Talk:Vault (architecture)

Revamp of article
OK, I completely revamped the article. But now I'm tired and I have to go to sleep. I promise I'll come back soon and fix the links. Doops 04:36, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, somebody who knows about Moorish or Persian or Turkish or Mughal or other vaults should add some non-Eurocentric information. Doops 04:36, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * This article is developing a personal "blog" style that is not encyclopedia material. --Wetman 03:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I editted this to kill the blog stuff.

Merge
Suggest we collect all the different types of vault into this one article - Accordingly I've suggested a merge with Fan vault. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And barrel vault. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * strongly oppose merger. barrel vault is an important architectural design with centuries of history. this article is destined for major expansion and deserves an article on its own. Anlace 17:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've got no problem with it forking of with a tag at a later date - but now, today, I think we should merge the articles to use the "vault" article as an overview for all the vault related articles. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. This is a horrible idea, since barrel vault would have to be extracted at a later time. Why don't you just use the material you like from barrel vault and expand vault as you wish? referring to Barrel vault from vault as needed. Annasweden 18:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * People, I'm really well aware of the significance of barrel vaults - they're crucial to western architectural development, they have a history and set precedents for later developments, however, my arguments are 1. The stubs aren't up to scratch at the moment to warrant their own articles, and 2. In any event the history of the development of vaults should be told in one article to provide context. If the barrel section subsequently get unwieldy then well fork it off, but I'd rather deal in the here's and now's rather than what "potentials" articles may have. I've suggested a compromise on Anlace's talk page, that we give the articles to weeks to show evidence of this major expansion. If it materialises then great - we'll distill the information into Vault, if not we'll merge. - how does that sound?


 * it sounds fine, specially since the article is no longer a stub and has quadrupled its content since you applied the tag. now how about fan vault? I don't know as much about that element to replicate my swift expansion of barrel vault :) Anlace 22:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * we should merge then. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

from anlace's talk page:-


 * your compromise proposal is acceptable regarding barrel vault. i assume to be in good faith your doubling measurement is based upon the stub version of the article when you installed the merger tag? Anlace 21:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * yeah of course - look I'm not trying to piss anyone off here - I think as things stand the articles could be merged - if they're improved to a point they can stand on their own then fine, let's keep them if not - if it's only 20% larger but 100% better then so much the better - brevity is the soul of wit - we'll all take a view at the end of the month. how does that sound? --Mcginnly | Natter 00:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose merger Each of these elements of vault design is much to large a subject to appear under a single article. Certainly the Vault article could be expanded by adding much of the material from each sub-article to Vault. That would make Vault the parent article with See main article: Groin vault etc tags to direct the reader to the other three. cheers Covalent 15:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Assuming we are working to get the vault article to FA status - criteria 1(b) requires the article to be "Comprehensive", that the article does not neglect major facts and details. Whilst I can accept that perhaps barrel vault and ribbed vaults, might warrant their own articles eventually, (indeed barrel vault has now been expanded) using summary style to explain them in the parent vault article, please take a look at the vault dab page - I've added all of the different types of vault that my architectural dictionary lists - to have a separate page for each would be absurd, the structural principles would have to be replicated in each article, and the narrative of the development of the vault would be lost or again, have to be duplicated in each article. A more rational way to proceed would be to write up the vault article to include all forms of vault; If, as you contend, the article is too large a subject that it becomes unwieldy, then we might more comfortably fork the article. But I don't accept we need to assume the subject needs to fragmented from the off. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I created a list of Vaults in architecture that you may want to review as part of this discussion. -- Jreferee 01:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks J, I've expanded the list, as mentioned above.--Mcginnly | Natter 11:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to move articles or get an admin to history merge them. Use WP:RM. Jreferee,, did you write all that just then? No. GFDL requires a history of revisions, don't do major cut & pastes, they should be moved or history merged so that everyone is properly credited. I think we should have a few different vault articles, I don't see the need to merge them all into one when there are all different types. Upon research, this came from vault. Don't do any more merging or moves like this. DVD+ R/W 23:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've moved the article. Use RM for this from now on. DVD+ R/W 00:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I was the one who substantially wrote vault, what was the harm in my copying my hard work to where I intended it in the first place? The vault architecture belongs in Vault (disambiguation) and in Vault (architecture) so I copied my hard work from Vault (disambiguation) to Vault (architecture). Yes, each individual vault type deserves its own article, but a list of the vaults with a short explanation belongs in the Vault (architecture) article.  And now that it's been deleted, would you please put it back in through whatever means is proper?  Thanks. -- Jreferee 00:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think DVD just has concerns about the cut and paste nature of your move process - there's a policy somewhere that says it's a bad idea. I suggest we move the list onto this talk page and gradually work the different vaults listed into the prose text - list heavy articles aren't looked upon kindly at FAC and we already have a proper list now which you created. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * if one wants to make vault (architecture) an FA by borrowing lots of materials from the daughter articles that is fine, but it doesn't mean we have to kill the good daughters. i would propose keeping barrel, groin and possibly lierne as separate for now; the other long list of vault types do not need a sep article. btw, the admins have voted on barrel vault's destiny by awarding it DYK. Anlace 03:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like we're moving towards some sort of consensus here, I agree we should keep Vault (architecture) and retain the better daughters. I'd like to suggest though, that we keep Barrel vault and Rib vault as the two eldest daughters - I'd like to merge all the different types of rib vault (quadripartite, sextipartite etc. and lierne vault) into rib vault and perhaps groin vault into barrel vault (as one led to the other - p.s. alot of the photographs on that page look like quadripartite rib vaults rather than groin vaults proper). Regards --Mcginnly | Natter 10:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Merger proposals
Realigned indentations'
 * I created a List of architectural vaults so I'm happy. As for merging, that depends on Wikipedia policy/guidelines. First, merge those architectural vault that, after some research, you determine probably could not be expanded beyond a stub.  Second, merge those architectural vault that could be expanded beyond a stub but have not had activity for a while if that is consistent with Wikipedia policy/guidelines.  In the merge, don't lose any of the information already posted.  Given enough research, many of the architectural vaults could be sustained as their own article.  As I see the end goal, each architectural vault should have its own article and Vault (architecture should incorporate elements of each of these articles to give an overall picture of vaults in architecture.-- Jreferee 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

From the above discussion, it was not clear as to what votes went where. To work towards a consensus on this matter, below are heading with the proposed merges and the list of votes on those proposals..-- Jreferee 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus isn't a vote. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested that barrel vault be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

 * Strongly opposed to merger - Article is self sustaining.-- Jreferee 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * strongly oppose merge pwe Jreferee and prior comments. Anlace 17:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as we've agreed above.--Mcginnly | Natter 00:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested that fan vault be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

 * Opposed to merger - Article has four footnotes and shows recent expansion activity. -- Jreferee 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC
 * oppose merge page is now in decent shape to stand on its own. Anlace 17:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support It might have footnotes, but that is no guarantee of completeness, depth or quality - it remains an eight sentence article (of body text) which could readily be incorporated into rib vault as a demonstration of it's ultimate expression.--Mcginnly | Natter 00:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested that groin vault be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

 * Opposed to merger - Article has seven footnotes and shows recent expansion activity. -- Jreferee 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose merger article has just been awarded DYK and is way beyond a stub....has further expansion potential. do not merge with barrel vault either. what would you call such a merger ??? Anlace 17:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hypothetically? - Basic vaults (architecture) but see below. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The articles been improved no end and can stand on it's own - I'm sourcing new images for it so we don't confuse people about the difference between a groin vault (with an arris) and a rib vault. I'm ignoring the misplaced Appeal to authority that an admins DYK decision is in any way relevant, or indeed should be considered superior to the opinion of an general editor (they often refer to themselves as janitors and DYK in my experience is pretty much 'buggins turn' as long as you've got a source or two in your article).--Mcginnly | Natter 00:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested that Lierne (vault) be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

 * In favor of merger if you feel the need.-- Jreferee 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support it's just one type of many rib vaults. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested that other vault articles with less than 1000 characters be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

 * In favor of merger if consistent with Wikipedia policy/guidelines. -- Jreferee 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * neutral on this issue Anlace 17:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * support - but it's a bit arbitrary - shall we say well take them on their merits? --Mcginnly | Natter 00:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested that other vault articles not specifically covered by the above five vote categories be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

 * Opposed - Its important to know what we are voting on before giving approval. -- Jreferee 21:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Opposed - Per Jref. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Explanatory diagrams
Clearly we'll need some diagrams to explain the stresses, reactions and thrusts.

I've added some images I drew up for the groin article - feel free to junk them if you like - I can change them too - I'm proposing adding similar explanatory diagrams for all the vault articles, so a debate about the 'look' of them would be good now rather than after I've worked out how to construct a star vault! Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

1911 Britannica source
Copyright free:-

copied to main page.

Original main page version
Copied to talk to manage reintroduction of sourced facts back into the article.

