Rafael Guastavino

thumb|right|Rafael Guastavino (c. 1880) Rafael Guastavino Moreno (es rafaˈel ɣwastaˈβino; March 1, 1842 February 1, 1908) was a Spanish building engineer and builder who immigrated to the United States in 1881; his career for the next three decades was based in New York City. Based on the Catalan vault, he created the Guastavino tile arch system, patented in the United States in 1885, for constructing robust, self-supporting arches and architectural vaults using interlocking terracotta tiles and layers of mortar. His work appears in numerous prominent projects designed by major architectural firms in New York and other cities of the Northeast. Guastavino tile is found in some of New York's most prominent Beaux-Arts landmarks and in major buildings across the United States. It is also used in numerous architecturally important and famous buildings with vaulted spaces. Santiago Huerta argues below that Guastvino's claims for cohesive properties in his Catalan vaults are incorrect. Quotes Essay on The Theory and History of Cohesive Construction (1892) Applied Especially to the Timbrel Vault. Read before the Society of Arts, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, by R. Guastavino, Architect. Quotes from the 2nd edition, 1893. Part I. Introduction [A] rich and extensive property that for centuries was possessed by the monks.., "Monasterio de Piedra" (the Stone Monastery).., and the buildings thereon, consisting of churches, convents and the palace of the abbot, of different epochs of Romanesque, Byzantine, Renaissance and modern architecture... I was invited... to visit this property, as they intended to convert the immense convent into a summer resort. It was in October, 1871... I saw a grotto of immense grandeur, one of the most sublime and extraordinary works of nature. Imagine Trinity Church, Boston, covered by an immense natural vault, supported by walls of the same nature, with gigantic stalactites... like great chandeliers.., the floor a lake, receiving the whole light through an immense ventinel or opening, like a rosette window in a cathedral, covered by the fall of the full mass of water of the river Jalon, its builder... I had just left Barcelona, after completing some buildings, among them the large manufactories of Batllo Brothers, and was under the impression that I had accomplished something... according to the Cohesive System; but with this great specimen of nature's architecture.., I recognized how small and insignificant my work had been. The thought entered my mind... that all this colossal space was covered by a single piece, forming a solid mass of walls, foundation and roof, and was constructed with no centres or scaffolding, and especially, without the necessity of carrying pieces of heavy stone, and heavy girders or heavy centres; all being made of particles set one over the other, as nature had laid them. I became convinced that there was much to learn from the immense book called Nature, never enough studied, and that our ordinary system of construction was very poor, notwithstanding that we possessed the material... that enabled us to imitate nature. Hence I understood why my... professor... D. Juan Terras, said one day : "The architect of the future will construct by imitating nature.., the most rational, durable and economical method." thumb|Pantheon by Giovanni Paolo Panini This grotto is really a colossal specimen of cohesive construction. Why had we not built on this system? ...[I]n the south of Europe, and in Asia, there existed many buildings on the Cohesive System, erected centuries ago. ...Roman triumphal arches, the Pantheon, the cupola of the Santa Sophia, the cupola of the Cathedral of Zamora, and others in Asia, and some in Moorish constructions of the Middle Ages. The larger part of these... are... concrete... some... with marble facing or other stone outside.., others are concrete throughout. [F]irst attempts... were... in simple concrete. But I soon found that no arch work could be done with concrete... so well as it could be accomplished with tiles... laid in cement, if the material and process are well adjusted. I commenced work in Barcelona, beginning with my own private residence... as a physician might try his own medicine, carrying out my ideas by building a construction four stories in height, practically with no beams, using clay and cement. Afterwards I built the bleacheries of Muntadas Aparicio & Co.; a merino and other woolen-goods factory for Carreras & Sons; another... merino factory, in Villa Franca, for Michans & Co.; the glass manufactory of Modesto Cossademunt; the Theatre of Vilsar; the manufactory of porcelain for Florens & Co.; and the silk manufactory of Saladriguez. I also made some applications of the system in the private houses of... bankers... But all this work... had not the right technical sanction.., thickness of the arches was determined by intuition and practice... But can... [one] satisfy the sciences with these? Can we have any guarantee by these alone? [W]as it possible to determine anything in the embryo state of the manufacture of cements fifteen or twenty years ago, when no manufacturer was able to guarantee... because of the difficulty in obtaining regularity..; when each manufacturer had his own formula, and... the market could not be supplied with a sufficient quantity of each brand to... test... strength.., to base any calculations... and... no certainty of always being able to procure... quality... cement..?That was the condition of affairs in Spain, and in fact, all Europe... [P]lans of the buildings and factories referred to were sent to the Philadelphia Centennial, in 1876. The success... there, and the great Chicago fire... convinced me that this country was the... place for the development of the Cohesive System.., coming here... 1881. I recognized the necessity of studying American methods, materials and facilities. To this... I devoted five years. It was... essential that I should be well posted, particularly in... timbrel arches: First, because cement is the essential part; second, because of the position of the arches.., failure... endanger[s] the lives of workmen; third, because the application of the arches being for [supporting] floors, and requiring speedy work.., it was necessary... to know... [the] material... and... conditions. Footnote: ...notwithstanding the progress in the manufacture of Portland Cement and the great stock in the market, we must use every precaution as to the quality of the cement we are using. [M]anufacture of tile here was almost an impossibility..; if... by hand-work it would be very dear, and if by machinery.., probab[ly]... too heavy and useless. ...[O]bstacles and difficulties seemed insuperable, and hope almost left me.Fortunately, work and perseverance are... great factors towards success. The publication of some artistic works in illustrated papers were received with appreciation, and some successful competitions for semipublic buildings in New York put me in position to begin... tests and experiments with imported tiles. [M]y first work done with this fireproof system in America, was in a four-story private house on 78th Street, New York, in 1886, with American tiles. ...[T]he same year I commenced... the interior of the Arion Club, 59th Street, whose building committee... ascertained that with my arches they could... sav[e] of over $5,000, in two floors alone, over... ordinary... fireproofing.From that time on I have been building in New York... [I]n July, 1889, I put all my affairs in the... corporation.., the Guastavino Fireproof Construction Company. I have now the satisfaction of seeing a system of construction established.., which only four years ago was considered a dream, and... was noticed in a prominent technical book as a simple curiosity only. ...