Gothic Arch Barn Framing 52

Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations

1946 The da aptation of farm buildings to meet changes in farm operation Norval Herbert Curry Iowa State College

Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Agriculture Commons, Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering Commons, Construction Engineering Commons, and the Construction Engineering and Management Commons

Recommended Citation Curry, Norval Herbert, "The da aptation of farm buildings to meet changes in farm operation" (1946). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 16011. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/16011

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ADAPTATION OF FARM BUILDINGS TO MEEr CHAIDES IN FARU OPERATION

Norv&l H. Curry

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty for the Degree of

lL'\S'l'l!R OF SCIENCE

Major Subject: Agricultural Structures

pproved:

J. B. Davidson Head of Major Department

R. E. Buchanan Dean of Graduate College

Iowa State College l.946 ii.

TABLE OF CONTEnt"l'S

~ I . INTRODUCTION .. • • • . . ·- . ·- .. a fl • l A. Justification for t.he Study- .. .., l B. The Project • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE • . .. . • • • • • • 5 III. OBJEC'fIVE OF THE Ib'VESTIOATlON • • • • • 6

IV. METHOD OF PROCEDURE • • • • • • • • • • 7 A. Remodeling Studies • • •••• . .. . 7

l . General approach • • • • • • • .. , 7 2. Inspection trips • • • • .. • • • 9 .::; . Barn remodeling • • • • • • • • l.O 4. Barn remodeling sunmary • • • • 31 5. Hog house remodeling • .. • • • • 34 6. Poultry house remodeling • • .. • 36 1 •. Grain bins and corn cribs • • • JS a. General remodeling summ.aey • • • 39 B. New Construction Studies • • • • • • 40 l . Introduction • • • • .. • • • • • 40 2. Analyais ot new plan offerings • 41 a. Barn plans • • • • • • • • • 42 b. , ·nor service buildings • • • 42 V .. RESULTS • . . •- . • • • • • • • • • • • 46 A. Elimination of Non- functional D~tail . Detail Simplifica.tion • • .. • • • • 46 B. Basic Structural Dimensions • • • • 54

C. Basic ~uipm.ent Dimensions • • • • • 60 iii.

VI. DISCUSSIOlv OF RESULTS • • • • • Barn Remodeling • .. . . . -· ..... B. llodular Planning o! New Buildings • 70 c. Barn Requirements to Receive Panel Equipment • • • .. • • • • • • • • • 71 VII . cmmLUSIONS • • • • .- ...... • • • • 76 VIII. SUfAIARY • • • • • • • • • • •••••• IX...... x. • • • • • • • • • • • 81 iv.

LIST OF TABLES

Table l . Classification ot basic plan £eatures in barns (All Dimensions in feet.) • • 43

Table 2 . Classification af basic plliUl teatures in minor service buildings (All Dimensions in Feet) • • • • .. • • .. • 44

Table J . >;;idths of tuu-n equipment units • • • 58 Table 4 . Deviation of barn equipment. unit dimensions fr0.111 modti.lar st.and.a.rd • • 59 v.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l . Expenditures for and depreciation of rarm. buildings, fences, windmills and wells in the United States, 1910-1943 • • • 11

Figure 2 . e General Purpose Barn (2275 lier, Laurens, Io ) ••••••••• • • . . • ll Figure J . Shed Addition to ~ew Barn (2275 ~ lier, Laurens, Ia a) • • • • • • • • •••• • • ll

Figure 4 . Calhoun County rap • • • • • • • • • • • • 12 ·gure 5. Greene County ap • • • • • • • • • • • • 13 Figure 6. Hamilton County ' ...... 14 Figure 7. umboldt County ap • • • • • • • • • • • 15

Figure 8 . Pocahontas County ~ • • • • • • • • • • 16 Figure 9. ..right County !ap • • • • • • • • • • • • 17 Fi 10. Barn terations (2907 en, Paton, Io a) 20

Figure 11~ n terations and Shed ddition (3120 Heighst dt, son, Iowa) ••• • • • 20 Figure 12. esent Barn Plan and Section (2909 Hague, J3lairsburg, lo a) • • ·• • • • • • • • • • 20 Fi e 13. Proposed Barn t rations (2909 Hague, lair urg, Io a) • • • • • • • • • • • • 20

Figure 14. Present 4rn Plan and Section (28.26 Painter, en ick, Io a) •••••• • • • 23 Fi e 15. Barn Alterations (.2826 Pa.inter, Renwick, Iowa.) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 23 Figure J.6 . t'resent Barn Plan and ection (3153 Kettan h, Blairsburg, lo a) • • • • . . . ' 23 vi.

Figure 17. Proposed Barn Alteration {3153 Kettaneh, Jl.airsburg, lo a) • • • • • • • • • • • • 23 Figure 18. Bara on Far 2820 ,nder5on fr Southeast 25 Figure 19. Present n Plan and Section (2820 1U1der- son, Cooper, Io a) • • • • • • • • • • • • 25

Figure 20. Proposed B rn teration (2820 Anderson, Cooper, Io a) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 25 Figure 21. Pro o ed Barn tera.tion (2820 derson, Cooper, Iowa) •••••••. •• • • • • • 25 Figur 22. Barn on F 3192 Jilson fro outhe st • 27

Figure 23. on F 3192 ilson from orth • • 27 Figure 24 . Present B· n Plan and Section (3182 ilson, bert City, Iowa) • • • • • • • • • • • 27

Fi e 25 . Proposed Barn teration {3182 · ilson, bert City, Io a) ••••••••• • • 27 igure 26 . Dairy n (3121 Frazer, Humboldt , I a) • 30

Fi e 27 . Barn epair and racing ( 3121 Fr zer, H boldt, Io a) • • • • • • • • • • • • • Figure 28. sonry log House (2905 Porteous, Humboldt , Iowa) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 30 Figure 29 . Hog Hous onverted to Beef Feeding Barn (2905 ort us, lurnboldt, lo a) • • • • • 30

Fi re 30. og l.ouse Insulation (3121 Frazer, H oldt lo~a) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 37 Figure 31. Overhead Bins Adde to Double Corn Crib (2902 illen, Paton, Io a) • • • • • • • • 37

Figure 32• Poultry ou e Alt ration (2909 hague, Blairsburg, Iow ) • • • • • • • • • • • • 37 Figur 33 . 1oultry House terations (3121 Rrazer, H oldt, Iowa) • • • • • • • • • • • • • 37 vii.

Figure 34 . Iowa La¥ing House Plan • • • • • . .. 48 Figure 3; . Revised lovva Laying House Plan • • • 49 Figure 36 . Simplified Gothic Arch Barn Framing 52

Figure 37. 11ultiple Use Building Frames • • •' • '57- a Figure 38 . Assembled .Equipment in Structural Frame Note hinge feature of panels • • • • 63

Figure ,39 .. The S.even Basie It.ems of Equipment • . Panels are 3' :x4 1 , 3tx6 1 , 3•.x.a •. Lumber is 2"m" & 2nxJ.ouxe 1-0u • • • 6)

Figure 40. scale del of 8 1 Section of Feed Bunker and Manger • • • • • • • • • 64 Figure 4l. Scale Model ot Combination Horse Stall and :Box Stall • • • • • • • • 64

Figure 42 . Scale dodel of Farrowing Pen • • • • 64 Figure 43 . Scale ' odel of Dairy Cow Stanchions (Standard stanchions and sectional platforms are r equired in addition to the seven basic items) • • • • • • • • • 64 Figure 44. Composite Barn Plans. All areas are laid out upon a .Uodular scheme • • • 65

Figure 45 . Steel Panel Details • • • • • • • • 67 F'igure 46 . f ull Scale S• Section of 1Feed Bunker and Manger • • • • -· • • • • • • • • 66 Figure 47 . Full Scale Lambing Pen or Farrowing Pen • • •. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6S

Figure 4S . Full Scale Combination Horse Stall-Box Stall • • . . . • . . . . • . . . • 68

Figure 49 . Box Stall Panels Hi nged Up and Back to Facilitate Cleaning • • • • • • • 68 viii.

Figure 50 . New Midwest Plan Based on Uodular Design ...... • • 73

Figure 51 . Alternate Masonry rJall Construction For Barn (Figure 50) •. • • • • • • • • 74

Figure 52. Alternate R-001' Construction For Barn (Figure 50) • • • • ... • • • • • • • • 75 1.

l . Irn'RODOCTION

A. Justification tor the St~

fhe general decline in the condition of ~.gricultural buildings in Iowa and nationally during the past 25 years should be obvious to even the rather casual observer. U.S . Bureau of Agricultural Economics data setting forth relative annual depreciation and replacement of agricultural buildings during this period are presented in Figure l as an indication ot the extent of this decline.

Many factors have contributed to t his condition. In general these include: l . A l.ow level of ta.rm prosperity during the decade from 1930 to 1940. s the eompara.tive service life of farm buildings is very

long, even with considerable neglect, when contrasted itl1 that of other consumer durable goods which farmers requir , replace-

ment of these other i te.r.ns took priority in the gradually improv-

ing economy in the latter part o! this decade. 2. Specific regulations in April of 1942 with many later revisions

limited construction during the war to only the most essential

buildings. These regulations were made effective at about the same

tae that f building replacement bad equaled depreciation for the first time in nearly 20 years. 3. Nearly one half of the farms in the North Central region of the United States are tenant. operated. Standard -torms of tenant- owner agreements provide lltt1e incentive to t.he owner to invest

.money in either new buildings or improvements since the tenant

receives practically all direct benefits accruing from the owner' s expenditure. 4. Developments in agricultural machinery and power equipment tor farm £ield operations within the lifetime of now exl.sting farm

buildings have permitted individual farmers to increase the labor

effieieney in field operations many fold. While some devices which promote labor economy in chore operations have also been

adopted, they do net 1 in general, provide the same degree of

increase in labor efficiency. It is therefo.re normal that farmers have first invested in :production machinery which would appear to produce a higher rate of return on the .money invested than money invested in new or improved buildings.

; . The mechanization of farm operations has not only adversely affected the desirability of further investment in agricultural

buildings b\lt h s so co pletely changed and often contused the function of existing buildings as to make them al.most useless

in their present form. The near elimination of horses as a. source

of power on IovJa !arms trl.th the resulting decrease in need for

horse stalls, hay and bedding storage, oats storage, .etc. has not

been compensated by increased housing and .feed storage require- :; .

ments for other animals . Consequent.ly, the horse barn, largest

and most imposing building on most Iowa farms, is of little

practical value to either the tenant or owner. Since no provision for alteration of these buildings for entirely new uses was

included in the original cons~ruction plans, cost of alterations

to return the buildings to a useful state would in many cases far exceed the actual productive value of the remodeled structure.

6. Changes in the type of meat animals demanded by the market, changes in the harvesting methods and :form in which hay ia stored, storage

of shelled rather than ear corn, and~ other developments hav'9 altered the function of other agricultural structures to almost the same extent as has power machinery altered the function of the horse barn. The economic depression of the 1930'a, the necessary regulations on wartime construction and the present forms of tenant-owner agreement

are all f a.ctors beyond and outside the field of control of those in-

volved in farm structures research, design or construction. However ,

the latter three factors which have contributed to the present depre-

ciated. condition 0£ t hese buildings spring primarily from technological

and engineering developm&nts in agriculture. These maladjust ments

are physical and as such are su~ject to control by engin.eering

methods and devices. A study of the particular factors in conventional construction of both buildings and building equipment which tend to

limit the adaptability of t he structures to new uses and, if possible, ·the attempt to develop corrective measures, seems entirely justified. 4.

B. The roj ct

Thi study w s undertaken in February 1944 as roject ber 79 of Io a gricultural Experiment Station and was entitled, '"The daptation of F Buildings to eet Changes in Far vperation. "

The Far ers• lational Company of Omaha, ebra.sk assumed sponsor- ship of th roj ct, contributing a large port.ion of the required budget and i.ng accessible the im.prov ents on !arms under their ma.nag ent !or study as well as their own data acquired in the

f • 5.

II.. REVmf OF LITERATURE

There is little evidence that any previous studies have been ma.de on this particu.la.r problem. While it is probable that every competent designer gives some eonsideration to alternate uses which

Jna3" be made of his client's structure, no instances of research projects directed t.oward the adaptation at agricultural buildings to varied uses have been reported. Carter (1) developed t he system of

"unit space0 planning for general purpose barns which tends to create considerable .flexibility in r.ossible future plan arrangement. How- ever, ease in original space planning rather than flexibility of plan arrangement wes his apparent. objective. The pl.an publications of the W.dwest Plan Service, the Structural

Cla,y- Products Institute and the Port.land Ceillent Association were extensively studied and used as a basis for determination 0£ standar~ space units used in principal !arm building types. These studies are later reported in detail under New Construction Studies. 6 .

III. OBJECTIV OF THE I IJVESTIGATION

The gener objective of this investigation as to determine t ose t ctors in conver1tional far bw.lding design hich tend to prevent a eontinuou r dapt tion of thos buildings to meet current needs and to devise easures, equipu.ent, or structural devices hich ould improve the general ad.a ability of farm structures. 1.

IV. METHOD OF PROCEDURE

A. Remodeling studies

1 . General anproach

The adaptation of obsolete farm buildings to meet present needs seemed a logical starting point ror this study. Surveys to gat her data on the arrangement and construction of buildings not fully utilized were instituted. Pertinent data on the f armstea.ds were recorded and building requirements of the far.ms studied in d~a.i.l . Present experience indicates that definite classification of the problems encountered is oossible and also rather generalized solutions to the remodeling or buildings of a specific type.

A large portion of the anticipated nboomu in post-war !arm building construction should consist of remodeling and improvement of existing structures. Some such work is now in progress.. Publication ot the results of ~hese remodeling studies at an early date should be of both immediate and future value to farm owners and managers.

For those engaged in carrying on the project it has furnished an excellent background for work on new building plans. The advantages - of such initial survey and analysis included: l . Actual contact with farm owners, owner operators, tenants and managers. 8 • .

