Editing Building stones of Edinburgh: tests and properties

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

This page supports semantic in-text annotations (e.g. "[[Is specified as::World Heritage Site]]") to build structured and queryable content provided by Semantic MediaWiki. For a comprehensive description on how to use annotations or the #ask parser function, please have a look at the getting started, in-text annotation, or inline queries help pages.

Latest revision Your text
Line 11: Line 11:
 
Attempts to assess the strength and forecast the durability of building stone probably date from its beginnings as a structural material. Quarry owners would have wished to give some quantifiable assurance of the performance of a stone to prospective purchasers. Architects would have needed to satisfy themselves and their clients that a particular stone was suitable for the purpose intended. Unfortunately there appear to be few written records of such tests.
 
Attempts to assess the strength and forecast the durability of building stone probably date from its beginnings as a structural material. Quarry owners would have wished to give some quantifiable assurance of the performance of a stone to prospective purchasers. Architects would have needed to satisfy themselves and their clients that a particular stone was suitable for the purpose intended. Unfortunately there appear to be few written records of such tests.
  
George Smith, architect, writing in 1835, records that Robert Adam 'procured specimens from all the quarries in the neighbourhood and after ascertaining their comparative merits, fixed on Craigleith stone for '''Register House''' [128] (c.1776). It would be of interest to know how such an eminent 18th century architect arrived at his decision. The performance of the stone over two centuries and modern tests on Craigleith stone would vindicate Adam's decision on grounds of durability and strength but what were his reasons for rejecting other stones available at that time? Was he solely concerned with strength and long-term appearance? Was influence brought to bear? Presumably the costs of extracting, transporting and working the stone were not significant factors for such a building, but Craigleith quarry was extensively worked during the following hundred years for many less prestigious buildings.
+
George Smith, architect, writing in 1835, records that Robert Adam 'procured specimens from all the quarries in the neighbourhood and after ascertaining their comparative merits, fixed on Craigleith stone for Register House [128] (c.1776). It would be of interest to know how such an eminent 18th century architect arrived at his decision. The performance of the stone over two centuries and modern tests on Craigleith stone would vindicate Adam's decision on grounds of durability and strength but what were his reasons for rejecting other stones available at that time? Was he solely concerned with strength and long-term appearance? Was influence brought to bear? Presumably the costs of extracting, transporting and working the stone were not significant factors for such a building, but Craigleith quarry was extensively worked during the following hundred years for many less prestigious buildings.
  
 
John Rennie (1761-1821) tested the compressive strength of a one-inch cube of Craigleith stone which failed at 12,346 lb; the moisture content, which would have affected the strength, is not stated. The small size of the sample probably reflects the difficulty of applying an intensive known load evenly to a test piece at that time and we are not told if more than one sample was tested. Craigleith stone was also included in the stones considered by the parliamentary inquiry of 1839 to determine a suitable stone for the construction of the new Houses of Parliament.
 
John Rennie (1761-1821) tested the compressive strength of a one-inch cube of Craigleith stone which failed at 12,346 lb; the moisture content, which would have affected the strength, is not stated. The small size of the sample probably reflects the difficulty of applying an intensive known load evenly to a test piece at that time and we are not told if more than one sample was tested. Craigleith stone was also included in the stones considered by the parliamentary inquiry of 1839 to determine a suitable stone for the construction of the new Houses of Parliament.

Please note that all contributions to Earthwise may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Earthwise:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

  [] · [[]] · [[|]] · {{}} · · “” ‘’ «» ‹› „“ ‚‘ · ~ | °   · ± × ÷ ² ³ ½ · §
[[Category:]] · [[:File:]] · <code></code> · <syntaxhighlight></syntaxhighlight> · <includeonly></includeonly> · <noinclude></noinclude> · #REDIRECT[[]] · <translate></translate> · <languages/> · ==References== · {{reflist}} · ==Footnote== · {{reflist|group=note}} · <ref group=note> · __notoc__ · {{DEFAULTSORT:}} <div class="someclass noprint"></div> {{clear}} <br>