Conference 7.286::home_work

    
    I have noticed a company called "Peg and Beam" building a house
    on Shirley/Townsend Rd. right near the Townsend line.  From the
    road, the house looks like it's probably about the same as post
    and beam.  Don't know anything about them, though.
    
    						- Rich

    We built a home with MP&B 4 yrs ago. The only real problem I had
    with them was that they could'nt put in a plumb window. With the
    constant changes in their management and lower supervision it 
    was a real battle to get them to fix them. 

    Other than the window problem, the crew was very quick and did
    good work. 
     
    One problem that plagued many buyers of MP&B was that MP&B did 
    not give fair estimates on how much a finished home would cost.
    Apparently that may be still occuring. We did a refinancing recently
    with Chicopee Co-op Bank, the bank lawyer said that they are not
    handling new MP&B because of all the law suits. 
    
    The lawsuits seem to be centered around MP&B misrepresenting 
    finished costs to buyers. 
                   
    I was going to put up a post & beam family room, but now I am 
    convinced that I know enough how to fake the look that I am
    going with stick-built. It is much cheaper.
                                       
    I know of a couple companies. The one charges about $12 sq/ft,
    and he was the cheapest I've found. I will try to remember to
    look them up for you.
    
    Steve 
                      

    How are you going to fake the MP&B look with stick built?  
    Will the rafters match the rest of your house?  I wanted
    my addition to match the rest of the house so that's why
    I was thinking of going with them.  They want $18,000 for
    a 20x18 foot story and a half cape.
    
    I'm refinancing my Chicopee loan now too.  Besides the bank
    not financing their work, some of the contractors I used won't
    do work on their houses either.
    
    I didn't think they did too bad in estimating finishing costs
    for me.  The problems were mostly that they were completely
    unorganized 4 years ago, but most of the mistakes they made
    ended up saving me money in the end.
    

    Wow, at $18,000 that comes out to $50 sq/ft for a weathertight
    shell. Four years ago I did my house for $35 sq ft complete.
    
    We did do a lot of the work ourselves, so that saved a lot
    of money. But even with inflated prices from four years ago
    I bet you could knock that $50 sq ft by subcontracting the
    whole thing. 
    
    The post & beamer for $12 sq ft would give you a mortise/tenon
    type construction in oak. He also does pine. Granted from
    last year he is probably charging more and you would have to
    dig up contractors to weather it in.
    
    Steve

    No it doesn't.  It comes to $28 sq ft.  So did you find this
    guys name?  I'm interested in it.
          
    (A story and a half cape has a full second floor with 3/4 of the floor
    area usable.)
    

    FYI:  MP&B has entered into a form of bankrupcy whereby
    all the money they make goes into a fund to pay off their
    debts.  My lawyer who had her office, her house, and her
    mother's house built by them told me this.  She said they're
    still ok to deal with as long as the dispursement schedule
    is handled carefully.
    

    I am sorry it took so long to reply, I still couldn't find the 
    name and telephone number. But I did finally remember what 
    his name and town is. It is Robert Slack in Blackstone, MA.
    There are two Slack's by that name in town, the numbers are
    883-3037 and 883-7286. The first number is always busy when I
    try to call and the second just rings. Try them in the evening
    and you may have better luck.
    
    There is another post and beamer that has advertised in Fine
    Homebuilding magazine:
    
    			E.F. Bufton & Sons, Builders Inc.
    			Box 581W 
    			S. Lancaster, MA
    
    			365-7633
    
    
    Good Luck, Steve

    re: 0
    I know of another builder for Post and Beam homes.  It's American
    Post and Beam and the guy to contact is Mike Vantine in Dunstable.
    His number is (617) 649-6330.  He will do all the contracting or
    just part of it.  It'll be up to you.
    
    Lorraine
    

    
    I WAS WONDERING IF ANYONE HAS UNDERTAKEN THE JOB OF DISMANTLING
    AND RECONSTRUCTING A POST AND BEAM STRUCTURE??
    
    SPECIFICALLY I HAVE AN EIGHTEEN BY TWENTY-TWO FOOT SHED THAT I
    WANT TO MOVE ABOUT TWENTY MILES. HOW DO I TAKE IT APART?(DRIVE 
    OUT THE PEGS OR DRILL THEM OUT AND REPLACE?)
    
    DON

    for what it's worth.....
        
    i had the opportunity to observe the dismantling of a post and beam
    house.... the people doing the job used a hand sledge and punch
    to drive the pegs out..  since they saved the pegs, i would assume
    that they planned to use them in the re-assembly of the structure.

    
    I hope that when they did the dismantling of the structure that
    they marked all the pegs and beams so that they could put them back
    into their respective places...  This would make re-assembly much
    easier...
    
    						.dave.

    Does anyone out there have any experience with an outfit called
    "Lindal Cedar Homes" or a subsidiary called "Justus Solid Cedar
    Log Homes"?  They have some very nice looking kit/prefab post &
    beam cedar homes.  Saw a model in Kennebunkport ME last Sunday - 
    nice stuff if you're into contemporary wood structures.  But 
    they're not cheap & an independent reference would sure be nice 
    before I commit.
    
    Thanks
    Jim
    

    no direct personal involvement although we did look at them before
    deciding to have our own custom design built by a g.c. friend -
    however, a friend of mine has a Lindal that he put up from one of
    their kits.  Looks pretty good, I think he gave them a positive
    reference when we were still undecided - the only thing about it
    (which was a factor in our decision) is that since he did most of
    the work himself, it is still not completely finished in all details,
    and they've been living there for about 5 years now - this summer
    he started expanding the garage and adding a deck despite some
    unfinished interior details...
    
    we decided to have a contractor build our new home because we realized
    the risk that we too would end up living in a never-finished house
    if we tried to do it ourselves.  It wasn't really qualms about Lindal
    (or Acorn, or any other) quality, just our own value judgement.
    
    I will check with him for any other comments or feedback, and post
    anything relevant here.
    

    I looked into Lindal Cedar Homes and found that they have a very
    nice product (if you like the natural wood look).  They just built
    one in Hopkinton, MA between Rt 135 and Lake Whitehall.  This is
    a builder's home and he said that the cost of the wood/supplies
    is lower than any lumber yard around here.  I guess the main reason
    is that everything is cedar and not many places around here carry
    cedar (studs, joists, windows).
    
    They provide you with all of the supplies... you have to supply
    the labor, site prep, finish work, plumbing, etc.  The company has a list
    of people who work in this area that they can recommend.  They have
    an office on Rt 9 in Natick just behind the Scandanavian Design
    furniture store.  The manager's name is Dom.
    
    -al

    For those who may be interested, there is a post and beam house
    being built in Hudson.  It caught my attention because it's the
    first one I've seen being built since I've moved to New England
    (and it's on the way to work, so I can see the day-to-day progress).
    
    It is on Brooks St. in Hudson (off of East Main).  The frame is
    already up;  I assume some sort of sheathing will go up next.
    (but what kind?  Anybody know what the options are?)
    
    -Gene

    Just about any type of sheathing could be used, depending on the
    design of the frame.  But the current vogue is to use a sheathing
    called "stress skin".  
    
    Stress skin is a sheathing "sandwich" composed of:
    
      o a layer of interior surface board (usually sheetrock)
      o a layer of interior backer board (if the interior surface is 
        sheetrock ... so that you can hang pictures on your walls),
      o a layer of foam insulation (either expanded polystyrene or
        extruded polyeurethane), 
      o a layer of exterior sheathing.

    Glue and foam hold it all together.
        
    The skins come standard in 48"x96" and 48"x120".  It seems that
    you can get them considerably longer through a few companies.
    Useful specialty pieces are available (e.g. eave soffits).
    And I'm sure you could special order just about any (reasonable)
    size.
    
    The skins are as thick as the foam for the desired R-value
    requires.  I think that there was an R-26 limit on the polyeurethane
    foam but that you can get up to R-38 with the styro-foam.
    Caveat Emptor: there has been some concern about the deterioration
    of foam products used for "blown-in" insulation.  While stress
    skins have been used for insulating commercial freezers for 
    quite some time, it has not been used long enough for housing to 
    determine whether such problems exist with this application.

    The stress skins are applied (with great big spikes) to the
    exterior of the p&b frame.  The frame is assumed to have
    48" o.c. posts, etc.  It goes up nearly as fast as tradition
    CDX sheathing.  Windows and doors are installed in precut
    (or site cut) holes in the stress skin.  Then any gaps between
    the window frame or door frame and the skin are "foamed".
    
    The exterior is nicely sheathed. The interior is nicely sheetrocked
    (presuming you like exposed posts and beams).  And you have a
    continuous and very complete insulation envelope.

    It's an interesting new building technology.

	I've seen the "stress skins" mentioned in -.1 being made in the
	local sawmill here in Hinesburg, VT.  The sawmill (Clifford Lumber)
	has a sister company called Vermont Frames who design and build
	post and beam houses.  They also make the stress skin stuff both
	for the houses that they build and also to sell to any interested
	parties.

	I didn't use the stress skins myself when I did the top part of my
	cordwood saltbox house with post and beams.  I figured that I would
	get too much waste because of the pitch of the roof and the odd 
	shapes that a saltbox calls for near the roof line.  I just used
	plain old plywood sheething.  Of course I had to add some additional
	studding inside the post and beams.

	-gary

    The stress skins approach sounds pretty neat.  I'm not really a
    fan of the post & beam "look", but I know of one thing that could
    covert me - what's the cost in comparison to today's standard framing
    and sheathing?
    
    Do you have to go in afterwards and remove material to run pipes
    and wires?
    
    Gene
    

    RE .3
    
    I looked into P&B several years ago when contemplating a new home.
    I too was going to use stress skin because of all the adavantages
    that I could see in energy efficentcy. I finally gave up and built
    conventional when after considerable digging into REAL COSTS with
    a builder who built both conventional and P&B. The P&B was going
    to run approx $15-$20 more per sq ft. In general electrical and
    plumbing costs are much much higher since installation of these
    is unconventional. P&B homes have many beautiful exposed beams and
    open areas with no place to run wires and pipes. Maine Post and
    Beam, a P&B builing supplier uses 2x4's inbetween the posts, for
    more of a more conventional type of construction. But now you have
    only a 2x4 wall, yecch. Also I have heard that Maine P&B as a
    company will not give you accurate cost estimates as to what things
    will really cost to finish.
    
    							Dave
    

>    Maine Post and Beam, a P&B builing supplier uses 2x4's inbetween the
>     posts, for more of a more conventional type of construction.
>     But now you have only a 2x4 wall, yecch.
 
    That's not true.  They've never used 2x4's.  Always 2x6's.
       
>     Also I have heard that Maine P&B as a
>    company will not give you accurate cost estimates as to what things
>    will really cost to finish.
 
    It's the responsibility of the homeowner/contractor to get estimates
    on the prep and finish costs.  If you believe everything MP&B tells
    you, you'll be in trouble from the start.
        

    Lindal Cedar Homes also sells P&B homes.  The finished look is a
    bit more refined than the Maine P&B because they are using laminated
    beams instead of rough hewn.
    
    -al

    Some P&B builders dado wire runs on the exterior of the
    frame.  This makes the wiring fairly easy before the skins
    go on.  Unfortunately you have to have a very clear wiring
    design before they can cut the frame.  In addition, it's 
    probably a bit difficult to modify or rewire after the skins
    are up.  
   
    Part of the burden for ease of plumbing and wiring rests on
    the architect (or designer) of the house.  I've seen P&B
    designs that have been conscienciously laid out to reduce
    the need to run plumbing through the walls and place boxed in
    plumbing runs in inconspicuous locations.
    
    

    What's the problem with wiring a P&B house?  Why is it different
    than any other house, except that you use a longer drill bit?
    

    Because so much of a P&B/Stress Skin house can be "manufactured"
    off-site, I suspect that the cost of building the house shifts from local
    labor to manufactured materials.  Local labor costs reflect what
    the narrow local market will bear.  Manufactured material costs
    reflect what a broader market will bear.  Up until recently
    there have been few post and beam manufacturers or contracters.

    This may have created a situation in which the cost of the 
    manufactured materials went up further than the savings on
    local labor. Therefore the P&B house may cost more to construct in
    a cheap labor area than a conventional home.  But this still may
    leave open the opportunity to build a P&B home at competitive
    prices in an expensive labor market (such as metropolitan Boston).

    The other issue that hasn't been addressed is the energy savings
    due to the tight insulation envelope.  It would be interesting to
    compare the costs of both a conventional construction
    highly insulated house and the post and beam construction house
    built in a number of different markets. 
    
    I'm just taking a shot in the dark.  I have not made an exhaustive
    study of the matter.  Any other points-of-view?

    When you use stress skins to cover the exterior of a P&B
    frame you can create a rustic interior with completely exposed
    posts and beams.  The inside of the exterior walls is just the
    section of stress skin sheetrock layer the runs between the
    outside surfaces of the frame.  You have no exterior "stud walls"
    to hide the wiring and the plumbing.  You may still create interior
    walls and boxed in plumbing/wire runs.  You may still run stuff
    between and through the basement ceiling joists  (assuming that
    you don't want to finish the basement ceiling with exposed beams).
    This is where good design can overcome the minor difficulties
    presented by P&B.
    
    B.T.W. I don't mean to come off sounding like a P&B apologist.
    It's an interesting approach, but not the only one.
    

    Oh, OK.  You didn't mention stress skins in reply .7 that said
    wiring was more difficult.  I thought you just meant P&B.  I
    took "skins" to mean regular sheetrock.  Nevermind.
    

    "this Old House" is featuring the building of a P&B house, it's
    been on for the last few weeks, and is suppose to continue for at
    least one more show.
    
    
    
    
    Royce

    752
    THERE ARE A MULTITUDE OF THINGS TO PLAN FOR WHEN BUILDING A P&B.
    AND THE TYPE OF SKIN DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU WANT, AND HOW LONG YOU
    WANT THE PLACE TO STAND.
    
    I BUILT A MAINE P&B TWO YEARS AGO AND HAVEN'T REGRETTED DOING SO.
    
    OH YEA, I HEAT A 30X60 DORMERED CAPE WITH 3 CORD OF WOOD AND LESS
    THAN $200 IN OIL.
    
    MAINE P&B WAS VERY CLOSE ON THEIR ESTIMATES, BUT YOU HAVE TO ADD
    $ FOR ALL THE UPGRADES AND EXTRAS.
    
    YEA, I'D DO IT AGAIN!!
    
    

    I am about to start building a post & beam home. Our current choice
    (unless talked out of it) is 'Woodhouse' of Mansfield, PA.  Does
    anyone have any knowledge/comments about 'Woodhouse'?
    
    Thanks...Gary

>     plaster butts against the timbers.

    How did you sheetrock up to the timbers?  (How did you do the
    plastering without getting it on the timbers?)
    
    Sorry, I don't know anything about Woodhouse.  I can only advise
    you to find out the names of 3 people who have used them, and talk
    to them.
    

>    How did you sheetrock up to the timbers?  (How did you do the
>    plastering without getting it on the timbers?)
    

	They butt the sheetrock up to the timbers.  They got very little
	plaster on my timbers.  When the inevitable happened and the timbers
	pulled away from the sheetrock, I did either of two things; 1) In the
	places where there was less than a 1/4 inch pull-away I beaded a caulk
	line and filled it in.  2) in the instance of it pulling away more than
	1/4 inch ..... I left it alone.  Seriously, it gives it a rough-hewn
	look !   Live with a little imperfection in your life, its worth it 
	when you look at those beautifull timbers !


	Chuck    

>    	They butt the sheetrock up to the timbers.  

    You mean they didn't have to use joint compound where the sheetrock
    meets the wood?  They really cut the sheetrock that perfectly?
    

>    You mean they didn't have to use joint compound where the sheetrock
>    meets the wood?  They really cut the sheetrock that perfectly?
    

	In some places they did !  However, in some places they didn't but
	I personally don't think it came out real bad.  The "BEST" way to
	do a P&B is to use 'Stress-skin' panels (that's what they used for 
	my roof) throughout.  That way the sheetrock portion overlaps the
	Beams and you don't have to worry about cutting just right.


	
	They RIGHT way: (looking from above)


		
		--------------- --------------- -------------  
		|             | |             | |           |  Stress-skins
		--------------- --------------- -------------
			      ---             ---
			      | |             | |  Beams
			      ---             ---   
			    



	Chuck

    Maine P&B built my house about 5 years ago.  I put wood trim EVERYWHERE
    that sheetrock meets the wood.  It was a pain to do, but the shrinking
    wood doesn't show at all.  I added a MP&B style addition this year.
    This time instead of using trim, I covered the beams with masking
    tape and plastered right up to them.  Then I cut away the masking
    tape and excess plaster.  This was a lot easier than cutting all
    that trim.  But I'll know in 5 more years how it worked out.
    
    Sorry, this is supposed to be a note about Woodhouse, who it appears,
    nobody ever heard of.
    

If you don't have the stress-skin panels, and are going to plaster around the 
beams, try this:  Before the sheetrock goes up, tape wax paper ( actually, any 
kind of paper will do) against all the beams where the sheetrock will meet it,
then go ahead and put up the sheetrock and plaster.  The paper keeps any 
plaster from getting on the beams.  When the plaster is dry, use a razor knife 
to cut off the paper level with the plaster.  You leave a layer of paper 
between the sheetrock and the beam.

As the beams shrink, a gap will appear between the beam and the plaster, but as 
already noted, this looks fine.  The paper makes it so there is a clean gap.  
If you don't use the paper, then the plaster sticks to the beam, and cracks 
somewhere in the middle, leaving a ragged edge of plaster on the beam, and a 
ragged crack, which is very ugly.

Paul

    the cracks and spaces provide the house with "character" that is
    unique to each house.  i used paintable caulk to fill in the big
    gaps.  i tyoo have a maine p&b and love it.
    
    there are several p&b builders in the southern N.H. area.  the ford
    tractor dealer in milford "chappels" has their new buildingm which
    is p&b and is quite different from some others i've seen

What kind of a foundation do most of the P&B's have?  Does a poured concrete
full basement pose any problems?  Do the post seats need any reinforcement?

Jim.

