Learn Timber Design

[LearningAlways]

I'd like to learn timber design. Not that I will ever make a career out of it, at least not in the near future but I like the final product of timber design. I'm comfortable where I am in my current position, I have no strong desire to leave and make less money. I am most familiar with precast design.

How can I learn timber? I have a great book recommended a few times on this site and by a friend, Design of Wood Structure by Breyer. But a textbook is not real life.

I had the craziest idea... what if I offered free work to a firm? It would have to be at nights and on the weekends but who doesn't want free work? The major downside is that I can only contribute a certain amount in a week, how can a firm train someone for 20 hours a week and still hope to hit a schedule?

Thought I'd run it by this group before actually reaching out.

 

[phamENG]

You're not working for free. For insurance purposes, you'll have to become an employee. That has certain costs regardless of salary. For legal reasons, they'll likely have to pay you something if you're an employee. There may be ways around that - I haven't had a reason to look for them, though. Then there's training you. Time spent teaching you how to do it is time not spent doing other things faster, and that has a real cost to it. On top of all that, what's keeping you there? Once they've invested in training you, what's to stop you from walking away? Nothing. Not a worthwhile investment.

Breyer's book is very good. It has most of the stuff you need. Take a look at the Wood Framed Construction Manual. That's a good 'cookbook' for simple wood houses.

 

[driftLimiter]

After hitting the text book, and the WFCM, hit the SEAOC IBC examples books. There is also Terry Malone's book on diaphragms, and some NEHRP documents that are very in-depth.

These resources combined would give you a good technical background, in order to get really good it simply takes practice and guidance from an experienced mentor. Which I don't think you would be able to get without working for a firm designing wood, and you would need to do this for real, not for free as Pham points out.

But if you can solve all of the Breyer homework questions you are well on your way.

 

[Eng16080]

I think studying the resources already mentioned is a good start. Also, any good books concerning framing/construction/carpentry will be equally beneficial. From there, I'm not exactly sure how to proceed given your situation. You could take house plans that you happen to find online and then try to create framing plans from those. From there, perhaps hire a local structural engineer with experience in wood design to provide a review. It seems that it should be easy to find a reviewer for a fake project considering that it's very low risk. It would, of course, be a bit strange though. If somebody approached me with this type of proposition, I would maybe consider it on the condition they pay me up front.

You can probably also learn a fair amount from this site and I'm sure you might get some good responses with any questions you have have, provided they demonstrate an understanding beyond introductory knowledge.

Also, I certainly applaud your motivation, but I think most people aren't necessarily going to jump at the opportunity to have you provide free work for them. Maybe I'm just getting old/pessimistic, but most times there's an offer of something valuable for free, I'm naturally hesitant. You're probably better off offering to do the work at a discount rate.

 

[bones206]

Timber design or wood design? In my mind there is a distinction.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Learning Always -

Here's what I would suggest:
1) I got the NDS and Breyer's book.
2) Do some plan checks for one of those plan check firms. Spend the time reviewing the calc package and drawing package. Now, I didn't do that for a firm. But, I did some dynamic calcs for a project my friend was working on. Then I asked for a copy of their submission package, and I went through it like a detailed plan checker. This was just patio covers, a deck and such. But, I really got the basics of wood down from this package.
3) Do the same sort of thing for something that has a wood diaphragm.... like a warehouse with requirements for wall anchorage and a sub-diaphragm.
4) Then do the same sort of thing with a couple of different types of wood shear walls. Solid walls with hold downs at both ends. Maybe the "Perforated" walls in the SDPWS. Or, if you really want to have some fun..... "Force Transfer Around Openings" and all the strapping and weird calcs that go along with that.

Eventually, you'll have to get familiar with lots of proprietary products like Simpson, Strong Wall, TJI joists and such. But, that's just to round out your knowledge. I through 4 above will get you all the basics.

Where it gets complicated is when you have weird load paths and openings all over the place. That's the annoying thing about wood buildings, the load paths can get ugly sometimes.

 

[XR250]

If you really want to learn it, read the aforementioned books AND take a job working as a laborer for a contractor.

 

[milkshakelake]

If someone came to me and asked to work for free, I'd probably say no. I'd think that the person is trying to steal my clients or standards. It's counterintuitive, but I think you're more likely to get part time work on mass timber if you charge something for it.

 

[DoubleStud]

What is your goal? Being able to produce structural drawing for a house?

 

[lexpatrie]

What are we talking about?

This is probably a usage question, because to me "timber" is distinct from light-frame "wood" design. The resources everybody is pointing at are light-frame references, although Breyer touches on heavier "heavy timber" timber design elements (glulams), this is the building code stuff, the 6x8 beams and 6x6 column minimum sizes that are big enough to withstand a fire.

When it comes to the "timber frame" more ornamental stuff like mortise and tenon structures that are more commonly seen in England and some showier wood structures in the U.S. The connections are usually wood peg, or something similar, are more esoteric and the domain of the Timber Frame Education Council. And "Mass timber" (which sounds like cross-laminated timber to me), is a different creature yet again. So there's three things here, if you ask me. Not sure which one the OP wants to know about. So I can't go too far on advice there.

Employee or not?
With regards to the you'd have to be an employee comment, in my opinion this is not correct. Sure, that's more conventionally done. The insurance in the event of a lawsuit or worse is probably a lot happier that way as well, but an engineer of record ( design firm ) cannot hand a wood project or a timber project to an unskilled inexperienced engineer or engineer in training or a "structural enthusiast" who's interested in learning the basics by doing, they need to meet the requirements of responsible charge and direct supervision, (unless the outside engineer has demonstrated competency and will stamp the final design, I suppose) and this can be accomplished without being an employee.

The insurance for O&E might have complaints or clauses about this down the road, should a problem (meaning lawsuit) appear, but that sort of thing I feel is surmountable, because ultimately it is on the design professional (an employee of the firm, who is stamping the final design) who is in responsible charge, i.e. the engineer of record, and if they stamp the drawing, they are effectively certifying the work is correctly done to their standard of care.

They are responsible for reviewing all the work by a subordinate (regardless of employment status) as if they did it themselves, are required to be involved in the process beginning to end (framing selection, bearing points, choice of floor trusses, I-joists, prefabricated rafters, design criteria like snow load, live loads, dead loads, etc., shop drawing review, site inspections, etc). This does not mean you have to hold their hand the entire time or even walk them through every calculation, you could use the same approach that's involved in becoming a successor engineer, i.e. from their "final" design, you perform all the necessary calculations to confirm or revise their design accordingly, complete load path, etc. You could (should/must) do the same thing if somebody asks you to "plan stamp" their work and they've not been anywhere near your locus of control, not under your direct supervision, are completely unknown to you as to their skills or qualifications.

Ultimately, there is NO difference between having an EIT, a person without an EIT who is familiar with how to perform the calculations (mathematician, accountant, wife or child, engineering student, paid or unpaid intern from the local university, paid by the university, out-of-work Maytag repairman, whatever), and a fellow professional engineer who just happens to not have a license in the state where the project is going to be constructed. As the Engineer of record, the requirements are EXACTLY the same. Direct supervision and responsible charge.

Some/many/most design offices do NOT follow these rules and when one P.E. does a design and another is going to stamp it, there is probably about zero review because "they know the guy". This will NOT be a satisfactory response to any board of professional engineers if there is a problem with the project (collapse, complaint from a contractor or city building official). I'd expect nobody is going to admit they did zero review of another engineer's work, but if they didn't do any review then there won't be any calculations in the file, will there?

Any time I was doing a project "under" another engineer's license, they nitpicked the heck out of the work and did their own review of the design, independently, even if I have my own license. I don't know the point of that, either they were trying to decide I could handle it myself for the next one, they wanted their name on the final project, or that was the way they intended to operate going forward. As a specific example, we had a high school addition where the architect was going back and forth on the size of the building, so I was told to design the open web steel roof joists as if they were two feet longer than the current design, and to design for a ballasted roof. On review before that engineer stamped the project, I got asked about the joist designs being "too heavy", because the joist designs were never trimmed to the correct lengths, so the review was that detailed (I forget if the joists were designed too long and the ballasted roof wasn't ultimately done). (We were both licensed in the state in question).

I've worked "under" another engineer who didn't review much of anything (we were both licensed in the state in question) and had to basically chain them down to a desk and force them to go through the design in front of me, interrupt them periodically to get them to supervise the design process. send email after email to drag them to the table, etc, force them to confirm location of bearing walls, etc. That did not last that long. I found their approach intolerable and irresponsible.

([link file:///C:/Users/expat/Downloads/007.0-Change-of-Architect-Engineer-of-Record-ADA3.pdf]City of Coral Gables information[/url], which references the Florida code)

While this is not a casual process, and requires deliberate thought, nowhere in there is an employee relationship an actual requirement that I've seen.