iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

Standardization of timber frame joinery?!

Started by S.Hyland, May 05, 2016, 09:52:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

S.Hyland

I'm starting a new topic, because I don't want to sidetrack one already started... In the "How to join a corner" thread, Heartwood said

"Jim, I think we have to be careful using terms like "engineering standard" because, like what the Timber Frame Engineering Council is doing with their joinery testing, once these results DO become standards they could then become part of the building code that will limit what we can do."

I must say that that sentence made me sit up in my chair! What is the clarification on this? Are we really looking at a possibility of a push toward standardization of timber frame joinery? I'm all for qualified engineering input and sound joinery design but that sounds pretty disturbing. Like most of you I'm sure, I've put years into refining my framing style and suite of joinery (and continue to!). What would the craft be without all the wonderful latitude of appropriate joinery choices? 
"It may be that when we no longer know which way to go that we have come to our real journey. The mind that is not baffled is not employed. The impeded stream is the one that sings."
― Wendell Berry

Jim_Rogers

I am a member of the TFG (timber framers guild) and also a member of the TFEC (Timber frame Engineering council.
We have been working on standards for quite some time. and some of these documents have been in committee to get reviewed by those necessary to get them approved and into "standards".
These standards will help us when we go to an UN-educated building inspector and he says: "I'll look that up to see if it's ok."

This will be a good thing for those who will need it.

Jim Rogers

I used that term incorrectly even though I learned it in an engineering course I took. Rule of thumb is a better way to say it.
Whatever you do, have fun doing it!
Woodmizer 1994 LT30HDG24 with 6' Bed Extension

Heartwood

      I wouldn't say there's a "push" for standardized joinery but rather an inexorable drift as timber framing becomes more mainstream and visible. We're lucky to have the TFEC and engineers who are being proactive and trying to get traditional joinery tested so at least it would be accepted before rejected. But there's lots of questionable joinery out there (we see that on Forums at times) and many builders and inspectors who don't know what to do and what has stood the test of time. They will need somewhere to turn for reference = NDS = National Design Standards.
     Some of us are lucky enough to not require engineering on some projects and can rely on traditional models, or we have engineers and inspectors who are willing to recognize the inherent qualities of traditional joinery. Of course we all have to be knowledgeable about the limitations. I think that working environment will remain...as long as our buildings keep standing.

S.Hyland

I'll admit that I'm of two minds about this.

I can easily see the utility and the value of having something like that in place. There is a lot of appalling joinery out there, some that I've seen "rubber stamped" by an engineer, practiced either by ignorance or carelessness. That should be weeded out and discouraged, because it's not a credit to the craft.

On the other hand I'm very wary about the "creeping tyranny" if you will, of standards. The question becomes, when do guidelines become strictures? Who ends up making the rules and why? I'm certainly not calling into question the character and motives of anyone working on the TFEC, but I would like to raise the possibility of unintended consequences. 

This can be seen in almost every sphere of life and work that I see, from parenting to farming. Parents have their children taken away because they choose to live without electricity, or the local sawmills that I have seen who have gone out of business because the building code allows less and less un-stamped lumber. Government policy and the commodtization of agriculture has destroyed the family farm and made it's resurgence an uphill battle.  Victims of perhaps reasonable and well intentioned laws to protect "public safety".

Honestly, some of the goofiest joinery that I have seen, have been done by the biggest companies, trying to streamline their production using CNC or things like the Arunda. In fifty years time could we see standards that have been skewed to accommodate the biggest side of the industry while effectively pushing out the smaller players? I'm not saying that it will happen, I'm just raising the possibility that it could.

Will and Jim, I'm quite aware that I have no informed idea of exactly what nature of the TFEC's work on standards is. Please don't take the above as any specific indictment of yourselves or the TFEC. Perhaps my concerns have already been well discussed and steps take to create safeguards against possible over-reach and abuse. I think that proper guidelines would be a wonderful tool as long as they take into consideration that there are viable techniques which may be totally outside the norm (thinking specifically of DL Bahler's work on Swiss timber framing techniques, cruck framing, or Eastern framing traditions). Sometimes I like to look at the possible negative unintended consequence.   
"It may be that when we no longer know which way to go that we have come to our real journey. The mind that is not baffled is not employed. The impeded stream is the one that sings."
― Wendell Berry

Ljohnsaw

S.Hyland,
Well said.  While I will be done with my cabin and not likely to build another major structure, I share your concerns - especially here on the "Left Coast"...
John Sawicky

Just North-East of Sacramento...

SkyTrak 9038, Ford 545D FEL, Davis Little Monster backhoe, Case 16+4 Trencher, Home Built 42" capacity/36" cut Bandmill up to 54' long - using it all to build a timber frame cabin.

Jim_Rogers

Most, if not all, of the "standards" that the TFEC has written up is available to all for free.
They can be found here:
http://timberframeengineeringcouncil.org/library/

I have read most if not all of it. As they came out and were posted.

You could view a few and download them to have for future reference.

Jim Rogers
Whatever you do, have fun doing it!
Woodmizer 1994 LT30HDG24 with 6' Bed Extension

Heartwood

S:
All of what you say I agree with, and there may be unintended consequences to any change (I wonder about the wasp they're bringing in to battle the Emerald Ash Borer).
I think the standards should be viewed as a fallback position for those who don't know what to do. An engineer's decision (or a building inspector's) can trump the standard so one key is to educate them or find ones that are sympathetic to those "outside the norm" projects.

Den-Den

I know that a lot of hard work and good intentions go into creating standards and that they have some benefits.  With that said, I am generally skeptical of "standards" or "procedures".  When well thought out "standards" are used by knowledgeable people they are time savers and help produce good results.  A problem occurs when "standards" are used by less knowledgeable people whether builders or inspectors; the documents can create an illusion of competence and cause as many problems as they solve.

My experience is not Timber Framing but I believe the issues apply.
You may think that you can or may think you can't; either way, you are right.

Heartwood

We are building better, safer, more energy-efficient buildings that last longer because of more stringent codes (among other things like environmental responsibility). I shudder to think what less knowledgeable builders would produce without these standards. So I think they actually do provide competence, in a sense, rather than the illusion of it. We can't expect most young builders just getting started to have the confidence and knowledge to work outside the codes. That freedom will come with experience.

Thank You Sponsors!