[A]ll the great obstacles ...have at last been overcome. Part II. Researches and History Note: "cupola" in Spanish is "dome". The "Timbrel Arch"... is as ancient as the " Cohesive System," and may be as old as its opposite.., the "Gravity System." [A]lthough the " Cohesive System," including... timbrel arches, was frequently practised by the ancients, after... the height of its splendor in the Middle Ages it gradually disappeared... as modern civilization and the Renaissance approached. [T]he general use of vaults of brick, stone or the timbrel, as well as the use of the arch itself, and its origin, is very ancient. They were applied before the days of the Rome, who did nothing but improve, making their use general... [T]he cohesive form, as well as the typical timbrel arch, and the arch in general, was, so to speak, "born," and is not any particular invention. [N]either brick vaults, stone vaults nor timbrel vaults can be said to belong to any civilization. Similar circumstances necessitated their creation in every country. The Assyrians improved the manufacture of brick. ...[W]ith abundance of clay, as well as asphalts and mineral oils... as fuel, they came to the practical idea of burning the clay, and instead of using raw brick... For such purposes ovens were needed; hence the necessity for covering and closing space without lumber or stone, but with bricks and terra-cotta. Thus were the dome and cone shapes developed... The Assyrians attached great importance to the surface of their bricks, possibly to give them conditions of cohesive strength... We must... call attention to the construction of arches and domes in the Arabian epoch, and that of the Mussulman in Persia.. where a new and powerful civilization was already developed... where the Assyrian left the trail of his ceramic work... [T]he Oriental civilization had great influence in... antique Byzantium.., it gave... the foundation for new ideas in the architectural arts.., it founded the classical examples of the "Cohesive System." ...The greatest development was in Cordova and Granada, Spain; but under the influence of the beginning of this civilization the construction of St. Sophia, the grandest and most finished model of the cohesive cupola, was carried out. The cupolas of Persia are all constructed over brick walls, and are the continuation of the same wall with the same material. From the building of the cupola of St. Sophia to the period of the Renaissance several cupolas on the cohesive principle were constructed. The principal of these cupolas were the Mosques of Solyman II., Sultan Ahmet, and the Holy Apostles, of Constantinople; Santa Maria of Ravenna; St. Mark, Venice, and the Cathedral of Zamora, whose cupola is one of the most beautiful in Europe. [I]n the Renaissance, the most remarkable are... in the Santa Maria del Fiore, and the Medici Chapel and Baptistry of Florence; St. Augustine's and St. Peter's in the Vatican, Rome; the Madonna de la Salute, Venice; Ste. Genevieve, Paris; St. Paul's, London; La Real capilla de los Desemparados, Valencia... and the Dome de los Escolapios.., Spain. Note: Dome of the Escolapios, i.e., Dome of the Church of the Escuelas Pías is in the Velluters district of Valencia, Spain. thumb|St Paul's Cathedral, Fig 7, p. 85. All the cupolas constructed, up to the epoch of Constantine, were with brick and concrete, in the Arabic style, following the constructive lines without altering the aesthetic forms; and in all the cupolas built after the time of Constantine, beginning with the period of Brunelleschi in Florence, including the dome of St. Paul's, London, the exteriors are not the representation of the interiors, being successively more prominent. In the... [St. Paul's, London] cupola... the interior dome or decoration is a hemisphere, the second one is... as a truncated cone, and the third... is the exterior dome. The whole does not represent the progress of the art of instruction and the way to apply aesthetic forms. This anomaly is due to... disuse of the hydraulic mortars of the Romans, Arabians and Byzantines, because the art of manufacturing these materials, which constituted the basis of their cohesive construction, was lost. In the construction of St. Sophia the Byzantines used baked clay and lava of Vesuvius, or pumice-stone. The architects of the Renaissance, especially in Italy and Spain, were... impressed by the works of the Romans, Byzantines and Arabians, and wished to imitate their bold construction; but they did not have... the material or the skilled hands. They therefore used plaster, and thenceforth the timbrel arch was introduced along the coasts of the Mediterranean from Murcia to Valencia, Barcelona and Genoa, and along the Italian coast to Naples. ...This epoch ...supplies [many facts] to aid ...our study. [T]he architects of the Pontificate... had only common air-lime and plaster. The first they found impossible to use in constructions similar to St. Sophia, the Cathedral of Zamora or the Arabian cupolas. ...[T]he unlimited expansion of [the second, i.e.,] the plaster, which only stops when fully saturated,—...when it loses its power of absorption,—compelled the architects, to supply walls of enormous thickness. Besides this disadvantage, when the plaster has arrived at... saturation its strength is gone, loosening the bricks principally where the building is exposed to the weather or subject to alternate changes of humidity and dryness. In consequence, its use was limited to very heavy walls, and for ceilings having wooden beams and wooden boards, over which were laid Arabian tiles if it was a roof, and mortar and flooring tiles if it was a floor. In some cases the timbrel vaults were used as a ceiling and floor, having two or three thicknesses of tiles with plaster, and the haunches were filled with light pottery; this pottery was leveled over with rubbish and mortar, finishing with flooring tiles. [T]his construction was used only in large buildings, such as convents, palaces and churches, where the walls were very thick, amounting to one-third of the full span, and where the character of the building was a guarantee that the ceilings would not be abused; otherwise it was necessary to patch and repair every few years. [I]n general building it was only used in small spans, such as eighteen to twenty inches between beams, three tiles being used to two courses of bricks set flat over the centre; and in this state it... remained until the present... [A]ll the timbrel arches of the Renaissance epoch existing in Italy... [and] Spain are constructed with plaster material, which does not meet the exigencies of good construction. Consequently... no technical academy in Spain or Italy has taken into serious consideration such empiric construction, which has a tendency to lamentable accidents. France and England are not here taken into consideration, because, like... other nations of the north, they have not bricks of dimensions and conditions suitable for the cohesive form; they have bricks of a small top and bottom surface... four by eight inches, when, generally, the types for the cohesive system are the Assyrian bricks, or the bricks of the Orientals, the dimensions of which were about twelve to fourteen inches long, six to eight inches wide and one to two inches thick. In Spain, where this system has been used and is still in use on a larger scale than in any other country, there does not exist any treatise, or a single work, on the theory of this construction, or a single scientific explanation of this manner of building; not even an empirical explanation... The time that cements began to be generally used in modern days was from 1845 to 1850, and from this date commenced the renaissance of the "Cohesive Construction." The modern Roman cement that Mr. Parker invented and patented in 1791 and 1796 was so dear, and the conditions of setting were so slow, that its introduction into buildings was much retarded.This cement, in the beginning, was called Parker's cement; its author called it Roman mortar. The other cements called Medina, introduced shortly after, had the same defects. Mr. Aspdin, on the 21st of October, 1824, took out a patent for the formula of the celebrated Portland cement.This cement was given the name of Portland by... Mr. Aspdin, because, when it is good, and smoothed with the trowel, it is very similar to Portland stone when it is polished. Up to the year 1868 the professors of the academy of Barcelona.., a city where tiles are more in use than in the rest of the world, did not... to