    Essentially any kind of foundation.  Companies offer to build the
    frame on a standard first floor deck.  Some offer a P&B first floor
    as an option to keep the character the same throughout.  Mine will
    have a full, poured concrete basement.  It will probably have a
    standard first floor deck support plan to manage utilities in the
    event I ever want to finish the basement.  As for support, the
    beams/columns normally required are used (adjusted in placement
    to support the posts.)

    Let's try again - same church, different pew.
    
    Does anyone have anything to say about Classic Post & Beam of York,
    Maine?  Good, bad or indifferent opinions appreciated.
    
    Thanks...Gary

    
    	My in-laws own a house built by them.  It's nice!

    We looked at Classic last year when we were choosing a builder.
     They look pretty nice and the costs are comparitvely reasonable.
     We ended up though with a local p&b builder who uses only oak,
    and I think we've gotten a much better deal.  His name is Kevin
    Doherty, and he's in Bedford, NH.
    zz

I could find no note dealing with post and beam kit providers 
generally.

We are starting to look at building a house for all the standard
reasons. Having all the standard limitations of finances, etc. would
like to keep costs down by doing stuff ourselves and still come out 
with a custom, quality, efficient product. 

Does anyone have experience with American Post and Beam, Green
Mountain P&B, E.F. Bufton, Habitat, or others they could share to give
more information to use in deciding? 

I am particularly concerned with quality, level of support after sale, 
reliability of cost estimates, ease of diy, and final cost ($$/sq.ft.).

Thanks for the help.

John H.

    	If you are anywhere in New England a good opportunity for this
    type of information and a lot of other home owner and DIY info
    is coming up in September. The Eastern States Exposition is held
    every yaer in mid to late September and they have a big home show
    with lots of venders. I don't know the exact dates this year but
    it runs for 10 days and you can usually get discount tickets through
    DEC. In addition to the home show they have all kinds of Farm and
    garden, 4H animal, and New England States exhibits. Of course they
    have lots of games, rides and shows for the kids.
    
    	Oh, I almost forgot... Its located on a permanent fairgrounds
    in WEST SPRINGFIELD, MASS.
    
    	Also, If you can get the day off from work weekdays are much
    better than weekends. It's a real zoo on the weekends. And get there
    early.
    
    	If some one knows the dates please post them.
    
    				...Dave
    

    The Big E (Eastern States Exposition) will be held Sept 16 thru
    the 27th. Digital Employee Services offers a discount to employees
    in the Messenger, regular price $6, Digital Employee price $4.

       					-John-
                                              

    I bought a combo P&B/log home from Lindal Cedar Homes.  The exterior
    walls are solid 4x8 double T&G cedar timbers.  The interior structure
    is P&B (all glue-lam beams and posts).
    
    I went with them because the kit included all materials needed to
    finish the inside of the house (exclusive of plumbing, heat, electric,
    & finish floorcoverings).  Most such packages are usually shell
    only.   The site is in the middle of nowhere and I didn't have to
    worry about getting interior wall material, doors, etc to the site.
    
    Quality seems excellent - as a small example, the interior doors
    are all solid core doors (including the linen closet door!).  Ceilings
    are 2x6 double T&G spruce!   Lots of structural oversizing. Etc.
    
    Dealer support from the local distributor has been good to very
    good.  Cost estimates ran about 15% low.
    
    Ease of DIY?  Well it wouldn't be a first project for anyone.  And
    you clearly can't do it alone, but it came with a whole book of
    instructions and semi-detailed plans.  I would say you need a
    reasonable amount of rough carpentry experience (have added a room,
    built a porch from the ground up, or equivalent).
    
    What's final cost?  Absolutely everything including septic, well,
    clearing, electric, etc?  Don't have that one because it ain't done.
    
    The kit package was about $33/sq ft.  That included 1x8 cedar for
    all the interior walls.  Sheetrock would drop it a couple of bucks.
    

< Note 1433.3 by STAR::SWIST "Jim Swist ZKO1-1/D42 381-1264" >
           -< Don't know if this is what you are looking for but... >-

That's **exactly** the kind of information I'm looking for!! Thank 
you.



We got information from E.F. Bufton builders in Lancaster/Princeton,
MA. They provide oak P&B framing and plans for the rest. The framing 
costs they estimate for eastern Mass (75 mi. or less away) is 11.50 a
sq. ft. They figure if you are your own contractor but don't do any of 
the "work" that the cost of the house will run $60-$65/ft. sq. 
exclusive of land and land preparation. I need to get that down to 
about $45 to do it realistically. How much of the cost of a house 
building project is materials and how much is labor?

John H.

    The ratio of materials to labor varies widely depending on the
    location of the construction, location of the materials required
    (Vermont Slate is much cheaper in Vermont than in Atlanta),
    quality of the materials, quality of the labor required, the
    part of the house under construction (kitchens cost more than
    garages), etc.  To answer your question broadly would probably
    do you a diservice.  If you have a good idea of what you want
    your house to look like, you might consider buying a copy of 
    either `Means Contruction Estimator' (~$40) or `National Construction
    Estimator' (~$24).   These give a nice breakdown of materials
    and labor costs on a trade-by-trade and materials-by-materials
    basis, along with some help adjusting those costs to your
    part of the country.
          
    

>    Does anyone have experience with American Post and Beam, Green
>Mountain P&B, E.F. Bufton, Habitat, or others they could share to give
>more information to use in deciding? 

    I had a house built by Maine P&B and an addition put on by American
    P&B.  I don't recommend MP&B, and I can WARN you not to use American
    P&B.  Maine P&B did my house about 5 years ago.  They may have improved
    since then, but when they did my house they were very disorganized.
    So when it came time for an addition I went with American P&B because
    I figured nothing could be worse than working with MP&B.  
    I was wrong.  The quality is not as good, and they were very late
    finishing.  The builder is impossible to get ahold of, basically,
    because he can't hear his phone ring in his house!  He doesn't return
    phone calls, if someone does answer the phone.

        If you can afford Bufton, I'd go with them.  I believe the quality
    of their oak p&b is very good.

    Someone told me they heard on the radio yesterday that Maine
    Post & Beam was being fined for pollution (of some kind).
    I didn't see anything in the paper today.
    Does anyone know anything about this?
    

    I saw the article last night.  Seems some septic tanks were being
    dug up and many barrels of hazardous waste were found belonging
    to MP&B.
    

    Couldn't really find anything relating to this so I think a new
    note may be in order.
    
    	I am taking down the wall between my kitchen and dining room
    which happens to be the main bearing wall.  To replace it I'll be
    using a 6X10 oak beam with 3 6X6 vertical supports - one on each
    end and one about 2/3rds from one end.    One of the end posts will
    be on an outside wall and the other end post will be on the end
    of an interior wall.  Never having done any type of post and beam 
    work before I'm not sure of the best way to fasten the vertical posts 
    to the beam, to the floor or, for the two end posts, the best way to 
    attach them to the existing 2X4 framing members.

        The problem I have with attaching the posts to the beam is since the 
    ceiling joists are in place there isn't a whole lot of room with which
    to work. This pretty much eliminates dowling or mortise and tenon.
    
    	An idea I have to attach the posts to the existing framing is
    to use lag bolts to attach the inside post to to the end of the wall, 
    like this:
    			   
    			 ------   _________________
    			| post |||		   <- end of interior
   lag bolt  -------->	|      |||_________________   wall
    			 ------
    			   
    	This works for the interior wall but not for the exterior. 
    For that I plan to place 2X4 nailers on either side of the beam.
    I can then lag bolt or nail the 2X4's to the beam and to the existing
    framing.
    
    	I also plan to toenail the ceiling joists to the beam.

    Do these ideas sound ok?  Is there a better way?  Anyone have any 
    suggestions on fastening the posts to the floor and beam?  Books on
    Post and Beam construction were pretty much absent from the Nashua
    library.
    
    	By the way the beam sizes were calculated by the building
    inspector and the necessary support under the 1st floor carrying
    beam is already in place.     
    
    Thanks,
    
    George

    	One more thing.  Anyone know of a source for oak beams?  I called
    Wilkins Lumber in Milford but they don't have any stock big enough
    to cut a 6X10 beam.  They can supply the 6X6 posts.
    
    	Also, is shrinkage a big enough problem that I should use seasoned 
    wood or is green ok?
    
    George

    I have a five year old pine post and beam house (Maine Post and Beam's 
    style) and the posts just sit on top of the subfloor. Under the 
    subfloor where the post sits is a corresponding post or beam to 
    support it. A layer of plywood on top of the pine subflooring locks 
    the post in place.
    
    A 'possible' source for your oak beam would be at a local sawmill.
    Parlee Lumber in Littleton, Ma (it is a sawmill actually) may be able 
    to help, I know they will custom cut beams for people, and they do 
    carry oak.
    
    Normally when a post and beam house is built, it is all green.
    Everything should shrink in unison. The shrinkage also help to
    lock the mortise and tenon joints together. In your case it may
    a problem. 
    
    In the post and beam house we have the outside walls
    also have a typical stud wall built inside each post and beam
    wall section to hang the dry wall on, etc. Since the 2X6 lumber 
    that was used was kiln dried, when the posts shrank, the beams
    above these stud walls (in a few cases), became supported by 
    the stud walls instead. Something like this may happen to you,
    for me it isn't really a problem, and I am not sure or not if
    it would be for you. 

    
    Steve

     All post and beam houses are cut green.I am building one now. I
    did not have time to really look and understand your drawing. The
    posts are held in place by 8 or 12" spikes and gang nails. Sorry
    about the quick response but I just got a load of work all of
    a sudden. I also remember that you should be using hot dipped
    galvenized nails or spikes with oak beams because of corrosion
    problems.
    				Wayne

    Two more places to check for the wood is Bingham Lumber and Tapply
    Lumber, both in Brookline, NH.
    
    

I've recently sort of done what you're talking about.  I ran a 20' 7X7 pine beam
across an opening and it sits on top of 2 7X7 posts.  Before everyone panics and
thinks the house will fall down let me quickly add this is NOT structral since
there is a concealed truss above the beam.  However the ideas should be the 
same.

To secure the posts to the walls I simply used 3 lag screws to lag the post to 
the wall.  Then you can plug the holes with a dowel.  My beam then simply
sits on top of the posts.  As I write this, it occurs to me that I don't have
any physical connections between the beam and posts as the weight of the above
wall keeps things in place.  The middle of the beam is lagged to the wall on
top of it from above.

I would think in your case you could do something similar, namely jack up the
wall you're supporting maybe 1/4" higher than it needs to be, run the beam the
whole length of the wall and simply put your three supports under it and lower
the wall back on top.  The weight of the wall should keep things pretty stable.
If you're really worried about shifting around I'd think a few 16d or 20d 
finishing nails could be easily hidden.

btw - years ago I bough some fairly large oak beams from parlee (14' 6X10 was
the biggest).  you can't believe how heavy green OAK is, it makes pine seem like
nothing.  my 14 footer had to weigh at least 300-400 lbs!!

-mark

    Hi 
    
     I have recently  done what .0 is trying to do. I did not use a normal wood
    beam ,I opted for a pre-made, pre-cut,finished laminated beam.(7"X12"X12'). 
    Supposedly they are stronger then most of the solid beams .  I only
    have the two support posts.
  
    
    You should not rely on the carrying weight to secure your beam.
    I sunk  6 12" lag bolts from the floor above into the beam along the
    length of the beam, to keep the beam straight  And I used 2 pieces of 
    4" X 12" flat iron bolted together thru the support post and 
    beam on each end, to keep the ends from shifting. The picture 
    below trys to show how I attached one end of the beam to the support
    post.

    		
    	
     -------------------------------------------------------------------
     - +++		     	beam 
     --+++-----------------------------------------------------------------
     - +++ -  	    					           
     - +++ <-- metal strapping on both sides bolted together
     - +++ -
     -     -
     -     -   <--  support post
     -     -
     -     -
     -     -
     -     - 
    
    
    
       good luck, your going to need it.
    
    
    
    

    My posts are "attached" to my beams with little 2" finishing nails
    and my house hasn't fallen down yet.

    It's also a Maine Post & Beam.
    

    RE .7
    
     <<  It's also a Maine Post & Beam.
        
         It I had a "Maine Post & BEAM" I would not have this problem .
         I  dont think we are talking about the same thing. 
         If you engineer a house from the start to be a post and Beam ,
         You dont need all of the anchoring and securing
         that I referred to. But if you put up a large beam in
         an existing structure that it was not designed for then you
         should take all precautions to secure and anchor the beam .
      
        
    
    <<  My posts are "attached" to my beams with little 2" finishing
    <<	nails and my house hasn't fallen down yet.
          
	Maybe I went a little overboard but......
       
        Do you think that I am going to 
     					1) Tear down a main bearing wall
           			        2) Put up a 12' 350 lb. beam and 
                                        then anchor it with  2" finish nails .
    	You must be joking ! 
    
    
   FYI: I talked to an architect and a structural engineer before doing
        any of this.  
             
 
    
    
    
    
    

	Since the beam is going to be exposed a laminated beam isn't
    really satisfactory.
    
      	What I'm thinking of doing is mortising out the posts near the
    beam and then using 1/2" lag screws to attach the two together.
    I can then cut a plug to fill the mortise.  I will also notch the
    beam to take the post, only about 1/4" to 1/2".  Sort of like this:
    
    	-------------------------------
    			/
    		 ______/
   	--------|     /|---------------
		|    / |
    		| ___  |
    		|/ //  |
  lag screw---->  //   |
    		  /    |
    		 /     |
    		|      |
    		|      |

    I'll put one lag screw opposite sides, offset so they don't hit.
    With a water bed on the second floor (taken into account in the
    calculations for beam size and associated support) there should be
    enough weight on the upstairs floor to keep the posts in place without 
    the screws but this is my supporting wall and I don't want to take any 
    chances.  I'll use the same idea to attach the posts to the existing
    wall.  
    
    	I called Parlee in Littleton and they can supply the beam but
    only in green wood.  If I don't get a satisfactory answer by the
    time I'm ready to start this I'll get an architect involved to
    see if there are any "rules" about sizing green beams to take shrinkage
    into account.

    	Thanks for the suggestions so far.  All further
    comments/suggestions are welcome!
    
    George

    
    I've seen laminated beams that really look good.  Personally, I
    think they are better.  They don't shrink and if they do, the
    laminations do so such that it evens out.
    
    I guess it depends a lot on personal taste.  If you have an older
    home, the solid wood is a little rustic.  If you have a fairly modern
    home, like late 60s on with a food processor in the kitchen, then
    a hi-tech gluelam beam is more than appropriate.

    ditto on .10 
    
    I also think that the laminated beams are very nice looking beams.
    But I WOULD NOT put one in an old rustic house or a house that all
    ready has exposed solid wood beams in it.  
    My house is a 3 year old house with no other exposed beams , So
    I chose the more modern looking beam, which Is also stronger than
    most solid wood beams, and In my Opinion the best looking beam for
    my house. 

   PS I think that the laminated beams are MORE $$$.  
    
    

      If  its at all possible the beam should rest on top the posts, not
      but into the side of the posts as the first drawing seems to show.
      (Did I interpret it right?)  If you do this the beam will "almost"
      stay in place by itself.  But over time it may slip/slide  a  bit.
      This  can be prevented by toe nailing with some finishing nails as
      earlier suggested. Remeber that thes nails are not carrying any of
      the load; they're just keeping the beam from slipping/sliding.
      
      Another idea is to drill 3/4 or 1 inch holes starting on the sides
      of the posts and angling up into the beam.  Offset  them  so  they
      don't  intersect.  The peg them with dowels of the same size.  Cut
      the dowels off flush..  If you use at least one dowel from each of
      two  opposite sides this will prevent the post from twisting as it
      dries.  (Much better than nails at preventing twisting.)   Use  at
      least two dowels -- one is strong enough but will allow twisting.

    I see Maine Post & Beam, who went bankrupt last year, is back 
    under the name Great Rooms.
    
    I guess they got sued enough times to declare bankrucy, then
    all they had to do is change names to continue business as usual.
    (Except that they don't have to honor the guarantees made when they
    called themselves Maine Post & Beam).  
    
    Has Great Rooms opened any field offices in Mass or NH yet?
    
    

    When I lived in York, Maine, the locals fondly refered to Maine
    Post and Beam as "Maine Ream and Scream".
    
    Jeff

	I found the beam and 3 6"x6" posts at a place called Thomas
    Johnson forest products in Henniker, N.H.  Neat place, with a lot
    of oak and pine.  I saw wnat must have been some 20" wide boards
    there.
    
    	I picked up the beam from NEHS last weekend, it was being planed,
    and with help from 4 of my son's friends the it went up and looks
    great.  I had 2 house jacks that I used to raise it about 2'-1/2"
    but then we depended on muscle power.  My original idea was to raise
    one end of the beam, sit it on the lowest setting of an adjustable
    post, then raise the other end.  By alternating ends I'd be able
    to raise the beam one notch each time.  However, once the beam was 
    sitting on the two adjustable posts set at their lowest height,  the
    unsteadiness of it trashed that idea real fast.  My sons friends
    said no problem.  They'd lift the beam and hold it up until I got
    the posts under it and tightend them - ah, youth.  I was hesitant
    (we're talking an 11' X 10" X 6" red oak beam here) but we gave
    it a shot and it worked out fine.  Mostly due to one of the kids
    who is about 6'3" 250 lbs - at 16 years old!  I've got one support
    post up on one end and the weight of the beam and floor seems to
    be enough to keep it in place.  I tried knocking it around and this
    beam isn't going anywhere.  Rather than lag screwing everything
    together like I originally planned the steadiness of the beam and
    post makes me believe that I'll go with the 20d finish nails.  This
    weekend the other posts come up and the temporary support walls will
    come down! 
    
    	Thanks for all the help.
    
    George

    I'm glad I discovered this notes file today. I received my brochure
    from MP&B last night, and was ready to drive up there this week-end.
    Obviously with all the negative feedback I'm cancelling this trip.
    Thanks!
    Jeff

    
       Does anybody own or know someone who owns a P/B house built by
    Timberpeg of West Lebanon,NH?
    
       I am looking for references both good and bad?
    
