my concerns about the non-reinforced butt joints, I take no issue with these columns being what they are – three pieces of 2×6 which are nailed together.

My client responded, “Appreciate your comments. Just when you think you did all your homework………………… Anyway, what is the cost of the screws you recommend for the roof?”

It turns out we had quoted an entirely different building (30’ x 40’ x 13’) than what the client ended up ordering from the other provider (30’ x 44’ x 16’).

Having never been able to quote a building with the same dimensions (not to mention applied loads and features), I have no idea how the pricing compared. I do know the building this client will be building won’t have the structural aspects I would be looking for in a building of my own. In doing pole building comparisons, it pays to do a complete analysis, not just a quick attempt to match apples to bananas…or perhaps watermelons.

This story is from St. Louis, where officials are expected to more closely scrutinize the large tents commonly set up near downtown stadiums after one of the temporary structures collapsed in high winds April 28, resulting in the death of an Illinois man and dozens of injuries after a baseball game.

Sam Dotson, a spokesman for Mayor Francis Slay, said it’s unclear if adequate regulations were in place and being followed or if the disaster was simply the result of people not paying attention to severe weather warnings.

“This tent was inspected, but we need to make sure there weren’t modifications to it,” he said.

The fast-moving storm ripped a large beer tent at Kilroy’s Sports Bar from its moorings and sent it and debris hurtling through the air about 80 minutes after the end of a St. Louis Cardinals game. Seventeen people in the tent were taken to hospitals and up to 100 of the 200 gathered were treated at the scene, which was near Busch Stadium.

Questions about the tent’s safety — especially in dangerous weather — remain unanswered.

Building Commissioner Frank Oswald said Kilroy’s was granted a tent permit on April 11 and it passed inspection a couple days later. He said the city of St. Louis requires tents to be able to withstand winds up to 90 mph.

Dotson said Sunday the wind gust which destroyed the tent — shattering the aluminum poles and blowing the structure onto nearby railroad tracks — was measured at over 70 mph.

“I don’t know if the storms have gotten worse or if we’ve just become more sensitive after Joplin and the storms in the South,” he said, referring to tornadoes which killed hundreds last year. “We’ve had severe weather downtown by the ballpark before. People need to be aware of their surroundings and have a plan. If there are storms or watches, what are you going to do?”

In many cases tents, such as the situation above, could be replaced by a permanent structure such as a pole building. Pole buildings are designed to withstand the code climactic conditions. Outside of the natural cost effectiveness of pole buildings, the preservation of life would have made one such a bargain in St. Louis.

Probably every day a client will request a specific structural feature or deviation, which is outside of what would be considered the most practical structural building design solution. These requests can range from larger poles, heavier gauge steel, to closer truss or column spacing. Today I actually had a client ask for ½” thick (not the usually requested 7/16” thickness) oriented strand board (osb) to be provided between the wall framing (girts) and the steel siding!

As building designers, the goal is always to see to it clients get the most value for their investment. This would include trying to prevent clients from throwing money at something, while gaining absolutely nothing from it.

Personally, when I get specific unusual requests, I usually try to dig to the root of the request. Asking a question such as, “Do you mind sharing with me why adding or using “X” is important to you?”  If you hear this question from me, it is only my wanting you to be a satisfied client.  I am not criticizing, just trying to figure out what the “gain” is.

When asked this question, more often than not clients will not even know why, or they will say something like, “It is because this is how everyone here builds their buildings”.

OK – time out here. I have to stop a minute and ask you, just because someone has done something 5 or 6 times, does it make it a sound thing to do? Where is the supporting documentation? I am always frustrated when I hear of clients who take our kits (which come with clear and specific plans and directions) and instead construct a building according to “the way I’ve always done it.”  They have no engineer degree.  They have no calculations to prove the connections (which is the biggest reason buildings fail, IF they fail), and worse yet, their “evidence” is, “I’ve done 5 or 6 of these over the past ten years and they haven’t fallen down yet.”!  Yikes – this is good insurance! (not) And worst of all, they are seriously upset when they run short of materials because they’ve taken a “Cadillac” kit and tried to build a “Yugo” with it, and then wonder why they run short of materials, even though they have a mountain of wrongly cut and wasted materials!