pay any attention to this style of construction until important applications had been made... And when at last they did, it was only to comment incidentally on its resistance, and its possible utility; but they did not make a study of it, notwithstanding the fact that they were constantly walking over floors constructed on this system in which plaster was used; on the other hand, this want of attention is explained by the lack of cements proper... for such... construction. [W]ant of proper cements, and of an invariable brand on which to base... calculations, was one of the main obstacles which beset the Catalonian and Valencian architects. The first work of importance of this character [I] constructed in Spain... in 1868—the manufactory of Batllo in La Corts de Serria. ...Afterwards I built others. In some cases the risk and danger caused by the irregularity of the materials was so plain that the workmen were afraid.., compelling me to remain in the works to inspire confidence and success. The progress verified in Spain, particularly in Barcelona, in this special construction, was due principally to the manufacturers, and to the studies and teachings of the professors on these subjects, who were debating... how to improve their respective specialties, and how to obtain new practical systems of construction, knowing... that the improvement in material required change and progress in construction. But their noble aspirations were restricted, as they had no facilities; besides which it was necessary for them to content themselves by recommending the theories of Vicat about the use of cements, and other applications well based. Nothing was done about investigating these [type of] structures.., and no coefficients were discovered. These only can be obtained when we can depend upon the materials with mathematical regularity, and with powerful apparatus for determining their reliability. They can only be obtained, too, in countries where we can find in the market enough guaranteed brands of Portland cement of different setting degrees; where clay can be used for these constructions with advantage, and with regularity of manufacture thereafter; and... after trial in a country where we have powerful apparatus, and where coefficients can be obtained, as has been exemplified by our own work for the past five years. On account of these special advantages... this experimental work culminated in the United States.., in New York and Boston, with specimens that have no rivals in any part of the world for lightness and resistance. [T]he movement initiated in England by the unappreciated Mr. Parker, with 1791 and 1796 patents—who thought he had discovered the old Roman cements,—after passing the patented improvements of Mr. Aspdin, of October 21, 1824, may have culminated in New York and Boston. ArchFirmsBut not without the valuable assistance and confidence of the eminent architects, Messrs. McKim, Mead & White, Buchman & [Gustav] Deisler, R. H. Robertson, F. H. Kimball, T. M. Clark, De Lemos & [August W.] Cordes, A. H. Pickering, A. F. D'Oench, and others, whose co-operation and support in the annals of constructive art deserve to be held in remembrance. Note: Theodore Minot Clark (1845–1909) & see Theodore Minot Clark @BuildingsOfNewEngland.com Part III. Theory and Coefficients of Application We... divide construction... into two classes: ...First, "Mechanical Construction," or, construction by gravity. Second, "Cohesive Construction," or, construction by assimilation. The first is founded in the resistance of any solid to the action of gravity when opposed by another solid. From these conjuctive forces, more or less opposed to one another, results the equilibrium of the total mass, without taking into consideration the cohesive power of the material set between the solids. The second has for a basis the properties of cohesion and assimilation of several materials; which, by a transformation more or less rapid, resemble Nature's work in making conglomerates. [T]he... mechanical, system is... where all the pieces can be separated one by one and then rebuilt in the same or similar manner. To this class belong the pyramids of Egypt and the Greek temples, etc. In "Cohesive Construction"... the components cannot be separated without destroying the integral mass. To these belong the Babylonian walls of brick with hydraulic mortar; the vaults and cupolas of the Assyrian, Persian, Arabian, Roman and Byzantine—the antique and Middle Age conglomerate construction. The structures built by the "Gravity System" can at any time be taken down in the pieces... Thus, the stone or brick... of a temple or monument... can to-morrow belong to or form... [another structure]... [T]hough man cannot again use the parts of "Cohesive Construction" for modern buildings, their ruins inspire respect and veneration; and only Nature, with her slow... disintegration, can take from this... material for her immense and eternal laboratory. [M]aterials... in construction by gravity only require... hardness. "Cohesive Construction"... materials must... have proper physical conditions... but it is absolutely necessary that the chemical properties of the substances... be taken into consideration. The use of the "Cohesive System" was rendered impossible to many nations because they had neither the material, nor the knowledge of its use... while... all civilizations... could make use of the gravity system. The basis of these materials is mortar that does not require exposure to the air for its transformation or setting quality—that is, hydraulic lime and cement; but for our specialty we must have cements of the quality of Portland. The formula for the manufacture of these kinds of materials, and the manner of their use was... lost (probably soon after the fall of the Roman Empire), barring some rude practices in the Orient, which soon disappeared, to be found again in 1791 by Mr. Parker. The two patents taken out by him in 1791 and 1796 were not complete, and they came too late to be taken into consideration in the scientific movement, already well advanced, that was giving impulse to the academic and technical schools in the last century, whose text-books in general did not refer to any save the gravity system. These doctrines or ideas prevail yet, and are now the basis of our teachings. thumb|Single & Double Tile Timbrels,Figs 10 & 11, p. 49. thumb||upright=0.65|Tile Cohesive Shear Test,Fig 12, p. 50. Nothing had then been written in regard to cohesive construction as applied to the "timbrel arch... due to the following..: The nations who for nearly a century and a half were most advanced... and who had written most about the applied sciences, were the English, French and Germans... [O]n account of the erroneous form of their bricks, and the poor method of using their materials.., when the walls... were torn down and the bricks taken out, they were so nearly clean, without any mortar adhering.., that they could be used again in new walls. Could the professors and scientific men of these countries have seriously taken into consideration... cohesive strength.., though they knew of the existence of some cements. [A]ll conscientious professors were inclined to give coefficients of resistance only for the gravity system, and all their books and teachings were on the gravity system, except for tensions of materials working in that way. Italy and Spain at this epoch had no text-books of their own; all were translations from the French and English works. A "Timbrel Vault" of a single thickness of brick or tile (Fig. 10) has no more resistance than an arch or vault built on the " Gravity System"; because, no matter how good the mortar.., there is only one vertical joint, and the bricks or tiles are working as voussoirs. [I]f we put another course over the first (Fig. 11), breaking joints, and laid with hydraulic material, we will have the action of cohesive force. ...[M]ortar laid over the first course, or extrados, takes bond with it, and also with the course laid on top. As soon as the cement sets, we will have shearing resistance represented by 17,820 pounds per square foot (Fig. 12)... In this way we introduce a new additional strength to the arch which is a peculiarity of the Timbrel Arch System. In the "Gravity System" (Fig. 10), the strength of gravity alone is the only force keeping the voussoirs in place by pressure against each other in the joints. These joints are not protected, and any reduction in the width of the joints in consequence of pressure, or weight on the arch, compromises the setting of the mortar. [I]n the " Gravity System " the mortar serves only as a cushion... because of bad setting, and adds no strength to the arch. [I]n our " Cohesive System," with horizontal broken joints, with 17,820 pounds per square foot shearing strength, the reduction in the vertical joints is prevented absolutely, as can be proved by the following facts... First, we can build arches of twenty-feet span only three inches thick, using a centre one inch thick, and moving it along as soon as a row of tiles is laid, which usually requires about fifteen minutes. Second, it is common to see the workmen walking over the arch, free from centres of any kind, some hours after it is built. [T]hird, we can run the centre under the arch again when it is completed, which is the most practical illustration that '''the arch has has the absolute repose necessary for its settlement. These three remarkable circumstances are of great value to architects, as they can be put in the specifications and can be depended upon as absolute proof of the safety of the construction. [T]his horizontal breaking joint, or new additional strength, is not the only great advantage of the system. [I]f we were able to build an arch without joints, it would be the best, as it would have no settlement; but as the gravity system has only voussoirs of stone or brick.., joints are necessary. thumb|Brick and Tile Arch Comparisons,Figs 13 & 14, pp. 52-53. [A brick arch (Fig. 13) of six-feet span... would have... 26 or 27 joints of common brick. These joints.., one-quarter of an inch thick, represent about seven inches of mortar... compelled to set with all the weight of the voussoirs resting on the centres. The centres, contracting, leave the weight or pressure on the mortar.., preventing a good setting, and raising the centre of pressure of the arch from A to B..; this happens in all the brick arches... When this arch rises only ten per cent of the full span it is very dangerous, because the development of the curve measures very little more than its chord C D. The builder or contractor, knowing this, is... afraid when the centres are removed, and, before the architect knows it.., brings down the centre of pressure... further, by hammering in little iron wedges or nails in the joints, covering them with mortar so as not to be seen. This... destroys what cohesion may... be left in the joints, but... prepares the brick for secondhand material by freeing it from the mortar. In our arch, in the same six feet (Fig. 14), we have only 13 joints, one-quarter of an inch each.., only three and one-quarter inches of mortar..; the arch with no joints is the best, the one with the least is... preferred. There are other advantages... [I]n every arch the curve of pressure changes according to the position of the load; this means that every arch must be prepared for work by deflection or tension. thumb|Flattened Arches ComparisonFigs 15 & 17, p. 54. [S]uppose an arch laid in brick... to receive a test for tension (Fig 15). The resistance of this tension depends upon the cohesion of the joints, or the resistance to tension of the mortar. But we have observed... cohesion in the brick arches was... unsatisfactory, and... the mortar is only a cushion in many cases, but... when these joints have a good settlement the tension will only equal the cohesive strength of the mortar between the bricks, and with good cement mortar ten days laid... 80 to 150 pounds per square inch, while... our "Timbrel Arch"... test... 287 pounds for ten days, and 159... for seven days (Fig. 17). This shows... for... cohesive construction the following advantages over the brick arch or any arch built by mechanical construction: ...[T]he protection of the vertical joints, by introducing the new strength coming from the horizontal breaking joints. ...[T]he less number of vertical joints, amounting to only five per cent, of the full span, while the brick arch has ten per cent. ...[T]he resistance to deflection (bending-moment) ... Notes: Here, "mechanical construction" refers to the "Gravity System." For resistance to deflection, see page 80, " Analysis of some Peculiarities of the System." The result of these advantages is the surprising strength of the "Timbrel Arches," so... 15 or 20-foot arches, three inches thick.., with ten per cent, rise... can be laid, taking away the centres and giving them... uses of the building in a few hours, when an arch of brick with a six-foot span, four inches thick and a ten per cent, rise, requires strong and heavy centres, with several days' repose. Even then this six-foot span, four inches thick and with a ten per cent, rise, is not a safe construction. The span requires eight inches of thickness... [A] brick arch four feet six inches in span, ten per cent... rise, and four inches thick, with cement mortar... [is] equivalent to a ten or twelve foot span in a "Timbrel Arch," three inches thick, and with an eight to ten per cent rise. All... [the above] can be applied to... concrete or conglomerate arches, especially in regard to... heavy centres, and imperfect settlement of... materials. In large arches, the cement cannot be put over the arches quickly enough so... every layer can settle evenly, and... excessive use of the rammer kills part of the cement. ...[F]or forty years these... have been tried without success, except in small arches, where the laborers... can complete the full span of the arch with one single coat having a uniform settlement; but not without... more material than necessary. General Formula for Segmental Arches [for distributed load:] (1) Note: Explanation given later L = Load in pounds including material. (L is always 12" in length span and load in lbs. per superficial foot, including material.)R = Resistance in middle of arch, or T C.C = Coefficient for compression = 2,060 lbs. per sq. in., breaking load.C' = Coefficient tension = 300 lbs. per sq. in., breaking load.C" = Coefficient transverse = 90 lbs. per sq. in., breaking load.T = Area of cross-section, in superficial inches, in the middle of the arch. (T will always be 12 thickness, or area represented by 12 = thickness.)r = Rise of arch in feet.S = Span in feet. thumb|Transverse Tile Test & Arch Diagram, Figs 16 & 18, p. 60. We use the formula (1) to get the thickness necessary at the centre of the arch with a distributed load, including the weight of the arch... After that we find the line of the extrados of the arch in a graphical manner, derived from the formula given by [Édouard] Dejardin for tracing the equilibrium profile of the extrados for the vaults, giving the section of the arch in the skewbacks, or base of the arch on each side. Ref: 1) Édouard Dejardin (1807-1866), Notice sur les constructions en briques (1858) 2) Lectures for mechanics of solids and structures, s Graphic statics course. Quotes about Guastavino Now that thin-shell structures are no longer... a monopoly of the engineering profession... the historian seek[s] out the origins of this type of construction... to study the prototypes for... non-ferrous, non-vitreous, curved surfaces... [A]n age-old Mediterranean system of erecting thin masonry vaults was brought to... perfection in Spanish Catalonia and then came to the United States in the 1880s where it flourished... to produce... structures and spaces that far exceeded anything... in its land of origin. ...[T]his vaulting made possible... many... blue ribbon buildings... between the 1880s and... 1940s. ...