    
    
    
       Regards,
    
       Rick Terrio

    I just subscribed to this notesfile after receiving my MP&B Portfolio
    last night. After looking at all the bad replies for MP&B in #108
    I decided that maybe it was too good to be true. Yours was the first
    positive thing I've heard. How much more than the advertised price
    did the P&B cost to build/finish?. I noticed #108 was 3 years ago,
    maybe they changed for the better?
    
    Thanks

    re .14
    
    	If your interested in Post and Beam there is also a company
    in Sommerville (?) N.H. that I checked into about three years ago
    when I was considering building a P&B.  They seemed good and did
    a lot of their work in oak.  If you are interested I'll verify the 
    location and name of the company.
    
    George

    Although I wrote note #108 3 years ago, my only experience with
    MP&B was 6 or 7 years ago when they built my house.  I'm sure they
    changed a lot since then.  However, I thought they went out of business
    after being fined for burying drums of hazardous waste.  
    Maybe all that happened was that David Crowell, who owned the company,
    left and started Great Rooms.  
    In 1987 I had an addition put on by American Post & Beam, who was
    recommended in this notes file.  
    

    Seeing as I'll be doing the construction in Southwestern N.H. I'd
    appreciate any company names and addresses.
    
    Thanks

	The name of the company I looked into was R.H. Irving.  I believe
    they are in Sommerville N.H.  I do know that they are next to Henniker,
    N.H.  I don't have the tel. # but Information does.  
        
    George

    I am In the process of building a P&B house right now. I have some
    opinions on the company good and bad. The company is called Northern
    Energy Homes. Send mail to me if you wnt to talk.
    
      Wayne.
    
    
    		Vlnvax::hederstedt  8-297-2285

We looked seriously at P&B houses last year before deciding to do 
something else. The company we were going to use was Sawmill River 
Post and Beam in Leverett, Ma. We thought their houses were very nice
and they seemed willing to be flexible.

Marianne Knight
Sawmill River Post and Beam
N. Leverett Rd. P.O. Box 359
Leverett, MA  01054

(413) 367-9969

John H.

    
    
    
      Has anyone built or know someone who has a post and beam house
    built by Timberpeg of West Lebanon,NH. I am looking for info on
    them.
    
    
    James

    
    Drumlin Farm (owned by Mass Audubon) in Lincoln, MA has a huge barn
    that was put up a couple years ago when their old one burned down.
    
    It was built by Timberpeg.
    

	This may be a naive question (I'm new to this conference),
	but I didn't find this in other P&B notes:  What exactly is
	the difference, if any, between post & beam construction
	and timber frame? Is it primarily esthetics?

	That is a good question.  In my opinion there really isn't a difference.
	I've just completed a custom P&B with all the Ps & Bs fully exposed and
	utilizes true jointery for all interconnecting members.  In other words
	there are no metal fasteners used anywhere, nails, metal plates, etc.
	I genereally refer to it as a P&B.  However, this may be improper.
	Since all the Ps & Bs are made from milled timbers it's also a Timber 
	Frame.  There is probably someone out there who can shed more light on 
	the proper terminology.   I also would like to see their definition.

	I can tell you that one must more carefully think and plan the methods
	of construction, heating, plumbing and wiring differently that those
	of stick construction.  It does present more of a challenge and is more
	expensive.  I beleive the final product is well worth the extra time, 
	effort and expense.  It's absolutely beautiful and YES I would do it
	again, hopefully I will.   Feel free to call upon me if you are 
	considering this method of construction.  I can share an abundance of
	information.

	Frank			dtn 293-5626
			TRITON::FERREIRA

The definitions are sort of loose, but I've always interpreted them as follows:

Post&Beam -	Any system of construction where the floors and roofs are 
		supported by widely spaced large beams rather than closely 
		spaced joists, the beams are supported on posts, and where the 
		finished ceiling leaves the beams exposed.

Timber Frame -	A house frame of beams and posts which is entirely pegged 
		together, and is erected first, then covered by some sort of
		outer skin.

My house is a post and beam house, but not timber frame.  The construction is 
very similar to standard stick construction, except we have very big exposed 
joists.  :^)

And I wholeheartedly agree with John's analysis that the electric and 
particularly the plumbing need to be carefully thought out - and also that the 
end result is well worth it.

Paul

re: < Note 752.25 by BEING::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>

>Post&Beam -	Any system of construction where the floors and roofs are 
>		supported by widely spaced large beams rather than closely 
>		spaced joists, the beams are supported on posts, and where the 
>		finished ceiling leaves the beams exposed.
      
      Well,  not  quite.   Unfortunately  I  don't  know  the/a  correct
      definition, but those =/- 4' on center pieces of wood  which  hold
      the  floors  ARE joists.  The correct definitions of joist is just
      that -- a horizontal frame member that support floors.  Beams  are
      used to support joists that don't rest directly on posts.  Girders
      are used to support beams (and  other  girders)  that  don't  rest
      directly on posts.  
      
      On  roofs,  the  support members that run up and down the slope of
      the roof are rafters; pieces that run accross the slope are called
      purlins  (spelling?).   The  piece  at  the  ridge  (optional)  is
      called a purlin if its fitted between the rafters or a beam if the
      rafters but into it.
      
      Also, In my understanding a P & B house may have finished ceilings
      and/or exposed joists and beams.   It  may  also  have  the  posts
      exposed and/or concealed within walls.

      I  don't think that the term "Timber Fram" has any widely accepted
      meaning other than what a partiular builder or manufacture assigns
      to it.
      
      The  difference  between  Post  and  Beam  construction  and Stick
      Framing is the size of  the  framming  members  and  the  distance
      between them.  P&B uses fewer (typically 4' or more on center) and
      heavier (typically more ~5x6 for joist up to 10x16 for some beams)
      members.   Stick frams typically use 2x4s or 2x6s 16-14" on center
      for walls, with 2x8 -2/10 joist bearing on the walls.
      
      There  are  many  techniques  of  building within both systems and
      endless  arguments  about   which   "traditional"   and/or   "new"
      techniqaues are betst...
            
                ...all  of  which  makes  absolutly no difference if you 
      like what you've got!

  'Post and beam' and 'timber frame' are latter day names used to describe
framing, apart from the widely practiced methods of today; the names have
no historical basis. However, 'timber' was the common appellation of those
frame members that were hewn.

  Some historical nits re. .26:

  Recently, the term 'beam' has been wrongly applied to many horizontal
framing members. The only timber name I am aware of that uses 'beam' is
tie beam. Tie beams connect opposite plates and receive the rafters. Girts
are the timbers that interconnect the posts or span opposite sills. Summers
span the perimeter and internal girts; they, together with the proper girts,
carry the ends of the joists. The ridge pole is the member at the apex of
the rafters. 'Timber framing' of today doesn't even approach the complex
framing of earlier times, particularly in the use of studs.

  If anyone is interested in the framing of days gone by, I have a copy of
the materials required to build a steepled church in 1834. Also, I have just
finished reassembling (in Ashby, MA) a Federal Period (ca. 1800), 9 room
house that I dismantled a few years ago. The frame is still exposed, so anyone
is welcome to have a look.

  Patrick

    
    
    
    
    A slight diversion:
    
    There was an article about the upcoming episodes of This Old House in
    the Concord Journal.  They were intending to convert a barn into a
    house by disassembling the barn, and then rebuilding it using the
    existing timbers.  Turns out that the timbers were rotted and unusable,
    so they brought in a master timber framer (name is Bensen, I think) to
    build it from scratch.
    
    He uses "student" help, usually carpenters who want to learn timber
    framing.  It's currently underway on Strawberry Hill Road in Concord,
    Ma. for anyone interested in a driveby. 
    
    Bob

    
    
    		Re .27. and .28.  Ted Benson is probably the leading
    	source of info on Timber framing in this part of the country
    	and has a very successful business out of Alstead N.H.  In
    	.27 you mentioned that current methods didn't appraoch the
    	complexity of early designs.  The recent use of computers by
    	Mr. Benson and others might challenge that statement.  I know
    	that some of the ideas coming out of the Alstead facility are
    	VERY complex and their use of graphics to help build and
    	visualize complex linkages is strictly state of the art.
    	I have had a love of timber frames for many years and built
    	a small one myself a few years ago from trees felled myself
    	and hence cut into beams at the tree via a Sperber chain saw
    	mill.  The building while small did challenge me and it was a
    	enjoyable 'project'.
    

I took the time on Sunday, sept 17th to take a look.  It's on the way to
being a nice home.  The frame was fully erected, it only took 3 days to 
bring it from rough timber to erected frame, that's with a (31), thirty-one
man crew.  They left the timbers in the rough sawn condition, (not planed).
They were planning to install the stress skins during the week of the 18th
and hoping to be weather tight by the 22nd, lots of rain may have dampened
those plans.  The owner is very happy with the progress and the amount of
funding being fronted by WGBH.  He also speaks well of the new host.  This
should make for an interesting series.  Does anyone know when it will be
broadcast?

    I watched Evening Magazine last night.  They did a segment on
    This Old House.  The new season starts Oct. 12.  
    
    They talked with the producer (director?) Ron Morash.  He said they
    have never been sued.  I thought they had been sued a couple of
    times.  The people from Westwood sued didn't they?  TOH won the
    case though.  
    
    On Evening Magazine they said it was a barn raising.  Is it a house 
    or a barn?
    
    Kathy
    

    
    	Its a house, but it is keeping the original shape of the barn.  I
    saw a TV program on this a few weeks ago and they described how they
    were going to gut the barn down to the beams and rebuild it as a house,
    but they found the beams were too rotted.  They thought about it and
    decided to tear it down to the foundation and rebuild it, but keep the
    barn's original size (handy to fit on the foundation) and shape.
    
    								-craig

    Maine Post and Beam is still alive as a company.  Has had an office in
    Durham, N.H. (main or only office, I don't know) and just recently
    announced that they were moving to larger quarters in Newmarket, N.H.
    I don't know if this is the same people as before.
    Ric

    RE; 108.7
    If anybody in the Acton, MA area is interested in Ernir Bufton's
    work, go to Idylwild Farms in West Acton.  Their store, a huge post
    and beam barn, is built by Ernie Bufton.
    
    Also another Post & Beam construction outfit is Timberpeg Homes.
    Timberpeg is out of New Hampshire.  Another guy is Tedd Benson out
    of Alstead NH.  Benson is a leading authority on post & beam.

    
    Chuck

    Does anyone know any NEW information about Maine Post & Beam?
    It appears that their main office is in Littleton, Mass somewhere.
    
    Do they have more offices, or is this it?  Has anyone here dealt with
    them within the past year? 
    
    

I don't know where there office IS... but they are building a house on
Forge Village Road in Westford about 3/4 mile west of the center of town.
If you want directions call me at dtn 293-5626 or e-mail NUKUM::FERREIRA 

    I am considering attending a 2-3 week homebuilding course offered by
    Shelter Institute in Maine.  Anyone have any experience to share
    about this school or similar schools?
    
    thanks
    Frank
    

    
    I took the Shelter Institute Post and Beam class in April and had a
    great time.  I learned a lot about P&B construction and met a lot
    of nice people.  I plan to take the 3 week class someday.
    
    Pat Hennin told me that they're flexible on how you take the 3 week
    clase i.e. you don't have to take each week consecutively. You can do
    it over the course of a year or 
    
    Lou

I've started building a post & beam barn at my farm in Norwich CT.  For your
edification and amusement, I'll attempt to share my trials and tribulations
here. :-)  Perhaps some people will be able to give some advice, which will
be welcome.

First off, I'm doing this entirely on my own, with occasional grunt labor
from friends.  Bottom line cost, and the satisfaction and experience of doing
it myself are important issues.

I've helped with various construction jobs in the past, mostly on relatives
homes, but this is the first time I've tackled a whole building myself, let
alone a different building style.

When we bought the place, there was an 1 1/2 story barn+shed which had about a
15 degree list and you could see clean through it.  It was still standing, but I
needed something more substantial to pursue woodworking and other crafts in.  It
was pretty rotted in about all respects.  

I figure from the square roofing nails and oak roof deck boards that the barn
was 100-150 years old, about the same as the house, but lots of people had kept
the house in real good shape, saving the barn for me for all these years. :-)
There are a lot of oak in this area, so I guess that they cut 'em down and had
them sawn at the up 'n down sawmill in ledyard. 

First off, I'm at the end of a deadend road on the top of a hill in the middle
of no where.  The property is mostly woods and hills, and the only suitable
place to build a new barn was where the old one stood.  Also, my neighbor's
property line ran right alongside one side of the barn.  So where I could put
the barn was very strictly limited.  The road ends between the house and barn,
and I like the way the rest of the property was.  The new barn had to go where
the old one was.

Luckily, my neighbor was a very likeable guy, a retired electrical engineer from
the Navel Underwater Sound Lab.  I asked him if he would allow me to replace the
barn, and he said fine.  

I told him that the side of the barn on the property line would go right where
the present barn was.  This is a little complicated by the fact that my property
and the properties around it haven't been surveyed in about 150 years.  But
there are rock walls which match the vague descriptions on the deed.  My
neighbor, Rich, even brought out a transit to check where the property line
supposedly was, and it proved to be right along the side of the barn.   His
well, is about 20' away on what most people think is my property, but it's
actually his.

Now I know all you learned DIYers out there are saying that I can't get a permit
to build a barn near the property line, that I should have it surveyed, that I
shouldn't trust my neighbor, etc...  You are right.  But I did it anyway. There
really is no other place to build the barn, the road ends between the barn and
the house, and everything else is up hill, down hill, or otherwise a problem.
Remember I said this was going to be amusing? :-)  But actually the property
line hasn't been a problem.

Removing the old barn was fun.  I started out tearing out the second floor and
inside walls of the barn, and wall between the barn and the leanto shed. I used
this material to build a shed to store stuff that was in the barn so I could
tear down the barn so that I could build a new barn to put the stuff in.  You
got that? :-)  

Some of the stuff was pretty rotten, but there was some usable stuff, the 1x8
pine t&g inside walls became the walls of the shed, the 2x12 t&g outside wall
between the barn and shed became the floor, and the 1x8 boards of the barn's
second floor became the roof of the shed, being the cheasiest pieces of wood. I
had enough beams and 2x and misc wood to frame a 12x12 shed with joists 2'
apart, and a beam down the middle.  Some more 1x6 came from a comparitively

The whole thing rests on 9 concrete blocks leveled with misc bricks.  Four posts
on each side and one in the center of each end to support a ridgepole were set
on the blocks and nailed sideways to the floor beams and joists.  A 1x12 ran
across the top to tie the posts together, with a rafter nailed to the top of
each post and to the ridgepole.  I have to confess that I had to *buy* the 2x4
rafters and 2x6 ridgepole, but you can't win all the time I guess.  I topped the
shed off with roll roofing and a drip edge, tarring the seams.

One side has a aluminum storm window sideways to shed (pi) some light inside,
and I decided on a hung sliding door, as that would put the least stress on the
frame of the shed. :-)  Unfortunately I couldn't find anything between stuff to
hang a closet door and a 500 lb BARN door.  The heavy duty door track and
hangers cost about 70$ more then the rest of the shed by far. Well, maybe I'll
filch that for the barn when I'm done. 

well, enough bs for now, time to get back to ATP's...

Jim Baranski
System Manager for Rent
Rocky Hill CT

Now that I had a place to put the stuff from the barn, I could tear the barn
down.  Easier said then done, though.  how do you tear down a half rotted barn,
while trying to save whatever wood is salavagable?

Well, I had started by tearing out the inside walls and the second story floor
in the barn, and built a shed with that wood.  I figured that the roof was
mostly gone, since it leaked like a sieve, so I figured I'd just get up there on
a ladder and bash it down, staying on the ladder, and not getting on the
treacherous roof.  I wasn't interested in pulling out a dozen nail in each
square foot out of multiple layers of roofing either.  Then I'd take down the
rafters, and work my way down from there taking off siding and beams till it was
all gone.   Sort of a top down approach. :-) 

At this point, we decided to have a Barn Razing (sic) Party, and share the fun
and destruction with our friends.  So we invited about 20 friends over to help
one saturday.

Having a mob of destructive people can be an asset or a problem, especially if
you would like to salvage anything usable.  I had one guy, Jack, a retired
lineman, who I had to be carefull which direction I pointed him in, I had to
make sure there was nothing I wanted to keep in his path.  If I told him, 'take
down that wall', he's whale away at it with a sledgehammer, and tehre would be
nothing left but splinters in *very* short notice.  That's all well and good,
but if there was any wood I wanted to save in that wall, it became history.

Then there were a couple of people who I'm sure had a death wish, doing things
like knocking out a support for a wall while in the lee of it, etc, and I'm sure
that they knew better; a couple of them were even carpenters!  If you have more
then one person helping you on *any* job, don't bother trying to any work at all
yourself.  You will be quite busy show and telling people what to do, and making
sure they aren't going to kill themselves, or the guy next to them.  

I had to constantly tell people that when they took off a board to take the
nails out, of put it on the appropraite pile of boards, or at the very least
put the board nail side down.  I tried to get people to sort wood between
good wood, questionable, and bonfire, but it was a lost cause.  I consider
it a minor miracle that nobody was hurt, not even by stepping on a nail!

Well, it became obvious that having any of these characters on a ladder was too
dangerous, so we abandoned the top down approach.  Instead, we stripped the
siding from the whole barn, starting from the downhill side, detached a small
recent addition, took the tension wires out, and tried pushing it over.

It's amazing who unsturdy a building can look; we can't even imagine how it
manages to stay up normally, and then you take it halfway apart and it *still*
won't go over.  We ended up getting on a tugawar on one side of the barn, tying
the rope to various beams, and yanking them out.   When we pulled on the central
post in the front, and gave the base a good whack, the barn leasurely folded
over on it's left side, and there was much rejoicing!

After taking a much deserved break, we swarmed over the resulting pile, and
striped the siding and roofing from the beams and sorting and piling.  Soon we
made a couple of impressive piles of beams, boards, roffing junk and a bonfire.
The whole destruction took about 3-4 hours of about a dozen people working
steadily.  Not bad for a 1 1/2 story 26x30 barn destruction!

Of course I spent the next month pulling nails, and sorting wood.  It turned out
that the roof boards were 1x12 oak, so I figured the best of them were worth
pulling zillions of nails out of.  

