Hello, My name is Paul Grim, just registered, 1st time TF builder. I have one small cordwood masonry bathhouse project under my belt but other than that I am relatively inexperienced builder. My wife and I would like to build our TF house using all home harvested lumber from our property. We live in semi-arid Oak Savannah land and have thousands of White Oak trees. Most of them are scrubby and not useful for building. However, taking an inventory I suspect we have nearly 100 usable oak trees. However, I'm not positive they are big enough which is my first question. I think we have plenty of posts. 8-12 feet long, straight, and over 1 foot in diameter. We will "box the center" and use heartwood for each post. My math shows I can get about 6x6, 7x7, or even larger out of these round logs (or something like a 9x4 and a couple of 2x6's depending on the starting diameter). Looking at all of the timber frame designs, these pieces seem smallish? I see a lot of 8x12 post and beams out there in TF books. I'm thinking our wood will be very strong because it is CENTER CUT OAK. However, I don't want to start logging my property until I am sure my wood size/quantity is feasible for the project. I suspect that beams may be my real problem. We only have a handful of oak that is 20' long or better and the log diameter is only about 12 inches (including bark). We don't have a lot of money but we have resources and stamina so I prefer to get all of my wood from home. We are willing to use extra posts to make up for the small size of the wood and we can scrimp and save to buy a few large salvaged tie beams if necessary. We will probably NOT use joinery so that actually increases the effective size of the wood, yes? We have metal worker friends who will make metal connectors for us. Our house will be a Colonial design with lean-to ("broken back barn") about 1400 SF, 1.5 stories. Sorry to be so wordy, but my question is; does the project sound feasible using our home grown lumber? Thanks for your time.

Left out 1 very important thing: We don't have a house design to tell us what wood we need because we are designing the house based on what wood we have!

Hi Paul, welcome.

short answer: of course, YES!



6x6 and 7x7 are certainly sizes that will allow for all kinds of flexibility in your design. Post and beam sizes can also be solved by laminating multiple pieces together with metal bands and shear blocks, so no problem there.

I would say that anyone who gets to start their process by looking over, and choosing from, thousands of oak trees is sitting about as good as it gets. And having metal work at your disposal is definitely a wonderful luxury. And not trying to stuff your material into an existing, and maybe inappropriate, design, is exactly right, too.

In fact, I am jealous and would welcome the luxury of having that situation at my disposal before I started designing.

Your main issue is going to be time and moisture content. Using fresh cut, green oak as your material necessitates you realizing that this wood is going to move, and twist, and shrink significantly during it's drying process. Utilizing steel connectors will allow you to not have to worry about the structural integrity as much as if you were talking traditional joinery, but you should be aware that things will be moving a lot for the first few years.

Bucking the logs to general length, debarking them, covering them, and letting air circulate around them for a year, or two, wouldn't hurt my feelings at all. Plenty of structures have been put together with green wood and were just fine, though, so perhaps some more research on your end might help you determine what meshes best with your aesthetic.

For interior planking and such, you really should mill it, sticker it, and let it dry, under a tarp or roof, for 1 year per inch of thickness. 6%-8% would be ideal before working, though you probably won't get it that dry. Oak will literally explode itself apart if improperly installed while wet.

You should check out R. Bruce Hoadley's book, Understanding Wood, too, as it is a cornucopia of knowledge.

