Talk:Gothic-arch barn

Development notes

Quotes, notes, etc. for developing this article:

• NRHP documents for each of a number of NRHP-listed barns which now have articles in Category:Gothic arch barns.
• Farms in North Dakota Historic Context, 2014, MPS document:
  • " The gothic arch roof form began to appear in the Midwest in about 1905 when they were widely promoted through farm journals and barn planning services. Bent arches appears in plans published around 1916 and laminated truss systems were common by the 1920s."
  • Source includes illustration "Example of gothic arch roof framing from 1923 Sear’s Modern Farm Buildings" catalog
  • Includes photo of "Arched roof barn on Herman Michael Farm near Brookings, SD"

--Doncram (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Zeman Barn, described in Iowa historic property study, but maybe not ever NRHP-listed? --Doncram (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• Johnson Barn, noted to be National Register-eligible, a Gothic arch dairy barn. --Doncram (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• Gothic arch barns good especially for open, big hayloft. Beamer Barn NRHP nomination covers about hay-baling technology changing, including 1963 development allowing large rolled haybales which could be covered, did not require storage. --Doncram (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:MB, your expansion looks great. In its current draft, the "Gallery" section is a subsection of "Wells Barn", but I think that is not intended?

Also, the current draft I think is mentioning the hayloft being open is good for loose hay(?) being kept in the space, being blown into it. Also sometimes small bales of hay would be put up into the space, I am sure. I think its worth commenting on the need for storage having grown, and then (per Beamer doc mentioned above) declining drastically due to haybaling technology leading to huge round bales and other large bales being produced and just left outside, whether stacked or covered. There is Hay#Baling and Baler to link to, and for them to link back to this article.

My impression is that the Gothic arch shape is an ideal shape, engineering/physics-wise, for carrying the load of the building and enabling it to be very strong vs. wind forces too. My impression from truss bridge design is that every flat surface in a gambrel shape would be under force of compression or expansion, and having horizontal and vertical forces requiring strong bracing/joints/ties, sort of fighting against each other, but in the Gothic arch the weight is just properly pushing down along the path of the arch. As is well known for Gothic church design, the base and lower wall areas must be well fortified (in cathedrals by buttresses and flying buttresses) from popping out. Something engineering-wise about idealness of shape would be great.

Is it fair perhaps to characterize these barns as the biggest and best and most efficient for inside storage, the pinnacle of design, then undercut because storage was no longer needed. --Doncram (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

My draft is now live. I added a paragraph on the decline of indoor hay storage and made a few other tweaks. I think you are right on the wind resistance, per [1] but I found it too hard to summarize. Go ahead and take a crack at it yourself if you desire. MB 20:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Doncram, DYK reviewer pointed out inconsistencies with Gothic-arch and the hyphen. I've certainly seen it both ways in sources. I used hyphen in the article, but you didn't in the title. I think I want to go with the hyphen everywhere. OK with you? MB 21:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely fine by me for you to use hyphen everywhere, except of course in any proper noun usages where a specific place is known as "Brown Gothic Arch Barn" or a specific document is titled differently. Go ahead and move away, etc. --Doncram (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, now that I look at the result, e.g. intro text "Gothic-arched roof barn or Gothic-arch barn or Gothic barn or rainbow arch[1] is a barn whose profile is in the ogival shape of a Gothic-arch", I think the hyphenation should be used when the phrase is used adjectivially(?) but not when it is used as a noun. I would prefer for that sentence to end as: "in the ogival shape of a Gothic arch". The article title move to "Gothic-arch barn" and other changes respond to the reviewer, but can we change that first sentence and perhaps a few other usages? --Doncram (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Doncram,I just read MOS:HYPHEN and think I am too tired to comprehend right now. It seems to me that is just sounds better with the hyphen, even when as a noun. In the intro, I think the first part should be "Gothic-arched-roof barn" now that I think about it. You can get another opinion from a CE expert, or do what you think is best. Or we could do nothing, knowing that since this will be a DYK, someone who really cares will probably come along and fix it up too.MB 22:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Quite reasonable to leave to hyphen fanatics, or hyphen--en-dash--em-dash fanatics, or whatever. :) Is SV one? They changed it already. --Doncram (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

ideal shape of Gothic arch for barns?

Secant ogive

What is a Gothic arch shape exactly? There seems to be some leeway in practice. I personally thought it was an ideal shape defined by physics such that load-carrying forces would transfer out and down in an ideal way. But Gothic arch and Ogive articles convey that the shape can be defined on a ratio measure like 1.2 where the curve is on a 120 foot radius, over a 100 foot space. One of the sources in the article, the practical how-to article about building them from the 1930s or so, gives sketches suggesting .75 as a measure, i.e. having a 75 foot radius curve over a 100 foot space. Actually it seems to me that the lower ratio would be better for sideways wind forces. And that the ideal shape would have to take into account the strength of materials and construction and prevailing or maximum wind forces in a given location, to balance load-carrying vs. wind load forces. So I guess there is no single specific gothic shape. --Doncram (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)