I borrowed a truck, and took the roofing junk to the dump, since I couldn't
recylce it or burn it as firewood. After dumping my first load, I was informed
that it would cost me 50$ a ton, or 300$ for the whole lot, merely because the
truck I had borrowed was registered outside of the town!  I ended up taking the
rest of the roofing to the town where the truck was registered, and not paying a
cent. 

When I complained about having to pay commerial dump fees merely because the
turck I borrowed was from out of town to the dump directer, head of public
works, etc, I was told that this was to prevent contractors from having
residents bring their construction waste to the dump, and dumping it for a
pittance compared to what the commercial fees were.  I said that I could
understand taht, but that it was unfair that I, a resident, would have to pay
more then another resident with his own truck would pay.

I was in the end, told that either I pay the dump fee, or I'd be arrested for
nth degree larceny and theft of services.  Shades of Alice's Restaurant! I paid
it.  Can't argue with someone who has a gun to your head when it's the
government, eh? :-(

I wouldn't have minded paying whatever fee a resident should pay, but it pissed
me off that I had to pay more because I borrowed a truck from out of town.  What
they should have done, was have the same fee for all construction waste...

Jim. 
 

1: have plenty of  

If it's like most towns, then the fee that residents pay is a subsidized fee,
and doesn't cover the true cost of the dump.  And, in order to keep operating
costs down while minimizing the abuse, most towns implement very simple rules
with few or no exceptions.  It may not seem fair, but few towns are willing
to pay the administrative overhead that a fair, enforceable solution would 
entail, and they're not willing to deal with unenforceable solutions.

Have fun.  When you're all through, maybe you could get involved with whatever
passes for a local solid waste committee, and make things right!

   Gary

Design of Post & Beam buildings is a nontrivial Task.  On a frame building the
basic design is pretty cut and dried common knowledge if you have any experience
building, and easy to pick up at a library or by asking knowledgable people.
Walk into a hardware store or lumber yard, and chances are that you'll be able
to find someone to who can tell you what to do.  The hardest thing is figuring
joists from common joist tables. 

With Post & Beam, chances of you finding someone who knows anything about it are
quite a bit slimmer.  The few knowledgable people are likely to be in the
business of building post & beam homes for yuppies, and are loath to part with
any of their "secrets", even if you make it clear that paying them to do your
building is not an option. 

If you are *really* lucky though, you might be able to find an 'old timer' who
used to do the work.  Then you should be prepared to get an earfull, because
these guys have plenty of life experience, and are usually glad to give you the
benifit of it. 

The Public Library, however, is one of the true miracles of modern government,
and one of the few things on which I am sure the trivial portion of my taxes is
well spent, and appreciated.  With a little luck, a lot of reading, and using
the interlibrary loan service, it's possible to get many helpfull and rare
books.  Even if your library has few books, they can usually get the books you
want from other libraries.

There are a lot of books on building; your library may vary though....  Ignore
the ones in 'wood frame construction'; that means a stud frame building, even if
you think post & beam would fit in that category.  There are a fair number of
historical books on old barns of New England and some such, they are
interesting, but not very helpfull.  There are also a number of books on back to
nature and homestead building; these are fun books if you are interested in that
like me, but tend to be more focused on log buildings then post & beam building.

Then there is Post & Beam books, which are more likely to be found under the
heading of Timber Frame buildings.  The difference between the two types is slim
to none.   Following here are the cream of the crop that I found in the library:


  Building the Timber Frame House, Ted Benson:  The best book on the subject.
  Several years old, but it has all the basic information on the subject, design
  of the building with bents, different types of joints and how to lay them out
  and cut them, and rudamentory information on how to size timbers for strength.
  A Must Have book. 
  
  The Timber Frame House (details, design & construction), Ted Benson:  This is
  his more recent book on the subject.  It repeats quite a bit from the earlier
  book, but mostly stuff that bears repeating.  It may be the same subjects, but
  entirely different pictures, examples, writing and drawings that will add to
  your knowledge. It lacks the information on structural design, and laying out
  and cutting joints, but it has a lot of other essential information of the
  details of design and construction, from foundations to the differences
  between different insulating panels, and trim details.  Also a book that you
  Really Should Have. 
  
  The Timber Frame Book, Stewart Elliott,  A good book, on the basic subject,
  good for fleshing out your knowledge of the subject, and seeing offering more
  alternatives on how things are done.  It doesn't have the detail that Ted
  Benson's books have and it has a slight 'homestead' feel to it.  My biggest
  comment is that a lot of the joints used are very simplistic; a lot of half
  lap joints are used.
  
  Timber Frame Construction, Jack Sobon:  Another good book on the basic
  subject.  A bit more modern and mechanical then the last book.  Several of
  these books also have information of cutting beams from trees, and ways to
  raise a building.  This book has some complicated joints, but to me, it seems
  like their tentons are rather inadequate, often, a 3" teton with a ~1" peg in
  it. 
  
All for of these books should be available from your library, interlibrary
loan, or Muir's Log/Timber Home Guide.  Other usefull books:
  
  Simplified Design of Structural Timber, Harry Parker, Wiley, NYC, 1963: A good
  simple book on structual design, and sizing beams and rafters. Usefull if you
  really want to know what forces are happening in your building.  Lots more
  detail then Ten Beson's book on that subject.
  
  USDA Wood Handbook, USDA, Washington DC:  This book has all about the various
  properties of wood, including shrinking and swelling, and elasticity and fiber
  stress the two main important factors of beam strength.   Good if you want to
  understand wood, and how to pick good strength values if you are using
  ungraded wood like me.
  
  American Institute of Timber Construction Manual, AITC, Wiley, NYC, 1979: A
  hefty tome about Timber construction in general, full of lots of udefull and
  useless information, depending on what you are doing, how much you know, and
  how much you want to know.  Very technical, the Uniform Building Code refers
  to it. 

  I also have a college docterate dissertation on the mathamatical modelling of
  timber frames and mortise and tenton joints from University of Michigan's
  microfilm service.  Very interesting if you like finite element alanysis. :-) 

And of course, the Uniform Building Code for all the general building questions.

You don't necessarily have to know Static Mechanics to design a Post & Beam
building, but it will certainly help your confidance, especially dealing with
rafters.  Rafters and roof systems are the most complex part, especially in a
gambrel as I am building.  The rest of the frame, the posts and beams is pretty
straight forward, but Statics help you understand which way what forces are
pushing and pulling in the roof.

I also had the luxury of having a friend run my design through a architectural
modelling CAD program.

Jim.

    I believe Ted Bensen is the "consultant" TOH used to build the Wickwire
    timber frame barn two seasons ago.  He has at least one book published
    by Taunton Press, the same publishers of Fine Woodworking and Fine
    Homebuilding.

  re: (.3)

  I beg to differ.

  Timber framing is, in my estimation, much easier than stick framing.
Ted Benson has 'yuppified' it so that it intimidates the unknowing. The
only secret to it is to keep your mouth open when lifting.

  Patrick

Timber framing may or may not be easier then stick framing; I'll reserve
any comment untill after I'm finished.  But in any case, it's difficult if
you don't know what you are doing, and it's harder to find out information
on the subject.

Jim.

    
    Timber Framing IMHO takes more skill. Also it's not too easy to do with
    just a couple of people. With timber framing you may even need heavy
    machinery to do some of the lifting of the timbers.
    
    Mike

I had decided on a 24' by 36' two story gambrel barn.  Post & Beam buildings
are generally organized in 'Bents', two dimensional sections of the frame
perdendicular to the ridge pole, with 'Bays' being the spaces between the
Bents.  The spaces perpendicular to the bays are called 'Aisles'.  

Here is what each of the bents in my barn look like, roughly.  The roof pitch is
2 rise / 1 run for the lower section, and 1 rise / 2 run for the upper section.
This allows me to have a usefull upper story without having a building which is
'too tall' for the relatively cramped site that I have. 


                 /X\
           8' /   X   \ 8'
           /      X 4'   \
        /    8'   X     8'  \
      ============X============
     /            X            \
    /             X             \
   / 8'           X 6'        8' \
  /               X               \
 /                X                \
/       12'       X       12'       \
==================X==================  
X                 X                 X
X                 X                 X
X                 X                 X
X 8'              X 8'           8' X
X                 X                 X
X                 X                 X
X                 X                 X
X      12'        X       12'       X
=====================================  
                  24'

After looking through numerous books showing Post & Beam buildings, I could not
find many examples of how to frame a gambrel roof.  The examples which I did
find tended to be much larger buildings, typically with posts in the bent
beneath where the roof changes slope rather then in the center; this is
unacceptable in buildings the size of my barn, as this would put a post 4' from
the side of the barn. 

I definitely wanted to have central posts, and a 12' span between posts. I also
spaced the bents 12' apart; this gave overall building dimensions of roughly 24'
by 36'. 

It took quite a bit of time to be confident that I knew what forces were acting
in the roof.  My Static Structures from college is quite rusty.  But basically,
the top portions of the roof carry most of the roof load.  The load is then
transferred to the top rafters of the bents.  Part of the load is carried by the
center post of the bent, while the rest of the load tries to make the roof hinge
in toward the center post.  The cross tie pushes the end of the rafter out and
takes care of the horizontal component of the force/moment from the ends of the
upper and lower rafters resolving the vertical force onto the lower rafter down
to the outer posts.

The forces from the upper floor, and the sides of the building were pretty
straightforward, carried along beams to the posts. 

There will be 3' braces in every direction between the posts and the upper floor
beams, and the cross ties.  The load carrying beams for the floor will run
across the 24' dimension between posts.  There will be 3 12' joists in each 12'
square section of the floor, and 2 12' joists in each 12' square section of the
roof, with structural insulation panels on them.

The sizing of all the beams will be done in the next note.

Are there any other ways to frame the roof?

Jim.

                              
    re.8,
    
     I am currently building a 28'x34' post and beam carriage house
    with a gambrel roof. I have about 2 1/2 of the oak bents completed.
    About a third of the frame is red oak, the rest will be Eastern White 
    pine which I cut from the property. I too found little information on 
    gambrel design roofs, so I wandered into any old barn or garage I
    could to look at the frame, also like you, I asked alot of questions. 
    
     So briefly,
    
       1. You need braces to prevent frame racking. I would not rely
         on wall sheathing along.
    
       2. You need to consider your post alignment, particularly to
         support the roof ridge timbers. Some don't use ridge timbers,
         but if you don't at least cross brace your rafters
    
       3. Consider your joint design carefully, particularly for shear
         stress, but also to accomodate frame raising.
    
       4. If you use green timbers , anchorseal the butt ends to slow
         checking.
    
       5. Consider dormers to give more headroom on the second floor
         and thus drop your roof height. It is amazing how tall a
         gambrel design can get. Though a barn with dormers may
         seen odd.
                                                    
       6. If you go with ridge poles they will be very thick (12-18")
         depending on material or span.
    
       7. Joinery work is very time consuming, but templates, circular
         saw , and a chain (not chisel) mortiser ($900-$1000) will save you a
         hell of alot of time.
    
       8. Build some manfull sawhorses, use 4" PVC pipe to roll beams
         around, buy an engine hoist with a turrent (swivel) mount. 
    
       9. Don't skimp on pegs, i.e., don't buy smooth birch dowels at
         Grossman's.            
    
    
      Someone mentioned, that post and beam is easier than stick frame.
    I have done both and to be kind he doesn't know what he's talking
    about. The time saved in using (uggh) expensive stress-skin panels 
    (not everyone does) does not make up for the time and cost of cutting 
    the frame - a closed-in frame ( a shell) may go up in 2-7 days,
    but the preparation work is extensive. 
    
      Also wrong about Ted Benson, few have done as much to save
    the timberframing craft and promote it as Ted, oh he talks about
    the zen of tools etc. in his books, but his company uses AutoCad for both
    architectural and shop drawings, chain and chisel mortisers, 4 saw
    blade tenon machines, etc.. Unfortunately, I believe TOH Wickweire (sp?)
    project hurt timberframing by unintentionally portraying it as an
    expensive, yuppie-only architecture, but who watches TOH anymore
    probably just yuppies.
    
       Your reference list is good, send me mail if you want additional
    references. 
    
     clay   
    
       
    

Reply .8:

>  There will be 3' braces in every direction between the posts and the upper
>  floor beams, and the cross ties.  

Reply .9: 

Title:  what no braces?



Listen up.  :-)


Also, the person who called timber framing easier than stick framing knows A LOT
of what he's talking about.  It's just that he's our token time traveller from 
the 19th century.  :-)  Patrick thinks EVERYTHING that was done 100 years ago is
better than what's done today.  His remark about Ted can be taken in that 
context too.  I'm sure he'd objectively agree that Ted has done a tremendous 
amount in promoting the resurgence of timber framing, but Patrick thinks that 
anyone who uses a router instead of molding planes is "yuppified".  :-)

Paul

  re: (.8)

  I must say, I've never seen a gambrel roof framed like yours, and am quite
suspicious of its strength.

  Rafters shouldn't carry any more load than is necessary. In your design, the
ends of the tie beam are being carried by the lower rafters and placing
undue stress at the head and foot of each rafter. Hence, I predict either the
joinery will fail, or the rafters will bow/sag.

  The king post is overkill. A simple ridge pole, with the rafters tenoned into
it, and the feet of the rafters tenoned into the tie beam will function as a
truss. Of course if the rafters spanned a length that might compromise their
strength, you would introduce queen posts as auxiliary support.

  I think you believe that each bent must be a complete cross section of your
barn, right? Don't let this misconception sacrifice your frame's strength.
Traditionally, the roof members were raised apart from the bents (when bents
were used, which isn't always the case).

 The traditional gambrel frame looks like this - 

			            +
			          /   \
			       /         \
			    /               \
			   ___________________
			  /|                 |\
			 / |                 | \
			/  |                 |  \
			+--+--------------------+
			|			|
			|			|
			|			|
			|			|
			|			|
			+-----------------------+

  This plan isn't a function of the building's size, and has been widely used
in early American frames. Why do you want to abandon a design that has proven
satisfactory over hundreds of years?

  Patrick

  Thanks Paul. I had a nasty note all ready to fire, but you came to the
rescue.

  re: (.9)

  I invite you to visit me sometime (ZKO2-3, office 3R90), and we'll have a
chat about what I do/don't know about timber framing.

  Patrick

    
    re. 12
    
      I'm at CTC. Anytime. Normally, I let a statement "timberframing
    is easier than stick framing " sink on its own. Didn't care for
    your comments about Ted, who I have always found helpful to DIY
    timberframers. I think your note .11 was more helpful to all.
    
    clay
    
    
    

  re: (.13)

  And normally I let statements like "If you use green timbers" or "If you
go with ridge poles they will be very thick (12-18")" sink on their own. But
who's keeping score? ;^)

  I repeat, Ted Benson doesn't use studs; Ted Benson doesn't do traditional
timber framing; Ted Benson has 'yuppified' the discipline with an undeserved
air of mystique. Not that there is anything wrong with what Ted does, he's
just sent it in a different direction.

  If you doubt my claims, I ask you to locate a copy of The Framed House of
Massachusetts Bay Colony, or a copy of Early Connecticut Houses, and compare
either with Ted's book. You'll be surprised how much Ted deviates.

  Patrick

    
    re. 14
    
      Most timberframers use green timbers as kiln drying such large
    timbers is expensive (few mills do it for timbers) and air drying 
    takes a long time ( rule of thumb 1in/year). Unfortunately, most
    new owners are not the builders, so they often heat up the interior
    with a wood stove that first winter and start the checking in
    earnest.
    
      Do some load calculations on a pine ridge beam that spans 14-20'
    supports a heavy gambrel roof (50+lb/sq. ft) and you'll see those
    numbers. There are options to reduce the ridge beam size : shorten
    span, add braces, add collar ties, reduce likely snow load with
    metal roof and steeper roof. I've known some timberframers to opt for 
    laminated beams in those cases. Some view the ridge beam as 
    non-structural, rather just an insert to stiffen the rafters. I
    have never felt comfortable with that, I prefer to consider it
    a structural member. 
    
      Your impression and information about Ted Benson remain dead wrong.
    Ted teaches two timberframing courses a year, one in June/July in
    Antrim,N.H., and one in Feb (brrfrr) in Port Townsend, Washington.
    Both are filled months in advance. His course is an excellent 
    introduction to the basics of timberframing, there is no mystique in 
    his teaching or subject matter. You would probably prefer his "brown" 
    book , to his more popular book. Also, he has given many seminars at 
    our Timberframer Guild conferences and has been a past president of 
    the Guild, and remains on the executive board. One of his major
    concerns has been education and the Guild is formulating an apprentice
    program. One point that Ted emphasizes is there is no one solution
    to a frame design , but a variety of options; similarly there is
    no one "traditional timberframing". You consider early framed
    structures of New England to be "traditional", well the English and
    Germans were doing it long before as were Chinese and Japanese. It
    was interesting to hear a Chinese professor speak at last year's
    Guild conference about "traditional" timberframe design in China,
    they do not use braces! In fact if anything, all American frames
    are by definition non-traditional, there was very little guild influence
    ("tradition") here, everyone did their own thing (Amish farmer,
    Conn. carpenter, Maine woodsman) with what they had. So what Ted
    Benson, Jack Sobel, Rudy Christian, you or I consider "traditional 
    timberframing" is likely to be different. And be wary, not all old 
    "traditional" joints are necessary good - I'd take a tight pegged 
    joint over a loose, but tightened by wedge, joint anyday.
                                      
      Anyway some points to consider.  
    
    clay
       
    
     

re:      <<< Note 4086.14 by RTL::LEACH "Eeeney Beeney, Chiley Beeney..." >>>

I don't really care about timber framing, but it's "Eenie Meenie, Chili Beanie."
							  ^

>re:      <<< Note 4086.14 by RTL::LEACH "Eeeney Beeney, Chiley Beeney..." >>>
>
>I don't really care about timber framing, but it's "Eenie Meenie, Chili Beanie."
    
    I'm not so sure about that.  I was just in Pat's office not less than 5
    minutes ago admiring his Moose and Squirrel Calendars.  The month of
    February for 1990 has the phrase "Eeney Beeney, Chiley Beeney - The
    Spirits are About to Speak."  Heck, it was even spelled that way.
    