Cheers, Chuck

Those larger timber sizes you referred to are usually for pine or doug fir. Hardwoods, especially white oak, is often used in the sizes you mentioned in old barns due to it's greater strength, but in the end actual engineering/load calculations need to be done to confirm dimensions needed for the situation. That's why I'd say work on your design. Address all your needs and what you want. Get a design and get the loading/stresses and beam sizing reviewed professionally. Then figure out what you can use of your trees. If you need longer pieces, like for tie beams, or principle rafters, you might have to order some from a mill, or investigate what reclaim might be available to you. I have a bunch of reclaim that I'll be using for my home project as I don't have any of my own trees. Actually, if I were you, I'd want to preserve as much of my own trees on my property as possible.
One very important thing you will need to be able to do is select quality timber for each member. Framers learn about how much grain runout is and is not acceptable (1 inch in 15 is what I learned) for things like tie beams and rafters. You need to learn about knots, their type, location, size, and number that are acceptable for a given member as well as other things that would be considered defects. Learn what is acceptable checking and what is not. I learned from the instructor in my first timberframe workshop, and by reading, studying and understanding the NELMA grading rules for timbers. Posts, which are in compression, can usually be a lower grade than ties or rafters, but you still have to recognize what must be culled.
12 inches including the bark isn't very big, especially when you subtract the bark and the sapwood. Have you also discovered forestryforum.com ? There's a lot of experience on logging and milling timbers there. Also how to stack and sticker and properly air dry. You do know to seal the end grain right?
Again, I think you should focus on design first before getting too much into your timbers, but you can keep in mind what you have available to keep your design lengths in line with what you will have, or plan to go outside where you need longer or bigger stuff.
Lastly, keep in mind that making the bracketry isn't cheap and requires a bunch of work too. That direction is fine if that is what you want, and for the reason you mentioned. Don't be fooled thinking it's much easier than regular joinery. It will require similar precision layout and cutting, and fitting of the hardware and precise attachment. Among many reasons for using traditional joinery is that metal will react with the wood over a long period of time. But post and beam structures will still last a long time.
Hopefully some of my points give you things to think about. I have gone through the learning process over the last several years myself and have learned a ton from people on this site and the forestryforum. Keep up the questions, as we love answering. One of the main purpose of the guild is teaching/learning. Consider joining the guild too if you haven't yet. Great publications(Scantlings monthly newsletter and Timberframing magazine which is bimonthly or quarterly), and gatherings. I've been a member for 3 years, and just went to my first events this past year and they were great. Welcome!

Preserve trees to what end?

End sealer is not the only way to go.

12" is a good size tree, depending on where it is measured, sometimes that would be excessive. A little wane and sapwood is good for the spirit.

Just a few additional thought to go along with Brad's post.

Tim

I'd like to also comment on the design first, then figure out what timbers you'll need, as mentioned keep in mind the limits to your log lengths, next create a log list (this is a list of the sizes (diameters) and lengths of logs you'll need).

After you have your log list then go to the wood ands and see if you can fulfill your log list.

I see it the other way around, Jim. Otherwise the chances of the design being filled via the wood avaliable is reduced. Take a reasonable inventory of the timber first and apply this to the design.

Tim

Thank you Chuck! Appreciate your optimistic attitude. My plan is to cut my Oak in a couple of weeks, let it "cure" until this summer (using standard guidelines of course), frame the house, roof the house, and then let it sit, unwalled for 1 year hoping that we have enough money for walls next spring... Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

Thank you all for your time and knowledge. I tried to reply to each reply, but it groups all of my replies together at the bottom of the thread. Is there a way to "nest" my responses?
My wife and I are social workers and have meager income (anybody want to trade counseling for design work or joinery? . That's a large part of why we are limited to using our own timbers and why we may have to design the house based on the wood. Also, (not trying to get political) I simply believe I should use my own timbers for many reasons which I shall keep to myself. Even so, it IS difficult for me to cut down my beloved trees, but I know I will have great respect and affection each time I gaze upon them in my house We are doing a LOT of research. I have read nearly every page of every timber frame book I can get my hands on. I have been practicing using the math to calculate loads and feel confident in my abilities to evaluate wood for strength given run-out, knots, etc... (I come from a long line of engineers) I have been making use of Pythagoras non-stop and incorporating Euclid for the Golden Ratio. Anybody use the Golden Ratio in their design work? My plan is to buy a chain saw mill to do the cutting (Alaskan?). Experiences? I'll search the forums. Thanks again for your responses. From them, my impression is that I am not totally delusional in my vision for our home.

