Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
tant the bonding headers may be treated as bolts—i.e. they are made to protrude
outwards beyond the face of the wall and given a larger head which serves to bolt
the wall in. h e aspectual pattern formed by such arrangements may be strikingly
ornamental (ABADY IV 1987 pp. 79-96, i gs 18, 19, 21-23).
Bond-
ing of
dressed
stone
masonry
(ii) Dressed Stone (Ashlar) Walls
With i nely dressed (dimension) stone masonry bonding assumes an ambit com-
parable with that it occupies in brick masonry—although, as previously remarked,
there is more latitude in its application since blocks of stone can be conveniently
dressed to size and shape.
As a preliminary observation it is to be noted that the signii cance of bonding
varies inversely to the size of the masonry concerned. h e aim of bonding is to
restrain the displacement of masonry units, and the larger the unit the more stable
it is because of its dead weight. h e force required to displace an object at rest on a
horizontal surface is directly proportional to its weight modii ed by the co-ei cient
of friction (μ), a value derived from the nature of the surfaces in contact (here stone
upon stone). In this way the question of bonding does not enter into megalithic
masonry and only to a limited degree in Egyptian large block masonry.
Bonding blocks of standardised form into a pattern uniform throughout a wall,
perhaps, i rst comes to notice in “Israelite” masonry of the Iron Age (8th-7th
centuries BC) seemingly mentioned in the Bible. h is masonry is not impeccable
ashlar masonry. Blocks vary in i neness of dressing according to their position
in a wall, and generally the dressing is i ne only at the exposed faces of blocks to
give an outward appearance of i ne dressing—i.e. the masonry is in the Bastard
Ashlar tradition. However the material factor is that blocks can be recognised as
approximating to standard proportions and the disposition of blocks in the wall
accords rationally with these proportions—i.e. bonding pattern can be observed
(NB If the reader is not familiar with modern brick bonding, it would be useful at
this stage to consult a manual of modern building construction on this subject).
Various biblical references to i ne stone masonry indicate that (some) blocks were
cut according to given dimensions (i.e. they were “dimension stone”). Moreover
they suggest that these dimensions could be standard ones—
viz
“the measure /
the measures of hewed stones” (1 Kings 7. 9-11). h is passage refers to Solomon's
monumental building, but probably rel ects the masonry of Israelite times, e.g. at
Samaria. h e signii cance of the biblical references has been interpreted (v TA 3,
1976, pp. 74-78) in the light of the archaeological record of surviving remains of
Israelite masonry (e.g. at Samaria) as inferring the solid bonding of these blocks as
headers and stretchers was facilitated by or governed by their standardised dimen-
sions. “h e building block was approximately two cubits long, 2/3 cubit thick and
1 cubit high. h e wall was built of uniform blocks that were 3 times as long as they
170-173
185A
