As many of you know, I am well studied in the timber and log building traditions of the Swiss Canton of Bern -my family being from the border region between these two building styles. Many of you also know I am working on a number of projects to introduce something of these methods into this country -building a log structure currently, a timber frame planned as the next project, and also preparing a book on the subject.

A big part of my angle is this: There is a lot out there in this world of ours. So many building styles, so many approaches to log and timber building. I think we should be aware of these and I like to see when carpenters apply influences from other cultures in their work. Unfortunately, it seems at the moment that primarily carpenters have only looked to the east Asian sources. Not that there is anything wrong with Asian carpentry, just that there is so much more we could look at.

The Poland project was good. Though I could not personally be involved, I can see how the knowledge of many was expanded, and new skillsets were developed. Let's keep that ball rolling, I say.

But then the question arises, how far SHOULD we take it? There are those out there who do believe that we should be building in whatever style is historic to our region, and there is certainly validity to that point. However, for a guy like me, I have a connection to a different heritage.

I'd be interested in hearing some different views on this. What do you all think? what are your opinions of incorporating old world principles into your work and, in a way, diverging from the 'normal' by doing so?

hello everyone tonight

Hi DL

I like your line of thought, and enjoy your posts very much

I for one worked my whole life trying to preserve the traditions here just in Upper Canada and as I look back in retrospect, I think that I have did a small part of carrying on the traditions in a fashion.

One thing that seemed to happen to me was--and this was probably due to where I just happened to get slotted into life--my interests seemed to broaden out as time passed by

I had to make a living while this was going on, and to some degree that sort of dictated to what degree I could be involved in my dream so to speak

It appears to me that this may be happening to you a bit as you are becoming more aware of the size and scope of the way the different areas of the world developed their building styles

This is great but I encourage you to continue to be very good in what you seem to be very good at, and don't spread yourself too thinly

One thing that I have come to realize as I slowly travelled the road of life was "Be good at what you do"--(an old saying from my father)-- try and understand everyone else, including those that have passed,-- the ones working in the near past,-- the present and the young generation coming along

Upper Canada woodworking traditions were shaped by many different cultures, being that this areas just happened to de a depository of displaced people from many different areas of the settled world. This fact, I seemed to slowly become aware of as the years rolled along,

I ran into many very interesting people, like those from the TF Guild, especially the TTRAG group whom I respect highly, kept my interest, who were interested in hearing what I had to say, and at times reminded me of some of my shortfalls.

From these chance meetings I feel that we have all benefitted, and I will remain in awe of the value of the internet, because it seems to be a real valuable means of expanding everyone's knowledge of the many cultures and their practices.

today more than at any other time in history we can all pick out and integrate unusual aspects, techniques, and materials to use in future development(s)--this probably will be noticeable in the next 100 years here in North America,

because of your posts, and the posts of many others as they passed through my chat page sharing their knowledge and photos to back things up, everyone will continue to expand their knowledge base as we move into the future

I really don't know if this line of thought is what you are looking for, but it is my take on things

Keep up the good work, I am sure many enjoy your posts

NH

Hi Richard,

This is a very insightful and diplomatic contribution towards the adoption or otherwise of regional timber-frame practices.

Ken Hume

I certainly agree with the advice, be good at what you do. It's something we easily forget in this modern world where everything is right at out fingertips. But at the same time, we need to be sure what we do is worth being good at.

A lot of my viewpoint is along the lines of what you expressed,in that there is a FUTURE of all of this. As timber framers we look to the past, and that's is good. Inasmuch as it is much broader, I think the past is far more important to the future than is the present. The present is fleeting and its lasting impact unknowable. The past is proven and known and its legacy established. We can look on it and see clearly, which we cannot do for the present.

But timber framing itself needs not to get stuck in a rut as in, 'this is the way great great great great grandfather Amos built his barn in 1842, so by golly that's how I'm gonna build mine.'
But should be willing to adapt (speaking of the craft as a fluid, animate thing)

A lot of my approach to foreign methods is to say, 'look here, we have a culture that in many ways has faced a lot of the challenges that are presented to the modern timber and log builders in America today. The only thing is, they faced these problems a few centuries ago and their solutions have been tried, tested, and proven effective. Here there is a valuable lesson for us to learn.

Then of course there is my bias. I am Swiss. I am Bernese. That's my heritage, it's what I know. I have a lot of the same bias toward the methods I know that many of you have toward your familiar American or Canadian forms. But I do think there is value in comparison.

A lot of my conclusion for myself is, like Richard says, be good at what you do.
For me that means, I am going to build structures the way I know them, the way I feel is best. That means my frames are going to follow Swiss designs in terms of joinery, frame layout, etc. and my log structures are going to be built like Oberland Chalets. And I am going to teach other people about timber framing, but teach them what I know.

hello everyone tonight

Hi Ken

always nice to hear from you, and thanks for the comment

your posts are also very educational and interesting, and from what I can see deal mainly with early English architecture, which I find very interesting indeed-your country is lucky to have you and your son taking such an interest in its long past history

I would like to add here the news that I received that Peter John Stokes has passed away, for those of you who do not know him, he was a well know historical architect here in Ontario and was the driving force during the establishment of UCV, and the restoration of its many structures. Him and his wife were both from England, and carried a lot of the English traits with them

I had the good fortune of working with him both during and after the opening of the site, and I must say that I believe because of my association with him, it broadened my knowledge not only of timber framing but historic water powered mills, and the exteriors and interiors of period homes dating to the mid 1800's

NH

So what is our real origin anyway?

Just about every book on the subject of timber framing likes to try and dabble in where our craft started, and most seem to work from the same conclusion. It seems to be widely accepted that our European timber framing evolved over a few centuries from primitive earth-bound post construction gradually over time giving rise to the proper braced frame.

Only problem is, that doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense in a lot of cases.

I've learned in my studies that a lot of the assumptions we have made as to our origins are false -even right down to our ethnic makeup. As Swiss, for example, I have very little Germanic blood in me at all. As southern Bernese particularly, it seems I might not even have that much Indo European blood really.

The same goes for our buildings. For centuries, since the Middle Ages in fact, we've just assumed our timber frames came from Alemannic sources. Now we've found out things are different, they have found timber frames of the same profile as our Medieval ones from much earlier, like 3000 years earlier than they should have. We're talking 2500 BC. Seems the Alemanni stole the style from those who lived here before, and did a fairly good job of spreading it out wherever they happened to go. But that's really ground breaking to think we have a sophisticated timber framing tradition going back over 4000 years, maybe further. It makes you wonder, where DID this all come from.

See we've got this problem with the Germanic model. The things is, the Scandinavians are originally log builders, not timber framers or post builders. But for some reason when the Germanic tribes migrated throughout the continent, they just switched to rudimentary framing practice.

The reason, I think, is not that they didn't know anything about building -they knew a great deal in fact- but really that they weren't building permanent structures. They weren't good at farming, and they would migrate every 60 years or so (I forget the exact time off the top of my head) they had a rapidly growing population and wouldn't figure out sustainable agriculture for a few centuries.

But once they did settle down, they needed to figure things out again. So all of the sudden at a point in the middle of the Middle Ages, timber framing explodes all across Europe in those places that had been overtaken by the Germans during the centuries before...

Examing our Bernese traditions, it becomes clear there is a very close connection to the log building traditions of the neighboring Alpine regions. It's hard to say just how connected they are. Is timber framing in Switzerland in fact descended from log building? If it is, the two styles diverged so long ago that we can't really say anything for certain.
Swiss timber framing all used to be of the frame and plank variety, where heavy uprights would contain horizontal planks set into grooves. Unless these structures are immensely large, bracing is unnecessary in the walls (even then, it's probably unnecessary) It is very easy to see how this is derived from the stacking of logs. In fact, a very common and very old shortcut in the log building cultures is to place stout uprights at the corners, saving the need of cutting the complex corner joints.
Most importantly, where space is not so limited outside of the mountains you often want to build large structures. With all of this in mind, I see the heavy frame and plank construction common to much of Switzerland north of the Alps to be a very natural evolution away from the more limited methods of log building. It is simply a case of adapting the methods to the needs presented.

To explain these posts,

I am a big fan of Northern Hewer's excessively long thread. I like what it has become, just a long conversation between him and everyone else who happens to drop by. I like to talk about things to, so I've sort of decided to strike up my own conversation. That is, I'll just go here with thought's i'd like to present to the community here rather than starting a new thread all the time.

hello everyone tonight

Hi DL

You might have a hard sell, but it is a free world and you certainly can construct buildings following past century's practices as long as it no doubt conforms to local codes, and there is a demand for the style and look.

I personally do not think that you would be comfortable hybridizing an old style, it would be like my boss saying to me "let us build a 3 bay barn, but how about changing the interior to accommodate a pipeline milking unit"

I really don't know what the answer is, but for me I enjoyed trying to preserve building styles that were disappearing rapidly, not many had that opportunity

NH

Thanks Richard for the input

I'm not suggesting a hybridization as much as using the methods I know without applying the regionally specific architectural features. I could make 'American' style structures with the style of framing I know.

hello everyone tonight

hi DL

that term "American style" really throws me, but I visualize a building that looks like other TF structures that are being built presently in many areas, with interior construction traits that represent a technique that originated in another area of the settled world, and of an earlier period--is this a reasonable assumption?

It appears to me that the TFR"s of the present time pretty well use the standard model of framework, working some interesting variations in where possible to create unusual effects, and interest for the buyers--it also appears to me that in doing this it is stretching the limits and creating a nightmare for the architects and engineers to stay abreast matching the standards and building codes

I personally really enjoy the plainer look without all the frills and would really enjoy looking at what you might come up with

One example I can think of is the "Dutch Barn" with the large anchor beams that created a long sloping roof line. Viewing the structure against the horizon made one think of an old "mother hen' with her wings spread out over her chicks-it really gave you a great feeling that seemed to live on through time

This is one structure that you might add some of your old world structural knowledge to the interior, to make it more useful, and take up where the old framers left off as they were slowly overcome by the march of time and the pressure of change

It was always my assumption that had history not went in the direction it did some of these old world structures would have continued to evolve retaining many of its original traits

NH

By 'American Style' I am referring to the fairly broad range of proportions, roof designs, etc. that are 'normal'

We often don't realize how small in terms of the broader scope of things our North American architecture is.

For example, I wouldn't build structures with 3-sided balconies, half hip roofs and 8 foot overhangs. I'd build something closer to the American 'normal' -smaller overhangs, gable roof, etc.



I think also you are right about the ethnic diversity in architecture and how things could have been. I have long felt that there is much more to 'American timber framing' than what we often look at. A lot of our modern knowledge is based on the fairly narrow scope of New England framing customs. We forget that there is a fairly significant range of other traditions, for example there are large German settlements in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, Wisconsin, etc. where distinctly German methods were used right up to the rise of stick framing. Even here in Indiana, we have a great deal of German and Swiss style frames in certain communities.

As for the Dutch barn, that's an interesting thought. I'll have to think of that...

Hey David -

I think the thread a good idea, and do like exploring regional variation driven by settlement pattern. And would like to see it discussed more often here on the forum.

Though I have borrowed from other traditions, I do have more buildings standing which I see as part of a continuing tradition of the typology dominant in my area historically, that being English Tying with the curious local improvement of Common Purlins, (redirecting all thrust away from the Plates with the full absence of Common Rafters is a game changing improvement for this Frame type) Though I do use the Cog & Clasp in lieu of a Dovetail in the Tying Joint and have looked to the Old World by making use of natural curves. Something that the ample strait timber yielded by the virgin forests available to those building in the colonial period did not see those who carried the tradition across the Atlantic making use of.

I am curious if you or anyone else has made study of the timeline of historical changes in method in Framing in your community, as compared to those in the immediate surrounding communities. Part of that is just plain curiosity on my part, of all traditions timber, and part of it is a curiosity as to where both might fit into theories floated in this year old blog piece -
http://bridgewright.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/a-now-two-century-old-overnight-turn-on-a-paradigm/

As far as our local community is concerned, where I live in Indiana, there is not a very big tradition of timber framed house construction. There is a long lived and significant tradition of timber barn construction which here was only supplanted by a combination of the economic collapse of the 1930's, world war II, and the explosion of easy-built construction post war. We have timber barns built right up to the 30's

Houses were built first in the log cabin manner -some of which according to the evidence at hand were originally built for the Indians. Then houses were built mostly of solid brick with very few timber framed homes.

Barns are a different story.
Our oldest barns still standing are log barns. these are exceedingly rare. The oldest full sized barns of of the Schweizer style, large forebay barns. These were built by Amish and Brethren settlers -the first people to settle this part of the country. Then beyond that, it just moves into the realm of the common midwest purlin barn types built mostly for dairy use.

Settlement here began in the 1840's...

The question of layout is an interesting one as well. I have a very rocky reltionship with layout. On the one hand, I think the notion of square rule is perhaps the single greatest innovation of the American carpenter in terms of timber building. So much else was simply adaptations of other methods (which is how folk carpentry works, we adapt whatever we learn from others and continue to apply it in new ways) but square rule was a brilliant innovation.

On the other hand, I don't really feel free to apply the principles of square rule to my Swiss framing methods. It would be out of place.

But here's the kicker,

In many ways, Swiss frames of the frame-and-plank variety actually apply the idea of square rule -and have done so for half a millenium or more- they just apply it to the entire timber by virtue of the type of joinery involved in the so-called 'Bohlenwand' or plank-wall construction. This of course is not the case in roof framing which is left irregular and scribed.


But to take a timber and reduce it to regular dimensions at one spot, that is unprecedented and even today unknown in Swiss shops which often still use scribe joinery (they don't trust even machine milled timber to be accurate enough)

This carries over also into log building, which in switzerland involves logs cut and planed to very perfect dimensions so they will fit well together.

Continuing on with your question and blog post,

I am actually faced with some very similar dilemmas in my own research. I am faced in my research with 2 sudden revolutionary changes in carpentry practices -both with no clear reason as to why they might have occurred. Add this to the extreme inconsistency for the most part in building across the region my research focuses on -the entire Bernese portion of the Swiss Plateau- it makes it very hard to pin anything down and to see what is really happening.

But we face some this same confusion in America. Scribe rule barns, for example, were still built on occasion well after square rule had become the norm.

In Bernese timber framing, we have the situation where suddenly and inexplicably the entire approach to framing changed -twice- but did so on a regional basis and not a cross-cantonal basis. The first change involved abandoning the use of tall 2-story posts in the walls and heavy timber connection in exchange for a platform-based framing system (story-by-story construction) using lighter, simpler joinery. The second change saw a total revolution in wall construction, adopting what I would characterize as an Urban system involving half-timber construction with long slanting braces. The reason for both of these changes is not clear at all.

What makes this hard is I can't pin down a year or even a good range for any of this, because changes were so variable by region, and some communities held on to ideas for centuries that others had left. It's not even clear whether the tall post, heavy joint construction is even indigenous to many of the communities at all, and if rather these used platform methods -derived from log building- from the earliest times.

I can see, for example, a tall-posted house that may have been built around 1780, for example, and feel as if this is a good date for the end of that tradition. Then, on the other hand, you find in a different community a platform framed structure dating from close to 1600, and it makes you wonder what is going on.

For me, this is a question of whether or not Bernese timber framing actually arose from a single archetypal form that evolved in different ways and at different rates from region to region or if, rather, there were a number of vastly different framing traditions that gradually converged over time into a more-or less unified tradition.

Whatever the case, the rise of Half-timbered construction was a game changer (and I really don't know why. There was no timber shortage driving this change) which in many cases blasted away all of the older regional traditions. Half timbering in the Canton of Bern is, in a sense, their equivalent to balloon framing in that it was a single framing method that arose and supplanted everything else, perhaps for no good reason.

Continuing my marathon of posts...
(When you write a book, there gets to be a lot of information that doesn't quite fit anywhere, but you want to write down SOMEWHERE)

Regarding the connection of Bernese timber framing to log construction...

We have in the Canton of Bern 2 significantly different traditions of wooden building. We have the timber framing customs of the northern lowland valleys and the log building of the Alpine regions. These two traditions today appear to be very different and unconnected.

We are also used to putting timber framing and log constructions into nice little boxes and keeping them separated from each other. The one, we reason, has nothing to do with the other. The Canton of Bern, and really most of German-speaking Switzerland, throws a very wrench in the gears here, however.

And I think we ought to look closely here so we understand what is going on in other parts of the world, and so we understand how compatible the 2 systems actually are.

You might expect there to be a point somewhere in the Canton of Bern where timber framing stops and log building begins. After all, they are very very different. Such a sudden change is to be found in the switch from timber framing to the French-style stone buildings to the north and northwest, so why would we not also expect it to happen to the south. It makes perfect sense if we assume the 2 traditions to be different, to have arisen from different sources. The only problem is, it doesn't happen this way. Yes, there is a pretty sudden change in building profile. You get to the mountains and suddenly proportions and roof lines switch. However when looking strictly at construction methods we see clearly that there is no simple switch. As we move closer to the Alps and even into the rugged mountain region we observe a very gradual transition toward pure log construction. As the Bernese Midlands slowly rise up into the mountains, we see joint types appear with clear connections to log building. As we get into the mountains themselves, we see buildings which we would classify under the log building tradition that exhibit techniques we would consider to be more in line with timber framing. For example, it is common to find log structures employing structural posts in the exterior walls and timber framed roof structures. It is just as common to find large timber framed houses employing log-style connections in horizontal wall timbers.

It seems to me, as I learn more about it, that the Bernese style of timber framing arises from 2 different sources which collided and melded together 1500 years ago. Germanic timber framing does appear to have had a clear impact, however for the most part I speculate that this timber framing tradition arose mostly out of Alpine log building customs adapted to the lowland environment. Perhaps the best evidence of this is the frequency of the log granary -built clearly in the Alpine style- in the timber framing regions. This is not an example of two cultures crossed, but a simple preservation of the archetype from which all of the regions building practices arose.

As I study the oldest buildings, it gets easier for me to see how the frame-and-plank method must have began life as simple stacked-timber construction, at some point adding posts to simplify the construction of larger structures and better hold the steep roofs (Log building, we should observe, is not overly well adapted to the construction of large, steep roofs. The flat roofs of the mountains are not practical in the lowlands)

hello everyone tonight

Hi DL

Just a thought but over the centuries, religions change along with the ruling kings, could it be possible that they strictly for one reason or another suppressed certain building styles, which resurfaced again under new rulers and new ideas/customs?

NH

Interesting that you should bring this up, the matter of religion and ethnicity does matter, but it is only important about a millennium before the time period I'm discussing.

In the mountains starting about the 6th century AD, the pagan Germanic tribes arrived and brought with them some timber framing customs that were foreign to the region. The use of the lap dovetail braces is a Germanic influence.

A certain Germanic custom was labeled as the 'Heidenkreuz' and was attributed certain superstitious connotations until eventually being passed off as taboo centuries later.

But beyond this, there is no clear evidence of deliberate suppression of building styles and techniques in the region.

You can always speculate as to what happened, with out facts.
After which you can research if said speculation was correct or not, and even then it still could be correct just no proof it happened in the speculated manner. Many things need to be considered for an out come to be verified. And in the end the story can still be changed due to new information. This holds true not only to the topic at hand but things we simply take for granted.

More to the point I would appreciated a description of how the planks are fixed to the joist in the picture most recently posted on the FF.

Will, I use cogs and common lodged purlins in my English Tying frames and now splined plank walls to boot.

True, Tim. We can't prove any of this. Probably ever. Al we havve learned through the past few centuries of studying the history of these things is that just about everything we have thought about origins is wrong. That's why I'm not putting these ideas down in any published material -we can't really do any more than speculate over a lot of it. But exploring and learning new things, changing our viewpoints and perspectives is always rewarding.

The planks in that picture, here for the benefit of others, simply lodge atop the joists (these beams are called 'Unterzug' in contrast to the normal word for a joist which would be 'Deckenbalken'. They are in function closer to a summer beam, but at the same time like a joist. Hard to explain, since they are unlike anything we are familiar with here in this country)



The planks are set into grooves cut into the walls -here this is a log structure- which are the primary bearing surfaces. Other than the groove -1 1/2 or 2 inch deep- the unterzug is the only support for the floor planks. Much of their strength is derived from the fact that they are wedged tightly in place.

In the timber frame structures, we sometimes use this same flooring method. It is also common for the floor joists just to sit atop the plates and the 'deckenbalken' (as they are called in this case, different region=different terminology) rather than be set into grooves. Newer structures used more beam support and thinner floor planks, and often even just set planks into rabbets cut onto the top edge of the support beams. The floor boards remain stationary by virtue of the fact that they are splined together. Fasteners are uncommon. Nails are rare.

If lodged on top, the unterzug seem to very thin in vertical section, does it not? The ceiling is not used as a floor above? So no load other than the dead load. I was in hopes the planks set into a groove cut into the side of the unterzug.

It seem they were running low on trees and decided to use thinner logs for the side wall, they typically ran horizontally? No, the planks are substantial. Or how does the types of trees available determine how they built? Bigger trees yielded planks smaller trees gave log structure? Could soils, elevation, species and such things have an impact on building styles, to some degree.

The plank system is the floor for the story above. The grooves the planks set into are in the walls. Each room has its own floor system. The boards on the edges are cut with a taper and the middle board is cut with the opposite taper, this middle board is inserted through a hole in the wall and wedges the planks tightly together.

Yes the 'Unterzug does appear to be smaller than it should be. But keep in mind, it laps or dovetails into the wall logs at its full height.

As to the question of trees,

Swiss forests are incredibly well managed. Unlike most of Europe, these resources were never depleted -and at the same time have managed to stay surprisingly wild (you don't have the orderly groomed forests that you might see in Germany, for example) Very large trees are still to be found here, I don't know how many spruce trees I saw with diameters in excess of 3 feet and even larger, it was quite impressive really. Here are some pictures of the forest situation:











So changes in building process and the switch to half timber cannot be attributed to a shortage of large timber. It is probably more due to the typically Bernese obsession with efficiency, even where efficiency isn't important.

The types of trees is fairly universal across the canton, even from the mountains to the lowlands. The primary building material is Fir and Spruce, which is by far the most common timber. The biggest difference is what they use for sills, lowlanders use oak because they have it. In the mountains oak cannot grow, so they use larch.

But I do think the matter of space and movement affected the changes. In the lowlands it is easier to build an expansive timber frame, and you build larger structures because your operations tend to be more spread out. In the mountains, space is important. It's also a matter of weather. The lowland timber frame would have a hard time surviving mountain weather -think 15 feet -that's right, FEET, of snow. It's kind of hard to explain, but it really does just make a lot of sense to build a log structure in the rugged mountains.

I will have to put up some good pictures of these wall styles some time so it is clearer what I am referring to

OK, here we are then. Here is some frame-and-plank construction, and one example of the Half timber style. Hopefully this will help to put things in context.

Most of these are built in the platform style, number 6 is a high-posted style structure. Image number 4 is a good example of how the frame and plank wall looks on the inside. Often the interior walls are paneled and you cant see this detail.
On image 6, observe the boards projecting out of the front of the wall, Tim. These are the tapered floor boards inserted through the wall timbers to wedge the floor in place. In the timber frames, this system often was replaced with a system of simple lodged floor boards without the tapered boards projecting through to the exterior.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

I'd be interested in comparing what you see here with some New England and other Colonial framing methods, those of you with experience in those areas.

So the unterzug is a tensions member.

In the vertical plank wall system we recently completed we put a wedged plank in the center. It can't be tightened now but we used it to tighten the planks when laying them out.

I like pic #2, others seem on the large size. Are all structures built in this manner? What are the variables, modern construction, you may have covered this already.
Here you can drive down any road and see house trailers, modular homes, owner built stuff, high end homes and old farm houses.

1 and 2 I believe are the same structure. It is what would be called a 'Stöckli' which is a small structure built for the old managers of the farm to live in after they retire. The larger structures are what you would call a 'Bauernhaus' which are large structures that house a few apartments on one end and a barn on the other, with a very large hay loft above.

Yes the Unterzug is primarily a tension member in terms of horizontal forces, but it's main function is just to sit there and hold the vertical loads of the floor

Tim, did you take any measures to account for movement in your planks? In the plank floors, the final wedged plank is left proud so that the owners came come back after a year or two and drive it back tight. The disadvantage of course is that the projecting floor board is able to work its way out since there is noting to hold its end.

The vast majority of structures are timber framed in this region, though today buildings of the half timber style are as common as the frame and plank style. Keep in mind, though, that few rural buildings are under 100 years old and most are much older. 400 year old farmhouses are not overly uncommon here...

You are right about the size, Tim. These buildings are enormous. Remember, 2 or 3 families and a dozen or two milk cows and enough horses to meet the needs of the entire farm all would have called one of these structures home.

Hello everyone again,

I've been exploring the topic of bracing and how different people view the concept. While tension bracing is known in this country, carpenters in America most certainly favor the concept of compression bracing. Swiss carpenters are the opposite; compression bracing is used at times, but the vast majority of frames use tension bracing.

We all know the basics of this, tension braces are easy to set, being added after the frame is raised, but can come out or if they shrink they will fail. Compression braces have to be set as the frame goes together and once they are in they will not be coming back out.

But there is an important dynamic I've been thinking about here that has a major reflection of joint design. That is the reactive forces that result in a frame in response to the action of a brace.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Simple Physics

A compression brace pushes against wind loads,the framing members it connects react to this force. The result is that these braces can potentially pry timbers apart, for example a girt set into a post might be pulled out of joint by the brace connecting the two. The solution to this is to make a tenon long enough so that it can be secured against this force with pegs without shearing out the tenons. Another solution is to use a 4-brace network at every such connection.

But tension bracing doesn't do this. Tension bracing acts in reverse, it is designed to pull back against wind loads. There is of course a resulting force that happens, but it is again opposite. Instead of potentially prying members apart, tension braces actaully pull joints together. This is reflected in joint design, where Bernese Carpenters effectively use very short tenons to connect structural girts to posts.

They also use this aspect of tension braces to their advantage in some cases. They might add a brace where it is not needed to act against the wind. The brace in this case is there to pull the joint together and thus secure the connection.

The big disadvantage is that tension braces have to be very stable. If they twist or shrink excessively, they will fail. The stock used for these needs to be very straight and well seasoned to prevent this. Compression braces can be made of anything -in the past they were cut of the sticks that were not good enough to use for anything else.

Nevertheless, Carpenters in the Canton of Bern certainly consider tension braces superior and continue to use them today. Not to mention the fact that in log building practices, they are the only practical choice for reasons of assembly.

hello everyone tonight

good discussion

In a way I don't see your argument for tension bracing, it seems to me that you are putting a lot of faith on the wood pins holding the braces in place, which are situated in short tenons, with straight grained wood, these could easily fail

Compression braces due to their position and roll would have to actually be crushed in order for the building to collapse, and in all my examinations of old frames never have I seen any crushed, no matter how old

The only thing that I can say as a positive for pinning a brace is to hold it in position should the frame become very loose over time, thereby allowing it to remain for a compression thrust during a weather crisis like a tornado passing through the area

Could you explain how one would create enough relish on the end of a brace to enable a wood pin to do this heavy duty job assigned to it

interested

NH

Sorry I should clarify...

Tension braces discussed rely on a half dovetail joint, the let-in type. The dovetail pulls against the wood of the posts and beams. Not talking about mortise and tenon joints for these.
The only function of a peg in these dovetail joints is to hold the braces (which might only be 2 inches thick) in the joint pocket.

hello everyone tonight

Thanks DL for the clarifier--half dovetail let in braces are a very different ball game, I can see some reasoning for their use.

One thing though I would like to discuss is that timber frame structures, including other out buildings such as barns, mills,and drive sheds to name a few, are notorious to move slightly due to winds but also other factors

saw mills, with their repetitive jerky saw carriage movements, grist mils with their grinding stones to name a couple of examples, need some freedom in their supporting framework connections so that these destructive movements will not cause fame work failure, and or wall failure

Half dovetail lap connections are noted only where rigidity is not a problem, and one place that I noted these connections used were in the attics as collar ties

I suspect that in Swiss building practices, structures relied on one another for support, and the rigid frameworks worked together as a team

separating the structures such as here in North America created a need for a new approach and I suspect someone realized houses, shops and other buildings, with their finished interiors needed a real stable fame work

I am not saying therefore that one should not use dovetail let in braces, but for me if I was approached to change a tried and proven method of bracing, I would proceed very cautiously in that regard

The above ramblings on this topic is the culmination of my experiences, It would be nice to hear from others on this topic, I am curious as to how widespread let in braces were used.

NH

Thanks Richard for your input

I also would like to hear some other chime in.

Actually the Swiss frames are extremely rigid, far more rigid than the American frames of largely English origins. There are 2 approaches to the matter of surviving stresses like unpredictable wind, sawmills, and even earthquakes. Frame design I think reflects which approach a culture chose to follow.

Some traditions designed frames to be somewhat flexible -I believe this is the thinking behind English timber framing. Other traditions designed frames to be incredibly stiff and rigid, instead of surviving stresses by elasticity, these structures survive them by distributing them through a great many members. This is the approach used by the Swiss, and I suspect is inspired by log buildings. It is often said that the timber framers among the Germanic tribes abandoned their framing styles when they came to the mountains and encountered the incredible rigidity of the log buildings there. I also think this rigid construction made its way out onto the plains and affected the development of Swiss and South German methods of timber framing (which in the late Middles Ages gave rise to the famous German Fachwerk style of framing). The log builders say that the timber frames were unsuited to the mountains, I'm not so sure this is true but either way, the log structures as built in the Alps are far more rigid than any timber frame.

I'm not quite sure I follow what you are saying about structures relying on each other, separating structures, etc. The same rules of design apply to structures both large and great, even to bridge building.

As for changing a tried and true method, I'm not suggesting that. Fact is, let in bracing is just as tried and true as mortise and tenon braces. Fact is, it's a much older method.
It actually surprised me to learn of its history in the English tradition, how in the Middle Ages it was the dominant practice and gradually fell out of use around the same time North America was being colonized. Same thing happened in Germany where dovetail braces were previously the normal method but were abandoned with the rise of Fachwerk construction -Fachwerk, you should note, achieves its bracing by setting some of the posts in at an angle, an incredibly effective solution.

When it comes to building frames in a certain tradition, by all means keep what is normal and what you are accustomed to. I am just exploring the thought process different cultures use to approach this subject.

It might surprise you to know that the large walls in these enormous buildings of frame-and-plank construction usually lack bracing completely. Carpenters discovered that the planks provided more than enough rigidity to the frame, and the braces just added an unnecessary complexity.

I'm kind of hoping Jay with his experience and knowledge of eastern bracing practices will chime in here. Figure if I call him out directly, maybe he will respond...

hello everyone tonight

I can see that you are a very deep thinker on this subject and enjoy this conversation immensely

Another angle on this thought or line of discussion is the foundations that hold up the structures, whether it be one with let in braces or those that use mortised and tendon-

I suspect that your Swiss/Germanic style buildings especially the outbuildings such as the barns sat on a permanent foundation--here in North America large flat stones were used at the bearing points, making it a necessity to allow for movement--this was the norm here in Upper Canada, also a major depth of frost to deal with, heaving could be as much as 2 to 3 inches, especially around the exterior walls

You can imagine the strain the would come to bear on very rigid let in braces situated in positions adjacent to exterior vertical wall posts, and its connecting cross tie timbers especially as it slowly raised and lowered due to frost heaving year after year- the centre posts being protected from this frost extreme would hardly show any movement, but at the same time feel the unrelenting pull and push of the opposite timber as it rose and lowered, it appears to me that failure could occur.

one final thought on this subject--the word "brace" in my opinion means just that so in any framework where there are opposing braces, and as the framework moves one of the braces is "bracing", as the movement changes direction, the opposing brace does the "bracing"--in my feeble mind a "let in brace" so to speak is not really a "brace" but rather should be named another term to address its real role in the framework

just food for thought

NH

Richard, thanks again for the thoughts

Those are some good considerations, let's examine.

The Swiss Bauernhaus, the large farm structure, does often sit on a very sturdy foundation, but it hasn't been so for very long. Old structures were set on boulders or foundations of random stone. Later on, they built more substantial foundations of mortared stone, this largely arising with the advent of cellars and more important in southern regions where the mountainous terrain requires building on heavily sloped ground.

