NH
Good points. I believe that approach to TF worked well for the forefathers, but I’m not sure it would work today. If you are building non-code compliant buildings that would be fine, but unfortunately I do not believe that approach would support today’s building codes. For the most part, any code compliant frame will rely on a full shear wall (conventional framing/plywood), some shear resistance do to SSP, braces acting in both tension/compression or a combination of the above. I believe it would be difficult to design/engineer a stand alone TF that relies on braces acting in compression only. I know this point can be argued at length, but I do not believe it is feasible to design/build a standalone TF that does not include pegged braces or another lateral load carrying system. I know the TF’s the forefathers built are still standing, but it is getting increasing difficult to use that approach today.

I am not a true student of historic frames, but many/most that I have looked at included pegged braces. Actually, many of the ‘historic’ house frames that I have seen in southern NE I would classify as post and plank frames. These frames are lightly braced, certainly lightly braced by today’s standard, and relied on vertical oak siding boards for stiffness. There is no doubt that siding adds significant stiffness to a timber frame, how much is debatable. I try to take advantage of stiffness when available. If I’m nailing siding, or SSP’s, to the outside of the frame, I’m going to nail to the braces, as it does add stiffness. If I build a frame that was flexible enough such that the nails worked loss in the siding, I would stiffen it up.

Thanks,
Pete