Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Re: Historic and Significant Barn [Re: D L Bahler] #32437 07/21/14 11:21 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
As I've studied this frame, there are a few more things to note.

First of all, observe the reductions cut on the ends of timbers, and note that they are centered and not pushed to one edge. This reflects the use of a center line layout technique, while still showing a square rule approach to have been used (this being made maybe in the 1850's or post civil war)

Second, there are only 4 notable differences I can observe between this and a later northwestern Swiss frame (lower Emmental, Berner Seeland, Basel, Solothurn). THese are: Rough hewn timbers, not timber that have been planed smooth. The second relates, and is the cause for the first: lack of wood plank or stone infill and exposed framing on original structure, instead using nailed on siding and plastered interiors. The third is the roof structure, which seems to have originally been a simple standing truss (but, this technique had also caught on in Switzerland at that time, so this point really is trivial) and last, the lack of fully framed window opening complete with window ledges framed into the walls, but this, again, relates to the concealed framing.

The layout method used can really be interpreted as a version of square rule, or it could also be interpreted as a simplification of the Swiss equivalent. I'd like to hear from some of you, do you observe the use of center line rule like this in New England and other parts of the country?


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: Historic and Significant Barn [Re: D L Bahler] #32438 07/22/14 12:30 PM
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 687
G
Gabel Offline
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 687
Interesting frame.

The L section corner posts are standard features here for houses built in that era - 1820s to 1860. Most are 12x12 but I have seen 8x8 on some single story houses.

I have seen T section posts at interior bents.

These frames are hard to study as they are almost all behind plaster or paneling.

Braces here are usually down braces - mostly on a 45° but I have seen them steeper.

I've never seen centered timbers here. Plain old quick and dirty square rule is the usual.

Re: Historic and Significant Barn [Re: D L Bahler] #32439 07/22/14 01:09 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 305
T
timberwrestler Offline
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 305
I'm not sure about your square rule theory. It could be, but the fact that the interior braces are flush to one face indicates a reference face, and not a centerline. The doubled tenon reductions could be them wanting to use either shorter mortises, or (more likely) the same mortise length for all mortises. I'm sure there's some out there, but I've never seen a centerlined square rule historic frame.

Re: Historic and Significant Barn [Re: D L Bahler] #32446 07/22/14 03:34 PM
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 687
G
Gabel Offline
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 687
Now that I think of it, I've seen what looked like centered square rule before but it was actually counter-heweing to bring the "reference" face to within spec of the snapped line at the joint (basically correcting out of square hewing or wind but only locally at the joints). That can look like a reduction on both sides sometimes.

I don't know if that's what you have in that frame -- I can't see the details well enough in the photos to have a guess.

Re: Historic and Significant Barn [Re: D L Bahler] #32447 07/22/14 04:08 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
Gabel, TImberwrestler,

thanks for coming on with your observations. I was aware of the use of 'L' posts in the east, but until now had never been able to completely confirm this practice locally. Like you said, they are almost all behind plaster or paneling, it's very rare that we get to see one of these. Most people that have them, don't like them, because the way they were enclosed makes them dirty, drafty, uncomfortable homes.

Take a closer look at those braces, many are in fact housed. On some ,the dimensions on the timbers were close enough that no housing was necessary. In fact, the dimensional precision of the primary framing members is extremely high, even though the finish is very rough. Only studs are imprecise, this in the dimension that they did not need to be precise.
I'll have to go back to this frame and study it more closely, to get evidence needed to determine exactly what is going on.

Part of my opinion of layout does stem from who it was that built this, most likely Amish carpenters who were a part of the first group of Amish to come to this area. The important thing we have to observe about this group is that many of them were immigrants or the children of immigrants who had come from either Switzerland or Alsace, and have been shown elsewhere to have carried their Old World practices with them (for example, study closely the framing method of the floor and of the roof on this structure)
Center line rule -a means of shortcuting full scribe, in the same spirit of edge square rule- is a practice of their homeland from that period, and is a practice I have observed in use in Swiss style (short studded, long braced) frames in Adams County Indiana. It wouldn't surprise me to see it here too.

But if this is in fact the case, we shouldn't look at it as part of the lineage of classic square rule, it's another very similar tradition.

This is a method I have seen used in barns and roof framing in Switzerland, the only difference when applied to a house frame is that generally the entire timber would be carefully conformed to the lines established from a central reference, not just the joints. But on this American frame, where the frame itself was immediately buried under siding and plaster, this would have been totally unnecessary.


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: Historic and Significant Barn [Re: D L Bahler] #32449 07/23/14 01:52 AM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
I have searched a bit for analogous frames where you can clearly see the framing, here is a good example:


That is, if you study the framing of the lower 2 stories, it is essentially the same. (The frame on the right)


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: Historic and Significant Barn [Re: D L Bahler] #32450 07/23/14 01:54 AM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
Note in this example, every other floor joist is tenoned into a stud or a post. (stud here referring to a single story member, post a multi story member) In the frame in Indiana, only the end and centermost joists are tenoned into posts.


