I tend to be open minded, mostly due to constant conflicting information. Therefore I only ask myself one question - is it feasible it was done this way? If the answer is yes, then I am comfortable doing it that way. Because at the end of the day, no one is alive who knows how it was done exactly.
In my mind as a retired architect I ask myself what the function is and how forces are best distributed or secured by a logical connection. Beams on top of frames with lateral tension force would only be restrained by bolted connectors through both which would function better in compression driving the beam into the frame. If the beam is beside the frame then a bolting system through both would be entirely a factor of the shear stress of the bolt diameter and metal characteristics. These beams secondarily function to carry the live and dead vertical loads, driving them downwards and then the top position would be more functional. None of this answers your question or decision but if you make a decision as to how you see the beam/frame system functioning and best secured then you have your rationale in place and can move onwards. Just some thoughts. Rich (PT-2)I tend to be open minded, mostly due to constant conflicting information. Therefore I only ask myself one question - is it feasible it was done this way? If the answer is yes, then I am comfortable doing it that way. Because at the end of the day, no one is alive who knows how it was done exactly.
You are mostly correct in your assumption Rich. If the beam is on top of the frame, the bolts holding it are initially in tension, however if the frame starts to open up (move downward) due to downward forces of the beam on top, then the bolts would start to see sheer forces. The tension would only serve to add friction, but ultimately the bolts would see sheer. This would also be the case if the hull sees forces from outside trying to move it inward.
You are right and I suspect that with the flexing of the hull in seas it could experience a helical series continually changing from a lateral tension and horizontal sheer, at times combined, in any one joint and fastener. Somewhat like the third series of tremblors that come in a seismic event: Primary (first) in horizontal, the Secondary in vertical and lastly Tertiary wave motion which is the helical combination together. . . if I remember my seismology correctly. We have recurring events in the Klamath Falls area of Orgon which is located on the western side of the Basin and Range which extends eastward into Utah. One of my former clients was a community college in Klamath Falls that back in 1993 had a continuing series of aftershocks lasting for about 6 months where I was called in to do a structural assessment and repairs. It was long enough ago that I have forgotten some of the principles in seismology. Flexing and hogging hulls would probably be very susceptible to all types of motions/stresses. RichYou are mostly correct in your assumption Rich. If the beam is on top of the frame, the bolts holding it are initially in tension, however if the frame starts to open up (move downward) due to downward forces of the beam on top, then the bolts would start to see sheer forces. The tension would only serve to add friction, but ultimately the bolts would see sheer. This would also be the case if the hull sees forces from outside trying to move it inward.
So even though a bolt is stronger in tension than in sheer, both applications will result in the bolt seeing sheer forces, due to how they would see loading.
A true tension only loading application on a bolt, would be on one that suspends a load, or holds parts together (like an end cap on a cylinder), etc.
But the ultimate deciding factor, as you may already know, is how the forces act on the parts the bolt is holding together. So in this application, the frame is trying to flex upward or downward. Either way the bolts are in sheer in both applications, with the beam on top or to the side.
Hi, Dean.Peter…she is looking good as always!
As far as shifting everything, in order to put the cross beams on top of the frames, see below…
View attachment 245597
you can clearly see the crossbeam is not on top of the frame in this picture, it is between the frames. Is this a support beam for construction purposes only? I don’t know. All I can say for certain, is that it proves it is feasible to do it that way.
However you have freedom to decide what path you want to take, using your own logic, on your model.
Thanxs Thomas. A very interesting series of video’s.
But it trends to the YQ way of building.
Heinrich:
Thank you Rich for the description.
Thanks for your opinion, Dean. We can therefore reason to both positions. So here too: whatever I do....... right or wrong .....You are mostly correct in your assumption Rich. If the beam is on top of the frame, the bolts holding it are initially in tension, however if the frame starts to open up (move downward) due to downward forces of the beam on top, then the bolts would start to see sheer forces. The tension would only serve to add friction, but ultimately the bolts would see sheer. This would also be the case if the hull sees forces from outside trying to move it inward.
