Modern Post-Frame Structural

Design Practices: An Introduction

Presented on March 4, 2015 by: Harvey B. Manbeck, PhD, PE

Consultant to NFBA
Professor Emeritus, Engineering
Penn State University

Disclaimer: This presentation was developed by a third party and is not funded by
WoodWorks or the Softwood Lumber Board.
“The  Wood Products Council” is This course is registered with
a Registered Provider with The AIA CES for continuing
American Institute of Architects professional education. As
Continuing Education Systems such, it does not include
(AIA/CES), Provider #G516. content that may be deemed
or construed to be an
approval or endorsement by
the AIA of any material of
Credit(s) earned on completion construction or any method or
of this course will be reported to manner ofhandling, using,
AIA CES for AIA members. distributing, or dealing in any
Certificates of Completion for material or product.
both AIA members and non-AIA __________________________________
members are available upon Questions related to specific materials,
request. methods, and services will be addressed
at the conclusion of this presentation.
Course Description

This session is intended for architects and

designers who want to understand basic structural
design methods for an engineered post-frame
building system. Without delving into engineering
details or calculation procedures, it covers the
components of the post-frame building system, as
well as key structural design concepts. Two
approaches are highlighted in particular: one for
post-frame systems without diaphragm action, the
other for post-frame systems with diaphragm
action. Procedures for designing isolated pier
foundations for post-frame buildings are also
discussed, as are technical resources available to
the design professional.
Learning Objectives

1. Identify the primary structural

components of post –frame (PF) building
systems
2. Learn basic procedures for conducting
structural analysis of PF systems with and
without diaphragm action
3. Define the design approach for isolated
post/pier PF foundations
4. Recognize post-frame design resources
available to architects and engineers
 LEARNING OBJECTIVES
• Identify the primary structural components of
post-frame (PF) building systems
• Learn basic procedures for conducting structural
analysis of PF systems with and without
diaphragm action
• Define the design approach for isolated post/pier
PF foundations
• Recognize post-frame design resources
available to architects and engineers
 POST-FRAME (PF) BUILDING
SYSTEMS
• Wood  industry’s  counterpart  to  low  profile  (1  to  
2-1/2 story) steel buildings
• Developed  in  late  1930’s  for  agricultural  sector
• Known  as  “pole  building”  in  the  past
• PF has evolved to highly engineered wood
building system
• PF has expanded to many commercial,
residential & institutional applications
 TYPICAL PF BUILDING SYSTEM

Sheathing:
• 26 to 29 ga
Ribbed Steel OR
• OSB or Plywood

Roof Purlins
Typ. 2x4s
“on  edge”  or  
“flat”

Roof Framing Wall Girts

Trusses or Typ. 2x4 or 2x6
Rafters “flat”

Laminated or Solid-
Sawn
Wood Columns
 PF BUILDING SYSTEM
FOUNDATION OPTIONS

Isolated Pier Thickened Edge of

Continuous RC
Foundation Concrete Slab
Foundation Wall
9
 PRIMARY PF DESIGN METHODS
• 2-dimensional frame design method
– Without diaphragm action
• 3-dimensional diaphragm design method
– With diaphragm action
 PF SYSTEMS WITHOUT
DIAPHRAGM ACTION

Unsheathed
walls

Unsheathed
walls
 PF SYSTEM WITH DIAPHRAGM
ACTION
Sheathed Version of
This Building
 LATERAL LOADS: WITHOUT
DIAPHRAGM ACTION

Wind
Wind
direction
direction

Typical sway (Δ) of interior

post frame at design
lateral load = 5 to 8 inches
LATERAL LOADS: WITH DIAPHRAGM
Typical sway (∆ ) of centermost
1 ACTION
post-frame at design lateral load =
0.5 to 1.0 inch

Wind direction
∆1
 ADVANTAGES OF DIAPHRAGM
DESIGN
• Smaller sidewall posts
• Shallower post or pier embedment depths
• Benefits:
– More economical design
– Greater structural integrity
– More durable post-frame structures
 FULL-SCALE PF BUILDING TESTS
Load cell &
29 ga ribbed steel sheathing Displacement
Transducer