OK – back to the subject at hand. An example of how I deal with a specific case would be, “I understand your desire to have trusses every four feet, it sounds to me like your concern might be snow loads. For a lesser financial investment than placing trusses every four feet, we could increase your snow load and assure every component, not just the trusses, will support a larger load. This way, when the storm of the century does hit, you will have the last building standing”.

From a consumer standpoint, rather than becoming married early on to a particular structural building design solution, look at the end result.  The question to ask yourself is, “Will the building being proposed meet my needs and solve my problems?” There are a plethora of possible ways to construct a building, all of which will work, some of which are practical. Better yet, they have engineering proof to back them up.

“The main issue we have is that the sidewall pieces and wainscot only add up to 8’7″, leaving almost 7″ of uncovered space between the top of the metal siding and the fascia all the way around.  We thought maybe it was a mistaken size that had been shipped, but now realize that the plans include the concrete pad in the 10 ft. high walls, rather than starting at the top of it, so the walls wouldn’t really end up being 10ft high, but closer to 9’4″.  But now everything has been framed based on calculations from the top of the pad. The endwall pieces will have the same problem.  What do we do now?  You can contact the builder (Joe xxxxxx) at xxx-xxx-xxxx with any specific questions.

My readers may recall back in March (Blog #199???) I addressed the subject of eave height. I wrote, “Eave height is: the measure from the bottom of the pressure treated splash plank, to the intersection of the underside of the roofing at the outside edge of the sidewall columns.”

When clients receive quotes, or place orders with Hansen Pole Buildings, they all state explicitly eave height is not interior clear height. This gives clients a pretty fair idea of what to expect.

To clarify matters, every building package comes with two sets of multiple page, two foot by three foot building plans. On at least three pages of the plans, in seven different places is stated, “Eave height = bottom of skirt board to intersection of roof steel and outside edge of sidewall columns”.

Assuming the building plans were somehow ignored, the correct measure of eave height is also stated repeatedly in the Construction Guide provided with the purchase of every post frame building kit.  There are diagrams and pictures with clear marking of dimensions, along with written encouragement for anyone not understanding eave height, to “call us”.

In this particular case, our client hired a builder to construct her new building. The builder’s error – he placed the roof trusses six inches higher on the columns than specified on the building plans and in the instructions.

Historically, clients who construct their own buildings rarely make this error – they read the provided documents. Considering hiring a builder? If so, find one who will read and pay attention to the plans and instructions.  Most of all, hire one who is not afraid to ask questions and clarify things if he’s not familiar with constructing a building kit from your chosen vendor.  Just like any other do-it-yourself kits, they are not all “the same.”

Articles copyrighted by the Associated Press proved to be very informative.

The company who had manufactured the collapsed Dallas Cowboy’s training facility had past issues, court records show. At least three other of their fabric buildings had fallen in heavy weather since 2002.

The other tent like facilities were warehouse-type buildings in Philadelphia and upstate New York and an indoor arena for horse competition in Oregon. All the fabric buildings fell in weather conditions which included heavy snow.

The 2009 collapse of the Cowboys’ facility in winds injured 12 including a 33-year-old scouting assistant, Rich Behm, whose spine was severed in the accident.

Beth Hungiville, executive director of the Lightweight Structures Association, said four of the membrane-style buildings collapsing in seven years is far from normal.

“That is certainly very unusual,” she said. “You would not usually find that many failures in that short a time.”

Hungiville said her organization, an industry group, was aware of the Philadelphia collapse, which occurred just four months before work began on the Cowboys’ facility, but it didn’t know about the others until the few days following the Cowboy’s facility collapse. According to Hungiville, the other accidents likely didn’t attract widespread attention before the failure of the Cowboys’ structure because they didn’t involve injuries.

“When people aren’t hurt or there’s no one inside (the building), these incidents can go under the radar,” she said.

When a Summit structure covering freight for the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority collapsed in February 2003, it spawned a lengthy court battle which ended with a jury awarding the port more than $3.4 million. The fabric building collapsed because of failure of the design to account for snow buildup on the roof, according to a judge’s ruling.

Another lawsuit, centers on the collapse of a building built for storing ice-melting chemicals in Fort Plain, N.Y. The suit, filed by the insurance carrier for the company owning the fabric building, states negligence caused the building to fall when its membrane was ripped during a snowstorm in February 2007.

“Our claim is, ‘This is upstate New York. Every few years, you’re going to get a blizzard. Don’t sell us this product and say it can withstand this sort of thing when it can’t',” said William Mullin, the attorney for the plaintiff, Hanover Insurance Co.

The Oregon case arose after a rancher had a fabric building built on his property for dressage competition. The 15,840-square-foot building collapsed in January 2002 under the weight of snow which was “substantially” less than the capacity to which the structure was to have been designed to, according to the lawsuit, which has since been settled.

The rancher, James Webb, said, “If my wife had been in there giving instruction or something, it would have been disastrous.”

I’m not trying to pass judgment upon fabric buildings, just reporting what I found. In contrast, properly designed post frame (pole buildings) have a track record of withstanding wind and snow loads far in excess of the loads they were designed for, before recording any failures.

Whether a one car garage or a multi-acre facility, any building is an investment for the building owner, including the responsibility to build a safe structure.  Due diligence is best done to investigate the success or failure of any potential building system…prior to purchase and construction.

My only up close and personal experience with a fabric structure was with the United States pavilion at the 1974 World’s Fair in my home town of Spokane, Washington. The original covering of the pavilion was a thick vinyl sheeting. It was allowed to remain until it began to deteriorate, become unsightly and was thought a safety hazard.

As I started to do more research, I found article after article about the May 2, 2009 failure of a fabric covered building with steel frame practice facility owned by the National Football League’s Dallas Cowboys. This structure collapsed under wind loads significantly less than those required under applicable design standards, according to a report released October 6, 2009 by the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Located in Irving, Texas, the facility collapsed, during a severe thunderstorm. Twelve people were injured, one seriously. Based on the national standards for determining loads and for designing structural steel buildings, NIST researchers studying the Cowboys facility found the May 2 wind load demands on the building’s framework—a series of identical, rib-like steel frames supporting a tensioned fabric covering—were greater than the capacity of the frame to resist those loads.

Assumptions and approaches used in the design of the Cowboys facility led to the differences between the values originally calculated for the wind load demand and structural frame capacity compared to those derived by the NIST researchers. For instance, the NIST researchers included internal wind pressure due to the presence of vents and multiple doors in their wind load calculations because they classified the fabric covered building as “partially enclosed” rather than “fully enclosed” as stated in the design documents.

Even more damning, the NIST researchers determined the building’s fabric could not be relied upon to provide lateral bracing (additional perpendicular support) to the frames in contrast to what was stated in the design documents and the expected wind resistance of the structure did not account for bending effects in some members of the frame.

“Our investigation found that the facility collapsed under a wind load that a building of this type would be expected to withstand,” said study leader John Gross. “As a result of our findings, NIST is recommending that fabric-covered steel frame structures be evaluated to ensure the adequate performance of the structural framing system under design wind loads.”

The NIST report recommends such evaluations determine whether or not: (1) the fabric covering provides lateral bracing for structural frames considering its potential for tearing; (2) the building should be considered partially enclosed or fully enclosed based on the openings which may be present around the building’s perimeter; and (3) the failure of one or a few frame members may propagate, leading to a partial or total collapse of the structure.

Shortly after the Cowboys facility’s collapse, NIST sent a reconnaissance team of three structural engineers to assess the failed structure and wind damage in the surrounding area, and collect relevant data such as plans, specifications and design calculations. Using the data acquired during the reconnaissance, the NIST study team developed a computer model of a typical structural frame used in the practice facility and then studied the frame’s ability to resist forces under two wind conditions: the wind loads based on the design standard wind speed of 90 miles per hour (mph) and the actual wind loads based on conditions at the time of the collapse.

NIST worked with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Severe Storms Laboratory to estimate the wind conditions at the time of collapse. The researchers determined, at the time of collapse, the wind was blowing predominantly from west to east, perpendicular to the long side of the building. Maximum wind speed gusts at the time of collapse were estimated to be in the range of only 55 to 65 mph!

In the conversion of actual wind speeds to pounds of force applied to a building the wind speed is squared. A 65 mph wind speed creates a force of 10.816 pounds per square foot (psf), whereas the required load carrying capacity of 90 mph would be 20.736. The structure failed to carry much more than half of the wind load force it should have carried!

This evidence could lead one to be highly skeptical about the ability of a fabric covered structure to adequately support wind loads.  If one is considering such a fabric covered building, my advice would be to carefully gather evidence (backup data) to clearly substantiate the building supporting wind loads…in all circumstances.

One such company, provides only a list of pieces, and nowhere on the materials list does it state the dimensions of the building, or the load carrying capabilities (wind, snow, seismic).

At the bottom of these lists is the following disclaimer:

“You may buy all the materials or any part at low cash and carry prices. Because of the wide variation in codes, Xxxxxxx cannot guarantee the material list will meet your code requirements. These post frame buildings are suggested designs and materials list only. Some items may vary from those pictured. We do not guarantee the completeness or prices of these buildings. Labor, concrete flooring, some finish materials and delivery are not included. Some special order truss sizes may be jobsite delivered. Delivery is extra. This post frame may have been altered from the plan’s original design.”

Personally, I find this statement to be seriously disturbing, if not totally misleading.

Provided the potential client has verified the loading requirements with their permit issuing jurisdiction, any competent provider should be able to guarantee to provide a building which will indeed meet the given loading requirements as well as clearly stating on the quote, what those loads are.

Amazingly this particular company runs advertisements for buildings, and includes prices. How is it then they can say in good conscience, “We do not guarantee the completeness or prices of these buildings”?

Regardless of who might be quoting a given building, it would be my strong encouragement to run, don’t walk away from any prospective provider who will not clearly state on their quote the dimensions, full code and load information.  There also should be an explicit guarantee to fully provide the required materials to complete the building, per the plans. Any not included items should be clearly stated and all price quotes should include jobsite delivery.

Don’t become one of those horror stories where thousands of dollars of materials had to be added because they were left out of the original materials list.  Carefully read every word on the quote you are given, and if you don’t understand it, ask questions.  The one question you didn’t ask may well be the one which cost you thousands of extra dollars “out of budget”.

People also are buying old houses, which were built on small lots. A well planned backyard pole building can provide an escape from the confines of small rooms and smaller spaces. The demand for unique building design is on the rise.

My oldest son lives in Maryville (a suburb of Knoxville, TN). He and his wife purchased a home of about 1200 square feet with an unfinished basement. The “daylight basement” included a single car garage door, with the idea for a vehicle to be parked downstairs…underneath the main floor.

With a growing family, finishing the basement to make space for more bedrooms and a family room meant the loss of this space, as well as the downstairs workshop.

While a 24’ x 30’ footprint would avoid his backyard drain field and fit within the property line setbacks, just a plain box would not have satisfied the needs of his mother.  The vast amount of options and flexibility with pole building design came to the rescue!

A 20’ x 20’ second floor “mother-in-law” apartment was added above the rear 2/3 of the garage. With the peak of the roofs running at 90 degree angles to each other, it ended up being aesthetically pleasing in a residential neighborhood. Inside the apartment, scissor trusses created a vaulted ceiling, with the added height making the room feel more spacious. Cantilevered decks (4’ in front and 6’ in the rear) allow for outdoor living, especially with the sliding glass patio door to the large rear deck.

Now our son has a place to park two vehicles inside, along with his own shop area. His wife loves the large storage shelves lining the downstairs garage/shop for those seasonal items and Christmas decorations. The mini apartment upstairs hosts visiting guests in a private space all of their own.  Not to mention “Mama” is happy with the large air conditioned space with a deck to relax on when she comes to visit.  And footprint wise, it didn’t take up anymore space than a two car garage, but allowed for a lot of expansion to their daily living.

Recent research into post frame fire walls, allow pole buildings to be built close to, or right up to property lines. This allows for buildings to be placed in spaces they would not have fit into in the past.

