Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
English Tieing Joint failure #31704 12/31/13 10:03 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 959
K
Ken Hume Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
K
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 959
Hi,

Recent mention has been made about the efficacy of some timbers in service (Brungraber) and the multitude of tieing joints types (Sobon / Lewandoski) that can and are employed in timber-framed buildings.



I thought that I would share some of the hard realities of life (and death) of a timber-framed building with the timber-framing community.

The English tieing joint assembly has been employed thousands of time but eventually (some considerable time ago) this joint or more correctly the structure yielded causing the tieing joint assembly to move apart. The post top rotated outwards breaking the teazle tenon and breaking the cross brace pegs. In very simple terms A + B = C where the outer edge of the wall plate is not completely clear and the possibility exists that the wall plate has been replaced at some point since the shoulder of the lap dovetail seat is not completely evident.

An attempt has been made at some time in the past to strap this joint together using an old metal cart tyre which is the most frequently encountered method employed to strengthen this type of joint. It works. With the passage of time these straps have also become an architectural feature worthy of preservation.

I sometimes wonder if the complex detail calculations and analysis undertaken by north american timber-frame designers on timber frame joints are really worthwhile especially when an old cart tyre is a solution that can deal with a multitude of woes.

This building has now been standing for 689 years !

P.E.'s and anyone else please discuss

Ken Hume


Looking back to see the way ahead !
Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: Ken Hume] #31705 12/31/13 02:01 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,882
T
TIMBEAL Offline
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,882
You must take into consideration the electrical wiring in the equation.

Does this building have common rafters? or is it pure purlins? Where does the thrust come from to effect such damage to this joint, and then construct in a manor that avoid these forces.

Any evidence of using cogs in stead of the dovetail over there?

Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: TIMBEAL] #31709 01/01/14 02:56 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 959
K
Ken Hume Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
K
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 959
Hi Tim,

The cables - yes - now there's a glimpse of the obvious !

The building is as shown below :-



and has a crown post roof with common rafters and hence no side purlins. The location of the blown tieing joint is as indicated in the sketch. This is a tall slim town building with an end jetty and a very large open 2 bay upper room at the front.

Cogged tieing joints are employed in English timber-framed buildings but as yet there is no real significant statistical evidence of where and when these can be found.

Ken Hume


Looking back to see the way ahead !
Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: Ken Hume] #31714 01/02/14 04:18 AM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
Hey Ken, et al.,

Ben, Jan and Jack, are all "Nuts," and I love them for it, but Ben is really the "character" in the group, and actually he and the team he works with is our "go to" PE, and have been for decades. It would be great if they added their voice to this conversation.

The "English" tying joint and its related species in other wood cultures of perimeter "3 way connections," can be very efficient and strong, but also in some forms very susceptible to failures (especially if modified.) Yet “689 years,” as in your example, is testament to wonderful holding qualities of this traditional joinery.

I believe that most “deaths” come from poor maintenance, and just as often, from unqualified intervention by novice carpenters of "fix it" folks. This intervention, whether contemporary, or in the chronological history of the frame, can often lead the compromise-demize of the structure, which is often taking more time to happen than the occupants of the structure are aware of.

The “3 way tying” joint in your example is clearly compromised, and has moved apart. Now when we get to your comment about “teazle tenon,” I became a bit confused? “Teazle tenons,” (sometimes call “threading tenons,” must pass through a minimum of two or more timbers, usually timbers perpendicular and/or juxtaposed to one another. I don't see a “teazle” in the photo, unless the tenon on the “lapping jetty” of the “jowel” passes through the “tie beam” and into the “principal rafter above.” I would note at this time that the “jetty” of the “jowel” can sometimes present with a “dovetail” along its side that will fit an appropriate “dovetail” mortise on the receiving side of the “rafter plate” (what you are calling a wall plate.) Have you ever discovered this type in your travels?

Now you of course saw the joint, but from the photo it presents more as a “racking” and maintenance failure over time, than it seems a “rotational” failure. I would agree that it does appear to have had a “novice” repair in its history, which may have included an improper replacement of the “rafter plate,” and the addition of the mentioned “metal strapping.” I often find such metal “reinforcements” added by “novice,” and or “unqualified” restorationists. A very few present as “legitimate” artifacts of the frames history, I agree, and as such preservation may be warranted, yet many more should just be removed, if given an opportunity during a proper restoration, as they undermine the validity of the original intentions of the House or Timberwright that built the structure. As for working...I would have to agree that only sometimes they do subjoin some ancillary security to this family of joints, but many are an unnecessary, an only redundancy if all other factors are addressed.

