I have a question about gunstock posts and knee braces. Particularly, how do you resist the racking forces in the plane of the bent if you're using gunstock posts? The obvious answer would be to use knee braces, but I think that would ruin the look of the post. Of all the examples I've seen on gunstock posts, I have never seen a knee brace on the same face as the gunstock detail.

To put this question in context, consider a simple covered-patio frame with two-bents, four-posts, principal rafters, counter-purlins and vertical roof decking of 2x6 T&G planks using gunstock posts and english tying joints to hold everything together. The top plate, ridge pole and purlins would extend beyond the posts and principal rafters a foot or two to help catch the overhang in the front and rear of the roof. I understand that the gunstock/tying joint detail is probably overkill in terms of unnecessary complexity, but would be an interesting look nonetheless.

Is the simple answer that you never use english tying joints on "end bents" and just for intermediate bents/posts?

Thanks in advance for your input.

Dennis

I have seen barns with English tying joints at every bent. And with braces to the tie beam from the gunstock post.

Here is one at a barn that was restored:


Jim Rogers

Thanks Jim for the reply. I have a feeling that I'm going to get a different answer from everyone, but I'll ask anyways. Am I correct in assuming then that a gunstock post is more function over form? In other words, is the beefed up section really there just to hold the tie beam and the "gun stock" effect is just to jazz it up a bit? Personally, I don't like the intrusion of the knee brace on the look of the gunstock, but you gotta fight the racking some how.

Thanks again

It was very difficult to make a three way intersection of timbers. So they invented the English tying joint to solve that problem. Most posts are tree trunks upside down so that the flair of the butt creates the gunstock look. And the grain follows out the flair and makes it stronger.
At TTRAG one year the fellow from England was here doing a slide show and he showed us one barn they took apart over there to either repair or move. And they found that four gunstock posts were made from one tree. The quartered it. He showed us a slide of the four pieces put back together and you could see the grain match up.
This lead them to look for other pieces with similar grain patterns and the found lots of smaller pieces that were cut off of other bigger pieces. And it was quite interesting to see how many pieces of say one or two trees were used in this barn.

I'm sure you know but the tenon on the upper part goes one way and the tenon on the lower part of the gunstock goes 90° to the upper one. So that the plate is secured as well as the tie beam.

Lots of fun to cut:


Jim Rogers

Interesting! I never thought about the flare of the truck being incorporated into the joint, but it makes complete sense.

Thanx again.

good posts Jim and good pictures.

I've seem more with braces than without.

The english tying joint is really quite slick, and one should not be afraid of it. Pay attention to brace layout, you have to measure to a housing that is a given number from the ref. face because the post tapers from top to bottom. That number is added to your brace length and applied from the end of the tie beam to locate the brace pocket. During the recent Maine Traditional Building Research Group meeting, there was an older gentleman calling the post "fan tail posts". Has any one heard of that term used before? There is a difference between gunstock and a flared/fantail, the gunstock has a flare at the top that terminates part way down the post and continues as a normal straight post, while the fantail tapers from top to bottom. Some times the post is only cut on three sides, the fourth inner face is left raw with just the bark removed.

As for form and function, form always follows function, with a few exceptions such as boats. Have it function than see the form, put the brace in, weather you like it or not, it needs to function, than smile at the form. The english tying joint also dictates a wall raising as opposed to a bent raising. It is possible to use the english tying joint with a straight post. Look at Jack Sobon book Build a classic Timber Framed House. It's a slight variation, and simple. Tim

TIMBEAL, thank you as well for the great response. It's funny that you mentioned Sobon's book because that's the first place I checked before I posted my original question. The illustration of the English tying joint provided in the book does not include a knee brace. I didn't study the actual raising pictures in the book, but the detailed "schematic" on pages 40-43 are definitely sans brace. But then again, his intention was probably only to highlight the specifics of the joint.

PS, I just checked a couple of the photos in the book adjacent to the ETJ schematics and they appear to be ETJ's atop straight posts with knee braces.

For the record, braces on straight posts look okay to me, but I'm still not fond of them on jowled posts. Either way, they're a necessity most of the time.


Thanks again to all.

Dennis, the many times I have been over and over that book, the cover is taped back on, I never noticed the ommited braces in those drawings, now I'm curious if they were left out for clarity or they never were there. On page 38 he mentions bracing being left out but also recomends them in the house frame. I took a old frame down and rebuilt it and but it back up, it was a house with interior walls and only 8 braces total, all in the corners, but 3 were compromised 2 of which were completly missing the third cut for a window. The frame was still very strong and stiff. We were very cautious in taking it down. Of all the possible joints out there the tying joint is one of my favorites a close second is the dropped tie with a wedged half dove tail. I have never used a jowled post, so can't atest to the looks of one with a brace. I have cut many "fan tailed " post and don't mind the bracing at all, and straight bracing at that. Tim