Oak framing

[biffvernon]

The other great reason (other than the cover of Cornerstones) is that you get to go on great days out. Like today's lesson on Oak Framing and Mud and Stud Walling for Rob Ley. He's about the only guy doing it the period way - hewn oak not sawn. He can build a house with no power tools.

This is how you convert a tree trunk into a beam:

and then you just connect the beams together and hey presto:

OK, so it could do with a roof and the walls are still a bit draughty, but you get the idea.

 

[Penners]

Gosh, it's very quick, isn't it?

I'd always imagined that converting that number of round logs into (approx) square beams would take many days of work, but I'm delighted to hear that it's virutally instantaneous.

What's the sort of wigwam structure inside the assembled frame? And is the bucket to catch drips coming through the roof?

 

[Mark]

thats rather splendid

Is the tripod a crane ?

 

[biffvernon]

Yes, the tripod has a block and tackle at the top - just out of camera shot.

Those lime putty tubs have all sorts of uses

 

[BMcD]

Wow that looks great.

I suppose you'll be wanting these people soon?

http://www.u-fit.co.uk/

 

[Flyfisher]

This might be a daft question, but given the huge amount of effort needed to hew a square beam out of a round tree, why bother? I can see that the various joints will work better when squared off and flat, but the centre of the beams could just as well just be de-barked and left round - couldn't they?

Certainly it all looks lovely, but this is really just being done recreationally isn't it? If you were having to make a living at it, what is the benefit of squaring off every piece of timber?

 

[middi]

Good observation Flyfisher, not a daft question at all.

The nice example, as posted by Biff, would have been the equivalent of a dwelling costing approximately one million pounds nowdays.

Their equivalent of our terraced house ( the hovel) would have been build out of quickly rounded off logs with just the branches removed, rare examples still exist.

On higher status buildings the beams were not only squared off to remove all the sapwood, but carefully selected and carved. The more intricate the carvings, higher the cost, therefore reflecting the status.

Even on higher status dwellings, and where the beams were not meant to be seen, such as roof rafters, a lot of the bark was left on the beam and just the " working face" squared off.

Next time you stare at your carved beams ceiling, go into the roof space or walk up your jacobean staicase, it will indicate why it is GII* listed.

That would have been your five to ten million pounds pad at today's prices.

 

[biffvernon]

It does look like a lot of effort but to hew a square beam out of a round tree is not so bad. The timber is converted at the spot where it was felled. No vehicles and machinery are used in the wood. That would damage the soil and disturb the wildlife. The sound of Rob's axe was constantly accompanied by the drumming of a woodpecker above us. To convert a beam like the one in the picture takes about three hours. Shall we call that £75 of labour?

How much does an equivalent steel RSJ cost? With a steel you need to account for the externalities. The destruction and havoc wrought by iron ore mining, global shipping, steel making with its attendant coal mining and limestone quarrying, the rolling mill, and then road transport. CO2 emissions at every stage contribute to global warming which has the potential for destroying all human civilization. These costs must be included when pricing the steel and making a fair comparison with an oak beam. The waste from conversion, the bark and chippings, drop to the soil ready to fertilize the saplings that are growing about.

Rob's axes are razor sharp, the tools do the work, the craftsman just guides them to their place. There is no sawmill, no transport to the mill, no power needed for the mill, no capital needed to finance the mill. A hewn oak beam is stronger than when sawn. The fibres, wherein lies the strength, are not cut, and the surface is not left rough and torn, open to water absorption. And, of course, the finished beam looks immeasurably better for retaining the natural curves and twists of the living tree.

The work is good exercise but not unduly strenuous. Just enough to avoid having to pay for gym fees. The work is outdoors, there are no buildings and car parks and water coolers to pay for. A little shelter made from sticks, a fireplace burning twigs and a kettle suspended above from a tripod is all the staffroom that is needed. The price of the workers' health must be included in the beam. Coal miner, quarryman, steelworker, lorrydriver, steel beams come at a high price.

Recreation? Should not all work be recreation? But Rob does have to make a living, there's the wife and two pairs of little twins to keep. The older daughter now works with him to make her own living. This is a successful business. Capitalization? Six acres of ancient woodland.

Beams flat and square? Rob chooses one face to be in a flat plain. The other three faces are absolutely square but need not be in flat planes. The curves of the tree's growth are celebrated. Frames are set out over a scribing floor with each beam's face side marked with a chalk line and positioned plumb and square. Joints are cut to fit the curves of the timber with astounding precision, marks are made and the whole is disassembled, ready to go, a flatpack IKEA should be proud of.

This is not for the million pound house. Rob is recreating the vernacular architecture of medieval Lincolnshire, the mud and stud cottage. He lives in one himself that has stood the test of centuries. Yes, the frame in the picture is a fine example but not out of the ordinary for a substantial cottage. This is not a manor house. The walls will be filled with mud - a mixture of subsoil dug on-site and chopped barley straw. With an oak shingle roof there is little in the building's structure that is not derived from the site.

