Mike – I'm fully aware there are questions posed here on the forum which should not be answered...

I'm also aware there are answers sometimes offered that the questioners refuse to hear and will not listen to.

And, I never offer anything up without careful reflection.

You said, exactly what I said, only without the seed of potential. No one could interpret my statement as instruction, clearly it was meant only to provoke thought. If we have to dumb down to the level of losing all undercurrent of discussion and leaving much unsaid, I'm afraid we are lost.

Perhaps you can accept that, I cannot.

So I have to ask directly, why the diss ?

Hey Will T. -

That wasn't directed at you... I agree with your post completely! I actually lost a longer post (forum software gremlins!) where I quoted you and called out essentially the same spirit.

Sorry for the confusion.
No diss intended.

I was speaking generally to some posts above yours (and in other threads) that were talking about joinery without knowing anything about the spans, loads, date of original construction, etc. etc. etc.

I agree with you, as from what I've read you take a pragmatic approach to these things.

One does not need to know every detail about a building to offer up suggestions.

The person who posted this topic (and anyone else considering posting a question, seeking advice, etc.) should feel welcome to do so without possessing a degree in engineering.

Obviously our advice is merely suggestion and not a set of plans approved by local code enforcement. That's why there is a disclaimer at the Forum start page about following advice here.

This medium is for all skill levels (regardless of how many stars one has above their name!).

Not everyone is capable of providing a detailed set of CAD produced drawings with all load specifications in their posts, nor should they feel pressure to do so.

I'm not suggesting that Shawn need a PE degree or background nor need to provide detailed plans - but I just don't understand how we can discuss joinery without knowing basic loads, timber sizes, bent configuration, species (he did give us that), details on failure, understanding the foundation conditions, etc. etc. etc.

Basic information about the size and shape of the building, bent or wall configuration, piece sizes, etc. followed by a few photographs would greatly help these types of posts. Follow that up with the suggestions and further questions and the forum would be that much more professional and useful to novices and experienced timber framers alike. A doctor wouldn't (shouldn't) diagnose you over the web with just a paragraph of information. Timber framers and builders and engineers shouldn't either.

All I am asking for is more information - and to drop the armchair quarterbacking until there is real, tangible data that would lead to possible solutions.

And while I would agree that one does not need to know every detail of the building - in my experience many of these things in old structures are linked... sagging plates or dropping foundation on one side can contribute to a spreading roof just as much as poorly design connections or undersized members. Shear at the top of a post could be related to piece size, lack of a ridge or purlins, removal of too much material for a mortise, removal or interior posts by a previous owner, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, lets welcome any and all comers... and lets send them on their way with sound advice based on data - images, numbers, configurations... etc.

I think talking about old barns and their joinery is often more of an intuitive exercise than a rigid disipline. After in depth observations and studys of these old structures, which often prove highly diverse in typology and design, one begins to form a conceptual framework {pun :-)} about old joinery and the mechanics of buildings. Any framer, carpenter, scholar, restorer, hobbyist, etc. worth his/her salt can draw not only from this personal experience, but the written works of others, which often reside in the memory of one's own mind.

So when someone says an old "four-bent frame w/ dropped ties..." many of us can instinctively draw on our mental pictures and can begin to offer up suggestions. Of course we then ask for more specifics and information.

Applying rigid parameters to timber frame construction, such as the difference in the carrying capacity of ash vs. pine floor joists, is likely quite young thinking.

Designers like yourself have grown up in an environment where there is no room for error because of banks, insurance and modern building codes. All details must be proven and tested before you can even pick up a tool. You rely little on your intuition and the accumulated knowlege of the craft. I would argue that this is not a good development in the building profession.

Old joiners and carpenters knew what worked because of hundreds and thousands of years of trade progression. Their fathers taught them. They did not know about exact snowload data, nor did they need to. Barns were built from 8x8s because that's just what you did. Timber spacing was "common knowlege." These buildings have lasted and lasted. Indeed, the TF revival seeks to emulate them.

Remember that in this post we are not discussing plans for a modern elementary school. Of course we must then have all data, both known and unknown.

So when you ask about needing to understand how we can discuss old barn joinery without knowing basic loads, timber sizes, bent configuration, species, etc... relax, many of us already know the model quite well. We can discuss with no trouble.

