STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF BRUNELLESCHIS DUOMO DI SANTA MARIA DEL FIORE

T. Russell Gentry 1 and Anatoliusz "Tolek" Lesniewski 2

Abstract
One of the most notable load-bearing masonry structures in the world is Brunelleschis dome of the Cathedral di Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence, Italy. The construction of the dome, completed in 1471, still provides important lessons on the achievement of complex structural and constructional geometries in masonry. Among the notable achievements demonstrated in the dome is the control of tension using an interlocking masonry patterns, during an era before the availability of tension reinforcement; the construction of the dome sans armadura, that is without centering, and the development of human and animal powered construction equipment, once attributed to Leonardo di Vinci but now to Brunelleschi himself, to facilitate the lifting of masonry units to the top of the oculus. The paper provides a historical context, a qualitative structural analysis, and a review of the construction innovations and processes used in construction of the dome. Keywords: Historic Masonry Masonry Domes

Historical Significance
Brunelleschis dome on the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence, Italy is perhaps the worlds finest example of load-bearing masonry. Brunelleschis design ideas and his construction methods were inextricably linked and Brunelleschis name is just as firmly linked to the cathedral. In this sense, Brunelleschi may be the first architect in history whose name
Associate Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Architecture, 247 4th Street, Atlanta, Georgia, 30332-0155, russell.gentry@coa.gatech.edu. 2 Director, Imagine Lab, Georgia Institute of Technology, 247 4th Street, Atlanta, Georgia, 30332-0155, tolek.lesniewski@coa.gatech.edu.
1

is as prominent as his signature building. Because of this, some historians have credited Brunelleschi with inventing the profession of architecture [King 1991]. Brunelleschis contribution transcends architecture, as he acted also as the structural engineer and construction superintendent for the project. He invented and executed the crown to one of the Renaissance most beautiful buildings completing a project that had been under construction for 124 years when he took over. Cathedral and Dome Construction: A History of Delay In 1420 Filippo Brunelleschi (born 1377 died 1446) inherited the leadership of the duomos (cathedrals) construction project. Brunelleschi adopted a project that had been, in a creative sense, stalled since 1367. Broad goals of the projects directors the Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore were clearly laid out in 1367 and confirmed by a vote of the citizens of Florence. These goals were contrary to the guidance offered by the capomaestri (master builders) of the day Francesco Talenti (c.13001369) and Giovanni di Lapo Ghini. Arnolfo di Cambio (c.1245c.1302) the first architect of the project may have been responsible for the overall form of the building, but died long before the completion of the nave. It is likely that Arnolfo only lived to see the construction of the entry to the church. The famous Florentine painter and architect Giotto di Bondone (c.1267-1337) designed the campanile, or bell tower, and focused primarily on its construction. The construction of the campanile delayed work on the duomo itself for perhaps forty years. Andrea Pisano (c.12901348) and then Talenti completed the campanile their talents, though prodigious, were centered in the areas of form and aesthetics and not on structure, materials, and construction. Giovanni di Lapo Ghini, a contemporary of Talentis, was hired in 1357. His initial focus was on construction of foundations for the nave and later, on the vaulting of the nave itself. It was Ghini who rebelled initially against the design promoted by the committee of masters in 1367 and finally begrudgingly accepted their design intentions. As capomaestro, Ghini was followed by Lorenze di Fillipo and Giovanni dAmbrogio who focused primarily on building the piers on which the drum and cupola (in this context the words dome and cupola are synonymous) were to be constructed. Ambrogio was retired in 1417 at the age of sixty five, when he became unable to climb the 150 steps leading to the top of the cupolas piers. Ambrogios retirement ushers in the competition of August 1418 to provide models or drawings for the vaulting of the great dome, for vault centering and its structure or platforms or whatever device or machine might be needed for construction. The reward for the winner was 200 gold florins.

Masonry Construction Sans Armadura Without Centering

In 1420 the Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore adopts Brunellschis model, but their prize of 200 gold florins was not awarded. Brunelleschi is appointed chief master of the cupola construction but Ghiberi and Batista dAntonio receive the same appointments. Both facts indicate the opera was somewhat reluctant to embrace the radical concepts embodied in Brunelleschis proposal [Saalman 1980].

Brunelleschis model depicts construction of the cupola sans armadura, that is, without centering or formwork. His model is at a significantly large scale, probably at 1:8 scale, and is constructed of full-sized bricks. The model is large enough to inhabit and records from the opera indicate that many experts were called in to examine the model (inside and out) and validate the concepts it embodied. Brunelleschi uses his model to demonstrate the concept of building without centering, and also to demonstrate the techniques he will use to control the geometry of the dome during construction. Though his model wins him the commission it comes with many strings attached. Figure 1 depicts how the dome might have been constructed with centering which would have been the default approach of the time period (and was in fact the approach proposed by Ghiberti for the dome). We know for example, that Michelangelos dome at St. Peters was built with centering as Leonardos sketchbooks depict images of the centering used for St. Peters [Carpiceci 1983]. The dome at Florence is larger than that at St. Peters so the proposal for construction without centering must have been difficult for the guild to fathom. One possible motivation for Brunelleschis idea of construction sans armadura may have come from the fact that the design and construction of Florences duomo was executed by a continuously changing Figure 1. Conceptual centering configuration for the group of masters who never really Florence Duomo concept adapted from the addressed the domes construction. As a centering used on St. Peters Cathedral in Rome. consequence, the necessary internal spurs and buttressing, which would be needed to support centering strong enough to carry the weight of the masonry dome under construction, were never incorporated into the design of the octagonal drum or its piers. Where did Brunelleschi come up with the radical ideas exhibited in his proposal? We know that Brunelleschi and Donatello traveled from Florence to Rome in around 1405 after Brunelleschi lost the competition to create a second set of doors for the Baptistery to his rival Ghiberti. It is certain that Brunelleschi studied the construction of the Pantheon in Rome. Brunelleschis early biographer Vasari indicates that Brunelleschi made drawings of numerous constructions of the ancient Romans, and encoded these drawings with his ideas on how they were erected [Vasari 1550]. Brunelleschis first architectural commission, the Ospedale degli Innocenti (Hospital of the Innocents) used many details from ancient Rome. Details likely taken from Brunelleschis time in Rome include the circular arches, the dosseret at the top of the capitals, and the composite capitals on the columns.

Brunelleschi may have also been aware of Persian mausoleum domes, such as that completed at Soltaniyeh in around 1310. These double-walled domes were constructed of brick and, like the Florence dome, without centering (Fig 2). The techniques developed first in the middle east live on today as Catalan and Gustavino vaulting. There is, however, no firm historic evidence that Brunelleschi had knowledge of the Persian vaulting. To be constructed without centering, Brunelleschis dome has to comply with an unusual structural requirement: like all structures his cupola had to be stable in its complete form but it also had to be stable at all phases of construction, without any external support. Freshly laid masonry could only be located on and carried by the masonry underneath. Internal Construction of the Dome
Figure 2. Persian brick dome ab anbar an elevated cistern for storage of drinking water (photo courtesy Tilo Driessen).

This complex assembly of stone, brick, iron, and wood worked together to allow for ultimate as well as intermediate stability of the structural form. The dome is double walled, with the internal shell on average 6 feet thick and the outer shell about one-third as thick (Fig. 3). A stairway and walkway wind through the space between the two shells. There are eight vertical ribs, one at each of the corners of the octagon and two intermediate ribs within each of the eight faces. A series of ten horizontal arches are spaced vertically up the height of the dome these played a critical role in the stability of the dome during construction. The first twenty five feet of the dome just above the drum are constructed of locally-mined sandstone known as Macigno with a compressive strength of around 9000 psi. The stone is laid in a rubble courses with little or no obvious dressing of the stone. At the bottom of the dome lies the first stone chain. Proceeding up the height of the dome there is a transition from stone to brick masonry followed by a circumferential timber ring. The second and third stone chain are above the timber ring. The rings and chains are tensile elements, while the horizontal arches are compressive elements. Brunelleschi and the past masters were aware that the compressive forces multiplied significantly down the depth of the dome. The top of the drum and the base of the cupola were also constructed from Macigno. Cost and self-weight prohibited the use of this material for the entire dome. The original specification called for a transition from sandstone to brick (or tufa a volcanic stone) at 24 braccia above the top of the drum (one braccia is about 1.9 feet). A change order was executed in 1422 to change this location to 12 braccia above the drum. The brick was lighter, cheaper, and produced locally (about 4 million bricks were used in the dome). This change in materials in Florence is not unlike that found in the Pantheon (which is constructed of cast-in-place concrete). In the Pantheon, the ancient Romans used a

progressively lighter-weight concrete mix to reduce the weight of the dome as it progressed upwards towards the oculus.

(8) (7) (5) (4) (3) (1) (2) (6)

Figure 3. Internal structure of dome: (1) first stone chain, (2) internal walkway within shells, (3) transition from stone to brick masonry, (4) timber ring, (5) second stone chain, (6) vertical rib, (7) horizontal arches, and (8) third stone chain.

The stone chains were also constructed of sandstone, but this time of carefully dressed stones, notched together at the ends (Fig. 4). The stone rubble masonry and the protruding ends of the first stone chain are still visible today. The radial stones in the chain were left long on the outside of the external shell, to provide anchorage points for the two ambulatories that were intended for outside of the dome. Brunelleschis designs for these ambulatories were lost and only one segment was constructed long after Brunelleschis death. After Michelangelo described the single segment as looking like a bird cage, the project to complete the ambulatories was abandoned [Saalman 1975]. The second and third stone chains were constructed in a manner similar to the first chain without the protruding ends. These chains are completely embedded in the brick masonry. A tension tie of wood was integrated into the dome at the level of the second walkway. This tie helps resist circumferential tensile stresses, but may have been included primarily to help reinforce the internal walkway during construction [Mainstone 1977]. The written specification for the project, adopted in 1420, states that this ring may be removed after the construction is complete if it impedes the passageways through the dome. Obviously, Brunelleschi was aware that the role of this tie was more important during construction than afterwards.

Alberti [1991] writes in Book 3 (Construction) of On the Art of Building: A polygonal dome can be constructed without centering if a true circular one is contained within the thickness. This is a direct reference to the ribs within Brunelleschis cupola. These ribs can be thought of as a set of horizontal circular arches that are contained within the outer shell of the cupola. There are ten such arches within the dome. At the corner spurs, the inscribed circle breaks out of the outer shell, and emerges as a solid masonry Figure 4. Stone chain embedded into brickwork and spanning triangle between the inner and between inner and outer shells (3rd stone chain shown here). outer shell. Without these arches, the corners of the octagon would not be rigid; and a series of tension cracks parallel to the eight spurs would be the expected result. Brunelleschis cupola is not externally buttressed at its base the way that Hagia Sophia and other early domes were. The drum on which the cupola is founded eliminates the possibility of such buttressing. The circumferential tension must therefore have been internally contained. In modern constructions, steel cables, prestressing, or rebar easily can resist these tensile hoop stresses. In Brunelleschis day, no such materials existed. Instead, this complex series of stone chains and wood ties were integrated into the inner and outer shells. The stone chains spanned between the shells and worked in tension to resist the spreading tendency at the base of the dome. The circumferential stones were joined at the ends with iron cramps to ensure tensile continuity. No detail was left out the iron cramps were coated with lead to provide resistance to corrosion. Masonry Bedding Angles and Bond Patterns At the second stone chain, the masonry bedding is no longer horizontal (Fig. 5). Rather, the masonry is sloped towards the central axis of the dome. At the height of the first internal walkway, the bedding angle for the masonry goes from zero to ten degrees. From this point upward the bedding angle increases with each course of masonry to the oculus where the bedding angle is sixty degrees. Another of Brunelleschis achievements made laying the quadroni or large flat brick on this angle possible. The brick masonry between each spur is not only laid on an angle inclined towards the central axis of the dome, it also is laid along a catenary. This catenary is described as corda blanda and is referred to as the slack-line technique. From a structural perspective, the slack-line mortar bedding serves to interrupt what otherwise would be horizontal planes of weakness around the circumference of the cupola. In order to prevent the commonly seen

stair-step cracking in brick masonry that follows the mortar joints, Brunelleschi used this technique to keep the mortar joints from being exactly perpendicular to the principle tensile stresses within the masonry shells. Brunelleschi used a herringbone or spinapesce brick patternliterally a spiral in the form of fish backbone as another technique to bond the bricks into a continuum (Fig. 6). Prior to Brunelleschi, this brick patterning was first observed in Veneto near Venice, which may have come from knowledge of earlier Persian domes. The ancient Romans used similar patterning in brick paving but never in structural masonry [Prager 1950].

60

30

10 0
o

Figure 5. Angles of masonry bedding.

Figure 6. Brick laid in spinapesce pattern.

By looking at the deformation patterns in the dome from structural analysis, the success Brunelleschis structural scheme is better understood (Fig 7). A cross-section cut through the dome in the undeformed (unloaded) and deformed (loaded) states, with the magnitude of the deformation exaggerated predicts, the potential for a pair of circumferential cracks, one at the outside shell about half way up the dome and one on the inside shell, at the drum right through the windows. Brunelleschis structural scheme prevented this potentially catastrophic cracking. The only cracking noted in the cupola today is vertical cracking, which is probably due to less-than-perfect effectiveness of the stone chains rather than a failure of the masonry [Fanelli 2004].