In a post fossil fuel world, and if we come to our senses before global warming gets us, we will need buildings like this and lifestyles like Rob's.

 

[Mark]

Those lime putty tubs have all sorts of uses

Ahhh! So that bit's the bathroom ?

 

[Moo]

"Capitalization? Six acres of ancient woodland."

Biff - A small question is beginning to niggle at me, so I'd be grateful for authoritative reassurance:
How many houses would the six acres provide, and how long would it take to replace it?

In other words, what's the turn-round time for this sort of sustainable housing?

 

[biffvernon]

I don't know, Moo. We'd need someone who knows about woodland productivity to tell us. The oak I use for windows if often from 80 to 120 year old trees but for timber framing 30 year old oak is probably more useful. Remember Ben Law's house? That was mostly sweet chestnut in fairly small section so might be 20 years. Rob uses ash, which is pretty quick growing, for rafters and coppiced hazel for the studs in the mud walls.

 

[Moo]

Why did I assume that Rob was using oak? (Something to do with it being a B.Vernon post, possibly?)

It's beginning to remind me of one of those questions in school maths books - if it takes 20 years to grow enough trees for one house, and those trees occupy X acres of land, how many acres will it take for a new estate of Y houses?[/i]

 

[Flyfisher]

Biff, I wasn't trying to denigrate Rob's work in any way and I have no doubts about the 'greeness' of the method. Three hours to square off a beam doesn't, as you point out, seem too bad, but it's still three hours of labour (multiplied over an entire building) that seems to be done mainly for aesthetic purposes. Nothing wrong in that, of course, but it must cost something and Middi's explanation seems logical to me.

In a post fossil fuel world, and if we come to our senses before global warming gets us, we will need buildings like this and lifestyles like Rob's.

I have my doubts that 6 billion people are going to be able to live this sort of lifestyle, but that's another topic. Maybe after the energy wars have depleted the global population though . . .

Out of curiosity I looked up the following figures:

Surface area of the Earth = 196,940,400 sq miles
30% land mass area = 59,082,120 sq miles
32% is forest/woodland = 18,906,278 sq miles
640 acres / sq mile = 12,100,018,176
Population in 2050 = 9,000,000,000

All of which gives each person about 1.3 acres of forest/woodland each.
A far cry from the 6 acres that is supporting Rob's enterprise and a sobering illustration of how many people we're really asking this planet to support.

 

[Moo]

Cor !!

 

[Nemesis]

Round here, timber framing isn't the common vernacular, but older buildings which have survived had at times round timbers where shape wasn't important - holding up heather thatch for example, or as joists for flagstones at first floor level in bastle houses. Above my head (although boxed in) there is a beam which is basically a chunk of tree with the bark chopped off.

Where timber framing is concerned which demand some sort of infill, surely a better fit is with squared off timber?

Middi - don't equate the terraced house as the 'modern' day equivalent of the hovel. It's not true. And recycling those (see media watch thread) would be better than mass demolitions - they represent a great deal of embodied energy.

Required reading - Muthesias The English Terraced House. They can be anything from grand to simple, with many regional and historic variations, but all aspired to bring a better standard of living than the hovel had.

More info and pics via the Pathfinder link:

http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/main.htm

A slice of history here:

http://www.infobritain.co.uk/Architecture_UK.htm

http://www.le.ac.uk/emoha/leicester/terraces.html

http://www.le.ac.uk/emoha/leicester/furtherreading.html



Some saved ones here:

http://www.thamesweb.co.uk/carpark/almaroad_2002plan.html

Sad about the windows however...

 

[biffvernon]

Moo, most of his big beams are oak - its just that other timbers can be used where appropriate and none of it needs to be terribly old and slow growing.

Fortunately, quite a lot of the world's 6 billion have already got houses of one sort or another so they don't all need oak frame buildings tomorrow. And there are, of course, a thousand and one variations in vernacular architecture, related to availability of local materials, and traditions, which do not need to compromise our ability to inhabit this fragile planet.

 

[Mark]

so these are made then shipped to site ?

what sort of cost are they (I know thats a piece of string question)

there was a timber frame building on ebay a while ago.

 

[biffvernon]

Making the frames near to where the trees grow and then moving the finished pieces is much more economical than carrying trees to the building site. It has always been thus.

It's not just a string question, there's the matter of whether the man has time to make you one at all.

 

[BMcD]

I thought I'd read some where that a reason for squaring off timbers was because the outer wood and bark is softer wood and therefore more susceptible to insect and fungal attack. Could this be true?

 

[middi]

Nemesis, with regards to hovels and terraced housing, I was trying to highlight the importance of affordable housing and merely making a comparison in standards of living.

Living in hovels and scratching a living with probably 10 children and a wife to support, as you may agree, is is not exactly the same as living in a well presented terraced and both husband and wife having salaries and three holidays a year.

If we take this scenario , pro-rata, their smal well built hall house, perhaps with a cros-wing added, would cost today approx 6/800 K to buy, but at the time would have ,more than likely, represented a house of about 5 million pounds at today expectations in standard of living.

Funny old world isn't it.