This discussion brings up a question which I have pondered over in my mind on several occassions. What does a structural analysis (FEA) look like with braces double pegged at each end. Intuition tells me this eliminates the "hinge" action that can result at the peg now (I think that one is obvious) and it seems that the destructive nature that braces transmit to the post/beam connection could potentially be minimized by having the increased rigidity of the brace connection taking more of whatever load is being put on the frame. I understand double-pegging on most frames as they are designed causes other issues such as the need to increase brace tenon size, etc. in order to accomodate the additional peg, but if you design to accomodate that (larger tenon, smaller dia. pegs), are there any other reasons that a double pegged brace would not be an advantage. Yes, I understand that in extremely severe conditions (i.e., earthquake, tornado, etc), a "hinged" frame could possibly survive better than a fully rigid frame, but it seems that under more normal conditions, a more rigid frame could better eliminate frame movement and the bad things that go along with it. I am very interested if anyone has modeled this quantitatively or has some real world experience. Great discussion so far......hope I didn't ruin it!