Geometric Control during Construction

The construction of the duomo in Florence coincides with the completion of the last of the great Gothic cathedrals in Europe, many of which experienced tremendous problems during construction. For example, Saint-Pierre Cathedral in the Roman town of Beauvais, north of Paris in the Thrain Valley of France, was never completed due to numerous collapses over

the course of several centuries. In the late Gothic period, architects and constructors disregarded the empirical lessons followed by earlier masters. Brunelleschi had no earlier masters to follow and was still successful.

Figure 7. Deformation patterns in dome cross-section and resultant tensile stresses.

Brunelleschi had a command of materials and construction techniques but also a strategy for geometric control. Had the dome been built with centering, the overall form of the dome could have been confirmed on the formwork before the start of laying the brick. With construction sans armadura, it became critical to have a repeatable method for checking the placement of the bricks course by course. Obviously, the standard masons string would not work for Brunelleschi because the masonry is moving around in polar octagonal array and is bedded on the slack line. In addition, it is important to remember that the cupola was constructed before the development optical instruments or even measuring tapes. All geometry was controlled by spirit levels, straight edges, templates, strings, and sight lines. Many scholars have puzzled over the methods used to control the geometry during construction [Mainstone 1977, Mainstone 1998, Coombs 2001]. The dominant interpretation is that a series of control points and strings were used to establish each brick course (Fig 8). The beauty of this method is that it would have simultaneously controlled the position of the eight corner spurs which established the pointed fifth, the declination of the masonry bedding towards the central axis of the dome, and the slack line. Each of the eight spurs or ribs is a segment of a circular arch, thus the pointed fifth, so a simple string could have been used to establish the arc. According to this idea, Brunelleschi used a pair of equal-length strings to maintain a proper plane of the arc for each rib. He then placed iron rings in the masonry of the drum to act as permanent benchmarks for these strings.

During construction, the masons advanced the brickwork in the ribs a number of courses before the infilling of the brickwork between the ribs. Though the dome was not centered, the templates were fixed into place temporarily and used to control the geometry of the masonry in the ribs. At least two other critical geometric features were controlled by Brunelleschis surveying techniques. First, the bedding angle of the stone had to be controlled; and later the brick masonry had to be controlled so that the bedding was parallel to a normal line drawn from the inner surface of the shell to the control point along the central axis of the dome. This angle varied from zero degrees at the base of the dome to an almost unbelievable sixty degrees in the brickwork at the base of the lantern. Finally, the slack line or corda blanda technique involved the placement of brick coursework in a mild catenary between the ribs of the octagonal dome. The brickwork was laid along the slack line in a running bond with a series of vertical bricks set into the masonry at about every fifth course. It should be noted that, even though Brunelleschis construction techniques did not use formwork (or centering), there is evidence that a set of eight local guides were clamped into place as the bricks in the corner spurs were laid. The resulting herringbone pattern had two distinct impacts on the overall construction. First, the vertical brick spans three or four horizontal courses and served to link the lower courses whose mortar has cured with the upper brick courses with their fresh mortar. This was of key importance as the bedding angle increased as a function of the height of the dome. Secondly, the herringbone courses served to knit the brickwork together in a pattern well out of sync with the principal tensile stresses in the dome. Brunelleschi may have developed this brick patterning to thwart the cracking he had observed in the dome of the Pantheon.

Figure 8. Geometric control strategy.

Construction Machines
The last of Brunelleschis accomplishments discussed are his construction machines. While Brunelleschi never received the advertised prize of 200 florins for his construction scheme for the cupola, he was awarded handsomely by the opera for the development of machines that lifted and placed loads during construction. As a young man Brunelleschi studied goldsmithing, which, in that day, required the making of intricate small devices. The mechanical understanding developed in that trade are clearly expressed in the devices he constructed for the duomo. These sketches, from Leonardo da Vincis Codex Atlanticus, were once thought to be design sketches of one of Leonardos many fanciful machines (Fig. 9). They are however, detailed drawings that the young Leonardo made of Brunelleschis great lifting machine, the oxen-powered edificio. The hoist was powered by two oxen (curved yellow arrows in the figure), allowing it to raise much larger loads than the humanpowered hamster hoists used in Gothic construction (Fig. 10). Oxen did not get Figure 9. Leonardo da Vinci, Codex Atlanticus, tired the way humans do. Unfortunately, folio 391v b. oxen cannot be made to walk backwards, so the hoist had to have provisions to be reversed. The hoist would run in one direction, being locked in position with a set of brakes, and set to run in the opposite direction by an attendant. When the screw engaged the reverse gear, the brakes were released and the oxen continued in the same direction. To lessen the stress on the device, a counterweight was used. The machine also accommodated three different diameter drums, so that the great hoist could run at a faster speed when handling lighter loads. The rope for the hoist was made in Pisa, and weighed 1450 pounds. The hoist was used during entire construction process until the point the oculus was completed and the construction of the lantern began. Over the construction of the dome, the great hoist probably moved close to 50 million pounds of construction material. Getting the load to the top of the cupola was not enough. Any given stone in one of the stone chains weighed as much as 2000 pounds, which necessitated a method for moving the stone and placing it in the chain. In 1423 Brunelleschi developed another machine for the project: the castello or crane (Fig 11). The castello takes over where the edificio finishes. Four people manned the crane. The first used a screw to lift the load. The second person controlled the position of the load relative to the central axis of the crane. The third person controlled the counterweight, which is moved in-phase with the load at a rate depending on the magnitude of the load. The last person set the angle of the crane for placement of the stone.

