Oh and let's not forget another lesson from and because of Detroit: Low bidder capitalism does not work and quality sells itself.

Curtis

SRC,

I am curious to know more about your building system. More specifically the assembly process. Do you build wall, floor, and roof panels in the factory or is it built of single components on site in the time frame you described? It sounds like it must be somehow panelized. What size buildings are you generally producing?

Gabel

Gentlemen:

Here we go again.

Whit Holder posed interesting questions that I could take deep offense at since he essentially calls me a liar, but I won't. No Whit, the tolerances I mentioned are not CNC program tolerances, they are finished product tolerances. Yes, this is the real world. Yes, I have personally used micrometers and theodolites to confirm tolerances in the factory and the jobsite. The glulams we use are made in the most modern glulam factories in the world using fully automated four sided rotating presses, German 4 head planers with 12 blades per head, and fire-rated waterproof melamine adhesives. Should I apologize for that? Most of the wood comes from Scandanavia, a very interesting subject all by itself. These manufacturer's have strictly enforced QC programs. More importantly, my company, which is not a small one, has QC procedures in place in its own factories and jobsites to monitor and remedy the inevitable tolerance problems that creep in. Japanese clients are unreasonable about quality, and they check everything themselves. I am not exaggerating when I talk about 1/64" tolerances. You might find it interesting that the single largest obstacle to maintaining tolerances is sawdust, so cleanliness at the plant is very important. Some plants do better than others. Perhaps you will think me arrogant again? If so, remember that I am not talking about a traditional timber frame, but a consumer product. I am not asking you to buy it or even like it. It is just another building system, so please don't take offense. If you want to take the time, Whit, I can arrange for you to visit one of the plants in Japan next time your are in the country and you can confirm with your own micrometer if this is the "real world" or not.

The biggest obstacle to maintaining jobsite tolerances and schedule is one that every one of you that works in the field no doubt experiences frequently: concrete and AB's. I would greatly appreciate ANY ADVICE you gentlemen can share with me about how to deal with these problems in the US and Canada effectively.

Scott took offense at the words "call yourself master." Sorry Scott, you have it wrong. I wrote that "I would apologize and call you master" when all your joints were perfectly 90 degrees. This was in response to Emmett's taking offense because he interpreted my comments as disparaging traditional timber frames as not being precision made. Once again, my product is not a handmade frame, with handmade tolerances, but a factory produced consumer product. Apples and oranges, IMO.

I don't follow The first paragraph of Milton's comments, but I would very much like to understand it. Perhaps he would be kind enough to rephrase?

Every building is erected by people, Milton, so yes, a great deal of thought goes into the people involved, and their welfare. I suspect I am not grasping the entire meaning of your statement.

Regarding CPM schedules and site tolerances, and the rigors of the jobsite, let me explain my background. The men of my family have been carpenters since before the boat from England to North Carolina. My father has a degree in geology, but worked as a carpenter and jobsite superintendent his entire career. I worked as a laborer pulling nails out of concrete forms on his jobsites during summer break as a young boy (there was a time when such was possible). I completed the carpenter's apprentice program and became a union carpenter in Las Vegas, Nevada, where I grew up. I have worked on concrete, steel and wood buildings in the Nevada deserts in 120 degree temperatures facing 30 mph winds full of blowsand. I payed my own way through college (civil engineering) working as a self-employed carpenter and cabinetmaker on the Wasatch front where the weather can be very chilly and it snows, a lot. While a student, I designed and built two timber truss bridges for the Utah Forest Service, the first was 24 feet, and the other 64 feet. Both DF K trusses secured with M&T joints and white oak drawpegs, wide enough for two bulls to walk abreast, but not wide enough for a Ford Pinto (that should date it).

I received a masters degree in structural engineering from the University of Tokyo. I worked for a large general contractor in Tokyo for ten years, and participated in managing several projects in various locations in Japan. Subsequently, I worked as a project manager on construction projects in Guam, Bangkok, and London. I have worked as a project manager in the US for 15 years, the last five years in Ohio. So yes, I do know what it is like to work on the jobsite. I do know what it is like to create and then follow a CPM schedule. I do know the pain of a strained back working to lay roof sheathing in blowing snow. I have experienced true terror holding onto the brace of a tilt-up panel swinging from a walking crane in high winds, all the while praying to God fervently that the picking eyes won't pull out. You all have similar experiences, I am sure.

Milton's comment about GM and "low bidder capitalism" is interesting. I don't pretend to be an expert or have special knowledge, but while working in Ohio, I had the opportunity to work for Honda, Toyota, and suppliers to GM. This gave me the opportunity to speak in depth over months of time with former managers of GM and Ford, and with plant managers supplying products to GM and Ford from the factories I was working on. Based on the things I learned from these men, it would seem that low-bidder capitalism is not the problem, but rather dishonest abuse of suppliers, and disregard for quality when even a penny in profits can be realized. Very enlightening discussions about supply contracts. I feel sorry for the honest people at GM & Ford that suffer because of short-sighted management.