Hydraulic
cylinder 16 ft

5 ft

40 ft W x 80 ft L x 16 ft H
(8 ft. o.c.)
DIAPHRAGM VS NO DIAPHRAGM
ACTION
 WHEN TO USE 2-D FRAME DESIGN
METHOD
• Side or endwalls are open, or not sheathed
• PF  Building  with  L:W  ≥  ≈  2.5  to  3:1
• Connections  and  other  structural  detailing  don’t  
develop a continuous load path for transfer of
in-plane shear forces
– Through the roof sheathing
– Between the diaphragm and the top of the endwall
– Through the endwall or shearwall
– Between bottom of the endwall and the endwall
foundation
 EMBEDDED POST/PIER
FOUNDATIONS
• Common post-soil fixity models for embedded
post or pier foundations:
– Constrained post or pier
– Non-constrained post or pier
POST/PIER EMBEDMENT DESIGN
Horizontal Horizontal movement prevented by
movement permitted floor or mechanical connection

d0

Non-constrained Constrained
POST FOUNDATIONS-Simplified Model:
NON-CONSTRAINED CASE
Load Direction

Structural Analog for

Rotation
Point Post
Determining
Ground Surface Shear
(VG) and Moment (MG)
VG
w • Fixed end at depth
Slab
d MG d w below grade
• w = face width of post
bearing against
w soil

Non-constrained post/pier Constrained post/pier

 POST FOUNDATIONS-Simplified Model:
CONSTRAINED CASE
Load Direction

Rotation
Point
Structural Analog for
Determining Post
VG
Ground Surface Shear (VG)
and Moment (MG) MG
w Slab
•Vertical roller at top edge
d of slab d

• Fixed end at ground line

w

Non-constrained post/pier Constrained post/pier

 PRIMARY ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE
SIMPLIFIED MODEL
• Soil is homogeneous throughout the entire embedment
depth.
• Soil stiffness is either constant (cohesive soils) for all
depths below grade or linearly increases (non-cohesive
soils) with depth below grade.
• Width of the below-grade portion of the foundation is
constant. This generally means that there are no
attached collars or footings that are effective in resisting
lateral soil forces.
 UNIVERSAL MODEL – POST
FOUNDATIONS
• Used to determine ground surface shear, VG,
and moment , MG when required conditions for
simplified method not met
• Considers the load-deformation behavior of the
soil surrounding the embedded post
• Soil – foundation load deformation behavior
evaluated using soil spring models
 UNIVERSAL MODEL: SOIL LOAD -
DISPLACEMENT BEHAVIOR

Elastic-Perfectly Plastic Soil

Ultimate Soil
Strength, pu,z
(psi)

Soil Load
(psi) Slope = soil stiffness, Es
(lb/in)

Soil Deformation
(in.)
POST FOUNDATIONS-Universal Model:
NON-CONSTRAINED CASE

V
MU

VU
t1 1 1 Fult,1
dRU dRU
t2 2 2 Fult,2
z
3a Fult,3a
t3 3
3b Fult,3b
Point of
t4 4 Fult,4
foundation 4
rotation
t5 5 5 Fult,5
POST FOUNDATIONS-Universal Model:
CONSTRAINED
Post contacts
CASE
ground surface
restraint
MU
VU
t1 1 Fult,1

t2 2 Fult,2
z
t3 3 Fult,3

t4 4 Fult,4

t5 5 Fult,5
DESIGN METHODS: 2-D POST FRAME
sxw

Wind Direction Each frame is designed

s x qlr to carry its full tributary
s x qwr
lateral and gravity loads

H2
s x qww s x qlw

Post-to-truss connections
usually modeled as a pin
H1

The post-to-ground reaction is modeled consistent

with post embedment details. (Note that one post
foundation may be constrained and the other non-
constrained)
 2-D DESIGN ANALYSIS
ASCE-7 Governing Load Combinations (ASD)
• Dead + ¾ snow + ¾ wind (or seismic)
or
0.6 dead + wind (or seismic)
– Usually controls post design
• Dead + snow (balanced & unbalanced)
– Usually controls roof-framing design
 SIMPLIFIED 2-D PF DESIGN METHOD
V = roof truss vertical reaction

P = ½ (Resultant lateral
roof load from truss)
Wind direction

Specify dead & snow loads

½ (qww+qlw) x s for truss manufacturer
or
Max(qww, qlw) x s

Model post-to-soil
interaction appropriately
(For constrained pier
Then design the post foundation and simplified
for the design lateral method, this is fixed end
load combinations at ground line.)
 DIAPHRAGM DESIGN METHOD
• Incorporates in-plane shear strength and
stiffness of the roof and wall sheathing to
transfer design lateral loads to the foundation
• Three-dimensional structural analysis method
• Significantly decreases wall-post size and post-
foundation embedment depth
• Will use an on-line structural analysis program,
DAFI
 PF DIAPHRAGM DESIGN
• Key Definitions