I agree that many of the engineering analysis of this joint may not be necessary, but the addition of hardware such as strapping is not appropriate for the family of joints when executed properly and with good means, methods and material. I make that statement both as a traditional Timberwright, and as a Restoration Artisan. I see many of these types of frames “modified” with good intentions by folks with perhaps good “timber framing” skills but no background in the ethical ethos of “Heritage Conservation and Restoration,” of architecture. As such, I may (or may not) keep such an artifact in a frame during a full restoration, as my task is not only to honor the original “Wright” of the frame, but to preserve the heritage skill sets that built fashioned this vintage fabric. As such, the metal is an unnecessary redundancy, if all is done well, in most cases.

I will note, that if Ben becomes a “pain in my back side,” (he seldom is or does) and insist that a metal or synthetic moment or drawing connection” is necessary, we will save the “artifact” if structurally sound, or replace with a surreptitious hidden reinforcement.

"Happy New Year" to all,

j

Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: Jay White Cloud] #31716 01/02/14 01:10 PM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,882
T
TIMBEAL Offline
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,882
Teazle tenon is clear to me, Jay, your description is clear but goes past my known description of Teazle tenon, it is clearly depicted in HATJ, A Graphic Guide, pt 2 Tying Joints:Tie at Plate.

Rotational forces..... Ken are you suggesting the post is twisted? Or has the plate and post been pushed away from the building directly in line with the tie beam? Rotation as in the whole building? I still suspect rafter thrust. Closer look at the peak of the roof in some detail or at the purling.

The brace below is shown to have been compromised and gaped at the post. Are there other aspects that would point the the Why this happened? Like those common rafters with shadow lines of where they used to rest?

Regardless if it was yesterday or 400 years ago, someone beyond a novice applied the tire rim. It had to have been heated, straightened, holes punched Pins constructed and applied, all with much thought. Sometimes buildings don't demand full on restoration, when a permanent fix will suffice. I speculate that it was a run away cart that rolled away and smashed into the lower part of the post and the reaction was shown at the top of the post. Then they used the, now bad wheel, to fix the damage cause. Maybe the horses were spooked and they had a wreck. Hows that for conjecture.

Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: TIMBEAL] #31717 01/02/14 05:08 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 959
K
Ken Hume Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
K
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 959
Hi Tim,

Some of your surmises might not be so far from the mark ! This building was recently hit by a truck reversing into an old coaching door opening on the same side of the building as the broken English tieing joint however this happened a few years after the above picture was taken. The square holes seen in the metal strap are original holes used to secure the tyre to the wooden cart rim.

Maybe my choice of the word "rotation" is not the best since as Jay mentions above transverse racking of the building can in effect cause rotation of the main post about its base. It's probably worth re-examining the drawing where one can see that the main post concerned is a full height storey post of some 16 foot length with this divided into 6 foot on the ground floor and 10 foot on the upper floor. The posts at the jetty are discontinuous being jointed above and below the mid rail. This will not provide the same degree of stiffness as a continuous post. The 2 bay upper room was completely open to the roof and so this room lacked intermediate stiffening other than the cross braces between the tie beam and main posts. I have mentioned a couple of times on this forum of my dislike for empty frames and especially those that comprise just main posts, cross braces, tie beam and pricipal rafters.



The picture above shows the common rafters in the jetty bay immediately in front of the failed tieing joint. Of particular note is the dragon tie between the wall plate and front tie beam. This is a very archaic feature generally found only in timber-frames built within a 1200 - 1300 date range.

Regards

Ken Hume


Looking back to see the way ahead !
Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: Ken Hume] #31721 01/02/14 11:34 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
Ken,

I'd be interested in hearing more about our dislike for empty frames.


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: D L Bahler] #31725 01/03/14 05:12 AM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
Hi Ken,

Thanks again for great photos and this conversation.

You wrote: "This is a very archaic feature generally found only in timber-frames built within a 1200 - 1300 date range."

I would only validate that as perhaps as it may apply to certain timber frames from the U.K. as "dragon" beams have been used extensively for over a thousand years by other wood timber cultures (still are extensively in some) and I believe probably the first to be in ships in Europe and with the Swiss for the first in timber architecture of Europe, David B, could confirm that I am sure.

I also have the same question as David B, on the facet of "dislike for empty frames." I need clarification, as barns are "empty frames" that are some of the most enduring of history? As are many temples in Asia. Did I miss your point on that one?

@ Tim B.