Gabel asked about panelization. In the case where the shear wall/exterior skin sheathing, roof, and floor sheathing and insulation needs to be installed along with the frame in the 1.5 days I mentioned, the panels are cut and wall insulation glued to the panels in the factory. They are not SIPs. Sometimes, however, clients want glass insulation, due to lower cost. This naturally extends the schedule, but the enclosure is completed on time nonetheless. It rains a lot in Japan, so quick, reliable enclosure is important. Of course, Japan has no monopoly on inclement weather, and the same features should be advantagous in the US.

The key to making all this work precisely as planned is careful planning. We have an AutoCad based design program that is linked to a structural design module and CNC module. It costs way too much money to make, but it works pretty well. After receiving dimensioned layout drawings from the architect, an operator typically spends four hours inputting data. This requires talent and experience. The program determines the member sizes and dimensions, and connectors to be used, and also performs the structural calcs and paperwork necessary for submittal automatically. It also creates the erection drawings, cutting list and specs automatically. The CNC data, also created automatically, is sent to the factory via the internet, where the parts are cut, usually in about 2 hours for a normal residence. Size can vary. The average size is around 1,400 sf, I think, but we have several regular retail and franchise restaurant customers that want bigger frames 6,000 sf plus. It depends. Two stories is most common, but three is not unusual.

The erection process is fascinating, but may be repulsive to many of the traditionalists in this forum. Most connections are made using metal connectors hidden in the members and secured with 13mm steel drift pins. There are some mortise and tenon joints used, mostly at wind columns, but these are usually added just for convenience in positioning and to make the carpenters that are accustomed to M&T joints feel comfortable, since M&T timber frames still make up the majority of residential wood construction in Japan.

Columns are erected first. Beams drop onto the connectors and are secured intially by gravity and the interlock of the pre-installed connectors and pins. The joints are locked in place by driving in a second drift pin at the beam. The ends of DPs are knurled for an interference fit, so once in place, they will not vibrate out. Roof frames go together using hidden steel plate connectors and DPs. Roofs are not usually true trusses, since traditional Japanese timber framing abhors connections in tension. Of course, you are all aware of the reasoning behind that logic. In any case, things go together very quickly and precisely.

The system is designed so that, in the case of the average house (commercial projects not included), two guys on ladders or scaffolding can erect all the parts. However, a truck crane is usually used, and indeed is necessary for the 1.5 day erection period I mentioned.

The last project I visited was in April, and was a large restaurant in Nasu Shiobara. It was erected by a first-time subcontractor using a hydro crane. The crew were veterans of many decades of fabricating and erecting traditional timber frames, and so all brought the usual tools: squares, chisels, slicks, planes, kakeya (large wooden mallets) and handsaws in anticipation of making jobsite adjustments. The only tools they actually used during erection (aside from levels, plumb bobs, and drills etc for dealing with naughty anchor bolts, "by others") was a hammer. Just a hammer, not a tape measure, not a square, not even a pencil, much less a chisel or saw. This is the real world. I have pictures if you want to see them. This first-time crew had nothing but positive things to say about the structure. Why not?: it was a beautiful, satisfying frame; it made them look very professional; they were finished ahead of schedule and under budget; and the client was pleased.

It is a very nice restaurant with exposed beams and columns made for an old customer. I think most people that love timber frames would like the appearance and atmosphere of the completed structure. Part of that is a result of the beauty of the gluelams which exhibit no purple gluelines, few knots, and are planed in the factory to a very shiny, luxurious (IMO) surface (German rotary planers, not fixed-blade "super finisher" machines). I suspect it was a little higher in cost per square meter than a stick-framed building with a concealed structure would have been, but not by much.

We think there is a market for this in the US. What do you think?

I really would like to hear your solutions for concrete and anchor bolts. Please.

Your most humble and obedient servant.

Stan

The best system I know of for placing those pesky anchor bolts precisely where the carpenter wants and needs them is the 'Hilti Epoxy Cigar' which is not a demented party favor, but a rather ingenious and inexpensive system that depends only on the carpenter's ability to follow directions; drill the right-sized hole in the right place, put in the stuff, wait the appointed length of time (temperature dependant) and voila; an engineered connection with published values for shear and withdrawal.

I do not sell this system, but I sure have bought a it of them over the years. In metropolitan jurisdictions, Hilti will deliver AND INSTALL, to code and engineering spec. Especially useful in seismic country.

Remember what Ram Dass always used to say: 'Better Living Through Chemistry'

Joel:

Thank you for your reponse. This is one solution we definitely plan to use. My strucutral engineer here in Southern California tells me that glass anchors (epoxy) such as those by Hilti can be used in California for residential applications. However, I know from experience that not all jurisdictions in all states permit their use without a PE stamp and in commercial applications at least, pullout tests. In other words, the extra cost and delay of epoxy anchors in some states may be problematic.

I have seen widgets in Simpon's catalog for positioning AB's in formwork. Have you used those?

What is the best way to get subs to put in the AB's properly the first time, or is it entirely impossible?

How best to ensure subs form and pour a level concrete face at the proper elevation to receive the bottom plate/sill?

Thanks,

Stan

Best way to get those anchors right where you want them, is, unfortunately, to do it yourself.

Every one of us has stories about concrete subs and the kinds of tape measures ('what are all those little marks for?) that they apparently carry.

This is of course an unfair indictment of an entire industry. I know from direct, tragic and expensive experience how difficult it is to to place AB receivers in precisely the right spots.

The Hilti guys (and again, I do not sell this stuff) have a terrific web site with design software and published values for all manner of mechanical fasteners in concrete, not just miracle epoxy. I think when installed to spec, no further engineering certification is required. Of couse, this means you have to buy the more expensive components (including anchor rod, washers and nuts) from Hilti. Still less expensive than designing each connection from scratch, and then getting it inspected.

I have also installed and interfaced with more than a few of the Simpson products, most notably the HPAHD22, which is designed to hook around the top course of rebar, and then is nailed (yes, it is primitive) to the non-visible (exterior?) face of the timber or gluelam column. Again, forgiving installation (you can bend it) and published performance values. Good stuff, and good company to deal with if you are needing some custom fabricated hardware. Not cheap, but why should it be?

Best way to get any sub (or General, or Architect) to perform to your standards? Be very clear about the standards, be willing to pay more than whatever the prevailing low bid per yard is, be willing to delay a job to tear out bad work, and be willing to commit to using the same sub over and over again, providing the standards are met (thereby amortizing your training expenses over more than one job).

PS You're not the first person who has had to ask Curtis to expand his comments. And you will not be the first person to discover that it is worth it.

HI Stan:
Your CV stands uncontested.
I am a carpenter.
If I was to try to fine tune a highly evolved sales, design, procurement, production, delivery, erection system and improve market sensitivity and share based on geographic cultural preference or perceived fashion I would integrate specialty consultants to your system.
Real estate development design and thematic design and timber frame design may not be in one person or firm so team building may be required.
Knowing what will sell and how best to sell it are also specialty trades.

Since capital must be satified the low bidder (often) dispenses with quality to make a bid which was calculated poorly. This only happens once in a good system but the damage is done. Abusing suppliers is the best way to eliminate qualified contractors that know what the work really costs.

Concrete: Specify reasonable tolerances based on field experiences and design your systems to accomodate this tolerance. Pay the price for the right contractor. Develop post-casting alignment systems that can be tuned to your tolerance.

AB: ditto. even if you place it yourself.

In my opinion.

Wishing you continued success.

Curtis

Stan,
Apparently you have some difficulty understanding our American English language as we practice it. If indeed we were reading your words as you apparently tried to phrase them then we would not have taken offense.
You seem to want to champion your new precision building system. Fine. What you have not divulged is it's cost compared to other methods.
You have expecially omitted any environmental considerations to answer the question " is it green " (translate envirionment friendly and made of renewable materials). Apparently it is made in Japan. As other world manufacturers have done in recent years is a plant coming to North America anytime soon ?
Most locales have or are in the process of adopting the IBC with few local "traps" for residential construction. If you can document that you exceed these standards then satisfying local permit folks and their inspectors should be a breeze.
The demand for new housing is a business environment the industry is hard pressed to satisfy with quality, durability, low maintenance and affordable cost. The green issue is very real in some locales by social pressure and regulation. Whether or not the fare paying public will be willing to spend for a manufactured product remains to be seen. Here come the marketing folks with their hype. Where else but in America can you purchase a 12oz can of liquid refreshment which has no nurtrional value of any kind ?
Good luck
deralte

Gentlemen:

Sorry if I gave offense: I think I have made it VERY CLEAR that none was intended. Several people in this forum have ignored the literal meaning of my words as plainly written, and chosen to interpret my words as implying denegration. Please reread.

Case in point. Emmett wrote "You have expecially omitted any environmental considerations to answer the question " is it green. " In fact, a careful review of the posts will clearly prove that NO ONE has asked that question. Let us review the relevant posts.

On 10/6 Jonathan posted this statement (it is not a question), the only one so far mentioning enironmental issues:

" At the end of the day housebuilding can be high volume assembling of characterless impersonal indentikit units, wasteful of materials and energy, working on short term fashion and profit goals. Or alternatively .... using or recycling materials that can be obtained from sustainable sources and not harmful to our environment and not demanding vast amounts of energy .."

Note that this is not a question; it is a statement. He did not solicit a response, but I did respond with the following: "Perhaps someone with professional industry expereince will take the time to enlighten him about the numbers? "

Sadly, no one on the forum has decided to take up the task of informing Jonathan. I do not have the time to explain the obvious. Moreover, there are mountains of published literature with hard, verifiable data by governments and private organizations around the world that plainly prove that mass production of wood products under responsible regulatory controls is more efficient and more "green" than other method. I am not interested in disputing this with people that have not done their homework. Ask the folks at BREEM or LEED, or Green Globes. In any case, please do not accuse me of "especially omitting any environmental considerations to answer the question " is it green " (translate envirionment friendly and made of renewable materials)." The question was simply not asked in previous posts, while the answer is available to anyone that looks for it.

In any case, the "green" issue is very important to us, and we intend to spend the time and money necessary to get our product certified. NAHB has a new system that seems less biased against wood products than LEED, so I think we will probably go with it. Anyone have experience with the various certification systems?

I have not compared costs with other methods in the US as of yet. Once again, the question has not been asked, even by Emmett (read his post). Moreover, product is not currently for sale in the US or Canada, so discussions about cost at this time would be premature.

In response to Emmett's direct question about a plant, yes, we already have precut machinary in the US, but it is not currently operating pending ICC-ES review of the connectors. In any case, we will open multiple plants in the US. We are also considering constructing a glulam factory in Canada.

Re IBC, as we intend to build our first structures in California, IBC compliance is not something that can be avoided. We have spent a lot of money having this issued researched by industry experts and have concluded that it will not be a problem. In fact, after ICC-ES review, we expect fewer difficulties with code compliance and local review than do traditional timber frame buildings currently experience in California (not exactly a hotbed for timber framing). I don't understand what the "traps" Emmett mentioned are, but I would appreciate clarification, since Emmett indicates that my understanding of "American English as we practice it" is so poor. Damn, I do hate being a retard....

Emmett's observation that "The demand for new housing is a business environment the industry is hard pressed to satisfy with quality, durability, low maintenance and affordable cost." is very true, in my opinion. Our research shows that the North American consumer is very different from the Japanese consumer in that the Japanese consumer is willing to pay extra money for a superior structural system, even if it is hidden behind drywall, whereas the typical consumer in North America is not. This is entirely consistent with my experience in Japan in high-rise, office and hotel construction also. In fact 90+ percent of our product sold in Japan is entirely concealed behind finishes regardless of the beauty of the wood. Interestingly, I was recently told that more and more clients are requesting design changes during construction to expose the frame upon seeing the wood before finishes are applied.

I assume that the people in this forum that actually sell timber frames (instead of just pontificate about them) get few requests from consumers to hide the frame, but instead experience more cases where their clients demand to have the frame exposed. Anyway, there are cultural differences that will need to be dealt with, but nothing that has not been done before in other industries.

I have no doubt that the North American consumer is willing to pay for what Emmett calls a "manufactured product." They do it every day and in every way. In fact, I believe that traditional timber frames are harder to sell than my product, simply based on cost and construction time and hard data. After all, more tract houses are sold in NA than any other type, but most of those are horrific cookie-cutter mass produced units. But how many timber framers do you know that have the systems and horsepower to build 30,000 custom post & beam units?

I came to this forum to help find an architect because it was recommended to me. Instead of finding an architect, some, like Emmett, seem to expect me to "sell it" and defend it. BS. I have been contacted by some professional timber framers (yes, there are businessmen that make and sell timber frames that are interested in selling a product that can be erected and enclosed in 1.5 days, costs less than a traditional timber frame in materials and labor for the same floorplan, and that any PE can easily specify and any building department review), but I do not expect a single soul in this forum to buy, use, or even like my product, so I have ZERO interest in promoting it to you. I have simply answered questions, but most those have nothing to do with finding an architect. Cut me a break.

Stan

stan,
I've read this thread through a few times now, and wanted to write in a say that I appreciate the time you take to write your posts.... It may be easier to write more on a "hot" topic but all the same it's good to see someone who is really following up on thier post(many folks ask a question and then disappear....) The topic is out of my knowlege range, being a canadian and only recently back into traditional timberframing, perhaps the polar opposite of what you're doing.... so I've learned a bunch reading what you've written. Some of your content is a bit on the sharp side, but there is plenty of information there and again I appreciate the diversity you present to the forum. Good luck on that architect.