Figure 10. Edificio, a three-speed reversible hoist powered by oxen.

Conclusion
Without these machines, it is doubtful that Brunelleschis cupola could have been constructed in his lifetime. These machines not only served as an essential ingredient in the completion of the duomo, they further reveal the complexity of Brunelleschis challenge and his seemingly boundless talent. We do not know how Brunelleschi envisioned the structure of the cupola, but we know that it performs as he intended. Though the duomo and its cupola have been extensively studied and examined, it has needed relatively few repairs over its 600 year life [Bartoli 1996]. We do not know how Brunelleschi developed the complex scheme for controlling the geometry of the dome during construction, but we do know that the maximum geometric error in the dome is limited to less than one foot.

Figure 11. Castello or crane a lifting and placing machine placed at the top of the construction.

We do not know how Brunelleschi designed and engineered his great lifting and placing machines, but we do know that it took another 150 years for another great Tuscan, Galileo Galilei, to begin to codify the physicals laws of kinematics and strength of materials that underlie the operation of these great devices. We do know that the Duomo became a symbol of Florentine, then Tuscan, then Italian prowess and is still so today. Its construction heralded, and perhaps helped initiate, the Renaissance. Alberti [1966] writes of Brunelleschi in Della pittura:
Who could be hard or envious enough to fail to praise Pippo [Filippo], the architect, on seeing here such a large structure, rising above the skies, ample to cover with its shadow all the Tuscan people. A genius for every laudable enterprise in no way inferior to any of the ancients.

References
Albert 1966: Alberti, Leon Battista. On Painting (Della Pittura). Translated by John R. Spencer. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966. Alberti 1991: Alberti, Leon Battista. On the Art of Building in Ten Books (De Re Aedificatoria) Translated by Leach, N., Rykwert, J. and Tavernor, R. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1991. Bartoli 1996: Bartoli, G., A. Chiarugi and V. Gusella . "Monitoring systems on historic buildings: the Brunelleschi Dome." Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE), New York, N.Y. 122(6), 1996, pp. 663-673. Carpiceci 1983: Carpiceci, Alberto Carlo, La Fabbrica Di San Pietro: Venti Secoli Di Storia E Progetti, 1983. Coombs 2001: Coombs, Tessa and Ann-Marie Gallen. "Riddle of the Dome: Florence Cathedral and Filippo Brunelleschi." [Videorecording] Princeton, NJ: Films for the Humanities & Sciences, 2001. Faneli 2004: Fanelli, Giovanni and Michele Fanelli. Brunelleschis Cupola: Past and Present of an Architectural Masterpiece. Florence: Mandragora, 2004. Ross 2001: King, Ross. Brunelleschi's Dome: How a Renaissance Genius Reinvented Architecture Penguin 2001. Mainstone 1977: Mainstone, R. J. "Brunelleschi's Dome." Architectural Review 162, no. 967 (1977): 156-66. Mainstone 1998: Mainstone, Rowland. Developments in Structural Form. 2nd ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998. Prager 1950: Prager, Frank D. "Brunelleschi's Inventions and the Work 'Renewal of Roman Masonry Work'" Osiris, 9, 1950, pp. 457-554. Saalman 1975: Saalman, Howard. "Michelangelo: S. Maria Del Fiore and St. Peter's." Art Bulletin 57 (3) 1975, pp. 374-409. Saalman 1980: Saalman, Howard. Filippo Brunelleschi: The Cupola of Santa Maria Del Fiore. London: A. Zwemmer Ltd., 1980. Vasari 1998: Vasari, Giorgio. Lives of the Artists: Filippo Di Ser Brunelesco, c. 1550, Translated by Julia Conway Bondanella and Peter Bondanella, Oxford University Press, 1998.