Thank you for using that reference Tim B. about the "teasel tenon," and I agree from that account it would be such, but I challenged that use with several folks on its publishing, and many including Ed (levin) agreed with my confusion.. However, from most other text I have read, and examples I have seen, and all other aspects that I know of from variable sources from central and eastern Europe to Japan, a "teazel tenon," to be such, must pass through more than one member. For now I leave it as a mystery of "British" semantics.

I also did not mean for "novice" to be take to fare out of context or necessarily demeaning, just as, "one not familiar with proper timber frame restoration modalities." I would see such metal as an example of that, and in some times and places it being an asserted and keen effort to conserve what is there until a better solution or full restoration could be addressed.

Regards,

j

Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: Jay White Cloud] #31728 01/03/14 03:25 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
Jay,

I am not aware of the use of the dragon beam in vernacular styles in Switzerland. If it is used, it is probably found in cities, and there likely a French influence.
Hip roofs are framed with a very different method than that employing the dragon beam.
Jettying is not overly common, and when employed, the method of framing (Riegelbau/Fachwerk) does not necessitate the use of a diagonal beam.


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: D L Bahler] #31730 01/03/14 09:00 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
I am interested, Ken, in hearing about your perspective of the so-called open frame because I am not used to this method of construction.

I see timber frames built in the US as large open frameworks with light framing partitions added, or in many cases what I would consider to be unreasonably large open spaces. This stands in sharp contrast to the framing methods I have learned, where the frame itself is divided and partitioned. Also these buildings are thorough tied together with a multitude of intersecting frameworks. In our customs, even buildings built for strictly agricultural purposes are often subdivided with closed frameworks.

I suspect your reasons for disliking open frames are similar to what makes me uneasy about these structures -blown joints like shown above.


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: D L Bahler] #31734 01/04/14 01:08 AM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
Thanks for that correction DL, as I knew it was found through out Germanic, and Easter European systems of timber framing, and of course in ancient far East. I will have to keep looking as I could swear I read reference to it by Phelps??? within the Swiss modalities.

Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: D L Bahler] #31740 01/04/14 09:38 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 959
K
Ken Hume Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
K
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 959
Hi DL & J C.

Please note that I used the term "Dragon Tie" and not "Dragon Beam"



Dragon beams are employed when a timber-framed building is jettied on two sides. This is a key building component into which the floor joists are jointed.

Dragon ties run from the top of the wall plate to the tie beam as shown further above.

JC,

It's Phleps and not Phelps.

DL,

I did not say "our" dislike of open frames I said "my" dislike. The reason for this is very simple - "disproportionate collapse" (think Ronan's point) which has been discussed many times on this forum and so rather than me expand on this topic I wonder if Katie Hill PE or Greg Mullen PE would care to chip in and give the North American engineering view on this design issue.

Ken Hume P.Eng.


Looking back to see the way ahead !
Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: Ken Hume] #31741 01/04/14 10:13 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 959
K
Ken Hume Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
K
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 959
Hi,

I forgot to add these pics that show much more clearly just exactly how a Dragon Tie is employed. It's interesting that the present day occupants of this 1365 cottage appear to have found a new use for this structural element



whereas a previous occupant obviously took an extreme dislike to one of the others in the same room.



Ken


Looking back to see the way ahead !
Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: Ken Hume] #31749 01/04/14 04:25 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
Ken,
Wasn't sure entirely what you meant by dragon tie, but obviously it is not the dragon beam as seen on jetties or hips. Thanks for the clarification.


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: Ken Hume] #31752 01/04/14 07:15 PM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
Hello Ken,

Thanks for the comment (and correction Phleps vx Phelps.)

There is no doubt that the internal infill walls add structural integrity to a timber frame home over a barn, but I believe the most barns design for this, would you agree.

I would love to read what Ronan has written about this topic, as I recall the name but do not remember reading anything by them. Can you give a link or ref.

On the topic of "dragon beams" Ken, perhaps I have made an error. If you just have the horizontal brace (dragon tie) and that element is part of the general design matrix of the frame, like you find in Japan, Germany and else where, does it cease being a dragon tie? Also, do you know what this "horizontal tie" is called in German and French architecture, and does it still contain the colloquial relationship to "dragon"?

thanks Ken, great discussion, and your photo library is wonderful.

Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: Jay White Cloud] #31753 01/04/14 07:57 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
As I understand it, 'Dragon' comes from the German term for this, Träger, or Trägbalken -carrying beam. This would refer to the angled beam in a hip or projected frame that carries the intersecting beam ends and strengthens this matrix

In south Germany and Switzerland, we generally would not use this type of assembly, so as such I am not overly familiar with it other than to know it exists.


