Tag Archives: University of Virginia

Ghost Structure Workshop Synopsis: Amelia Hughes

AMELIA HUGHES IS AN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA. 

Earlier this Spring I was very fortunate to have the opportunity to spend two full days working with a crew at the Menokin site in Warsaw, Virginia to build a reconstructed slave dwelling on the site where one of the historic plantation’s slave cabins had once previously stood. The actual building of the structure was an effective blend of traditional and modern tools and techniques. At Menokin, the crew employed a combination of both modern and historic building technology to achieve the end result of the slave dwelling structure. I  found this juxtaposition between eighteenth and twenty first century technology to be very intriguing. Throughout the two days that I spent working with the crew, I was able to gain experience using both modern power tools and hand tools, some of which were themselves antiques forged by blacksmiths. I appreciated the way that the crew used modern time (and therefore money) saving tools while still using traditional methods for many aspects of the construction. In one instance in particular, this blending of modern and traditional tools especially stood out, and that was in the creation of the mortis and tenons used to construct the building.

The first step in the process was to create mortises in the cut lumber that the structure was going to be made out of. In order to do this, we used an electric powered mortise maker. This tool is essentially a chainsaw oriented vertically in a frame that can be adjusted and pushed down into the wood to create a rectangular hole that serves as the mortise for the timber frame constructed building. The tool, however, created a cavity with rounded corners and humps in the middle where the mortise machine could not reach due to it’s rounded blade. From this point, the most efficient way to shape the mortise was using the tried and true methods of the eighteenth century and prior – with a chisel.

A chisel and mallet was the most effective way to complete the mortises and shape them into the required form in order to properly fit together with the tenons to create a secure joint. Effective, that is, if you are skilled in using a chisel and mallet. I however was decidedly not effective in my chiseling efforts, and it took me a great deal of time and effort in order to adequately clean out even one mortise.  Chisels of varying sizes were actually one of the most, if not the most, used tools on site among both traditional and modern power tools. The chisel was also used to complete the tenons after they were cut out of the lumber with a circular saw. The modern power tools made for quick and easy work, but that was not precise enough to successfully complete the traditional construction techniques. In order to properly execute the mortise and tenon joints of traditional timber framing, old-fashioned hand tools were needed to shape the joints to the point where they would properly fit together.

This combination of modern and traditional methods really struck me. We can improve upon the building methods of the past using our current technology, but sometimes the best tool for the job is still the original tool, as was the case in creating mortise and tenon joints. The methods of the past sometimes can only be achieved using the tools of the past, despite our best efforts to cut down on the time and labor expended in the building process. This blend of historic and contemporary building was also apparent in little shortcuts that the crew took. One example of this is that when cutting big pieces of wood out of the sills for lap joints, the crew made a few strategic cuts, gave a couple of whacks with the hammer, and out popped three blocks of wood that used to occupy the space that was now made vacant for the lap joint. Removing the wood in that way allowed it to break along its own natural path, making it easier to chisel the precise measurements needed and ensuring that the wood didn’t break or split due to unnecessary excessive pressure from a power tool on an a relatively small piece of wood. I appreciated the crew’s mix of old and new techniques. It seems wise to keep the best of the traditional methods while using available current technology to make the process more efficient.

I was a little surprised to learn that the building crew which readily employed modern technology in their construction, still made pegs to hold the mortis and tenon joints together using traditional methods. I expected them to have some sort of peg making tool but was informed that this is not the case. That meant I was back on the saw horse, and I am pleased to report that my band knife skills are coming along quite nicely, as well as having made some very beautiful wood shavings a photo of which is now the background on my phone. We needed to make about eighty pegs to complete the construction, and we did all of them by hand using the traditional

(L) Correct peg (R) Incorrect peg

methods. Unfortunately, there was a bit of miscommunication and the majority of our pegs ended up being not quite wide enough, so we had to go back and shave off some additional wood with the band knife. The pegs needed to be long enough to go completely through one piece of framing and into the next, securely attaching them together.

And so we learned the hard way the importance of triple-checking your work, especially when using labor intensive hand tools, by having to go back and alter fifty pegs by hand on the saw horse.

As was the case in working with wood in class, it was important to keep the characteristics of the wood in mind when manipulating it in order to create the components necessary for a timber frame structure. When we began making tenons to fit into our perfectly chiseled mortises, we had to keep the properties of the wood in mind. After carefully measuring out our tenon from the lumber that would soon become a wall stud, we set about cutting the shape out of the wood. Perpendicular to the wood we used a hand saw, but cutting parallel to the wood, we used a chisel to remove the small block from the larger piece. This was because it is most effective to saw against the grain as opposed to with the grain, and when going with the grain, the most effective tool is a chisel. In the work of constructing a building, it is always necessary for the carpenter to keep the properties of the wood in mind and work with those properties, using them to the carpenter’s advantage when possible, as opposed to against it.

Throughout the days spent at Menokin working on the slave dwelling, we also learned some of the traditional hand tool technology that would have been used in creating a structure similar to what we were making. Craig Jacobs demonstrated, using antique hand forged tools, how a log would have been hewn into the type of usable lumber that formed the structure of a timber framed building. We learned about the process of scoring the log with an ax, “juggling” the resultant little mounds off of it, and then hewing that last bit to create a mostly flat surface. I especially liked the ax with an offset handle made for the last step of hewing. It is such a specialized tool but trying to hew that last bit with a regular ax was near impossible, and I have to think that the first few people to come up with offsetting the handle must have been amazed at how much easier that made the task, and awfully pleased with themselves for their innovation. It was really interesting to see how the timber would have been made, and I think that Craig was a bit surprised when we told him that we wanted to try to hew a log of our own. Attempting to hew a log into usable lumber was incredibly difficult. But much like splitting a tree trunk using only wedges and mallets, it was also immensely rewarding. It felt really good to swing an ax and knock off a clean chunk of log almost flush with the chalk line. I have to admit that these moments were fewer than the ones of frustration, but the process made me really appreciate all of the skill and man hours that went into constructing timber frame buildings.

All in all, I really enjoyed my experience working hands on with a modern take on traditional timber frame construction. Learning about how the pieces fit together in class is one thing, but actually seeing how it is built and watching it come together adds an additional depth of knowledge that can’t be gained any other way. I have such a greater understanding of early American building practices and how a timber framed structure is created. Understanding how tools are used to shape and manipulate the wood to fit together perfectly provides me so much context that cannot be grasped from simply reading about it. I am so glad to now have this deeper connection to and understanding of the process of creating timber frame structures and the skilled laborers who built them.

I got home from Menokin on a Tuesday night, and on the following Wednesday I went to our neighborhood weekly meal at our common house, part of which is an old log cabin that has been added onto multiple times. I went into the cabin and looked at the timber, like I have many times before, but this time I noticed marks on the summer beam that I hadn’t appreciated before.

They were the marks left behind from the hewing process, little V-shaped notches in the wood where the ax score marks had gone slightly past the chalk line, marks I had just made myself on a piece of timber at Menokin. And seeing those scars in the wood made me love that little cabin more than I ever had before.

 

 

Menokin Board Member, James Zehmer, In The News

Source: Richmond Times Dispatch
Posted: Saturday, August 3, 2013 9:56 am | Updated: 12:27 am, Mon Aug 5, 2013.

Slate holds clues to U.Va. architecture

BY J. REYNOLDS HUTCHINS The Daily Progress

CHARLOTTESVILLE — It’s hard to imagine that an institution as storied as the University of Virginia would have any more stories to tell. But, according to preservationists at Mr. Jefferson’s university, a recent discovery has reaffirmed that the 194-year-old institution can still teach — and surprise — those who walk its Grounds.

Senior historic preservation planner Brian Hogg said his colleague, James D.W. Zehmer, was walking along the scaffolding above the university’s West Range, just off the Lawn, when something caught his eye.

“They’re replacing the slate on the West Range: the west side of Jefferson’s original group of buildings at the university,” Hogg said Friday.

“A decent amount of the slate dates to the 1830s, but a lot of it’s been replaced over the years because it’s been leaking,” Zehmer explained. “We knew we wanted to save some of the 1830s slate, so I basically walked the whole job.”

That’s when Zehmer saw holes punctured into the original slate.

After careful analysis and comparative study, Hogg and Zehmer concluded that the holes were not an error in masonry or product of erosion, but very complicated construction details.

The details, Zehmer said, reveal that the university’s buildings didn’t always appear as they do now.

slate“It’s basically a little square hole in the sheathing that shows where an iron bracket was attached to the roof to support a balustrade or parapet or a railing,” Hogg said.

According to Hogg and Zehmer, the notches in the Range’s original slate roof indicate that the row of student housing and facilities off Jefferson’s original Lawn was once crowned with an ornamental railing.

“We don’t know exactly how tall they were,” Zehmer said. “But depending on that, they could have helped make a roof look flatter than it might have been. That was kind of one of Jefferson’s favorite techniques.”

The discovery, Hogg and Zehmer said, is an important reminder for preservationists and historians that nothing is ever known for certain.

Artistic renderings dating to 1856, such as a well-known Bohn print on display in the Dome Room in the university’s Rotunda, show the Ranges and other buildings off the Lawn with what appear to be parapets, or low railings. But “we’re always a little hesitant about believing artwork,” Zehmer said.

For decades, historians and preservationists had believed that the parapets, like the mammoth Rotunda and the leveled Lawn, may have been more fiction than fact, but the West Range finding has put their original assumptions into perspective.

“What’s really important to understand is that we’re not owners of this place,” Zehmer said. “We’re stewards in one place and time.”

Save The Date – Lime Mortar Workshop at Menokin

March 9-10, 2013
This two-day workshop, led by Wayne Mays, preservation mason from the University of Virginia, will be held on the grounds of historic Menokin in Warsaw, VA.

See pics of 2011 workshop on facebook.

Topics and hands-on techniques will include an introduction to building limes, mortar analysis and mortar matching, mortar making, and wall preparation and pointing techniques. A visit to the Menokin house site will involve discussion on stone/rubble wall construction as well as techniques for grouting large voids in stone walls.

Other topics to be explored include plasters, renders, and coatings – from the different types and installation of lath, to the hands-on application of lime plaster, and the proper materials and methods to use when repairing lath and plaster.

Registration information and course schedule will be issued in early 2013. Please share this post with friends, colleagues, students and fans of historic architecture.

Spotlight on Menokin Board of Trustees Member James Zehmer

Spotlight on Menokin Board of Trustees Member James Zehmer

Menokin Board of Trustees member James Zehmer hard at work repairing historic chimneys at UVA.