Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Engineering Check #17401 11/24/08 06:36 AM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 11
T
Timber Troll Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 11
Hey All,

I've decided my first (of consequence) TF attempt will be in a house we have gutted and will be moving into. I plan on giving the building inspector a detailed plan for approval before I cut (or order) anything, but I don't want to submit something way out of whack and would appreciate any feedback the members here might have. The basic idea is to replace the supporting wall in the center of the 24'x36'house with an 8x10 beam supported by two posts and the exterior walls. Ceiling joists will be 6x4 beams. I picked these dimensions after doing the math, but I want to see if the math is solid.

I originally had a pretty long post planned with all my calculations shown, but I realized that if I was off at any point in the calcs the rest of the math was moot. Because of that, I think I'll ask a few questions up front and then be able to evolve the thread with the correct math.


My first questions are merely to get this thread started. I'm not asking for a free lunch and want to understand the math behind my decisions, but I need some basic info to get the rest of my calculations on track. I've been referencing the TFG Red Book and using Don P's priceless calculator at http://www.windyhilllogworks.com/Calcs/beamcalc.htm , but I can't find the answers to a few things:

When calculating the beam b+d, do I have to used the undisturbed wood in the cross section or does the entire beam count despite the repeated 36" OC joist mortises? As you see in the picture, it doesn't seem fair to use a full 8x10 beam, but a 4x10 or 8x7 doesn't seem fair either.


Same goes for the joist itself, I'd like a 6" wide exposed joist for aesthetics. If I only lay 3 inches deep into the beam and curve it out to the full 4 inches, do I only get to calculate for a 6x3? (I know that 4x6 is much stronger in bending than 6x4, I just wanted beefier looking exposed joists without removing a lot of material from the beam)


I appreciate your help on this.

Re: Engineering Check [Re: Timber Troll] #17402 11/24/08 06:42 AM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 11
T
Timber Troll Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 11
Those came out a bit small in the first post. Here's some you might actually be able to read:



Re: Engineering Check [Re: Timber Troll] #17405 11/24/08 03:23 PM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 11
T
Timber Troll Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 11
Jim, I pulled this quote of yours from http://tfguild.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=17404&page=0&fpart=1
Quote:
As mentioned the curved cut is done to remove the "point of fracture" from the floor joists.
In order to support a floor load the beam has to be sized correctly for the intended load. That is at the mid point of the beam where the bending will be the most. The ends of the beam have to be sized to prevent the beam from failing in shear. That is as if the beam was sheared vertically.... Solving for shear is usually quite easy as wood is strong perpendicular to the grain...
Modifying a straight beam with curve cut ends doesn't weaken the beam as the middle is thick where it needs to be for strength, and thick enough at the ends.
And as mentioned not reducing the tie or girder it's set into, to full depth of the joist makes it stronger as less of the tie or girder has to be removed...


If I understand this correctly, two calculations should be done for the joist. One calculated at 6x4 for the midpoint where bending is a concern, and one calculated at 6x3 for the end where shear is a concern.

Re: Engineering Check [Re: Timber Troll] #17407 11/25/08 12:07 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,687
J
Jim Rogers Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,687
I believe the spreadsheet software I got from Heartwood school does check it twice. Once for bending and once for shear....
As well as a third time for deflection...


Whatever you do, have fun doing it!
Re: Engineering Check [Re: Timber Troll] #17408 11/25/08 12:34 AM
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 463
R
Roger Nair Offline
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 463
Hi Troll, several points with varying pertinence. Your joint selection is not anywhere close to optimal for maintaining beam strength, look towards horizontal tenons with diminished haunch. Second when I want to estimate the capacity of a notched beam I think of the beam as a composite of rectangular cross sections with respect to the vertical aspect, in your case the strength of a 2 x7 plus 4 x 10 plus 2 x 7. Third, I would consider whether the ceiling structure could be converted into an attic floor by a future owner.

Re: Engineering Check [Re: Roger Nair] #17409 11/25/08 01:28 AM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 11
T
Timber Troll Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 11
Thanks Gentlemen. Can you tell I'm new at this? smile

The diminished haunch definitely makes much more sense. I'll re-plan with those in mind. The attic conversion isn't really an issue due to the attic height. If it could have been converted without popping the top, I would have done it.

I really appreciate the responses. I'm really looking forward to this project and want to make sure I'm on the right track.

Rich

Re: Engineering Check [Re: Timber Troll] #17410 11/25/08 02:37 AM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 217
D
Don P Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 217
Dick Schmidt has done testing that seems to show that its a 4x10 if notched through the top edge as shown.

If something more like a tusk tenon is used then the void is closer to the neutral axis and its done less damage to the beam. There isn't the notch in the tension edge of the joist either. Assembly just became a bear.

This is a real rough sketch, I'll leave it to the others with more experience as to whether this has any merit;

Re: Engineering Check [Re: Don P] #17411 11/25/08 07:52 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 961
K
Ken Hume Offline
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 961
Hi Troll,

See the arguments on thread http://tfguild.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=17382&page=1&fpart=2 that hopefully articulates further Roger's recommendation.

Regards

ken Hume


Looking back to see the way ahead !
Re: Engineering Check [Re: Ken Hume] #17413 11/26/08 12:06 AM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 217
D
Don P Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 217
This is a good download;
http://www.tfguild.org/publications/tfec1-07.pdf

Pages 9-11 and page c6 have some good info related to this as well.

Re: Engineering Check [Re: Don P] #17616 01/04/09 03:26 AM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 217
D
Don P Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 217
I ran across another good download while looking for more details of a plan in Hewett's "English Historic Carpentry".
Fig 42 and the surrounding text related to this thread;

http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-769-1/ahds/dissemination/pdf/vol10/10_089_112.pdf

Just for fun, I came across this story of Maid Marian while looking for Priory Place;
http://mspong.org/picturesque/little_dunmow.html


Moderated by  Jim Rogers, mdfinc 

Newest Members
Bradyhas1, cpgoody, James_Fargeaux, HFT, Wrongthinker
5137 Registered Users
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3
(Release build 20190728)
PHP: 5.4.45 Page Time: 0.031s Queries: 15 (0.008s) Memory: 3.1824 MB (Peak: 3.5815 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-05-04 06:33:58 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS