I'm pretty sure Clark is suggesting that a human should drive the decision / engineering process. Tim, are you suggesting that a computer should do the work?

Setting up a 2d FEA can be difficult for the novice, but it will likely not tell you how to set up te joinery, just what forces up need to contain with the joinery. Which then needs its own analysis.

Also, I envision your iPad sitting next to your boring machine.

I really have no idea how sketchup works. No ipad, and I only use my cell phone for calls and as a clock, I read the rare text and I take forever to send one so I don't bother. So, I am not much for a techie.

I do see a lot of people posting sketchup drawings on the Forestry Forum and wonder what their background in Timber Framing really is. How are they making the decisions on what joinery to use, tenon size, peg location, etc.. By no means do I want a computer to make those decisions for me, it would take the fun out of that half of the game. Someone else may not think that part attractive and wish to have it done by a computer, or they don't have the experience to make the correct choice. Does sketchup provide any assistance in this department?

The OP, did not inquire about joinery decisions but loads. There are calculators out there that can answer simple load problems Where is the bigger version that can take in a few more inputs and size the tie beam? I can chase out a reasonable picture in my head of where the loads are coming from, it is not that big of an issue to be handled by a computer. So I will reiterate, is it job security? Demand? Or is it as some have suggested it is too big a task? If some Dr. computer nerd can solve sodoko problems, no menial task, this surely should not be an issue, after all it is just numbers.

I believe it has been said before, we all use calculators to punch out not so simple equation to gain lengths or other such inputs in our framing so, yes I am suggesting computers can do some of this work. I myself and always looking for way around the calculator. The compass works very well for this at times. And don't tell me it is just another computer, there is a big difference.

Quote,"I do see a lot of people posting sketchup drawings on the Forestry Forum and wonder what their background in Timber Framing really is. How are they making the decisions on what joinery to use, tenon size, peg location, etc.."

TIMBEAL,
I would like to shed some light on your curiosity. Most people who post Sketchup drawings on the Forestry Forum have done a reasonable amount of research which includes learning from some of the more popular timber framing books, have taken classes on TFing, or have had "on the job training" working on existing buildings. Yes, there are people who are using the postings to get feed back on their design choices, from those who have experience and are willing to share their knowledge, and to help them learn how to design, draw and build timber frames for themselves. We don't see alot of professional TFers posting their designs for everone to copy...most are DIYers who feel that they can have a once in a life time experience building their own frame. Sketchup is a drawing program, not an engineering program...it is the modern day equivalent of paper, pencil, straight edge, and a scale rule. The advantage is that it is done in 3D, which can help the flow of ideas when designing, and make changes without having to re-draw everything over. I myself am "old school" and resisted using the computer to do my drawings. I have found the benefits to far outweigh the learning curve.

I feel that the Forestry Forum has helped produce and encouraged any number of new timber-framers, who will in turn, assist the next generation in learning. You have to give the site credit...it gets a lot of traffic!

I hope that helps.

Rooster
(Timber-Framer and Barn Restorer)

I personally think along the lines of what I think Ken is suggesting, that adhering to traditional systems is better than relying on an engineer's calculations. We have at our disposal the collective knowledge of thousands of years of carpenters, they have through trial and error figured out what works and what doesnt, and so forth.
As much as is possible, I think we should rely on the traditional wisdom of the carpenters of the past, which is more freely available to us today than ever it was before.
In a way, this system replaces the engineer.
And in another way, the compass replaces the engineer if you know how to use it.

DLB

I agree DL, that the traditional forms have an immense value to we modern framers. But I'd speculate that 90% of the frames that are cut today have remarkably little in common with the old forms. The companies that are cranking out frames, and represent the industry in North America (through the magazines and the TFBC), are certainly not present on this forum. And they're not Guild members (I'm referring to the minion workers). That's not to say that I dislike all modern frames--I'm a big fan of what may be termed Brungraberism at some point in the future.

For whatever reason, this forum is full of traditionalist framers. We all know what happens when someone puts up a picture of a frame without top plates. But Tim's right, the reaction is a little different on the Forestry Forum.

There's also the enormous issue of building codes. If you live in an area where there's an enforced code, you may have to compromise a bit on your strict historic interpretation. I don't think that's implying old frame forms are weak, so much as the safety factors in the wood strength values, the required loads, and that that modern models aren't modeling what's really going on (particularly at the joints). Tim, didn't Maine adopt a statewide code? Has it crept up to your neck of the woods?

To get back to the original point, I like queen post barns a lot. I've never understood why there's only a center post though--I think the double posts look better, and it's certainly stronger.

Hi Brad, I haven't seen any hard enforced code work down this way. There was the lead paint issue. It's coming I can hear it. Which is kind of why I feel the way I do about this engineering thing. If we are going to be required to bring things to a specific level of "safety" give the people the tools to assist them in getting there. Don't hold back and say "tah tah, no you have to have a professional do this for you".

I used to post a fair amount on the FF but have stopped. I am glad to see Craig, Jim and a few others continue to post there.

I remember back to the first few building I planned out and cut. It felt like I was back in high school taking a test I was not prepared for. Compared to today, I just did a whole plan, cut list, timber size, joinery decisions, a full estimate all on one sheet of paper 8x11 and can saw the timber and cut the frame with no other input and feel very comfortable with how it will work and will probably make few change as it progresses, the finer details. And I am sure it would pass any engineers scrutiny. All with hand tool and up hill in a snow storm, well it turned to rain.

I have on occasion use an engineer to chase out some of the more questionable items.

Where is the OP, I have questions that aren't answered? How about a canted queen post? wouldn't this push the loads out nearer the center post and exterior post via the strut?

Thank you all for your input. I do use engineers but I would like to be able figure these frames on my own and then just get assurance. This is what we do with floor joists , why not with this fairly simple barn plan. I do believe this queen post barn to be a superior design in many ways. It helps greatly deal with thrust on the exterior top plates and posts, it cuts the rafter loads in half by the mid span with the purlin plates, the clear spans on the beams are generally not that long with the interior post, there is a prevalence of these barns that still stand strong today.
I believe these are primary reasons that this barn type prevailed in my region and probably many other areas as well. It is a simple design and there is no reason someone like myself could not figure the loads on the tie beams and adjust accordingly especially when referring to extant barns that have almost the same joinery , wood species, dimensions, snow loads, and probably did not have the sheathing strength that we have now.
I am not trying to be or replace engineers, I am merely trying to empower myself with some of the tools that engineers use related to specific work that I am engaged in.
I thought maybe someone had already been down this road on queen post barns or the like, and could share some formulas or general guidelines for sizing these beams.
All that being said. I do really like canted posts, but I find they are more difficult for people to navigate. I also believe engineers generally dont like them as they have trouble figuring where the loads are going.
On top of that I am already positive that the load issues are solved by having two interior posts directly under the queen posts and then support directly under these to the foundation. However many times you dont want interior post getting in the way, in this case every 8 feet. A primary reason I use timber is to have clearer spans , less intermediate posts. tb

Last time I tried to configure FEA floppy discs were involved.

Now I am told that it is fully integrated into CadWorks, at least.

Oh Tim. Sorry I missed your first post. It is side entry in the 8' bays. I m not concerned about intermediate posts on gable ends and also side walls with intermediate support under top plates. It is the interior two bents that I need the figuring for. I dont mind beefing up the beams to take the extra load. I figure they are each taking half of the 14 bay floor load, half of the 8' bay floor load. I'm not sure how much if not most of the roof from these portions of the bays.
I would say the tie beams I see are mostly 8"-10" x 10"-14" range. Which is still attainable especially if I dont mind scarfing two pieces.
To add , I like sketchup a lot and use it often and it is a interesting idea that engineering could be incorporated into it. However its a bit off topic and would fare better on its own post. tb

Ken, do you have an idea of how much proportion of the roof load transfers to the purlin plate-queen post bents and how much goes to the top plates. Support is just about mid span on a 15+' rafter and 8/12 pitch.
Also have you used these plane frame analysis programs and do have suggestions how to get attain the programming? However, Tim was right ,I know the frame design, joinery ,species,sizing works fine by looking at the extant barns. I did really want to more calculate the loads to the beams to show they can handle the floor and the roof loads. tb