2. Direct observation of existing conditions.

3. Development of a facility for more quickly and accurately observing planning and structural defects. 4. An observation or the performance of various materials in actual

use ..

5. A preview of obstacles likely to be encountered in desi.gning new

farm buildings for maximum f letibility.

6. An understanding of' remodeling methods and remodiallng costs. 7. The development of systematic. techniques of analysis and design for converting buildings to ne and dif.fe rent uses. 8. Familiarity with latest established functional requirements for the various building types .. All or the buildings inspected were on farms managed by the Farmers' National Company. It is apparently a rather fixed policy of this organization to avoid speciali~ed tar.ming operations except where the advantages of such operations are extremely evident. This general polley permits development of the f a:rrusteads without over- capitalization in equipment for one specialized operation and greatly inere ses the potential number of suitable tenant operators. Tenure of opera.tors i& of far shorter duration than on owner-operated 1'arm.s and placing or new tenants with just the right. amount and t ype of livestock and equipment to make the greatest use of the existing facil- ities is difficult i! not impossible. To accomraodate such operation successfully, buildings with an unusual degree of .flexibility are required. The recommended alterations o"f some of the building plans illustrated and discussed on the following pages were therefore more ext.ensive in som.e cases than might ,be r equired or warranted if these buildings were on owner-operated farms .

It will be .further noted that rather standardized plan arrangement.,s for some building t;rpes have been developed. Since these farms are in the same general. farming ar-ea and operation of the farms tends toward a rather standardized pattern, considerable standardization or the buildings required seems both eonsistent and logical..

2. Inspection trips

The week of Uarch 6-10, 1944 was spent with Mr. H. C• .Breckenridge, Fort Dodge ffice, Farmers• National Company, inspecting buildings on farms under his supervision in Hamilton, Hwnboldt, and Wright count ies. The week of June 26-30 was spent with .Mr . R.A. Elliott of the same office, inspecting buildings on the farms under his supervision in

Calhoun, Greene, and Pocahontas counties.. Data appearing at the head of the tollowing individual descriptions of' the uproblem buildingsn inspected were recorded together with basic dimensions of the buildings and freehand sketches of the plan and section of each building were 111ade on cross-section paper.. Dat a on adjacent buildings, general layout of the farm.stead, etc. were also recorded when such informa~ion appeared to influence the probable remodeling scheme. This material was analyzed, classifled where possible, and fairly complete suggestions for improvements .ma.de in each case. 10.

3. Barn remodellp,g

For compa.rati ve study and ease in presentation the original plans and suggested t ..em.odellng schemes are here presented by groups represeutiug building types rather than in chronological order or inspection. Identi.fying numbers for the individual .far.ms are those used by the Fannerst National Col'.Upa.ll,1 representing acco11nt number and riame of owner. ct location of the various far.Ills is shown 'by the accompanying .maps (Figures 4- 9) •

Farm 2275 diller Supervisor R.A. Elliott Location Laurens, Ia. Tenant l1ade Bros. County Pocahontas 'l'ype building Gen. J?urp . barn Size o! farm. 320 acres Size of building 32 'x34 ' Inspection date 6- 27-44 1 anted' Replacement of barn lost by wind

Tt.e barn on this farmstead was completely destroyed by wind in storm on }lay 20, 1944. All other buildings on the farmstead except the house were also dam.aged to some degree. The owner authorized an expenditure of 'l,000 in excess of the insurance a.djust.:n.ent for repair or replacement of buildings existing previous to the storm or !or such new construction as se 'ed advisable ~ At the time or inspection necessary .mi.nor repairs had been m.a.de to the large double crib and granary and a 20 ' x50' cattle shelter. " new 20 1.x20 ' (anprox.) poultry house was nearly completed; work had begun on a 20 •x50• machine shed nd foundations were poured tor the ne'lf _barn . The old

34 'x48' barn had a coucrete floor in tha cow stanchion section. The reco11Uended location of CO>i stanchions coincides with that of the ll.

1000 I ,I " 8 00 1/ : : ' : ' ~ [ x :>1 nd1turt!~ I - I I ifi' bDO I\ z : " ' 2 'l ' _J I

='); i " ~ ' AOO I: n I I " OI "'

I 11 0 ~ I 1'}10 1"'15 1'3ZO 1':'2~ 1930 1'3' 1940 f.XPf.NDIMLS m 4 DLP~lCIATION OF fll~M BUILDIN~5. FENCES. WINDMIL LS, 4 WE.LLS IN THE UNITED SJAm.19\0·1943

1 • l

' o ·;.

5t:..c-r1ot>.1 l.Jt.UlllL U ,. ~~75 M ...... o\.lrn·Aoo1r10N'.:'fo:·N[\IJ·MR.1.1·

F • 2 Fig. 3 12.

GENERAL HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION MAP CALHOUN COUNTY IOWA IC/NA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

U. S . DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 81..R:AU or PUBLIC RQ\DS STATE-WIDE HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEY

194-0

N 9..l:~VISTA. I llOCAHOMTASCO. R-34W R-33W i •

~ ··: ."!\.,. '1· ':·: ,_....i:--; . , •• ,," n, "(,, '· ,";\. ·, ""·-'"· ",'-.7 .JA• •1 •• ~JIWC~ • ~l •• l~ ~ o ' G A " N~ l r~ I~

R-31W

Q ;n20 Reichstadt Fig. 4 Calhoun County Map • @ 13.

GENERAL HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION MAP GREENE COUNTY IOWA PACAt..111!:0 BY THC 'ONA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION .. COOPVIAflONWl™fi-IC U. S . DEPARTMENT OF AGRIOJLTURE BURE:MJ Of PUBLIC ROADS

STATE-WIDE HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEY

IC.t.U!llO•ULlt

1940

u,.....,_.,. co R-32W CALHOUN CO., WEB$l[lt CO R-JIW I R-JOW R-2'W i '" ., .. ·~~ . ,..:!· ,, .?· .. ' . l • ·- 1 •• e • • "" Jll 1r •': 7 He I,. .G H- .L A: N D : .. \ · 1 I }· I\ - ~ ' ,. ' ~ IC • .i "· . 7\. : . a " ,. . . I\ . -r ~ .. T 1 '--.. ~ .N ..... ~ .... " 1~ - ~ .. 14 : t3 I .. ·' I • n(:) 'I! i•N \ ' " ~ T

.. .. "'. ~ · ·•• n •. n • '1\4 ~ < .;',;-\; ------. ---·-: b.t. : .----- f •• j • ' • • t • ) ' 1\0' \ • ~ o · I 15 lrtYIE_ .~ ~ ... .. i· iE.l • • c-.. · ' I ,; ),, ·~ . ~ . i w. ...."

R-29W @ 2907 4Uen (3} 2820 Anderson Greene CoWlty Map • ® GENERAL HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION MAP HAMILTON COUNTY IOWA ~0 .... TH[ IOWA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION

FEDERAL WORl'.S AGENCY PUBUC FWJAOS ADMINISTRATION 0...TAOBTAINC1> fFIOM HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEY

1944 R-26W R-25W R-24W R-23W ~ "' I 60),~ --· I

i !'1 .

z !

z 2

R-26W

HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEY

194!>

N '.''lo " 60) ' ' l .... /~ · · \ ...... ,,

·~ ' z ':~. " ~ ~ .. Rn I ' ' \' E " .: .v"l' I ,,, n . "' ~

..lOW "'21W ""27W flltml'[lt co I

{!) 2905 Porteous {!) 3121 Fraz r Fig. 7 • oldt County p ® 16. GENERAL HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION MAP POCAHONTAS COUNTY IOWA ".OWA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION IN COOf'CIU;flOHWITH ltlt u. s. DEPARTMENT or AGRIQ.LTURE BUR(AU or PUBLIC. ROADS (W"A O&lA,11€() f"'°"" STATE-WIDE HIGHWAY PLANNNG SURV EY

194 0

~ .... ~I .... l I r· . ...; R I~ ~ A s z ~ . I " . ill • .!.... i- r, ~ " rn. v::_. ·,/ ~ . '\. N...... ,.\ . . . . . ·~ < ) v . I~ ~ . ). ~ ---C .'\ i zs _J f "\ u • l& 1 • n • ?:'\ ~J . .!E~ ~ c-; ·. ,. 111 · µ~ • • it • n . ~J :, • • ~ 1 v i~ ~ ·::u

R • ;><: z ·~. \ i ~ ?l.(r \;j I '" 1).D, \ i• I . \ > . ·, .. ·:-t·1 . ~~ 07 r-,-.~r--:'._·l',.:i. 31 ~~ ~ . ~ ., " · ··,. ~~ , . ~:,1 ·~-~-·:.:.=_~. k7.. .' " I•" ". ' "~ , ,E . ' ":':'~ .,-;; -~· '""';\( R-J4W R-33W -CD® R-32W R-31W

Pocahontas County p @ •. 17. GENERAL HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION MAP WRIGHT COUNTY IOWA ~AA£0BYTI'£ IOWA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION INCQroP[ll..ITlOHWITHTHE U. S . DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS

STATE-WIDE HIGHWAY PLANNING SUR\IEY

1940

R-26W R-25W R-24W

z ~

ii'· i ·. --.,·-·' r-·---~ R-25W R-23W l KAMll. TON CO R-24W ' Q 2826 Painter Fig . 9

v.right County Map • . ® 18. original barn. New foundatio s were poured just inside the old foundation alls. Fra.ndng ers of the old b n r largely 6»JC6n and 4 1•.xbn members in 14 ' lengths and over. Careful inspection and inv ntoey of this material were made and t l e plan shm n here was developed the t'ollo ing two evenings in conferences ith ' • Elliott

;:md the carpenter in charg of the ork. Every effort as made to utilize salvaged lumber on hand and so. e dime ions were djusted to acco date c...terials t hen available in local lumber yards. Cost estimates of the entire project indic ted that it as doubtful if the i:;roposed shed addition to t he b n could be erected a.t the present t' .e but it s later reported by • Elliott t hat the addition as er cted. Dra it s imilar to Figures 2 and .3 ere left with the carpenter ro.r ediate use on the job.

~rm 2907 lien Supervisor R.A. Elliott Location P ton, owa Type building Gen . urp. barn County Greene Size of building 34 ' Y.40 ' Siz of farm 320 acres anted ll:lproved milk- lnsp ction date 6-30-44 ing r cilities

This b was structurally sound and in good repair. he present tenant !ad so.me 15 · ry co s and needed additional mil.kll.ig facil- ities. The one si le and four double horse talls (See Figure 10}

ere considerably in excess of present or pro able future rs uirements so it as decided to retain only two or t h se stalls and to develop loafing- pen ty e ·ruby as st of dual control gates across th feed alley. The a.re for loose cattle thus provided i~ large erough to accol!l!llodate the present herd or even a .re additional co s without difficulty. 19 • .

Farm 3120 Reichstadt Supervisor R.A. Elliott Location Manson, Iowa Tenant Art. Bates County Calhoun Type building Horse bani ize of £arm 160 acres Size of building 24 1x34' Inspection date 6-29-44 ;anted Convert to Gen . Purp. barn and build 14 •x34 ' addition This .small barn was in good repair and was well constructed and braced. Mo structural alterations of the existing barn were recommended. J.notl,er old barn on the farm was being torn down and the lumber reclaimed appro:r...imately met the require."'J:ents for the shed addition except for siding. 'l'he extremely narrow width of this building presented so~.e problems in remodeling and allay spaee in the new plan arrangement (See Figure 11) is in excess of normal proportion. Resulting accoilllilOdations are, however, probably adequate for a farm of this size.

An alternate solution of this problem was prepared which was more eeono.mical of space but would require a 16 ' width for the addition plus an addition for feed loom and separator room. The plan was essentially a duplication of the proposed plan No . 2 for the alter- dion of the barn on the £arm 2820 Anderson appearing in Figure 21, bu.t with one double horse stall omitted. Space for loose cattle could have been considerably increased in this manner. Farm 2909 Hague Supervisor li .C. eckenridge Location Blairsburg, Ia. Tenant John Williams County Ha.mil.ton Type building Pole barn Size of .farm .346 acres Size of building 48 'x:/4 ' Inspection date 3-6-44 i>anted Remodel

~ This barp. was apparently sound structural..13 and in fairly good repair.. Elimination ot numerous temporary partitions, not all of which 20.

------·------

'-J O AL-r

P~o · PLAu· Aen:..R.ATtotJ · MRN. Am"R:Ai-io\J:S Aoo>.TOt.J ,

Fig. 10 F . ll

c -- i I I\ ,: I ~ \ I I I / I 1 \/M°',,_;, -~•-- I jy".."',.'"~~..:· I I~:~ ~··. [I_-~~~ ~··_. -:~ : I •N... .. ·" .. f\lj I /\ / ' l 1 .J 1111".-~- - N I I / ,; I l:~ . • ~o·-m a L- - . -t' - I 'R.OPOV[.o Pion RoJ1<,10" • PRE.::>E.NT· PLl\N ~:::CALL ~'\' 1' <":)" ecA LC. t..' · 1' - o~ t N.OTC..·

n I I I I ~T'H E.L.E.VATION .ftC.A\...C. ..-.;.1•-0•

5 C-CTION ~CA.u: ::;·. 1 :0·

PROPO.S[D "BARN. ALTE.RATION 5 • 290e .HAG.oUC.. Fig. 12 • 13 21. ap~ar on the plans {Figure 12) would permit the present tenant to utilize most of the building. It is doubtful, however, if the building will ever be entirely satisfactory until major remodeling is done .

Being a drive-through type barn, the .mol floor ext.ends over only a portion of the building so that it is cold and drafty unless almost completely filled with hq. The lean- to portion containing the horse stalls and the cattle shed attached a.t the opposite end prevent filling of the mow through a ha;y door in either end 0£ the barn.. The horse l' stalls are no longer used. 'i'here is a. third shelter tor beef cattle :; in a shed some 50' outh of this barn so that the total amount o:f shelter !or cattl.e is abnormally large, 'l'he farm.stead has no permanent hog house and ho provision for housing any dairy cows. The barn , · ght be remodeled as shown in Figure 13, eliminating the lean- to portion which is not now used and thus provide access for more efficient handling of hay. fhe salvaged ma~erial should sub- stantially complete the recommended c.hanges in other portions of the barn.

The present tenant is not interested in having sows farrow in late inter or early spring so intends to use a portion o! the cattle shelter previously mentioned for pens for late spring £arrowing.

Portable hog houses are used throughout the remainder of the season. Farm 3153 Kettaneh Supervisor H.c. Breckenridge Location Blair.sburg, Ia. Tenant Homminger · County Hamilton Type building Horse barn Size of farm. 240 acres Siz.e of building 52•x64• Inspection date 3-7-44 Wanted Remodel into general purpose barn

It is obvious that this barn had been rather haphazardly altered 22.

from time to time without much thought to keeping a. really workable

plan arrall?ement. A large portion of the old horse atalls were used

· for hogs . It was rather ha.rd to determine the original purpoae of the enclosure in the central alley (See Figure 16) which wo.s at the

time or initial inspection, used as storag~ space for a. com- picker.

The only machine shed on this farm was a very temporary structure

attached t-0 t.he south side of a double corn crib and granary. The barn was larger than necessary for animal shelter and it was suggested

that a portion of the building be used for a machine shed. This .farmstead was visited a.gain in June 1945. The barn had

been remodeled according to the plan which we had furllished (See F.-.gure 17) at a cost or , 1100.00 .. The tenant and. mannge.r were both well pleased with the results. Fa.rm 2826 Painter Supervisor li.c. Breckenridge Location Renwick: , Ia. Tenant Abner Strait County \1right Type building Gen. Purp. barn Size or f ar.m 160 acres Size of building 48 ' x48 1 Inspec~ion date 6-8-44 Wanted Remodel The tenant had several large cows which could not be accommodated

in the small stanchions provided. Provision tor hay carried to the

floor prevented lengthening of stanchions in their present location.

(See Figure 16) .• The feed room had been constructed only recently

and had a very good concrete floor and tight walls. The .five doubl~

horse stalls were far in excess of requirements. 'fhe building: was in good repair and ne ly painted. Space in the north end o:f the barn

was too inacces ible to oe of value. 23 •.

'-o" l

PR.c.~ E..NT' PLA \J • PROf-05£.D . PLAN • R<:Vt"'1r>N. .et"G.-.,l...s;..~• V-c:::>• -,,,,.,,_r ~... 1 :•1'<.:

::5E.C.l'lON • OE...cTIQN • ~c:ALC.. ~· ::i. l~e." SC A LL. "Yt 1·-0· ·bARN ALTERATIQN.r, ·

\... L..t.'JJl ~ ...- .. I A.

Fie• 14 ig. 15

~ ...: c.''

N t

• t 'Rr ~;p.\1 ._ 11.MJ· • PROPC>.eE..D· PLAl..J · 1(.E.V\510\J • •y ALI '/ic;" i'o' 'l'!>C ..... L-L l/1c:,;"'" I' - c:>" r>.lo1'e: l'"'l.J>.CL oor..x::. n.oooo. n ..

'. 11' <··1 \('" J~ I .:'.SE..CTIC>N .. ·..- ,,.., \" Yv" ,·r; elCAL~ ~·· t' - C> \'\{\ :.n1r· hf\\cl\\· \'1.1\1'1·1\, · · ·,H ; rn,~1 · PROP05[D· BARN· ALJ"L PJiTIONS ·

Fi •• 17 The remodeling scheme (Figure 15) included conversion of the three East double stalls to properly sized cow stanchions, completion

of the mow floor, conversion of the entire North end o! t he barn into space !or loose cattle and tlle addition oi a separator room. A con-

crete flo.or was recommended for all portions of the barn except the apace for loose cattle. Farm 2$20 Anderson Supervisor R • Elliott Location Cooper, Iowa Tenant K. Netherton County Greene Type building Gen . Purp. barn Size of farm 305 acres Size of building 42•.x;6t Inspection date 6-30-44 ~anted Remodel The condition of this barn was evident from the photograph

(Figure 18). The owner had approved the construction of a new barn or the remodeling of this one but had limited t he expenditure to $1,000. This would not provide a building of adequate size to handle the requirements o! the farm and efforts to secure additional funds had not then

be.en successful. Remodeling of the existing barn, despite its present condition, seemed the only solution under the cost limitation imposed.

The proposed scheme eall.s !or the removal of the north lean-to shed and also the bearing partitions ip the ma.in struet11re (Figures 19, 20_.

21) . The intended purpose of these partitions, other than providing structural support to the mow floor, as somewhat obscure. Lumber thus

salvaged would provide most of the material required for completing the

proposed scheme. Some shingles left over from another re-roofing job were on hand.. Sheet metal siding v1as available in some quantity and was being recommended here a.s perhaps t.he cheapest method of covering the old walls to obt-ain a reasonably tight enclosure. 4-2 '-o"

·a

\ I \ I -.9 --I •Q N I \ I \

· PRE.SCNT·BARN·PLAN ·4 5E.CTION • a.eao A.NOLllt.SOIJ COOPER., '"" ·

n . 19

l.JOlltTM &MLD

' 0 ~ N I ~ ' •0 ·'t t t t

C~IOl . <:llli . 1 g~i:;r..;:J"... ~.:11-----t=~:;'::::::::::~~~

'"~t.. C T101>J ." ~C:.•\Lt:. ~· l' -o"

.,,, AWO~R"°"' • P[('.QP()S[D•l)ARN • ALT[RATIQN"2 ;:_roµc -.~ 0 ------• 21 Necessar'.T structural improvements to the ma.in portion ot the old building included a neft concrete £oundation for the entire

structure, new mow floor framing to replace existing 2 11x6« joists which were in bad condition, and a redesign of the roof bracing.

Suggested remodeling schemes No . l and No . -2 are identical with the exception of the location of teed room and se~tor room. Scheme lfo. l was eonsidered most desirable but ~ould involve some additional initial expense. The proposed budget was so limited that ncutting- of'- corners" would be necessary. The valtte of this building aft.er remodeling would still be quest'.onable and the recommendations made here were not considered to be an ideal solution or the problem but only a rea.sone.bly practical solution of the problem under the difficulties imposed.

Farm 3192 Wilson Supervisor R. A. Elli ott Location Albert City, la. Tenant Ezra Tebben County Pocahontas Type building Gen . Purp. barn Size of fa.rm 320 acres. Size of building 50 •x60 • Inspection date 6-29-44 hanted Study remodellnJ possibilit ies

This barn (Figure 24) is a.bout 75 years old. resent condition of the buildir.g is shown b7 the photographs (Figures 22 and 23) . This study was made to obtain material for determining probable costs of returning the old barn t-0 a functional condition so tha.t a decision might b$ ma.de on remodeling of the barn or replacing it. The proposed remodeling scheme (Figure 25) , i! adopted, is considered ndnimum and rough prelindnary estimates of materials and labor required would indicate a required expenditure considerably in excess of $2,000 . .o '- ~. ••:. o L~N.,-0 C HLO

0 0 c 'l t• 0 ,a• 0 c ~· i22 - 0 0 • d w I ¥! ~ "0 i ~ =· 0 Q_ 0 0 c u 0 ; i D~ J ti 0 0 c

i 0 24 Fie. 25 28.

U materials and labor £or new construction become available in the rather near future it would seem desirable to replace the old barn with a smaller structure be-tter adapted to the present require-

ents of the fa.rm. So.me provision for· proper housing of livestock on

the fana :must, however, be made soon and ]Ater developments may require the remodeling of the old barn in a manner similar to tb.at illustrated. Farm .3121 Frazer Supervisor H.C. Breckenridge Location Huoiboldt, Ia .. tenant Steve Hawkins County Rumboldt Type buil.ding Dairy barn Size or farm 323 acres Size of building 44 1xh4' Inspection date 6- 9-44 ~ranted Correct s~ructural de!eets

This bank-type dairy barn (Figure 26) is o! fire resistant wall construction., Some pointing o! mortar joints was necesS&l'J and shoul.d

be done before water entering the open joints does further damage •.

Approximately lb' of the length of the building at the south end of the maw .floo:r was used for five double horse stalls and t he design

ot the roof truss~s (two or which are over this area) had been altered

to allow the trussea to bear a.bout seven feet above t he mow t'loor level.

The floor placed over the horse stalls at approximately the same level.

as th.a spring line of these trusses w-as not designed in sueh a manner

as to provide an e,ffective tie be~ween opposing truss supports with t.he result. that walls were being pushed out of alignment at these

points. The horse stalls were not and probably never would be completely utilized and elimination of the end stalls was recommended to per- mi:t redesign of the lower members of the roof trusses in this section to conform with those used throughout the remainder o! the building.

/ Damage to the wall was not irreparable but this entire sect ion of the building was highly susceptible to wind dama.ge while in this weakened eonditicm. Materials and. barn equipment used in the construction or this barn ere of unusually high quality and the structure was sound with the exceptions noted. It had been neglected for a number of years and minor repair to both building and equipment were necessary in many places. Farm 3121 Fr ser Supervisor H.C. Breckenridge Location Humboldt , Ia. Tenant steve Hawkins County Humboldt Type building Beef barn Size of farm 323 acres Size of building 32' X48 ' Inspect.ion date J-9-44 ~Vanted Repair and bracing The structural bracing of this building was almost holly in- ef.f'ecti ve . It probably remained standing only because it was well sheltered from. wind by surrounding trees and high ground. The north and east walls were in a -very bad. state of' repair _wit h nwnerous st uds broken otr here notched to receive continuous ribbands. Yosts in the

.. ow were obviously inca.pabl.e of carrying a:ey load (See Figure 27) . There as a eonsidera.ble quantity of both dimension lumber and

1011 drop siding (this matched the siding originally used on the barn) in an old building nearby hich had been partially dismantled. Uearly all necessary .materials tor making the repairs and alterations recommended could be salvaged from this old building. Used as a beef' i'eeding barn ~ the proposed extension of roof bracing to the sill ould not serious.ls interfere mtb the use of this building but would l.JOCAT...._~C..~ot.I ~TlCL.1-or~.,.,, .. ~~~

PL/l\t-.i .sc::..... l..c.l/.. "•1'.-M

5t:.C'T'l0"1 elC...... l...L ~"•1'-0"

PRESEi...tl• 5E.c11o~C: ..... t..1:. ~~r:;r:.rsc.0 ° Nc.w· ElR-'CUJG " DAIRY ~AR-1'.l BARN · RE.PA IR.· 4 E:>RAClf-J<:r 312. I FRA:!.E.R MlJMBCt..."T \A.. ~121 f'RA2['.R. HlJMOOL"T IA•

._,· O'

'o..

• PRO~E..D . PLA\.J• R£...Vl~ICH.l .=t.CALILVw;."• 1 '-o ~

11111 Ill Ill • PLoT• PLA.U • e<'°Al..C.\M•#!JI0°

~:.::.:.---:.. = ~-----..:..4..

MASONRY HOG HOU5l \-100. • H OU5E. • CONVE.RTt..O lD BE.£.. F" FE.E.Oll-G BO.R~

2.905 POR.Tt.OUS HUM~OLT, f1'. g . 28 • 29 strengthen the structure considerably. This would also permit the economy of splicing broken studs rather than replacement.

4" Barn re.modeling sgmrgary

It will be noted. that it was necessary to elimi.nate most of the horse stalls in every plan revised te> make effective use of the space.

Adequate provision for handling of any- dairy cows as originally provid~d only in the dairy barn on the farm 312l Frazer and the general purpose barn on tb.e far111 2907 Allei1. Six to eight oow stanchions were recommended in each of the rennining general purpose barns.

The few remaining horses on these farms v1ere kept in the barn during only a small part of the year. Consequentl.y, double horse stalls retained have been equipped with gates to permit use o! stalls a.s either horse stalls or box stalls. !t was also recommended that mangers in horse stalls have the top 2"xl.0t1 board on the stall side hin.ged t.o drop down. This permits a qitlck adjustment of manger height to accommodate either horses or cattle.

Most or the old barn~ ror which remodeling was recommended were over 40 feet in width. To make effective use of the space in the center of these buildings a cross alley arrang~ent was required.

According to H. B. lflhite (4), the length of chore routes resulting from this arrangement is approximately 27 per cent in excess of the length of chore routes obtained with an arrangement where animals are «faced in" to a central feed alley. The "face inlf arrangement is not prac- 32 .. tical, however, on barns which exceed .38 or 40 feet in width.

Completion of the mow floor and conversion of t he first floor space directly below has been recommended in all eases for both space economy and temperature control. Hay storage space remains adequate for anticipated. needs in all cases. The same considerations dictated eliJrd.nation of the drive-through feature of the barn on the farm 2909 Hague . After providins for the rat.her .fixed .features of about six cow stanchions, two double horse stalls or box stalls, feed room, and in several eases a separator room,, remaining space in general purpose barns was devoted to provisions for loose cattle.. Space thus allotted is ax.cessive in some eases.. Completion o! the remodeling as recommended would, however, largely remove all obstructions from those areas and .fu.ture ·placing of fixed equipment in any portions of this space co~d be accomplished with minimum dif!ieu.lty.. Wherever width of the space for loose cattle permitted, recommended bunk and manger equipment was GO arranged as to permit feeding without direct contact with the animals. An attempt was also made to arrange the buildings in such a. manner as to permit conversion to a loafing pen type dairy unit by the simple a.d~tion of dual control gates across the .feed alley as used in the alteration recommended for the general purpose barn on the .far~-n 2$07 Allen. This did not spring from any preference i'o.r the loafing pen type barn bu.t fl"()m the greater resulting flexibility... Only those barns originally equipped witn cow stanebions had concrete floors in arzy- S$Ction of the barn and these floors

were in stanchion and feed room section only. Four barns were equipped with feed rooms, one of which was not in serviceable con-

dition.