- In-plane shear stiffness of the roof

diaphragm panel, c

- Bare frame stiffness of the post-frame, k

- Design eave lateral load, P

 DIAPHRAGM TEST PANEL
bsp = Slope length (roof
diaphragm length)

Test panel
length, b
Test panel width, a

Roof sheet
end joint
θ
Roof span
Test panel
(basic
Building length = LB
Endwall element)
ap

Building width
 DIAPHRAGM TEST PANEL
Sheathing/
Purlin
cladding
(chord)

Rafter or truss
top chord (strut)
 CANTILEVER TEST CONFIGURATION
∆s
b = Test diaphragm length
P = applied
force
Truss top chord

Purlin
Cladding

diaphragm
a = Test

width
Direction of corrugations
 DIAPHRAGM TEST RESULTS, IN-
PLANE STRENGTH & STIFFNESS
∆
P

Diaphragm Test
Panel Schematic

P
Ultimate
Strength = Pult

Design shear
strength = 0.4 Pult C = design shear
c stiffness (slope)
1 ∆
∆1
Design unit shear
strength = (1/b)0.4 Pult
 DIAPHRAGM TEST PANEL
bsp = Slope length (roof
diaphragm length)

Test panel
length, b
Test panel width, a

Roof sheet
end joint
θ
Roof span
Test panel
(basic Test panel shear props
element) from sheathing supplier
Endwall ap or from PFBDM

Roof diaphragm shear

Building width
props deduced from test
panel props
 DIAPHRAGM DESIGN METHOD –
ROOF PANEL STIFFNESS
• Shear stiffness of a roof diaphragm panel
– test panel stiffness, c
– roof panel width, ap
– roof panel roof slope length bsp
– roof slope Θ

ch = [c (a/b)] (bsp/ap)cos2Θ
DIAPHRAGM DESIGN METHOD-ROOF
PANEL STRENGTH

• In-plane strength is a linear function of

diaphragm length, bsp

V = [unit shear strength](roof diaphragm length)

V = [0.4(Pult/b)](bsp)
 DIAPHRAGM DESIGN METHOD-
Pinned
Connection
BARE FRAME STIFFNESS, K

P1

Model soil to post interaction using

appropriate structural analog for
constrained or non-constrained pier
 DIAPHRAGM DESIGN METHOD
PF diaphragm design
procedures based on:
1. compatibility of post-
frame and roof panel
eave deformations and
2. Equilibrium of
horizontal forces at
each eave

P = Design Lateral
Eave Load
 DIAPHRAGM DESIGN METHOD
• Equilibrium of forces at each PF eave
Pi = Pfi + Pri
– Pi = design eave load in ith PF
– Pfi = portion of the design eave load carried by the ith PF
– Pri = portion of the design eave load carried by the roof diaphragm panel
at the ith PF
 DIAPHRAGM DESIGN METHOD
• Compatibility of roof and PF deformations at
each PF eave
Δri = Δfi
– Δri = roof panel eave deformation at the ith PF
(dependent upon ci, ki, and Pi )
– Δfi = Pfi/ki
 DAFI COMPUTER PROGRAM
• DAFI program calculates
– Eave displacement of each post frame
– Portion of the design eave load carried by each post
frame
– Shear forces carried by each roof diaphragm panel
in the building system
– Available at no cost at
www.postframeadvantage.com
 DAFI INPUTS
• Total number of bays in the building
• Design eave loads at each post frame, Pi
• Bare frame stiffness of each post frame, ki
• In-plane shear stiffness of each roof diaphragm
panel, chi
DIAPHRAGM DESIGN METHOD
 DIAPHRAGM DESIGN – STRUCTURAL
ANALOG
Panel/PF structural analog of a 3-bay building
PF 1
(k1) 1 2 (k2) (k3) 3 (k4) 4

Diaphragm
Panel

1(ch1) 2(ch2) 3(ch3)

P3 P4
P1 P2
 DAFI: UNDEFORMED POSITION

1 2 3 4

Node

Datum Datum
 DAFI: DEFORMED EQUILIBRIUM
POSITION

1 2 3 4

Datum Datum
DAFI COMPUTER PROGRAM

Pf1

Pf2

Pf3

Pf4
DAFI COMPUTER PROGRAM

V1
V2

V3
 DAFI: HIGHLY FLEXIBLE
• Can be used for post-frame building systems
where:
– Stiffness, ki, of the interior post frame elements are
not the same
– Stiffness, chi, of the diaphragm panel elements are
not the same
– Stiffness, ki of the two endwall post-frames are not
the same
• Available at no cost to designers at
www.PostFrameAdvantage.com
 DAFI: MINI DEMONSTRATION