[T]he Guastavinos method... was called... the "Guastavino system" of "timbrel vaults," "flat arches," or "fireproof construction." ...The vault ...is very thin .., little more than a surface, and derives its rigidity not from massiveness or thickness but rather from its ...geometric form .., its ...curvature. George R. Collins, "The Transfer of Thin Masonry Vaulting from Spain to America" (Oct., 1968) Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 27, No. 3, p. 176. The poets may sing of the feasts of Lucullus, Of champagne, and of Tokay, and other things fine; But give me a dish of Mr. Guastavino’s paella, And a bottle or two of his own pleasant wine. Unknown dinner guest, as quoted by Jon Elliston, "Lost To Time: The Relics of Architect Rafael Guastavino's Estate, Rhododendron, Hint at a Rich Life" (March 2012) WNC Magazine. The Works of Rafael Guastavino (April, 1901) by Peter B. Wight, Part I. As Architect, The Brickbuilder, Vol. 10, Issue 4, pp. 79-81. Coming among us from Spain in 1881 a comparative stranger, he has, through extraordinary perseverance, not only merited the confidence which many of the leaders of architectural thought have placed in him, but made possible the development of architectural design in directions heretofore considered impracticable. While he has made possible many projects in design which were heretofore thought to be difficult and almost prohibitively expensive in execution, and carried them out with a simplicity of construction... considered daring if not impossible.., we have as yet but reached the beginning of the possibilities of original designs, for the execution of... "Cohesive Construction." [T]he subject of our story was brought up as a musician, and came from a family of musicians... He was born in Valencia, Spain, in 1842, but at seventeen forsook music for an architect’s office, and became a student of D. José Nadal... His first important order as an architect was gained in a competition in 1866... [E]ven in old Spain a young professional of twenty-four years had opportunities... rarely exemplified in that time even in our own country. [N]o reliable cement was made in Spain, and the ultimate improvement in its manufacture was due to his exertion. [W]hen he erected his own house in 1872, or which he was... architect and builder... he used an English Portland cement. After that he used a cement made by Dr. R. Montestru at Tardienta (Aragon)... [H]e gave the doctor Vicat’s book on cement manufacture, with the help of which he succeeded in making a free silicate, or Portland cement of fair quality. Having embraced the profession of a builder as well as architect... he was... engaged for many years in the erection of mills and factories, in which the necessity of fire-proof construction was evident, and while erecting these... experiment[ed] with concrete and tile for floor and roof constructions. He was guided by the study of the architecture of the Byzantines and Persians, whose influence had been felt in Spain from the third to the fourteenth century. It was the study of these that led him at first to revive the ancient concrete constructions. In 1868-69 he built the great factory of Batllo Brothers, covering four blocks, which was gained in competition. ... These buildings.., some... five stories high and all of cohesive construction, that is.., some... floors were of concrete, and others, and the roofs, were arched with tile, while the circular stairways were built monolithic with tile. [A] factory built later for Muntadas, Aparicio & Co. ...[D]uring ...erection of the Muntadas factory ...government engineers made an inspection of the floor and roof construction, a combination of tile arches and iron tension members for which a patent was granted to Mr. Guastavino. Other mills and factories, built or designed by him after this time, in which the cohesive construction was used, comprised the woolen mills of D. Carreras... in 1876, of Vidal & Sons, Rosic, and the porcelain works of Florens & Co. In the latter he first used tie-rods of iron concealed in the arch, on account of the great heat of the kilns, which has led to the use of this system... extensively in our... country. [A] warehouse built for Mr. Grau at Barcelona, in 1877 was the first building in which the cohesive construction was used of dome form with tie beams. The span... is 28 ft. [A] circular concert theater... at Villasar.., the dome roof is 46 ft. in diameter... all of cohesive tile construction. Ref: Teatre La Massa @lamassateatre.cat [T]he city warehouse, office, and residence of D. M. Cossademunt, the glass manufacturer, for whom also he designed a factory. The roof of the latter was a trussed tile arch of about 4o ft. span. His clients were manufacturers to whom fireproof methods of building were... unknown. The cohesive construction, making it possible to make these buildings fire-proof, supplied a want... beginning... at Barcelona, and Mr. Guastavino might have continued to fill it but for an accident which brought him to this country... The Works of Rafael Guastavino (May, 1901) by Peter B. Wight, Part II. What is Cohesive Construction?, The Brickbuilder, Vol. 10, Issue 5, pp. 100-102. This can be most easily answered in his own words... After dividing construction... into two generic kinds, "mechanical construction, or by gravity," and "cohesive construction, or by assimilation," and leaving out of consideration wood and iron constructions, he says: "The first is founded on the resistance of any solid to the action of gravity when opposed to another solid, and from these conjunctive forces, more or less opposed to one another, results the equilibrium of the total mass, without taking into consideration the cohesive strength of the material set between the solids. The second has for a base the property of cohesion and assimilation of several materials, which by transformation more or less rapid, resembles nature's work in making conglomerates." This is a generic definition, and the second includes all structures in which several materials are combined to produce a monolithic material. It may mean a concrete wall or arch made with cement, sand, and other ingredients, or the various combinations of concrete with various stiffening materials, or the addition of steel, to give them greater resistance to tension or compression in certain directions. [H]ollow tile fire-proofing systems are gravity systems, and the Monier system, in which concrete is stiffened with steel, is a cohesive system. All Persian, Roman, Byzantine, Mohammedan, and early Spanish systems of construction, in which concrete formed the main material, and bricks and tiles the subsidiary material, were cohesive or monolithic. The difference between these and the Guastavino system is that in the latter the hard-burned, flat clay tiles form the principle part of the mass. To a certain extent good brickwork laid in strong hydraulic cement is cohesive construction after time has hardened it, but it is always laid and used according to the same principles that control all kinds of gravity construction. Bricks are laid, breaking joints, just as tiles are in the Guastavino system, the difference in favor of the latter being its decreased weight and increased strength in proportion to each unit weight, making it far superior to brickwork for floor, roof, and dome constructions. This is one of the natural results of an evolution... going on for a long time. Mr. Guastavino says: "During the fifteen hundred years that the cohesive construction has been in use, all the improvements and inventions have been... toward the idea of obtaining maximum strength with the minimum weight and ratio of the mass of materials compared with the space covered." For... this latest invention of cohesive construction... first... describe the materials... and how the work is set. Only three materials are used: hard-burned, flat clay tiles, Portland cement mortar, and plaster. The tiles are generally 6 by 10 ins. or 8 by 12 ins. ...and 1/4 in. ...thickness. They are made in this country on clay presses, which run them out through mandrel dies in gangs of six each, cut off to the proper length with wire. These square blocks are so scored that after burning a smart blow will cause them to fall apart in six, flat, rectangular tiles, having rather a rough surface well adapted to the adhesion of cement or plaster. The process in this country is very much cheaper than... in Spain, where the tiles are made by hand in molds, though the labor there is much cheaper... They were thus made before Mr. Guastavino came to the United States, in 1881, for covering flat roofs, being laid in Portland cement over coated felt. Hence he found material better adapted to his purpose.., and with such change... necessary in size and thickness, they were all he wanted. ...[O]ne size of tile would be sufficient to perform all... examples of cohesive construction... thus far executed. In building a simple floor arch, supposing it... set between four brick walls properly tied together, and that the arch is 8 ft. wide and 20 ft. span, the first course of tile is set as a skew-back on a ledge or in a groove in one of the short walls, which is slightly elevated in the center. These are set, using only a light frame center slightly curved, and as wide as one tile, and the joints between edges of the tiles are of pure plaster of Paris, used only on account of its quick-setting... A second course of half tiles is set on top of these and breaking joints with them next to the wall, with rich Portland cement, the joint being not more than one-quarter inch. As soon as the second course of tiles is set, the whole will be self-supporting, and the curved board is moved out to serve as a center for the second row of the first row of tiles. This is set the same as the first row with plaster at the edge joints, and the second row of the second course is set on top of them with Portland cement mortar, breaking joints and covering only half of the second row of the first course of tiles. Then the first row of the third course of tiles is set next to the wall, covering the first row of half tiles set in the second course and half of the second row of the same course. This brings the thickness at the skew-back to 3 ins., which is the thickness of the completed arch. The next row of the first course of tiles is then set as before, then a row of the second course and a row of the third course, and so on until the arch is built across the twenty feet. The curved centering is set for each row of the first course to a guide traced on the side walls of the space to be covered and indicating the rise of the whole arch, which is presumably about 2 ft. in 20. [T]he plaster used plays a very small part in the construction. It is used for convenience only on account of its quick-setting properties to keep one isolated row of tiles in place until the next course can be set above it. When completed with three courses of tiles, the arch has two bed joints of Portland cement through its whole area, and only the edge joints of one course of tiles are of plaster. The breaking of joints in both directions practically makes the arch homogenous if the cement becomes as hard as the tiles. Guastavino cohesive construction depends as much upon the quality of the cement used as of the tiles, and is only reliable when the best Portland cement is used in the most careful manner. It was only because Mr. Guastavino found when he first visited the United States that it was a market for the best grades of Portland cement that he decided to change his residence... Here at last were the ideal materials he had always longed to have. He had determined to introduce his system because he had found the best materials here for it, but he was full of anxiety lest a failure with new and untried workmen might endanger their lives, and that the arches, being for floors and requiring speedy work, to meet our requirements, might not become sufficiently firm before they were used. His anxiety at first about getting tiles was not well founded, for... such tile were then being made for other purposes, though he did not know it. With experience and a series of experiments... in New York, he commenced his study of his art along scientific lines, and endeavored to adduce formulas based on constants, which for the first time... he was able to obtain. He found that the cohesive strength or resistance to shearing of two hard tiles cemented... with good Portland cement was... 124 lbs. per square inch, so that this could represent the cohesive strength of an entire arch whenever the tiles are as hard as the cement. Then as butt joints are not depended upon to sustain the arch, there could be no shrinkage of joints to cause it to contract, as is the case with all brick arches, and curved boards used for centering could be replaced after the work had fully set, showing that there had been no settlement. Another test for tension in a section of three courses of tile laid with two courses of cement gave a tensile strength of 287 lbs. per square inch on work ten days old, as the average of two tests, while the average of four compression tests was 2,060 lbs. per square inch. With these constants he was enabled to find a bending moment on which to base his calculations for future work. He also tested tiles cemented together with plaster of Paris for shearing, which showed only 34 lbs. per square inch as against 124 lbs. for Portland cement. For this will be found another evidence of the unreliability of plaster mixtures for carrying loads, no less than for fire-proof qualities. In 1887 he worked out formulas for all the constructions he is likely to undertake... which will well repay examination by those who are in any way skeptical... Some of these deductions may not meet the approval of scientific engineers, but in most cases... they are within the results that his practical experience has demonstrated... He has thus accumulated a mass of information... which makes it easy... to accomplish with safety constructive feats which appear to the uninstructed as simply marvelous. Quite different from an engineer who holds that all good construction is in a state of repose, he calls his product live material, but not in the sense usually applied... It is used rather to remind us that it has many other properties, such as stiffness and a disposition to transfer stresses in directions not experienced in gravity constructions, than those which are demonstrated by the authorities on building construction in general. ...from L. De Coppet Berg's "Safe Building": "The arches have some very great advantages. The principle one... is their lightness of construction and saving of weight on the floors, walls, and foundations. Then too, in most cases iron beams can be entirely dispensed with, the arches resting directly on the brick walls; of course, there must be weight enough on the wall to resist the horizontal thrust, or else iron tie-rods must be resorted to." He gives an example of a 3 in. cohesive tile arch of 20 ft. clear span, with a rise of 20 ins., and a floor load of 150 lbs. per superficial foot, uniformly distributed, computed graphically. His computation, however, is for a barrel arch, as if built in voussoirs; while Guastavino seldom builds, and does not recommend, barrel arches, but gives them a slightly curved section, longitudinally. It is, therefore, a very conservative calculation, but demonstrates that the greatest pressure per square inch in the arch section would be 130 lbs. As he gives 300 lbs. as a safe stress on a sample that he tested when only twelve days old, which is better than that obtained in the Gustavino tests of 1887, this computation is greatly in favor of the arch. He also calls attention to the danger of sliding in the horizontal joints, only in case strong cements are not used. But referring to his tests again, he says: "The shearing stress of the mortar joints is evidently greater than the tension, as samples tested tore across the tile and could not be sheared off." In this connection the following advice applicable to all arches applies equally to this kind: "In arches with heavy concentrated loads at single points there might, in rare cases, be danger of the load shearing right through the arch. The resistance to shearing would, of course, be directly as the vertical area of cross-section of the arch, and in such cases this area must be arge enough to resist any tendency to shear." Rafael Guastavino 1842-1908 (February 1908) The Brickbuilder With this experience and a series of experiments that he undertook in New York, he commenced the study of his art along scientific lines, and endeavored to adduce formulas based on constants, which for the first time in his experience he was able to obtain. Mr. Guastavino was appointed architect for the Spanish Government Pavilion at the World’s Fair, in 1893, at Chicago, which was a replica of "La Lonja"... [H]e read a paper before the International Congress of Architects... at Chicago in 1893, on "Masonry Construction," ...considered one of the ablest papers presented. William E. Blodgett... says: "I distinctly remember my first meeting him some twenty years since, at the time he was starting on his first really large and interesting task... which he originated and developed, the Boston Public Library. This building is still in some ways the best illustration of the possibilities of the timbrel vault construction, because of the diversity of its problems, the barrel arches, groined arches, and domes, all... structural.., carrying the floor load, and... because... it was the first..., in this country at least.., use of that finished repressed and glazed tile development which latterly has become so largely... part of the development of the system. ...I found him ...extraordinarily alert and active ...I never met a quicker man ...a very hard worker ...he demanded the same ...from those associated with him, always industrious and never idling. ...[T]hough recently he did not devote himself so exclusively to the business ...he ...maintained a supervisory oversight, and spent the remainder of his time ...in other forms of activity, to which his very versatile mind easily lent itself. ...Mr. Guastavino was an ardent lover of the truthful and the beautiful in the arts, and felt that ...architecture was one of the noblest callings ...and to it he gave all the wealth and energy of his resourceful nature." Some ten or a dozen years ago, the business was put into a corporate form, and his son, bearing the same name, has been vice-president and general superintendent... in charge the laying out and design... and... superintending... larger and more difficult problems.... He has stepped into his father's place as presi­dent... Mr. Blodgett, who for the past twenty years has been the business man of the concern, and treasurer of the company, will still have charge of these affairs... With the company retaining the personnel... little, if any, change will be noted. thumb|Some Domes Constructed byR. Guastavino Co. (ca. 1915) "Some Domes Constructed by R. Guastavino Co." (ca. 1915) Boston, New York. Pamphlet listing famous domed building constructed by The Guastavino Fireproof Construction Company NO. BUILDING & LOCATION SPAN [ft] ARCHITECTS 1. Cathedral, St. John the Divine, New York City 135 Heins & LaFarge 2. National Museum, Washington D.C. 80 Hornblower & Marshall 3. Institute of Arts and Sciences, Brooklyn, N.Y. 64 McKim, Mead & White 4. St. Francis de Sales Church, Philadelphia, Pa. 61 Henry D. Dagit 5. Bank of Montreal, Montreal, P.Q. 69 McKim, Mead & White and A. T. Taylor 6. Church of St. Barbara, Brooklyn, N.Y. 43 Helmle & Huberty 7. Girard Trust Company, Philadelphia, Pa. 101 McKim, Mead & White and Allen Evans 8. University of New York, New York City 56 McKim, Mead & White 9. McKinley National Memorial, Canton, Ohio 56 H. Van Buren Magonigle 10. St. Paul's Cathedral, Columbia U., New York City 52 Howells & Stokes 11. Rodef Shalem Synagogue, Pittsburgh, Pa. 90 Palmer & Hornbostel 12. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va. 70 McKim, Mead & White 13. Elephant House, Bronx Park, New York City 34 Heins & La Farge 14. Madison Square Presby'n Church, N. Y. City 46 McKim, Mead & White 15. J.J. Jermain Memorial Library, Sag Harbor, N.Y. 30 Augustus N. Allen "The Guastavino System of Tile Arch Construction" (May 1931) by William E. Blodgett, Pencil Points During the construction of the Boston Public Library it occurred to both Mr. McKim, the architect, and to Mr. Guastavino that a fine effect might be produced if we could get a more finished tile for the soffit course, laying same carefully and jointing it and leaving it for a finish. We succeeded in having some of this type of material made and the first finished installation was in the Boston Public Library both in unglazed and glazed material. The development of this manufacturing business has been the salvation of our contracting business. I do not see how we could have continued to this day unless we had been able to control the manufacture of our own finished products. "The Mechanics of Timbrel Vaults: A Historical Outline" (2003) by Santiago Huerta, Essays in the History of Mechanics, pp. 87-133. A source @Archivo Digital UPM, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Timbrel vaults are masonry vaults, with a good strength in compression, and can be constructed with remarkable thinness and without the use of Formwork. Known in the fourteenth century and commonly constructed by the sixteenth, until the middle of the nineteenth century, timbrel vaulting was used... in churches, floor systems and staircases. At the end of the nineteenth century Rafael Guastavino exported the method to the United States... The method is analogous to the construction of brick vaults without formwork, which were widely used in Byzantium... These are built with lime mortar, which sets... slowly, and the adhesion of the bricks is achieved by inclining the brick courses, but the construction proceeds in a similar way forming arches or rings. Timbrel vaults are... constructed without centering or other support. ...Bricks are placed in arches or successive rings to complete the vault... During construction.., bricks are supported by the adhesion of... fast-setting mortar... [G]uides are used to control the geometry... From the beginning of the nineteenth century, timbrel vaulting began to be used in Spain and France for the construction of roofs and floors of industrial buildings... Portland cement allowed them to be used as as roofs, without... other waterproofing methods. In Catalonia towards the end of the nineteenth... and the beginning of the twentieth century the timbrel vault became something of a national symbol... Guastavino...exported the method to the United States... and the method developed a greater importance than ever before. 'Guastavino vaulting' was use in many of the most important buildings between 1890 and 1900 in the eastern United States... The first architectural treatises made no essential distinction between the structural behaviour of timbrel vaults... brick or stone vaults. ...[A]t the beginning of the eighteenth century... some architects perceived lack of durability and safety. ...[T]imbrel vaults were considered to function... different... than conventional stone or brick vaulting. [T]hey were considered to be monolithic and to exert no thrust. Guastavino classified them as "cohesive constructions," as opposed to... held in place by gravity. Then followed attempts to make elastic analysis, which ended many times in failure. Eventually in Spain, timbrel vaulting came to be known as "impossible to calculate"... [A]s a result, some... have been demolished and substituted with... conventional... systems. Noncohesive[T]imbrel vaults are masonry vaults. ...