Timber Framers Guild Forums General General Forum Questions historic hewing questionnaire

Hi Ken and Frwinks

Ken nice to know that you are looking in from over THERE! I really am not trying to set any record but there seems to be quite a few that stop by each day for a look in, I compare it to a line up at a great restaurant.

Frwinks also thanks for plug and I take it that you are enjoying the posts, that really makes my day, and I hope that you are learning from your visits.

I welcome conversation please feel free to jump in with your experiences and comments.

Well all I can say is that I am glad many seem to be enjoying what I have to offer and I will try to continue to post general interest pics along with some commentary on this site as I get the time.

My other new site deals mostly with historic structures in particular Mills of the 1860's period, but I will be posting photos of other structures that include drivesheds, shops, bakeovens, smokehouses, and we may even talk about the outhouses that were a necessary evil back when.

NH

Hi everyone here is another view that I just ran across of the church frame as it is being dismantled in Dundas County.

It alway impressed me how the network of timbers spanning the whole width of the building seemed to say so true and straight without middle supports and what a problem it must have been during the raising many years ago to insert the timbers due to their unusual side connections and other members as they needed to be placed in their respective positions.

Hope you enjoy.

NH

Hi NH

With regard to the earlier mud sill photo, I have not seen the top surface of a sill releived like that before in historic framing. Is that something common in youre experience? What is the purpose?

Jim

Hi JIm:

Good question:

Well for starters this system of framing requires one to refer to framing lines which represent the true outside diameter of the timber.

The sizing that you see in that photo is required because the timber was overhewn it appears about 3\4". Now the upright timber that will stand in this spot is exactly the same length as all the rest of the vertical timbers that make up each bent of the structure. This sizing of the mud sill or plate at the contact point of each upright timber along the mud sill ensures that the upper ends of all the posts are right in line and will accept the upper main plate and make the roof line straight.

The upper main plate will also have to be sized at the point that the vertical timber contact it.

Depending on the hewing at times the sizing is hard to notice because of the accuracy of the hewing. I have seen barns where there was very little sizing at connection points but that was unusual with hewn timber.

I hope this answers your question if not just come back with more questions and we will continue to discuss this point until you are satisfied with the outcome.

Thanks for coming on board

NH

Hi

I cannot tell if this barn will have a wood floor which lands on the sill. If so, relieving the top of the sill will produce a level eave but an irregular floor. I can see using this method if it were a shed with a dirt floor.

Jim

Hi Jim:

Once again very observant a trait I really like in people, I hope many are looking in as we talk about this item of interest.

Being a 3 bay barn this is the #3 bay and is the section that hay is stored in, meaning that the hayloft decends to ground level. This would indicate then that the irregular variation of the top of the sill creates no problem,

Now as you move to the centre bay that did have a floor covering of 3", pine slip tongue planks this irregularity could cause you some distress.

Remember now that this sizing had to be done at each vertical post at its point of contact with the plate, to ensure that the whole frame would go together properly, no mistake about that. To overcome this slight iregularity you would just get out your adze and in about 30 minutes or less cut away the proud material.

That is exactly the way that these types of problems as they arose were handled.

It could be that in the centre bay section very little needed to be taken at the sizing points so there may not have been a problem at all.

This is what using rough hewn material is all about, you expect these types of problems from time to time, and you handle them.

By the way I would say that a level eve is visually quite important

I hope this answers your question and I thank you for it I hope everyone enjoyed us sharing this bit of historic timberframing information

NH

NH, was this sill a replacement or modeled from a older building which wasn't savable? In the recreations are/were you using or reclaiming some of the original pieces? In the sill situation it seems the tops could be placed flush and the odd bottom would be accommodated with the stone foundation, relieving the worker of the adze work. Have you seen this sill post housing in original structures? Tim

Hi Timbeal:

Once again good question

This was brand new historic reconstruction. The building was private property, and we had to get permission from the owner to gain admittance for detailed information.

The original barn is still being used and will probably survive for some time. The reason it was chosen was because it dated back to the 1860 period and had unusual early framing characteristics such as tie girts between the tops of the purlin posts, and very heavy handhewn timbers, which in itself meant that the timbers were chosen from the 1st generation forests.

The timbers also were rectangular rather than square which placed properly in the framework allowed good heavy relish at the seating points.

The braces were another story they also were handhewn from hardwood, rectangular rather than square, and the seatings of their feet did not follow the regular framing plan which would have been that they would have been laid out along the framing lines. They (the feet of the braces) rather followed a line about 15 degrees inside the framing lines.

This characteristic created a lot of hard work for the hewing team, and then the framers had to create a method for creating them from the hewn stock, and accurately placing them in their positions with a good tight fit. These braces I might say were tricky to make and install but once in place they were truly a strong bracing mechanism.

I think Timbeal that you need to consider what you are proposing in the later part of your reply above. In my opinion it was much easier and more accurate to place the timber sill level on the large load bearing stones, using the framing lines as a reference medium for this job, and then work from the framing lines upwards to the seatings.

Another aspect to consider is of course the rough hewn surface of the upper part of the timber sill being that they are hand hewn and rough and uneven, here again in my opinion it would be not good workmanship to just place the vertical timbers in their respective mortises giving no thought to what was going to happen further up the line.

I have to say though that the purlin posts's feet where they sat on and were mortised into the large cross girts were not gained into the the top surface. Under close examination it seemed to me that the original hewers were working under very close tolerances, and the need for anyseating at these points were unnecessary. We in turn paid cose attention to this detail and the reconstruction included this feature.

This barn's large doors also had very unusual door hinges being fashioned entirely from wood. Here again we were able to examine and copy the original hinges and install them to a very high accuracy rating.

This barn was a 3 bay English barn but exhibited traces of the German Dutch framing characteristics that seemed to have been included, such as no overhang on the eve, and the wooden doors hinges.

Thanks for the comments and questions Timbeal, and I am open to more questions if anyone wishes to put them forward.

During the TTRAG Conference in Morrisburg a few years back I took the group at that time to visit this barn and we had quite a discussion on the many points

Hope everyone enjoys

Nh

NH, as I reconsider my proposal I pulled out Timber Framing #81 and browsed on the article The English Barn in America, I found the last section The Foundation to be helpful in that it pointed out how the sills were laid. "the sills were placed, leveled and squared. Than the gaps in the wall were filled with thin shim stones" This does leave us to question what the level reference was, I am guessing it is the top of the sills. Sobons sills were sawn but that doesn't mean they were true. The difference was made up with the "shim stones". Still questioning if the original, and still standing structure had reduction/gains on the sills? Tim

Hi everyone--good evening --

Well before we leave this topic I have a couple of more unusual framing characteristics that I ran across as I was doing the documentation on this building, I am going to tell you what they were and Maybe you will give me your best guess at why the original framer did what he did:

a--The purling posts placement--

The building is 30 feet wide and as I measured the original mortise placement for the purling posts I noticed that instead of there being an equal 10 feet between the outside of the building to the centre of the mortise holes in each case the posts were 4" closer to the centre line of the building ie: 10'-4" from the outside to the centre of the purlin posts.

I replaced the posts in the same position during the reconstruction although I sort of wondered if it had been a mistake on the framer's part. In the end I discovered why this had been done.

What is your guess?

b--Ceiling timber placement--

In the east bay another irregularity showed up during the initial documentation of the building...

The east bay had a ceiling in it originally and was used mainly for horses and a few cattle. The ceiling timbers were framed in so that over the alley way they were 4" higher on that end than on the other end where they met and were mortised into the posts

Here again I thought a mistake had been made and I double checked to see if the posts had decayed on the bottom ends and created false readings. To my dismay though it was evident that this was not so and I really was torn between correcting this error during the reconstruction. It was decided though to not change things but keep the original measurements during the reconstruction.

The answer to this also became evident after the framing was complete and the floor in this section was installed--what do you guys think the irregular measurements were there for.


I hope you enjoy and don't be afraid to jump in with an answer I am sure everyone will enjoy

NH