• 48-ft-wide by 96-ft-long post frame

• Post frames 8-ft o.c.
• Number of bays —12
• Post-frame stiffness (k) — 300 lbs/in.
• Endwall stiffness (ke) —10,000 lbs/in.
• Roof diaphragm stiffness (C) —12,000 lbs/in.
• Horizontal eave load at interior post frame —
800 lbs
 DAFI: MINI DEMONSTRATION

Access DAFI by:

• Going to www.postframeadvantage.com

• Clicking  onto  “DAFI”  icon

• Running  “DAFI”  when  prompted

NOTE: Recommend you use Explorer or Firefox

browser
DAFI: MINI DEMONSTRATION
DAFI: MINI DEMONSTRATION
DAFI: MINI DEMONSTRATION
DAFI: MINI DEMONSTRATION
 POST/PIER EMBEDMENT DESIGN
Load Direction

Rotation
Point

w Slab
d d

Non-constrained post/pier Constrained post/pier

Lateral displacement Lateral displacement = zero

Allowed at ground surface At ground surface
 POST/PIER EMBEDMENT DESIGN
• Post-embedment details must resist
– Downward acting gravity loads
– Shear force and moments from lateral loadings
– Uplift post loads

– ANSI/ASAE EP486.2, Shallow post and pier

foundation design
 POST/PIER EMBEDMENT DESIGN:
LATERAL LOADS
Two Design Approaches

• Simplified Method

• Universal Method
 POST/PIER EMBEDMENT DESIGN:
LATERAL LOADS-SIMPLIFIED METHOD
Constrained at Groundline
P Ground PU PU
Ground
surface surface
M
MGu MU MU
Ground surface 3 b SU 3 b SU
VuG VU VU
R R R
Restraint Restraint Restraint
y y y

Post or pier 4b
z with width b d z z
Post or pier with
d d Post or pier
width b and depth
Soil with a fixed with width b
d < 4b
modulus of horizontal
subgrade reaction kC Cohesive soil with
Soil forces Cohesive soil with
an undrained shear
an undrained shear
strength SU
3 b SU + strength SU
3 d b KP 9 b SU
1.5 d SU
P PU PU

Case 1 Case 2
Cohesionless Soil Cohesive Soil

(a)  d  ≤  4b (b) d > 4b

 POST/PIER EMBEDMENT DESIGN:
LATERAL LOADS-SIMPLIFIED METHOD
Constrained at Ground Surface – Design Criteria

CASE 1: (Cohesionless Soil)

Mu = d3bKpγ ≥  Design  Ultimate  Moment  Capacity  (MG*fL)

Mu = ultimate groundline moment capacity

d = embedment depth
b = foundation width bearing against soil
γ = soil density
Kp = passive pressure coefficient (1 + sinϕ)/(1 – sinϕ)

MG = Calculated ground surface post moment

fL = ASD factor of safety
 POST/PIER EMBEDMENT DESIGN:
LATERAL LOADS-SIMPLIFIED METHOD
Constrained at Ground Surface – Design Equation

CASE 2: (Cohesive Soil)

(a) d  ≤  4b

Mu = d3bSu[3/2  +  d/(2b)]  ≥  MG(fL)

(b) d > 4b

Mu = bSu(4.5d2 – 16b2)  ≥  MG(fL)

where Su = Soil undrained shear strength (soil cohesion)

 POST/PIER EMBEDMENT DESIGN:
LATERAL LOADS-SIMPLIFIED METHOD
Non-Constrained at Ground Surface
PU PU PU

MU MU 3 b SU MU 3 b SU
Ground surface
VU Ground surface VU Ground surface VU
y
Post/pier with width y Post/pier with width 4b
b and dRU < 4b b and dRU > 4b
z Cohesive soil with dRU
z Cohesive soil with
dRU Post or pier undrained shear undrained shear dRU
with width b strength SU
d
strength SU
Point of Point of rotation d
d Point of rotation
rotation
9 b SU y
3 dRU b KP 3 b SU +
1.5 dRU SU
Cohesionless soil z
3 d b KP with density and 9 b SU
friction angle 9 b SU
PU PU

See ANSI/ASAE EP486.2 or PFBDM PU

for Design Equations

Case 1 Case 2
Cohesionless Soil Cohesive Soil
(a) dRu ≤  4b  and (b) dRu > 4b and
d      ≤  4b d > 4b
 POST/PIER EMBEDMENT LATERAL
LOADS- UNIVERSAL METHOD
Constrained at ground surface – Spring Model
Post contacts
ground surface
restraint
MU
VU
t1 1 Fult,1

t2 2 Fult,2 Foundation moment and

z shear capacity from basic
t3 3 Fult,3
mechanics
t4 4 Fult,4

t5 5 Fult,5
 POST/PIER EMBEDMENT LATERAL
LOADS- UNIVERSAL METHOD
Non-constrained at ground surface – Design Criteria

Foundation moment and

shear capacity from basic
mechanics
 POST/PIER EMBEDMENT LATERAL
LOADS- UNIVERSAL METHOD
Design Articles in Frame Building News

• Bohnhoff, David. 2014. Modeling Soil Behavior

with Simple Springs, Part 1: Spring Placement
and Properties. Pages 49 to 54. April.
• Bohnhoff, David. 2014. Modeling Soil Behavior
with Simple Springs, Part 2: Determining the
Ultimate Lateral Capacity of a Post/Pier
Foundation. Pages 50 to 55. June.
 POST/PIER EMBEDMENT DESIGN:
UPLIFT RESISTANCE

Mass of soil in
shaded zone resists
post withdrawal due
to uplift forces

Post must be
mechanically
attached to the
collar or wood
cleat Mass of attached
collar or wood
cleat

Bu
 POST/PIER FOUNDATION
EMBEDMENT – UPLIFT LOADS
Governing Design Equations

Weight of attached collar/footing +

Weight of soil above attached collar/footing

≥ Design uplift load of post frame

 POST/PIER FOUNDATION
EMBEDMENT – UPLIFT LOADS, U
Shallow vs. Deep Foundations
Deep foundation

(dU – h)

Shallow foundation Shallow: du ≤  h

dU
Failure plane
h

dU
Deep: du ≥  h

(h dependent upon
BU
Uplift resistance soil internal angle
of friction)
 POST/PIER FOUNDATION
EMBEDMENT – UPLIFT LOADS
Ultimate uplift resistance of soil above circular
anchorage systems
Cohesive Soils:
U = γdu(Bu2π/4-Ap) + FcSuBu2π/4
du = post embedment depth
γ = soil density
Bu = anchor diameter
Ap = post cross sectional area
Fc = breakout factor for soil uplift (1.2du/Bu)
 POST/PIER FOUNDATION
EMBEDMENT – UPLIFT LOADS
U-value equations provided in ASAE/ANSI EP
486.2 and PFBDM for additional cases

• Cohesive soils – rectangular uplift anchors

• Cohesionless soils – circular uplift anchors
(shallow and deep foundations)
• Cohesionless soils – rectangular uplift anchors
(shallow and deep foundations)
 POST/PIER FOUNDATION DESIGN:
UPLIFT DESIGN
• Design Equations for Uplift Resistance of
Embedded Posts with Uplift Anchors

1. Post Frame Building Design Manual (2014 ed.)

(www.nfba.org or
www.postframeadvantage.com)
2. ANSI/ASAE EP486.2, Shallow Post & Pier
Foundation Design
(www.asabe.org)
 POST-FRAME TECHNICAL
• ANSI/ASAE (ASABE) EP 484
RESOURCES
– Diaphragm design procedures
• ANSI/ASAE (ASABE) EP 486.2
– Shallow post & pier
foundation design
• ANSI/ASAE (ASABE) EP 559
– Requirements and bending
properties for mechanically
laminated columns
– asabe.org or nfba.org
POST-FRAME TECHNICAL
RESOURCES

Provides structural
design procedures,
commentary & design
examples for post-
frame building
systems
OTHER PF TECHNICAL RESOURCES
•Post Frame Construction Guide
•Post Frame Construction Tolerance Guidelines
OTHER PF TECHNICAL RESOURCES

DAFI
www.postframeadvantage.com
or
www.nfba.org
MORE PF DESIGN GUIDANCE?
WWW.POSTFRAMEADVANTAGE.COM

WWW.NFBA.ORG

National Frame Building Association

8735 Higgins Road
Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60631
Questions?
This concludes The American
Institute of Architects Continuing
Education Systems Course

Harvey B. Manbeck, P.E., PhD

National Frame Building Assn.
[email protected]