Square rule still a viable layout method given this problem?

[SyrupHog]

Well, I've done it!  I've read so much and researched enough to get my head in a knot  :-\ and now I feel like things are as clear as mud.  I thought I had it figured out, but I just realized that truly, I'm a bit lost.  Here's my predicament...

Background...I'm new to timber framing...never built one.  Done plenty of stick framing, renos, additions, etc...even some basic post and beam work...but never true timber framing.  On my plate (for fun) is a sugar shack to build here on our own property.  I've got a bandsaw mill and I've got a decent amount of white pine on the property to use for timbers.  To date I've cut nine 8x8 posts that are 11' long, seven 4x6 cants that are 10' long (to be used for braces and girts), and I've got a bunch of 1x6, 1x8 and 1x10 material that is stacked for use on the project.  The project is a 18 x 24 building, consisting of 3 bents, with rafter plates, and common rafters.

When milling the posts I spent a good amount of time trying to get them as true to dimension and as square as possible.  I thought I did a pretty good job...but I guess wood is wood, and the sawmill (and the sawyer...me) are not 'top notch'.  I don't have a problem finding a good square edge on any of the timbers.  I can quite easily get a good reference and adjacent face.  I figured I was all set to use square rule layout.  BUT, what I realized when I started to measure and layout my first post was that the square edge (arris) is not straight.  In other words, as I was sawing, for perhaps any number of reasons, the face that was being sawn has slight undulations throughout the length.  This happened, to varying degrees, on all four sides.  So while the ends of the timber might be 8" x 8" on the nose, the timber can vary from 7 ⅞ to 8 1/16 throughout that 11' length.  Given this non-straight edge, I feel like square rule and laying out using the arris is no longer an option.  It would seem to me that given these slight variations (which exists on all the posts I sawed), if I was to do square rule layout (as I understand it anyway), I could risk having mortises that might be out of alignment as much as a ¼", maybe more, between posts.  So, girts may not fit right, tie beams may not fit right, etc.  I'm starting to think that the idea of snap line layout might be my best option.  Is it?  I mean, for you guys that do square rule layout, how true (read straight) are your timbers when laying them out?  Does anyone run a string line along the edge from end to end to see how straight that arris is before laying out?  I know the idea of square rule is to be able to work with the perfect timber within...but it would seem I can't get that without using some kind of chalk line I guess.  Am I over thinking this?  Like I said, between all the different videos I've watched and the books I've bought and read, I just feel like this is an issue that doesn't get touched on when talking about square rule layout.  It's like it assumes that the timber edge your measuring from is perfectly straight and true, even if it is over or undersized.

Anyways, sorry for the long post.  I guess what I'm looking for is some advice on what you experienced timber framers might do.  Any and all advice appreciated.  Cheers.

[Chilterns]

Hi Syrup,

Well done ! You have been actively thinking about how to make and fit all of your parts together and not simply blindly following the mantra of others. You have to learn to work with what you've got and the variations in dimensions that you mention are not so extreme however this does need to be reflected in the layout and cutting method adopted.

If you have enough room then layout your frames and match mark (i.e. scribe) them together. If you don't have a decent sized level layout area then your idea to snap lines and work from them to create flat areas and (where needed) housings to deal with wane and excess sapwood that will affect the long term service of joints.

As time passes you might find that rectangular scantling cross sections begin to turn rhomboid and so you will also need to decide which timber faces are to become the reference faces. The order in which you make frames matters and so make and trial assemble the long wall frames first and then the cross frames.

I could go on but it's probably easier to address your concerns and issues as they arise.

You are not alone !

C.   

[Jim_Rogers]

If your timber is not true, true it up. Put it back on the mill and make a slight trim cut. Make it square from one face to one face for the arris with a sharp blade. You may only need to skim the blade along the face.
Square rule standard would be that your inner timber is 1/2" under the actual size of the timber. So, your 8x8 inner timber is 7 1/2" x 7 1/2". That gives you some extra wood you can trim off, even down to 7 3/4". There will just be smaller housings.

Or, at the area where the tie beam meets the post, square up that area with a hand plane. Make it true and with two faces 90° to each other for the arris.