    I guess if you've got a beef, you could always give Zephyr Press a call
    at (212) 633-8859.  I'm sure they'd be more interested in hearing about
    Rocket J. Squirrel and Bullwinkle J. Moose trivia than the 
    "Norm's great"/"Norm's unfulfilling" crowd in here.
    
    Will (Mostly a lurker)

     A basic gambrel design and some design considerations

           .R.                 R = principal ridge beam
        .      .               x = secondary ridge beam
      x          x
     /            \
    /              \
   /                \
   |    door        |
   |    opening(s)  |  
   |                |

      Assuming common rafter system (as opposed to purlins) and
   need for front door openings (as opposed to side doors), you
   need to support the roof via the ridge beams yet maintain a 
   sufficient door size, that's the problem. Some possibilities follow:


           .R.          <- support the ridge beam during raising is hard
        .      .   
      x          x      <- upper roof not too strong, no truss
     /|          |\
    / |          | \
   /  |          |  \
   -------------------   
   | /     \|/     \ |
   |/       |       \|  <- not good, possibility that post will rotate  
   |        |        |     even if bottom is pegged. (A botttom peg is
	                   helpful for frame positioning during raising
                           but is likely to rot over time). Good idea to 
			   hurricane brace the bottom posts to further
			   prevent rotation.

           .R. 
        .      .   
      x          x      
     /|          |\
    / |          | \
   /  |          |  \
   -------------------   
   | /     \|/     \ |
   |/       |       \|  <- bottom posts now have "hurricane" braces  
   |\       |       /|     




           .R.          <- king post added to suuport ridge beam during
        .   |  .           raising and support truss
      x----------x      <- upper roof rafters now form truss
     /|/        \|\
    / |          | \
   /  |          |  \
   -------------------   
   | /     \|/     \ |
   |/       |       \|  <- still not good, the added truss transfers the load
   |        |        |     better to the bootom post directly , rather than
                           through brace. Again good idea to hurricane brace
			   the bottom post to prevent rotation.


           .R. 
        .   |  . 
      x----------x 
     /|/        \|\
    / |          | \
   /  |          |  \
   ---|----------|---   
   |\/|/        \|\/|
   |/\|          |/\|  <- much better, direct post support of secondardy ridge
   |  |          |  |     beam, truss support on those posts of principal
                          ridge beam. Note cross braces. Large door opening.
			  Unfortunately, large joist spans on second floor. 


           .R. 
        .   |  .        
      x----------x 
     /|/   \|/  \|\
    / |     |    | \
   /  |     |    |  \
   ---|-----|----|---   
   |\/|/   \|/  \|\/|
   |/\|     |    |/\|  <- better still, direct post support of ridge beams.
   |  |     |    |  |     Center post allows more flexibility in second
                           floor design, but more expensive and smaller
                           door openings. Center beam on center post allows
			   some work flexibility on first floor, say to 
                           run a hoist. 

	
   Depending on how you decide to run your second floor joists, you second
   floor height level is adjustable, as in this taller structure


           .R. 
        .   |  .        
      x----------x 
     /|/   \|/  \|\
    / |     |    | \
   /  |     |    |  \
   ---|-----|----|---   
   |\/|/..\ | /.\|\/| ....<- second floor joists run this way at this height 
   |/\|    \|/   |/\| 
   |  |     |    |  | 
   |  |     |    |  |


   Anyway those are some possibilities,

   clay

"I too found little information on gambrel design roofs, so I wandered into any
old barn or garage I could to look at the frame, also like you, I asked alot of
questions."

So what did you find?

"You need to consider your post alignment, particularly to support the roof
ridge timbers"

I don't understand what your point is.

I was very impressed by Ted Benson's books.

"I must say, I've never seen a gambrel roof framed like yours, and am quite
suspicious of its strength."

How have you seen a gambrel roof framed?  What are the alternatives?

"In your design, the ends of the tie beam are being carried by the lower rafters
and placing undue stress at the head and foot of each rafter."

The tie beams are supported with braces at the center posts and do not have any
load on them other then from the top refters.  The only stress on the lower
rafter from the tie beams is a vertical force from the upper rafters, and a
horizontal force from the lower rafters themselves.  I don't see how this would
be significant enough to cause the joints to fail or the rafters to bow. 

"The king post is overkill. A simple ridge pole, with the rafters tenoned into
it, and the feet of the rafters tenoned into the tie beam will function as a
truss. Of course if the rafters spanned a length that might compromise their
strength, you would introduce queen posts as auxiliary support."

While the center post may be overkill, I prefer it to the queen posts.  Without
the queen posts the span would be 24', which I am uncomfortable with.  And since
I need the center posts to support the second floor, I figure I might as well
carry the center post on up to the ridge to support the roof as well. 

"I think you believe that each bent must be a complete cross section of your
barn, right? Don't let this misconception sacrifice your frame's strength. "

I'm not clear on how else you think this could be done.  In my design, each bent
is a complete section of the barn, 24' across.  I don't see how it should/could
be otherwise.

 The traditional gambrel frame looks like this - 

			            +
			          /   \
			       /         \
			    /               \
			   ___________________
			  /|                 |\
			 / |                 | \
			/  |                 |  \
			+--+--------------------+
			|			|
			|			|
			|			|
			|			|
			|			|
			+-----------------------+

"This plan (queen posts) isn't a function of the building's size, and has been
widely used in early American frames. Why do you want to abandon a design that
has proven satisfactory over hundreds of years?"

errr, because I felt that the center post was stronger then the queen posts?
Because I didn't like the idea of putting a post 4' from the rafter without
anything under it's base to support it?  I figured that I needed the center
post in any case to support the second floor.  I hate to think of the size
of summer beams I'd need to span 24'.  I look forward to your reply.

"If you doubt my claims, I ask you to locate a copy of The Framed House of
Massachusetts Bay Colony, or a copy of Early Connecticut Houses, and compare
either with Ted's book. You'll be surprised how much Ted deviates."

I've looked through those books.  I didn't see any horrible differences, other
then the structural insulating panels which in my mind are the prefect
complement to a timber frame, making it possible to have a real insulated
building.  But then again, I'm not an expert.  I'd appreciate any comments you
could make on the differences.

I'm not claiming to build a period reproduction barn.  I'm just trying to build
a work/storage area, that I want to be insulated.  If this goes well, I might do
it again with more elaboration, but right now I'd like to keep it simple. I am
taking quite a few shortcuts in this barn that I am sure will disgust the
purists. 

In any case, however, I really do appreciate comments from the experts and
questions from the not so experts.  It's important to me to know the different
ways to do things, especially 'The Right Way', even if I decide that I want to
do something different. 

"Do some load calculations on a pine ridge beam that spans 14-20' supports a
heavy gambrel roof (50+lb/sq. ft) and you'll see those numbers."

The span between posts in my design is 12' less a bit for the post, less 2 feet
on each side for the brace supports.  If I don't have center posts, the ridge
would be 36' long.  It doesn't seem to me that the ridge beam carries the
majority of the roof load in any case.  Most of the load is on the rafters.

"Assuming common rafter system (as opposed to purlins) and need for front door
openings (as opposed to side doors),"

I've pretty much decided on a purlin roof, and the only significant door will be
a 8' by 8' rail hung door or some such in the center of the 36' side.  I think a
lot of the designs in the last note seem like massive overkill to me where there
isn't more then 8' between posts in any place in the bent.  

It seems like people are thinking BARN with hay upstairs and cows downstairs,
but that's not what I'm thinking about.  I'm thinking about a wood shop and a
place to work on a car, and an office and a guest bedroom maybe in the future.
I'm not even sure people understand which way is which.  This is a 24' by 36'
gambrel with the ridge going along the 36' dimension and the bents going across
the 24' dimension.  On the site, the 36' side will be the front. 

Thanks to all, I appreciate your comments and am anxiously waiting for more,
Jim.

The wood that I am using for the frame of my barn is White Pine.  I am getting
the beams from a sawmill in the next town over, Voluntown.  They cut the beams
for me to size for somewhat less then .30$ per board foot. I estimate that the
wood for the frame will cost me about 1,300$ based on their estimates of parts
lists for a couple of different frames.   Buying a frame could cost 5K$ to 10K$.

Now one problem with buying the wood like this is that it's not graded or
seasoned in any way.  And in order to figure out what sizes I needed various
beams to be, I had to find some numbers quantifying the various strength
properties of White Pine.   

It's difficult to arrive at a set of figures that you can be confident about,
because each source gives different numbers, and most sources give numbers for
various grades of certain types of wood commonly used in construction, and for
the lumber sizes commonly used in stick building, ei: 2x4, 2x8, 2x12 etc.  Add
to the fact that individual pieces may vary because of splitting, checking,
knots, dead spots, etc makes arriving at strength figures a difficult decision. 

I finally used the numbers listed in the USDA wood handbook, with a little
fudging to bias the numbers toward the visually graded type of wood that I would
be using. 

Eastern White Pine:

Modulus of Elasticity: 1.3 psi 10^6
Extreme Fiber Stress : 1300 psi
Compression parallel : 4800 psi
Compression perpend. :  440 psi
Shear                :  900 psi
Tension              :  310 psi
Weight               :   25 lb/cf
Shrinkage radial     :  2.1 %             
Shrinkage tangential :  6.1 %

The Elasticity and Extreme Fiber stress are the most important numbers. The
Elasticity is how springy the wood is; how much will it deflect with a given
load.  This tends to be the limiting factor on how big a beam needs to be for a
given load over a given span for long spans.  The Uniform Building Code
specifies less then 1/240 deflection on a loaded beam for non plastered
ceilings, and 1/360 (I think) deflection for plastered ceilings.

The Extreme Fiber Stress is how large a load a beam can stand before it will
snap.  You don't want to take any short cuts with this number, because unlike
Elasticity it doesn't have any forgiveness, and the failure can be very abrupt.
While it's possibly to deflect a beam way beyond the allowable deflection and
have nothing worse then some checking or splitting and cracked plaster, if a
beam reaches it's Extreme Fiber Stress and snaps, it may do it suddenly. 

The Weight is also important for figuring how much load the wood will add
to it's supports.  Compression, Shear and Tension deal more post sizes, and
with the sizes of mortices and tentons, which standard practices can *usually*
take care of.

Some other things to take into account when sizing beams are that tight mortices
or knots on the top surface of the beam do not in general subtract from the
strength of the beam.  This is because a load on a beam tries to bend the beam
downward in the middle, compressing the top surface of the beam, and stretching
the bottom of the beam with a tension force.  Compressing a knot or a full
mortice is not any different then normal, but it would make a different if it
were under tension!

Beams with a "crown", or bow, should be placed with the crown on the top to
counteract the crown.  Joists and purlins should have the radial grain
horizontal to minimize horizontal shrinkage, which might affect the top
compression on the summer or girt.  Girts should have radial grain vertical to
minimize shrinking affecting the compressive force transferred in posts.

What you are going to use for pins is another big decision.  Most of the books I
looked at talked about tapered round pegs of oak.  I'm not about to go hunt down
a black locust tree or any of the other really strong uncommon woods and carve
it up.  A couple of the books talked about octogonal pegs, some tapered, and
some untapered.  Most pegs are about 1" in diameter, with some being .75" for
small joints or stong woods, and some being 1.5" for joints with a lot of
tension on them.

I got a bunch of 1" boards of red oak from my sawmill friend, and tried turning
a few pegs.  The taper is easy to do on my Shopsmith, but my lathe turning
skills are *very* rusty.  In trying to get the pegs exactly right, I would hit a
soft spot and gouge in too deep.  If I had more skill at it, or it I had a
secure knife clamp I would be able to do better.

You can also buy the pegs from certain places, I called a place in MA, and their
price was .33$ a peg.  That would be about 125$ for pegs.  Not bad, but an
unnecessary expense if you can/want to do it yourself.  I'm sure there are more
places, look in the Muir Log/Timber Guide.

I ended up deciding that I wanted octogonal untapered pegs.  I saw a picture of
a house that had octogonal pegs sticking out, with planets and things hung on
them, and I decided that I liked that alot.  

I also thought alot about tapering them.  I can't see old timers being *real
carefull* to put the exact taper on each and every one of the *hundreds* of pegs
that are needed.  (I figure I need 400)  Actually, now I know that once you've
done a couple of thousand, you get to where you can just eyeball it ...
perfectly ...!  I guess it's true that practice *does* make *perfect*!. :-) 

The object of the tapers is to get the peg to fit exactly in the holes of the
mortice and tenton.  There is also a practice of "draw boring", where you offset
the holes in the mortice from the hole in the tenton by 1/16" to 'prestress' the
joint and make it tight.  Another problem is that it is 'possible' for the
mortice/tenton/peg to swell or shrink at different rates and *maybe* crack the
peg holes out of the mortice or the tenton.  The first is much more likely.  You
also want to leave a bit of room at the bottom of a mortice because the mortice
will shrink more then the tenton lengthwise. 

The gist of this is that I decided to use octogonal untapered pegs.  As force is
put on the pegs in the holes, when driving them in, and during shrinking and
swelling, the force concentrates at the corners of the octogon, easily rounding
the corners down as oppposed to cracking the peg holes.  This way a peg is never
too small, yet the corners always keep the peg and joint tight.  With a round
tapered peg there might still be a possibility of cracking the holes from
shrinking/swelling. 

This is supposedly the origin to the saying "a square peg in a round hole".

So, I revved up my Shopsmith, and cut the x' 1" by y" oak boards I got from the
sawmill down to slightly over 1" by 1", about 4' long.  This way I could do more
then one peg at a time, getting about 4 pegs out of each stick.  Then I set my
Shopsmith Table to 45 degrees and knocked the corners off, and sawed the other
four sides to the exact size.  The corners are just over 33/32", and the sides
are about 30/32". 

This was real easy on the Shopsmith especially, because the table tilts, and the
sticks resting both on the table and fence with the blade cuts the excess off.
Normally having to tilt the table is a pain, but I think it helped me on this.
This also created a *lot* of sawdust, about 12 gallons, and my kerosene heater
started smoking from burning the sawdust that would get sucked/blown into it,
and it clogged up the wick.  I cost me 50$ for a new wick and to get it cleaned
and adjusted.  Sometimes it would get so smoky in the shed that I'd have to take
a break. 

Jim. 

    
    re. 20
    
      What logs I didn't cut myself, I bought from a local woodsman
    who then transported all logs to the mill. Where I could, I anchorsealed
    the butt ends to reduce end splitting while the logs sat at the
    mill. Another advantage is you get all the cuts from the log. You
    generally get just one beam/post per log, the remainder is usually
    cut into 1" boards of various widths. Buy the logs, specify timber
    size, and say balance 1" board (plank is probably the more correct
    term) and you end up ahead; buy the finished timbers and the mill
    sells those boards (which you really paid for) to someone else!
    
      Since you're building a barn, you probably left them rough-sawn,
    otherwise you can ask the mill to plane your timbers (alot easier
    than hand planing). 
    
      $0.30/bd ft sounds about right, what happens if a timber(s) is
    a reject, will the mill replace? I had to redesign some of my
    bents as what I got wasn't exactly what I ordered, that was fun.
    How are you storing, stacking your timbers?
    
       By any chance, do you have access to a Vaxstation w/DECWindows?
    I wrote an application to calculate beam size under CaseI,II,III
    loading for oak,pine,spruce,hemlock. I found it helpful, but lost
    interest since I don't have a workstation at home (should have
    wrote it for a PC or Mac, I guess).
    
       Your on the right track.
    
    clay
    
    
       
    
      

  re: (.15)

  Green timbers are used for two reasons. First, it is much easier to work; 
cutting a joint is a breeze when moisture content is high. Second, bows, warps,
and springs are avoided by securing the pieces in the frame as soon as possible.
Large dimensioned lumber invariably checks to some degree (sooner or later),
regardless of countermeasures.

  On my gable roof house, the ridge pole spans 36', supports 12 5x7"x16' rafters
(with no collar ties) and is only 5" square. It's been that way for ~175 years
and hasn't sagged a bit (can't say the same for the purlins though). It sounds
to me like you and I don't agree upon the definition of a ridge pole? A ridge
pole, when used, is the topmost member, in essence a specialized purlin, in
which rafters and braces may be let in, or, in the case of some hip roofs, just
a common purlin.

  For a gambrel frame, I gather you refer to the timber that carries the
heads of the lower rafters and the feet of the upper rafters as a ridge pole?
I've always heard that piece called a purlin. In fact, any member that spans
rafters is a purlin. In any event, your calculations are sound, given the
purlin (my definition) is unsupported (along its length) between its end posts.
However, you'll find these purlins supported by intermediate posts, wherever a
a principle rafter and tie beam together are placed upon it. Therefore, the
dimension of this purlin is greatly reduced and is often in the 6-8" range.
This purlin is usually not square, with the larger dimension vertical. This not
only gives it more strength (to carry common rafters), but also gives a larger
area in which to let in the lower rafters. Additionally, before the age of
asphalt/fiberglass shingles, this abrupt change of the roof's pitch was a 
problem to cover (wood and slate don't bend so easily) and was solved by off-
setting the rafters so they don't intersect. Thus, a secondary cornice results.
The purlin has a finish board nailed to it, with a small moulding just under
the drip edge. This is the major reason why gambrel roofs of today don't
resemble their predecessors.

  Now, for Ted. I have his first book, and while I agree it contains much
useful information, I'm yet swayed by your claims of his 'greatness'. In his
book, you'll find no use whatsoever of studs in his frames and, in fact, a
lambasting by him of their 'introduction' in house framing (pg. 7-8). Ted is
as wrong as wrong can be on this. Studs were an integral part of early frames
for many reasons. They provided a nailing surface for sheathing and clapboards,
lath, interior trim, and window fittings (both external and internal). They 
also evenly distributed loads, which then relieved the stress on the post
joinery.