Small girders and close spaeing of interior posts was one of the most serious obstacles to remodeling. In a. few cases, replaee-

.ment of existing posts and girders in one or more bays was necessary to carry out the remodeling ache.me proposed. Structural defects observed were so numerous and varied that no complete classification will be attempt.ed. Some defects occurred so frequently a.nd others were so obvious that they are here mentioned. Despite the rather common close spacing or posts, condition of the girders indicated that in nearly all cases them.ow floor joist system was capable or transmitting a tar greater load to the girders than those girders could safely ea.rry. Even in the mow floors using

2".x6u joists the girders showed more evidenoe of overload than did the floor joists,. Free standing posts~ 2*'x6tt and 2u.xau, or v1ind bracing m.em.bers exceeding 16 feet in length were observed in two cases. No real structural support was afforded by these members . Only one of the barns inspected had collar beams at the roof peak. With only one exception, additional braces for the root (other than collar beams) 1'.lere necessary in some part of all structures where ratters were sprung from a point above the mow .floor line. The one barn excepted was only 24 feet in width. Broken studding, resulting i'rom. the use of continuous ribbands let into the studs at the point of support for mow .floor joists, was obser\ted in only one of the two barns inspected where this framing m.et!lod was used.. Addition-al bracing to reduce bending in the studs was, however, rec0llli4end.ed in both cases.

5 •. Hog house remodeling

Farm 2905 Porteous Supervisor R.C. Breckenridge Location Humboldt, la. Tenant Carl 1 ~eigert County Humboldt Type building flog house Size of f a:rm 400 acres Size or building 76'x76 1 Inspection date 3-10-44 Wanted Remodel into beef feeding barn

The present repl acement cost of this 28 pen hog house (Figure

28) would exceed ~)00 per pen. It was not in use be.cause the space enclosed as so large in proportion t.o the potential. number of animals housed that hogs could be kept comfort.able only by suppJ.ying artificial heat in winter months. A careful study of t he original plan and construction detail µidicates the um1sua.l quality of the constructi on employed. The root .framing for the north- south axi.s gable roof was com.- plet ed and the east- est gables then added. As a result the mo f l oor space in the east and west gables is separated from the rest or the mow floor by l'O'tiS of 2"$11 studs at 2 ' -011 centers. Heavy valley rafters should be installed and. the above .mentioned studs removed to make this space available tor ha, storage. Improvements on this farm were far in exces.s or average and

have been kept in excellent repair. No provision for the housing of :feeding cattle was available s@ it was reeomtended that this

building be converted into a. beef feeding barn as illustrated in

Figure 29. The feeding floor between this building and the frame farrowing house to the north was shaded most of the day b1 this building. There also seemed to be no convenient method for bringing eultivated lots up to the sma.ller hog house and !eeding floor so relocation of the frame hog hoase was recommended. Farm 3121 Frazer Supervisor .a.c. Breckenridge Location Hwnbol.dt., Ia. Tenant Steve Hawkins CoWlty Humboldt Type building Hog house Siz.e of farm 323 acres Size °'r building 24 tx84 1 Inspection date .3- 9- 44 Wanted Improved insulation of building

This building seemed structurally sound despite the use 0£ a non-loadbearing type tile construction (Figure 30) for a.n outside bearing wall. All wa.ll repairs necessary could be made in a very few hours. The owner and tenant were not satisfied with the house because o! lack of temperature control. The owner had been eon- templating placing another tile wall outside the existing wall with an air space to be left. between walls. Theoretical hea.t- transmission coefficients for the existing wall and roof construction were nearly equal. Total l'lall area. was approximately equal to the floor area. indicating that heat loss through the roof is probably greater than that through the walls. Lining o:f the under side of the rafters with 25/32 inch rigid insulation boa.rd was· therefore recommended on the basis that it would provide an overall insulation value equivalent to the method originally proposed at considerably less expense.. Total glass area in the south all was equivalent to less than 2 per cent of the fl.oor area. Need for retaini.ng the root lighting dictates lining of the under side of rafters rather than constructing a flat ceiling at the plate level.

6. Poultry house remodeling

Farm 29 9 Hague Supervisor H.C. Breckenridge Location Blairsburg. Ia. Tenant John William.a County Hamilton Type buil-ding Poultry house Size of fam .346 aeres Size of building 12tx30 1 .Inspection date. 3-6-44 Wanted Remodel and enlarge

A poultry house large enough to suec~ssful:J¥ accOlmloda.te 150 to 200 laying hens vae.s desired tor this fa.rm. The old building was in rather poor condition but framing was sound and shingles on the north roof slope apparently good !or several more years. The revised and enlarged plan (Figure 32) eall.ed for increasing the width of the building to 18 feet and removing the existing partition. New siding placed over the old siding is .far less effective as insulation than lining of the studs on either side but it was not believed possible to salvage much of. the old siding if it was removed. Since the revised plan is still only 18 feet in width~ north lighting was not deemed essential and droppings pits were placed against the wall. Insulation of the ceiling in the revised building is considered essential and walls should also be lined and .insulated as soon a.s possible. [110 WAt.l 1.VHAt.r..ti a.-~· ...• 5<:AL.C.IJ2",1'-o"'

·PLAN• 15CA.LC. ~4" t' .. o" ~:: ,,,,.,.:g Fl! ---1•--"T" --<>- .S[_CT!OtJ ,;j:'f:::i7===~~ ·TvP\CA\..: WALL" SGAL\'..14!"• t'-o.. • St....CTIOt.J• 'l!>C".AL\'.. 1 "~1'-c:>" • .9 • eo._y ; '""H'"LE><".> '"° P=ct=&=9F9~~"'9F~'"'ll ~~· .,,,...,.... M:J~... .,.d- . O L.I LUO <-1A... QO< ) ~01...TC. C"' WM 0::. ~~~"'11...--j-·-~--t--'.r-1-11 <~::'. ~,~""" TO\.VAI...

H06 · l-10USE..· IN5ULATION • O VE.Rl-lE.AD ·BINS· ADDE.D · TO· CORN· CRIB " · DOUBLE. · PATCJIJ IA •

- ----j I IJ fJ""""' "' ~ ~ fl~I~ +t -" ++ j l ~ l- ..- T\._,. PLf,~; • PRE..50JT· Pl..AIJ • l - .. ,. r ·.Je"••'o" ~LL~•\'-0° T t

I ,..r r •. · -~ -.rcT:!Jl.J • ''a"• 1·-0·

t I· _iP(">.'-:;(: P1 AtJ '....> c...Vl'OIO \>J PRQPO..X...O• PLAN· R[.V\e.'°1J prJUlJR(· ~70~,£." ;~;TRAT\ON3 e.c.a.LL ·~·. 1'-cr POULTRY· \-IOU5L· ALTE-RATION5

• 32 e. 33 Fa.rm Jl2l Frazer Supervisor H. C. Breckenridge Location Humboldt, Ia. Tenant Steve Hawkins County Humboldt Type building Poultry house Size of farm 323 acres Size of building 14 •x6CP Inspection date 3- 9-44 lia.nted Remodel

The south f aee of this buildirig contained 52 window sash (4 light

9t1xJ.2tt) . The proposed remodeling scheme {l''igure 33) inclu.d.ed in-

creasing the width of building to 181 and dividing the building into

two pens with a solid partition between. Only five windows per pen

were specil'ied in the revised plan.. The gable roof !or the rertsed

building was pl"ovided by tilting up the e.xisting roof to 1/4 pitch and framing in a .south slope.. Arrangement of droppings pita, feeders,

and other equipment in each pen was almost identical with that recommended for the poultry house o:n the .farm 2909 Hague.

7. Grain bins and corn cribs

Farm 2907 Allen Supervisor · R.. .a,. Elliott Location Paton, Ia. Tenant Uoyd ~ County Greene Type building Double corn crib Size of farm 320 A. Size of building 26 1x48 1 Inspection date 6-30-44 ~Vanted Add overhead grain bins

This crib was apparently well built and braced. Bin space avail-

able, if' compl.eted (as shown in Figure 31) would provide storage for approximately 4, 000 bushels of shelled corn or small grain. The proposed addition called for 2tt xl.4'' or 31txl.21t joists at. 2411 o. c .. for bin floors and 2"x6° ties with the same spacing at tops of bins.

Four by six inch whalers to receive tie rods were recommended for

the existing walls with r1ew bin partitions to be framed with a double 2"x6** plate approximately six feet above the bin floors to eliminate need for whalers on these walls.

The number of buildings of t ypes other than barns included in these surveys l1as not sufficient to permit classification of problems likely to be encountered in remodeling ea.ch tYPe• Some features of these buildings are covered in the following aummary applying to all buildings inspected. Not one of the buildintfs _inspected was insulated and few had any ventilation controls. None of the buildings was equipped with roof gutters _or leaders.

Windows and doors were in generally poor repair.

With the exception ot one poultry house, the ceiling height of every livestock and poultry shelter inspected was in excess of heights now recommended.

Glass areas in one poultry- house and one hog house w~re quite excessive. Glass area. of the poultry house was over five times the area now recommended.

An interior post and girder arrangement for barns using posts s 1 -on o.c. located i.n rows adjacent to a 4 foot central feed alley appears to be most adaptable to remodeling. On barns of' average width this would require floor joists 211 deeper than would be required if the posts and girders were placed to create three bays of approxi..mately equal width. Girder loading would, however, be somewhat reduced 40. si ce larger .ortion of t he total mo floor load ould be carried by the outside ls. t present materials prices, the extra cost of providing the .1ore flexible arrangement suggested should not exceed

$15 per 1000 square feet of floor area.. The extra cost of king all one story buildings 24 feet or less in width clo span structures would be still less.

B. New Construction Studies

1 . Intr oduction

Cne pr· ry pur ose of the reinodelin~ studies just described has been the acquisition of background for determining t.1ose !'eatures of buildi.1 construction which by incor oration, omission, or by alteration either improve the function of farm building without increasing th ir service cost or reduce service cost ithout imp<:J.ring the build- i ig functio • daptation of farm structures to new and different usea is first of all an econo ·c probl • contribution to ard reduction of initi 1 costs, ' ntenance costs, remodeling costs, or total annual service costs would be a. contribution toward increased ada tability so long methods used maintain or improve resent housing standards. The principal sources of remodeling difficulty discussed previously

y b classified as follo s:

1 . Non-functional details. 2. Basic structural dimensions.

3. Basic equipment dimensions. 4. Basic structural sch es. 41 -

It was presumed that these same teatures might present similar difficulties in the future re-adaptation of buildings constructed

.from plans for ne"W construction now being offered by the Midwest Plan Service which acts as the o!fieial ageney for the distribution of ta.rm building planning recomnlendations for Iowa State College and other

Land Grant Colleges of the ?:lorth Central States. Various commercial and industrial agencies also distribute farm building plans in large quantities and revie of the plan offerings of both the 1.!idwest Plan Service and independent outside agencies !ram the standpoint of plan adaptability ''as initiated.

2 . A.aj.ysis of' new plan offerings

The last general issue of Midwest Plan Service plans WM in 1937. Since that time miscellaneous plans have been added largely from those prepared for individuals by the Iowa ,Agricultural :J;xperiment. Station on a fee basis and those prepared for use on t:..'1:periment Station farms.

Since much of this material was _prepared for very specific u es by individuals not performing general rout ine farming operations or tor strictly experimental purposes it was believed that the original 1937 offerings were more representative of present new construction practice than were the entire present offerings. These plans were predomiuantly drawn f .or frame construction so present plan offerings of .i.asonry buildings a.s prepared by the Structural Clay Products Institute and the Portland Ce:!.ent ~issociation were added to t he group. ill basic plan features and dimensions, equip.~ent d:L~ensions, bay widths, ser-

ious re.110deling obstructions noted, and non-functional detail were , classified and tabulated.

a .. Barn plans. All eonventional barn plans appearing in the

plan offerings of t he three agencies above mentioned are listed and

classified in Tabl e l .. Detailed analysis of this material is later presented.

b. ..:inor service buildiags. Comparable o.f'ferings by these ' agencies of ·lans for mi.nor service buildings are listed and classified

in 1'able 2 . These include the following building types: Single row

general purpose barns, walk-through dairy barns, cattle sheds, sheep sheds, two-row farrowing houses, poultry houses,. farm shops, 2 car

garages, car and truck garages,. and machine sheds. The two class-

ilica.tions thus cover t he co m.on types of !arm: service buildings with ( the .following exceptions : portable small buildings, very small service

structures (pump houses, fuel sheds, etc • ) , which are too small to

be of serious economic consequer1ce and storage buildings designed

..L'or bulk storage of grain and for age crops which must contain permanent

internal bracing or ties to resist lateral wall loadings and are thus

.made unsuit.~ble for other purpoaes.