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: D L Bahler] #31754 01/04/14 09:13 PM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
I am still looking DL, but can not find it yet???

Dragon is "Drachen" in german, and if I recall was part of the word referring to this type of beam (Strahl or Trager.) I am wondering now if it was a German text, explaining this fashion of beam work in English and French architecture and how it relates to the German and Swiss forms...I just can remember the term they used?

I understand "trager" to mean carrie beam, or just beam, while "tragbalken" to mean joist, stringer, or ceiling beam.

Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: Jay White Cloud] #31755 01/04/14 09:56 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
Jay,

I reviewed the most likely places to find this type of joint -castle framing. The roofs have castles have full hip or pyramid roofs, and in many locations these are the places you will find the dragon beam. I do not find this...



Strahl in use in construction must be some obscure reference, this is not a usual word, and your use here confuses me.

As it realates to German and Swiss forms,

again, it doesn't. It may be found here and there, but if so finds its way here from French sources and is not an important part of the German or Swiss traditions.




Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: D L Bahler] #31756 01/04/14 10:27 PM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
That is a good suggestion DL, perhaps it was in reference to castle roofs.

I misused the word "strahl" which would mean something like "a beam of light," not a beam of wood. What I meant to write write above was, (Balken or Trager) not "strahl," sorry for that confusion.

Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: Jay White Cloud] #31757 01/04/14 10:57 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
Mostly just Balken, with various adjectives tacked onto it to describe its function

Deckenbalken, Bundbalken, Ankorbalken, Kehlbalken, etc.

The closest sounding thing I can think of in terms of sound to 'Dragonbeam' would be 'Tragbalken' which is a beam that runs under another to carry it, like a floor support beams upon which the joists are lodged.


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: D L Bahler] #31761 01/05/14 01:34 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 959
K
Ken Hume Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
K
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 959
Jay C. Whitecloud has brought to my attention a paper by Professor Miles Lewis where he states that the earliest written mention of the term Dragon Beam was in Old Cottages and Farmhouses in Surrey by W. Galsworthy Davie & W. Curtis Green when this was first published by B. T. Batsford in London in 1908.

On page 29 of the book Curtis Green provides a cutaway sketch of the upper floor framing including a Dragon Beam of The Old Butcher's Shop, Lingfield, Surrey.



I visited this building when preparing my Masters dissertation on "old timber-framed buildings in South West Surrey" and took a number of "timber intense" photographs of The Old Butchers shop. Please note the blocked up (white) shop windows on the ground floor.



Ken Hume


Looking back to see the way ahead !
Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: Ken Hume] #31762 01/05/14 02:25 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
http://www.mileslewis.net/lectures/04-history-of-building/puncheons-and-dragons.pdf

the document here claims the dragon beam term to have first been used in 1663, in reference to an angle piece bearing the hip rafter. The 1908 reference does appear to be the first use of the term in reference to jettying


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: D L Bahler] #31763 01/05/14 06:47 PM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
Hi D.L.,

I would turn to Ken H. for clarification on the possible history and etymology of the term "dragon beam," as I believe it was the current author of your referenced link Miles Lewis that described and used the term "dragon beam" when presenting the, "...1663 Richards: a full-length diagonal beam, receiving the base of the hip rafter..." is not necessarily what terminology that was being used in 1663 to describe this member. This term's original orgin would still seem to be a mystery to when it was first coined and from which root language or purpose?

Last edited by Jay White Cloud; 01/05/14 06:49 PM.
Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: Jay White Cloud] #31764 01/05/14 07:51 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
I was just supposing that his summary at the end was an attempt to show the use of the term through history. It's difficult to be sure, since this document is so scarce on text.

In things regarding English framing, I go to people like Ken who have a great deal of knowledge.
My study of English carpentry is limited, coming almost exclusively from Cecil Hewett's wonderful book

Last edited by D L Bahler; 01/05/14 07:52 PM. Reason: redundancy

Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: English Tieing Joint failure [Re: D L Bahler] #31765 01/05/14 07:52 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
AS for the etymology and history, I don't know. Things proposed above were just pulled from someone else.


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Jim Rogers, mdfinc 

Newest Members
HFT, Wrongthinker, kaymaxi, RLTJohn, fendrishi
5134 Registered Users
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3
(Release build 20190728)
PHP: 5.4.45 Page Time: 0.043s Queries: 15 (0.012s) Memory: 3.3625 MB (Peak: 3.6598 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-28 18:27:04 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS