What did builders long ago do about foundations?
e.g. there are several churches standing in England that are over a thousand years old. What are they resting on?
dv said:
What did builders long ago do about foundations?e.g. there are several churches standing in England that are over a thousand years old. What are they resting on?
Dirt
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
What did builders long ago do about foundations?e.g. there are several churches standing in England that are over a thousand years old. What are they resting on?
Dirt
That’s kind of what I thought …
So, obvious question … why haven’t they started to subside or split? Or, put it another way, why are modern churches built on fat concrete foundations?
dv said:
What did builders long ago do about foundations?e.g. there are several churches standing in England that are over a thousand years old. What are they resting on?
Bible says to build on stone.
dv said:
What did builders long ago do about foundations?e.g. there are several churches standing in England that are over a thousand years old. What are they resting on?
Good question though.
There is no glory in foundations.
Like I must have spent days of my spare time looking at ancient domes, but I don’t have a clue what they did for the foundations to hold them up.
Some of those big churches the walls themselves would act as a foundation in that being very thick so a brad base, and they would have been dug down not just plonked on to the surface. Also the mortar they used was flexible so the stones could settle into position.
It’s all because OF BIG GEOTECHNICAL.
AwesomeO said:
Some of those big churches the walls themselves would act as a foundation in that being very thick so a brad base, and they would have been dug down not just plonked on to the surface. Also the mortar they used was flexible so the stones could settle into position.
Awesome point.
Modern buildings need concrete foundations because they have thin walls.
If TimeTeam is anything to go by – huge stone blocks dug deep into the ground.
Although there is a notable exception in Salisbury Cathedral. It was built on rather smaller foundations and apparently has been in danger of collapse ever since it was completed in the 13th Century. Apparently there is some problem with ground water and they have to manage the drainage carefully, there is a deep hole and a dipstick where they measure the water table daily.
dv said:
What did builders long ago do about foundations?e.g. there are several churches standing in England that are over a thousand years old. What are they resting on?
If on bedrock, placed straight on the rock starting with the cornerstone. Everything in the foundation is laid out relative to the cornerstone.
Otherwise, the answer probably lies in one of the ten books in architecture by Vitruvius. These were rediscovered in the year 1414.
Some old buildings were built on top of even older buildings. Even there they did have subsurface foundations. Typically foundation walls IIRC, not slab on ground.
Ely Cathedral is built in the fen district.
It’s seriously massive, I’ve been inside it, and it is really a place where all the people of the district can come when they need protection from invading hordes or the like.
It’d survive a nuclear strike I reckon.
Plenty of falling over cathedrals.
Salisbury Cathedral..
Although the spire is the cathedral’s most impressive feature, it has proved to be troublesome. Together with the tower, it added 6,397 tons (6,500 tonnes) to the weight of the building. Without the addition of buttresses, bracing arches and anchor irons over the succeeding centuries, it would have suffered the fate of spires on other great ecclesiastical buildings (such as Malmesbury Abbey, 1180 to 1500; Lincoln Cathedral, 1311 to 1549; and Chichester Cathedral, 1402 to 1861) and fallen down; instead, Salisbury became the tallest church spire in the country on the collapse at Lincoln in 1549. The large supporting pillars at the corners of the spire are seen to bend inwards under the stress. The addition of reinforcing tie-beams above the crossing, designed by Christopher Wren in 1668, halted further deformation. The beams were hidden by a false ceiling, installed below the lantern stage of the tower.
I find Venice interesting, looks nice and substantial, it’s basically wooden houses on poles. I am sure there has to be ongoing mantenance but don’t know how that is managed, though under some conditions, wooden piers can last ages.
Ian said:
Plenty of falling over cathedrals.Salisbury Cathedral..
Although the spire is the cathedral’s most impressive feature, it has proved to be troublesome. Together with the tower, it added 6,397 tons (6,500 tonnes) to the weight of the building. Without the addition of buttresses, bracing arches and anchor irons over the succeeding centuries, it would have suffered the fate of spires on other great ecclesiastical buildings (such as Malmesbury Abbey, 1180 to 1500; Lincoln Cathedral, 1311 to 1549; and Chichester Cathedral, 1402 to 1861) and fallen down; instead, Salisbury became the tallest church spire in the country on the collapse at Lincoln in 1549. The large supporting pillars at the corners of the spire are seen to bend inwards under the stress. The addition of reinforcing tie-beams above the crossing, designed by Christopher Wren in 1668, halted further deformation. The beams were hidden by a false ceiling, installed below the lantern stage of the tower.
https://thefogwatch.com/the-miracle-of-salisbury-cathedral/
The foundations of the cathedral are only 28 inches (just over 700mm) deep and built on a barely drained swamp. They were not built to withstand the additional 6,500 tonnes supplied by the spire. Slowly but surely the spire moved out of alignment as you can see today by looking up along the purbeck marble columns.
Liverpool Anglican Cathedral foundations digging
dv said:
What did builders long ago do about foundations?e.g. there are several churches standing in England that are over a thousand years old. What are they resting on?