You can do snap line square rule also, you can check your arris with a string chalk line and snap a line to show where the "improvements" need to be made.

You can do an offset snap line, such as 2" off the arris and layout all your joints from that. The issue I have with that is holding your framing square true to the snap line. If it's not exactly on the line, or slips when you draw your pencil line or knife line then you're still in the same boat as the joint is not true.

Personally, if I had a sawmill available, I'd do a trim cut and get it right. That to me is the easiest solution. Then you can use your metal layout tools off the edge of the true arris to draw and or knife your joints.

Good question, and good luck with your project.

Jim Rogers

[timberframe]

Hi SyrupHog you are not over thinking it at all and it is a real problem that can be navigated easily with a simple version of "line rule" which snap line square rule sort of incompletely borrows from.  Square rule methods in its simplest form still requires straight, square and true.  If you are working on a banana shaped timber and place your framing square on the top to lay out the post top tenon and then us the square in the middle of the banana to lay out a brace mortise, they won't be on the same plane or square to each other.

As we speak I am editing the third part of a 3 part YouTube video series on my simple version of line rule and some folks have found it helpful.  Snap your lines and use templates to lay out the joints, no need to worry about your square shifting like Jim describes.  You can use timbers that are banana shaped, twisted and out of square without issue.  No need to define an Arris or do any hand planing unless you want to for cosmetics. I am hoping part 3 will be finished up around the end of next week, it takes a long time to cover everything!  Here's a link to part one: Timberframing Layout Part 1 - Introduction - YouTube

Let me know if it helps - it is long and wordy so settle in with a tub of popcorn. Also, if there's anything you want more clarity on, I may be able to squeeze something into this last video!   ;D   

Well, I've done it!  I've read so much and researched enough to get my head in a knot  :-\ and now I feel like things are as clear as mud.  I thought I had it figured out, but I just realized that truly, I'm a bit lost.  Here's my predicament...

Background...I'm new to timber framing...never built one.  Done plenty of stick framing, renos, additions, etc...even some basic post and beam work...but never true timber framing.  On my plate (for fun) is a sugar shack to build here on our own property.  I've got a bandsaw mill and I've got a decent amount of white pine on the property to use for timbers.  To date I've cut nine 8x8 posts that are 11' long, seven 4x6 cants that are 10' long (to be used for braces and girts), and I've got a bunch of 1x6, 1x8 and 1x10 material that is stacked for use on the project.  The project is a 18 x 24 building, consisting of 3 bents, with rafter plates, and common rafters.

When milling the posts I spent a good amount of time trying to get them as true to dimension and as square as possible.  I thought I did a pretty good job...but I guess wood is wood, and the sawmill (and the sawyer...me) are not 'top notch'.  I don't have a problem finding a good square edge on any of the timbers.  I can quite easily get a good reference and adjacent face.  I figured I was all set to use square rule layout.  BUT, what I realized when I started to measure and layout my first post was that the square edge (arris) is not straight.  In other words, as I was sawing, for perhaps any number of reasons, the face that was being sawn has slight undulations throughout the length.  This happened, to varying degrees, on all four sides.  So while the ends of the timber might be 8" x 8" on the nose, the timber can vary from 7 ⅞ to 8 1/16 throughout that 11' length.  Given this non-straight edge, I feel like square rule and laying out using the arris is no longer an option.  It would seem to me that given these slight variations (which exists on all the posts I sawed), if I was to do square rule layout (as I understand it anyway), I could risk having mortises that might be out of alignment as much as a ¼", maybe more, between posts.  So, girts may not fit right, tie beams may not fit right, etc.  I'm starting to think that the idea of snap line layout might be my best option.  Is it?  I mean, for you guys that do square rule layout, how true (read straight) are your timbers when laying them out?  Does anyone run a string line along the edge from end to end to see how straight that arris is before laying out?  I know the idea of square rule is to be able to work with the perfect timber within...but it would seem I can't get that without using some kind of chalk line I guess.  Am I over thinking this?  Like I said, between all the different videos I've watched and the books I've bought and read, I just feel like this is an issue that doesn't get touched on when talking about square rule layout.  It's like it assumes that the timber edge your measuring from is perfectly straight and true, even if it is over or undersized.

Anyways, sorry for the long post.  I guess what I'm looking for is some advice on what you experienced timber framers might do.  Any and all advice appreciated.  Cheers.

[timberframe]

By the way, I'm in Ontario Canada too!  Near Peterborough.

[Ljohnsaw]

 :P

[SyrupHog]

Thank you for the replies and advice.  Truly appreciated.

@Chilterns - I can certainly see the benefits of following a scribe rule methodology, but it won't work for me given I don't have the space necessary to do this...unless I want to move all round hay bales outside.   :laugh:  Yes...I'm working in the cold, in the hay barn.

@Jim_Rogers - I like the idea of trying to true up the timber on the saw, and I might try that once things warm up a bit around here next week.  I'll be approaching that with cautious optimism.  I was using brand new blades when cutting most of these timbers, so I have a feeling that may not be the major contributor to the problem.  Although I didn't think I was pushing through the timber too quickly when sawing, I will try to really slow down and see if it helps.  I also think I might try setting up some sort of sawdust guard on the inside of the wheels that roll the saw head down the track.  I did notice that there was quite a bit of sawdust build up that would happen has I was cutting, meaning, potentially, those wheels (which ride on a small piece of angle iron) would be riding on a slightly different level along the length of the cut.  I'd always clean the track before making the next pass, but if I can prevent it from getting there in the first place, might as well..can't hurt.

@timberframe - Funnily enough I was watching your videos last night before posting!  Don't take that as meaning it added to my confusion...although it may have, a little.  ;D  I very much enjoyed them and I found them very informative.  In fact it's part of what has led me to wondering if this might be the solution for my given predicament. I did spend some time searching for part 3, so I'm glad to hear it will be coming soon and I look forward to seeing it.  Anything showing some examples of laying out different joints using that hybrid method would be great (both with and without templates).  Peterbourgh and the surrounding area is beautiful.  I'm out near Lanark, about an hour west of Ottawa.  Yes...the maple syrup capital of Ontario...hence the need for sugar shack of course!

[timberframe]

Thank you for the replies and advice.  Truly appreciated.

@Chilterns - I can certainly see the benefits of following a scribe rule methodology, but it won't work for me given I don't have the space necessary to do this...unless I want to move all round hay bales outside.   :laugh:  Yes...I'm working in the cold, in the hay barn.

@Jim_Rogers - I like the idea of trying to true up the timber on the saw, and I might try that once things warm up a bit around here next week.  I'll be approaching that with cautious optimism.  I was using brand new blades when cutting most of these timbers, so I have a feeling that may not be the major contributor to the problem.  Although I didn't think I was pushing through the timber too quickly when sawing, I will try to really slow down and see if it helps.  I also think I might try setting up some sort of sawdust guard on the inside of the wheels that roll the saw head down the track.  I did notice that there was quite a bit of sawdust build up that would happen has I was cutting, meaning, potentially, those wheels (which ride on a small piece of angle iron) would be riding on a slightly different level along the length of the cut.  I'd always clean the track before making the next pass, but if I can prevent it from getting there in the first place, might as well..can't hurt.

@timberframe - Funnily enough I was watching your videos last night before posting!  Don't take that as meaning it added to my confusion...although it may have, a little.  ;D  I very much enjoyed them and I found them very informative.  In fact it's part of what has led me to wondering if this might be the solution for my given predicament. I did spend some time searching for part 3, so I'm glad to hear it will be coming soon and I look forward to seeing it.  Anything showing some examples of laying out different joints using that hybrid method would be great (both with and without templates).  Peterbourgh and the surrounding area is beautiful.  I'm out near Lanark, about an hour west of Ottawa.  Yes...the maple syrup capital of Ontario...hence the need for sugar shack of course!

@SyrupHog

No offence taken!  I think the application of the rules in the last video would help a lot.   I will be out your way in the next few weeks and can stop in have a chat/demo in person if you want.  I can bring along a few jigs and we can walk through a timber pretty quickly.  I'll be in touch when my plans firm up.

[SyrupHog]

@timberframe - Thank you for such a generous offer!  I will happily take you up on that if it works out with your travel plans.  Cheers!

[timberframe]

@timberframe - Thank you for such a generous offer!  I will happily take you up on that if it works out with your travel plans.  Cheers!

Sounds great, I'll be in touch!

[timberframe]

@timberframe - Thank you for such a generous offer!  I will happily take you up on that if it works out with your travel plans.  Cheers!

Hey SyrupHog, I can't find your email for some reason so I hope you see this, but the third part of the layout video series is up now!  Hope it helps,

Brent

[beenthere]

Send a PM to SyrupHog

[timberframe]

Send a PM to SyrupHog

Oh goodness.....thank you.  Total brain cramp...

DM sent!

[Brad_bb]

If your cuts are wavy, do you know how to check the drive belt tension?  The tension on a drive belt will change from when you put it on and it must be set to the factory spec.  Woodmizer has a tension measuring tool and spec for woodmizer mills.  Does your mill's manufacture have a drive belt tension setting procedure (drive belt tension NOT band tension).  Another key to preventing wavy cuts is keeping saw dust from building up on one side of the band.  I never cut pine myself, but other guys use diesel and some use pinesol.  Lastly you want a sharp band.  What band are you using?  Lower power mills generally need lower degree hook angle blades.  Softwoods are more forgiving than hardwoods.  What HP is your mill?  

[Brad_bb]

I'm using some reclaimed circle sawn timbers for a small structure I'm preparing to build.  The 8x8 pieces(6) I'm using for plates are  crowned in one direction.  These pieces will be in plane with the 2nd floor joists and against the outside walls.  I want to keep the circle marks where they'll be visible inside, but I also don't want any gaps with the wall and floor so I can use one flat face against the wall and then plane the top face flat so it will be level with the floor.  If you can use a hand power plane to true up your two reference faces, you can use regular square rule.  Varying thickness of your timber doesn't matter as much as having one true face and arris.  

If you were to use snap line square rule, you'll have gaps/see the waviness on the wall.  If you don't mind this , you'll need to shim the timbers for the wall you build to enclose the frame.  You can also choose to use trim pieces to hide the wavy gap.  

[timberframe]

I'm using some reclaimed circle sawn timbers for a small structure I'm preparing to build.  The 8x8 pieces(6) I'm using for plates are  crowned in one direction.  These pieces will be in plane with the 2nd floor joists and against the outside walls.  I want to keep the circle marks where they'll be visible inside, but I also don't want any gaps with the wall and floor so I can use one flat face against the wall and then plane the top face flat so it will be level with the floor.  If you can use a hand power plane to true up your two reference faces, you can use regular square rule.  Varying thickness of your timber doesn't matter as much as having one true face and arris. 

If you were to use snap line square rule, you'll have gaps/see the waviness on the wall.  If you don't mind this , you'll need to shim the timbers for the wall you build to enclose the frame.  You can also choose to use trim pieces to hide the wavy gap. 

Hi Brad, being able to make perfect joints with irregular timbers is a great skill to have but doesn't solve the problem of occasionally needing straight/flat for other elements of construction once the frame is up.  This is often dealt with by choosing what stock goes where during the initial assessment of the timber pile but if that doesn't deal with it, there is nothing stopping you from manually planing your faces flat where they need to be flat and STILL using line rule if you prefer. 

[Brad_bb]

Yep, I think I just said it in a different way.  Also I guess we should technically say we are jointing the timbers flat, technically.  

[timberframe]

Yep, I think I just said it in a different way.  Also I guess we should technically say we are jointing the timbers flat, technically. 

Brad, I'm actually in a situation now that reminded me of this.  I have an overloaded tie in a queen post settup and am using a "Sampson" or "bolster" underneath (on top of central post) to help the tie out.  The timbers have both seasoned for a long time and are no longer flat, straight or even....but I want the top of Sampson to meet bottom of tie perfectly so there is no getting around I have to make them both perfectly flat so they bear evenly on eachother.  Line Rule techniques will guide me of course, but it is still going to be a manual process. I am expecting a workout!