Sounds like a dream coming true. I think we have some stuff on here entitled "Fibonacci". If you are confined to your own trees, (which I agree with you will be complete fulfillment when you gaze upon them) I would side with the inventory then design.

Remember there are a lot of folks around here that can help you with your process. That is which can be conveyed through type and pictures.... We like pictures.

Sounds awesome and keep us posted. Very Cool.

Hi Paul.

If I were you, I would still be inclined to store the wood uncut until I was ready to do the walls as well. I think you will be better off, as far as wood stability goes, to join them at the last possible moment before you enclose the structure. The thought of greenish-oak, cut into a frame, and then left standing (even roofed) makes me a bit uneasy, THOUGH, I am basing this reticence only on "normal" aesthetics. If you are going for a structure that looks less formal, and aren't concerned about joints twisting and shrinking about, then go for it. Make sure you have enough bracing! Especially important if you are roofing the structure, but not adding additional wall shear. And nice, deep housings; and thick shoulders (I've seen a fir tenon twist so badly that it destroyed the side of a 1" housing, and oak could be even more destructive.


You are definitely cutting the trees down at the right time, as the sap is not yet rising, though it is starting to feel a bit like spring here in Montana.

It is, of course, a bit of a balancing act between securing material and developing design. It is really hard to say, unilaterally, that one should be done first, to the exclusion of the other. If you know you will have a bunch of 7x7, then it might be worth your while to estimate some board footages and cut down the trees accordingly. Or, and I am firmly in this camp, I would be out wandering my property, with a notebook, and plastic tape, and a camera, and I would be identifying my main structural members in the trees, right now.

Once I have a general idea which timbers I really want to utilize, then I would sketch out a few designs that could utilize these in a provocative way. This would probably lend me towards a certain footprint, and I could then estimate how much flooring, sheathings, siding, etc, I would need and then I could develop a comprehensive cut schedule. Lots of labeling and organization and pre-thought, but I like that sort of thing.

Cut more rather than less! Estimate big, add 15%, add a little more. You will use it all, no matter what. A house needs furniture, too, right? And you don't want to not have enough because then you will dealing with wood of varying moisture contents, which can lead to difficulties.

Or, and this is a big or, you could just go cut a bunch of cool looking trees down, rough mill them (knowing you will mill them again after seasoning/drying), and then figure out an efficient way to use what you have. Some of the guys I work with would go this route in a heartbeat, and while I can completely appreciate the attitude, I am a little too compulsive to be quite that freeform. They sure are fun to work with, though!

I can almost smell the 2-stroke! Be careful out there, and you can never sharpen you chain saw chain enough.

Good luck and keep us appraised!

Cheers, Chuck

Sure you have to keep in mind what general sizes and lenghts will be available to you, but I'd still have my design done before I start logging. Otherwise, how are you going to know what sizes to mill to? It would just be a guess, and you could spend as much work and effort remilling later. Another question, if you oversize, are you then going to get larger checking?

Tim, to what end? Well, preserving the aesthetics of your property. Where I live, there aren't many harvest able tress on a property usually, so each one you have is important, other wise, you may as well just buy field property. Our 80 acre family farm only has a few yard trees. Our two 90+ year old Blue spruce blue down in a freak natural occurrence of 5 days of rain followed by a micro burst. I peeled and saved the trees(dragged them into the back shed) for some later use. Sure did make the yard look much more bare. Takes forever for new trees to grow. Longer than my lifetime.

Brad, if you had thousands of trees would you change your position?

Tim

My initial millings would be to the largest size possible for each log (for beams and posts). After they have cured for a year, at the least, Then I would mill to whatever sizes I actually needed. Yes, it is more work to mill twice, but you would obtain a much better final product, in my opinion.

Once you have done the first milling, you will have a very good idea about what sizes you have available, and you can design around that knowledge.

Or you could just mill once, design accordingly, and then square rule the joinery, much like working with hewn, and then you don't have to mill again. A house could look really awesome with no two timbers the same size; talk about custom! I love it!

I am not sure I follow about larger checking. Most checking results from drying too quickly, or uneven moisture transport from the surface, not from the size of the timber.

Sorry to hear about your spruces; what a heart breaker.

Cheers, Chuck

Oak will check if you're cutting larger than brace stock. You do what you can to minimize it. I'm sure the guys in the drying/sawmill secions of forestryforum could expound more on that. Some of them are on here too so maybe they'll jump in.

Tim, maybe. :P
I was at a farm near Indy. This farm is becoming surrounded by sprawl, but they've kept it as is (pumpkin patch and Xmas tree, petting zoo etc.). They have a woods that contains a handful of giant oaks and a giant Beech(hayrack ride goes through there). Biggest diameters I'd ever seen. These are real ancient giants. If I had those, no way could I cut them down. Too cool and majestic. Probably because of the lack of them where I live, unlike where you live, I'd have a hard time cutting a good tree that took so long to grow. Maybe I'm just nuts. Luckily, I've managed to find a bunch of great reclaim.

Thanks Brad. Will research Oak checking. As far as preservation; I am leaving the 300+? year old oaks that are still kickin' on my property. The are as big around as a hippo,gnarly, full of holes, lightning struck, burnt, half dead, and totally lovely. Best habitat tree ever imagined.

Thanks Chuck. My reasoning for framing and roofing 1st year and walls 2nd year is two-fold: 1. I read that it is a really bad idea to wall in and heat a new (green) timber frame the 1st year because it will cause rapid seasoning and lots of defects. Of course, we could wall in and NOT heat, but man it would be hard to stay in the cold yurt another winter looking at that well insulated house! 2) My wife wants this sucker done in 3-4 years. Gotta start now. She's a trooper (see yurt living above) and I'm not takin it for granted! thanks again.

I WAS thinking about using some unusual wood - maybe with a little wiggle in it (for posts). A lot of my trees are ALMOST straight. I'm sure the building inspector will hate it..but it would look cool. Work well with SIPS too come to think of it so long as the curve wasn't "wallward"? Also, all of my trees have quite a "flare" at the base. I was wondering if I could invert the post and use the flair for gunstock? The flare is quite significant. Possibly because it is so windy here and the trees are all on hillsides?

Hi Paul,

Yes trees should be felled and used upside down as posts so that any moisture drains feely from dead knot pockets. The flare of jowl posts is usually obtained from the butt of the tree.

Traditional timber framing in oak tends to utilise quite young (70 - 120 year old) trees that are boxed heart converted. Smaller diameter trees are less prone to heart checks and I have noticed that 6" x 6" boxed heart Douglas fir shows no checks whereas 8" x 8" does.

Regards

Ken Hume

Paul, are you no longer fixed on post and beam? Are you thinking more traditional now?

Thanks Ken. That's good to hear. I think our trees are in that age range. While curing the trees in the woods after cutting, should the bark be peeled off?

Brad, no, I am fixed on post and beam. Did I say something to give a different impression?

When you start talking about gunstock posts, and curves, and wiggles, it makes me think of conventional TF. Not sure I've seen gunstocks in a post and beam so a little hard to picture. The curves and wiggles make me think of scribing.

Me too, Brad. Post are flared to accommodate joinery. Wiggles will complicate metal brackets.

Tim

Hey counselorpaul, it sounds wonderful what you are doing. Go after you dreams! I just recently moved into my own traditional timber frame/strawbale home after almost 4 year of hard work. Man does it feel good to live in a home that I built with my own two hands. The road ahead will be hard and bumpy, but stick with it! You can do it! Best of luck with everything :-)

Tim

ah Gotcha. Yes, wiggles might make more sense in post and beam with round posts. Gunstocks squared off might be more aesthetic if the beam is wider than the non-flared part of the post. It would make for a better connection for the brackets as well. Thanks.