In architecture, a vault is an arched structure of masonry, forming a ceiling or canopy. Vaulting makes it possible to roof over a comparatively large space using bricks, stone blocks or concrete. Until the development of metal girders and trusses in the 19th century, the only alternative was to use long wooden rafters or long stone lintels &mdash; much simpler than vaulting; but cruder and more expensive as well, and ultimately limited by the length of wood or stone available. The Romans made an art form of the vault and it has remained popular ever since.

Types of vaulting through European history

 * The most basic sort of vaulting is the barrel vault (or tunnel vault). As its name suggests, it consists of a simple (usually semicircular) arch repeated longitudinally to form a tunnel. Although a barrel vault can successfully roof a wide hall, the difficulty is then lighting that hall &mdash; the vault cannot safely be pierced by more than the smallest of windows.


 * A groin vault must be built where two barrel vaults intersect perpendicularly. Imagine two perpendicular barrel vaults built on the same square site; then mentally erase the redundant bits (i.e. the lower of the two vaults at each point). What will remain is as follows: an open square with no walls but merely a column in each of its four corners. A single arch connects each pair of neighboring arches, and another larger arch connects each pair of diagonally opposite corners. Each of four triangular quadrants formed by these two crossing arches is vaulted in what is roughly a barrel vault.

If a set of parallel barrel vaults intersects with another, perpendicular set of barrel vaults, a grid of groin vaults will result. Roman baths were often built in just such an elaborate series of such groin vaults.


 * After the fall of the Roman empire, few buildings large enough to require much in the way of vaulting were built for several centuries. In the early Romanesque period, a return to stone barrel vaults was seen for the first great cathedrals; their interiors were fairly dark. But with the reintroduction of the groin vault, more light could be brought into the buildings: instead of building groin vaults as the intersection of two barrel vaults, the master masons simply built one long line of groin vaults. Now two sides of each vault lay on the axis; but the other two transverse sides were left unattatched. Instead, they could be filled with windows. Durham Cathedral in the north of England is an excellent example of a Late Romanesque cathedral built with groin vaults.
 * Soon after this development, architectural taste in Europe swung in favor of the Gothic arch, which was pointed instead of rounded. Gothic cathedrals were built in the same manner, as a line of groin vaults; and as techniques improved, were more and more light-filled. The six principal arches of the vault (as described above) were generally more heavily built than the intervening spaces, and so the term rib vault is typically applied to these vaults. Looking upwards at a rib vault, one sees these six ribs serving as the 'skeleton' of the vault. (Technically speaking, this standard type of vault is called a quadripartite rib vault; with a slight variation, it became a Sexpartite rib vault which is divided by eight ribs into six parts.)


 * Later Gothic architecture, particularly in England, saw even more elaborate vaults, such as Lierne vaults and Fan vaults. See Perpendicular Gothic.

Construction
Medieval vaulting was created over a period of 600 years between 900 and 1500AD (roughly). There were also different types of vault in different places. There must have been very many experiments in their construction. They all had one thing in common though. They were built of stone at a height without the benefit of precise predictable measurement. They would, probably, all be built under a roof to protect the work and the workers and all would require a scaffold to support the stones the mortar and the workmen. The scaffold would also need to support machines, usually treadmills, to lift large stones on occasions. Large bosses for example at the apex of vault ribs.

Medieval mortar took a long time to achieve its final set and medieval vaulting is noted for the large size of the mortar joints. This means that it must have been supported for some time before the support was removed. The large mortar joints were an economical solution to the problem of lack of precision in that stone would not have to be precisely cut and the mortar joint could be more or less wide depending on circumstances.

It may be interesting to note that there are medieval paintings showing the construction of cathedrals and churches. They show details and quite mundane tasks but they do not show the construction of vaults, which suggests that they were out of sight, under a roof and above scaffolding.

The obvious way to construct a vault is by constructing scaffolding to hold up all the pieces. This is extremely expensive, however. Most classic vaults are self-supporting in construction, or built with jointures.

In a self-supporting vault, the starting arches have to be built with scaffolding, but after that, the bricks or stone blocks interlock, permitting additions until the vault is complete.

One of the easy ways to start an arch or construct a vault uses a "jointure", a beam or clamp with faces to grip the top blocks. Each time a block is added, the jointure is walked up to the next block on that side. The construction of jointures used to be a trade secret of masons. Some classic vaults are made to be constructed with jointures.

There are several inexpensive ways to construct concrete vaults. One of the simplest (invented by Paolo Soleri) is to form or dig a mold in the earth, pour the concrete, and then remove the earth. This is extremely effective with unskilled labor, and produces beautiful, durable buildings.

