The brace length is the hypotenuse of the leg.

The brace is drawn going into an 8" wide post and a 10" deep tie. (12" in that drawing) The geometry is easy to calculate length along the reference face, then step off the housing depth with the square. A client can mill rule this or square rule it.

I note this information if the client wants me to produce stick drawings.

What do you do?

When I do a brace detail drawing I usually show the brace in place between the post and tie or post and plate, with all dimensions.

And I usually show all four sides of the brace and both ends as the program I use puts out the stick drawing showing all these.

I draw in the 3/8" layout line and dimension that.

I was just curious if your hypotenuse dimensions match mine?

I would think they wouldn't.

The actual surface of the timber the diagonal dimension should be shorter then my 3/8" layout line.

See what I mean by this drawing:



My point about this whole conversation is that I can't see how you can get an accurate layout using the surface, instead of the 3/8" offset layout line.

I suppose you can but, your hypotenuse is not going to be one of the standard lengths shown on the back of a framing square.

Jim Rogers

I learned that same method at Heartwood too. Didn't really see why it made sense then on square and straight material.

Assuming a 36" leg my brace is 4' 2 15/16" long on its length of reference. This is from tip of where the brace enters the theoretical face to theoretical face. The shoulders hit the face with 1/2" housing accounted for.

Everything beyond that is developed on the timber with a square. Just like I do with rafters, struts, posts, etc.

It's sort of a philosophical argument. After the first heating season the tolerances will be off if we built with green material.


Do you draw offset reference lines on other pieces (posts, ties, rafters) - or work from the reference face? (assuming no need to untwist or deal with out of square)

Move over a little, Mike, I'm moving to Lake Wobegon.

I take it you measure on the surface the 50-15/16" and add the 1/2" shoulders as the housed part of the brace. At least this is what I do on the rare occasion I use your method.

I am actually using 9x timber and house to 1", something about axing the 1/2" housing that seems not justified, 1" seems more worth while.

I learned early on that when working on any scale whatsoever, one ought not to trust the timber. I do all of my work by snap line, though not necessarily square rule.

I work off of reference lines, because even if a timber comes out of a top quality mill and is minutely adjusted with a plane, wood is organic and always moving. So what's square today might not be so square tomorrow.

The most important thing to wrap your head around is that measurements won't be coming off of a timber's edge, but off of a reference line.

I like large-scale layouts, akin to what you would need to scribe a frame. Because I can use these to derive all theoretical measurements -measure from reference line to reference line, with no timbers present, then I can figure out empirically what I need. If I do this, I can figure out brace lengths and complex framing members without complicated math (just simple addition and subtraction)
The best part of this is that when working off of reference lines BEFORE laying out the timbers, I can make cut lists that will yield consistent framing members that, once cut to these specifications, can only possibly go together square and perfect.

Yes. I measure along the reference arris (corner of primary and secondary) and develop from there. Accurate enough, with timber from a good mill, or timber that is planed.

Sounds fun. 9x and axes.
In Lake Wobegon all our axes are sharp, too. And there is never a knot where you need a mortise or housing, and grain magically slopes up into your blade.



I didn't want to argue. Brace layout is a pretty passionate thing. Probably right up there with healthcare/


Horses for courses, etc. etc. Your mileage may vary, etc.
That method has never been right in my head (most things aren't).

First of all this is not an argument. This is a friendly discussion about the ways to figure a brace length.

Hopefully the original poster, Floyd, will learn something from our two methods of doing the same thing.

I had a student here once, who told us a story about getting an "F" on an exam at college. He said the test was to get the answer and show you work to prove your answer was correct. I don't remember if it was a math test or what. But anyhow he got the right answer but when he showed his work, (how he got that answer) it was not the way the professor had taught them to do it. So that's why the professor gave him the "F" on his exam.

He protested this "F" and stated: "but I got the right answer"....

Finally the professor gave in and gave him a good grade.

It doesn't matter how you get the right answer. There are many ways to get the right answer. And discussing these ways teaches us all how to do it, more than one way.

Which way is better? That could be a personal opinion.

On my framing square are the dimensions for the brace layout including the diagonal dimension. I don't have to do any math at all. I just need to read the numbers and layout my timbers so that they all line up. Go together, be strong, and look nice.

Jim Rogers

Wasn't trying to argue about anything, just relaying what I had learned. I know different people have different preferences, and if our methods yield the same ends, what does it matter?
I have a keen interest in hearing other methods, and I am constantly adapting and changing, and reviewing my way in search of what works for me. That's part of my heritage, I suppose: always striving for perfection, always looking for the best way. But we find out that what is best for me may not be best for you. Different people think in different ways.

I want to thank all that made comments about the pocket length. I learned some thing from all the comments I bo not understand all the methods I learn best when I learn best when I put my hands on it. I still have a question about snap line
Thanks again

























































i

Jim, the framing square numbers apply to my reference location too. Just a different location for it.

Good developed conversation complete with illustrations. I wonder of there is a TF article on this.