Timber Framers Guild Forums General General Forum Questions Conference Sessions on Engineering

There has been some feedback that the basic beam sizing session at the Seven Springs Conference might have been (a) too advanced, (b) too long with not enough time for Q&A, (c) just about right. With some minor changes, this session was basically the same as the one I presented at Estes Park back in April.

My objective with the session was to present an overview, with some examples, of the process involved in designing beams (rafters and floor joists) for gravity loads (the weight of the stuff that the beams must support). The presentation was targeted at professional timber framers and designers who do not have formal education in engineering. Certainly, I had to make some assumptions about where to start, how fast to go, and how much material could be presented in the time available.

With this background in mind, I have some questions. Please offer a response to any or all so that future conference sessions on engineering topics can be accurately targeted.

A: For those of you in the target audience (at Estes Park or Seven Springs):

1. Was the presentation helpful?

2. What suggestions do you have for improvement?

B: For anyone:

1. Is it feasible to teach engineering topics at Guild conferences?

2. Should such topics be reserved for stand-alone workshops or multi-session conference tracks?

3. Do you have any answers to questions not asked above?

I'm looking forward to a healthy discussion on this one.

I would think if someone is offering a session about engineering at a guild conference, then those attending would already have an interest in engineering(even if they do not have a degree), or they would choose something else. That being said, the session should probably have a "beginner" or "advanced" type label. This type of session should be available, for sure, at a timberframing conference.

A1. As a participant at Seven Springs, my answer is: Yes.

A2. More time for questions and answers as some questions were asked before presentation had arrived at the answers. More time such as a double session, or longer.

A3. Yes, with the aforementioned labels = "Beginner and/or Advanced".

A4. Both. As a multi-session for beginners at conferences, and as a stand alone for advanced.
With some rules that to take the advanced you should have taken the beginner one, so that beginner questions aren't asked again.

In the one day workshop with Curtis Milton we had classroom theory first and then we tried to solve some specific questions to an ongoing project.
That is we tried to apply the lesson just taught to us.
If an engineering class was taught, say beginner level, showing all the simple formulas, and then these formulas were used by the group in teams or individually to solve some problems on one simple frame, as you showed in your house design, then the participants would learn how to use the formulas shown to solve real problems and come up with real solutions.
In other words, how to use them in real life engineering analysis, by actually doing the math.

In my opinion, once these formulas are used to solve real problems by the participants, in groups or individually, understanding them becomes much easier.

It always seems that questions are asked because previous specific situations have needed some specific answers.

At another conference for another type of association, the speaker asked each participant what problem he had encountered lately. Everyone around the room stated his recent problem. The speaker listed these on a drawing board, and did not answer one until they were all listed. Then he went threw the list, either solving them, or asking others in the room how would they solve them. In doing this many different ways to get to the answer were found. I'm not sure if this would work in a subject as engineering.

I guess my point is that there are different methods to teach or understand what is being taught.

I hope my comments are helpful.
Jim Rogers

Dick, having not attended the conference, but having recently attended design classes at Pingree Park and having the vantage point of a novice designer, I would have to say that engineering classes are not beyond the scope of a conference with some qualifications added.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I have to agree with Mark, that most but not all attendees would have some basic interest in engineering. Their level of understanding would be greatly affected by their prior education and experiences. Some of the attendees may have wanted nothing more than a system to use or compare to their own way of doing things. Others may have wanted to get down to the nitty gritty of why things are done a certain way and others may have only wanted some "rules-of-thumb" by which to assist them in everyday business.

In fact, one of my chief complaints about the class that I attended in Colorado was that some of the material was highly technical in nature and with no way to corrolate that information to the real world, I believe that I missed out on some real valuable information. Several students were just fine with the presentation, but I later found out that those students were all degreed engineers. Those of us who weren't engineers were lost.

My intent here is to be constructive, so I would volunteer that any seminar should be directed at a target audience that is either defined by the instructor or by the audience. If the instructor sets the agenda, then it is a simple process for the instructor to limit attendence to only those who are qualified to attend. If the audience sets the agenda, then the instructor has the more difficult task of adjusting his presentation for the benefit of those attending. Since more than likely, the audience will set the agenda, I think that I would take a limited subject, such as beam sizing, and focus on developing an industry wide "system" for beam sizing and keep the "techo talk" to a minimum.

As a side note, there seems to be a general trend among the many "non-engineer" designers that I have met with of the appearance that many don't understand design, or they are in search of a system to use or they simply can't communicate what they do because they rely too heavily on software to do the job for them. Of course, of those designers that were educated and decreed engineers, that trend was noticibly absent, although some were still unable to communicate.

I'm sure that my thoughts will elicit some hard line comments. Please accept my advance apologies for any feelings that I unintentionally harm.

Hi Joey,

I found nothing controversial in your thoughts and most timber frame designers and engineers would welcome input from all directions into this type of subject.

There are probably probably two distinct approached taken to timber frame design.

The first is pattern based where the designer chooses to use a well tried building pattern and long established timber sizing criteria. This will generally result in a creditable design. Building codes and regulations tend to follow this method and this might be likened to a "prescriptive" approach to building.

The second is where the rule book runs out and the designer is forced to become engineer in order to figure out from first principals just how the building is to be shaped, sized and configured.

As Dirty Harry would say " A man's got to know his limitations" and hence depending or your education, capability and understanding of theory and use of software it might be prudent to develop a general recognition and understanding of just how far that you can take things yourself before needing to seek help.

Help can come in many forms and attending local college classes can help improve understanding of engineering matters just as reading a good reference book may lift some clouds and of course you could attend a TFG conference class. A TFG conference class has quite a rarity value attached to it because few college professors will have spent that much time in understanding timber frame specifics (present company excepted - Dick !) and thus the designer is afforded the opportunity to listen and compare thoughts expressed by others with your own thoughts. This might give you confidence about your abilities or otherwise and hence if you are serious about learning then you might have to face up to undertaking some more formal course of study for self improvement.

Its never too late to learn and I would hope that TFG classes whether simple or complex are all to be seen as useful building blocks (or is it beams ?.

I would not want to exclude anybody from their peer group if they have a genuine interest to learn.

Regards

Ken Hume P.Eng.

Hi Ken:

Thanks for the feedback. I'm often accused of letting my mouth override my rearend so I was kind of afraid to say anything at all. I agree that no one should be excluded if they sincerely want to learn. The instructor just needs to understand who his/her audience is and that can be a difficult task especially if the audience covers a spectrum such as what is normally found in seminars. If the subject is too generalized, then you risk boring a lot of people. If the subject assumes a base level of understanding that is over a lot of heads, then you may as well be whistling in the wind.

Jim mentioned dividing the seminars into levels with prerequistes. That might be one way to approach it. Personally, if I was the cattle-caller, I would concentrate more on introducing a systematic approach to timber frame design, and leave the details for the guild workshops.

Thanks for the feedback so far. It appears that a two-session program is desired so that there is time for hands-on application of the lecture material.

I agree with Ken's comments regarding inclusiveness -- we certainly want to provide support to those who want to learn. In presenting the basic beam sizing session, it's my hope that non-engineers can determine for themselves what they can do and when they need help.