[T]hey have little resistance to tension, they crack, and they thrust. They are neither monolithic nor cohesive. They... should be calculated with the same methods used for a vault of masonry. They are... durable if they receive... necessary maintenance. The... architectural treatise of Fray Lorenzo de San Nicolás.., 1639.., revealing that, independent of material, the vault must be provided with lateral support to carry the thrust to the buttresses. He indicates that it is necessary to fill the haunches for the first third of the vault height and to provide supporting transversal walls, called legüetas, in the second third. (This... traditional way... was followed... by Guastavino...) "The Analysis of Masonry Architecture: A Historical Approach" (2008) by Santiago Huerta, Architectural Science Review Vol. 51.4, pp. 297-328. A source @Archivo Digital UPM, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. The analysis of the equilibrium of domes was much easier due to the axial symmetry... [T]he dome is imagined divided into orange slices my meridian planes and every two opposed slices form an arch. Sometimes... hoop compressive forces in the upper part were considered... followed by other[s]... e.g., Körner, 1901... Eddy, in 1878, devised a graphical method to calculate... both compressive and tensile [hoop forces]... for a membrane state (thrust within the middle surface) and Föppl (1881) applied the method to masonry domes. The method permitted the calculation of domes of revolution of any form. Dunn diffused the approach in America ca. 1900 and Guastavino used it extensively for the design of thin brick domes in the first third of the 20th Century... However, the usual approach was zero hoop stresses and the same technique as in arch analysis could then be used. In America... at the beginning of the 20th Century, graphical equilibrium analysis was used to check the feasibility of the modern design of old historical domed and vaulted structures. Examples were the level of detail reached in the analysis of the Chapel of St. Paul at Columbia University... and vaults built by the Spanish architect Guastavino... "Building Guastavino dome in China" (2014) : A historical survey of the dome of the Auditorium at Tsinghua University by Yishi Liu, Frontiers of Architectural Research Vol. 3, pp. 121-140. A Source @ScienceDirect.com The most popular pattern for a campus in America that emerged toward the end of the 19th century, within the Beaux-Arts context and the "City Beautiful" movement in America in the years following the Chicago Fair, was based on the form of Jefferson's University of Virginia... [T]he fire that damaged Jefferson's Rotunda in 1895, followed by Stanford White's remodeling... brought... national news and... helped popularize it. Stanford White built other educational edifices... with the same construction technique. ...Mckim, Mead and [Stanford] White... built magnificent buildings employing Guastavino Co. to build large domes in the end of the 19th century, such as Low Library at Columbia University. Domed architecture was widely adopted in blossoming American cities in the Northeast... In 1895, the Rotunda was severely damaged by fire, and Stanford White was hired to remodel the building and to design additional academic structures... In the reconstruction of the dome of the Rotunda, Stanford employed Guastavino Company to apply a fireproof structure... It was the... company and its technique that Stanford and his firm collaborated on many other famous educational projects including those in Columbia University and New York University. [I]n the 17th century craftsmen in Roussilon.., of South France developed a... flat vault... Roussilon Vault... of one or more layers of thin tiles laid in quick-setting plaster mortar on a movable centering with a low elliptical profile. This... was brought to Catalonia... later, and because of cheap cost, for centuries "the builders of Catalonia and Roussillon had employed light, flat, tile vaults..." ...[T]hey are thinner, have a lower rise, and are capable of covering greater spans than stone vaults, setting the foundation for Catalan vaulting manner to which the Guastavino system belonged.' This method... cannot only be used to build roofs and floors, but also applied to walls and facades, as... shown in Antonio Gaudi's and Cesar Martinell's works. Ref: Turpin C. Bannister, "The Roussillon Vault: The Apotheosis of a “Folk” Construction" Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians (Oct., 1968) Vol. 27, No. 3. pp. 163–175. "Tile vaulting in the 21st century" (2016) D. López López, T. Van Mele, P. Block, La bóveda tabicada en el siglo XXI Informes de la Construcción Vol. 68, No. 544, e162, pp. 1-9. The tile vaulting technique experienced its first period of innovations mainly thanks to the Guastavinos and the Catalan Art Nouveau. Rafael Guastavino Moreno... started the modern application of the traditional technique in the late 1860s in Barcelona. He replaced the lime mortar by Portland cement mortar, obtaining higher and quicker strength, and introduced... iron... reinforcement. Guastavino built many... projects of several typologies featuring tile vaults in Catalonia, but his main innovations... would come... after emigrating to the United States with his [9 yr old] son Rafael Guastavino Expósito... in 1881. The Guastavino Company was able to adapt... to the American... market, fulfilling requirements... as fireproofing, soundproofing, sanitation and decoration. The Guastavinos developed... twenty four patents... covering the entire... process, including construction details, new materials and structural issues... making "substantial contributions to the development of the traditional tile vault as an engineered structural system". ...[T]hey built ...vaults in more than a thousand buildings ...Extraordinary feats of engineering were achieved with spans up to 40 meters and where the tile vault is at the core ... Ref: subquote is from John Ochsendorf, Guastavino Vaulting: The art of structural Tile (2010) pp. 155-156. "Guastavino Tile Vaults. The Long Migration of a Building Technique" (2019) by Santiago Huerta, Migration und Baukultur. Transformation des Bauens durch individuelle und kollektive Einwanderung Kulturelle und technische Werte historischer Bauten (3), pp. 183-202. A source @Archivo Digital UPM, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. This paper outlines the migration of an invention, the tile vault, from its origin, somewhere in the Mediterranean basin, probably in the south of Spain during the Islamic period between the 8th and 11th centuries, to its subsequent diffusion throughout Spain, France and Italy in the 18th and 19th centuries. Eventually... [it] reached North America in the 1880s thanks to the ingenuity, passion, and determination of... Rafael Guastavino. ...The migration of tile vaulting... spans over 1000 years and three continents. George R. Collins miraculously rescued the Guastavino Archives when Guastavino Co. closed in 1962... and... wrote a seminal paper... [I]n the 1990s an important Guastavino exhibition was organised in New York. ...[I]n 1999, the APT Bulletin published a special issue on the preservation of Guastavino's vaults, including... his patents. In 2001 the first book [ed. Parks & Neumann] on Guastavino... was published... [with] a large number of the original drawings and photographs... John Ochsendorf published a comprehensive monograph... In the last two decades, interest... has grown exponentially... Ref: 1) George R. Collins (1968). "The transfer of Thin Masonry Vaulting from Spain to America" Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 176-201. 2) Guastavino Fireproof Construction Company architectural records, 1866-1985, bulk 1890-1942 Avery Drawings & Archives, Columbia University. 3) Janet Parks, A. G. Neumann eds., The Old world builds the New. The Guastavino Company and the technology of the catalan vault, 1885-1962 (1996) 3) John Ochsendorf, Guastavino Vaulting: The Art of Structural Tile (2010) See also Arch Architecture Clay Mohr–Coulomb theory Thin-shell structure External links Guastavino Fireproof Construction Company architectural records, 1866-1985, bulk 1890-1942 Avery Drawings & Archives, Columbia University Libraries RafaelGuastavino.com Rafael Guastavino - 1842 / 1908 - The Brickbuilder February 1908 from Philly & Stuff @blogspot.com. Guastavino, Rafael, Sr. (1842-1908) @Architects and Builders'' A Biographical Dictionary @NC State University Libraries. YouTube videos The Art of Structural Tile John Ochsendorf @National Building Museum channel. Documental Rafael Guastavino El Arquitecto de Nueva York @Domenec Balet i Nadal channel. Note: En Español (requires English closed caption translation) "Form and Forces" - John Ochsendorf @Harvard GSD channel Guastavino Vaulting: From Barcelona to Black Mountain John Ochsendorf @UNCA Ramsey Library Video Production channel. John Ochsendorf @PINC Experience channel. Category:1842 births Category:1908 deaths Category:Architects from Spain Category:Architects from the United States Category:Immigrants to the United States Category:Businesspeople from New York City Category:Roman Catholics