Roman Masonry Construction Techniques
http://www.evbid.com/gallery/roman-masonry-construction-techniques.html
https://www.koelner-dom.de/rundgang/domgrabung-rund/section-of-foundation-gothic-south-tower/info/?L=1
Cologne Cathedral.
I so wish you had added a 101 to the title
Arts said:
I so wish you had added a 101 to the title
Or a Second Foundations.
sibeen said:
Arts said:
I so wish you had added a 101 to the title
Or a Second Foundations.
The Foundations – Baby Now That I’ve Found You – 1967.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWdeWITHb6c
Some interesting technical stuff on foundations.
http://environment.uwe.ac.uk/geocal/SoilMech/stresses/stresses.htm
http://people.tamu.edu/~mhaque/cosc421/FOUNDATION.pdf
sibeen said:
Arts said:
I so wish you had added a 101 to the title
Or a Second Foundations.
the third book of seven in the foundation trilogy
JudgeMental said:
sibeen said:
Arts said:
I so wish you had added a 101 to the title
Or a Second Foundations.
the third book of seven in the foundation trilogy
Empires aren’t built in a second book.
As an aside, I attempted to re-read the Foundation series about two years ago. Just couldn’t do it. Got through the first and about a quarter of the second. Lots of illusions shattered. When I was 12 or 13 I devoured them and kept the enjoyment firmly in my mind. Compared to today’s SF they were dire.
sibeen said:
JudgeMental said:
sibeen said:Or a Second Foundations.
the third book of seven in the foundation trilogy
Empires aren’t built in a second book.
edgy.
party_pants said:
If TimeTeam is anything to go by – huge stone blocks dug deep into the ground.Although there is a notable exception in Salisbury Cathedral. It was built on rather smaller foundations and apparently has been in danger of collapse ever since it was completed in the 13th Century. Apparently there is some problem with ground water and they have to manage the drainage carefully, there is a deep hole and a dipstick where they measure the water table daily.
did they use water as spirit levels like the ancient Egyptians did? If so this would have aided the stability of the structure as they say spend the time getting the base right and then build upon that.
monkey skipper said:
party_pants said:
If TimeTeam is anything to go by – huge stone blocks dug deep into the ground.Although there is a notable exception in Salisbury Cathedral. It was built on rather smaller foundations and apparently has been in danger of collapse ever since it was completed in the 13th Century. Apparently there is some problem with ground water and they have to manage the drainage carefully, there is a deep hole and a dipstick where they measure the water table daily.
did they use water as spirit levels like the ancient Egyptians did? If so this would have aided the stability of the structure as they say spend the time getting the base right and then build upon that.
I don’t know. My interest has been more in archaeologist digging up the foundations than how the builders laid them.
party_pants said:
monkey skipper said:
party_pants said:
If TimeTeam is anything to go by – huge stone blocks dug deep into the ground.Although there is a notable exception in Salisbury Cathedral. It was built on rather smaller foundations and apparently has been in danger of collapse ever since it was completed in the 13th Century. Apparently there is some problem with ground water and they have to manage the drainage carefully, there is a deep hole and a dipstick where they measure the water table daily.
did they use water as spirit levels like the ancient Egyptians did? If so this would have aided the stability of the structure as they say spend the time getting the base right and then build upon that.
I don’t know. My interest has been more in archaeologist digging up the foundations than how the builders laid them.
Stonehenge has been there a long time as well. The placement technique must be why so many of the stones have lasted the test of time.
monkey skipper said:
party_pants said:
monkey skipper said:did they use water as spirit levels like the ancient Egyptians did? If so this would have aided the stability of the structure as they say spend the time getting the base right and then build upon that.
I don’t know. My interest has been more in archaeologist digging up the foundations than how the builders laid them.
Stonehenge has been there a long time as well. The placement technique must be why so many of the stones have lasted the test of time.
A lot have fallen over at Stonehenge. Not sure if some of the stones have been re-erected after falling down. I think they have. And it’s no longer permitted to walk near the base of any stone. Not good foundations.
St. Paul’s Churchyard is probably the oldest ground built upon in London, we begin our perambulations in that quarter. The cross which formerly stood north of the cathedral, and of which Stowe could not tell the antiquity, is supposed by some to have originated in one of those sacred stones which the Druids made use of in worship; but at least it is more than probable that here was a burial-ground of the ancient Britons; because when Sir Christopher Wren dug for a foundation to his cathedral, he discovered abundance of ivory and wooden pins, apparently of box, which are supposed to have fastened their winding-sheets. The graves of the Saxons lay above them, lined with chalk-stones, or consisting of stones hollowed out: and in the same row with the pins, but deeper, lay Roman horns, lamps, lachrymatories, and all the elegancies of classic sculpture. Sir Christopher dug till he came to sand and sea-shells, and to the London clay, which has since become famous in geology; so that the single history of St. Paul’s Churchyard carries us back to the remotest periods of tradition.
dv said:
What did builders long ago do about foundations?e.g. there are several churches standing in England that are over a thousand years old. What are they resting on?