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: Historic and Significant Barn [Re: D L Bahler] #32452 07/26/14 01:28 AM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
I was back at this frame earlier today and got a closer look at the joint layout. I also tried to study some of the other joinery that was not as clear to me. I determined that it is not possible from this frame to judge the original roof framing, but I can make an educated guess based on other frames nearby that display the same window placement proportions etc. There are 3 common houses frames that are repeated many times in this area.
I specifically set out to look for clues on layout. What I was able to observe is that every joint I surveyed is housed, regardless of where it lies on the timber.
I took several more pictures. I'll upload those when I have access to a computer.


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: Historic and Significant Barn [Re: D L Bahler] #32453 07/26/14 02:24 AM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
Here are a few pictures I took today, especially trying to examine the natre of joint reductions and housings



Note the initials NW also carved into the beam here. This being the only mark cut into any timber.
Here we can see, this beam end is reduced at its top. From the other side you can also see the bottom of this same beam as reduced at that joint.

As I studied this frame, I did find that every joint is reduced to some degree. In some cases the reduction is slight (not always visible on my poor quality photos) but in other cases it is obviously a double reduction.

This rule of course is not carried through to the floor joists, which by their nature must by necessity be referenced from a single true face in order to create a consistent level support for the floor boards. These are reduced only on a single face, but of course they also only join on a single face...


This is an example of a situation where the reduction on the top of the timber is slight, almost unnoticeable in this picture. Personal inspection confirmed, however, that there is in fact a slight reduction here as well.


This example shows where the timber was actually smaller than the housing that had been prepared for it, and as such has no reduction on one side.


This image is useful to shed light on how the joinery at the tops of the corners works. Here you see the tie beam has been cut away, revealing the tenon on the post. There is another tenon at a lower level which secures the top plate. The tie is then set atop the post and the plate, capturing the plate and further securing it.


Most of the tie beams had been cut out when the frame was converted to make an open roof. Their ends were retained, however, to serve as anchor points for two separate sets of rafters. My original assumption was that the upper rafters -the rafters above the old house frame- were original to this frame, but today's inspection suggests this is not likely. Also, the configuration of these rafters is not consistent with the construction of similar houses in the area.

There are, as mentioned earlier, 3 primary house types from the early period that at least originally were timber framed (the designs may also have been carried forward into balloon framed houses, but these typically have revised designs)

These are all long rectangular houses, the largest, like this frame, is two full stories and is typically arranged with its eaves wall facing the road. Another is a story and a half, somewhat narrower, and usually has a gable end facing the road. The last is a single story structure with an upper level room in the roof space. I believe the house I am sitting in right now to have originally been of this design, but had its original roof removed and replaced with a shallower pitched stick framed roof.

The larger house, the two full story type, reflects the same size and proportions as the house frame contained in this barn. The houses of this style are my strongest evidence that the original roof is entirely missing from this frame. These houses have very broad eaves overhangs and proud gables, something that would not be possible with the roof as set up now. In addition, the rafters are spiked in place with wire nails and secured with crows feet resting on scabs that have been tacked on top of the tie beams/stub ties. This is not consistent with the methods used elsewhere in this frame (or anywhere else, for that matter) and most likely is just a solution created by the carpenter that built this into a barn. There are small timbers used elsewhere in the barn addition that could possibly be the old rafters.


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: Historic and Significant Barn [Re: D L Bahler] #32478 07/30/14 08:33 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
Today I surveyed another forebay barn. This one I had surveyed once before, but wanted to get some more detailed pictures and measurements. The techniques used in this frame are superior, from the bent design to the joinery. It was certainly built by a more competent craftsman (though the builder of the first barn was no slouch). This is slightly smaller, measuring 40x72 and perhaps 10 feet shorter on the upper level, although the basement is taller.
The bent design is better, carrying the purlin loads directly to the foundation and reducing the weight placed on the forebay.
I suspect the rafters to have been replaced at some point, since they are 2x5 circular sawn (typical of barns built around 1900 or later, rather than 1870). The siding is also pine, which would not have been in use here in 1870, when this barn was built.

I especially wanted to observe joint layout tendencies. This is a square rule barn, but the point of reference varies throughout the barn. The center bent, for example, clearly uses a center line layout while other bents use edge layout. The center posts in the end bents (middle bents lack center posts) also display center layout. This shows a very logical system of layout devised to place framing members at the most beneficial spot, ensuring, for example, the center bent is in the exact center of the barn and that the bearing edge of the purlins lie in the perfect plane for the rafters. This demonstrates a layout originating from the center of the barn, rather than from one end wall as is common. THe result is that one side of the barn, in terms of layout and frame arrangement, is a mirror reflection of the other.

Here are pictures:



here are some details showing the layout and joint housings. Some timbers are single sides, some a most definitely double-housed.



The last is a floor joist, which in my experience log floor joists are always laid out to a center line even when other timbers are all laid out to one face, since log joists have no reliable reference face.


And a few joint details


This barn includes wedged dovetail tenons on the tie beams (which were cut out decades ago to use a hay rack, so the roof has spread slightly) and good scarf joints, even if they are not placed in the perfect spot they have functioned well over the years.

Last edited by D L Bahler; 07/30/14 08:36 PM.

Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Jim Rogers, mdfinc 

Newest Members
HFT, Wrongthinker, kaymaxi, RLTJohn, fendrishi
5134 Registered Users
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3
(Release build 20190728)
PHP: 5.4.45 Page Time: 0.030s Queries: 16 (0.008s) Memory: 3.2307 MB (Peak: 3.3984 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-29 12:57:59 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS