How were these old european buildings made?

[Anonymous No.2607015]

Before the advent of reinforced concrete. They cant be made of stone. Do they have a wooden frame?

[Anonymous No.2607016]

>They cant be made of stone. Do they have a wooden frame?

[Anonymous No.2607018]

>>2607016
How are the floors made? People cant just walk on some pure stone structure like its the colosseum.

[Anonymous No.2607031]

>>2607015
>Czech please
3d printed put of 2d sketches by ancient australionaut ayylmoes (also saged)

[Anonymous No.2607394]

>>2607018
for that age it could be a Prussian arch ceiling,

a very low arch from bricks and steel beams or reused railroad tracks.

[Anonymous No.2607465]

>>2607394
cool shit, post more photos if you have em

[Anonymous No.2607472]

>>2607015
Armies of skilled craftsmen, anon.

[Anonymous No.2607473]

reinforced concrete is not a good thing, the metal rusts and ruins the building

[Anonymous No.2607490]

>>2607473
How much does z grade stainless rebar cost?

[Anonymous No.2607517]

>>2607015
the building you posted is probably built in the 40's, and definitely after 1900
i'm pretty sure they had reinforced concrete then, fucking dumbass

[Anonymous No.2607578]

>>2607015
With the absence of jewish influence in society.

[Anonymous No.2607607]

>>2607517
https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cern%C3%ADnsk%C3%BD_pal%C3%A1c
>In 1666, Humprecht Jan Czernin purchased a part of the debt loaded property of the House of Lobkowicz, including a building plot with gardens located in the centre of Prague. In 1668, he commissioned Francesco Caratti, a Swiss-Italian architect, and assigned him to develop the project of his new palace on the site.
řřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřřř

[Anonymous No.2607614]

>>2607517
It's the Czernin Palace in Prague, retard. It was built in the 1660's.

[Anonymous No.2607617]

>>2607394
>masonry arches inside I-beams
This feels cursed but it's also really neat

[Anonymous No.2607639]

>>2607018
vaults. pic related is the crypt of a cathedral
for the average people it would have been wooden beams and floors. for current day americans it's OSB beams and floors

[Anonymous No.2607656]

[Anonymous No.2607671]

>>2607394
Holy shit.

[Anonymous No.2607674]

>>2607018
Beams you retard

[Anonymous No.2607711]

>>2607018
Depends on how old it is
Pre-1850 its mostly wooden beams
1850-1900 prussian arches like pic rel are common
1900-onwards reinforced concrete starts to become the norm

[Anonymous No.2607713]

>>2607394
Nice beam splice at top right of pic.

[Anonymous No.2607834]

>>2607607
>>2607614
>Reconstruction: 1949–1954
but you two can be mouthbreathing retards all you like

[Anonymous No.2607849]

>>2607834
>You can't reconstruct a building using the same techniques it was originally built with

[Anonymous No.2607870]

>>2607015
LOL you all kinds of lost
the pantheon is a crazy old concrete building
this shit is just LOL whatever

[Anonymous No.2607906]

>>2607711
how do you put floors on it? if they just rest on the i beams, arent the brick arches completely useless?

[Anonymous No.2607909]

>>2607906
poop in the spaces until there's a flat poopu subfloor then put the floor on it

[Bepis !n/ZnkB9jUw No.2607911]

>>2607711
>>2607394
Think of what that whole building weighs compared to a modern building. Do they have issues with those old buildings like settling into the ground over the years?

[Anonymous No.2607913]

>>2607906
the arches are holding up the beams

[Anonymous No.2607916]

>>2607913
the beams are holding up the arches, you can clearly see the gaps above the edge bricks

[Anonymous No.2607920]

>>2607674
Beams made of what?
>>2607639
I dont believe these buildings are just built with stone arches

[Anonymous No.2607948]

>>2607920
french guy here, i live in a 200+ year old house so i got first hand info
houses were build like this:
All the walls are stone held together with a old type of concrete between the stones.
then we add wodden bean that are fixed in holes in the stone walls, then you make your floor on those (wood floor)
after that you make your ceiling squeleton from wood beams, with smaller ribs added on those thick beams, then you add the tiles(tuilles in french)like feather on a chicken
the beautifull carved stones are generaly only used on the corners and the openings, the rest is just random pieces on 20 kg of stone from the nearest stone mine(carrière in french), that's why you see so many colors of stone, but that's only for normal houses.
Churches are made ENTIRELY from stone,glass and a very small amount of iron(not steel and never structural) with wood only for doors and chairs, desks, etc

