Talk:Corbel arch

Stub?
Can this article's stub class be removed? whilst it seems to be classified as such by the messoamericans it is clearly of wider scope than merely this yet they seem to be making the classification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alistairtwiname (talk • contribs).


 * I've changed it from "stub" to "start". -- Infrogmation 16:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Arch comparison image
Isn't the image labeled incorrectly? Wouldn't the Corbel Arch be on the left, and the "True" arch be on the right? Waterppk 20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I think the img caption is correct. The stones forming the top of the arch on the lefthand-side img are set in a continuous, side-by-side arc- a 'true' arch. On the right, they are layered horizontally- 'corbelled'.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 00:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I initially though that this was incorrect, but on studying it more closely I decided it is correct after all. The problem is that if you read the caption quickly you get the wrong impression because you are invited to read the pictures from right to left, whereas one's habit is the reverse. It would be helpful if the pictures were reversed, and the caption edited to refer to the images in left-right order. This could easily be done in a picture editor.

However - I have distinct reservations about this illustration of a 'corbelled arch'. The main article describes, and the illustrations of real corbelled arches illustrate the deep penetration of the slabs into the adjoining walls. This allows the individual corbels to act as cantilevers, the weight of the masonry above them in the side walls preventing their tipping inwards. The illustration shown here lacks this feature, and I suspect the structure would not be stable as a result. It would be helpful if a civil engineer were to comment on the conditions for stability of corbelled arches so that we could appreciate the principle on which they operate. g4oep