Don -

My formative years in the trade were surveying, dismantling, moving, repairing, and in most cases re-erecting a half dozen barns. Typology ranged from 1780's German (Pennsylvania) to fairly modern mid to late 1800's in Maryland. Mix in a trip to Ohio for one with massive 24" tall and 12" thick white oak swing beams (with 12x16" gunstocked posts) and another in New Jersey that had clapboards, evenly spaced windows, and slate on the main street side and board and batten and a few odd windows on the private side.

No need to assume that a young designer like myself wouldn't be able to intuit what the old carpenters did as common knowledge. While I currently design - I've cut my teeth moving from studying the old, working by hand, and proceeding on to the design side of things. No need designing things you don't understand... and most of my work is first intuition followed by applying the stats and data.

And 8x8 is not really a common barn size - in my experience it is far more common today in the 'revival' than it would be in traditional barns. Sizes that I've worked with ranged from 6x6, 6x8 to 7x8,9 to 8x10 to 12x16 depending on region and I suspect it had as much to do with what was available to hew as it had to do with 'common knowledge'.



If the model that was handed down from generation to generation works so well - why are we discussing how to repair or stabilize a failure? There must be a series of reasons for the failure...


I'm going to step away now and leave this to the experts, as there clearly must be a precedent for diagnosing repairs over the interwebs and calling out joinery and solutions without serious study of the problem - whether this means running an FEA on a proposed bent design or simply understanding what actually exists before submitting solutions that we might know from our past experience to work...

Thanks Mike:

"Stepping away" is probably best. I indicated that I would respect and leave my two cents out of the Automated Section and perhaps you'd agree to the same when it concerns traditional TF matters.

Mike - Thanks for clarifying, and I hope you find it understandable that I came to the conclusion I did.

I have not seen the thread you allude to or the willy nilly advice, but I have seen such before, and I will look for it.

If there is any serendipity to be found in this mess, it is perhaps that the idea of offering structural advice based a brief written description is simply not a good idea, and that thought has seldom been voiced here on the forum.

Will,

I'm not suggesting you were giving poor advice on another thread - but like you I have seen it before (on other website forums, in other categories on the TFG, even regarding unrelated subjects) and I think it is dangerous and unprofessional. Clearly the 'danger' part is relative to the subject and circumstances - but the 'unprofessional' part applies regardless.

And yes, I have the sentiment of your last sentence exactly. Giving advice to someone I do not know, on a structure I haven't seen, for a failure I haven't studied, with loads, circumstances, etc. I cannot verify - all based on 1 paragraph is foolish. Others may feel differently - fair enough. But simply claiming that there is a TFG disclaimer somewhere that absolves them of responsibility... well... I'll leave it at that.

The possibilities you list are all avenues I would suggest the author approach - and all possibilities I have seen in my travels and repairs of traditional barns on the central East coast. And I feel the way you posted was proper.

Again, apologies for the misunderstanding and I regret not re-typing the long post I lost to the forum gremlins.

Shawn's first and only two post so far have a lot of information. Some info left out is the height, width and length of the buildings? The post being 8x8, the tie 2' below the plate(is that an estimate?), many layers of roofing equating too much weight on the roof and more. Even photos here on the forum would not do justice, and you could send 10 different people to the site and still get a wide variance in opinion. I would like to see photos of the 2 buildings, if for nothing else to see the variations in building styles around the country.

I am curious if the post themselves have been stressed? They are hardwood, something I don't see in my softwood region. I am guessing, due to this, they should be holding up better than the spruce and pine 8x8's I see here. The buildings have been stabilized with cables ( the first stage) allowing some breathing room. I would strip the old roofing and install metal, lightening the load in the heavier times of the year.

I also like Will's suggestion of the strap running along the tie and out through the mortice and down the post, this is where the engineer comes in and gives lengths number of fasteners etc., if one wishes to go in that direction. Is the mortice a through mortice? They have used straps with a small truss on the end of it bolted to the inside of the post, running along the top of the tie, more engineering.

I would venture to guess that even with a well engineered building, time will through in some chaotic aspects that were not allowed and result in failure, war comes to mind.

Bmike also points out the foundation and how this could change other aspects of the building worthy of noting. By the way, what is the expected life of modern concrete, 150-200 years? What happens when these concrete foundations fail? Is concrete like vinyl siding, vinyl is final.

Tim