A wood stove or fireplace can make a man cave, or hobby space a delightful area, and are easily added.  Heating and A/C are affordable for small spaces, for maximum climate control.

Looking for the ideal building design to add to the livability of your home? Pole buildings do not have to be “plain Jane” and the variables for design are virtually limitless.

When it comes to creating breakthrough products and services, corporate innovators can be great at designing ideas because in many ways, the creation process is the more exciting part of innovation.

But a lot of hard work is required to figure out how the “ideas” or “design” should work, and this means devoting time and resources to guarantee its success.

If it looks simple…, easy…, someone has invested a tremendous amount of time talent and energy to get it there. The devil is ALWAYS in the details, and the simpler the design, the more complex the design process.

Pole buildings were originally a breakthrough product, having been developed as farm buildings during the material rationing days of World War II. The concept was simple – enclosed the greatest amount of space, with the least amount of material which will structurally carry the loads.

The simple garage, shop or barn alongside the road, is not all so simple. In the case of the current Hansen Pole Buildings, over two decades of work has gone into writing our proprietary software used to design your new building. A “hard copy” of the calculations for even a simple building can result in a stack of paper approaching 200 pages!

How thoroughly are members (framing pieces) checked? Every direction possible for climactic forces (such as wind, rain and snow) and seismic forces, as well as construction loads and the weight of the building itself.  Our engineering program runs all the mathematical calculations as if these forces are applied to every piece of the building.  It then chooses the appropriate lumber and parts to put them together (ledgerloks, bolts, LSTA straps, nails etc.) to ensure every building is designed to not only meet, but exceed stated code requirements.

Going a step further, we often engage in “live” testing. Rather than assuming values, there is nothing better than “tested proof”.  A few years ago we tested a full sized roof in a laboratory – we wanted to find the shear strength of the roof steel, a value used to calculate the performance of the building in resisting horizontal loads. In order to test the steel, the screws had to hold the steel securely. However, the “industry standard” screw failed miserably to hold the steel panels in place for the test. The project engineer then designed for our use a special “diaphragm” screw, which successfully held the steel, and did not become the weak link of the test. The results of our testing are published in the National Frame Building Association’s (NFBA) Post-Frame Building Design Manual. This is the same screw we use in all our buildings.

Invest in good design, elegant design, simple design… it takes longer but you will have a winner in the end!

Bob, one of the Hansen Pole Buildings Building Designers, was talking on the phone with one of his clients this morning. Bob shared this with me:

“Competitor was trying to tell my client that more posts and trusses are better than our system.  Client wasn’t buying it and told the guy “Listen Pal, I’m not looking for the best price per pound, I’m looking for the best design.””

For the most part, I have never looked upon myself as being a great innovator, when it comes to pole buildings. But, I have always felt I was blessed with the ability to look at how others do their structural building designs and do an impartial analysis of them.

The buildings Hansen Buildings provides today, barely resemble the ones I first designed and sold back in 1980 at Lucas Plywood and Lumber in Salem, OR.

By looking at what other people do which is good, then trying to make those things better (and incorporate those improvements), my firm belief is we have created the best possible value for the dollars invested by our clients.

In the case of the quote above – certainly we could design to place posts at any spacing desired. In most instances, spaced every 12 feet turns out to be the most efficient from engineering vs. cost standpoint. The side benefit is there will be fewer holes to dig. Unless one would happen to be part gopher, most are like me – we hate digging holes. With a passion. In many cases, the “more posts” are smaller in size or lower strength posts…..in which case, what was the point?

More trusses do not a stronger building make. Having spent what seems now like a past life either building, selling, designing or owning in the prefabricated roof truss industry, I do know just a little bit about it. Whether a truss is placed every 24 inches or a pair of them is placed every 12 feet, the trusses are designed for the given snow and wind loads – at the spacing they will be placed at. Connections are an issue, most building failures come from connection failures. The more individual trusses, the more individual truss to bearing support locations, the more the probability of one of those connections being under designed or improperly installed (either of which could result in a catastrophic failure).

At the end of the day, it is truly about the best building design, not the best price per pound.