Back in the day I used to do a bunch of modeling using the same sort of models that TF engineers use (I think)(finite difference and element models). The problem with those models is whether they are valid or not, that is whether they can match 'real world data.' There are generally a lot of assumptions within these models, the simplest often being the most problematic. That is, that the materials are homogeneous and isotropic, and in the case of TF that all of the connections are hinged (is that right??).

The reason that I bring this up, is that in another post it was mentioned that heavy wind loading was pushing the post in bending. It wasn't mentioned whether or not the post will actually break or not, which is a fairly important point. My initial reaction was, that I just can't see a post breaking in half from a brace pushing on it from wind loading (in a frame based on traditional designs, that is without all kinds of weird stuff).

Which finally gets to the point, I'm sure that the models used in structural engineering have been validated on bridges made of steel and concrete (both homogeneous and isotropic) and so on, but are they really valid on timber frames. Has anyone ever plugged a bunch of European cathedrals, English barns, American colonials, or Japanese temples (with no diagonal bracing by the way!) and found that the model shows all of those buildings should be lying in heaps on the ground. If the models haven't been validated by confirming and trying to understand how the model explains (or doesn't) buildings that we know work, then perhaps the industry needs to take a step back. FE analysis can certainly be a very valuable tool, I'm just asking how well we understand it in our world of traditional joinery.

I'd love to hear back some from engineers, as I have no experience on this other than looking at Ed Levin's pictures of wiggly timber frames.

Thanks,
Brad