!n addition to the remodeling obstructions and non-functional details listed, certain troublesome features were consistently repeated

in buildings constructed of ea.ch basic wall material. These seel'J1 t,o

spring !rom rather standardized construction pr uctices which have been Taha l

CLASSIPICATIOll OF BASIC Pl.All FEATU!l>:SIll RAHNS All D!Jnendona in P.. t M.w.r. - Midweet Plan Ser'fic• SCPI - St.Netw-al Cl&7 Product. ln•titut• P.C.4. - Port.land c-nt. .\HOCiJltion G.P.B. - General Purpose Barn

-~ COUQ11l4r -11&1.ntl. ahe p d"--nsione ot interior oen. atul and storan areas ~··no. t7P0 UOUDLe horM Caw st.ai .u Box eta.Us Maternity cur pens s1ng J.e norse B.u. .. pena F•ea rooa. Width Lon«th Height , __1talla h ~no 1t.all1 llidth Lon.t.h ;adth 11.enrrt.h 111.dth Lenot.h Width Lenl!th Nidth Len""'-h .adth Len.eth Width LenP.t.h ;·1!dth

11.11.P. 72101 G.P.B. )2.00 32.00 e.oo 12.83 e. oo 13.33 3.00 13.33 e.75 i 3.oeo 6.50 M.ll.P. 72111 o.r,s. )4.00 :io.oo 1.00 15.50 a . oo 13.25 3.50 13. 25 10.75 15.50 5. 00 l0.00 4.75 11.•.r. 72112 G.P.B. 34.00 60.00 e.50 14.00 a.50 12.67 3.50 14.00 11.50 ll . 50 9. 03 11. 50 20.25 14. 00 5.00 14.00 5.75 M.w.P. 72121 G.P.B. 36.oo 64.00 e.50 14.00 9.00 13. 50 3.50 11.50 9.00 ll . 50 9.00 9.00 6. 50 M.11.r. 72131 G.P.B. )4.00 60.oo e.oo 13.83 8.50 Special equli: 13.83 11.33 13.83 4.92 ll . 3J 9. 92 8.00 5.00 11.1'1.P. 72132 G.P.B. )4.00 60.00 a.oo 13.83 a .50 . " 1).8) 11.JJ 1J. 8J 4.92 ll.JJ 9.92 e.oo 5. 00 M.11.r. 72133 o.r.e. )2.00 40.00 e.75 13.50 J.50 lJ.50 7.50 lJ . :P 6. 00 14. 00 7.00 SCPI 72ll2 o.r.e. )2.00 40.00 8.4J 14.00 e.oo 14.00 3.17 14.00 e.oo 14.00 e.oo SCPI 72110 O.P.9. )4.50 52.20 e.56 14.JJ e.oo 13.75 J.5C lJ.JJ 14.00 1J.3J 12. 00 6. 8J• 9.67 P.C.A. 1J6l G.P.8. )6.00 68.00 e.67 11..• 67 e.oo 14.67 J.50 14.67 10.00 14.67 10. 00 14. 67 10. 00 14. 67 7.83 M.lll.P. 72221 HcrH B. J6.oo 58.00 9.00 12.00 7.67 14.00 5. 00 12. 00 4. 67 M.11.P. 72301 o.s.,,. e. 32.00 eo.oo e.oo lJ.50 J.50 Jl . 50 9. 00 lJ . 50 10. 00 lJ.50 10. 50 lJ. 50 9. 00 k.J.P. 72Jll Dail')' e. )4.00 64.00 a.oo 11.8) 3.50 10.50 10.50 11. 50 11. 50 1. 00 M.l'l.P. 72321 Dail')' B. J6.oo eo.oo e.oo lJ.50 J.50 lJ . 00 ~~:~lJ.00 7. 00 13.00 n.50 5. 00 4.00 SCPI 72305 Dairy A. )4.00 49.60 7.77 12.8) 3.50 12. 3) 7.67 12. 3J 7.67 13.33 6. 92 P.C.A. C280 o.t..,. e. )6.00 121!.7 0.00 14.00 J. 50 12. 00 7.1 7 1. 00 1. 00 10. 00 a.co M.W.P. 72421 Cattle 9. J6.00 48.00 10.00 12. 50 12. 00 M.W.P. 724)1 Pole e. 52.00 72.00 9. 00 12.00 10. 00 12. 00 12. 00 SCPI ma. Cattle 8, 4~.oo 60.oo 8.50

Min. 32.00 7.00 12.~3 0.00 ll.8J J.00 1.5 0 7.50 l0.50 7.17 7.00 7. 00 lJ . 50 4.92 11.JJ 9. 00 5. 00 4. 00 Max. 52.00 10.00 15.50 9. 00 14.67 3. 50 14. 67 14.00 14.67 11.00 14. 67 20. 25 15. 50 6.00 lJ . 50 11.50 14. 67 12. 00 •••• )6.08 0.35 14.ll e.28 13.41 J.44 13.27 9.99 12.50 9. 24 12.20 10.38 14.ll 5.12 12.lJ 10. 11 11. 03 7. 21 Moan )4.00 8.43 14.00 e.oo 13.50 J.50 lJ. 50 10.00 lJ.00 9.eJ lJ . 00 10. 00 14. 00 5.00 11. 50 9. 92 12. 00 6. 92 \,j,)•"' • Source Plan Acceaa areaa Interior _pay • dtha Serious remodeli ng obstructions Non-r unct.ional delAUs no. Center Side Cro1u St.air alley alley all•7 width l 2 J 4 ~ -·-· ~-· ... w.;v.r. 72101 4.8J 5.00 4.00 2.50 u. o 10. 0 u . o ~l1dt1cert.er bay and sta~r,ered posts. w.w.r. 72111 4.25 5. 00* J.75 6. 0 e.o 9. 0 n.o Three rows or posts, two in pens. M••• P. 72112 5.67 5. 00 J. 25* J.00 12.0 10. 0 12. 0 15" varia t.ion; in Cill . a. level. Unnecess11.rily naers. Ll • •1 .P. 72301 4.00 5. 00* 4.00 J. 00 11.2 9. 6 11.2 ;.t eel am cone. rlairy e'}uip . j lloor dorrr.ers. ~•• 1.P. 7

Ltn . 2. 00 J .50 J. 00 2. 00 11. 0 P.. 6 ll . O 7. 67.. L!nx. 6.JJ 5. 4) 1,.50 3. 00 16. o 20. 0 16. o ------·- -D L a. c;o.. Avg. 4.3J 4,67 J. 67 2. 81 12. J n .5 1, , J 7. 9)'>" i.:ean 4.LO 4. BJ J. 50 J. (.() l l . O 10. CJ 11. 0 A. {..()11* ______~-- L L - •:,v,.rar~" Ul!le L- __ lft trenston ,fonC>rlepjAn -:------tttS1..p~r11cr1pt tn'1ic11lea c ent.•·r iiriv eway . J_ Table 2

CLASSIFI Ct. TIOfl OF BASI C ?LAil F~ TURSSrn V.lfl<.."l!tSi:.."l VICE DUllDINGS All 01.memiions in Feet Sff Nomenclature Table 1

Source Pl&n Building ~·n ti •• 1. .. Fixed Pen areaa ).'.in. Interior ba widtn ')erious rerr.ode1 1ng obs truct1ona no. tYPO ndth Lengtl Height p<>n Farraring Food wall or non-runctiond details equip. pens alley hei ght l 2 3 Lon.th!Width width 'R.P. I •• 72102 O.P.B, la.oo )2.00 7.25 T.. SUl9 aa } 4,00 1.25 7.00 High cone. bu.lkhearia. 1<.W.P. u.oo Interior posts. Irregular cone. fl. 75221 Oai17 B. 20.00 45.00 7.50 Tes large barna 4. 25 7,50 7.50 12.50 High cone. bulkheads . M.'H Cone. stairs. Interior posts. .P. 72401 Cattle s. 20.00 6a.oo 9.00 No ifide overhand with l?utter. l<.11.P. 72402 Cattl..o s. 20.co 68.00 9.00 No l<.ll'.P. 72403 Cattla s. 20.00 40.00 a.a3 No No 11.ll'.P. 72501 ShotpS. 24.CO 32.co 7.43 4.00 7.43 12.CO 12.00 11.W.P. Interior posta. 72502 Shoop S. 22.co 42.00 7.50 No 5.50 6.10 6.CO 16.00 Interior poata in conjWlction wlth Mimi-trussed roof. M.W.P. 72613Hog H. 24.00 42.CO '/.50 Tea a.oo 7.00 6.oo 4.3' 9.00 6.00 9.CO Concrete hoe- troughs. Interior posts . tow side walla. M.;r.p. 72621 Hog H. 22.00 )2.00 Tea 6.56 a.oo a.oo 4.00 6.56 9.00 4.00 9,00 Concrete hog trouf!ha. High cone. bulkheads. Low celling. M.li.P. 72622 Hog H. 26.00 48.CO 1.25 Teo a.oo a.co a.oo 7.25 a.67 a,67 a.67 \~ow 5titable tor any liveatock. ~lidthnot suitable barn. SCPI Hog H, tor 72620 22.33 31.3J 7.co Teo a.co 6.00 5.co 3.67 a.67 5.co a.67 Interior pasta. Low walls. SCPI 72620 Hog H. 22.33 Jl.33 7.08 Tea a.DO 6.oo 5.co 7.08 a.67 5.00 a.67 SCPI 72620 Hog H. 25.33 7.40 Teo a.DO 49.3J 6.co a.co 3.67 a.67 a.oo a. 67 Low walla .. Interior poat.s. ·.lidth not suited for other usea. SCPI 72620 Hog H. 25.33 49.33 7.08 TOI a.co 6.00 a. co 7.08 B.67 B.00 a.67 Width not suitable for other use•. P.C.4. C2087 Hog H. 27.33 50.co a.co Teo 9.CO 6.17 a.co 4.83 9. 67 a.co P.C.4. 9.67 tow side •lla. Block partition. Interior poats. C2169 Hog H. 24.00 58.CO lo.co Tu B.50 7;00 5.33 3. JJ 9.17 5.67 9.17 tow side walls. Concrete partition posts. P.C.4. C615 Hog H. 22.co 49.JJ 7.50 Tea a.co 6.co 4.JJ 6.17 B.67 4.67 B.67 Concrete interior posts . Half~nitorroof. 11.;r.p. H. 7270J Poult. 16.oo J6.00 Var!A. No 5.JJ tow sloping ceiling. N.11.rrow for animal shelter. 11.ll'.P. 72714 Poult. 11. 19.75 70.00 7.75 No 7.75 1:.W.P. 7272J Poult. H. 20.co 20.co Varia. No 4.BJ lo.oo 10.co Interior post . Low sloping ceiling. 11.lf.P. H. 72725 Poult. 20.co 20.co ?.BJ Tea Extra floor at} ?.BJ a.oo 4.00 B.00 Roof would have to be made self-supporting ovAr 20• span. 11.;ot.P. 72726 Poult. H. 24.CO 22.00 7.BJ Tes 4' Might 7.BJ 10.00 4,00 10.co San.e a9 aboTe. M.W.P. 727Jl Poult, H. JO.CO JO.CO 6.87 No 6.87 11.00 a.DO u.oo Interim- peats. Low ceiling. ('"- 11.:r.P. 72732 Poult, H. 40.CO 40.00 7.43 No 7.4J 14.00 12.00 14.CXJ Interior poste. ' . 11.W.P. 727JJ Poult. H. 20.co 20.co 6.87 No 6.87 6.00 a.co 6. 00 Interior poate. Low celling. 11.~.P.72734 Poult. H. 24.CO 24.CO 6.87 No 6.87 B. 00 e. oo a. oo Interior poeta . Low ce-iling. l!.'il.P. 72751 Poult. H. 26,00 7,00 ?!o ' 100.0 7.08 13.00 lJ.00 Interior posts. Low girde r through c ent.er. 1'"00-

Min. 16.oo 6.56 B.CO 6.00 4.00 B.00 llo.x. 40.00 11.00 9.00 B,00 6. oo e. oo 23. 22 B.07 B.15 6.62 4.74 ""''· e. oo llMn 22.00 7,50 B. 00 6.17 5.00 e.oo developed for the various material.a without particular regard tor the possible obstructions t.hus presented in future alterations of the structures. 'lhese details and construction practices are discussed in considerable detail in the following section. 46.

V. RESULTS

The work upon this project involved a series of related studies.

It ~as necesoary to make current interpretation of mneh of the data in order that. results and -conclusions might be used in following

studies. Results of the earlier studies are presented and discussed

at some length in the .previous chapter but should be considered largely as background material for use in the stttdy of ne. eonstruetion of buildings and buildir,g equipment.. It should be noted,. however, that most remodeling obstacles observed are common to both existing buildings and present plan offerings and certain results of tbe studies on new construction might be applied to existing structµres.

A. Elimination of Non-functional Detail. Detail Simplification

High concrete f ounda.tion bulkheads were frequently noted as a serious remodeling obstruction on buildings which have frame walls.

In a great many cases t.hese concrete bulkheads extend only a few inches above the floor,. The purpose of such const.ructio:n is to elevate the wood aill of the frame 1'lall a suf'fieient distance above the fl.oor level to prevent. deterioration of the sill and lower side v.all from rain water splashing against the ext.erior or from contact with wet litter and manure inside the building. fd1en only slightly elevated the concrete bulkhead remains a serious obstacle to the relocation or door openings but the decay protection sought is not provided. The poultey house plan (.Figure 35) is adapted from the Iowa Laying House

Plan prepared and now distributed by the Iowa Sta.t.e College Extension Service. Comparison with t.he original plan (Figure )4) shows the required change in construction at the sill to completely eliminate the concrete bulkhead and permit relocation of doors t<> any point ol any wall without disturbing the eo~rete foundation. Analysis of the roof framing of' this same structure indicated that. the roof as .framed on the original plan has ample structural capacity without use of the interior post and girder shown. The post and girder is non.. funetional and has been eliminated in the remodeled plan. These changes in foundation wall and interior upport permit certain other detail 3i.mplifications in the building. Yd thout reduction of the minimum elear ceiling height the entire ceiling can be lowered an amount equivalent to the girder depth.. A very slight adjustment in this ceiling height would t.beb1 permit use of both siding and studding in standard available lengths with no cutting waste. It likewise brings the plate height to the height originally recommended for the door height, thus eliminating necessity for separate header framing over door and window openings.

Construction of the building according to the original plan would require approximatel7 10 cubic yards of concrete for footings. At

4000 lbs. per cubic yard, the customar;y weight a.llowanee for concrete, / --- .,,. E-~ .,.?.=_~ !'"t._c~ .., - . - '.1 ' -~ I _2~ 'r' ~~-----iI I ;/I ' -~ .

· U • ,.-RA MI NG · E • i=--RA·' " '. "\..::i • NOJiZTH • ~~ V.:NG • SO TH N ND rA .. 7 '-0 " c-c-2~-.-~:-=:.:. )IVood 5h 1ng .ee Not e · S ee "Te xt 12eqcrd inq \n ,,,u\olion Above ln e Ce ihnq t .e- \"XC C op •

• I C ~:=tf'S 1+l'i Jilo- i I ·,.a·.. e:..o · 0 Vc:!n "t Doo r \ ' ~: ~ ~.eee.De:+o 1I) a -:.· • • f\IL~ /? \~ I I I I I ! ?=)e·:,.q.-~14·-o"Joi_,T ) i-...~10:..o~Joi.,,.T- A . Z'Y''f ,' ... · Jdod'" I ! I l I , . q= ih ~ dju3'ting Armr=- ~ 'j' - O pe n 1n 9 11:"-r=-1~·-2::...3·-4 5·-'°· .._,- 2- 2 X4' ?:cTe:c1 \'bje.r: ~-~? ~~Q~"oT:l~,~:-.: 11~

"O I - . ~• 1l ~q Q I f • I II: IC • b ~

~ ~ ' -+- ~---'----. .~---~-~ · In.s ide ~ Je.va+ion A

• ,..-L..OOIO? • PL.AN • ~ ~C.TION ·A-A • ~TA I L. OF" ~ L OT V ENT I LAT O l2

• • Io Lali ious ?la'l . Sfu ~·· )iJW"' , ., "'. 3'Yf= '"-..: 'dC~i ~~ ~·~t>c;u.,.-L.._ ~~ '.,_--· ·' "·

J:'..::L_~• -">"MOPLAP"°""' ~ ·< 'R~··~RC,:C J:t::.~.£'A"''~~ ~ '. ,~· ~ ' . . . . '. -- "_>;."'""'hz.• . ; ..~;,, PE_R..5Pl:-CTIVE.

5t:. c:. T \O f\J "5C A L F 1,4." 1'-0"

0 ALL ~RAM\h!GiN'llE.N',!'!>f'...l'I;~ 2. -.4• Ut>JL£.~~ C>"rHC.~v.Jl~L ~"T'C.D

·,I IP> «> •

'o,

,:-,- -, I - - ,-, - non lion I I I I I I L. .J L~ L~ LJ LJ -~~~ ~~ ) Lt-JD FR.AM\t-...E u . 51~~AL~~:-;-~-'~.~

..,·-~·· --·-=·· -;>'- c:io ·'

·A CSRIGUlTURAL' UDl~tRt~·OC.UTlOtJ' PLAN ·A6RIGUL1URAL·[.)(P[RIMf..ITT·6TATION · 5C ALt:. 1/4-"• 1'-0" IOWA e TATE. c-.ou .• c.GoC.. • FDULIRY ·\.!OU.St.. • POOJtc:1'8-,.9

~~1!.'!~L!!~~"~~~ ise~~::s© T.-. ....GC.D •v J'.O~

Fig. 35 • Revised Iowa Laying House Plan. so. the building iounda.tion would weigh Approximately 40, 000 lbs. The total calculated weigbt of the superstructure is approximately 8000 lbs.

Ii it can be assumed that the footing specified. is necessary, SJ per cent of the rooting capacity is used to carry its own weight. This appears to be a very disproportionate and highly ine.f:fieient use of material. Seelye (3) in his recommendations for the design of sub- base stabilization for highway pavement slabs shows a map of the depth of frost fJenetration r~ all. areas of the United States. Iowa falls in the zone of frost penetration from 29 to 41 inches. He also pr esents the method of modifying the required depth or soil stabilization by water table level and by classification based on the s1ze of soil particles. This data would indieate tha.t t here- are relatively ,raw locations in IotJa which would require stabilization of sub-b,ase or a. pavement slab to a depth appreciably greater than would be required !or rat protection in a building .foundation .. Mr . , . E.. Jones (.2), Engineer of Design, Iowa. State Highway Commission, st tes that it is not the practice of the Commission to specify continuous sub-base stabilization under pavement slabs but to require stabilization only in such locations as previous experience and soil. samples taken at the part1ieular location would dictate.. He further states that t he locations where stabilization is nec.ess-ar;y would not gene~allT be considered as fit locations for building sites and that in no case is stabilization carried to a depth equivalent to the depth of frost penetration. 51.

In frame buildings, distortion of the structure in amounts greater than the permissible distortion of highway pavement slabs should be permissible without appreciable aesthetic or structural consequences .. The remodeled plan is shown with a floor design based

on a conventional slab constr~ction .modified only by carrying the sides

down to a sufficient depth to provide rat protection. Experimental work on the possible reduction of foundation materials used to support light !arm buil dings is badly needed. the general purpose barn plan, Midwest Plan No. 72132, has been widely distributed and the original design of the gothic arch construction employed has been the basis of several Iowa Experiment Station projects. Special analysis of this building was made to effect simplification and eliminate non-functional detail. It was noted that certain traditional features of this buil ding no longer served their intended function. A roof sweep appeared at t he cornice line which

served the original purpose of shedding water at som.e distance from the building foundation. Later, sheet metal gutters and down spouts had been recoomended to catch and dispose of the roof drainage but the roof sweep was retained .and the gutter in.stalled at the extre:rnity of the sweep . This requires two elbows in the leaders to return them into contact with the wall. Suggested revision of this feature is shown in Figure 36 . The s\'ieep has been entirely removed and the entire assembly repl aced with a one-piece wood gutter. The gutter has also been lowered l

.... :ov.4· x 1?-'.i' !'IEO / J)(, .. t.-10ULlJ 4

.j , · SIDLNc;;

n~ . . i=IL '3 1 !1.t.M h C AL At'>,UT RAKE. DETAIL i!> C. ... \... L I • 1• u "

.(TOI

,-.,4· ~O· (Jc: e ' o .. P. OO FING AS ,,,._J D E5l lU .O OVf.R ~.,'°'&.s '; •

C'J• (,r 4 ·· - - 7 L;\ ~YMMElRlC.AL LAM INATED GLUE.0 BE.NT AB UT C.LJT FROM ~ RA F7E.P';;, • z·-o ··o . c. BUILT- -- L" • e " UF' OF '3' -2hz",I( I~ · STP.IP~. .JAMB .y. DROP ONE. L AM IN.a..T JON AT E.AC.H OF T HL FO LLOWI NG i ~· 1 OI ME.NS lONS ABOVE. THE. 5\LL LINE.: 10·-o · .1z.'-o", 1<0·-0·.~zo._o- ... OE.TA IL

... '""""'U~ON~-.....,., •..! !--;?! I 4 N

~P~ING Ltl NI'

I 'I ..... WALL SECT ION @WINDOW 5C. ... LL I - 1-0 · e - 4 · - ~ -,..-- ---

...... COOPUAfM lXllHllOfi4 WC. 14 Ll. ·g IHD. AGllCUlt\.llE AND H0Mt: lCOHOMICS IOWA --~"~;:1·~~~~~M NOftTH CENTRAL kAN . LANO GRANT COLLEGES I MICH. .... U. S. CUI'. Of AGlltCl.l.T._ COCRIAnMO SE.CT ION E..ll l l !' P/·Mlll G OF.T AI L. MO. &"'""'·' 1.1.,..··~ 1·•. u · ..... I------~ -·~ GE.NE.RAL PURPOSE BARN OICl.A "'""c. >rttl (';. Of 4 SI-tin S. D. 'ft . MID-'ftST Pl.AN HO. 7 2 I .3 4-

rch I""HJ: -·u..ni:r . 53 .

so that the trim at the heads of windows completes the cornice - assembly. The resulting detail performs the fWletion of the original. assemb~but with a resulting elimination o! over 200 pieces in constructing a 361.xOo• barn •

• ind bracing for the gable ends o! tbis barn was provided by a

triangular truss standing on its point at either side of the hay door opening and at a comparable location in the other gable ,of the barn~

This truss was ma.de up of st.andard sizes of dimension lumber with nailed and bolted joints. Analysis shows that r equired strength or the truss to resist maximum wind loadings could be developed only by exceeding the elastic limit of the joints. Consequently> the behavior of the truss could not be prediet.ed by eu.st.omary methods of structural analysis and its actua.l behavior under load would be largely dependent upon the quality of workmanship employed in its fabrication.

In the remodeled plan a built up girt of 21txi2n lumber was substituted for the truss with some saving in materials. Its behavior under load can be predieted by the most elementary method 0£ analysis. At the same time, lintels over openings in the end walls were extended from ou.tside wall to the center alley opening. This eliminated a double plate a.cross both ends of the building a.nd mun rous short studding. Together with slight modification of the window :!'raining tlle total changes effeeted a considerable material' saving and resulted in the elimination of over 400 pieces from. the barn. 54.

B. Basic Structural Dimensions

As stated in the summary of work on remodeling existing buildings, much or the difficulty in remodeling arose from the use of basic

dimensions in t.he structure of width and height whieb vary considerably fro present recommendations . didths of barn p1ans now offered

by the iJidwest .lan Service and some outside agencies a.re listed in

Table 1. Seventeen of the 19 plan offerings are for barns 32, 34 1

and 36 .feet in width. The average width for all offerings including

the wide barns was 36 . 0S feet and the mean width was 34 feet . The two wide barns are designed specifically for cattle f'eeding but the cattle

f e dihg barn shown which is only 36 .feet wide would appear to offer

comparable accommodations . Th~ variations in space allowances within the barns of the three standard widths appear to lie almost entirely in the widths of service alleys. Since the same operations are per- f or.nted in these service alleys, regardless or their exact width it seems entirely logical that the alley widths might be standardized hicb would result in complete standardization of barn width. Dimen- sions given for the lengths of pens, stalls, etc. are from front edge of manger to inside face of v1a.ll for barns of 11face-in" arrangement and from front of manger to center of driveway for "face-out" arrangement . Horse stalls are the longest item or stall or pen equipment with an average length of 14.11 feet . lf to this is added the average alley width of 4.33 feet plus 14 .11 feet for a. duplication of the stall on the other side of a ttface-inu barn and an allowance of 2.5•.f eet is 55.

de for out ide wall thickness and thickness of interior po ts projecting into the alley a width of 35.05 feet is obtained s a practical idth !or a face-in barn to be used under a variety of conditions. By the same ethod the width of a flexible "face out" barn

ould be .2x:l.4.ll ft. plu 4 . j3 ft. on each side for feed alley plus 1. 5 feet for outside walls or 38 .38 feet. However, the average length of horse stalls in barns with 11face-out 11 arrang ent and it would seem that no practical difficulty would develop in standardizing the width of the barn at 36 feet regardless of the direction in which a.nimal.s are raced. A barn of this width would acco date animals of any type usua.lly housed in barns. The heights of barns ranged fr 7.00 feet to 10.00 feet. The heights of 14 of the 19 barns were in the range of a.oo to 8.67 feet with the average at 8.35 feet. Four of the 10 barns containing horse stalls have ceiling heights of a.oo or less • • ith thee eption of a horse, man i the tallest animal on a farm. It se logical, therefore, that comfort and conv nience of the operator should largely determine the height of animal shelters in hich porses are not housed. To .maintain necessary head cle ance under girders a clear height of

6•-6n to 7'-011 i required. Adding to this a maximum girder depth of 1211 a minimum ceiling height of 7' -6" to 8•-0° is obtained. Since a. height or 8 .00 ft. is apparently ad uate for both horses and 56 . and is also the length or an even multiple of the length and width in which almost all structural units are pl'Oduced, it would seem practical to standardize the heights or barn ceilings at this level. fiithin rec:ent yea.rs the use of tractor mounted manure loaders has beeome popular. Investigation of manufa.cturer.s' literature shows, however, that nearly all makes will operate inside buildings with this head clearance.

Widths of minor service building plans now offered by the same planning agencies appear in Table 2 . Thirty-eight of the 43 plans listed lie in the width range. of 18.00 to 26. 00 feet . With the exceptions of the 2 one-row barns and the two-row !arrowing houses £or hogs these buildings contain practically no fixed pen equipment and if such equipment exists the pens are designed to handle large numbers of a.n1.nm.l or poultry ubits in one pen.. Of the multitude of items which might be housed in these btdldings the only units likely to have a greater length than 22.00 feet are horse drawn implements with the tongue fully extended. This is easily correctible by folding back or re.moving the tongue so no apparent obstacles would exist to prevent the standardization of the widt.jt of these structures at the ea.n lfidth of 22. 00 feet or slightly above the average width at 24.00 feet.

It was ~so observed that the .mean ceiling height of these structures is just under and the average height just over 8•. The same analysis as applied to the heights of barns should again apply and a uniform ceiling height of 8.00 1 throughout the area in which the 57.

operator perf crms most of his work ould seem a practical standard

on all of these minor building types with the exception of truck

garo.ges and ma.chine sheds which ar~ sometimes required to store units

which exceed 8 .00 feet in height. It may be concluded that building shells 22 feet and 38 feet in width and with ceiling heights of S.00 '

would meet the require.nients in .most cases for all .minor service bul ld- I / ings of the types studies and for barns. The accompanying drawings of .multiple-use building fBames (Figure 37} illustrate a potential application of the standards just established

in the fabrication of stan~ard building frames which might be either

prefabricated or built on the job. Some initial construction economy should result in prefabrication of these standard units since few standard parts are required. The principal advantage, however, would

probably be in the high salvage value of the buildings when dismantled

since all framing could be re- used, without alteration in the construe- tion of other building types. A study of the dimensions of the buildings listed in Tables 1 and

2 shows that width and height of the structure are determined by build-

ing use and that length is determined by required capacity of the building. Exact lengths are not of great :importance to the building function when the building contains no interior pens, partitions or

other fixed individual space divisions . In the planning of barns and thos'8 minor service buildings such as two-row farrowing houses overall

length .is usually obtained by adding up the widths of all stalls and . .,

, - -

:: ~-~

:2-0· z·,.,_1z ~ MULT I PLE.. 5C•Q:f CU T ON E.NOS :z ·O TO Mo\.TC.H STUD t u:::::::iFRAME TYPE -A 2""f"TE.£ • .:;LUE JOINT. FRAME_ TYPE_ .B .. U5f. FO~ MOG l-40U5f..~ ~ L:5 E f" O R. PO,.JLT Q'I '"' OUSE. '5. :5--iE EP Sc .a. .... ~ YA' = 1·-0- S""'E.0'5 "C ,..,TTLE. '5"'1E.DS -sc ...... _._ 'A "-: o·

\. .'\ ; MULTIPLE. 5CAl2.fED JOINT ;:

l"ui...._ "5tc...,Le... •

z.2 ·- a ·· ALTEl2NATE. JOINT Fl2AMING METHODS 1 Fk'AME TYPE A ON HIGH fOUNDA T ION 3G•:- o U5E FO~ POULTR.'I' HOU 5 E5 .Z CA.2 <;AJZ .... G.E.S. IR.OW BA.R.N5 , MILKING, P .... 2L02S , FA.R.M 2 FRAMES TYPE_ B 5MOP'5, M .... C.1-1\NE. SHE.OS, TE.NA.NT H OU~ES. USE. FOR. A.LL e....._RN TYPE.S

V E.R.T IC .... L C.t.LLE. - $ Ml>..SONR. Y t!>LOC~~ ET"'-1LF012 T~R.E.ADEOR. NCl2E.ASIN G 4 COUP~,... ~ WALL HEIGHT OR.IC.lt..l" L A.NC~ 5 C"L~,~.., 1-.0· SOLT .

OR..1c;.1t..1""L FOUMDA..TlON

·A,2 1CUL1U2Al· lNCINH21NG· S tCl lOt.J·

A.CetcutTU2~L·EX P£2\MBIT· STATION· lOW A. 5TA.TE COLLLca.

MULTIPLE-USE.-BUILDIN~FRAMES·

~e ·-o ·· Pec>Jf.CT &7' MAit. CM 1'9.+4 Dll•ICNLt> &T M M · C Z H~AME.5TYPE -B.. ~ l TYPE Da,.ww aT M ... . c. 'l!!>H:'fe.T A ...... k.OV~O If' USE. 'f'OR. &!..E..F f-E.LOttJQ &ARNS l!.Ht.t.~

'ill . 'J7 58 .. pens, cross alleys, feed rooms, partitions, etc. , to obtain a.~ overall length to exactly fit the equipment housed. Table .3 lists the mean and average widths or the units found in the offerings previously described:

Tabl.e :3 . .iidths of barn equipment units

: ! Un.it • Mean w.i.dth • Average : Range 1 .• o.. horse stall S.00' a.. 2a• a.oo• to 9.00 1 Cow stall 3.50 3.44 3.00 to .3 . 501 Box stall 10.00 9.99 7.50• to 14.00 1 t.:a.ternity pens 9.83 9. '24, 1.11 to n .oo• Calf pens 10. ,38 10.00 7.00 to 20.25' Bull pens 9.92 10.17 9 .00 to ll • .50' Farrowi11g pens s.oo a.15 8.00 to 9.001 Cross alley 3.50 3.67 ). 00 to 4.501 Feed room 6.92 7.21 4.00 to 12.00t Stairway 3.00 2.81 2.00 to J.001

or the group of units ju.st listed box stalls, maternity pens., calf pens, and feed rooms vary through a wide r ange of widths with no more than two of all the plans listed showing the same width for these units. It would appear, therefore, that no standards exist for these units. Eliminating these items from the listing it was observed that nearly all of the units lie close to even multiples of 4 feet. ctual deviation from a standard width increment of 4 feet or multiples o! this increment are shm;n in' Table 4. 59 .

Table 4 . Deviation of barn equip ant unit dimensions from modular standard

t .• ." Unit . Mean w.ldth No . 4' tmits Per cent deviation • .• D. horse stall s.oo 2 o.oo Cow stalls 3.50 l 12.50 Bull pens 9.92 2 or .3 17.)0 Farro·wing pens s.oo 2 o.oo Cross alley 3.50 1 12.50 Stairway 3.00 25.00

It will be noted that bull. pens and stairways vary ·somewhat fr01.ll the standard 4' increment proposed. These units, . .. cwever, always appear singly in any one plan and the extra space required to accoJT.in.o

It ha.s been shown previously that buildings 36 and 22 feet in width with 8 .ft. ceiling height woUld meet requirements for the building types a.naly-zed. The study just described indicates that no apparent difficulties are encountered in a~ptation of stall, pen, acc~ss , and storage wrl.ts of appro.rlmately standard sizes it the buildings are also constructed in 4 foot length increm~ents . ttith building cross-sections and length increinents established the 60 . possibility for pre.fabrication of either complete str11etures or building parts and sections in large sized units is obvious with certain resulting constructio'n economics . These parts might also be made interchangeable so that alteration of t he buildings at any future date could be very easily accomplished by recombination of the parts into various patterns.

c.. Basic .Equipment Dimensions

The 4 foot increment of barn length previously s\,lggested was derived fro the widths of equipment used within the building. The maximum height of equipment is also set by the standard 8 foot ceiling. height. This convenient 1 to 2 relationship of width and height of individual equipment units suggested the possibilit y of securing almost complete flexibility within the equiptnent itself by use of panels 8 feet long which would provide a full height partition when standing on end or would reach across two 4 foot units when placed horizontally. IC a convenient increment of equipment length could be established the entire planning of both structural shell and equipment could be reduced to a modular planning basis and standard component parts of the equip-

.ment interchanged at will to produce any number of plan arrangements within a given structural shell.

A study of the interior units of barns iz1 the plan offerings previously noted shows that box stalls, maternity pens, calf pens, bull pens, and feed rooms extend from. center alley to outside wall 61 .

regardless of the building dimensions and the direction in which animals are .f'aced. In a J6 foot bar n with interior posts adjacent to the center alley to provide for the maxi.mum clear pen area the distance

from outside wall to posts would lie between 12 and 13 feet for 0 £ace- out" barns with central driveway and approximately 15 feet for "i'ace-

in" barns with a nominal 4 1 central alley. The oyerall length of horse -stalls from front of manger to back of partition is a.ppro.ximately

9 feet . This is also the approximate overall length of cow stalls from front of manger to back of gutter. Mangers for these two units lie between 2 and 3 feet in width. Lambing pens are seldom fixed in place and the remaining equipment units listed are cross alleys and

stairways which are bounded by the other equipment units in one ease

and permanently fixed in the other. It will be noted that all of the

lengths of equipment units described above are allnost even multiples of 3 .feet. Since this is also very close to the height of farrowing

pen partitions, lambinAJ pen partitions, movable gates, etc . ,. customarily

used, panels J feet by 8 feet with a few fractional units to permit

enclosure of any space 3 feet by 4 feet in plan and S feet high or multiples of these spa.ce units could be used to provide any type of stall or pen enclosure desired. Photographs of steel units made up at a scale of one and one-half inches per foot a..Jpear in Figures 39 . These were made up to represent standard high-carbon steel tubing panels which a.re now obtainable from all barn equipment manufacturerea. The only change from the units 62 . now ~vailable is tha:t the units are pr oduced in only three aizes no.n:i.nally 3 feet by 4 feet, J feet by 6 feet and 3 feet by S .feot.

Hinging the panels from the outside would present a serious co;n- plication in: arriving at an exaet standard dimen ion .for these units.

Consequ ntly the units ere made self-hinging by incort orating the h.ing l'fith the end rail of the panels. Scale models of 2t1,x61t and

2" xlO*' planks 8 feet long together with angle irons punched to permit bolting of' the planks together to .form. mangers .and an S foot length of steel tubing used to su.·port equipment i.n either a horizontal or vertical position completed t he standard ite:n.s of equipment r ~quired . Figures 38, 40, 41, 42 and 43 shoi) the various scale models of equ.ip.ra~nt items which were assembled from these sta.'ldard units.

The built-in hinge feature {S ee detail Figure 4.5) has the e!fect of converting each panel into a gate. All panels swung from ~alls or adjace t panels can thus be used as gates and all panels supported floor to ceiling can be swung upward to f aeilitate easy cleaning or to render the space temporarily useful for so:ue entirely different purpose without removing any of the equipment . F'igure 44 is a composite plan drawing showing the a.;iplication of the uni ts to a.Ll common types of stall and pen arrange.m.ents and illustrates how all partitions lie over a grid pattern on the barn floor laid out in 4 toot increments of barn length and 3 foot ihcrements of width between outside v1alls and interior posts.

/ Figure 38. Assembled F.quipment in Structural Frame. Note hinge feature of panels.

''''!'''''''''''''

l1! 11

Figure 39. The Seven Basic Items of _F,quipment. Panels are 3'.x4', 3 1x6 1 , 31x8 1 • Lwnber is 2 11x611 & 2"xl0" x8'-0" .. Figure 40. ~cale o el of 8 1 Section Figure 41. Scale ~odel of C in- of Feed Bunker and Manger . ation horse Stall and ~ox Stall.

! ~~~~--'-~~~~~~~=-=-=· Figure 42. Scale ' odel of' Farrowing Figure 43 . _ vcale '"odel of :)airy Pen Cow St nchions.(Stan- dard tanchions and sectional platforms are r uired in addition to the seven basic items) . 65 .

HAY i -1~

L OSE. ST K

st*'MT()fl I/ 1 I~ / U- F'EN Mil KING ROOI ~ 7 ,. 11 l II I ,I 1- -~ - 7 --- Ro05 ,_,·je · P .... NLLS I 1 IL-t--- r.--.-.....-=~- ,_ _,_ __: • 5T"N MION F POl,JLTR _ ~USE. " ~ ..."' 0 "'0. ~ - :-=:: ~ ~ E ~ I== • • I~.,~ I ~ .. .co ., ·it . .J f <4:a·,1z' , 91t1~ ~5. TftJIDllG FU.O A.LLE.Y °V"".J.. \("" · j ~ f-~ T 11 ...... _ _ ~ · z·,.c;.·.. e ·- o- v1.RT1C"L 7 ~ ., ~ J I -:I • lllJlfl 1111~ 1 :1111i , 11111 ; ~ ! ... I "' OI ~P'!. D &~NKU~ ~ FAIZRIOWIN PENS .11·o· .J I .. i\: DOU~LE. H( ~Sl ~ T"L~ l l"-1" i' G Pl N [ !JOX TALL !A =~- 1"--Y-,... -:;~ ~ ' I .._ :<:> , i- I I ~ )" ~ E.N FAR20WINC PENS fl\ ;r-- 1· - / I I - ~.:. - -·-1 - . ! '1~ '- r "' I Fie. 44. • d out u:;on 66 .

In July or 1945 full scale item of this equipment (Figure 45)

\,ere procured from the Clay Equipment Company of :edar Falls, Iowa. Arrangements were made with 1!r . Ed Morris, a farmer living two miles north of wnas., Iowa, to try out the assembly of the units in a cattle shed on his farr.n, the di en:dons of the shed being near enough to the sta..."ldards established to permit their assembly within tbe building.

Figures 46 to 48 show typical. assemblies of t he units in the two days during hieh the assembly tests were made . To facilitate the assembly two steel frames of ligh:t strap iron 11.ere constructed and ere drilled and tapped to receive ~ 11 diameter bolts at 18" centers. 'fhese frames were then attached to wall, ceiling and floor of the building. In a. new building construo~ed to receive these units threaded inserts in floors, walls and ceilings should be placed at the time o! initial const.ruction to receive the panels. The panels are so drilled t hat inserts placed in rows 8 feet on center across the building and located in the rO'<"iS 9 inches from outside walls and every 18 inches thereafter for floors and ceilings and 9 inches from the floor and ever; 18 inches thereafter extending up the outside walls would receive the panels in all combinations previously illustrated. Extra holes provided as standard in the panels provide necessary offsets !or elevating gates above t he floor level. •·. .. :4. ··-""... " I ,. ... ·- ••• ··-·· ··· ~c.J,~4"4 ~ I r.

1t." '9TlaP.. TU IOI S ... N ~;s;~~ ...... -o.c. 5~'" ". 6 fm• ~ . ~ ;, ..WJ·~ ~ Q

:., \... lo k .•I--J I~ !

0 A'-'- RAIL S C, ST IL ES 1~0.0· ·4·F ooT · P AN EL' 0 ·FOOT· PAN EL · SP\NDL E6 IY.• o.o. $CALI[. t~",.l'- o" :sc,..'-L 1Y£· i'-o· W E. St-lttPL E S AO.J.-...c:.C.Hl 'TO 'STI LE S C. ltll$UIR£PtOl.I~~• 4 ltf9UIRE P , . u"i· LO ... 1'· 0 '' 1'· ,,~....1'" 1'·""· .. 0· .. •'-•" e°"• :,~~1~"' .,-----~ 7<;'1...,,,o••••.-0::J "4 7 I l l l l ) 1?""_~ · C' -.J 'SP1~LE. ,~•·1ST~~IL T4+ .. H- I I• " o . 0 •

HIN~E DETA I L · Vt. r' V LL ~C ... 1-IL -i• ~l~~'"'"" 0 ~f~p "o~t

~ ·B F OCT PA N E.L · Sc ... L I •"- ' • 1'·0 " 7'- u'la...