  As another example of questionable Ted technique, I refer you to page 67 -
his treatment of rafters and their joinery to 'plates' (his term, not mine).
They are flimsy excuses for what is often the most detailed joinery of the
structure. If I could draw the method commonly used for this joinery, you'd
agree with me that the old timers solved this detail perfectly and Ted's is
woefully inadequate. Put into words, tie beams are dovetailed into the plates,
with an external overhang (of the tie beams) of a foot. Rafter feet are tenoned
into the tie beam and are fully carried by the plate; i.e. the foot of the 
rafter and the dovetail of the tie beam align with each other, directly
over the plate. Horizontal members span the external overhang from tie beam
to tie beam. This method not only prevents the frame from spreading (due to
the roof's weight), but provides sufficient overhang to shed water farther 
from the sills. It also provides the structure upon which a cornice may be
built.

  Ted also implies that all frames are constructed of bents. Nothing could
be further from the truth. Many houses had plates that equaled the lengths
of their corresponding sills. Therefore, it is impossible to erect some 
frames with the bent (complete cross section) method. More often, you'll find
large structures (barns, meeting houses) composed of bents, since finding the
necessary trees to hew 80-100' plates was uncommon.

  One last point of debate - timber framing was traditional. Sure, it differed
amongst localities, but usually in minor detail (e.g. braces from sill to
post, girt/plate to post, or both). The master and apprentice relationship was
thriving in this country's first 200 years, as it was in Europe far longer.
I once again refer you to the sources I mentioned earlier for proof. 

  If you're really interested in timber framing, you might want to drive out
to Ashby, MA, where you can see the frames of two ca. 1810 houses. What say
we end our debate and help Jim with his frame?

  Patrick

  Jim,

  I spent far too much time answering Clay's last entry, instead of yours.
You ask many questions which will take time for me to answer properly. I'll
get back to you within the next few days.

  I have original copies of source material for carpentry and joinery that
are a wealth of information. I'll enter the 25, or so, rules of thumb to size
timbers as a start. Then we can debate the design. OK?

  Patrick

    
    re. 22
    
       Not again. Green timbers are used for one reason - speed. You 
    design a frame , then cut trees to provide logs of the right size for
    the timbers you need, it's unfortunate that there green because
    
      1. they are heavier so a real joy to lift, e.g. the density of
         "green" red oak is greater than water! I have a funny story 
         about log drives regarding that, another time. 
                                                        
      2. you have to protect your timber investment from rapid
         drying - cover with a tarp to protect from sun, be 
         wary of working in a "heated" workshop, best compromise
         is to work "outside" but that's a pain.
    
      3. harder to saw and chisel (that moisture, particularly sap
         if you're using softwood, acts like glue )
    
      4. they will twist, check, split as they dry in the frame, as
         unfortunately, not all timbers experience a continuous
         uniform load as they dry in the frame. One neighbor of mine,
    	 cut spruce timbers for his frame and air-dried them for TWO 
         years under a uniform load - what a patient wife he has, anyway
         he then erected the frame and within a year (no heated interior)
         the spruce went "squirrelly" on him, oh the frame remains
         in place but some timbers are twisted, two years air-drying
         was not enough.
                          
      5. they are weaker , material strengths increase as the moisture
         content (to a point) decrease.
       
      Well at least we made some progress, we agree now agree most 
    timberframer's use "green" timbers. 
    
       You must be talking about another Ted Benson, not the man I
    know. But I look forward to your first book and/or timberframing
    course. BTW, how many frames have you done? It has me wondering.
    This is my second frame, so I'm still an "associate-apprentice-second
    class", my term. I'll help the original noter as I can and leave you - 
    good luck.
    
    clay                                
    

    Patrick is like many New Englanders I have met since I moved up here:
    he's a pain in the ass and doesn't mix words.  However, given the
    chance, he's a great wealth of information and usually doesn't say
    anything unless he can back it up with either fact or experience.
    
    I've witnessed first hand his "hobby" of dismantling, moving,
    re-erecting, and restoring two early 19th century houses.  Insane as 
    he is, he is doing the entire thing by hand, and in the traditional 
    method.  He constantly gives me B.S. about my use of power tools and
    alternative woodworking methods, but it's all in fun.
    
    Given the chance, if you wade through his anti-yuppie and anti-Norm
    B.S., you will find that he can help you quite a bit.  If you can,
    please don't take his comments as a personal attack on your ideas, but
    rather a defense of the historical 'merit' of the discipline.
    
    Rock-n-Roll, Baby,
    
    Will (One more note from mostly a lurker)
    
    PS - I don't yet know enough about the craft to supply you with any
    useful information, but I am glad this stream started since I have a
    pipe-dream of doing one some day.  I'd like this note to help me 
    gather information on timber framing rather than be a repository of 
    partisan bickering.

  Here are the rules of thumb to size timbers properly, as taken from James
Newlands Carpenter's and Joiner's Assistant ca. 1870. Errors are of my doing.
Values of e, a, S, and E, will be supplied upon request (I don't want to
enter the entire table for these values). I'll enter further applicable stuff
as time allows.

  I. Resistance to Tension or Tenacity

	To find the tenacity of a piece of timber.

	1. Rule - Multiply the number of square inches in its section by the
     tabular number corresponding to the kind of timber.

	To find the area of section when the weight is given.

	2. Rule - Divide the given weight by the tabular number, and multiply
     the quotient by 4 for the area of section required for the safe load.

  II. Resistance to Compression

	It is not necessary to give rules for the absolute crushing force of
     timber. Those that follow are applicable to the cases of posts whose length
     exceeds ten times their diameter, and which yield by bending.

	3. Rule - Multiply the weight in lbs. by 1.7 times the value of e; then
     multiply the product by the length in feet, and the fourth root of the last
     product is the diameter in inches required.

	To find the scantling of a rectangular post to sustain a given weight.

	4. Rule - Multiply the weight in lbs. by the square of the length in 
     feet, and the product by the value of e: divide this product by the breadth
     in inches, and the cube root of the quotient will be the depth in inches.

	To find the dimensions of a square post that will sustain a given 
     weight.

	5. Rule - Multiply the weight in lbs. by the square of the length in
     feet, and the product by 4 times the value of e; and the fourth root of
     this product will be the diagonal of the post in inches.

	To find the stiffest rectangular post to sustain a given weight.

	6. Rule - Multiply the weight in lbs. by 0.6 times the tabular value of
     e, and the product by the square of the length in feet; and the fourth root
     of this product will be the least side in inches: divide the least side
     by 0.6 to obtain the greatest side.

  III. Resistance to Transverse Strain.

	1st. When the beam is fixed at one end and loaded at the other.

	To find the breaking weight, when the length, breadth, and depth are
     given.

	7. Rule - Multiply the square of the depth in inches by the breadth in
     inches, and the product by the tabular value of S, and divide by the length
     in inches: the quotient is the breaking weight.

	To find the length, when the breadth, depth, and breaking weight are
     given.

	8. Rule - Multiply the square of the depth by the breadth, and by the
     value of S, and divide by the weight: the quotient is the length.

	To find the breadth, when the depth, length, and breaking weight are
     given.

	9. Rule - Multiply the weight by the length in inches, and divide by
     the square of the depth in inches multiplied by the value of S: the 
     quotient is the breadth.

	To find the depth, when the breadth, length, and weight are given.

	10. Rule - Multiply the length in inches by the weight, divide the
     product by the breadth in inches multiplied by S, and the square root of
     the quotient is the depth.

	To find the side of a square beam, when the length and weight are
     given.

	11. Rule - Multiply the length in inches by the weight, divide the
     product by S, and the cube root of the quotient is the side of the
     square section.

	2d. When the beam is supported at one end and loaded in the middle.

	The length, breadth, and depth, all in inches, being given, to find
     the weight.

	12. Rule - Multiply the square of the depth by 4 times the breadth,
     and by S, and divide the product by the length for the breaking wieght.

	The weight, breadth, and depth being given, to find the length.

	13. Rule - Multiply 4 times the breadth by the square of the depth,
     and by S, and the product divided by the weight is the length.

	The weight, length, and depth being given, to find the breadth.

	14. Rule - Multiply the length by the weight, and the product divided
     by 4 times the square of the depth multiplied by S, is the breadth.

	The weight, length, and breadth being given, to find the depth.

	15. Rule - Multiply the length by the weight, and divide the product
     by 4 times the breadth multiplied by S.

	When the section of the beam is square, and the weight and length are
     given, to find the side of the square.

	16. Rule - Multiply the length by the weight, and divide the product
     by 4 times S: the cube root of the quotient is the breadth or the depth.

	3d. When the beam is fixed at both ends and loaded in the middle.

	The breadth, depth, and length being given, to find the weight.

	17. Rule - Multiply 6 times the breadth by the square of the depth,
     and by S, and divide the product by the length for the weight.

	It is not necessary to repeat all the transpositions of the equation.

	4th. When the beam is fixed at both ends and loaded at an intermediate
     point.

	18. Rule - Multiply 3 times the length by the breadth, and by the square
     of the depth, and by S; and divide the product by twice the rectangle
     formed by the segments into which the weight divides the beam. [an example
     is given, but for time's sake I left it out - let me know if you want it]

	5th. When the beam is supported at both ends, but not fixed, and when
     the load is in the middle.

	19. Rule - Multiply 4 times the breadth by the square of the depth and
     by S, and divide the product by the length: the product is the breaking
     weight.

	6th. When the weight is uniformly diffused.

	20. Rule - Multiply twice the breadth by the square of the depth and by
     S, and divide the product by the length: the quotient is the breaking
     weight.

	Note. - The beam bears twice as much when the load is uniformly dif-
     fused, as when it is applied in the middle of its length.

	7th. When the load is at an intermediate point.

	21. Rule - Multiply the length by the breadth, by the square of the
     depth, and by S, and divide the product by the rectangle of the segment,
     that is, by the product of the shorter and longer divisions multiplied
     together.

  IV. Rules for the Dimensions of Beams to resist a Transverse Strain with a
deflection of not more than 1/10 of 1 inch per foot.

	8th. When the beam is supported at both ends and loaded in the middle.

	When the weight, and the length and breadth are given, to find the
     depth.

	22. Rule - Multiply the square of the length in feet by the weight to
     be supported in lbs., and the product by the tabular value of a: divide
     the product by the breadth in inches, and the cube root of the quotient
     is the depth in inches.

	When the weight, and the length and depth are given, to find the
     breadth.

	23. Rule - Multiply the square of the length in feet by the weight in
     lbs., and the product by the tabular value of a: divide by the cube of the
     depth in inches, and the quotient will be the breadth in inches.

	When the weight and length are given, and the ratio of the breadth to
     the depth is to be as 0.6 to 1.

	24. Rule - Multiply the weight in lbs. by the tabular number a: divide
     the product by 0.6, and extract the square root: multiply the root by the
     length in feet, and extract the square root of the product, which will be
     the depth in inches. To find the breadth,- multiply the depth by 0.6.

	The following rules are given for cases in which the amount of deflec-
     tion is given.

	9th. When the beam is fixed at one end, and loaded at the other, the
     weight in lbs., length in feet, and breadth and deflection in inches, being
     given, to find the depth.

	25. Rule - Divide the weight in lbs. by the tabular value of E multi-
     plied by the breadth and by the deflection; and the cube root of the
     quotient, multiplied by the length, will be the depth required.

	10th. When the load is uniformly distributed.

	26. Rule - Take 3/8ths of the actual weight, or, which is the same,
     multiply the weight by 0.375 and then proceed as above.

	11th. When the beam is supported at both ends, and loaded in the middle.

	Given the weight in lbs., the length in feet, and the deflection in 
     inches, to find the other dimensions.

	27. Rule - Multiply the weight by the cube of the length: divide the
     product by 16 times E, multiplied by the deflection, and the quotient is
     the breadth multiplied by the cube of the depth.
	When the beam is intended to be square, the fourth root of the above
     quotient is the depth or breadth.
	When it is a cylinder, multiply the quotient by 1.7 and the fourth
     root of the product is the diameter.

	12th. When the load is uniformly distributed.

	28. Rule - Multiply the weight by 0.625, and by the cube of the length,
     and divide the product by 16 times E, multiplied by the deflection: the
     quotient is the breadth multiplied by the cube of the depth.

  Patrick

    
    re. 26
    
      Look in his brown book, particularly in the back, the section
    on load calculations, also look at his joint design builder notes. Pay 
    attention to the load cases (uniform load, point loads, etc), you'll see 
    both load tables and the equations, which the rules you listed are derived 
    from. 
      So Ted ,the guy I know, more or less said the same thing with 
    equations and tables, maybe if he listed them as commandments on
    tablets you'd be happy. 
    
    clay
    

Sort of wearing a moderator-type hat.

Can you both please lay off the digs at each other?  I feel like I should send
you to your corners - both in the sense of sending boxers to neutral corners to
cool out a bit, and in the sense of sending a 5-year-old to the corner for
juvenile behavior.  

In the early stages, it had a bit of humor to it, but now it's getting just 
plain tiresome.  If you feel the need to duke it out further, please do it 
somewhere else.

This is only a request - I'm not going to go deleting notes or anything, but
please spare us any more of this rot.

Moderator-type hat back on the shelf.

Paul

    
    
      re. 28
    
        Well, I've attempted to correct misinformation regarding
    timberframing, Ted Benson, and his books. I probably would have
    ignored, as I said, some of Patrick's "facts and opinions" as just
    humorous or mistaken, he sure has delivered some beauts - but he had
    to run his mouth in a derogatory way about Ted Benson. Well Ted
    doesn't have access to this notesfile to defend himself and I have 
    little use for character assination in absentia, so I'll be his
    second. So if Patrick keeps his ignorant opinions of Ted Benson to 
    himself, we can talk just timberframing and correct and debate in
    course, maybe we'll all learn something. If not, the original noter 
    can correspond with me by mail and I'll help him as best I can.
    
        clay
    
    
           

It's not simply a case here of Pat's being arrogant and wrong, and you're being
gently corrective.  You're perfectly correct that Pat started this - and 
perpetuated it - with the undeserved derogatory comments about Ted Benson.  Ted
may not adhere completely to "traditional" timberframing, but he's not the 
yuppie demagogue that Pat portrays him to be.  Personally, I KNOW from long 
association that Pat is hopelessly anachronistic, so I took his comments about 
Ted with a grain of salt.  Like I said before, Pat considers a router a 
perversion of woodworking.  But other people don't know that, so I can 
understand why you quite rightly came to Ted's rescue.

But I've read enough of Pat's notes to highly respect his knowledge of 
traditional woodworking.  Your escalation from denouncing Pat's opinion of Ted 
to denouncing Pat himself and his technical knowledge of traditional 
timberframing was as undeserved as his condemnation of Ted.  If you were to go 
back and look at the nits he's picked with Ted's techniques, comparing them to 
tradtional timberframing, I'm sure you'd find that he's correct.

You're both right.
You're both wrong.

But I think if the two of you considered the possibility that the other just
might know something and tried to see if you could learn something from each
other instead of saying "Yes it is" "No it isn't" like a couple of schoolboys,
I think that you'd probably actually LIKE each other.

Now can you PLEASE take this elsewhere?  And that includes "But I was only..."

Paul

Patrick,

I'm not confident that I understand the phrasing of these rules are in. Could
you give as an example, how you would use these rules to size an Eastern White
Pine Beam bearing a 12' by 12' 40 lb/ft load at the third points, supported at
both ends? 

Jim. 

  re: (.31)

  Jim,

  I'm not sure if I'm reading your request as you intended. Do you mean to
dimension the beam with two load points (each a 12'x12', but of unknown
length) so that the beam is divided into thirds?

  Newlands doesn't have a rule of thumb for this case. Heck, even my trust-
worthy Audel's Carpenter's and Builder's Guide doesn't either. But.... I
know Ted does (see, he really isn't anathema to me, contrary to public
opinion :^) ).

  This wasn't addressed by the former two examples, since it was an uncommon
occurrence. When it did happen, studs were always placed for additional support.
Since Ted doesn't use studs, I guess he felt it necessary to provide the
ciphering. I don't recall his formula offhand, but I believe you have his
book, right? If not, I can get it for you.

  Patrick

  Jim,

  Monday I'll enter the rules of thumb for queen post roofs, along with
a long winded description of the framing I'd use, based upon my own
experience, eye-witness accounts of existing structures, and literature.
But first, here are some rules of thumb for sizing a king post roof of pine -



  To find the dimensions of principal rafters.

  Rule - Multiply the square of the length in feet by the span in feet, and
divide the product by the cube of the thickness in inches; then multiply the
quotient by 0.96 to obtain the depth in inches.

  A more general and reliable rule is as follows -

  Multiply the square of the span in feet by the distance between the principals
in feet, and divide the product by 60 times the rise in feet: the quotient will
be the area of the section of the rafter in inches.
  If the rise is one-fourth of the span, multiply the span by the distance
between the principals, and divide by 15 for the area of section.
  When the distance between the principals is 10 feet, the area of the section
is two-thirds the span.

  To find the dimensions of the tie-beam, when it has to support a ceiling
only.

  Rule - Divide the length of the longest unsupported part by the cube root
of the breadth, and the quotient multiplied by 1.47 will give the depth in
inches.

  To find the dimensions of the king post.

  Rule - Multiply the length of the post in feet by the span in feet: multiply
the product by 0.12, which will give the area of the section of the post in
inches. Divide this by the breadth for the thickness, or by the thickness for
the breadth.

  To find the dimensions of struts.

  Rule - Multiply the square root of the length supported in feet by the length
of the strut in feet, and the square root of the product multiplied by 0.8 will
give the depth, which multiplied by 0.6 will give the thickness.

  Patrick

    
    
    .31,.32
    
       Yes, it was unclear to me exactly what the loading was. Did you
     mean this case (point loads W1 and W2 )
                    
                                     
                   W1               W2
                   |                |                
                   V                V
     ================================================
     |                 12' beam                     |
     |                                              |
     ================================================
     |                                              |
     |                                              |
     |                                              |
     |                                              |
                                         
          if this case need weights W1 and W2  
    
     or
             
             (uniform 40lbs/ft2)
      vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
     ================================================
     |               12' beam                       |
     |                                              |
     ================================================
     |                                              |
     |                                              |
     |
                                             
         if this case need area supported so total weight
         on beam known 
    
      Give me some numbers for either case and I'll run them through
    my post-beam program.
    
      Be aware as you size your beam for load, you also place
    limitations/restrictions on the joints you can use. For example, if 
    you size a summer beam to be 6"x12" to be adequate for the load, it 
    is not as desirable for dovetail joints as say a wider 8"x9" 
    (assuming still adequate for load) which has the same board ft per
    beam. This is not a small matter for when it comes to raising the
    frame, if you wanted dovetailed joists which you could drop in the 
    frame later, but the beam dimensions restricted you to say a soffit 
    tenon joint , you would them have to insert/support those joists as 
    the frame is raised.
    
    
    clay
        
    

Actually, what I wanted was the load of a floor 12' by 12' with 1/3 of the load
supported at each of the third points of a beam 12' long, supported on both
ends. (the other 1/3 of the load is supported at the post)

However, looking back over my designs and calculations last night, I found
several mistakes/wrong assumptions/changes.  I had thought that a beam could
support more weight at third points, but actually it seems that a beam can
support a larger uniform load, so I'm going to change a few things.

I'm working on a decpaint drawing on a vaxstation.  Hopefully Patrick and
anyone else will be able to copy this, and print it on an LN03R or LPS printer,
and see what I'm really talking about.

Jim.

Here's a couple of other tidbits I got from other sources:

From: marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl)

The AMT catalog has a device that makes round pegs.  It's called a  rounder. 
They have one set that makes .5", .75" and 1" pegs and one  that makes 1.25"
and 1.5" pegs.  They want $16.90 + $2-$3 for S&H.   Their description:
 
"Simplicity is often the key to utility in a tool.  These rounders are
reproductions of the 18th century Scottish rounder.  They work much like  a
pencil sharpener, requiring no more power source than a twist of the wrist. 
They're great for sizing a dowel or making a dowel after the corners have been
roughly removed.  Depending on the type of wood, the dowel may have to be
sanded smooth after rounding, but this very  uncomplicated tool produces a very
nearly perfect round shape with very little effort."
 
I don't know just how much the corners have to be "roughly removed" for  it to
work.  I also don't know if "very little effort" applies to hundreds of pegs. 
I know my arms get tired after sharpening 5 new pencils.  Maybe if you used it
in conjunction with a power drill, it might be easier.
 
They also have a pointer for $10 that works on dowels up to 1".
 
I've never bought anything from AMT, so this is just info, not a
recommendation.
 
For what it's worth...
 
Marshall

From:	MERIDN::CRL::"jones%aztech@sjsca1.SINet.slb.com" "Phoenix shall arise from the ashes!" 30-JAN-1991 23:41:01.87

Jim,
 
I thought you might find this amusing.  Some fifteen years ago, I had a friend
in the structural steel industry in Albuquerque, NM.  The government, for
various reasons, wanted to build a big wooden bridge (at Sandia Labs) that was
big enough to handle a B-52.  Actually, it was a bridge-to-nowhere, as what they
were going to do was run the aircraft (or other equipment) in question out onto
it, then subject it to a magnetic pulse, and afterwards back it off this bridge.
 
Anyway, due to the magnetics, the bridge must contain _absolutely NO_ metal.  In
otherwords, they couldn't just nail the thing together.  What they ended up
using to assemble it were threaded 1" rods that were impregnated with epoxy, and
nuts made out of laminated, epoxy impregnated wood.  (This also lead to the
bridge being assembled by only torque wrenches to avoid over-torqueing the
rods.) 
 
When I found out about this (it had made quite a stir in steel circles as these
guys normally look down their noses at wood), I started asking why they hadn't
used the "approved" method for assembling all-wooden ships, namely treenails
(pronounced "trun-els").  Seems nobody had thought about looking into how it was
done in the 1700's...  I had several folks say "hey, that would have saved a
_lot_ of money!" when I explained what a treenail was.  Typical government... 
 
Clark 
 
P.S.  Just in case you don't know, a treenail is basically a dowel with wedges
in the ends.  Works great, and can be installed easily in blind holes, and even
in double-blind holes if you know what you're doing.  Swelling from moisture
improves the joint, but, again, if you know what you're doing, they can be made
to hold as long as the beam even in the desert.  ;-) 
 
P.P.S.  With the threaded-rod-and-nuts arrangement, they have to go over the
whole thing periodically and retighten the nuts.  Treenails wouldn't have
required this. 

  Jim,

  Here are the rules of thumb to dimension the members for a queen-post
roof. The next reply describes the layout of the roof itself. My sketches
will be mailed to you tomorrow morning.


  To find the dimensions of the principal rafters

  Rule - Multiply the square of length in feet by the span in feet, and divide
the product by the cube of the thickness in inches: the quotient multiplied by
0.155 will give the depth.

  To find the dimension of the tie-beam

  Rule - Divide the length of the longest unsupported part by the cube root of
the breadth, and the quotient multiplied by 1.47 will give the depth.

  To find the dimensions of the queen-posts.

  Rule - Multiply the length in feet of the post by the length in feet of that
part of the tie-beam it supports: the product multiplied by 0.27 will give the
area of the post in inches; and the breadth and thickness can be found as in the
king-post. [previous note]
  The dimensions of the struts are found as before. [previous note]

  To find the dimensions of a straining-beam.

  Rule - Multiply the square root of the span in feet by the length of the
straining-beam in feet, and extract the square root of the product: multiply
the result by 0.9, which will give the depth in inches. The beam, to have the
greatest strength, should have its depth to its breadth in the ratio of 10 to
7; therefore, to find the breadth, multiply the depth by 0.7.

  To find the dimensions of purlins.

  Rule - Multiply the cube of the length of the purlin in feet by the distance
the purlins are apart in feet, and the fourth root of the product will give the
depth in inches, and the depth multiplied by 0.6 will give the thickness.

  To find the dimensions of the common rafters, when they are placed 12 inches
apart.

  Rule - Divide the length of bearing in feet by the cube root of the breadth
in inches, and the quotient multiplied by 0.72 will give the depth in inches.


  Patrick

  To layout a gambrel, or a mansard, roof, one of the following options will
suffice.

  Draw the width of the roof (called the base). Describe the semicircle, with
a radius of one half the base, centered on the base's midpoint.

  Option 1 - Divide the circumference into four equal parts. Connect the cords
to obtain a demi-octagon profile.

  Option 2 - Divide each half of the base into three equal parts. From the
leftmost and rightmost divisions, draw the perpendiculars to cut the semicircle.
Draw the perpendicular from the base's midpoint to cut the semicircle. Connect
the cords.

  Option 3 - Divide the circumference into five equal parts. The cords formed
by parts 1 and 5 are the lower rafters. Draw the perpendicular from the base's
midpoint to cut the semicircle, and use this point to describe the ridge of the
upper rafters.


  Option 4 - Reference the following drawing. Make ce (the true height of the
roof) equal to one-half the width of the base, ab. Construct two squares, adec,
and cegb; also make dh, ef, and ig each equal to one-third of the side of a
square. Connect ah and bi for to describe the lower rafters, and hf and if for
the upper rafters.

				f
				|
				|
		d----h----------e----------i----g
		|		|		|
		|		|		|
		|		|		|
		|		|		|
		|		|		|
		|		|		|
		a---------------c---------------b

  Option 5 - Reference the above drawing. Whatever the height of the roof, ce,
make ig equal to half that height; and the height, ef, equal to the half of ei.
Connect the points as before.

  Patrick

I tried to apply some of these rules, but I seem to be doing something wrong,
they result in nonsense....

"To find the dimensions of the principal rafters Rule - Multiply the square of
length in feet by the span in feet, and divide the product by the cube of the
thickness in inches: the quotient multiplied by 0.155 will give the depth." 

length of roof section or distance between principle rafters = 12 feet, span
of roof from one side to the other = 24 feet, the thickness or width is assumed
to be 8 inches.  12*12*24/8/8/8*.155 = 1.04 inches or feet depth??

"To find the dimension of the tie-beam Rule - Divide the length of the longest
unsupported part by the cube root of the breadth, and the quotient multiplied by
1.47 will give the depth."

what does the "longest unsupported part" refer to?

Jim.

    <Patrick is like many New Englanders I have met since I moved up here:
    <he's a pain in the ass and doesn't mix words. 

    As a life-long New Englander, I take exception to your
    characterization. 

    Rudeness knows no boundaries, either geographical nor emotional.

    There are knowledgeable people who are arrogant and insulting
    there are uninformed    people whe are arrogant and insulting.

    From my point of view there is no difference. They are both arrogant
    and insulting (and not particularly characteristic of New England)
    And those factors DWARF the correctness or incorrectness of their
    message.
    
    
    

The beginning of every building is it's foundation.  This barn is no exception.
Again, I attempted to do the work myself instead of paying someone else to
do the work.  Some things worked well, and some things didn't work....

The standard foundation these days is a concrete wall poured in place around the
perimeter of the building.  The wall usually goes from the surface down to below
the level that the ground ever freezes.  The Uniform Building Code usually
requires the foundation wall to be 4 feet deep in most of the US. The UBC also
usually specifies the thickness of the wall to be 8 inches. 

The base of the foundation wall is usually widened to allow the foundation to
support more weigh instead of sinking into any soft sport.  UBC suggests a
sixteen inch footing, four inches wider on each side of the foundation wall.
This is called a footing.

A common alterative is to have a twelve inch thick foundation wall with no
footing.  This is a lot easier to dig and pour the concrete in without needing
to pour the footing separately or needing forms. 

The standard mix of concrete is called 25,000 lb cement with quarter inch
stones.  There are plenty of other mixes though, and you should check what you
are paying for.  I paid 50$ a cubic yard for my concrete. 

Being as I have a 24 foot by 36 foot barn, I figured I needed a 120 foot wall 4
foot high, 1 foot thick of cement, and a 8 inch think slab (6 inch is standard),
24 feet by 36 feet.  120/3 * 4/3 * 1/3 + 8/36 * 24/3 * 36/3 = 36 cubic yards
costing 1800$.

The building is usually secured to the foundation by anchor bolts set in the
concrete as it dries every four feet.  The anchor bolts are used to bolt down
the sill of the building. 

Home foundations usually have full basements(eight foot walls), and usually have
two half inch reinforcing rods at the base and top of the walls.  Garages and
barns usually do not.  I choose to put in the reinforcing rods, and lay a six
inch square wire mesh in the slab floor of the barn.  The rods need to be
overlapped a foot or so and wired together as they run around the foundation,
and also wired six inches apart from each other to hold them together as the
concrete is poured.  The wire mesh should also be overlapped and wired.

There is an intricate way to hang the reinforcing rods in the trench for the
foundation wall because the rods must be encased in the concrete, not simply
lying in the ground at the bottom of the trench.  There is a simpler way to do
this by simply propping the rod up off the trench floor every four feet of so
with a brick.  The concrete will flow around the brick and make it part of the
foundation quite well.  It might not be quite as strong, but it's a *lot*
easier.  

The top layer of reinforcing rod, I wired together a head of time, and simply
dropped into the trench when the concrete was poured almost to the top, and
pushed it down into the concrete.  The wire mesh was unrolled and pushed down
into the concrete as each section of the concrete slab was poured, overlapping
each section by one square.

---

The old barn had had a concrete floor in two different areas about a foot and a
half difference in level.  On the downhill side leanto half, the concrete was
only a few inches thick with what appeared to be coal clinkers/cinders
underneath. There was also a late addition behind this which was about ten feet
square, which had one foot square concrete corner posts with big rocks covered
with concrete in between. 

The uphill half 1 1/2 story workshop half had the rear half of the floor made of
four or six inches of concrete covering a bed of *lots* of four inch diameter
rocks.  The other half had six inches of concrete with metal strips in it, and
another unknown layer of concrete under that.  This section I could barely touch
with a jack hammer it was so strong.

The whole shebang had about a foot square trench of concrete around the
perimeter, with the posts sunk into the concrete.  I decided that it was way too
much work to dig all this stuff up and I decided to just fill in the low end
with the old concrete from the high end and the earth from the trench to bring
the ground level up to eight inches below the floor.  

This is the stuff I had to work around in digging the foundation and pouring the
concrete. The foundation archaeology was pretty interesting. :-)  The land around
the foundation ran from 4 inches below the top of the concrete floor on one
corner to three feet below the top of the concrete floor on the opposing corner.

I laid out the foundation of the barn parallel to where the old barn had been,
along the property line, and edge of the drive.  The old foundation had been
about 30 feet by 30 feet, and I arranged to dig just outside the old foundation
on two sides to minimize having to deal with the old foundation, and across the
inside of two sides.  

I used metal fence stakes to stake out the corners of the foundation.  Typically
you put four stakes around each corner, two stakes with a board between them on
each side of the corner, and then run the strings marking the foundation from
the boards so that you can adjust them, instead of having to pull out *the*
corner stake each time to move the corner a couple of inches; it's a lot easier
the first way!  Then you measure the diagonals and make sure they are equal to
make sure the foundation angles are ninety degrees.  You can also make sure that
the diagonal is the right length for the sides the diagonal runs across:
diagonal^2 = sideA^2 + sideB^2. 

I also had to find a consistent even level at each corner of the foundation so
that the trench would be the same depth at each point.  I used a garden hose
water level to find the reference level one foot off the ground on one end, four
foot off the ground at the other end.  The idea is that water in a garden hose
will have the surface of the water at each end at the same level.  

I had a lot of trouble getting a consistent and believable level with this.  If
I were going to do this again, I would use a transit, or at least buy the clear
plastic tubes that go on the ends of the hose for this purpose to see the water
easier.  When I got a transit later, it turned out to be very simple to use the
transit to find the level.  Rent, beg, borrow or steal a transit. 

I rented a backhoe from an equipment rental place to dig the foundation
trenches.  The model I rented was called a Terramite, and had a backhoe on one
end, and a front end loader on the front.  The interesting thing was that the
entire machine is run hydraulically by a little 5-10 hp lawnmower engine,
including the wheels.  It's slow driving around, but otherwise it seemed to have
plenty of power to dig and move things around.  It takes some practice getting
used to, but it's easy to learn and do.  I dug with it, and Charlotte and her 16
year old son also spent some time digging with it.  I also used it to move some
of the exess earth from the foundation over to a nearby ravine. I think it cost
me 150$ to rent for a weekend.  I ended up paying 300$ and keeping it most of
five days, since they dropped it off friday at 5pm, and didn't pick it up untill
late Tuesday. 

I had anticipated running into a *lot* of rock, as the barn and house are on a
hillside with lots of rock outcroppings.  I figured that if I ran into any rock
I couldn't dig out or lift out, I'd just leave it there, and pour concrete in
the trench around it.  I figured if I hit rock bottom at two feet that would
have to be good enough. 

Surprisingly, I ran into *very* few rocks at all.  I hypothesized that this area
had been filled in from the house foundation when it was built.  We even
unearthen a couple of relics:  a couple of tool handles, a hat brim, a
clockwork, a pulley, some pieces of marble, some interesting bottles. More
foundation archaeology. :-)

Anyway, the weekend that I rented the back hoe, I also borrowed the truck to
take the roofing from the old barn to the dump, and had the dump altercation. It
rained buckets Saturday, Charlotte's dog got sick and had to go to the vet,
Charlotte's daughter got sick and she had to go take care of her, Charlotte got
sick, the truck got a flat tire ...  everything that could have possibly gone
wrong did, except the digging. 

The worst part about the digging was in the area with the loose rocks under the
concrete.  All those rocks would slide down into the trench when digging through
that section. Oh, yes, and I 'found' the water line from the well down the hill
going to the house, but I had planned on that, and it was easy to move out of
the way and splice the black plastic piping.  I had figured that it probably ran
along one side of the barn.  The frustrating part was that it was right at the
corner of the foundation that I didn't dig out untill later ... crunch! 

The trench actually ended up being about four foot deep at each point.  The
slope was quite gradual, but it added up to an extra three feet at one point. I
took a four foot piece of 1" by 12" into the trench to square up the bottom of
the trench, and make sure that it was perpendicular with a weight tied to a
string against a line on the board.

This is getting long, so I'll have to continue later...

Jim.

  re: (.39)

>I tried to apply some of these rules, but I seem to be doing something wrong,
>they result in nonsense....

  The rules I entered are for a gable roof. Sorry I failed to mention that.
Since a gambrel roof is in essence one gable roof atop another, I believe you
can still use them by doing two sets of ciphering - one for the lower rafters,
and one for the upper rafters - based upon the king-post formulas.

  I think your using the total span of the frame was where the error occurred.
You only want to use the span of the rafters proper; i.e. the horizontal
distance measured from the foot of the rafter to its supporting post or ridge.

  These rules are really an iterative process; if the numbers look wrong,
change a known dimension, and try again. For instance, try reducing the thick-
ness (breadth) of the rafters and figure again.

  Newlands does mention that the roof rules are empirical and for simple cases
only, and that the formulas for strength (which I first entered) are more
general, and ought to be applied specifically to each timber. However, I still
think you can use the roof formulas for the reason mentioned above.

> what does the "longest unsupported part" refer to?

  I presume the "longest unsupported part" refers to the tie-beam, which is the
beam that carries the king-post/queen-posts.

  Patrick

    
    re. 41
    
       Similarly, I went with a stepped perimeter wall poured concrete 
    foundation but used 3000 "pound" concrete ( meaning in 28 days the strength
    is rated 3000 psi), 10" wall ( widest anticipated post was 10"), and 
    30" wide footings ( some overdesign there, but less cost for a 
    wide footing 12" deep than a wall 48" deep!). Stepped foundation
    as the terrain drops 4' from NW to SE corner, plus full basement
    in back half.
    
       The footings were sized (whether you use actual footings or just
    the bottom of the wall) based on the weight of the building and
    the load bearing capacity of your soil. In my case I had a heavy
    house and unusual soil conditions: sand,gravel in NW corner (good), 
    clay,loam NE corner, hard clay SW corner, soft clay SE corner (not
    good) and the terrain sloped to the SE corner so wet soft clay - 
    worse still. So there would be a tendency for the house to sink
    to the SE corner. Also a concern was clay freezing and expanding
    on the south wall, hence rebar loops in the south wall. So I sized the 
    footings for worse case - soft clay with just a load bearing capacity 
    of 1000lbs/ft2, 3 runs of #5 rebar, with keyway. Footings are below 
    frostline with a perimeter drain above to draw water away. The walls 
    extend at least a foot above the terrain for better insect and 
    moisture protection of frame. Have not poured our slab yet but we'll 
    do it much the same as you, but put down a 6mil plastic vapor barrier.
    
       Had similar experiences with water levels (air bubbles were a
    nuisance), rented a transit on 3 different weekends @$20per weekend,
    wish I would have bought one.  
    
       Contracted out both the excavation ( we cleared the site, but
    stumps needed to be removed, basement excavated) and concrete work
    (renting forms, ordering ready-mix, etc didn't have time for). That
    was fall, 89. Since the footings had not cured very long before
    winter and were exposed in the basement to winter air temps (i.e., 
    not below the frost line), I temporarily insulated the basement floor 
    with a sheet of plastic (trap water,easier cleanup come spring) and 
    two feet loose hay (took 6 bales for a 14'x 28' area) - there was a 
    shallow lake under that plastic all winter. Glad I did that.
    
       Congratulations on doing your own excavation and concrete work.
                                  
       How do you plan to do your sills? Did you check your sills for
    level afterwards? 
                                                               
    clay                                                       

    .41:
    
    For those of us who can't remember how to compute square roots by hand,
    and don't have a calculator handy, there's an easier way of making sure
    that your four corners are all square:
    
    Measure the two diagonals.  If they match, you're done.  If not, then
    the longer one is the one with the acute angles that need to be
    widened.
    
    (Knowing this made construction of some raised beds considerably easier.)
    
    Dick

    Or if you tape measure is note long enough to span the diagonal...
    
    Measure up 3 units from the corner on one leg, and 4 units from the
    corner on the other leg.  If the distance of the diagonal between the
    legs is 5 units, the corner is 90 degrees.
    
    		|\
    3 units 	| \ 5 units on this side
    		|  \
    		----
    		^
    4 units on this side 

    
    re.44
    
     Beware, the diagonals of a trapezoid are equal! 
    
    clay

    
    re. 46
    
     or maybe better phrased the diagonals of a trapezoid (isosceles?)
    can be equal.
    
    clay
    

    That's a good point to be watchful for.
    
    However, I doubt that most people would have a problem building walls
    of equal length.  The problem comes in then getting them square.  This
    is where the equal diagonals comes in.
    
    I remember building my garage where I measured the diagonals (for 24x24
    with a 14 foot extension off part of the back.  I was off by 1-1/8
    inches on the diagonal.  I kept scratching my head trying to figure out
    where I'd goofed.  I even went and got my calulator out and with a
    little trig figured out how far out of square that was.  I don't
    remember how far but deemed it unacceptable at the time.  I'd neglected
    to take into account the 1 inch back from the corner where I'd driven
    the nail to hold the end of the tape.  You see I'd had my wife hold the
    tape for one measurement and by the time I got to the other, she'd left
    so I used a nail.  Well ... you can't put a nail right on the corner -
    there's nothing to hold it.
    
    I figured an 1/8" on the diagonal of 24 by 38 was acceptable.
    
    I like the way you think.  Measure the diagonals and then go back and
    make sure the opposite walls are the same length.

Sorry I haven't been adding much here lately, but life has been busy, and
I've been dreading finishing the concrete story.  I promise that I'll clue
you in on that soon, but right now I'd like to skip ahead a bit....

My latest problem involves getting trimming the wood around the joints. I'm
currently working on the sill beams.  I'm using 6x8 green white pine beams, and
joining them with bladed scarf joints and half lap joints in the corners with
either 4 pegs, or a post teton going through it. 

A bladed scarf joint looks like this:

================================================================================
                                  |
                           +------+
                           |
                           +------------------------------+
                                                          |
                                                   +------+
                                                   |
================================================================================

The problem I'm having is that this joint has *lots* of surface area, and it's
difficult for me to get everything square and fitting just right.  Being that
these are sill beams it won't matter too much, which makes them good practice
material, but I'd like to get them as good as possible. 

Currently my procedure is to mark the timber with a template, draw square lines
across to the other side and mark the other side with the template. Then saw the
joint out on the waste side of the line using various methods, typically using a
7 1/4" circular saw and cutting the short lines and sides of cuts, and then the
long cuts (meaning to cut the top and bottom I usually cut the side at the top
and bottom first and then the top and bottom) and then the end cuts as deep as
the 7.25 will go, then switching to the 10" circular saw and making the deep
cuts, then finishing with a 'shortcut' tm handsaw.

To cut out the inside notches I usually tried to cut the outside cut with the
7.25 circ saw, but the saw doesn't *quite* fit in that close corner, the saw
shield arm gets in the way.  The inside cut is part of the long cut in the
joint.  Then I chisel down the end of the notch and chisel about 1" blocks at a
time out chiseling into the notch.

Then I take the two beams, lie them on one longer straight and level beam with
the joints facing together, and see how close the long surfaces are, and chisel
or coarse belt sand them so that they match.  Then I push the joints untill the
second laps touch and trim them, usually by trimming the outside of the tongue
sticking in the notch with the circular saw.  Then I push the joint as closed as
I can get it, and run the handsaw in the outside cuts of the joint, and poke
around the inside notch with a hacksaw blade to get those last few bumps out.

Is there an easier way to do this?

Problems:

when I chisel out the inside notch, I can't keep the chisel straight down into
the wood.  the bevel keeps pushing the chisel off course.  I had tried drilling
a 1" hole across the notch, but that's a lot of extra work.

My circular saw, as much as I adjust it, never quite cuts a straight square,
plumb and level cut, there is always maybe 1/32-1/16" out of square, and I don't
know how to square these up.  

I can't use a plane because there is always at least one corner in the way along
the side, and it's difficult to imagine being able to do this well on the end
grain.

It's difficult to even check for squareness because there is not a lot of
straight surface area to measure square from.  It's relatively easy to check
squareness across the end of the beam from the long side of the beam, but
it's near impossible to check vertically and to check for flattness.

One joint, although it looks level when I checked it, had a cup in it on the
long surface of the joint.  Is there a better way to trim this large area and be
sure that I end up with a *flat* and level surface area?

trimming the end of the inside notch beats the hell out of hacksaw blades
poking them in there.  Is there a better way to do this?

I guess this note could be summed up as asking if there is a better way to do
this.

I don't have a *lot* of experience at "fine" woodworking, and most of my
experience with a plane and chisel was as a boy and rudamentary at that, so any
pointers you could give would be welcome. 

Jim Baranski 

   Good joint choices for your sill beams. A bladed scarf joint is strong
 under compression and resists twisting, but it ain't easy to make. As
 with any joint, you need to plan your cut beforehand : build a template,
 pick your reference sides, layout your lines, cut in order of diminishing
 reference areas (i.e.,cut an area before you lose your square reference).
 Also consider what joint tolerances are important for the forces encountered.
			  
                                   E
==================================================================
                                  |                               |
  Timber                  G+------+ F                             |
                           |                                      |
                          H+------------------------------+A      |
                                                          |       |
                                                  C+------+B      |
                                                   |              |
==================================================================
                                                  D              

    One butt end may not be square, as back end of timber will kick as goes 
  through the mill's saw and planer. Let's say this butt end has that
  problem, you might be inclined to cut back a foot to square end to start 
  your joint. Don't bother, it will be resolved as we go. Draw a square 
  reference line back say for cut CD if the timber is square there and then 
  offset from CD to draw first cut line AB. But I'm getting ahead.

    Build your templates and note reference edges, even if this is a 
  symmetrical joint your sill timbers are unlikely to be uniform depth, so 
  reference from the bottom face up. If template areas overlap, for
  example if I build a whole scarf template, them all the sub templates 
  (simple lap, tenon, mortise) should overlay match up). For this joint, I 
  might build one or more of the following templates: 
	
      1. a simple mortise template, say a little deeper as your timber is wide.
         If your mortise width is 1-1/2" or 2", a rafter square could be used
         instead. This will help you cut mortise F-G-H

                                |
                                |  handle up to you
		+---------------|
                | wood here     
                +--------------------


      2. a simple lap joint template for B-C-D

                            _____________                        
        long straight edge  |           |
           -----------------+           |
           |           wood             |
           -----------------------------+


      3. a simple tenon template for A-B-C, E-F-H
  
                +-------------------+                    
                |  wood             |
                +______________+    |
                               |    |
                +--------------+    |
                |___________________|


      4. and maybe , a whole scarf template too, for final work.


      What dimensions are important , what dimensions are less important?
    This joint needs to resist compression and twisting, so the mortise/
    tenon widths (vertical in drawing) are important, the height position
    (vertical) of these joints is important. The tenon/mortise depth 
    (horizontal) is probably less important - I would use anchor bolts and
    joint pegs to position the beams along the sill, but short the tenons 
    1/16" (or deepen mortise) to allow for expansion along the grain at 
    the joint. Anyway something to think about. Also I would put a bevel edge
    on the tenon to help guide them into their mortises.
         __________                   ------------------
	/                             |
        |                             |
        |               instead of    |
        \___________                  |_______________

    This also saves time previously spent trying to square the bottom of
    the mortise!

    Plan your cuts in order of diminishing reference while at the same
    time minimizing the number of cuts. I'd go in this order

	 - thru cut A-B
	 - cut out lap joint B-C-D with multiple passes of circular saw,
	   chisel, square with lap joint template
	 - cut out major scarf area E-F-G-H-A, start cut with circular saw 
           around beam, use saw guide from reference face(s), finish cut with 
           hand saw ( one of those Japanese Antihicki (sp?) saws works well). 
           Note this will leave mortise F-G-H, just cut along F-G and H-A.
         - drill/chisel out G-H, to open mortise F-G-H (great fun!)
	 - square/level H-A area, using a belt sander with say 80 grit paper
	   will save alot of farting around.
	 - finish mortise F-G-H
         - ...

    So my approach isn't too different from what you're already doing. As
    to some of your other problems.

>Problems:

>when I chisel out the inside notch, I can't keep the chisel straight down into
>the wood.  the bevel keeps pushing the chisel off course.  I had tried drilling
>a 1" hole across the notch, but that's a lot of extra work.

    Assuming a sharp chisel, this becomes a matter of practice. Experiment
  chiseling in different directions to the grain. Also don't chisel from
  top of the mortise to bottom in one stroke, instead chisel from top to
  say 2"-4" down  and check with your square, straight-edge, and template as 
  you go completely around mortise, then repeat and go another 2" down all 
  around , again checking with your square, straight-edge, and template as 
  you go. 

   Sometimes the straight-edge is forgotten in the process. This guides
  to stay on your quickly disappearing pencilled cut lines. So be sure to 
  extend your pencil lines beyond mortise, so you can bring in straight-edge.
  Use template to get mortise width right, square to square mortise sides
  with face, and straight-edge to keep you on your cut line.



   Are you laying your sill beams directly on the concrete sill? It's a good
 idea to separate your timbers from direct contact with concrete either with
 30lb tar paper, some sill sealer, and/or pressure treated wood.

   Anyway, hope this helps you. 

  clay

   I don't wish to rain on your parade (or your new P&B house, Mr Baranski,
   but reposting this note and it's replies to a usenet Newsgroup.
   (misc.consumers.house) is breaking a few corporate policies...
   
   Peter Q.
   

    
    re. 0, 51
    
      Since I do not access usenet and did not give permission to have
    my replies posted there, please make my day and tell me that my replies 
    were not posted there or that this is all some misunderstanding. 
    
    clay

re: 4086.51 

>but reposting this note and it's replies to a usenet Newsgroup.
>(misc.consumers.house) is breaking a few corporate policies...

    Excuse me, but can you elaborate a bit on this ?
    
   It is my understanding (from a moderators viewpoint) that the 
    Corporate Policy affects notes which are have the headers intact.
    
    Does this  policy  affect  also  the  information  as well (which is
    non-DEC product related) ?
    
    As an FYI, the specific notes in : 
    Group misc.consumers.house , articlea  19188 - 19193   
   
    Bob Early
    

    I'm considering a Lindal post and beam home (assuming some things here
    at DEC go a certain way) and plan to be my own GC and do most of the
    inside work myself (the house will be built in NH, a place where I've
    pulled more permits than I want to count). For obvious reasons, I'll
    have the house shelled by a contractor (don't have THAT much spare
    time). Since I'll probably build in the Nashua area, are there any
    recommendations for a contractor who is familiar with this type of
    architecture. I'd call Lindal's local rep, but there isn't one! Thanks
    for the info.
    
    Eric

    Does anybody own, or has anybody built a "Yankee Barn" post and beam
    home?  They are based out of Grantham, NH.  If so, could you post your
    thoughts about the homes and the company here, please.  Thanks.

>    Does anybody own, or has anybody built a "Yankee Barn" post and beam
>    home?  They are based out of Grantham, NH.  If so, could you post your
>    thoughts about the homes and the company here, please.  Thanks.

    Moderator comment here.....if you have a negative comment about this 
company, please take it OFFLINE.....do not post anything negative here. 
Feel free to contact the author with the command SEND/AUTHOR to get into 
mail from notes.

    Vic H

    I looked around for some answers but really didn't find what I was
    looking for. A few years ago my boyfriend and I redid my kitchen. In
    the process we exposed the posts (it's a post and beam house). Well,
    we're finally going to finish the kitchen (put the trim up) and I want
    to seal the beams (I've already stained them to the color I wanted).
    
    I thought that I would use polyurethane but last week I was given a
    tour of the Salem Cross Restaurant by the owner. He explained that they
    used boiled linseed and turpentine on their posts (which are the same
    as mine - the posts are pre sawmill and therefore you have all the 
    hachet/ax marks in it). So what is the recommended sealer for wooden
    posts?
    
    I have miniwax oil that I could rub into the posts. Would that be
    sufficient?
    		Cindy
    
    
    

    I see no point in using boiled linseed oil + turpentine, except
    for tradition.  There are so many easier ways.  Minwax ought
    to be good, if you don't want a built-up look to the finish.
    Polyurethane would give you a "finish" look on the surface, I expect.
    
    If you opt for the linseed oil/turpentine route, be sure you
    get *boiled* linseed oil (else it will be sticky forever, or
    at least well into the next century) and mix it 50-50 with
    turpentine.  Apply thinly, allowing plenty of drying time between
    coats if you do multiple coats.

>    If you opt for the linseed oil/turpentine route, be sure you
>    get *boiled* linseed oil (else it will be sticky forever, or
>    at least well into the next century) and mix it 50-50 with
>    turpentine.  Apply thinly, allowing plenty of drying time between
>    coats if you do multiple coats.

    And whatever finish you decide to apply, if it involves boiled linseed 
oit or any of the polymerizing oils, be sure to spread your old, used, oily 
rags OUTSIDE, away from the house, or in a covered metal bucket when done 
wiping down the oil each time. These materials can sponaneously combust 
after a few hours sitting in as pile. No need to burn down your house with 
oily rags.

    	Vic

    re: .2
    YES!  A friend of mine nearly burned up an antique desk when he left
    a rag soaked with linseed oil in a drawer.  These are the "oil-soaked
    rags" you have forever been warned about.

    
    Rubbing turp & oil into unfinished lumber is difficult - it'll be
    covered with bits of thread & fibre from the cloths (and your hands
    will be full of splinters).  It's also tough to get a thin enough coat
    on to allow even drying.  I'd go for a waxy penetrating sealer.
    Especially in a kitchen, where this surface will pick up airbourne
    grease and be difficult to keep clean. The simplest traditional
    "greaseproof" finish is plain beeswax scrubbed in with a bootbrush.
    
    Colin
    
    

    
    	For the beams in my house I used water based satin Poly by
    Tripps.. It worked out great.. It is considerably thinner than
    the traditional oil based and is real easy to apply with a 
    brush.. It well dry in about 30min or less for the next coat..
    I will never use anything else.. You just have to be carefull 
    not to make it run, it may leave a kind of foggy drip mark..
    I have tried both the Tripps and the MinWax poly.. I think
    the Tripps is a superior product.. It is avaliable at
    both Home Depot and Builders Sq...
    
    
    Ron
    

    Well, now I am confused about what to use. I've decided against the
    boiled linseed route (I don't have to be that much of a
    traditionalist!). Since the posts are in the kitchen, I do want to be 
    careful about the grease (I think!). I do have 1) the minwax oil (I
    didn't know about the rags being flamable...) 2) Tripps semi-gloss
    poly. I do want to make sure the beam is sealed and that pieces of rag
    (if I use the oil...) wouldn't be left on the beam. If I use the Tripps
    semi-gloss poly, do I need to do any sanding between coats (assuming I
    have to do a 2nd coat)?
    		Cindy (I'm looking for the least amount of work) Schlener

My P&B frame has now been up just about 9 years. The timbers were all roughcut
white pine (green) which I power-planed on site prior to joinery. Immediately
after planing, I treated every piece with 50-50 Turps/Boiled LS Oil. It was
all brushed on outdoors before construction began.

Today, the exposed timbers are all a rich honey color and highly resistant
to staining, even in the kitchen near the cooktop. There was virtually no
odor by the time I moved into the house (2 mos. after sealing). I've received
several comments that they look like they're hundreds of years old.

Worked for me, not to mention being cheap and easy.

-Jack

    
    Reply to .6... 
    
    	You don't have to sand the poly between coats.. I usually use
    a piece of 00 steelwool to rub down the finish before the last coat..
    The water based poly picks-up a lot less dust do to the fast drying
    time... I put 3 coats on my beams.. Looks great....
    
    Ron

    Would anyone have any information on post and beam log homes in the
    Merrimack/Milford/Hollis area?
    
    Would you have a phone number to call for information about the homes,
    cost, sq. footage etc etc.
    
    Thanks in advance
    

    I'm looking for a reference to contractors in the Rutland/ Worcester
    county area..........
    
    	Tom Bianchi DTN 237-6314
                   NODE LEDS::BIANCHI

    Does anyone know the number for Maine Post & Beam, if they're still
    around?
    

    Hi,
    
    My wife and I are considering a new post and beam home. I was wondering
    if anyone had info on the Timberframers Guild...ie...meetings,
    workshops.
    
    Any help would be appreciated.
    
    Fred

	Pick up a copy of Fine Homebuilding, there are several
	
	adds in there for timberframers

	tom