UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old April 16th 19, 10:15 PM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,300
Default Notre Dame

The cathedral has flying buttresses, presumably to take the outward forces
from the roof tending to push out the walls.

With the roof gone - why aren't the buttresses pushing the walls inwards?

  #2   Report Post  
Old April 16th 19, 10:27 PM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,455
Default Notre Dame

DerbyBorn wrote on 16/04/2019 :
The cathedral has flying buttresses, presumably to take the outward forces
from the roof tending to push out the walls.

With the roof gone - why aren't the buttresses pushing the walls inwards?


They were not only supporting the roof, but also the stone of the
vaulted roof under the main roof. It basically had a double roof and
most of the stone vaulting has survived.
  #3   Report Post  
Old April 16th 19, 11:43 PM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Dec 2016
Posts: 24
Default Notre Dame

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 21:15:34 GMT, DerbyBorn
wrote:

The cathedral has flying buttresses, presumably to take the outward forces
from the roof tending to push out the walls.

With the roof gone - why aren't the buttresses pushing the walls inwards?


Newton3
  #4   Report Post  
Old April 17th 19, 08:50 AM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jun 2016
Posts: 907
Default Notre Dame

DerbyBorn wrote:
The cathedral has flying buttresses, presumably to take the outward forces
from the roof tending to push out the walls.

With the roof gone - why aren't the buttresses pushing the walls inwards?


From an engineering point of view I seem to remember that flying
buttresses are pretty much pointless, they are decorations rather than
something holding up the wall.

The building was almost certainly built up to roof level (including
any/all buttresses) before the roof was put on anyway.

--
Chris Green
·
  #5   Report Post  
Old April 17th 19, 09:34 AM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Oct 2018
Posts: 260
Default Notre Dame

On 17/04/2019 08:50, Chris Green wrote:
DerbyBorn wrote:
The cathedral has flying buttresses, presumably to take the outward forces
from the roof tending to push out the walls.

With the roof gone - why aren't the buttresses pushing the walls inwards?


From an engineering point of view I seem to remember that flying
buttresses are pretty much pointless, they are decorations rather than
something holding up the wall.

The building was almost certainly built up to roof level (including
any/all buttresses) before the roof was put on anyway.


That doesn't seem right.

They clearly add lateral stiffness to the wall and if they have full
foundations, they are increasing the effective area of the foundations
so resisting turning moments on the wall much like tree roots.

--
Email does not work


  #6   Report Post  
Old April 17th 19, 09:48 AM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,935
Default Notre Dame

I don't think they work that way. There are lots of ruins with flying
buttresses still intact. After all when you build the structure the roof is
not on to start with, they would hardly make it so it pushed the walls over
while it was being built. They realised that the strength in compression was
what was needed to stop the uneven shearing force of the roof cracking the
walls that is all.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.222...
The cathedral has flying buttresses, presumably to take the outward forces
from the roof tending to push out the walls.

With the roof gone - why aren't the buttresses pushing the walls inwards?



  #7   Report Post  
Old April 17th 19, 09:56 AM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,290
Default Notre Dame

On 17/04/2019 09:34, Tim Watts wrote:
On 17/04/2019 08:50, Chris Green wrote:
DerbyBorn wrote:
The cathedral has flying buttresses, presumably to take the outward
forces
from the roof tending to push out the walls.

With the roof gone - why aren't the buttresses pushing the walls
inwards?


*From an engineering point of view I seem to remember that flying
buttresses are pretty much pointless, they are decorations rather than
something holding up the wall.

The building was almost certainly built up to roof level (including
any/all buttresses) before the roof was put on anyway.


That doesn't seem right.

They clearly add lateral stiffness to the wall and if they have full
foundations, they are increasing the effective area of the foundations
so resisting turning moments on the wall much like tree roots.


Most of the load would come from the vaulted ceiling, so I don't see why
the walls could not be built to full height before that is added. There
would be an element of wind loading, but the walls would be built within
a heavy wooden scaffolding, which would both provide support and help
shelter the walls from the wind.

--
--

Colin Bignell
  #8   Report Post  
Old April 17th 19, 10:02 AM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,064
Default Notre Dame

On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 21:15:34 GMT, DerbyBorn
wrote:

The cathedral has flying buttresses, presumably to take the outward forces
from the roof tending to push out the walls.

With the roof gone - why aren't the buttresses pushing the walls inwards?


Why is the cost being met by donations and the French State and not by
insurers? A Google search suggested it is French Government policy
(excuse the pun) for the state to meet the cost of damage to national
treasures. Same here of course for goverment assets, which are
self-insured (try insuring an aircraft carrier for use in a war zone).

However, I assumed the building was owned by the RC Church. Would it
have been donated to the government at some stage? Sale and lease
back?

Glasgow School of Art apparently does have full reinstatement cover. I
wonder if there is any 'small print'?
  #9   Report Post  
Old April 17th 19, 10:59 AM posted to uk.d-i-y
jkn jkn is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 588
Default Notre Dame

On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 10:02:50 AM UTC+1, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 21:15:34 GMT, DerbyBorn
wrote:

The cathedral has flying buttresses, presumably to take the outward forces
from the roof tending to push out the walls.

With the roof gone - why aren't the buttresses pushing the walls inwards?


Why is the cost being met by donations and the French State and not by
insurers? A Google search suggested it is French Government policy
(excuse the pun) for the state to meet the cost of damage to national
treasures. Same here of course for goverment assets, which are
self-insured (try insuring an aircraft carrier for use in a war zone).

However, I assumed the building was owned by the RC Church. Would it
have been donated to the government at some stage? Sale and lease
back?

Glasgow School of Art apparently does have full reinstatement cover. I
wonder if there is any 'small print'?


Interesting interview on R4 re this yesterday; apparently, despite the
secularisation of the French State, the government owns most churches and
similar buildings (the larger ones). I didn't fully grasp the arrangements
under which they Church occupies them.

J^n
  #10   Report Post  
Old April 17th 19, 11:48 AM posted to uk.d-i-y
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,290
Default Notre Dame

On 17/04/2019 10:02, Scott wrote:
...
However, I assumed the building was owned by the RC Church. Would it
have been donated to the government at some stage? Sale and lease
back?..


The State and Church were, at one time, much more closely related. At
the start of the 20th century, the State separated itself from the
Church, but retained ownership of all its buildings. The Church
continued to occupy and use them on what is essentially a full repairing
lease.


--
--

Colin Bignell


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"

 

Copyright © 2017