[Anonymous No.2607954]

>>2607948
tiles are made like bricks, but in some places like where i am from, it was easier to use the stone from the montain, this stone ( pierre ardoise) fall apart in sheets that are easy enough to use like scales for your roof, with a small nail through the top of the scale to hold it to the wood frame, that's were the grey roofs come from, it's better then tile because moss doesn't like to grow on it(preventing it from bringing back water bellow the tile like a wick from a candle) and it last much longer, 30/40 years, a lot more if maintained properly

[Anonymous No.2607964]

>>2607948
>a old type of concrete between the stones.
Might be lime.
Well i figure that settles it, these old buildings were built with wood, by that i mean the floors. I also know what type of stone you mention is used for tiles, here we call it "laja".

[Anonymous No.2608048]

>>2607015
When you see perfectly straight lines then it's likely rebuilt after the 2nd world war. A lot buildings got levelled and then in later years rebuilt. This is also why you see ghost towns scattered around Europe where you see cobbled stone, fire hydrants, granite stairs but no house in the middle of a forest. The bricks were taken to rebuild the capital.

[Anonymous No.2608088]

>>2607954
Sounds like slate

[Anonymous No.2608126]

>>2607906
That pic is showing the naked internal structure, there is plenty of material above:
(I'm certain my translation won't be correct but whatever)

Layers on left side (tiles):
- tile floor
- bedding grout
- blinding concrete
- blast furnace slag (acts as insulation)
- prussian vault structure
- plaster (=the ceiling of the room below)

Layers on the right (wooden floor):
- interlocking wooden floor
- double flooring+joists
- blast furnace slag
- prussian vault structure
- plaster

[Anonymous No.2608179]

>>2608126
its still all transferred to the I beams,the arches have no strength length-wise, I really dont see how simply having wood planks on top of the I beams wouldnt be better due to not loading the floor with the extra weight of the bricks

[Anonymous No.2608202]

>>2608179
I think fire safety is the main reason they used bricks

[Anonymous No.2608231]

>>2608179
brick is cheaper, stronger, a lot more resistant to fire and water, reusable, will insulate the noise better as well so you don't hear it if someone is walking a floor above you.
railroad beams can handle quite a bit so i don't think the weight was a concern

[Anonymous No.2608378]

>>2608231
>railroad beams c
Originally wood, no?

[Anonymous No.2608452]

>>2608231
ok fair, but the point still stands, the arches do nothing strength wise, all the load is on the beams

[Anonymous No.2608473]

>>2607016
Anon, Burgers are just surprised you are not using the material that literally grows on trees to build your structures.

Hear them out anon, yes it doesn't last nearly as long. But do you want to live in your grandmas home?

I've been in homes back from my grand-grand parents to me. Literally every generation ended up buying a new home that was more sophisticated than that one of the previous one. So what's the point of using stone, brick and concrete if it only needs to be good for 50 years or so?
What good does a brick wall do you if you have to rip it out to remove the silk wrapped ungrounded electrical system out of it?
>t. Yuropoor in Burgerland
>inb4 facadism of old buildings
Yeah fair enough make a beautiful shell if you will and just redo the guts every few decades.

[Anonymous No.2608634]

>>2608452
>the arches do nothing strength wise, all the load is on the beams
and?

[Anonymous No.2608642]

>>2608473
>Burgers are just surprised you are not using the material that literally grows on trees to build your structures.
growing trees, cutting them down, curing the wood for ages, cutting it to perfectly straight planks, treating the wood etc vs shaping clay into a shape and putting it in the oven.
the amerimutt has mostly switched from using actual wood to sawdust with glue and drywall for a reason

>So what's the point of using stone, brick and concrete if it only needs to be good for 50 years or so?
>durability.... le bad!! must consoooom
you've done a very good job at integrating i must say. how's the BMI going? still working on the 30+ digits?

[Anonymous No.2608813]

>>2607954
Stone roofs are aesthetic af, but the weight will deform wooden framing over time.

[Anonymous No.2608836]

>>2607911
>>2607394
That mass though will feel solid walking over the top of it. not some shaky booming steel frame and plywood monstrosity.

[Anonymous No.2608896]

>>2608634
feels retarded to use overkill overspecd steel beams just to support meme arches

[Anonymous No.2608922]

>>2608452
>the arches do nothing strength wise
Sure they do, they take all the floor load from between the beams and transfer it to the beams.

[Anonymous No.2609016]

>>2608896
a lot of these meme arches are still standing after 150+ years
meanwhile how long do you think shit like >>2600083 will last?

[Anonymous No.2609017]

>>2609016
easily 150+ years if it stays dry

[Anonymous No.2609018]

>>2608813
depends on how much you cheap out on the wood
the roof of the notre dame dated back to the 13th century before it burned down

[Anonymous No.2609020]

>>2609017
this is the first result when i google "OSB lifespan"
>Strong Lifespan: The lifespans of engineered woods can often be a key drawback, but OSB panels boast a longer lifespan, offering 30 to 60 years of dependable performance.
from another source
>However, OSB is nowhere near as strong as impact strength. It is also much more easily damaged by water.
>This potential weakness has caused the buyers to view homes with OSB flooring as sub-par, causing contractors to stop using OSB subfloors in home construction. You can still find it used extensively for wall and roof sheathing, but you will only find it used as subflooring on the cheapest homes.
so a tiny bit of water is all it takes to reduce the lifespan from 30 years to 30 days. maybe people back then weren't stupid and chose materials that last?

[Anonymous No.2609021]

>>2609020
> back then weren't stupid and chose materials that last

they used what they had, not by choice
also labor back then cost fuckall compared to the raw materials

[Anonymous No.2609023]

>>2609021
>they used what they had, not by choice
now this is cope. what do you think, they were walking on air before mass produced steel became a thing?

[Anonymous No.2609027]

>>2609023
stone arches and wood, thats all they had

[Anonymous No.2609030]

>>2609027
so they switched from using wood to steel and brick. maybe there was a reason behind it? reasons that perhaps have already been explained ITT if you bothered to read it?

[Anonymous No.2609031]

>>2609030
so why did they switch to OSB? maybe because it didnt exist before but idk lmao

[Anonymous No.2609043]

>>2609031
>>2608642
btw where i live homes aren't seen as disposable so it's indeed reinforced concrete so instead of steel, cement and fired clay it's steel, cement and sand with gravel
looks somewhat familiar no? the arch has been replaced with concrete and the steel beam with prestressed reinforced concrete
wooden floors also still exist but they're kind of rare nowadays. you're not going to find them in new constructions

[Anonymous No.2609047]

>>2609043
why not slap wood on top of the concrete beams tho

[Anonymous No.2609056]

>>2609047
why not slap extra concrete on top so it becomes one very strong and solid structure that will last
but yeah if you hate durability and want something cheap then indeed OSB is the better option. if you want to tear this down you'll need some serious powertools

[Anonymous No.2609062]

>>2609056
that way you need much thicker and more expensive concrete beams to hold all the extra conk

[Anonymous No.2609069]

>>2609062
true, it's not a construction method for cheaping out
btw wood isn' that cheap either, so you want to replace the actual wood with glued together wood chips as much as possible, that's how you do a modern construction.
maybe it only lasts for 30 years but hey it's cheap and the beaners can build it in no time saving lots in labour costs as well

[Anonymous No.2609074]

>>2607906
historically sand or slag to level everything, then beams into the slag then wooden boards and maybe hardwood on top.
today for renovations you can use insulating perlite expanded clay

>>2607911
that depends on the quality of the foundation and the ground, most old houses also have deep as fuck arched cellars from stone blocks,

failure mode for these ceilings is the I beams rusting where they sit in the wall

[Anonymous No.2609079]

>>2609017
if it stays dry,

a leak in a osb ceiling will need months to dry because its like sponge.

[Anonymous No.2609081]

>>2609062
we don't want to hear the people walking on the upper floors, for that you need mass and not resonating wood.

[Anonymous No.2609083]

>>2608634
>>2608452
no the arches also distribute weight left and right into the wall. the beams front and back.

the last row of bricks got steel rods anchoring them to the wall.

[Anonymous No.2609093]

>>2609079
"easily 150+ years" sounds very optimistic when it didn't even exist 80 years ago, so there isn't a single example out there to prove this statement

[Anonymous No.2609099]

>>2609083
tbf i think he's correct that in the end normal forces on vaults that don't border a wall are entirely carried by the beams
found a paper that did not answer this but showed like you said there are also horizontal forces involved, but horizontal forces don't counteract a vertical force
and what if the load is directly above a beam?
maybe i'm missing something. i know how to calculate straight beams but these are vaults

[Anonymous No.2609118]

>>2607834
>somehow reconstructin involves tearing down old masonry to the foundation so it can be replaced by steel armed concrete

[Anonymous No.2609143]

>>2608642
>BMI of 30+ digits
wew lad
>BMI of 10^30 and counting
>boddy mass exceeds that of the sun
>earth enters into binary orbit with the sun
>body fat collapses under its on gravitational pull
>fusion starts to occur, scorching Earth to a crisp
>anon's last post is that wooden structures will be burned into nothingness within 0.3 milliseconds, but stone structures will last 0.9 milliseconds before melting.

[Anonymous No.2609164]

>>2609143
don't underestimate americans

[Anonymous No.2609305]

>>2607015
>How were these old european buildings made?

[Anonymous No.2609479]

Is this the real reason wood makes Europeans seethe? There's probably more than 60 different tree species on my tiny 6 acres plot.

[Anonymous No.2609600]

>>2609479
yes trees don't grow in europe

[Anonymous No.2609635]

>>2608642
>shaping clay into a shape and putting it in the oven.
This is brittle, you cant make a floor like this. These arches are very short and have to be supported by either wood or steel. You cant make a pure stone floor without also having a gorillion columns or arches like the coliseum or the parthenon

[Anonymous No.2609676]

>>2609635
>but it has to be supported by beams!
oh no :(
better cut down the next forest

[Anonymous No.2609680]

>>2609676
>better cut down the next forest
You can use steel too

[Anonymous No.2609909]

>>2609635
>You cant make a pure stone floor without also having a gorillion columns or arches like the coliseum or the
You can do it with gothic arch easy. Next time you get to Europe take a trip to countryside instead of clubing and stuffing your face in Michelin restaurants. Visit castles and cathedrals that are made 95% out of stone with stone walls supporting stone ceilings.

[Anonymous No.2609925]

>>2607015

It's all masonry and wood but It really depend by the locations.

To make bricks you need to have clay and wood to fire it
To make wooden floors and to make the roofs you need large logs.
You already need lot of wood to make mortar, construct scafoldings, ecc.

Talking about palaces, walls are preferibily made of bricks, and if bricks are lacking you can go for stone. To make floors you want to use wood, but if you have no wood available you can go for bricks to make pavilion vaults, pavilion head lunette vaults, cross waults (expecially for basements) and other solutions. You don't really want to make vaults with stone and the roof must be done in wood. Historically you cannot really transport building materials, so you have to use what you have.

In my area, walls are made of stone, floors are made of bricks vaults, roofs are made of wood and covered with realy thin stone slabs. Some imstances of wood flooring are present. Most of the wood was recovered from ships. Just to give you an idea, you can cover a quite large room (8x12m) with a pavilion vault just one brick thick (12-14-cm). Walls need to be thick (about 1 meter, thicker to the ground and tinner on top floos).

[Anonymous No.2609926]

>>2609909
when i visited pernštejn castle all the ceilings were arched
apparently a relatively late introduction, can't remember the details but apparently fire safety was the main reason. something about a ceiling converging into a point that works better in case of a fire than a level ceiling
maybe the previous flooring was wooden the guide didn't mention or something, i wasn't really interested in medieval construction methods back then i was enjoying the eastern euro cheap life on holiday with my euros
one of the most impressive castles i've seen though and i've seen quite a bit
got significantly damaged by the eternal swede but it's restored to its prime condition

[Anonymous No.2609929]

This confuses and infuriates the medieval subsaharan mudhut dweller.

[Anonymous No.2610067]

>>2609909
>You can do it with gothic arch easy
Hence gorillion arches and worse, almost all the volume of the buildings will be some transition zone between floors

[Anonymous No.2610132]

>>2610067
the entire point of gothic vaults was to build higher and wider with big windows as opposed to the previous romanesque building style

[Anonymous No.2610142]

>>2610132
>the entire point of gothic vaults was to build higher
Hence why all the space is wasted. These cathedrals you smug about dont have second floors, they have a single level and the ceiling is 20 meters up. Thats now way to build a city.
And why are you fixated on gothic arches? All arches and domes are based on catenary curves

[Anonymous No.2610150]

>>2610142
>Hence why all the space is wasted. These cathedrals you smug about dont have second floors,
based retard

[Anonymous No.2610151]

>>2610150
What the fuck are you trying to say? Cathedrals dont have "floors". They have a single level and then a retardedly tall ceiling based on a catenary curve

[Anonymous No.2610152]

>>2610151
>catenary curve
lmao you keep getting more and more retarded the more you post

[Anonymous No.2610153]

>>2610152
You are illiterate

[Anonymous No.2610155]

>>2610152
>Heres your unique architectonic style bro

[Anonymous No.2610156]

This confuses and scares the american

[Anonymous No.2610157]

>>2610156
Wood?

[Anonymous No.2610158]

>>2610153
>>2610155
maybe actually step inside a gothic cathedral instead of making your ignorance painfully obvious
great examples of a pointed arch retard

[Anonymous No.2610160]

>>2610151
didn't know a cirlce was a catenary curve
you learn something new every day, thanks /diy/

[Anonymous No.2610165]

>>2610158
>maybe actually step inside a gothic cathedral
I have, in Germany. I dont see what the fuck you are trying to say.
>>2610160
>didn't know a cirlce was a catenary curve
Architectural arches are not "circles". Their profiles are based on catenary curves.

[Anonymous No.2610166]

>>2610160
>didn't know a cirlce was a catenary curve
Catenary curves are 1-dimensional mathematical abstractions. They represent the thinnest possibly arch you can make, in real life any arch you make will have a volume and the catenary must be included within that volume.

[Anonymous No.2610168]

>>2610165
does this look like a "catenary curve", dumbass?

[Anonymous No.2610173]

>>2610168
That arch contains a catenary curve inside, but shaping it like that because its more artistique is a waste of brick and makes it weaker. Still you can fit a catenary curve within that profile.
The excess rock does nothing.
All structural arches that are not jokes look like pic related in some variation, tall or wide. Fattening these arches with excess material just loads them with weight while adding no strength

[Anonymous No.2610176]

>>2610173
do you always double down on your stupidity when you get btfo?
you could at least have skimmed through a wikipedia page before embarrassing yourself

[Anonymous No.2610179]

>>2610166
>A barrel vault, also known as a tunnel vault, wagon vault or wagonhead vault, is an architectural element formed by the extrusion of a single curve (or pair of curves, in the case of a pointed barrel vault) along a given distance. The curves are typically circular in shape, lending a semi-cylindrical appearance to the total design. The barrel vault is the simplest form of a vault: effectively a series of arches placed side by side (i.e., one after another). It is a form of barrel roof.
can you show me how to express a circle with hyperbolic functions? thank you

[Anonymous No.2610180]

>>2610176
You are projecting, it is you who is doubling down.
I will triple down in my wisdom: Every single arch that does actual support work is shaped like a catenary of some width.
Of course it wont collapse if the catenary gets deformed by loading it with some weight in random places that are deviations from an ideal shape, but these deviations just make it weaker by loading it with weight and adding no strength.
Basically, an arch based on a circular shape will be weaker than a catenary arch of the same volume, and ultimately the only part of that brick and rock that is doing support is that part within a catenary.
The rest of the mass is just dead weight

[Anonymous No.2610182]

>>2610179
Your question is retarded and off topic.
You can slap plaster on a catenary arch to give it a semi-circular shape but that isnt doing any support work

[Anonymous No.2610184]

>>2610180
>>2610182
thank you for making it clear i can post as much illustrations and citations as i want and you'll just keep ignoring it and repeating your stupidity over and over again
arguing with reta- i mean americans is always something else

[Anonymous No.2610191]

>>2610184
>i can post as much illustrations and citations
Post whatever you want, its still true that only catenary arches have any strength. Slapping ornamentation and plaster in random places on a catenary arch only makes loads them with more weight while adding no strength.
Shit like gothic arches is just an artistic choice taken at the expense of strength, these are basically catenary arches with a retardedly large top that is just dead weight

[Anonymous No.2610195]

>>2610191
are you going to keep moving the goalpost or can you show me where the derivative of a hyperbolic function becomes infinite or undefined?

[Anonymous No.2610599]

>>2610142
>All arches and domes are based on catenary curves

No! This is an extreme simplification given for the first time by Robert Hooke in 1675.
The design of arches and vaults (in the west) was based on the semicircular arch and proportional rules perfectioned since the romans. Cathedral makers didn't give a shit to the hanging chain model and catenary arches were never used until modern times.
Moreover, the catenary model (as you are thinking to it) holds only if the load applied to the arch is homogeneous, and this is usually not the case because most arches have to carry different kind of loads, distributed and concentrated.
In pic related you can see the structural model of the Sagrada Familia and a mock. You can clearly see the problems in your reasoning.

>>2610151
>Cathedrals dont have "floors".
This is also not true in general. Women's gallery were usually present over the side aisles.
If you are really complaining about the not efficient area/volume ratio of a monument like cathedral, that’s the dumbest part of your shitposting.

>tall ceiling based on a catenary curve

The fact that they are arches were not based on catenary curves is the reason for late roman, romanesque and gothic aesthetic. With the idea of a catenary arch you can minimize the thrust of a vaults. They did not much to minimize the thrusts altering the shape, they preferred to keep the shape as pleasing as possible and use flying buttresses, side aisles, buttresses and so on to overcome the problem.

Masonry buildings with arches and vaults are fascinating structures based on simple equilibrium. Talking about catenary curve is something fine if you are talking to architecture students in an history of architecture 101 class. Otherwise you are just signaling you have no grasp on the topic.

[Anonymous No.2610695]

>>2607015
Gothic cathedrals built 600 years ago out of stone. and wood.

[Anonymous No.2610944]

>>2610599
>Moreover, the catenary model (as you are thinking to it) holds only if the load applied to the arch is homogeneous, and this is usually not the case because most arches have to carry different kind of loads,
Still the same principle and easy to model also with hanging chains, just hang weights on the chains with the desired load profile
>>2610599
>Cathedral makers didn't give a shit
I expect medieval builders to basically be ignorant of physics and have learned their trade by trial and error
>>2610599
>perfectioned since the romans
The fact a structure doesnt fall over with a breeze doesnt mean its perfect
>>2610599
>If you are really complaining about the not efficient area/volume ratio of a monument like cathedral,
The thread isnt about cathedrals, some idiot started to say you can replace wood and steel beams with arches but that brings about all the problems wood and steel fix, that you need a gorillion arches and columns and they take up all the space.
>>2610695
>Gothic cathedrals built 600 years ago out of stone. and wood.
This thread was never about cathedrals.

[Anonymous No.2610981]

>You can't make 6 storey building out of stone

[Anonymous No.2610986]

I missed the pic in my previous post: >>2610599

>>2610944
>Still the same principle
No, there's nothing like a catenary principle. All the problem is governed by the plain and old statics with no needs to introduce constitutive equation. Your catenary curve is only the line that connect the resultants of the compression forces on the section of an arch, in just one of the infinite statically admissible solution of the problem.
But this alone is not enough to guarantee the stability of an arch, you also have to ensure different assumption, one of which is the "no sliding" one.
Again, the catenary model, the hanging chain one, and so on, it's only a very simplified schematization for architecture students. Nothing that should be taken seriously.

>that you need a gorillion arches and columns and they take up all the space
This is simply wrong! The issue with masonry, similarly to concrete, is the not optimal weight/strength ratio. You will face "space problems" due to the size of the walls required to sustain all the load of the structure in the lower floors, not due to the volume of the vaults needed for the ceilings. You can cover a 5x5meter room with a one-meter-rise pavilion vault with lunettes. The structural part could be just one brick thick (a shell), so overall it could be tinner than a modern composite steel+concrete ceiling in the center of the room with a minimum loss of volume at the erges.
You can still build condos up to 10 floors with not many issues in masonry. After that the drawbacks are significant. Obviously today we prefer to use different building techniques, but for other reasons, mainly economical and related to seismic safeness.

>>2610981
I live in a 6 storey building made of stone masonry. It's 120 years old and therefore it has wooden floors. Older buildings, built before the railway, have vaulted ceilings made of bricks, and the tallest one (towers expluded) are 8 stories.

[Anonymous No.2611093]

>>2610944
>This thread was never about cathedrals.
still relevant.

OP is a tard.

[Anonymous No.2612040]

>>2609018
*was burned down by migrants and covered up by the macron government

[Anonymous No.2612252]

>>2612040
speculation but the amount of "tanned french" making selfies with a cathedral on fire in the background or liking the event on facebook was quite disturbing

[Anonymous No.2612314]

>>2609062
those beams are relatively cheap actually, perhaps even cheaper than their wooden equivalent for the same strength. concrete is everywhere and steel too since the industrial revolution
presumably overengineered with a safety factor of a couple of margins as well

[Anonymous No.2612538]

the house I live in now has hard wood in it.

It is about 4 - 5 times heavier than pine. You struggle if you can at all , to drive a nail into the wood.

I'm not even sure you can buy this kind of wood anymore, I don't see how any new pine or lvl will ever last as long.

I think it will even outlast steel as it can't rust.

[Anonymous No.2612613]

>>2609056
Who said use OSB?

[Anonymous No.2612624]

>>2610195
>a vertical column has an infinite derivative whereby they spontaneously combust

[Anonymous No.2612629]

>>2610944
>medieval builders to basically be ignorant of physics and have learned their trade by trial and error
>>2610944
True

[Anonymous No.2612638]

>>2609016
I dont think euros have ever built anything in their lives they always show stuff like this but I've been building shit for 20 years and have never ever seen something like that. Its not allowable for any states code that I know of.

[Anonymous No.2612814]

>>2612613
>>2609031
l2read

[Anonymous No.2612821]

>>2612629
>medieval builders to basically be ignorant of physics and have learned their trade by trial and error
if they were so ignorant then why did they introduce flying buttresses to distribute the horizontal forces?
>The advantage of such lateral-support systems is that the outer walls do not have to be massive and heavy in order to resist the lateral-force thrusts of the vault. Instead, the wall surface could be reduced (allowing for larger windows, often glazed with stained glass) because the vertical mass is concentrated onto external buttresses.
honestly stating that "you need a gorilian arches and colums that take up all the space" when talking about gothic architecture is some of the most ignorant bullshit i've read in a while
does this >>2610132 look like a space cramped by colums?
this is a rethorical question. it doensn't

[Anonymous No.2612822]

>>2610142
>Hence why all the space is wasted.
??? is your internet so shit you can't load the picture or are you blind and using some text to speech software?

[Anonymous No.2612825]

>>2612638
you're not entirely wrong that buildings in europe are made to last so there's less building involved
>Its not allowable for any states code that I know of.
the picture is fake of course. read that thread and there are loads of your countrymen actually defending it
there are no bad practices in the land of the free. if you think that using OSB because it's cheap or cutting up genitals of newborns is bad you're a communist

[Anonymous No.2612828]

>>2612821
>why did they introduce flying buttresses
cuz they got tired of their shit crashing dumdum

>>2612821
>does this >>2610132 look like a space cramped by
survivor bias

>>2612821
>colums?
u sound dum

>>2612821
>doensn't
?

[Anonymous No.2612838]

>>2609017
>>2609079
The limit is the plastic moisture barrier. And the limit on plastics is plastics and plastic adhesives denaturing. If they are inside the main environmental risk is oils. Around the kitchen (vaporized oil). Oil from wood, oil from people. Also heat is bad. Everything very situational but >>2609017
I wouldn't put any money on that at all.

[Anonymous No.2612859]

>>2612828
you managed to not answer a single thing but felt the need to reply anyway because someone pointed out your ignorance
kindly kys or go back to /b/, thank you

[Anonymous No.2612862]

>>2612838
no man it easily lasts 150+ years
source: dude trust me

[Anonymous No.2612997]

>>2612862
The church in my village in basically butfuck nowhere has been built in the 11th century, was used as a fortification during some religious war, and barring some painting now and again, has needed zero renovation since.

What is the longest surviving building you know of, and how long did it stand ?
>inb4 "I must consume every 20y"

[Anonymous No.2613030]

>>2609069
That duct is run exactly in the center of the span. At that point, the entirety of the joist load is pulling on the bottom strand and pushing on the top so you can remove all the OSB in the center the width of the height of the beam.
Anywhere but the center and the holes have to be much smaller

People post this picture like it's some kind of construction sin but it's 100% up to code

[Anonymous No.2613050]

>>2612859
>is offered a line-by-line answer
>"la-la-la i can't hear you"
lol

[Anonymous No.2613054]

https://archive.org/details/practicalmasonry00purciala/page/9/mode/1up

[Anonymous No.2613084]

>>2607911
they used oak posts as a foundation

iirc they boiled them in acid which prevented them from rotting
>some of them are over 1000 years old

[Anonymous No.2613279]

>>2613050
no one is taking you seriously when you're replying with "dumdum", "u sound dum", and "?".
>survivor bias
no retard maybe structures that are designed to last actually last. no shit sherlock, it's like saying there's a survivor bias against people who don't smoke or drink
maybe it sounded cool in your head but you're just signaling how little you know about the topic and are likely a fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.2613282]

>>2613030
it's not about the duct, it's about using glued together woodchips for structural elements
do you honestly think that's a good idea and not done for making everything as cheap as possible?

[Anonymous No.2613285]

>>2613282
oh btw i also know beam theory, it's not that difficult
it's radial tensions buckling and twist that's a bit more challenging

[Anonymous No.2613360]

>>2613030
No its not what the fuck are you talking about lol

[Anonymous No.2613406]

>>2612252
It's all by design

[Anonymous No.2613456]

>>2607015
how old is that building, could be not more than 200 years old? Brick with dressed stone for the exterior, interior brick walls with wooden or steel beams run horizontally between the walls on which wooden floorboards are laid, and tiles/plaster put on top of the floorboards

[Anonymous No.2613457]

>>2609069
design for houses in which the owner does not have a grand piano or likes to jump up and down

[Anonymous No.2613458]

>>2610142
built in a time when the cathedral was the single biggest building in the city and maybe even the country, most of the population live out in the countryside farming with a minority of merchants, craftsmen, clerics and nobles living in cities.

[Anonymous No.2613462]

>>2607015
>wooden frame

[Anonymous No.2613726]

>>2610132
What place is that and how can we go back to that Europe?

[Anonymous No.2613776]

>>2613457
and are cheap and disposable. maybe ok for cattle but not for a family home

>>2613726
Sainte-Chapelle in Paris, from the 13th century. please tell me again how "all the space is wasted by colums" again so i can have another laugh
pointing at other anon's retardation is a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine

[Anonymous No.2613780]

>>2613776
maybe i should also point out that this is the first floor.
kind of weird because someone is claiming vaults can't have upper floors, of course without any evidence
>let me tell you about your churches

[Anonymous No.2613924]

>>2612997
the post you're replying to was clearly sarcasm
fugg i wish we could go back to the captcha where you could put nigger in it and have a successful post

[Anonymous No.2613961]

>>2607018
>People cant just walk on some pure stone structure
Carpets. They used lots of carpets and animal pelts for a reason.

[Anonymous No.2613989]

>>2607015
made of stones and bricks. The walls are half meter thick to be able to keep up the weight of the floors. Floors were built using arch from brick, and above the arch they usually filled it with sand, or building dirt to make it even for the wooden floor. Under the arch, they used a net-system made of either metal wire, like chicken wire, or more earlier versions are made of woven reed that was strengthened to the brick with huge screws or nails, and than multiple layers or lime plaster was used on top of that for finish.
They are saying that ”they are so sturdy, still standing up till nowadays”, yeah but nobody talks about how it has to be renovated, some were made of sandstones and other materials that weak against moisture, so they slowly sink, the floors are collapsing and such.