But the biggest thing is the sill. The sills are huge and very securely joined together. They may be as much as 18" deep, and the corners are joined either with a heavy passed lap joint or with a double through wedged mortise and tenon (Don't know what we call it in English, in German it's Steckzapfen)

As for the final thought on bracing,

the word 'brace' works equally well for a member that pushes or one that pulls to prevent distortion. A steel cable, for example, braces a structure. One that pushes can be more specifically referred to as a 'Buttress' which is a member that acts by pushing the forces of one thing into another. For example, buttresses on arched structures such as Gothic Cathedral push against the walls and against the ground to redirect the spreading force of the arch. Mortise and tenon braces work similarly by buttressing the forces of one timber into another. (Though the word is more accurately used to describe an angled member that actual redistributes primary load forces, for example a strut under a balcony that buttresses the weight back into the walls of the structure)

Braces in many modern structures are designed to pull, for example in large steel framed structures we will often use long steel cables in a 'X' pattern between the posts to brace the frame. These can only act in tension.

hello everyone tonight

Well DL I do not feel comfortable working modern thought into this conversation, we all know that cables only work under tension, and were slowly adapted as the technology improved in certain instances

The early wooden bridges used wooden trusses, and cross members of wood as bracing, wrought iron rods were used as needed for additional strength, I don't really remember cables being used during that period

The 18"sills would have needed quite large trees to have remained 18" square or rectangular at 40 feet or longer, I know from experience that to square 12" at 36 feet takes quite a tree indeed,--I am guessing 4.5 to 5 feet on the butt ends or larger for those 18" timbers--just to move them around would have been a chore, unless they hewed them where they fell

NH

Your right, it does require massive trees. But they have them, in plentiful supply.

They also weren't afraid to splice the sills. This was necessary, actually, since the building might be over 100 feet in length, 50 feet wide...

And these are oak too so ya, moving would have been quite the task.

Thought you might find this interesting, here is a photo from some time ago, taken in the Emmental region at the completion of the frame of a new farmhouse. This is the modern half-timbered style that replaced older methods in the 19th century (sort of like the Swiss equivalent of stick framing in that it plowed over all of the regional framing methods, but it is still timber framing)



I thought this was an interesting picture worth sharing

Is that a flag attached to the bush atop the frame?

My recent plank walled frame is the most rigid frame I have stood upon in 20 years. No movement detected, usually I can feel things sway when someone is moving about. And, basically it only had three walls, one whole end was left open for doors, which have not been installed yet. It does have some crucky bracing, too.

I also, just today, put a porch floor down on a re do on my house. The floor consisted of 2" pine planks 12-16" wide, with a spline spanning 8' no joist. With out the spline the plank would clearly sag with my weight on it, deflect 1-1/2" in the middle, with the spline installed you would need to look carefully for the deflection, almost unnoticeable.

looks great Tim, glad to see these methods being put to use.

I think you would find that if you supported both ends, deflection would disappear entirely. The floors in Switzerland and Schwarzwald too git a lot of stiffness by being secured around the whole perimeter, and the wedgind. I think your screws will compensate for the wedging, but end support i bet would do a lot.

Yes that's a flag, looks like the Swiss flag. i'm surprised to see the Swiss Flag without the canton flag as well. maybe this was erected around August first which is the national holiday

the Bush is the top of a spruce tree or maybe a small spruce.

Also pay close attention to the clothes that the carpenters are wearing. Notice especially, they are NOT wearing the apparrel of the so-called 'Zimmerleute' or 'Geselle', Journeymen Carpenters and apprentices. Not even the master carpenter who is the one in front on the peak. These are not guild-affiliated carpenters, but farmers and rural workers. Guilds were not very important to rural practices. These guys are just wearing what would have been everyday farmers' clothing at that point in time.

Most of the times, the farmers would have built these houses with the experience of seasoned craftsman. The master may have traveled from another village, someone who was experienced in this work and knew how to lay out and design the frame. But he usually wasn't (unless the owner was very wealthy) associated with any type of guild. It's amazing the depth of skill and knowledge that was possessed by farmers with no formal training at all.

In many regions, this is actually still how it is done. The carpenters aren't always accredited, just learned it by tradition.

I may try supporting the other two edges to see if there is a difference. Right now it is great.

Interesting are your comments on the lack of guilds, but at the same time the high quality of the workmanship present in the photo, from the common folk.

Yes it is remarkable in some ways,
but if you think about it, why should a guild be considered necessary?

This certainly explains the great deal of variation in framing methods from village to village in the old days too, as it was a local 'folk craft'

Jay said this over on another tread, I'll respond here to keep the topic of that thread from wondering off, since it's an important subject.



Jay,
I know about the reality of farmers, and how they are not dumb, that's why I put it in quotation marks. It was a reflection of common thought, not of reality -irony. Im a farmer. the Bähler family has been farmers literally for thousands of years, so I know a thing or two about farming culture.

As to that barn, there were no 'apprenticed' carpenters as such likely invloved in the project. You'd be able to tell right away in the picture, as in Switzerland at the time any apprentice would have worn the distinctive clothes marking his connection to a guild, and any journeyman or master would have proudly worn that status, especially for something as rare and important as photograph, and definitely during the
'Aufrichtefest' which is what is here pictured.

The master may have built such a structure before,, as might a few of the others -there may have even been one or two itinerant carpenters in the mix -but if so, none of them were a part of any formal program. They learned by tradition. By trade, they were probably farmers. This is around the time period in Switzerland where the concept of a professional carpentry shop would have just begun to rise in the villages. And where this picture was taken is from a particularly isolated (geographically) region.

As for the Amish,
There is no formal training there. At all. Never. And there never will be. In the Amish culture, they (we, actually,) look down on those who have formal training because they tend to think they are better than those who don't.
If you would require certification, I would tell you 90% of the people I know would be right out of the business.
Now I understand you have some experience with these people, but I'll just be plain and say I have more. About 500 years more. That's my heritage. I'm Amish-Mennonite, I have deep connections with the Old Order, and I know how they do things. So i can't support mandatory certifications or training systems, because it would destroy my own culture.

Another topic of interest is how we approach the cutting of our frames and timbers. I see a lot of timber framers doing their work with saws and chisels and the well known slick, which many consider an absolute necessity in the craft.

I have never owned a slick, I don't think I probably ever will

A few cultures have much different methods. In Switzerland, Austria, and much of central Europe the chisel takes a back seat, finding use mostly as a cleanup and paring tool -even then to a much more limited extent than most are familiar with in this country. Instead of the saw and chisel, joints are cut out with the axe an adze. Having seen this done, I will say the axe in the hands of a skilled craftsman is a wonderful tool, much faster than the chisel, but harder to master. A couple of different axes is all you need in your toolbox, and they can replace a broad range of tools.

It's just interesting to see the different methods.


As to to the original topic of what methods persisted I have thought about this in regards to the recent discussion on apprenticeship and training.
There were many people that moved to this country from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland -far more so than came from England. So we might wonder, why did English methods prevail? Well I think the answer is found in the training programs. The parts of the German speaking countries these people came from were rural and isolated. The guild system was not present. Carpenters, then, learned from their fathers, or their uncles, or their neighbors. When they came to America, often times they hired the established craftsmen, and their children learned from them.

I don't have a drop of alphabet soup in front or back of my name. I have seen silly mistakes from people with said soup. I say welcome to the stupid club.

Just because a culture or specific person does or doesn't use a certain tool does not mean it is useless. I love my axes and adzes, and my slick too. If I were to be limited to only one tool it would be a standard axe.

Interesting how this is folding in with the guild discussion.

For me the one tool is a 1 1/2 chisel. After that it's the $15 single bevel Stanley hatchet I found at a garage sale. Then the slick. I do find that the more mature I get as a carpenter the fewer tools I use. One of the great things about the world now is it is so much easier to learn about the ways other cultures do things. My goal has always been to find and learn the most efficient method for me. I fully realize that the guy or gal at the other end of the timber may have a completely different and equally viable approach.

Thanks Tim and Les for coming on

Like Tim, I don't have a degree or credential to my name, other than the fact that I have worked and made a study out of my own life.

Does that make me less valuable than the carpenter who has been through a 3 year apprenticeship program?

If I were to pick one tool, it would depend on the job I am doing. If I am doing a frame, it would be my narrow-bitted axe. For a log building, my Gransfors.

Right now I am designing a project that will have a lot of ornate profiling and carving on the timbers, this will be an adventure in hand tool carpentry and I am looking forward to starting on the work.

hello everyone tonight

well I grew up here in upper Canada in German - dutch traditions and one of the first things that I was taught was to put together a tool chest containing the tools necessary to complete any job handed to me

I am going to tell you that I needed much more than a couple of axes and a slick there would be needed for sure a good square, a set of bits up to 2", a good hammer, wood level, line, chalk, a pry bar of some type, a regular chopping axe , a hewing axe, hatchet, a couple of adzes, timber dogs, a 3 foot wooden folding rule, wood mallets,a couple of saws, a set of chisels of varying sizes, and oh yes a good crosscut saw

a while back a lovely picture was posted on my thread showing a group of Carpenters, each with their own tool box, this I suggest is what any good tradesman would bring to a construction site to work with or oversee a group of men-- this is my take on an early work site--try and get along without any of these tools

NH

Thanks Richard for the input

Yes, these tools are all useful, and in many ways we can't go without them. It's just interesting to look at the tool sets used by different traditions

In Switzerland a century or two ago, you would have seen a much different set of tools than what was used in North America at the time. The boring machines, socket chisels, folding rule, spirit level, and a few other familiar tools would be nowhere to be found. In there place would have stood 3 different axes -narrow bitted for chopping out mortises, short handled (somewhat between a felling axe and a hatchet) for most work, and a goosewing- comparatively light chisels for paring, not for chopping, often double beveled, plumb bobs for checking plumb and level, and saws would have been scarce. Measuring would have been done with story poles or large compass and, most surprising of all, many of these fantastic buildings were built without ever drafting any sort of plans or drawings.


On another topic, I got a new book today, Schweizer Bauernhäuser, about Swiss rural architecture. Fascinating.

But one thing got me thinking, in talking about the roof structures there is a distinction made between so called 'Rafendach' and 'Sparrendach' which is a distinction we can't so easily make in english, since both 'Rafen' and 'Sparren' would translate as 'Rafters'
The distinction is between a roof built with rafters hung from a ridge beam and one built with rafters that are more or less free-standing, with rafters seated into a tie beam. It is interesting to observe how the Sparrendach, a truss like assembly, evolved from the Rafendach, a simple roof form.

What fascinates me most, however, is the roof forms that combine the two, using a lower 'Sparren' assembly to support the ridge, from which 'Rafen' type rafters are hung.

hello everyone tonight

I really enjoy your posts, and as I read it through I wondered how those frames were held together without wood pegs, I suppose if the walls were mostly horizontal logs then overlapping corners would suffice

I do believe that you must be referring to Swiss construction prior to 1700's,it sounds to me pretty primitive in nature, but then it is hard for me to believe that they could have built such structures without saws to manufacture sawn lumber , trim and other articles too numerous to mention, at least crude saws

I realize that some groups remained very simple in their beliefs and resisted any new ideas, this would of course meant that older styles of construction would hang around for very long times, until the outside push would overwhelm the resistors

I was also wondering how the mortise's positions were laid out with precision using such a limited tool kit, I can understand that the specialized chopping tool would and could be used very well by the tradesmen of that era to extract the material

I suppose there is an answer for all these questions but wonder where this type of experience leads us and to what avail, other than information

You yourself I am sure will be using just these tools for your frame to ensure authenticity of look, one thing that I have learned over the years is this fact-- that it is very hard to cover up modern tool marks on finishes.

sorry for covering a lot of territory

NH

hello everyone tonight

Hi DL

Just to carry on this line of thought, let us look at the interior of some of these very old homes that you are referring to in prior posts, and I would like your take on how they accomplished the finishes and what tools could be used

NH

Richard,

I'll try and get some pictures.

The problem we have though is that most have been remodeled/refinished or paneled over on the interior so that insulation could be added.

I'll respond in more detail later.

Hello again,

I can finally take the time to respond more thoroughly.

Squares were used, I did not mention that. The framing square, in one form or another, has been around for a very long time.

Wooden pegs are not always a necessity, if cleverly arranged many types of joints don't require them at all. It is just important that they be designed to account for unusual loading. You would actually be surprised how well a barn frame would function if you went through and drove out all of the pegs.

I am currently tearing down an old barn in Indiana. This barn was built with tying joints that rely on 3 heavy pegs to secure a large tenon on the end the tie beams. These pegs in this instance tie the frame together. I was astonished to find that on one of the tie beams, the carpenter had failed to insert 2 of the 3 pegs -because the holes had not been drilled properly making inserting the pegs impossible. This was in the middle bent of the barn. The single peg in this tie beam functioned well for over 100 years. In fact, when the barn fell down instead of the single peg sheering, the whole tenon snapped off of the tie beam. This demonstrates the strength that a well placed peg can give to a frame, so understand I do not underestimate the value of pegging.

I think most of all, carpenters probably arrived at the conclusion that pegs were unsightly, and sought ways to eliminate their use inside the structure.

The construction is by no means primitive. It's remarkably complex, though for sure using a number of methods that might seem 'primitive' to other people, since we are accustomed to seeing these as marks of the oldest buildings. In a following post, I will have many pictures.

We have to distinguish between 4 house types in the Canton of Bern to understand. First there is the so-called 'Ständerbau' of the north. This is pure timber framing with tall posts that are the full height of the wall. These buildings I would hesitate to call 'primitive' but we can say 'archaic' since it is an old style.
Second is 'Blockbau' in the mountains to the south, the Alps. This is log building -squared log tightly joined and built wide and high. Third is what we could call 'Mischbau' or mixed-construction. This is scattered throughout the foothills of the Alps between the Swiss Plateau and the true Alps. -The Upper Emmental, Schwarzenburgerland, Gürbetal, and the region around the city of Thun. It is a mixture of timber framing and log building. In the aforementioned regions it takes the form of timber framing with significant log-building influence. In the Berner Oberland, especially the Simmental, we also find log buildings with timber frame influence.
The fourth is the so-called 'Fachwerk' or in Switzerland more often 'Riegelbau' (be careful, this term means something altogether different in Austria) This is a 'modern' (by Swiss reckoning) style, becoming popular largely in the 19th century. It is what you see the most today in more settled regions -the lower Emmental, the northern planes, and the Aare valley between Thun and Bern. This we would reckon in English as half-timber construction.
Sorry for the long explanation, but its necessary to establish precisely what I'm talking about.
Architecture in the Canton of Bern has been well-developed since at least the 16th century -by well developed, I mean large structures, architectural embellishments, well-sealed joints, high level of craftsmanship, and joinery techniques close to what are used today. By the close of the Middle Ages, we see already highly refined craftsmanship.

Now this is drifting off topic a bit, but one thing I have found is that it is at this same time we see the rise of the so-called 'Mehrzweckbau' or multi-purpose building.
I long assumed Bernese house architecture to be in the lineage of the Germanic long house or hall house since the share a common trait, the arrangement of living quarters and animal stalls all under a single roof. This arrangement in northern Europe is quite ancient. In Switzerland, it's surprisingly modern. We've learned through excavations that in the Middle Ages, farms were a complex of independent structures. Some time around the 14th century, for some reason, our ancestors began to build living quarters onto the sides of their barns, creating the 'Mehrzweckbau'
What is interesting in this is that there are building around today which have barn portions that are remarkably old -some with fabric dating from the Middle Ages- and house parts that are very young. In one instance there is a structure with a barn built around 1700 and a house annex added in the 1930s.


Now I will break off and go dig out some pictures. I don't feel like digging through my 2000+ photos, so I'll just go to the internet.

Pictures,

First, some 'Ständerbau'


From Madiswil, now in the Ballenberg Museumm


'Althuus' Jerisberghof


Second, some 'Mischbau'


These are the Bauernhaus 'Brandösch' in Trub, Emmental.

the Krämerhaus in Signau, Emmental


Moserhaus, Signau. I probably have some heritage from this place. Note the roof structure is not original, clearly indicated by the change in roof pitch, a trait of the modern style of roof framing.

I'll get around to some interiors later

Roofs with such overhangs are mechanical weather preservative.

And 'Fachwerk', forgot to post


This the farm 'Grund' which is my ancestral home

But this building is not, it was built about 1903, if I remember.

and a somewhat more modern example of pure Ständerbau



and one quick interior shot, I may have put this one up earlier, I don't remember.

Now for some interior shots.

As mentioned briefly above, many of these structures are functional houses, and are periodically updated to suit the needs of modern life. In some cases, houses have been renovated many times. It is exceedingly rare to find a functioning farmhouse in its original form.

But, the Swiss are found of their farmhouses, and they are found of museums. This is very good for us. There are a few museums around the country that present us with buildings close to their original arrangements. So to accurately show this, we have to use museum examples. These pictures, then, are of museum pieces and not modern functioning houses.

Here is the house formerly the bauernhaus 'Untere Grosstanne' in Eggiwil. It was moved to the Ballenberg museum, and now there is a new Untere Grosstanne. This was built c. 1700. and is presented in a mid-18th c. arrangement.






There is, of course, quite a bit of modern material in this structure. The farmhouse was in poor shape when donated to the museum and much had to be replaced. But as always, the Ballenberg carpenters did a very good job of faithfully reproducing the original style.

The 'Untere Grosstanne' pictured above is of the so-called 'Mischbau' or the blending of log and frame building. Eggiwil is in the transition zone, very near to the high Alps. The form of this house is very much like that of the 'Moserhaus' pictured above, only somewhat smaller. The houses orginally were not very far apart, Signau and Eggiwil are fairly close.

Here is another interior.

This last one shows well the application of paneling on the walls

Turning aside,

I mentioned a little bit earlier about the so-called 'Mischbau' or the mixed construction, employing elements of the northern post and beam style of construction and the Alpine log building. This is the predominant style in the pre-Alpine ranges in the Canton of Bern, also to a lesser extent into Luzern and Eastern Switzerland.

I also mentioned the fact that in the last century or two, many of the old buildings have been extensively remodeled such that much of their original form is now lost to us.
Most common, so much so that it is nearly universal, is the removal of the original roof frame, replacing the whole gable structure. Today, the roof form in this region is nearly identical to the northern parts of the Canton. It was not always so. It is just interesting to this change taking place, these old buildings instead of being knocked down and replaced were 'upgraded' to suit the needs of the day -roofs were replaced with a more open framework, giant ramps were added to access the loft.

The earlier form is the so-called 'Tätschdach'. These were shallow-pitched roofs -like the log buildings in the Oberland region. They were originally covered with roofs of loose-laid wood shingles, weighted down with split logs and heavy stones. These had gable roofs. The support structure was direct posted ridge and purlin construction.



Two so-called 'Tätschdachhäuser', the first from Amsoldingen and the second from Blumenstein. Rare examples that have preserved the original roof form.

Some of the structures pictured earlier may have started out in this form, but were renovated. The high pitch roof would allow more storage room for hay, the reworking of the support to the 'Liegender Binder' truss system allowed heavy wagons to be driven into the loft and unloaded. Roof forms in this region are steep -but not as steep as was used in regions where thatched roofs were common. These were covered with nailed shingles. The Half-Hip became common instead of the gable roof, the hip providing protection for the end walls that could no longer be afforded by simple overhangs.

Moving back from the look at a few curiosities and items of historic interest, back to the practical application of things,

In North America, we are accustomed to what I will call the 'High-posted' method of framing. That is, the posts in the bent framework that we use here are the full height of the side walls of the structure, perhaps 16 feet or even more. This is of course a stiff construction, but has the disadvantage of requiring large amounts of material to be removed where girts and other support beams join into these posts. The solution of course being posts significantly larger than would otherwise be necessary.

This method is known in Switzerland, particularly in the central regions of the Swiss Plateau and into the northern parts of the Bernese Midlands. But in the broad pre-alpine region of the canton, houses instead are constructed with what we might call a platform framing method. This is the so-called 'Mischbau'

This has interested me for some time. The obvious thing that would come to mind is that this assembly, using short posts for each story, would be less stable due to the interruption of the framework in the middle of the walls. The reality is that the stiff framework created by the horizontal timbers here -often set in a double log-type course- makes the whole assembly incredibly stout and rigid. The advantage is that smaller timbers can be used, since the resulting joinery removes very little wood from any single member.

Just curious what others think with this system. If you look closely at the top picture in my last post, you can see how this assembly works (you will have to right click and select to view the picture)
Personally, I think it is a brilliant approach to house framing. One particularly attractive aspect of this, for me, is that the framing of the second story is entirely independent of the story below, and is largely independent of the roof framing.

The notion of timber dimensions has puzzled me for some time. Specifically, why framing in the Canton of Bern transitioned to the use of smaller, shorter timbers. In England, France, and much of Germany -and in some regions of Switzerland (Geneva, Zürich, parts of the Jura and into Vaud)- this happened because of deforestation. Large trees were no longer widely available, so they had to build with smaller sticks. This is often credited as the reason for the late Medieval framing tendencies in much of Europe.
But the Canton of Bern has historically, and continues to be, a heavily forested region. In fact, a lot of our building challenges arise in response to developing the thatched structures of the planes to a form suited to the heavily forested regions (Thatching doesn't work here, it stays too wet)

SO if vast tracts of forest were widely available -with large, tall, straight fir and spruce comparable (believe it or not) to the virgin forests the English would find in America (Think 3 feet dia fir trees, 200+ feet in height as being not uncommon)- why did carpenters switch to smaller sticks?

-Now to understand the forest situation, understand that some friends of mine visited the forests of BC Cananda, and remarked how much these trees were like the ones at home.

The answer to this question occurred to me when reading through some threads here and other places about sawing timbers, where to cut them from a log, etc.

I believe that carpenters were not driven by a need to conserve material, but by a desire to get the best material. That is, they realized that by cutting smaller pieces, they could make free-of-heart timbers that would be more stable as they dried.

This is reflected even in log building, where at some point (presumably in the 18th C) carpenters figured out they could build better buildings if they would, instead of hewing from smaller sticks, take great big logs and first carefully split them in half, and hew out the heart. The result is remarkably straight timber that was laid up in a structure after only 1 or 2 years of seasoning (not nearly enough time to stabilize a timber of this size)

Well we've had quite the start to this week. Snowstorm moved in Sunday morning and high wind and extreme cold in the evening. Late Sunday afternoon, we were issued a blizzard warning.

By Monday morning, we had a reported 17 1/2 inches of new snow, on top of about 5 that had fallen the previous week. Then blizzard winds moved in and monday was too cold to do anything about it. High winds, with a high temperature of about -10 F.

So today, we spent the whole day digging ourselves out. A lot of work.

On the topic of bracing,

We had discussed the nature of bracing earlier to some extent, the values of the different approaches, risks, etc.

While looking for some certain things today, I came across this picture, I thought it showed the bracing system quite well.


and another picture of the same house


This is of course a log building, but it incorporates many elements of timber framing. The roof of this structure is timber framed, rather than being log built.

Note that this structure is unusual with its very large front roof projection, but this is interesting. Essentially what you see here is how the roof framing is arranged on the interior of such a structure.

Another interesting fact about this house, it was built in the year 1492, the year, among other things, that Columbus made his famous voyage. Kind of puts things in perspective...


While doing some of my research, I inadvertently stumbled across the paths of my ancestors. I found 4 houses in the area of Blumenstein, Switzerland (just a stone's throw from my ancestral village of Wattenwil) that were built by my ancestors (Benedicht, Christen, and Christen II) In the years 1685, 1688, 1719, and 1720.
I was very pleased to read in the documentation my ancestors referred to as a well known and important 'dynasty' of master carpenters in the region.

Which brings us back to the issue of formally trained carpenters. We discussed this and the 'guild' situation. I mentioned the lack of any 'formal' training as such, and referenced the fact that these people were locals, often farmers, building these houses. Now the 'Zimmermeister' is an important thing to bring up here. The 'Zimmermeister' or master carpenter isn't someone who has been trained and recognized by any guild or other organization. He is someone with experience building houses -probably learned from his father, as with the Bähler family of Wattenwil, but possibly learned from working for another master (probably an uncle or close family friend -an older or middle son who has no inheritance in the old Bernese custom might seek such a position.

Now we have discovered that our family had a long line of master carpenters, but we also know they were primarily farmers (and we also know we came from the mountains, and did things in a mountain style). So if they were farmers, how were they master carpenters? Well, to be a carpenter in those days was not a full-time job (except a few periods where building booms happened, such as the early 18th century) It's something you would do 'on the side'

So this, then, is the picture we get: The Bähler family was a well-established dynasty of carpenters, who I have learned was influencial in developing the architectural styles of the Upper Gürbetal and its side-valley the Stockental (where Blumenstein is found). But by trade, they were mostly farmers. The skills of the master -which would be things like proportions, floor plans, roof designs- were passed on by experience -You would work with your father or Uncle etc. from a young age, whenever he might have a project to do. In this way, the practices of the Canton of Bern were passed on. Also in this way, regional diversity became a huge thing, because any innovation was, for the most part, within a closed system.

Now the question might come up, how do I know these were my ancestors, specifically?

Well, I don't 100% know this. Since the mid 1500's the Bähler family has been a large and important one in the Gürbetal.

