Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
At er the decline of Classical Greek ashlar construction in Antiquity, the complete
systematic usage of cramping and dowelling disappeared and was never renewed.
Abandoned entirely in mediaeval stone masonry, cramping and dowelling were
re-introduced only where special circumstances demanded special i xing. In con-
temporary ashlar masonry (or reconstruction work) the use of ferrous cramps and
dowels is eyed askance, because of the inevitable rusting and consequent cracking
and splitting of the stone work. Did the builders of classical antiquity possess some
specii c device for nullifying this development?
Reinforc-
ing of
less solid
stone
masonry
(c)
Reinforcing
At all times and in all places the practice was current of reinforcing some stone
masonry so as to increase its strength and stability. Manifestly this practice is
applicable in the main to stone masonry which is relatively weaker and less stable.
In this way reinforcing devices were not associated with the strongest of all stone
masonry: sizeable blocks set dry stone and i nely jointed throughout the thickness
of the wall, i.e. Egyptian large block (Pharaonic) masonry and Classical ashlar
masonry.
According to modern statical analysis reinforcing of ancient stone masonry can
be recognised as falling into two categories according to the stresses it provides
against,
viz
compression and tension. However it is unlikely that ancient builders
ever thought about the matter in this way.
(a) Reinforcing against compressive stress
Here the required material must be strong in compression. h is in ef ect is stone
or stone masonry which is of a stronger nature than that comprising the wall.
Broadly and briel y speaking it takes two forms which may be termed for conve-
nience:
opus africanum
and Coigning and Framing.
(i) Coigning and Framing. h is is the less well attested mode in antiquity, but
was renewed in Renaissance times to become a prevalent construction for Neo-
Classical Villas etc. of the 19th century, notably in Greece and the Eastern Medi-
terranean—thus ot en in localities where it had been known in Classical Antiquity
(e.g. Cyprus). h is mode of reinforcing walls was in no way restricted to stone
walls, indeed it was more commonly associated with mud brick.
A nice display of ancient ashlar coigning and facing to rubble walls is at the
Sanctuary of Apollo near Kourion in Southern Cyprus (
Ancient Building in Cyprus I
,
p. 173 & II, i gs 269-270). h ere several buildings reveal passages of this construc-
tion accurately restored almost to ceiling height. With the ashlar elements stand-
ing slightly proud of the plastered rubble these buildings must have presented the
attractive appearance of their Neo Classical successors (the mode was adopted for
public building in the earlier days of the British Administration, cf Praktika, 2000,
Vol. 1, p. 420, i g 21).
210
209
