Oval Domes: History, Geometry and Mechanics

An oval dome may be defined as a dome whose plan or profile (or both) has an oval form. The word Aoval@ comes from the latin Aovum@, egg. Then, an oval dome has an egg-shaped geometry. The first buildings with oval plans were built without a predetermined form, just trying to close an space in the most economical form. Eventually, the geometry was defined by using arcs of circle with common tangents in the points of change of curvature. Later the oval acquired a more regular form with two axis of symmetry. Therefore, an “oval” may be defined as an egg-shaped form, doubly symmetric, constructed with arcs of circle; an oval needs a minimum of four centres, but it is possible also to build polycentric ovals. The above definition corresponds with the origin and the use of oval forms in building and may be applied without problem until, say, the XVIIIth century. Since then, the teaching of conics in the elementary courses of geometry made the cultivated people to define the oval as an approximation to the ellipse, an “imperfect ellipse”: an oval was, then, a curve formed with arcs of circles which tries to approximate to the ellipse of the same axes. As we shall see, the ellipse has very rarely been used in building. Finally, in modern geometrical textbooks an oval is defined as a smooth closed convex curve, a more general definition which embraces the two previous, but which is of no particular use in the study of the employment of oval forms in building. The present paper contains the following parts: 1) an outline the origin and application of the oval in historical architecture; 2) a discussion of the spatial geometry of oval domes, i. e., the different methods employed to trace them; 3) a brief exposition of the mechanics of oval arches and domes; and 4) a final discussion of the role of Geometry in oval arch and dome design

Communicating Heritage through Intertwining Theory and Studio Based Course in Architectural Education

This paper has emerged from a belief in the importance of architectural history for modern architectural practice and the education of young architects today. It proposes an alternative teaching approach in which theory-based and studio-based methodology are interconnected and mutually challenged to communicate heritage in the most beneficial way. The approach attempts to avoid communicating basic descriptive facts, but is rather based on the interpretation of theoretical knowledge through individual designs, and provokes discussions questioning universal messages of architecture through individual spatial solutions. It was introduced at the Faculty of Architecture in Belgrade, through the elective course New Reading of Architecture for the third-year students, in the school year of 2014/15 and 2015/16. Results show that critical thinking through designing, as opposed to the usual factual approach, met a favourable response from student. Both in architectural history and in designing for protected historical sites, having been made more historically aware and place-sensitive, they were actively encouraged to conduct research, and to define and shape their own design approach accordingly. It can be noted that experiencing the theory of architecture through critical reading of well-known treatises and exploring it through a design lens made the history of architecture an equal partner in the construction of the present

Tercero y quarto, libro de Architectura / de Sebastian Serlio Boloñes ; en los quales se trata de las maneras de como se pueden adornar los edificios, con los exemplos de las antiguedades ; traduzido de toscano en lengua castellana, por Francisco de Vill

[3a ed.]Sign.: A-V4; A-T4Errores de fol., h. II y IV numeradas como p.Port. principal grab. xil. arquitectónica a dos tintas y esc. real de Felipe II, la otra port. grab. xil. arquitectónicaCapitulares grab. xil.Il. xil.Cada parte con port., pag. y sign. propiasHojas imp. por ambas carasColofonesMención de ed. tomada de Pérez Pasto