Howdy,

There has been some activity on scribing on rounds on here lately. Got me thinkin'. Uhoh.

So you want to build a frame. You have the plans in your head or on paper. Could you not leave the timbers round except where the joinery meets? Sorta like flattening the level areas in scribe.

As far as work goes, it seems like this approach might take a helluva lot less labor.

I could be missing something as usual...

Yes, sure, even in the old frames you can find some areas where this was used. Floor joist were flattened only on the top and the ends were only reduced where they joined into the sills, round poles, rafters as well.

Tim

Some log building companies square the ends of the logs where they will be a square mortise inside the side of another log it's joining. (Some of these aren't always square, some are rectangular, depending on the load.)

I know this because they have asked the software company to make this option available from our tenon function, which it is if you use the correct function and set the parameters correctly.

All this joint work doesn't show as it is on the end of the log and inside the other, so from the outside it looks like round log.inserted into the side of a round log.

The below example is not for going into the side of a horizontal log but the side of a log post. I was just experimenting with the tenon function to create the squared or rectangular end as well as adding a standard tenon.

That other posting got my wheels turning as well Mo. I was thinking the same thing: why not just flatten/square things at the joint locations?

When you say build a frame, you're talking about a TF house/barn right?

I suppose corner posts as well as exterior frame members would also need flattening across any sheathing surfaces, Like Tim pointed to with the old joists and rafters.

So why did the old timers hew all faces of a timber (and create all that extra work?)

Will T. must be able to give us an educated guess. I'm guessing it may have something to do w/ referencing and being able to square/ plumb things... You'd have to at least snap a line down the timber for a reference, right? Maybe that's why just rafters and joists were left semi-round, but wall members and sills/plates were hewn square.

The perimeter of a frame needs "referenceability" square/flat surfaces. Maybe that's why crucks have square members on their exteriors, so everything will come out straight?

hmmmnn...

I guess it would probably be a chore to hew right at joint locations with axes and such, but the chainsaw and slick....

would take some handtooling to get it to look right i guess.

Answered that on the other thread Don - It's not more work it's less, and sapwood is a liability and an invitation for rot, even Cruck blades are hewn flat on all four sides.

It's all has been, and is being done. There are many iterations of joining round work. Esthetics' and familiarity are what drive the chosen method.

Mo - ask your new Sensei at ACBA, there are few other people with the round work chops to be found.

thanks Will...
(bow)

And what the cripes is a desibu?

wait a minute...

So what about the semi-round rafters and joists?

They were left round to save on labor, yes? Plus, doesn't the extra diameter of these semi-round pieces add to their strength?

Though a joist pocket may be only 4 X 5 or so, the cross section of the joist itself may be a full 8 inches, which is nice and strong, sapwood and all. I see many semi-round pieces in old frames.

On the topic of flattening only one side of a log for a joist or rafter for the purpose of producing a nailing surface... I have seen it many times. I should mention however that in examples I've seen it's always been a fairly small flat surface. I believe that if you remove too much from one side of a log then you have too do the same on the opposite side. This having to do with tension/stress within the log. Also, I've read this in one of Jack Sobon's books.
There are many ways to skin a cat but in the end we all cook with water.(whatever that means)

Thane