6 · A•~l(l'L [NGIH!E~IW~ ·5E C I'·~: H UL · Tim·• a'°: ,-.•• l "I c."4 1 • 1 o' · O' I "'j •'I ,.. ,. ,,.,.. ------/ ;;r Dt~~4'; . I . Mm UrTLR.l.L·EXPrnMENT·STl\TICM C. f.~. ' e.1 IO STATE OLLE6l. 1 ;e c ?!' 1\i D ~TCEl..rTu fiG <::'.::::;::; C:6 ?;:;-, 1 WA .r t•n AME ~, I OW A PIPE . !<.AI1:· ·STEEL- PANEL · l' ETAILS Sc.-.1.-L 1/2~10 4- REQ UI R ED P'C:O.JE.CT 379 .tU1..Y 1!>4 "> s :,t.,E.T <...-L

4 • VI. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

• Barn Re.iuodeling

The fi_nal plan arrangement o! most of the remodeled barns was so similar that it seems probable that the basic plan might be quite generally- adapted for barn remodelirig on farms in the ca.sh grain area of the state. Plana developed from this material are now being used for discussion meetings b7 the Agricultural Extension Service of the college. The rits o! the general scheme are primarily; l . Cow stanchions and horse stalls are provided in quantities

just sufficient to accOllllnoda.te the average dairy cow and horse population per Iowa farm according to the 1940 agricul tural census.

2 . A. f~ larger number of co s ~ . ~ be handled without any alteration of the plan arrangeni.....1t or the additio& of new equipment..

J. Open or loose pen areas are adapted equally well tu housing dairy or beef cattle.

4 . H'"'. ~· stalls are convertible ithotit coat into box stalls or maternity pens. 706'

The modular planning ol agricultura.l buildings is consistent with current developments in ot.her fields of the building industry ..

The American S~andarda Association has adoptad a A.tt module as a standard: tmit ot, measureinent tor t.he ant.ire eenstruet.ion industry and the sizes of brick, tile, concrete blocks, windows, doors, and mafl\1 other structural items are now being furnished in multiples ot 4 1• in height., width, and depth, EHm1nation of cutting and .titting of pieces on the job is the i>rimaey objective sought.. It will be noted that the standard dimensions suggested as a result ot this stu

It is obvious that bWJ.ding.s might be .more eaaiJ..1 planned and constructed using st.ruc.tura.l units ot standard ami coordinated size. The development or modular st.and&rds has not y&t been generally appli'8d to standuclize too dimensions o:r the multitude o! it.ems which go into building equ:ipm.ent and utilities. Pt-ei'abrieat.ion of structures or large structural part.s baa not to date resulted in any- major initial economies in building construction • .Kasa production o! units under controlled plant conditions has, however, pro®oed so.m.e units of much higher precision and quality than were formerly produced at the build.in& site, It is doubtful it the standardization ot ta.rm building arui f'am. building equipment dimensions wo d result in 8If¥ initial cost reduction on a building of a specific size 71 . unless such items become so commonly used and were produced in such large quantit7 as to revolutionize pr.esent production .methods.

Arq' initial cost advantage at the present. t:im.e trom use of the building dimensions an.d equipment design here presented would spring from the possibility or great&r annual use of' the building space through cont.inu.ous adjustment of t.he space to meet d.&ily or seasonal needs.

Maximum. annual housing requirements £or various animals and crops do not occur siw.ltaneously and the great.er !lexibility or such structures and equipment should permit a substantial reduction in the total space enclosure required for housing on an individual farm.. ·c. Barn Requirements to Receive Panel Equipment

The sizes of equipment. it.ems used in this experiment. were derived from certain dimensional standards previou..sl.y eata.blished tor the structural shell. The l"equirement.s tor buildings to accommodate this equipment are listed below;

l . The building must have a. dead level .floor or at least no

permanent projections ot t.he floor above the main .floor plans. 2 . The c.lear height floor to ceiling m:ust be uniform throughout the building at approximately 8 feet .

,3 . No permanent posts or other space obstruct.ion can occur

between outside walls and the poats adjacent to f~d central all.eys.

4. Post spacing lengthwise of th& building must be in .even multiple$ of 4 feet to insure alignment. or poets with 72.

cross pe.rtitions or,boundaries of croas alleys .•

5. Inserts to receive equipment should be placed in the,. concrete floor at initial construction.

6. End wall construdtion m.uat. be sut:ticiently .fl.exible to permit. easy relocation ot doors to mat-eh possible relocation or· all.eya.

The basic barn plans now being devel.Oped for distribution by the Mi.dweat Plan Service are based upon the requirements just outlined. Figure ;o shows plan and construction detail <>! the first ot the series of

Uidwest Plans developed by t his method. Section and· end coll&t.ruction appear in Fipre )6.. It will be noted that the dimemions of this building con.form exactly with t he requirements Ju.at out.lined and that all requirements f o't' end conetruotion11 post location and floor con- stntctic>n 111.th the exception of flool" inserts have been m•t. Figurea 51 and 52 illustrate eome possible combinations or wall materials and roof const.ruetion whi~h ms.y be employed without. alt-eri.ng any of the basic :features required:. '49"-o .. 3~ .. .. e·-o a·-o .. e·-o- e ·-o- e ~o .. ~·-Ci:>

·~ -,,,

CONT!t-JuOus: Gl:U"rTER. (SEE 5E.CT10N 'o .I .... FLOOR PLAN

e~o ·· e ~o" 8'-0 "

1 ; t + + + I +t :11 -mI I I •• I ·., .I I FOUNDATION PLAN ·' !: ~ I I ,~,

- \j ! _____~~l_AM~Ho~:'~t•~o~1- _____ J___ JH! l '"TI -·= ---·*"""·'~' ...,, _...... ,.,, ,.,,,...,., e ·"-" '"J • FLOOR 4: FOUNDATION PLAN SC ..... \..L I/a"- l'-0"

l I C==~~==~~:.:~=---=-t~~===~-=-~=::_~ HALF END LE.VATIONS

""2.ROOFIMG A5 0£.51P.E.D 2-

___.._,_ GUTTER

Z').c.8'' toafUAlM ...... ,. .. AOllKUL1- AM> HOME~ _,-H CENTRAL LAICl 9"ANT.... COLLEllES ____.- CONCRf..TE. FOUNDATION --,_____ u. s. DIPI'. "' AOllO.A:n.-COOfllA .. GRADE. LINE. rr> Q>.JFQ TRIM DE.TAIL ... ---- ' '""' ,._ 0

1gn. 74.

r F/P.°""in9 r/oor joists z-x10·0rzx1z .. z~ · R1n9 connecfor C/tp An9/es -'x~x (o"srro,P wifh $ x <.J "s/of

.lj"I Rod ca t t!d GUTTE.12 TYPE fo .i'oofm9 _.J t

roo' oqchor ii obov" COLLAR BEAM TYPE

~ .. ,;Bolt.:r

SWE.E.P TYPE CORNICE DETAILS 12 lDGE 112.0N TYPE. Scale -¥.,. "= l'-0" IDGE DETAILS :'kale ~"=/'....0" I I 5oh7e ron.strud · Laminated g lued bent MOW S!Dl2AGE CAPACITY as roffer:s at i rafter.s Z ·-a· o c. Built up r19hr ~ , of 7- "~2 ,; !:¥," .s7rips . Stcf,.On Floor to Alaxt¥~ lffor.19 el"r rt R1d9eH1. ofHqv of /7

(J Use Z "xlO"jo1sfs wi+h w1de - ·' 5p mq cenrer bay '\J hn Use Z"x/Z"Joists with narrow '4 ·-2· SECTION C e -fa1/s cenft:r boy andard 11 0 'o <::> _).I .I 111 IQ~ I() Altrrnafe kolit111 . II I II 5 of~f.s / 9mler ~~. hreodt?d rods 1 O\Jlt)ll) · o. c. coupled 1 1 ,,, char bolts 11 )'il91~ · 5t!t! :floor defai/s . . .• ... ·. r Jl • -!! ,. L.. -- J NOT~ ~ S 5E'CT!ON D wood arch r.abricafion . w~4 ·1 Scal e ~"=/'-0" 3ro· GOTHIC ARCH BARN --MASONRY WALLS F • 51 . torn.ate • sonry ;all Construction For n (Fig. 50) . 75 .

GUTTE.>!. TYPE CORNICE. OETAlLS

DETAILS Seal~ ~"=t._o · ·

/'" Floorinq7 Floor JO;,,+, z '- o ·· o . c . NOTE. :

U.s*! Z'XJZ'jo1sfs w i fh narrow cen+er bay

SECTION

NOTE.5:

A JJ -'plice plo"f~,, fo be 9/u~d {. na i/~tl wifh ennu9h 7 d .box ncn!s to m sure //1f,mate eontact o-f ?lued .sur/",;ces. .5*'e r1oor def'ct/s

All rafters con.sfrucfed of zxs ·· mof•rio l

tion Floor to Mox lift' 5forogerr LE.GENO . l(j, e H of Ho of born /Mp/, I ?4'10 .. 16'!0" 5 / 9cuJt s~ct io n J - u: 1z; f eJ ' IZaft.,r.!I ~ SECTlON J ~t!Cf1on J - 1~-. 10: Rafters J zz:~ · f.-1'9 .. 43Gcur/. 'fl. e · 5ca l ~ f/_,,."=/'-0 ..

30' 3-MEMBER.-GAMB~EL ROOF BA~N 1.g . 52 . t te Roof onstruction ·or (Fie. 50) . 76 .

VI!. COHCLUSIONS

l . Ba.sic structval dimensions or width and ceiling height ot re.rm

structures are a most ~ant factor in determining their adaptability to new u:;e-s.

2.. Close o!' irregular spacing of interior supports in buildings ie

a serious obsta-cl.e in future renodeling. ). There ia no apparent economic justification !or the use of interior supporting posts in one-story farm buildings less than 24 feet

in width.

4 . Concrete bulkheads on building foundations which extend only a. few

inches above t he first floor level o-r concrete and steel equipment

which projects above and is firmly attached to the floor a.re

serious obstacl~s to remodeling. The low bulkheads tail to perform

any useful purpose.

5.. Great.est. flexibility is achieved in barn plans when interior posts are pl.aced outside of present or probable future pen, a.tall,. or

acce.ss areas. This 18 most easily accomplished by placing post.a adjacent to -central alleys.

6 •. Walls at. ends of main alleya are more frequentlf .req,uir4'Ci to

-, aecommod.a.t• new door and wi1'1dow locations than are the walls par-

allel t:o tbe alleys. Special provision should be made in original design and c.onstru.ct.ion to raeilitat.e rel.ocation or openings in 77 . end walls. 7. Farm s .... rvice buildings. approximately 22 and .36 feet in width are

best adapted to aecomm.odat.ing a wide variet.y of stall., pen, and access units or present standard dimensions . a. First floor ceiling heights of all types of farm serviee buildings other than machine sheds and bulk storage structures nlQi be standardized at S f'eet throughout the area in which the opera.tor

performs most of his work. This would ca.use ne1t.her discomfort nor inconvenience to the operator or the uni.ta housed. 9. Plan areas of conventio1ial stalls and pens for livestock are • appro~te multipl.es of rectangular areas 3 feet by 4 feet.

lO . Modular planning of building• and 'building equipm..ent is applicable

to the design~ construction of agricultural buildings. ll. Far, buildings and fa.rm building equipment co!lstrueted ftom parts produced in modular sizes wot>.ld have an inherent flexibility .far in excess of tha.t nol achieved in conventional construction. 78 .

VIII. SUWARI

The investigations carried out Wlder tbia project included the f ollowin&: l, Investigation of building requirements and present building

conditions on 25 central Iowa farms . Detailed studies were

made and remodeling suggestions prepared in graphic rorm tor 18 buildings on 12 separ te farms .

2. An analysis was made of' the remodeling obstructions encountered in the readaptation or these old buildings and where poasible, remodeling rec endations included the rem.oval of these obstructions to tacilitate both present and future alterationa

of the buildings •

.) . Standardized plan arrangements tor the remodeling of general

purpose barns on ten~-operated tar.ms for this farming area were developed and .ma.de availabl.e to the Iowa Agricultural Extension Service !or use as discussion and training terial tor meetings on rural electrification, barn planning and farm-

stead planning.

4. Plan offerings of the · dweat Plan Service and two outside agencies

ere carefully analyzed and accommodations o:f'f ered cla88ified.

this material was also carefully studied to locat.e potential

sources of construction aimplification and ot elim- 79 .

inat.ion of construction details or features likely to prevent. readaptation to various uses throughout ihe lite or the buildings.

; • Special ~udies were ma.de to simplify and improve t.wo building

plans developed by and now widely distributed by Iowa State College ..

6. system of coordinated dimensional planning wa.s developed to

permit the constructicn of both :ferm buildings and farm building

equipment from interchangeable units of standard dimension and construction. 7 • .Experimental models of this equipment were produc.ed at one-eighth scale and at full size. Details or their c.onstruetion and assembly ere developed suf!ioiently to require only minor modification

for assembly line production by an:t interested manufacturer.

8 . Basic building requirements to accommodate such equipment ware established. and are now being incorporated into the plan otter- ings ot the W.dwest Plan Service. so . '

IX. UFERENCES l . Cart.er, Deane G. The unit space met hod ot barn planning. Agr i cultural Engineering. Vol. 9, n • 9 . pp . 271- 27'J . 1928. 2 • . Jonea, . E. nrivate cOlllllun!cation.

J. S elye, wyn E. Design. Section 3, PP • 17-20. Ne York, John lley and Son . 1945.

4 . White, H.B. Dairy barns from a manufacturing point of view. Agricultural Engineering. Vol . 10, no . 4. pp . ll?-120. 1929. 81 ~

The author wishes to express his tippreeiation for the interest, COWlSel, and guidance received f r om Professor

Henry Giese and Dr . J . B. David~on . To other .members of the teaching, research, and extension

statf of t.he Agricultural Engineering DepaJ"tm.ent the aut.hor is grateful for many helpful criticisms and suggest ions.

The author is indebted to the Farmers' National. Company for its supp0rl of and cooperation on this project. ?tr. Bruce

Russell, Y:r . H. c. Breckenridge, and Mr. Ralph Elliott of that organization were of especial assistance in maki ng suggestiona and provicling access to necessary ma.terials and data.