So even though a bolt is stronger in tension than in sheer, both applications will result in the bolt seeing sheer forces, due to how they would see loading.
A true tension only loading application on a bolt, would be on one that suspends a load, or holds parts together (like an end cap on a cylinder), etc.
But the ultimate deciding factor, as you may already know, is how the forces act on the parts the bolt is holding together. So in this application, the frame is trying to flex upward or downward. Either way the bolts are in sheer in both applications, with the beam on top or to the side.
Haha, if the picture is accepted as proof for the construction details@PT-2 Rich I appreciate everything you say, but here we don't even HAVE to speculate. The photograph clearly provides the answer - unless, of course, we doubt the authenticity of the photograph?
(Curved floor beams) ......An argument in favor: then there was no Photoshop, so the photo is accepted as authentic.
I always appreciate your input, Dean. I started this evening decarbonizing the lower beam and gonne instal them the YQ way beside the frames. The deciding factor is that I think I can attach them a little more firmly this way, which is another advantage in the follow-up plans.I just wanted to show it is feasible to put the crossbeam on the side of the frame. Or should I say, show it is very possible it was done that way. It is still up to you how you want to do your ship.
One slackers luxury with my POB Bluenose is that I don't have to try to wrap my mind around how to place work exposed in you YQ builds. Lucky me as there are enough other challenges for me to do what will be seen. RichHi, Dean.
A interesting old picture. With indeed the beams between the frames. But what took also my attention: no bearing beams at all.
But apparently they were added later. Also seen in this picture, in the direction of the bow. What they added: is it a bearing beam, or the clamp, or just one of the inside planks:
View attachment 245628
Then it becomes interesting how the further course of the build-up goes.
So, @Heinrich Heinrich and @PT-2 Rich, thanks for the input and discussion.
That I am confronted with this again as an atheist: almost Biblically-proportioned. This is not my intention. I asked myself, what is or can be correct and why shows Eisnor it in that way.
With maybe my pitfall: eye for details.
And all the reasoning about the effect of forces, with the technical English, I have to let it sink in for a while.
Regards, Peter
After opening my Mozilla Firefox and doing a Google search for the boatbuilding series I was able to watch not only these two but most of the other episodes are available. I had forgotten about these from a year ago and am glad to have them posted up to again view. Thanks for the voyage. Rich (PT-2)
Peter, You are progressing very well and with precise care that will return large dividends. RichThe next step in the hull is the inner wall planking on the port side, starting on the lowest part between the keelson and the bearing beams of the lower floors. That is no part of the kit, but it is my choise.
But I still have not received the ordered wood.
So, started with the preparation of the lower floor beams and mast steps. The YQ-way, as wrote above in post #496.
Sanded all the char from the 27 beams and aligned them on the bearing beams. I had to flatten a little bit of the starboard side bearing beam:
View attachment 246092
It needs a little more on the starboard side, thanks to the picture.
I have marked all the beam in the middle, so I could align them on the keelsom to check the fitting.
When the lower planking is done, the beams where attached to the bearing beams, inclusive the bolts. And sanding off the marks.
Then I installed the 4 copper water wells, I introduced them to you in my posts #233 and #242:
View attachment 246093
Around them and between the lowest point between the frames comes the cast iron parts for the ballast. But that will be dumped later.
I could use my cross-table and mill for the first time, to mill the bottom of the main mast step. To fit over the keelson and sisters keelson:
View attachment 246094
And the fitting:
View attachment 246095
From the side, the parts are reinforced with the same bolts as in the keelson and bearing beams. From the top, the step is secured to the frame and to the sisters keelson with stronger bolts.
And the mast step for the fore mast:
View attachment 246096
The mast step is also secured to the floor beam that lies in front.
Now you can see what different types of light affect the color of the wood.
And a overview:
View attachment 246097
Until the wood is in, I'll continue with the pre-work on the other lower floor beams.
Regards, Peter
