Tag Archives: cost effective dimensions

13 Can Be Very Fortunate

13 Can Be Very Fortunate

Thank you for participating (hopefully) in my past dozen articles about our “NEW” Hansen Pole Building. If not, I would greatly to encourage you to peruse them. I believe you will find them useful in being able to know you are getting greatest value for your hard-earned building dollars.

In just a moment, I will peel back a curtain to reveal an overly well kept secret….. Hansen Pole Buildings has been automatically giving a background FIVE (5) % DISCOUNT for rectangular buildings with economical width and length dimensions.

But 1st, please humor me about 13. Our youngest daughter Allison, doesn’t get much press from me, certainly not by intention. Allison’s birthday happens to be November 13 and as an athlete (we did something like eight years of some combination of club or school volleyball and basketball) she always wanted and usually got #13.

I had always had an ideal Friday the 13th was unlucky due to it being tied to Knights Templar eradication on Friday, October 13, 1307. Before I wrote further, I wanted to confirm my belief. It appears there are both Norse and Christian associations long predating 1307.

My new thing learned for today.

Now your turn…..

Lumber comes in two foot multiples and steel roofing and siding three foot. Meaning multiples of six or 12 feet would be one’s most efficient combination.

In our system widths of 12’, 18’, 24’, 30’, 36’, 42’, 48’, 54’ and 60’ are most cost effective. For lengths, 24’, 36’, 48’, 60’, etc., providing building length is no greater than three times building width. Heights – even number multiples of two feet (10’, 12’, 14’, etc.).

Why? They can go rapidly through our system – everyone who touches your project can do so more expediently. This drastically saves on drafting time, circumventing other shapes and/or dimensions.

Now you can have some custom features – windows, doors, wainscot, eave lights, sidewall eave and/or endwall extended overhangs, ceiling loaded trusses, ceiling joists.

I lay awake at night with ideas popping into my head. Last night it was, “given our new, stronger columns, how greatly is price affected?”

I took a 42’ x 60’ building, steel roofed and sided. Ground Snow load (Pg) of 60 psf (pounds per square foot), Roof truss top chord live load (TCLL) of 40 psf. Roof truss top and bottom chord dead loads both five psf. 115 mph design wind speed, Exposure C, 4/12 roof slope. Up to and including 20 foot eave height, each two feet of height added under 34 cents per cubic foot of space (or under 68 cents per square foot). Any ‘penalties’ for taller eave heights, at least to 20 foot tall, within this design load set, appear to have disappeared.

No one else can fully engineer buildings like a NEW Hansen Pole Building, because they do not have materials readily available to our exacting quality and strength standards. Call 1.866.200.9657 TODAY to participate in “The Ultimate Post-Frame Building Experience”.

And, don’t forget to watch for our next article!

Optimum Aspect Ratio of Length and Width

I suppose I inherently knew the answer to the optimum aspect ratio of length and width for post frame construction, but never really sat down to write about it. Well, reader JEREMY in EFFING has an inquiring mind and wants to know:

“In general terms is there an “optimum” aspect ratio to gain the best strength and minimize costs of construction? I.E.: if you are looking at around 3,200 square foot of space is it “better” to 24′ X 136′, 30′ X 104′, 40′ x 80′, 48′ x 64′, or 54′ X60′. I assume the 24′ width may require a division wall at 68′ to help carry the long wall wind loads so I doubt it is economical, and the 54′ building would require heavier trusses and posts.”

Let’s begin with what is usually the most cost effective dimension for length – multiples of 12 feet (24, 36, 48, 60, etc.) as well as width (multiples of 6 feet).

Arena BuildingWorking from the 3200 square foot benchmark this would give 24’ x 132’; 30’ x 108’; 36’ x 84’; 42’ x 72’; 48’ x 72’ and 54’ x 60’ as the ones which should be the most cost effective dimensions. The closer width and length are to each other, the lower the shear forces which must be carried by the roof.

At 5.5:1 the 24’ x 132’ building will, in all probability, require interior shear provisions – knocking it out of contention. Depending upon wall and roof height, wind speed and exposure at 3.6:1 the 30’ x 108’ might have some of the same challenges as well. When buildings become long, tall and narrow, high loading conditions can result in the need to reinforce sections of the roof and endwalls with structural sheathing besides the traditional steel.

The assumption the “54’ building would require heavier trusses and posts” is only partially correct.

Yes, the trusses may be fabricated from higher grade or larger dimension lumber and have more internal webbing. However, in many cases the added cost of each individual truss being ‘heavier’ is less than having to invest in a greater quantity of smaller span trusses.

Building columns happen to be very strong in compression (ability to withstand downwards forces). The larger span truss will probably not require larger columns due to roof snow and dead loads, and the stiffness of the roof in a small aspect ratio may offset the wind load placed on the extra height of the truss.

About Hansen BuildingsThe real answer here is we are talking about differences of cents per square foot, not dollars. Plan your new post frame building dimensions to best meet your needs for how you will be utilizing the building not only today, but potentially in future years. Good planning will always end up being the optimum for the dollars invested!