Jim: I posted in the Barns and Trad section regarding this topic, sort of. I have a barn that has some rot to the bottoms of the post and they are too short. I had theorized that I could scarph in additional length to all six posts in the 18x28' barn. Consensus has been that having all posts extended would be too unstable although one respondent thought it would be a "a fun project" but not one they would undertake.

The posts are currently 14 feet with a second floor hung at half way. I want to use this as a wood working shop and thus would like the first floor to be somewhat higher. A pony wall of sorts is the leading solution but I would like your opinion of extending posts instead.

Thanks in advance

Scotty

Why not?

Ok, I'll bite,

What problem is it that you see with fixing a carpentry problem,

with carpentry ?

Well, I'm glad someone actually did it...cause I think it's a great skill to know.
And now we know!
Yay.

So what would you suggest instead?

I don't like the idea of bolts that could draw moisture / condensation and cause rot or nasty black stains. Scarf joints are not that hard to cut. If the clients are to cheap to pay for quality joinery, I don't want to work for them anyway.

So tell us, oh great timber framing master......

Tell us how to fix these rotten post bottom......

Tell us how the great and all knowing timber framer of Montana would fix them.......

When you are trying to repair a structure there are some rules to the restoration process that we here in the northeast use.
I can't speak for others but only for what I've been taught by the men who do it everyday from a very well known and respected restoration company.
One rule is to try as best you can to save as much of the historic fabric as you can.
Why would you cut away more than needed anyhow?
It would be just more work.
Every restoration job should include keeping the water out when it's done, of course that goes without saying.
Some restoration jobs rules are that you only repair what is there to the same type, size, and style of what was there when it was first built.
Sometimes we see things that we'd do differently now, but if we're restoring then we restore was was there, not improve the way it was constructed.
If we improve it then we are not restoring it, we're improving it. And this changes the character of the original structure.
These are all things that we have to weigh and see what we need to do, want to do, or should do. It sometimes depends on what the customer wants, depending on the intended future use of the building.
Some people don't care if it is truly the "same" as it was. And therefore you don't have to do it the same as the first framer did.

Scotty, if you want to add scarfs to the bottom of your post to make it taller, for your workshop, then I don't see any problem with you doing that.
As long as it is done correctly and that means that each post's new bottom is secured to some part of the foundation to prevent it from moving should any outside force, like wind, be present.

If your frame is stable then there shouldn't be a lot of thrust at the post base. And if there is any then the proper joint and pegs should be used to resist this thrust. And if it's secured to the foundation you'll probably overcome that thrust anyhow.

Hopefully you'll be able to create the workshop you want.....

Jim Rogers

Hi,

I like the way that Derek challenges everyone hard on important issues to which there are probably no right or wrong answers.

Based on hard fact STUFF observation I would comment as follows :-

In domestic buildings the process of repair to an "as like" previous condition is rarely seen. Most interventions are made using an approach or with materials that are quite different from the original. If the original approach failed why should this process be repeated ? For example, when sills rot out in a cottage then it might be righted and then simply underbuilt in brick now relying instead on support from mid (chair) rails. Sometimes (but rarely) a new sill will be seen to be inserted at a higher elevation cutting off rotted post bottoms and making new tenons in remaining sound material. This can be seen at the original Pembroke Cottage in Hampshire where the front sill is now 10" higher than the rear. A replica of this cottage was built by Tom Musco several years ago and now stands in Royalston, Mass. and thus one option to preserve a building pattern might not be to repair the old but to simply build a new one.

In "open" buildings like barns where there is little supplementary stiffening or support to be gained from infill walls then the problems of righting leaning buildings is much more complex to resolve. I observed a leaning barn close to home being righted and repaired by a world renowned carpenter (yes you know him Will !) where a complete long wall had short stub scarfed additions made to post and wall stud bottoms. My thoughts on seing this were exactly as per Derek i.e. that there is now a plane of weakness here that might or might not survive a gale. What was previously failing in a slow yielding fashion might now succumb to a catastrophic failure.

I agree with Tom Cundiff's observations about metal connectors but in reality this is probably the most common repair method adopted in old buildings - especially the use of worn down wrought iron cart tyre strakes which do a marvelous job of reinforcing the English Tying joint. Up to 50% of English timber buildings now feature this now historic but quite dissimilar material repair or reinforcement method.

I have seen conservation award winning buildings where badly detriorated beams have been filled with a patchwork quilt of repairs that demonstrated the carpenters prowess but left the heart sinking in despair over the visual impact of the finished piece. Old and new don't seem to sit well together. Over enthusiastic repairs can and does result in "delisting" or downgrading listings of important historic buildings, once again made by timber frame conservation specialist of such standing and world renown that would make your jaw drop.

This week I spent some time at Farnham Castle and observed that an ancient carved capital aisle post is all that remains of a Norman hall (circa 1100's) with the whole hall building having now effectively morphed into something completely different now made mainly from brick and stone. It would clearly not be practical to rebuild the former hall on its current site but it just might be possible to survey and collect enough fragmentary design information about the old timber hall to recreate this hall in virtual space by judicious employment of CAD or other visualization techniques.

The renaisssance of "intensive" repair of timber buildings being seen today is not new. Oft times a complete new front will have been applied to a building possibly to transform its appearance or simply to make good a previously failed or badly deteriorated wall. Is this right or wrong ?

It is worth taking the opportunity to remind ourselves that the timber frame wonder of the world - Westminster Hall hammer beam roof is not the original roof with the previous aisled hall (a bit like Farnham Castle) having served for 250 years before being torn down and replaced with a new superimproved model (incidentally made in Farnham, Surrey).

We do what we can given the constraints that exist but please don't let anyone fool you into thinking that there is a right or wrong way to do anything. Shutting down the brain and following a prescriptive rule book is not the answer.

I don't think that we have yet reached Derek's "50 ways to leave a lover" but the strength of this forum appears to lie in the challenging and informative contributions made by all.

Regards

Ken Hume

That's ok Derek, we'll discuss it further on the Forestry Forum..........