However, the names and dates line up perfectly with the line we have traced.
But that can be difficult to learn much, since they tended to use a few names over and over. Most Bählers in those days seem to have been named Hand, Benedicht, or Christen. In fact in 15 generations, 8 were named Christen...

Today I want to look a bit at the art and craft of the Master Carpenter. Specifically, I would like to look at the means used to accomplish the goals of design and layout.

The responsibility of the master carpenter is to create the design of the structure -to lay out the frame, or if it is a log building the locations of the openings, partitions, etc. Then it is his responsibility to oversee the layout of the joinery.
The tasks of cutting, fitting, and assembling can be accomplished by the inexperienced, with suitable oversight and instruction. The master would participate in these tasks, and the specifics of joint assemblies and design would conform to the techniques learned by the Master Carpenter.

In the image above, we see some fairly complex decorations and designs that have been painted onto the woodwork. These were made from a template, and transferred onto the wood. If we look closely we see something significant -these designs follow geometric patterns. Such geometric design is very common on buildings in the Canton of Bern built before the 1800's, and is a reflection of the process of design. The architect of the 18th century and before used the compass to design his frames, and as we examine these buildings we find very strict rules of geometric design and proportion.

The buildings of this region are noted for their strong proportions, a product of the geometry used to create them.
I'd love to spend more time to measure some of these structures, to catalog their proportions and to deeply examine the geometric patterns that were common.

When we look at the decorative designs we see one common factor: the number 6. The so-called 'daisy wheel' is common, as are 6-pointed stars, hexagons, and 12-pointed 'daisy's' -this does not mean that the 'daisy wheel' was used to layout structures, it means that the geometry used by the carpenters relied on triangles and the numbers 3 and 6 as its basis, the so-called 'Ad Triangulum" of which the Daisy Wheel is a simple product, rather than squares and the numbers 4 and 8, the so-called 'Ad Quadratum'.

This same tendency is reflected in church architecture in the rural regions, in Contrast to the great Cathedral in Bern which has strong Quadratic-based proportions.

Lately I've been looking into the floor plans and interior design of old houses. This is something difficult to research, because these are functioning houses and as such have often been remodeled several times. Fortunately, I have access to some old books from the 1800s, where the Author was able to see many buildings in a relatively undisturbed state.

Of particular interest is the Kitchen along with the cooking range and how the exhaust is dealt with.

There are 2 common arrangements and variations of them for the kitchen. I'll classify them as "ALemannic" and "Burgundian"

In the Alemannic arrangement, the kitchen is 2 full stories in height. the exhaust from the cooking fires drafts slowly into the top of the kitchen where there are either holes in the top of the walls (Rouchschlitz) or the ceiling is arched an has a hole in the top with a very small chimney sticking a few inches over the floor of the attic (gwölb)
This is lousy, smoke lingers for a long time and everything gets stained with smoke. This arrangement was used as late as the 1970s in some old houses. The upper story has beamwork (Rouchni) from which meat is hung and smoked. The whole arrangement is called a smoke-kitchen (Rouch-Chuechä, Rouchhuus)

The Burgundian arrangement is better. The kitchen is only a single story in height. Above the cooking range is a giant pyramid-shaped chimney hood made of wooden planks pegged to a beam framework and plastered on the outside to seal it off (Bretterkamin). the chimney extends a few feet over the roof itself and has a flap operated by a long pole reaching down to the kitchen. The cooking fire exhausts directly into this chimney and the smoke drafted much more efficiently. Meat is hung up inside the chimney hood.

Wooden chimneys are nothing special. A lot of cultures used them. But I find the whole concept fascinating.

Of special interest here is how the smoke is handled. In most cases where a big wooden chimney is used, the fire is simply placed in the base of the chimney and the smoke -along with most of its heat- is sucked straight out. Here, the fire is enclosed in a masonry stove which exhausts through a hole in the firewall into a large masonry heating oven (stubenofen) that is an effective mass heater. You don't have to have a secondary heating source, the waste heat from cooking will warn the oven for many hours. The exhaust then snakes back through a hole in the firewall into the kitchen. In the open kitchen, it just comes out through a hole in the wall and drafts freely through the room. Where the wooden chimney is used, there is often a tube of some sort that carries the smoke into the base of the chimney, so that it won't draft around through the room.

This is all interesting because this system has been in place since the early Middle Ages. Some scholars call this the "Burgundian Chimney" because it is found in places settled by the Burgundians, and not in Alemannic territories. But it can't have been a later Medieval development of the Burgundians, because it is most found in that region that fell out of Burgundian hands in the 12th century, specifically the southwest part of the Canton of Bern especially the western part of the Berner Oberland (The Bernese Alps)

So right now, I'm fascinated with wooden chimneys. IT's one of those things that you present to modern people, and they think it's a death trap. I guess the fact that some of them have been is use for over 500 years escapes us...

Here are some pictures showing the wooden chimney.
First, a picture from inside a house showing a very small (relatively) wooden chimney.

Here you can see from the kitchen into the "Stube" or the parlor (Stube is specifically a room with a heating oven, the main living room of the house)
You can see the mass-heater on the right, the blue tiled object.
The green object is of course the stove, this a more modern version of the wood stove.
Above you see the chimney hood, and between the exhaust flue coming out of the heating oven. Often the bottom of the chimney is open.

Then some other pictures from an old house, drawings, that should clarify the arrangement.

We have been talking about planes at another thread. To keep from distracting that thread too far off topic, I'll continue here with my points.

First I need to reiterate a little,

Jay mentioned planing in Asia and the highly developed techniques of Japan. Surely he is correct in asserting there is no one who has done the things the Japanese have doen with planing.

But I wanted to mention a few things about planing in Switzerland, especially Bern.
First I stated that in log traditions and in timber framing where a thick plank infill is used, the timbers are precisely jointed to exacting dimensions and profiles. Planing of timbers is in this case the first part of layout, where the exact dimensions of the timbers will aid in lining up joints.

I also talked about the art forms of taking off heavy shavings with a plane and using them to construct cheese forms, baskets, buckets, etc.

Beyond this, planing is used extensively to profile, decorate, joint, etc. The carpenters shop of the past would have had an extensive collection of planes used to cut the profiles on the edge of timbers, join timber and planks, cut grooves, etc.


Seen here is the tool collection of a well-stocked shop from a century ago. The shear number of planes is astounding. Most of these are moulding planes of various profiles. On the rear wall you can see 4 giant planes which would have been used for making timbers as perfectly straight as possible. these are "Fugeboum" or jointing planes. They take off only the corners. They are meant to operated by 2 mean, and actually cut in both directions.

and here is the shop of a craftsman who works with planer shavings to make baskets, buckets, cheese forms, etc.

Hello everyone again,

Recently I have been looking into the bolster block type of construction.

For those that are unfamiliar with the concept, a bolster or pillow is a block set on top of a post to bear a beam. There are a number of reasons to use a bolster block. It can shorten then span of timbers by supporting them out further away from the post (This is almost universal on the old bridges in the Canton of Bern where bolsters are used to lengthen the allowable span between support piers)
Another reason is to allow simplified joinery in the post connection, especially if two beams must come together at a single level above the post, if one is supported by a bolster the connection is not overly weakened

Most frequently, Bernese carpenters will use a bolster block to simplify the scarf joints needed in roof framing. In log building, bolsters are very commonly used allow the carpenters to make long purlin runs out of a number of short spans -the purlins in this case need only span the distance between 2 posts. This is especially important in the Simmental, where the houses are expanded along their ridge to house a barn under the same roof (inn contrast to the Frutigtal where the barn is placed along the gable beside the house). The use of bolsters allows shorter timbers, which makes more efficient use of the logs.

In log building it is common to place a bolster on top of a post with a stub tenon or a bridle joint, then fix the beam on top with a network of pegs. The scarf in the beams is often merely a butt-joint, or perhaps a tenoned scarf to resist twisting. Sometimes a pegged half lap is used. Complex scarf joints are deemed unnecessary (and this belief is supported by centuries-old examples)

bolsters are also used in the timber framing regions, especially in the regions where timber framing is intermixed with log building. In the north, on the Swiss Plateau, bolsters are far rarer. In this range, where the overall roof structure is a genuine timber frame, the assembly often includes let in braces attaching the bolster and the post.

I like bolsters. It is one of the many examples in the Canton of Bern where carpenters chose to adopt an incredibly simple solution to their problems rather than seeking to solve it with complex joinery and complicated truss assemblies. Timber framing here is full of this concept, and log building has taken this principle the furthest.