Another way (invented by Christopher Alexander) is to construct hollow pillars and an inner vault surface of flimsy, good-looking surfacing materials (pretty wood paneling or gypsum board). These also include the internal rebar, anchor studs, ducting, and piping. Then, these are filled with low density concrete, usually made with pumice or zeolite in place of silica gravel, and possibly with the addition of glass bottles (which are even lower density). The result is improvisable (the early stages are more like constructing a stage set than real construction), sturdy and attractive. Further, no wood, steel or other scarce materials are required for construction up to three stories tall.

Examples

 * Beverston Castle, England, groined undercroft
 * Muchalls Castle, Scotland, barrell vaulted crypt and groined medieval kitchen
 * Myres Castle, Scotland, groined undercroft and medieval kitchen

Special cases

 * corbel vaulting
 * diamond vaulting
 * groined

Email from Professor of Mesopotamian Archaeology
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:04:25 -0600 To: "Russ McGinn" From: "McGuire Gibson" Subject: Re: Nippur Dear Mr. McGinn: At this point, I could not tell you which of the many arches in Mesopotamia is supposed to be the oldest. i can say that in 1910, the chronology was different that what we think it is today. In general, chronology has been shortened, so that was would have been dated at 4,000 would be much later today. Exactly what was found under the Nippur ziggurat in the 1880s and how it should be dated are not on secure enough grounds to be stated with any certainly. That digging was done with tunnels by people who were not very good excavators, and their records are not exactly precise. You might want to check out the publications of Ernst Heinrich, a German architectural historian, who dealt with such matters and who lived until a decade or so ago. His account would be more reliable. McGuire Gibson McGuire Gibson Professor of Mesopotamian Archaeology Oriental Institute, University of Chicago --Mcginnly | Natter 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

material
I added a sentence "Unlike the Pantheon dome, the upper portions of which were made of concrete, Byzantine domes were made of brick, which were lighter and thinner, but which more vulnerable to the forces exterted onto them."

Did not really know where to put it though, since that important bit of info was not really discussed in the article. Same for Gothic vaults, which were combination of stone (ribs) and brick infill. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brosi (talk • contribs) 23:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

material
I added a sentence "Unlike the Pantheon dome, the upper portions of which were made of concrete, Byzantine domes were made of brick, which were lighter and thinner, but which more vulnerable to the forces exterted onto them."

Did not really know where to put it though, since that important bit of info was not really discussed in the article. Same for Gothic vaults, which were combination of stone (ribs) and brick infill.

Church of the Saints Sergius and Bacchus, by the way looks like ribs, but in fact is a brick umbrella vault (or at least I am pretty sure) will have to check.

Brosi 23:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

baroque vaults
And another thing to add are baroque vaults etc. Baltasar Neumann's plaster shell vaults - built on wood frame, are of course the ultimate.Brosi 00:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

needs cleaning too
Sentence like "The diagram (fig. 4) shows the outlines" where there is no fig. 4. makes this seem to come from a paper of some sort. I could work it over a bit, but perhaps later.Brosi 00:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Brosi - it's something of a work in progress this one. The original article, still intact above, left quite a bit to be desired, so as a starting point I wikified the 1911 encyclopedia britannica article - the fig 4. relates to that article - it's sourced in the reference section and you can view the pages - when I get round to it i'm going to upload some of the diagrams. There are bigger hish to fry with the article though as you point out - the ancient history section is (i think) nearly totally obsolete, or if not then some of the claims regarding dates are to be questioned. My field of interest is architecture, not ancient history, so I left a few posts on various wikiprojects asking for confirmations or sources and to date, have received limited replies. Feel free to edit as you see fit. Kind regards --Mcginnly | Natter 00:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Article content is historical rather than summary article on Vaults
I think the history material should be moved else where and this article should concentrate on descriptions of the different kinds of vaults and the elements of their construction. Besides, most of the historical information is out of date. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Questionable material moved here from the article
"In earlier times, particularly in Chaldaea and Egypt where timber was scarce, other means of support had to be contrived. Apparently only in Roman times was centering regularly employed. From the Roman Architectural Revolution onwards, vaults along with arches and domes, became a regular and technically demanding architectural form for shaping interior large spaces."

WCCasey (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1st sentence needs a citation
 * 2nd sentence is false
 * 3rd sentence is fluff
 * domes are listed later in the article as a type of vault

File:Voûte de l'église Saint-Séverin à Paris.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Voûte de l'église Saint-Séverin à Paris.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 7, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-04-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)