TN 1_2009_BT

12009/1

Transsylvania Nostra

n We are about to enter our third year of publication. We did not take an easy road, since it is highly challenging to launch a journal that has no prec-edence. When our first issue appeared in 2007, we knew that there might be a demand for it, since we started a bilingual journal, unique in RomaniaLooking back at these first two years, there have been deficiencies as well. We have sadly realised, from the negative feedback, that specialists working in the field of built heritage unfortunately do not always require English translation. In spite of this, we insist on the translations, be-cause if we wish to address groups of international specialists, the articles being published in English, too, is an indispensable approach. The distribu-tion of the journal continues to cause serious problems, namely because the Romanian distribution network has serious deficiencies. The specialised firms are unable to find appropriate solutions for handling the problem.At the same time, from the positive feedback, we dare to conclude that our two-year work was not in vain. Following the meeting of the Editorial Committee in 2008, we have adopted a new design and by the end of the year the number of our subscrib-ers has also grown considerably.We have plans for this year as well. At present we are working on systematiz-ing the publishing of the journal. We have doubled the journal's number of pages, responding thus to the increasing demand for the publica-tion of scientific research results.By the end of 2009, according to our expectations, we will successfully publish the third year's issues, then we will submit our application to The National Higher Education Research Council (CNCSIS) for accreditation of the journal's scientific level.Our intention is to make the journal easily accessible for all the special-ists in built heritage, for this reason we are present on the Internet as well, where several archived issues are available (in a lower quality).We hope, we will be able to broaden our readership this year as well, and at the same time to pub-lish more scientific articles in the varied field of built heritage.

Enikõ TAKÁCSEditorial General Secretary

n Az elsõ két évfolyam után immár a harmadikat írhatjuk. Nem volt könnyû utunk, hiszen nagyon nehéz olyan lapot indítani, amelynek nincs elõzménye. Amikor 2007-ben az elsõ lapszámunk megjelent, tudtuk, hogy lesz rá igény, hiszen Romániában egyedülálló, két nyelven megjelenõ folyóiratot bocsátottunk útjára. Kétéves távlatból nézve, akadtak hiá-nyosságok. Negatív visszajelzésekbõl szomorúan tapasztaltuk, hogy az épített örökség területén munkálko-dó szakemberek sajnos nem minden esetben igénylik az angol nyelvû fordítást. Ennek ellenére mi kitartunk a fordítás mellett, hiszen ha valóban a nemzetközi szakembercsoporthoz szeretnénk szólni, akkor elengedhe-tetlen a cikkek megjelentetése angol nyelven is. A lap terjesztése továbbra is komoly gondot okoz, ugyanis Románi-ában a lapterjesztõ hálózatnak súlyos hiányosságai vannak. A szakosodott cégek képtelenek megfelelõ megoldá-sokat találni a kérdés kezelésére.Ugyanakkor a pozitív visszajelzésekbõl arra merünk következtetni, hogy nem volt hiábavaló a kétévi munkánk. 2008-ban a szerkesztõbizottsági gyûlést követõen új külalakkal je-lentkeztünk, és év végére elõfizetõink száma is jelentõsen megnövekedett.Idénre is vannak terveink. Jelenleg a kiadvány megjelenésének rendszeressé-gén dolgozunk. A folyóirat oldalszámait kétszeresére növeltük, ami jelzi, hogy a tudományos kutatások eredményei-nek közlésére egyre nagyobb az igény. Az év végéig, reményeink szerint, sikeresen megjelentetjük a harmadik évfolyam lapszámait, ezt követõen leadhatjuk majd a pályázatun-kat a Felsõoktatásbeli Tudományos Kutatások Országos Tanácsához (CNCSIS), a folyóirat tudományos jellegének elismertetése végett. A folyóiratot igyekszünk könnyen elérhetõvé tenni az épített örök-ség szakemberei számára, emiatt a világhálón is jelen vagyunk, ahol archiválva (gyengébb minõségben) bizonyos lapszámaink elolvashatók. Reményeink szerint idén is sikerül majd az olvasóközönségünket bõvíteni, ugyanakkor egyre több tudományos cikket megjelentetni az épített örök-ség változatos szakterületeirõl.

TAKÁCS EnikõSzerkesztõségi fõtitkár

n Am ajuns deja la cel de-al trei-lea an de apariþie al revistei. Drumul nostru nu a fost unul uşor, pentru cã lansarea unei publicaþii care nu are precedent este întotdeauna dificilã. Dar ştiam cã va fi binevenitã când în 2007 a apãrut primul numãr al acestei reviste bilingve, unice în România.Privind din perspectiva celor doi ani de apariþie, am observat însã şi deficienþe. În urma reacþiilor negative faþã de traducerea articolelor în limba englezã, am consta-tat cu tristeþe cã specialiştii din dome-niul protecþiei patrimoniului construit din pãcate nu apreciazã întotdeauna aceste traduceri. În pofida acestui fapt, noi insistãm asupra prezenþei în revistã a articolelor traduse într-o limbã de circulaþie internaþionalã, indispensabilã pentru legãtura cu specialiştii de talie internaþionalã. Distribuþia revistei continuã sã întâlneascã probleme serioase, din cauza deficienþelor cu care se confruntã în România reþeaua de distribuþie, firmele de profil nereuşind sã gãseascã soluþii adec-vate pentru rezolvarea acestui neajuns.Totuşi, bazându-ne pe reacþiile pozitive primite, îndrãznim sã tragem concluzia cã munca noastrã pe parcursul acestor doi ani nu a fost zadarnicã. Dupã şedinþa comitetului redacþional din 2008, am adoptat o prezentare exterioarã nouã, astfel cã, pânã la sfârşitul anului, numãrul abonaþilor noştri a crecut considerabil.Şi pentru acest an avem noutãþi. În prezent ne-am concentrat efortu-rile înspre sistematizarea apariþiei publicaþiei. Am dublat numãrul de pagini al revistei, fapt ce rãspunde creşterii continue a cerinþei pentru publicarea rezultatelor cercetãrilor ştiinþifice.Pânã la sfârşitul lui 2009, intenþionãm sã editãm numerele acestui al treilea an, dupã care vom înainta cãtre Consi-liul Naþional al Cercetãrii Ştiinþifice din Învãþãmântul Superior (CNCSIS) cererea de acreditare la un nivel ştiinþific a revistei.Ne strãduim ca revista noastrã sã fie cât mai accesibilã pentru toþi specialiştii din domeniul protecþiei patrimoniului constru-it şi, din aceastã cauzã, suntem prezenþi şi pe Internet, unde anumite numere arhivate pot fi citite (cu unele restricþii).Sperãm ca şi în acest an sã reuşim lãrgirea cercului nostru de cititori, iar, în acelaşi timp, sã publicãm un numãr cât mai mare de articole ştiinþifice din acest domeniu atât de variat cum este cel al protecþiei patrimoniului.

Enikõ TAKÁCSSecretar general de redacþie

greetings • preambul • köszöntő

2 2009/1


2008/42

overview • raport • jelentés

2009/12

n Asociaþia Restauratorilor de Mo-numente Istorice din Transilvania a organizat în perioada 16-18 octom-brie 2008, la Cluj-Napoca, cea de-a 12-a ediþie a Seriei Simpozioanelor Internaþionale de Structuri portan-te istorice pe tema Structuri istorice din lemn. Co-organizatorii acestei ediþii au fost Comitetul Naþional Ro-mân ICOMOS, Fundaþia Transsyl-vania Nostra, Ministerul Culturii şi Cultelor – Bucureşti, Universitatea Tehnicã din Cluj-Napoca, INCERC Filiala Cluj-Napoca, în colaborare cu Universitatea „Lucian Blaga” din Sibiu – Facultatea de Istorie şi Patri-moniu „Nicolae Lupu”, Catedra de Conservare şi Restaurare.

Programat pe durata a trei zile, simpozionul a debutat în prima zi cu prelegeri (prezentându-se rapoar-te generale, studii de caz) şi dezba-teri pe tematica datã. Ziua a doua s-a desfãşurat la Bistriþa, unde în cadrul unui workshop s-a pus în discuþie vulnerabilitatea structuri-lor din lemn, respectiv cazul recent al incendiului care a afectuat Biseri-ca Evanghelicã din Bistriþa, iar cea de-a treia zi a simpozionului a cu-prins vizite de studiu la biserici din judeþul Sãlaj.

n Az Erdélyi Mûemlék-restaurá to -rok Egyesülete 2008. október 16–18. kö zött rendezte meg Kolozsváron a Történeti tartószerkezetek nemzet-közi konferenciasorozat 12. üléssza-kát, Történeti faszerkezetek temati-kával. A 2008-as ülésszak társ szer ve-zõi voltak az ICOMOS Román Nem-zeti Bizottság, a Transsylvania Nost-ra Alapítvány, a román Mûvelõ dési Minisztérium, a Kolozsvári Mû szaki Egyetem, az INCERC kolozsvári fi-ókja és a nagyszebeni Lucian Blaga Egyetem történelem és kulturális örökség karának keretében mûködõ konzerválási és restaurálási tanszék. A háromnaposra tervezett kon feren-cia elsõ napja elõadá sokkal indult (általános beszámolókat és esetta-nulmányokat mutattak be), illetve a téma megvitatásával folytatódott. A második nap Besztercén zajlott, ahol mûhely keretében a faszerkeze-tek sérülékenysége, illetve a beszter-cei evangélikus templomban 2008-ban pusztító tûzvész esete volt a megbe-szélések témája, végül, a konferen-cia harmadik napján tanulmányi lá-togatások következtek Szilágy me-gyei templomokban. Az eseményen nagyszámban részt vevõ szakembe-rek ezúttal is igazolták a témavá-

n The Transylvanian Historic Build-ing Conservationists’ Society organ-ized, between October 16-18th, 2008, in Cluj-Napoca, the 12th edition of the International Conference on Historic Structures, having the topic Historic Timber Structures. The co-organizers of this edition were: the ICOMOS Romanian National Committee, the Transsylvania Nostra Foundation, the Romanian Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairs – Bucharest, the Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning of the Technical Univer-sity in Cluj-Napoca, INCERC – Cluj-Napoca, in collaboration with the “Lucian Blaga” University in Sibiu – “Nicolae Lupu” Faculty of History and Heritage, Preservation and Res-toration Department.

The three-day symposium opened with a series of lectures (general reports, case studies) and debates on the given topics. The second day, a workshop was scheduled in Bis-triþa, on the topic the vulnerability of timber structures, respectively the recent case of the fire that affected the Lutheran Church in Bistriþa. The third day of the symposium includ-ed field trips to several churches in Sãlaj County.

Historic Timber Structuresreport of the organizing Committee

Structuri istorice din lemnraportul Comitetului organizatoriC

Történeti faszerkezeteka szervezőbizottság beszámolója

n szabó bálint

32009/1

Transsylvania Nostraoverview • raport • jelentés

Prezenþa în numãr mare a specia-liştilor la acest eveniment a marcat încã odatã alegerea potrivitã a tema-ticii, subliniind interesul restaura-torilor de structuri portante istorice faþã de problematica structurilor de lemn, chiar dacã aceastã curiozitate este parþial susþinutã şi de lacunele cunoştinþelor specialiştilor din þarã în acest domeniu (înainte de anii ’89 numeroase serii de studenþi in-gineri constructori fiind „scutiþi” de cunoaşterea structurilor de lemn).

Unul dintre obiectivele majore ale organizatorilor prin alegerea te-mei Structuri istorice din lemn a fost stabilirea unui plan de lucru pentru continuarea în viitor a activitãþilor din domeniul vulnerabilitãþii struc-turilor din lemn, dar şi discutarea modalitãþilor de colaborare şi finan-þare a acestora prin intermediul pro-iectelor şi granturilor.

Pentru a facilita comunicarea între specialiştii din diferite þãri, în cadrul simpozionului s-a dezbãtut terminologia specificã tematicii, în cele trei limbi oficiale ale conferinþei (românã, englezã şi maghiarã).

Prima zi a conferinþei a debutat dupã formula tradiþionalã, cu prele-geri organizate în jurul tematicii struc-turilor de lemn în minunatul decor al Palatului Bánffy din Cluj-Napoca,

lasztás indokoltságát, bizonyítva a történeti tartószerkezetekkel foglal-kozó restaurátorok érdeklõdését a faszerkezetek kérdésköre iránt, bár e kíváncsiság részben a hazai szak-emberek e szakterülettel kapcsola-tos hiányos ismereteinek is tudható be (‘89 elõtt építõmérnök évfolya-mok egész sora „mentesült” a fa szer-ke zetek megismerése alól). A tör téneti faszerkezetek témával a szer vezõk egyik fõ célkitûzése, hogy olyan munkatervet dolgozzanak ki, amely-nek alapján a jövõben folytathatják a faszerkezetek sérülékenysége terü-letén végzett tevékenységeiket, ugyan-akkor a projektek és támogatások segítségével megvalósuló együtt mû-ködés és finanszírozás lehe tõségeit is megbeszélték. A részt vevõ orszá-gok szakemberei közötti kommuni-káció megkönnyítése érde kében a rendezvény három hivatalos nyel-vén (román, angol és magyar) vitat-ták meg a témakör sajátos termino-lógiáját.

A konferencia elsõ napja a hagyo-mányos módon zajlott, a faszerkeze-tek témakörét érintõ elõadásokkal. Helyszínként a kolozsvári Bánffy-pa-lota szolgált, amely jelenleg a Szép-mûvészeti Múzeumnak ad otthont. A történeti tetõszerkezetek kutatá-sának elismert szakemberei négy

The attendance of many special-ists proved once more that the topic was well-chosen, underlying the fact that restorers of historic load-bearing structures are interested in timber structures, even though this curiosity is partially accompanied by the insufficient knowledge that specialists in our country have in relation to timber structures (before ’89, many generations of students in the Faculty of Civil Engineering were “exempted” from knowing an-ything about timber structures).

One of the major objectives that the organizers had in choosing the topic Historic Timber Structures was to come up with an action plan for the continuation of activities re-lated to the vulnerability of timber structures, but also to discuss about the possibilities of collaboration and of finding financial support for these actions, by the means of various projects and grants.

In order to facilitate communi-cation among specialists in various countries, the symposium also dealt with the terminology specific to the topic, in the three official languages of the conference (Romanian, Eng-lish and Hungarian).

The first day of the conference followed the traditional formula, with lectures focused on the cho-sen topic: timber structures, in the spectacular setting of the Bánffy Palace in Cluj-Napoca, in which the Art Museum is presently lo-cated. Renowned specialists in the research of historic roof structures provided four synthetic lectures: Jiří BLÁHA (Cz) – The European Roof Structures, Premises, Present Stage of Knowledge, Project Planned; Bálint SZABÓ (Ro) – The Mechani-cal Approach of the Historic Roof Structures; Luc SCHUEREMANS (Be) – Assessing Historic Timber Roof Structures: Methodology and Case Studies from Belgian View-point; György FÁTRAI (Hu) – The Diagnostics of Historic Roof Struc-tures.

The second module included lectures focusing on timber as a material, debating on its mechani-cal and biological characteristics,

n Photo 1. Lecture in the Bánffy Palace n Foto 1. Prelegere în Palatul Bánffyn 1. kép: Előadás a Bánffy-palotában

4

Transsylvania Nostra overview • raport • jelentés

2009/14

szintézisjellegû elõadást mutattak be: Jiří BLÁHA (Cz) – Az európai tetõszerkezetek elõzményei, jelenle-gi ismert állapota, tervezett projek-tek; SZABÓ Bálint (Ro) – Történeti fedélszerkezetek mechanikája; Luc SCHUEREMANS (Be) – Történeti fa fedélszerkezetek szakvéleményezése és esettanulmány belga szempontok szerint; FÁTRAI György (Hu) – Tör-téneti tetõszerkezetek diagnosztikája.

A második modul a faanyaggal kapcsolatos elõadásokat tárgyalta, a mechanikai és biológiai jellegzetes-ségeket, a kormeghatározás nehéz-ségeit, illetve a tûz elleni védeke-zést. A következõ elõadások hang-zottak el: Livia BUCŞA, Corneliu BUCŞA (Ro) – Fa tartószerkezetek károsodásai a romániai mûemlékek-nél; BABOS Rezsõ (Hu) – A faanyag-védelemmel és védõszerekkel kap-csolatos uniós és magyarországi sza-bályozás; TAKÁCS Lajos (Hu) – Az Eurocode 5 faszerkezetek tûzállósági méretezésére vonatkozó szemléleti sajátosságai; BOTÁR István, TÓTH Boglárka (Ro) – A történeti szerkeze-tek dendrokronológiai kutatása Er-délyben (2003–2008). A délutáni mo-dul keretében az épületek fa tartó-szerkezeteirõl tanácskoztak: fatemp-lomokról, mû vé szi fakompo nen sek-rõl, az alábbi sorrendben: Niels AUNER (Ro) – Az almásrákosi és bányikai fatemplomok restaurálása; Mircea SABÃU-TÃTAR (Ro) (bemu-tatta: Dan TÃTAR) – Romániai fa-templomok inventarizációja és adat-bázis kiépítése; Sabin Pompei GRA-PINI (Ro) – A Beszterce-Naszód me-gyei Csicsógyörgyfalva templomának ikonosztáza – átmentés, konzerválás és értékesítés; Maria BOŞTENARU DAN (Ro) – Fachwerk-építészet Né-metországban és gaiola pombalina-építészet Portugáliában. A következõ modul a történeti tetõszerkezetekkel kapcsolatos elõadásokat csoportosí-totta, tárgyalva a mûszaki, mecha-nikai viselkedés és a matematikai modellezés kérdéskörét: KEGYES BRASSAI Mária, KEGYES BRASSAI Orsolya, KEGYES Csaba (Hu) – Mi legyen az ácskötésekkel?; MAKAY Dorottya (Ro) – Barokk fedélszerke-zetek Erdélyben; MIHÁLY Ferenc (Ro) – Történeti famegmunkálás;

care în prezent gãzduieşte Muze-ul Naþional de Artã Cluj. Specialişti renumiþi în domeniul cercetãrii şarpantelor istorice au prezentat pa-tru prelegeri de sintezã: Jiří BLÁHA (Cz) – Şarpantele Europene, premi-se, stadiul actual de cunoştinþe, pro-iect planificat; Bálint SZABÓ (Ro) – Mecanica şarpantelor istorice; Luc SCHUEREMANS (Be) – Metode de expertizare a şarpantelor istorice din lemn şi studiu de caz dupã criterii belgiene; György FÁTRAI (Hu) – Di-agnoza şarpantelor istorice.

Modulul al doilea a grupat prele-gerile legate de materialul lemnos, dezbãtând deopotrivã caracteristici mecanice şi biologice, probleme ale datãrii, respectiv ale protecþiei la in-cendiu. Prelegerile prezentate au fost urmãtoarele: Livia BUCŞA, Corneliu BUCŞA (Ro) – Degradãrile biologice ale structurilor de lemn la monumente-le istorice din România; Rezsõ BABOS (Hu) – Reglementãrile Uniunii Euro-pene şi ale Ungariei privind protecþia materialului lemnos. Lajos TAKÁCS (Hu) – Cerinþe specifice ale Eurocode 5 privind dimensionarea la incendiu a structurilor din lemn; István BOTÁR, Boglárka TÓTH (Ro) – Cercetarea dendocronologicã a structurilor istori-ce din Transilvania (2003–2008).

Primul modul de dupã prânz a cuprins prelegeri legate de cons truc-

dating problems, respectively the protection against fire. The lectures provided were the following: Livia BUCŞA and Corneliu BUCŞA (Ro) – Decay of Timber Load-Bearing Struc-tures at Romanian Historic Monu-ments; Rezsõ BABOS (Hu) – The Eu-ropean Union’s and Hungarian’s Re-quirements Related to the Timber Pro-tection and its Materials; Lajos TAKÁCS (Hu) – Specific Eurocode 5 Requirements Regarding the Fire-Safety Dimensioning of the Timber Structures (for Fire); István BOTÁR, Boglárka TÓTH (Ro) – The Dendro-chronologic Research of Historic Struc-tures in Transylvania (2003–2008).

The first module held in the af-ternoon comprised lectures on load-bearing structures mostly made of timber: timber churches or artistic components made of timber, as fol-lows: Niels AUNER (Ro) – The Con-servation of Timber Churches from Baica and Racâş; Mircea SABÃU-TÃTAR (Ro) (presented by Dan TÃ-TAR), – The Inventory of the Timber Churches in Romania – Database; Sabin Pompei GRAPINI (Ro) – The Wooden Iconostasis of the Church in Ciceu-Giurgeşti, Bistriþa-Nãsãud – Recovery, Conservation and Empha-sis on Values; Maria BOŞTENARU DAN (Ro) – Timber Frame Buildings: Gaiola Pombalina and Fachwerk.

n Photo 2. Specialists in the Lutheran Church of Bistriţa n Foto 2. Specialişti în Biserica Evanghelică din Bistriţan 2. kép: Szakemberek a besztercei evangélikus templomban

52009/1


LACZKOVICS János (Hu) – Templo-mok tetõszerkezetének megerõsítése – Esettanulmányok (Gyomaendrõd, Miskolc, Somlószöllõs); NAGY And-rás (Hu) – A Miskolc, Avasi mû-emléki református templom gótikus fedélszerkezet számítógépes model-lezése, tartószerkezeti kiértékelése. Az utolsó modul az inventarizáció, illetve az adatbázisok kérdéskörét tárgyalta, az elõdások a következõk voltak: Dorin ISOC (Ro) – Az épített örökség állapotának komplex moni-torizálása – egy elhivatott szolgálta-tás megbeszélése és alternatívája; EKE Zsuzsanna, KIRIZSÁN Imola (Ro) – DEBRECZENI László fedél-szerkezet-felmérései; Jiři BLÁHA (Cz) – Adatbázisok, fedélszerkezetek in-ventarizációja.

A következtetések levonása, il-letve a következõ konferencia tema-tikájának bemutatása (Romos törté-neti tartószerkezetek – várépítészet), amelyre 2010. október 21–23. között kerül sor, zárta a konferencia elsõ napját.

A szimpózium mûhelyként meg-rendezett második napját a beszter-cei evangélikus templom sürgõsségi beavatkozásainak, illetve a történeti fa tartószerkezetek tûzbiztonsága kér-dés körének szentelték. Helyszínek: a 2008 júniusi tûzvész során meg-rongálódott besztercei evangélikus

þiile cu structurã portantã realizatã preponderent din lemn: biserici din lemn, componente artistice din lemn, dupã cum urmeazã: Niels AUNER (Ro) – Restaurarea bisericilor din lemn din Baica şi Racâş; Mircea SABÃU-TÃTAR (Ro) (prezentatã de cãtre Dan TÃTAR), – Proiectul de inventa-riere a bisericilor din lemn şi consti-tuirea acestei baze de date; Sabin Pompei GRAPINI (Ro) – Iconostasul bisericii ortodoxe din Ciceu-Giur-geşti, Bistriþa-Nãsãud – Recuperare, conservare şi punere în valoare; Maria BOŞTENARU DAN (Ro) – Clãdiri cu structura din lemn: Gaiola Pombali-na şi Fachwerk.

Urmãtorul modul a prezentat pre-legerile dedicate şarpantelor istori-ce, cuprinzând probleme tehno lo-gice, comportãri mecanice şi mode-lãri matematice: Mária KEGYES BRASSAI, Orsolya KEGYES BRAS-SAI, Csaba KEGYES (Hu) – Ce se întâmplã cu îmbinãrile dulghereşti?; Dorottya MAKAY (Ro) – Şarpantele istorice cu caracter baroc din Tran-silvania; Ferenc MIHÁLY (Ro) – Pre-lucrarea istoricã a lemnului; János LACZKOVICS (Hu) – Consolidarea şarpantelor la biserici. Studii de caz din Ungaria (Gyomaendrõd, Miskolc, Somló szöllõs); András NAGY (Hu) – Modelarea pe calculator şi evalua-rea struc turii portante a şarpantei

The next module presented lec-tures focusing on historic roof struc-tures, dealing with technological problems, mechanic behaviours and mathematical modelling: Mária KE-GYES BRASSAI, Orsolya KEGYES BRASSAI, dr. Csaba KEGYES (Hu) – What Should Happen with the Car-penter Joints?; Dorottya MAKAY (Ro) – Baroque Roof Structures in Transyl-vania; Ferenc MIHÁLY (Ro) – Historic Woodworking; János LACZKOVICS (Hu) – Conservation of the Churches’ Roof Structures. Case Studies from Hungary (Gyomaendrõd, Miskolc, Som ló szöllõs); András NAGY (Hu) – The Computer Modelling and Load Bearing Structures Assessment of the Gothic Roof Structure from the Cal-vinist Church in Miskolc-Avas.

The final module dealt with the issue of inventories, respectively da-tabases, and consisted of the follow-ing lectures: Dorin ISOC (Ro) – Com-plex Monitoring of Built Heritage State – A Complex Discussion and Alternative of a Dedicated Service; Zsuzsanna EKE, Imola KIRIZSÁN (Ro) – The Roof Structures’ Survey Drawings of Architect László DEBRE-CZENI; Jiři BLÁHA (Cz) – Databas-es, Inventories of the Roof Structures.

The conclusions, respectively the presentation of the topic for the fol-lowing symposium, which will be held in October 21-23rd, 2010 (Histor-ic Load-Bearing Structures in Ruins – Fortress Engineering), concluded the first day of the conference.

The second day of the sympo-sium, organized as a workshop, was dedicated to emergency interventions on the Lutheran Church in Bistriþa, respectively the fire safety of historic timber load-bearing structures. Loca-tions: The Lutheran Church in Bis-triþa, affected by the fire in June 2008 and the Bistriþa City Hall.

The visit to the Lutheran Church and at the site of the emergency inter-vention on the nave roof structure was followed by debates moderated by: Luc SCHUEREMANS, full profes-sor at the Catholic University in Leu-ven, Department of Civil Engineering, respectively Bálint SZABÓ, president of the Organizing Committee of the Conference. Representatives of the

n Photo 3. Lecture in the Bistriţa Town Hall n Foto 3. Prelegere la Primăria Bistriţan 3. kép: Előadás a Besztercei Polgármesteri Hivatalban

6


2009/16

templom és a Besztercei Polgármes-teri Hivatal tanácsterme. Az evangé-likus templomban és a hajó tetõ-szerkezetében mûködõ gyorsbeavat-kozási építõtelep megtekintése után megbeszélések következtek. Mode-rátorok voltak: Luc SCHUEREMANS, a leuveni Katolikus Egyetem Építõ-mérnöki Tanszékének tanára, illetve SZABÓ Bálint, a konferencia szer-vezõ bizottságának elnöke. A meghí-vottak között jelen volt a Beszterce-Naszód megyei Katasztrófavédelmi Felügyelõség, a Beszterce-Naszód me-gyei Állami Építkezési Fel ügyelõség, a Mûvelõdési, Vallásügyi és Kulturá-lis Örökség Megyei Igazgatóságának és Beszterce Polgármesteri Hivatalá-nak képviselõi. Az alábbi elõadásokat mutatták be: Luc SCHUEREMANS (Be) – Tûzesetet követõ beavatkozá-sok a belgiumi Saint Truden-temp-lom tornyán; SZITÁNYINÉ SIKLÓS Magdolna (Hu) – Új utakon a fa-anyagú épületszerkezetek tûzvédelmi tervezése; TAKÁCS Lajos (Hu) – Mo-dern módszerek az égés késleltetésé-re; Georgel ONCICA (Ro) – A 2008. június 11-i besztercei evangélikus templom tûzesetének elemzése. A bemutatott elõadásokat követõen át-fogó beszélgetések zajlottak a tûz-véde lemrõl, illetve a besztercei evan-gélikus templomon végzett sürgõs-ségi beavatkozásokról.

A szimpózium harmadik nap-ján szervezett tanulmányi kirándu-lás a Kolozsvár, Bányika, Almásrá-kos, Krasz na horvát, Szilágysomlyó és Szilágysámson, Kolozsvár útvo-nalat követte. Bányikán és Almás-rákoson meglátogatták a nemrég restaurált ortodox fatemplomokat. Krasznahorváton és Krasznán be-mutatták a festett kazettás mennye-zetû református templomokat, il-letve a román tetõszerkezetet. Krasz-na horváton a résztvevõknek alkal-muk nyílt meghallgatni MIHÁLY Ferenc (RO) A kazettás mennyeze-tek és tipikus károsodásaik címû elõadását. A tanulmányi kirándu-láson végezetül meglátogatták a szi-lágysomlyói Báthory-vár romjainak feltárási munkálatait, majd a szi-lágysámsoni református templom gótikus tetõszerkezetét tekintették meg.

gotice a Bisericii Reformate din Miskolc-Avas.

Modulul final s-a referit la pro-blematica inventarierilor, respectiv a bazelor de date, fiind prezentate urmãtoarele prelegeri: Dorin ISOC (Ro) – Monitorizarea complexã a stã rii patrimoniului construit – o discuþie şi alternativa unui serviciu dedicat; Zsuzsanna EKE, Imola KIRIZSÁN (Ro) – Şarpante relevate de arhitectul László DEBRECZENI; Jiři BLÁHA (Cz) – Baze de date, inventarierea şarpantelor.

Concluziile, respectiv prezenta-rea tematicii simpozionului urmãtor, ce va avea loc în perioada 21-23 oc-tombrie 2010 (Structuri portante is-torice în ruine – ingineria cetãþilor) au încheiat prima zi a conferinþei.

Cea de-a doua zi a simpozionu-lui, organizatã sub forma unui work-shop, a fost dedicatã intervenþiilor de primã necesitate asupra Bisericii Evanghelice din Bistriþa, respectiv problematicii siguranþei la foc a struc-turilor portante istorice din lemn. Locaþii: Biserica Evanghelicã din Bistriþa, afectatã de incendiul din iu-nie 2008 şi Primãria Municipiului Bistriþa.

Dupã vizitarea Bisericii Evanghe-lice şi a şantierului de intervenþii de primã necesitate la şarpanta navei au urmat dezbateri moderate de cãtre: Luc SCHUEREMANS, profesor titu-lar la Universitatea Catolicã din Leu-ven, Departamentul de Ingi nerie Ci-vilã, respectiv Bálint SZABÓ, preşe-dintele Comitetului de Organizare a Conferinþei. Printre invi taþi s-au nu-mãrat reprezen tanþii Inspectoratului pentru Si tuaþii de Ur genþã Bistriþa-Nãsãud, ai Inspectoratului de Stat în Construcþii Bistriþa-Nãsãud, ai Direc-þiei Jude þene pentru Culturã, Culte şi Patrimoniu Cultural Bistriþa-Nãsãud şi ai Primãriei Municipiului Bistriþa.

Conferenþiarii invitaþi au pre-zentat urmãtoarele prelegeri: Luc SCHUEREMANS (Be) – Intervenþii în urma incendiului la turnul biseri-cii Saint-Truden (Belgia); Magdolna SZITÁNYINÉ SIKLÓS (Hu) – Direc-tive noi în proiectarea structurilor de lemn conform exigenþei de siguranþã la foc; Lajos TAKÁCS (Hu) – Meto-de moderne de întârziere a arderii;

Inspectorate for Emergency Situa-tions Bistriþa-Nãsãud, of the County Inspectorate in Constructions Bistriþa-Nãsãud, of the County Directorate of Culture, Religious Affairs and Cul-tural Heritage Bistriþa-Nãsãud and of the Bistriþa City Hall were among the participants.

The speakers held the following lectures: Luc SCHUEREMANS (Be) – Interventions After the Fire on the Tower of the Church in Saint-Truden (Belgium); Magdolna SZITÁNYINÉ SIKLÓS (Hu) – New Directives in Designing of the Timber Structures by Fire-Safety Requirements; Lajos TAKÁCS (Hu) – New Methods of Fire

n Photo 4. The church tower at Horoatu Crasnei n Foto 4. Turnul bisericii din Horoatu Crasnein 4. kép: A krasznahorváti templom tornya

n Photo 5. Bell tower from Crasna n Foto 5. Clopotniţa din Crasnan 5. kép: Krasznai harangtorony

72009/1


Georgel ONCICA (Ro) – Analiza in-cendiului izbucnit în data de 11 iu-nie 2008 la Biserica Evanghelicã.

Dupã prezentarea prelegerilor au avut loc dezbateri ample asupra pro-blematicii siguranþei la foc în gene-ral şi asupra intervenþiilor de primã necesitate la Biserica Evanghelicã din Bistriþa în particular.

Excursia de documentare din cea de-a treia zi a simpozionului s-a desfã şurat pe ruta Cluj-Napoca, Baica, Racâş, Horoatu Crasnei, Şimleu Sil-vaniei şi Şamşud, respectiv Cluj-Napoca. La Baica şi Racâş s-au vizi-tat bisericile ortodoxe din lemn, recent restaurate. La Horoatu Cras-nei şi Crasna s-au prezentat biseri-cile reformate cu tavan casetat pic-tat, respectiv şarpantã cu caracter romanic. La Horoatu Crasnei, parti-ci panþii au avut ocazia sã audieze pre legerea prezen tatã de Ferenc MIHÁLY (Ro), cu titlul Tavanele ca-se tate şi degradãrile specifice ale aces tora. Excursia de studiu s-a în-cheiat cu vizitarea şantierului ar-heologic de la Cetatea Báthory din Şimleu Silvaniei, respectiv a şar-pantei cu caracter gotic a bisericii reformate din Şamşud.

Delaying; Georgel ONCICA (Ro) – The Analysis of the Fire of Bistriþa’s Lutheran Church Broken Out on 11 June 2008.

Heated debates followed the lectures, focused on issues like fire safety in general and the emergen-cy interventions on the Lutheran Church in Bistriþa in particular.

The field trip was organized on the third day of the symposium, on the following route: Cluj-Napoca, Baica, Racâş, Horoatu Crasnei, Şimleu Silva-niei and Şamşud, respectively Cluj-Napoca. The recently restored Ortho-dox timber churches in Baica and Racâş were visited, as well as the Cal-vinist churches in Horoatu Crasnei and Crasna with painted coffered ceil-ings, respectively a roof structure with Romanesque character. In Horoatu Crasnei, the participants had the op-portunity to hear the lecture presented by Ferenc MIHÁLY (Ro), entitled Cof-fered Painted Ceilings and Their Typi-cal Damages. The field trip was con-cluded by the visit to the archaeologi-cal site Báthory Fortress in Şim leu Silvaniei, respectively to the roof structure with Gothic character of the Calvinist church in Şamşud.

n Photo 6. Detail of roof stucture in Şamşud Calvinist Church n Foto 6. Detaliu şarpantă

a Bisericii Reformate din Şamşudn 6. kép: Tetőrészlet a szilágysámsoni

református templomban

n Photo 7. Documentary field-trip to the timber church of Baica n Foto 7. Excursie de studiu

la biserica de lemn din Baican 7. kép: Tanulmányi kirándulás

a bányikai fatemplomhoz

8 2009/1

Transsylvania Nostra researCh • CerCetare • kutatás

n mihálY ferenc

adatok az erdélyi famegmunkálás történetéhezaz áCsmesterségről

n The prerequisite of the research, study and restoration of historic timber structures and works of art is to have understanding of their construction technology. In order for us to authentically determine their age, to correctly judge their degree of decay, as well as to carry out complete studies, we need to know the material and construction technology of our objects. We can approach this subject from different angles. The guid-ing principle is to identify the written sources. Archival materials, inventories, guild doc-uments and accounting books contain some very interesting data regarding his-torical woodworking. Very useful pieces of information are also provided by the por-trayals of different periods. Many original tools are depicted on engravings, as well as images presenting construction works and different trades. In the case of those car-penters who created “Christ’s cross”, we can admire the authentic image of carpen-try tools from different periods (gimlet, hatch-et, saw). Last but not least, the detailed ex-amination of the object can reveal informa-tion on the woodworking processes. Klára K. CSILLÉRY’s methodology is exemplary; she is one of the most famous researchers of this subject and she successfully blends etymology into her researches on wood-working.

From the family of woodworking trades, the carpenters formed the first association.1 In the Middle Ages, many trades connected with woodworking emerged from or ap-peared at the same time as carpentry. In Transylvania, carpentry was first mentioned in a document in 1291. Peter, the Transyl-vanian bishop, entered into an agreement with four Transylvanian Saxon carpenters (from Cricãu, Câlnic, Gârbova and Alba Iulia) regarding some repair works on the Cathe-dral in Alba Iulia, which was ravaged by the Saxons from Alba Iulia in 1277.2 The agreement throws some light on certain de-tails regarding the customs of those times and the division of labor. The parties to the

1 CSILLÉRY 2007.2 ENTZ, 96.

a study of the history of transylvanian Woodworking

about CarpentrY

n A fából épített történeti szerkezetek és mûalkotások kutatásának, meg-ismerésének és helyreállításának alapfeltétele a készítéstechnika ismere-te. Hiteles kormeghatározáshoz, a károsodási mérték józan megítéléséhez, illetve esetenként a hiteles kiegészítések készítéséhez nélkülözhetetlen a tárgy anyagának és készítéstechnikájának ismerete. A témakör kutatásá-hoz több irányból közelíthetünk. A vezérfonalat az írott források számba-vétele jelenti. Levéltári források, leltárak, céhes iratok és számadásköny-vek jó néhány érdekes adattal szolgálnak a történeti famegmunkálásra vonatkozóan. Hasonlóan hasznos ismeretekkel gazdagítanak különbözõ korok ábrázolásai. Építkezést, különbözõ mesterségeket bemutató metsze-teken, táblaképeken több korabeli szerszám hiteles ábrázolását találhat-juk. A Krisztus keresztfáját készítõ ácsok esetében több korszak ácsszer-számainak (fúró, faragóbárd, fûrész) hiteles képét csodálhatjuk. De nem utolsósorban a tárgy alapos vizsgálata során is olyan nyomok bukkannak elõ, amelyek sok mindent elárulnak a fa megmunkálásáról. Példaértékû K. CSILLÉRY Klára, a témakör legjelesebb kutatójának módszertana, aki mindezek mellett az etimológiát is sikeresen hívja segítségül a famesterség kutatásában.

A famesterségeket ûzõ szakmák családjából a legkorábbi szervezõdést az ácsszakmák háza táján követhetjük nyomon.1 Több, a famegmunkálás-hoz köthetõ mesterség az ácsszakmából vagy vele párhuzamosan alakul ki a középkorban. Erdélyben az ácsmesterség talán elsõ írásos említése 1291-bõl való. Az erdélyi Péter püspök szerzõdést köt négy szász (boroskrakkói, kelneki, szászorbói és gyulafehérvári) áccsal a gyulafehérvári Székesegy-ház 1277-es, szászok okozta pusztításának kijavítására.2 A szerzõdés rá-világít néhány részletre a korabeli szokásokra avagy munkamegosztásra vonatkozóan. A szerzõdõ ácsoknak a faszerkezetek építésén, javításán kí-vül fal- és boltozatjavítást is kell végezniük. A megbízás szerint mielõbb munkához kell kezdeniük az erdõben, a gerendákhoz való fák döntésé-vel, megmunkálásával. Ezek elszállítása után az erdõben a deszkák (ha-sított pallók?) megmunkálását folytatják. A fa kitermelése, feldarabolása és elõkészítése az ácsok feladata, a szerzõdõ összeg ellenében, míg a fa szállítása az erdõbõl, a kötelek, szögek (!) és más anyagok beszerzése és kifizetése a püspököt terheli. Munkájuk jótállásáért hites egyházi és világi emberek kezességet vállalnak. A XVI. századtól megsokszorozódik az ács-mesterségre vonatkozó írásos adat Erdélyben.3 Lazán, de körvonalazódik

1 CSILLÉRY 2007. 2 ENTZ, 96.3 EMSzT, 71–72.

researCh • CerCetare • kutatás

92009/1


agreement, the carpenters, had to carry out repair works not only on the wooden struc-tures, but also on the masonry and vaults. According to the agreement, they had to start the work immediately in the forest, with the felling and processing of timber and beams. After their transportation they carry on with the processing of planks in the woods. The lumbering, cutting and pre-paring of wood is the carpenters’ duty in exchange for the contract price, while the bishop has to meet the transportation costs of the timber from the woods and the costs of buying ropes, nails(!) and other materi-als. Honest and decent laymen and church dignitaries guarantee for their work. We find more and more written data on car-pentry in Transylvania from the 16th cen-tury.3 Their activity is outlined (shingling, carving knobs on the porch roof, building bridges, etc.) and in some places even their tools are mentioned (hatchet, saw) in these documents.

The carpentry activity, especially in the Middle Ages, has to be treated in a broader sense. Before the appearance of the sawn materials (boards, planks), more specifical-ly prior to the development and separation of the joiner’s trade, beside the building structures, the carpenters made chests and other articles for personal use. We know from Klára K. CSILLÉRY’s researches that beds, chairs and cradles were also made with the use of carpentry technologies.4 Even in our time we can find carpentered planks on the tread level of many Transyl-vanian churches. Most relics are found in Saxon fortified churches, where the tower and loft were used for defense and storage. We would like to mention the wooden floors of the loft or those of the different storeys of the tower in the churches from Brãdeni or Netuş. The board fence of the church-

3 EMSzT, the Transylvanian Hungarian Etymo-logical Dictionary, 71-72.

4 CSILLÉRY 1982

tevékenységi keretük (zsindelyezés, tornác tetejére gombfaragás, hídépítés stb.), és néhány esetben a szerszámaikra vonatkozóan (ácsbárd, ácsfûrész) is találunk tájékoztatást.

Az ácsszakma tevékenységi körét, fõként a középkorban, tágabb ér-telemben kell kezelni. A fûrészelt áru (deszka, palló) megjelenése elõtt, pontosabban az asztalosszakma kialakulását, különválását megelõzõen, az épületszerkezeteken kívül az ácsok ládákat és más használati tárgyakat is készítettek. K. CSILLÉRY Klára kutatásaiból tudjuk, hogy ácsolt techniká-val ágyak, székek és bölcsõk is készültek.4 Számos erdélyi templomban a járószintek kiképzésénél napjainkban is fellelhetõ az ácsolt pallók alkal-mazása. A fennmaradt emlékek jelentõs része a szász templomerõdökben található, ahol a torony és a padlástér szintjeit védekezésre, raktározásra is használták. Többek között a hégeni vagy netusi templom padlásterébe vagy toronyszintjeibe beépített fa járószinteket, padlókat említeném. De hasonló, bárdolt technikával alakították a nyárádszentmártoni cinterem fapalánkját is. Igényes kiképzésû, ácsolt technikájú tölgyfa karzatmellvéd-del a gógánváraljai református templom nyugati karzatánál találkozha-tunk. Sajnos az ízlésváltozásnak köszönhetõen a mellvéd templomtér felé esõ részét a késõbbiekben elfedték, viszont hátoldalról megcsodálható e ritkaságszámba menõ remekmû. Ácsolt technikával készült hajdani nyí-lászáróink jelentõs része, melyeknek több tucatnyi szép példájával ma is találkozunk az erdélyi templomokban. A vaskos, keményfából bárdolt fa-lapokat egyik felérõl – többnyire belülrõl – két-három hevederrel mereví-tették vízszintesen. Az ajtó vagy kapuszárny külsõ oldalát esetenként csu-paszon hagyták (eceli kapuszárny, netusi torony alatti ajtó), de gyakrab-ban fémpántokkal erõsítették. Mintegy kéttucatnyi ilyennemû ajtó maradt fenn szász és magyar templomokban, ahol az ajtószárny külsõ oldalára vásott kerékvasat (kerékráfvas), megkopott, törött, használhatatlanná vált gazdasági eszközöket (kapa, ásó, lapát) szegeltek. Mindezt bizonyára nem annyira a mai szemnek tetszetõs díszítés végett tették, hanem annál inkább az ajtó erõsségét, védelmi szerepét növelték. Ezeknél a vaskos ajtó- vagy kapuszárnyaknál a fém sarokpántot gyakran helyettesítették fatengelyes kõ- vagy fémperselyes nyílószerkezettel (Székelyderzs, Szászfehéregyhá-za, Netus, Ecel). Néhány Medgyes környéki XV. századi templomajtónál (Somogyom) az ajtólap külsõ oldalára hálószerû, az ajtóra szabott díszes

4 CSILLÉRY 1982.

n 1. ábra: Ácsok munka közben. Jost AMMAN (1539–1591), Nürnberg n Figure 1. Carpenters at work.

Jost AMMAN (1539–1591), Nuremberg

n 2. ábra: Ácsok munka közben – 1460 n Figure 2. Carpenters at work – 1460

n 3. ábra: Ácsok munka közben – 1540 n Figure 3. Carpenters at work – 1540

10 2009/1


yard in Mitreşti was made with a similar carving technique. We find an accurately formed carpentered oak gallery banister at the western gallery of the Calvinist Church in Goganvarolea. Unfortunately due to a change in trends, the part of the banister close to the church was covered; however this rare masterpiece can be admired from the back. Most of the doors and windows were carpentered; we can see a few beauti-ful examples in the Transylvanian church-es. The massive hardwood panels were hor-izontally connected by two or three bands on one side – mainly on the inside. They sometimes left the external part of the doors or gates bare (the gate in Aþel and the door under the tower in Netuş), but these were often reinforced with metal bands. Around two dozens of these doors were preserved in Saxon and Hungarian churches, where worn-out iron parts of wheels, broken and unusable agricultural tools (hoe, spade, shovel) were nailed on the outside of the door-leaf. This wasn’t meant to be decora-tive, these tools made the door stronger and increased its defense role. In the case of these solid doors and gates, they often replaced the corner brackets by opening structures with stone or metal bushes and wooden axles (in Dârjiu, Viscri, Netuş, Aþel). In the case of many church doors from the 15th century found in the villages around Mediaş (Şmig) a splendid wrought iron net-like ornament is nailed on the outside of the door-leaf, which ends in corner brackets on one side placed on metal supports embed-ded in stone frames.

The most popular group of articles for personal use with carpentered structures are still the chests. Klára K. CSILLÉRY car-ried out detailed researches on these ob-jects up to the middle of the 20th century, in the traditional peasant culture.5 The oldest

5 CSILLÉRY 1982–CSILLÉRY 2007–VEREBÉLYI, 59–69.

kovácsoltvasat szegeltek, mely egyik felõl sarokpántokban végzõdik, ráül-ve a kõkeretbe erõsített fémpipákra.

Az ácsolt szerkezetû használati tárgyak legnépesebb csoportját mégis-csak a ládák alkotják. Ugyancsak K. CSILLÉRY Klárának köszönhetjük e témakör részletes kutatását egészen a XX. század közepéig a parasztkul-túrában.5 E mûfaj legkorábbi fennmaradt példányai a XV–XVI. századból, az erdélyi szász templomokból származnak. A fennmaradt példányokból közel húsz darab múzeumokba került, de jelentõs részük ma is megtalál-ható templompadlásokon, tornyokban (Szászfehéregyháza, Netus, Miklós-telke). A legnagyobb, 126 darabból álló láda-együttest a hégeni templom kétszintes padlástere õrzi. A bükkfából ácsolt, igényes festéssel díszített nagyméretû ládák másodlagos elhelyezésben vannak a templompad-lásokon. Eredetileg ezen ládák a szász parasztság értékesebb tárgyainak (ruhanemû, textília és más értékek) megõrzésére készültek, és csak a má-sodlagos elhelyezésben, a torony és padlásterekben nyerték a gabonatáro-lási funkciót. Készülhettek akár kelengyés ládákként is. Sötét, alig látható környezetbe bizonyára nem készült volna az igényes festés. Ugyancsak a korábbi funkció mellett szól az is, hogy a ládák kisebb, rejtett rekesszel vagy rekeszekkel, úgynevezett ládafiával vannak ellátva, mely kisebb érté-kek õrzésére szolgált. A ládáknak jelentõs része középen akasztásra vagy tárolásra alkalmas ruhatartó rúddal van ellátva. Díszítésük alapján két cso-portba sorolhatók. Nagyobb részükön a láda két elsõ sarokoszlopán egy-egy egészalakos emberábrázolás (talán egy férfi és egy nõ) látható, míg a három vízszintes összekötõ közül a két szélesebben rozettákban (általában négy-négy) heraldikai, illetve bestiáriumok ábrázolásaihoz hasonló állatfi-gurák (sárkányok, oroszlánok, szörnyek) láthatók. A két figura kéztartása esetenként változik, van csípõre tett kéz, felemelt kéz; fejükön, sisakjukon pedig esetenként szarvhoz vagy ághoz hasonló díszítés látható. A század-fordulón múzeumba került egyik, jobb megtartású láda figuráinak viselete a Zsigmond-kori öltözet jegyeit hordozza.6 A nagyméretû, koporsófedelû ácsolt ládák díszítésének másik változata nagy, növényi indadíszes rozet-tákból van kialakítva. A szóban forgó ácsolt ládák kormeghatározására, eredeti funkciójára, illetve a díszítésre vonatkozóan igencsak megoszla-

5 CSILLÉRY 1982–CSILLÉRY 2007–VEREBÉLYI, 59–69.6 VADÁSZI, 68.

n 4. ábra: Gerenda-faragás – 1532 n Figure 4. Beam carving – 1532

n 6. ábra: A gerenda bárdolása. 1514 – Bécs n Figure 6. Beam hewing with hatchet.

1514 – Vienna

n 5. ábra: Krisztus keresztfáját készítő ácsok. Isaac van MECKENEN, XV. század vége. n Figure 5. Carpenters making “Christ’s cross”.

Isaac van MECKENEN, the end of the 15th century.


112009/1


preserved samples are from the 15–16th cen-turies, in the Transylvanian Saxon church-es. Around 20 chests are kept in museums, but most of them are still kept in church attics, towers (Viscri, Netuş, Cloaşterf). The biggest collection made up of 126 chests is in the two-storey attic of the church in Brãdeni. The carpentered and painted large beech chests have a secondary role in the church attics. Originally the Saxon peas-ants kept their most valuable belongings in these chests (clothes, textile materials and other values) and their secondary function was later grain storing in towers and attics. These could even be dowry chests. They wouldn’t be so nicely painted, if they were made in a dark and unfriendly environ-ment. Another point in favor of their pri-mary function is that they all have small, hidden compartments for keeping smaller valuable objects in them. Most of the chests have hanger bars for clothes. According to the ornaments, the chests can be divided into two groups. Mostly on the two front corner posts there are full body illustra-tions (maybe a man and a woman), while on the broader two of the three horizontal connecting stripes there are visible (usu-ally four-four) heraldic animals (dragons, lions, monsters). The hands of the two fig-ures are positioned in different ways, we can see figures with hands on hips or with raised hands; their heads or helmets have horn- or branch-like ornaments. On one of the chests, which was brought to a museum at the beginning of the 20th century, the figures’ costumes evoke the fashion from King Sigismund’s Age.6 The large carpen-tered chests with coffin lids are also often covered with floral, rosette ornaments and vines. Opinions vary about the age, original function and decoration of the above-men-tioned chests.7 The only dated carpentered chest – from 1565 – known from special-ized literature disappeared.8

In the beginning the carpenter asso-ciations formed a guild together with the builders and bricklayers. In the bigger Saxon towns these guilds were formed starting from the 14th, throughout the 15th and at the beginning of the 16th centuries, then many of them got divided and “specialized”.9 The presence or the formation of woodworking guilds in the 16th century (carpenters, join-ers, coopers, wheelwrights, turners, shield-makers) is backed up by numerous data. For example in Braşov the wheelwrights and carpenters formed a guild together already in the 14th century, while according to our data the joiners’ guild was formed in 1520, that of the coopers in 1525 and the guild of the turners was formed in 1536.10 There were 19 guilds in Sibiu in 1376, which were formed around 25 trades;11 the statute of the carpenters’ guild was renewed in 1551.12 16 guilds were mentioned in Bistriþa in 1533,

6 VADÁSZI, 68. 7 CAPESIUS–VEREBÉLYI. 8 CAPESIUS, 27. 9 KOVÁCS–BINDER, 27.10 NEGULICI, 27.11 SIGERUS, 10.12 VLAICU, 361.

nak a vélemények.7 A szakirodalomból ismert egyetlen datált – 1565-ös – ácsolt ládának nyoma veszett.8

Az ácsok kezdetekben az építõkkel, kõmûvesekkel közösen alkotnak céhet. A nagyobb szász városokban a XIV. századtól kezdõdõen, a XV. szá-zad folyamán, a XVI. század elején alakulnak e szervezetek, majd egyre több különválás, „szakosodás” jelentkezik.9 A famesterségeket ûzõ céhek (ácsok, asztalosok, kádárok, kerekesek, esztergályosok, pajzsosok) jelen-létére vagy megalakulására a XVI. században számos adat rávilágít. Bras-sóban például a kerekesek és az ácsok közösen alkotnak céhet már a XIV. században, az asztalosok céhérõl 1520-ból, a kádárokéról 1525-bõl, míg

7 CAPESIUS–VEREBÉLYI. 8 CAPESIUS, 27.9 KOVÁCS–BINDER, 27.

n 1. kép: Netus (Netuş). Evangélikus templom. Padolás a toronyban.n Photo 1. Netuş. The Lutheran Church. The flooring in the tower.

n 2. kép: Gógánváralja (Goganvarolea). Református templom. Nyugati karzatmellvéd bárdolt tölgyfából.n Photo 2. Goganvarolea. The Calvinist Church. Western gallery banister made of oak wood.

12 2009/1


of which only the coopers were in the woodworking trade.13 There were 10 guilds in Sighişoara in the 15th century formed around 18 trades, while at the beginning of the 16th century already 16 guilds are men-tioned covering 20 trades.

The carpenter tools of those times were first mentioned in the Besztercei and Schlägli glossaries from the beginning of the 13th cen-tury, where after the words “carpenter” and “stone-cutter” we find the list of words “axe, hatchet, gimlet, adze, pickaxe, shovel and chisel”.14 By looking at some engravings and drawings of carpenters working, from the 15–16th centuries, we observe that they used only a few types of tools. They used different types of saws, one-handed and two-handed carpenter’s saws, two-man saws and we can see a rich variety of (wood chopping, cut-ting, roughing-out, felling and hooked) axes, hatchets (carving, two-handed, long-handled, right hand, left hand) and adzes.15 For chis-eling and cutting gains they used different types of chisels and chisel axes, for cutting holes for wooden pegs they used two-handed spiral drills. They used the different draw and barking knives within the field of carpentry mainly for making shingles and wood bricks. They moved the logs with different types of peckers, pickaxes (with wooden handles and chains). On the benches of the church in Bistriþa, made by the carpenters’ guild in the 18th century, we can see an axe, a hatchet, a two-handed saw (crosscut saw), a carpenter’s square and a log turning hook with chains. On the bench made by the above mentioned guild in 1808 we see a chisel and a draw knife beside the already enumerated tools.

Most building structures were built of oak- and pinewood. The general term oak-

13 DAHINTEN, 450.14 CSILLÉRY 1982 , 70.15 KÁDÁR 1999, 308–468.

az esztergályosok céhérõl 1536-ból vannak adataink.10 Szebenben 1376-ban 19 céh mûködik, melyek 25 mesterséget tömörítenek;11 az ácscéh alap-szabályzatának megújítása 1551-ben történik.12 1533-ban Besztercén 16 céhrõl tesznek említést, melyek közül famesterséget csak a kádárok ûznek13. Segesvárott a XV. században 10 céhrõl tesznek említést, 18 mes-terséget tömörítve, míg a XVI. század elején a számuk 16-ra emelkedik, 20 mesterséget fedve le.

Az ácsok hajdani szerszámaira vonatkozóan az elsõ írásos adatot a XIII. század elejérõl a Besztercei és a Schlägli szójegyzékben találjuk, ahol az ács és kõfaragó megnevezés után a fejsze, bárd, fúró, szalu, csákány, horló és vésõ szerepel.14 Több, ácsokat munka közben bemutató XV–XVI. szá-zadi metszetet, táblaképet vizsgálva körvonalazódik, hogy aránylag kevés szerszámfajtát használtak. Különbözõ típusú daraboló fûrészeket, egy- és kétkezes ácsfûrészeket, kétszemélyes keretes hasítófûrészeket, és hasonló-an bõ felhozatalát láthatjuk a különbözõ fejsze- (hasító, daraboló, nagyoló, döntõ, horgas), bárd- (faragó, kétkezes, hosszúnyelû, jobbos, balos), balta- (jobbos, balos) és szekercetípusoknak.15 A vésésre, csap-fészkek kialakí-tására különbözõ vésõtípusokat és vésõcsákányt használtak, míg a faszö-gek furatainak kialakítására kétkezes csigafúrókat. A különbözõ vonó- és hántolókéseket, hornyolókat az ácsszakmán belül inkább a zsindely- és dránicakészítésnél alkalmazták. A rönköket különbözõ csákánytípusokkal, capinokkal (fanyeles, láncos) mozgatták. A besztercei ácscéh XVIII. századi templombéli padjain fejszét, bárdot, kétkezes fûrészt (harcsafûrész), derék-szöget és láncos rönkforgató horgot láthatunk. A nevezett céh 1808-as pad-jának oldalán a fenti szerszámok vésõvel és vonókéssel is kiegészülnek.

Az alapanyagot tekintve a legtöbb épületszerkezet tölgyfából és fenyõ-fából készült. A tölgyfa gyûjtõnév alatt a kocsányos és kocsánytalan tölgy megnevezés is szerepel, esetenként csertölggyel kiegészülve. A Székelyföl-dön a népi szóhasználatban e fafajtákat egységesen „cserefának” becézik. Fenyõ

10 NEGULICI, 27.11 SIGERUS, 10.12 VLAICU, 361.13 DAHINTEN, 450.14 CSILLÉRY 1982 , 70.15 KÁDÁR 1999, 308–468.

n 3. kép: Netus (Netuş). Evangélikus templom. A torony alatti ácsolt ajtó külső és belső oldala. n Photo 3. Netuş. The Lutheran Church. The outside and inside faces of the carpentered door

below the tower.

n 4. kép: Szászegerbegy (Agârbiciu). Az evangélikus templom bajárati kapuja. n Photo 4. Agârbiciu. The entrance gate of the

Lutheran Church.


132009/1


wood includes the pedunculate and non-pe-dunculate oaks, and sometimes the Turkey oak. In the Szekler region these species of trees are uniformly called “oak trees”. The general term pinewood includes the spruce, the Scotch pine, the fir, the black pine and in few cases the larch. The name “larch” usual-ly refers to firs, Scotch pines and black pines with reddish bark. Until the 17–18th centuries most Transylvanian timber roof structures were made of oak-wood and only a few were built of pinewood. In the Szekler region they used almost exclusively pinewood for mak-ing shingles, although some notes mention the use of beech and “oak tree”.16 From our existing historic buildings, the covering of the Calvinist Church in Arduzel is most un-usual, where the carpenters used unbarked hewn birch laths, while using beech wood for making the still existing shingle in 1961. In the case of all carpentered bell-towers, the structure is made of oak, only on the level of the tower helmet the oak is often replaced with pinewood. Until the 19th century the beams had exclusively hewn, carved sur-faces. Until the 16–17th centuries, the wood-working, the carving of uniform sizes, the removal of the sapwood of the oak was done extremely professionally. The removal of bark from pine- and oak wood – based on experiences in wood protection – is charac-teristic until the 19th century, from then on the wood finishing is often effortless and plain. The quality “drop” can be observed not only in the forming and shaping processes of the raw materials, but also in the assem-bly of structural joints. We do not know of roof structures where metal bands or nails were used instead of swallow-tailed lapped joints, mortice and tenon joints, grooved joints, notched joints and wood fasteners until the 17th century. The metal banding, transverse reinforcement and bolting ap-pear in roof constructions in the first half of the 18th century. The handmade wrought iron auxiliary structures, the thread of the bolts are often age-defining. Until the mid-dle of the 20th century, the nuts were square, four-sided, the hex nuts appeared only after World War II. The threads were different as well, the coarse threads replaced the Whit-worth threads only after World War II.

In contrast to the public’s belief, the timber which needed to be carpentered, was not dried, not even in a natural way. Con-tracts and records prove that the carpenters often began their work in the woods with the preparation of the timber, and after the transport of the timber to the construction site, they began to carpenter. Probably they knew it much too well, that they can work, carve, saw and drill the wet wood much easier. The drying process after their inclu-sion into the structure, as well as the shrink-age of the wood can be well-detected in all the carpenters’ works. In the case of historic carpenter’s works we cannot really count on the bending of the wood. However we find numerous examples when they searched for adequate forms in the timber structures by using the natural curves of the wood. They

16 HAÁZ, 18.

gyûjtõnéven többnyire lucfenyõt, erdeifenyõt, jegenyefenyõt, feketefenyõt és kevés esetben vörösfenyõt értenek. A „vörösfenyõ” népi elnevezés ál-talában a vörösesebb kérgû jegenyefenyõ, erdeifenyõ és feketefenyõ fákra vonatkozik. A XVII–XVIII. századig az erdélyi fa fedélszerkezetek túlnyo-mó része tölgyfából, kevesebb része fenyõfából készült. A zsindelykészí-tésre Székelyföldön mondhatni kizárólag fenyõféléket használtak, noha a feljegyzések esetenként bükkfára és „cserefára” is hivatkoznak.16 Meglévõ mûemlék épületeink közül különleges a szamosardói református templom héjazata, ahol zsindelylécnek kérgezetlen, bárdolt nyírfalécet, míg a máig fennmaradt zsindely alapanyagaként 1961-ben bükkfát használtak. Vala-mennyi ácsolt harangláb szerkezetét tölgyfából készítették, csak a sisak szintjén gyakori a fenyõfára való átváltás. A gerendák megmunkálásában egészen a XIX. századig kizárólagos a bárdolt, faragott felület. A XVI–XVII. századig a faanyag igényesebb kiképzése a jellemzõ, az egységesebb méret-re való bárdolás, a tölgyfa szíjácsának a lefaragása. Mind a fenyõ-, mind a tölgyanyag kéregtõl való megszabadítása – faanyagvédelmi tapasztalatok-ra alapozva – a XIX. századig jellemzõ, onnantól kezdve egyre gyakoribb az igénytelenebb gerenda-megmunkálás. A minõségbeli „gyengülés” nem-csak a faanyag kiképzésében követhetõ, hanem a szerkezet illesztéseiben is. A XVII. századig nemigen tudunk olyan fedélszerkezetrõl, amelyben vaspántokat, vasszegeket alkalmaztak volna a hagyományos, többnyire fecskefarkú lapolások, csapolások, horgolások, beeresztések és faszöges rögzítések helyett. A XVIII. század elsõ felében jelentkeznek a fedélszer-kezetek kiképzésénél a vaspántos húzatások, kengyelezések és csavaro-zások. A kézi megmunkálású kovácsoltvas segédszerkezetek, a csavarok menetelése sokszor kormeghatározó. A csavaranyák egészen a XX. század derekáig négyszögûek, csak a második világháború után kezd elterjedni a hatszögû csavaranya. A menetek léptéke is változatos, a sûrûbb metrikus menetemelkedés is csak a második világháborút követõen váltja fel a ko-rábbi Witvort menettípust.

A közhiedelemmel ellentétben az ácsolásra szánt épületfát korábbi idõszakokban nem szárították, még természetes úton sem. Szerzõdések, jegyzõkönyvek bizonyítják, hogy az ácsok a munkát legtöbbször az

16 HAÁZ, 18.

n 5. kép: Somogyom (Şmig). Evangélikus templom. A XV. századi déli bejárati ajtó külső és belső oldala. n Photo 5. Şmig. The Lutheran Church. The outside and inside faces of the southern entrance door

from the 15th century.

14 2009/1


used smaller beams with milder curves at corner joints (Curciu), curved and carved beams at the wall-plates of the choirs with semicircular apses or they placed curved tie-beams above the vaults. We find one of the finest examples in the Lutheran Church in Aþel, where curved tie-beams were placed above the vault of the northern side nave. The natural, but professional drying and storing of the wood selected for carpentry works (furniture and building structures) is described in DIDEROT’s Encyclopedia and in ROUBEAU’s account of the trades in the second half of the 18th century.

Our knowledge of the historic wood preservation and treatment is rather scanty. Some customs are still alive in oral tradi-tion, like the time of the felling of trees was linked with the movement of the moon:

erdõben kezdték, a faanyag elõkészítésével, majd a helyszínre szállítást követõen sor került az ácsolásra. Bizonyára õk is nagyon jól tudták, hogy a nedves fát sokkal könnyebb megmunkálni, faragni, fûrészelni, fúrni. A beépítést követõ száradás, illetve az ennek köszönhetõ fazsugorodás jól megfigyelhetõ valamennyi ácsszerkezetben. Történeti ácsszerkezetek eset-ében a fa hajlításával nemigen számolhatunk. Arra viszont szép szám-ban akad példa, hogy a fa természetes görbüléseit kihasználva kerestek megfelelõ formákat faszerkezetekbe. Enyhe görbülésû kisgerendák alkalma-zása sarokkötéseknél (Küküllõkõrös, Curciu), görbe, megfaragott gerendák alkalmazása félkörzáródású szentélyek sárgerendájánál, vagy boltozat fö-lötti görbe kötõgerendák elhelyezése esetenként fellelhetõ. Egyik legszebb példával az eceli (Aþel) evangélikus templom fedélszerkezetében találkoz-hatunk, ahol az északi mellékhajó boltozata fölé görbe kötõgerendákat vá-logattak. A bútorgyártásra, illetve épületasztalosságra szánt faanyag termé-szetes, de szakszerû szárítását és raktározását láthatjuk a XVIII. század második

n 6. kép: Hégen (Brădeni). Evangélikus templom. Ládaegyüttes a padláson.n Photo 6. Brădeni. The Lutheran Church. Chest ensemble in the attic.

n 7. kép: Hégeni láda a segesvári evangélikus Hegyi templomban.n Photo 7. Chest from Brădeni in the Lutheran Church on the Hill in Sighişoara.

n 8. kép: Beszterce (Bistriţa). Evangélikus temp-lom. Szerszámok az ácsok padján; XVIII. század. n Photo 8. Bistriţa. The Lutheran Church. Tools

on the carpenter’s pew from the 18th century.

n 7. ábra: Ácsszerszámok. DIDERoT Enciklopédiája. XVIII. század közepe. n Figure 7. Carpentry tools. DIDERoT’s

Encyclopedia. Middle of the 18th century.


152009/1


“ – The tree felled a week after the new moon will be hard, cannot dry out and will rot.

– The second week after the new moon is the best time for felling trees.

– The trees felled the third week after the new moon will crack.

– The trees felled the fourth week after the new moon will be just as the trees felled the first week.

– The felling must begin in the time be-tween the last-quarter and the first-quarter moons, because the wood re-mains beautiful and white and it can dry out really well.”17

The next task in the research is the sci-entific examination of the above-mentioned beliefs. It is known that the water content of the trees felled in winter is lower and during the works and transport it is less probable that these would get infected by insects or fungi.

We do not see the efficiency of wood preservation with different kinds of blood (ox blood) remained in folklore, but quite the opposite effect. Practice shows that where organic materials of animal or plant origin were used in building or gluing (ani-mal glue, oakum, paper), an active breeding ground was provided for biological infec-tions. It is well-known that the infection caused by insects in the joinery structures is stronger at the glued parts. It was also known in the past that smoke would be a very good preservative or the bark left on the wood would shorten the service life of wooden structures. To the best of our knowledge the (presumed) wood preser-vation with whitewashing or the bit more effective fire prevention spread beginning with the 19th century. People gave much

17 KARDALLUS, 84.

felében megjelent DIDEROT Enciklopédiájában, illetve ROUBEAU mesterség-leírásaiban.

A fa történeti tartósítására, kezelésére vonatkozó ismereteink igencsak hiányosak. A szájhagyomány még õrzi azt a szokásmódot, miszerint a fa-döntés idõpontját a holdjáráshoz kötötték:

„ – újság (újhold) után való héten vágott fa nehéz, nem szárad jól ki, megpenészedik;

– újság után való második héten a legjobb a fát dönteni;– újság utáni harmadik héten vágott fa reped;– újság utáni negyedik héten vágott fa olyanná lesz, mint az elsõ

héten vágott;– amikor a hold megszakad (utolsó negyed és elsõ negyed köz-

ti idõ szak), akkor kell a döntést megkezdeni, mert a fa szép fe-hérnek marad és jól kiszárad.”17 A kutatás feladata a fenti sorok tudomá nyos mérlegelése. Az viszont ismert, hogy a télen döntött fa víztartalma kevesebb, és a megmunkálás, szállítás során kicsi a valószínûsége, hogy rovar- vagy gombafertõzést szenvedjen.

A folklórban fennmaradt, különbözõ vérrel (ökörvér) való fakonzervá-lásoknak nemigen látjuk a hatékonyságát, hanem inkább az ellenkezõ ha-tását. A gyakorlat bizonyítja, hogy ahol állati, esetenként növényi eredetû szerves anyag került beépítésre vagy ragasztásra (állati enyv, kóc, papír), ott a biológiai fertõzés táptalajra talált. Asztalos szerkezeteknél közismert, hogy a rovarfertõzés az enyvezett részeknél erõteljesebb. Azt viszont nagyon jól tudták, hogy a füst nagyon jó konzerválóanyag, vagy pedig a fán rajtahagyott kéreg, a tölgyfa esetében a szíjács, igencsak megrövidíti egy faszerkezet élettartamát. A meszeléssel való (vélt) fakonzerválás vagy a valamicskével hatékonyabb tûzvédelem, ismereteink alapján a XIX. szá-zadtól kezdõdõen terjedt el. A faanyag vegyi elõvédelme (felületkezelés, telítés) már a XVIII. század elejétõl foglalkoztatta az embereket. 1705-ben HOMBERG tett kísérletet a fának kénesõ-kloriddal való konzerválására. 1730-ban kénesõvel (higany), valamint arzéntartalmú vegyületekkel kí-sérleteznek. 1740-ben faecetet, timsót és vasgálicot, 1756-ban kátrányola-jat használtak e célra. 1770-ben a faeceten és timsón kívül keserûsóval,

17 KARDALLUS, 84.

n 10. kép: Ecel (Aţel). Evangélikus templom. Részlet az északi mellékhajó fedélszékének görbe kötőgerendájáról.n Photo 10. Aţel. The Lutheran Church. Detail of the bent tie-beam in the roof structure of the

northern side nave.

n 9. kép: Szamosardó (Arduzel). Református templom. Részlet a fedélszékről. n Photo 9. Arduzel. The Calvinist Church.

Detail of the roof structure.

16 2009/1


thought to the idea of chemical wood pro-tection (surface treatment, impregnation) already at the beginning of the 18th century. In 1705, HOMBERG recommended mercu-ry-chloride for wood conservation. Experi-ments were made with mercury and with arsenic compounds in 1730. Wood vinegar, alum and ferrous sulfate were used for this purpose in 1740 and tar oil in 1756. In 1770, attempts were made to use Epsom salts, zinc vitriol and ashes beside the wood vinegar and alum.18 In 1838, BURNETT rec-ommended zinc chloride for wood preser-vation in England. BRÉANT, based on his invention in 1831, was the first to force preservative liquids into wood.19 Later wood was preserved with the use of linseed oil, tar mixtures, potash alum and different mineral and plant oils.20 The upswing of impregnation and wood conservation in the 19th century was thanks not to timber structures, but rather to railway sleepers and pit props.

We would also like to say a few words about sawmills, which played an important part in the carpentry and joinery trades. We can see on many illustrations that they used two-man frame saws for the longitu-dinal wood sawing; they placed the log on a scaffold or they dug a deeper pit and one person guided the saw from the pit. This ex-hausting physical work was also described in DIDEROT’s Encyclopedia in the middle of the 18th century. The men gained the energy needed for this type of work from different sources in different periods. Per-haps the first water-powered machine used for longitudinal wood sawing was found in water-mills. We find the first schematic il-lustration of a sawmill in the sketchbook of Villard de HONNECOURT in 1235.21 Later we can see another illustration of a sawmill in Leonardo da VINCI’s Atlantic Codex. On the extremely schematic drawing made by HONNECOURT, the movement of the saw is provided by an axle driven by a wa-ter wheel, while a wooden spring retracts the saw. In the Carpathian basin, the first mention of sawmills appeared in 1055(?),22 then more reliable data remained in Nyitra county in 1393,23 while the most water-driven sawmills appeared in the 15th centu-ry. In Transylvania sawmills were first men-tioned in documents in 1504.24 During the restoration of the northern door-leaf of the Lutheran Church on the Hill in Sighişoara, made in 1495, we found the traces of a woodworking technique behind the door panels, which undoubtedly verifies that the large, relatively thin, but smooth-surfaced pine boards were not hand sawn. In the case of boards cut with water-driven saws the saw leaves uniform, parallel marks on the almost 4 m long board at each push of the wood for the upward stroke.

18 DÉRY, 135.19 DÉRY, 135.20 TÓTH, 35.21 VADÁSZI 1987, 8.22 GHÍMESSY, 78.23 CSILLÉRY 1982, 70.24 KÁDÁR–PÁL-ANTAL, 13.

cink-vitriollal és hamuval próbálkoznak.18 1838-ban BURNETT Angliában cink-kloriddal konzervál, BRÉANT – 1831-es találmánya alapján – a fába túlnyomással préseli a telítõszert.19 A késõbbiekben lenolajjal, kátrányos keverékekkel, kálitimsóval és különbözõ ásványi és növényi olajokkal vé-geztek fakonzerválást.20 A XIX. században föllendült fatelítés, fakonzervá-lás nem annyira az épületfa, mint inkább a vasúti talpfa és bányafa gyár-tásának köszönhetõ.

Néhány mondat erejéig kitérnénk az ács- és asztalosszakma között leg-fontosabb szerepet játszó fûrészmalomra. Számos ábrázoláson láthatjuk, hogy a fa hosszanti fûrészelésére kétszemélyes keretes fûrészt használnak, oly módon, hogy egy nagy állványra helyezik a rönköt, vagy pedig mélyebb gödröt ásnak, és az egyik személy a gödörbõl húzza a fûrészt. E nehéz fizikai munkát igénylõ fadarabolás még a XVIII. század közepén kiadott DIDEROT Enciklopédiában is megfigyelhetõ. Ehhez a munkához különbözõ korokban más és más forrásokban kereste az emberiség a szükséges energiát. Talán az elsõ gépesített változata a fa hosszanti forgácsolással való felszabásá-nak – vízi energia felhasználásával, vízimalmokban történt. Fûrészmalom elsõ sematikus ábrázolásával Villard de HONNECOURT vázlatkönyvében találkozunk 1235-ben.21 A késõbbiekben fûrészmalom ábrázolását láthat-juk Leonardo da VINCI Atlanti Kódexében is. A HONNECOURT által ké-szített igencsak sematikus vázlatrajzon a fûrészlap mozgását egy vízike-rék által maghajtott bütykös tengely biztosítja, visszahúzását egy farugó. A Kárpát-medencében az elsõ írásos adat 1055-bõl(?),22 majd megbízha-tóbb adat 1393-ból Nyitra megyébõl maradt fenn,23 míg a vízmeghajtású fûrészmalmok tömeges megjelenése a XV. századra tehetõ. Erdélyben írott források elõször 1504-ben említenek fûrészmalmokat.24 A segesvári evan-gélikus hegyi templom 1495-ben készült északi ajtószárnyának restaurálá-sa során a betétmezõk által védett részen olyan készítéstechnikai nyomo-kat találtunk, melyek egyértelmûen igazolják, hogy a nagyméretû, aránylag vékony, de egyenletes felületû fenyõ deszkalapok nem kézi fûrészeléssel készültek. Vízi fûrészen vágott deszkán minden elõtolásnál egységes, végig

18 DÉRY, 135.19 DÉRY, 135.20 TÓTH, 35.21 VADÁSZI 1987, 8.22 GHÍMESSY, 78.23 CSILLÉRY 1982, 70.24 KÁDÁR–PÁL-ANTAL, 13.

n 8. ábra: A fa szakszerű természetes szárítása. DIDERoT Enciklopédiája. XVIII. század közepe.n Figure 8. The proper natural drying of wood. DIDERoT’s Encyclopedia. Middle of the 18th century.


172009/1


According to the oral tradition in Ditrãu a member of the GÁL family, which was known to be the “sawing” family, intro-duced the building of water-driven saws in the region and built around 34 saws in the area in the course of the 16th century. He learnt the trade in Poland, where he went as a soldier in István BÁTHORI’s compa-ny. They tell stories about him, that when during the construction works some metal components were missing, he traveled to Poland to get them.25 We have far more in-formation on sawmills from later centuries. In order to confirm the privileges of Cãpâl-niþa and Vlãhiþa Gábor BETHLEN ordered the transport of 1000 boards to Alba Iulia in 1614 and 2000 boards in 1618. At the same time they have to build a saw in the village for the prince, to which they have to bring 100 logs every year.26 We also know from the prince’s order how a board should be like: “twelve feet long, 18 inches wide, one and a half inch thick”, and the order regarding the price fixing enlists the com-mercial routes for selling the boards: “offer one hundred boards for two forints and fifty coins. In Odorheiu Secuiesc for three for-ints, in Sighişoara for four forints. In Mediaş for five forints. In Alba Iulia, Aiud for six forints. In Cluj for seven forints”. For one hundred boards from Gheorgheni they had to pay three forints on the premises, four forints in Braşov and five forints in Ricsa-na, Apaþa, Şercaia, Rupea and Fãgãraş. One hundred boards from the Orbai district cost three forints on the premises, four forints in Braşov and five forints in Fãgãraş and its surroundings. Gábor BETHLEN confirmed the privileges of Zetea in 1622, who had to transport one hundred thousand shin-gles to Alba Iulia. One shingle had to be 26 inches long and 3 inches wide. Those who wanted to buy shingles had to pay 1 forint on the spot for 1400 shingles, in Sighişoara for 1000 shingles, while in Alba Iulia and

25 KÁDÁR–PÁL-ANTAL, 22.26 HAÁZ, 46.

párhuzamos nyomokat hagy a fûrészlap, amely a hosszú, közel négyméte-res deszkán egyenletes.

Gyergyóditrói szájhagyomány szerint a „fûrészes” GÁL család egyik tag-ja honosította meg a környéken a vízi fûrész építését, mintegy 34 fû részt épített a környéken a XVI. század folyamán. A mesterséget Lengyelország-ban sajátította el, ahol mint BÁTHORI István kíséretében levõ katona tar-tózkodott. Arról is regélnek, hogy építés közben a hiányzó vasalkatrészért kiutazott Lengyelországba.25 A késõbbi századokban az adataink megsok-szorozódnak a fûrészmalmokra vonatkozóan. BETHLEN Gábor 1614-ben Kis- és Nagyoláhfalu kiváltságainak megerõsítése fejében 1000 szál deszka, majd 1618-ban 2000 szál deszka leszállítását rendeli Fehérvárra. Ugyanak-kor a faluban kötelesek építeni egy fûrészt a fejedelem számára, melyhez évente 100 farönköt kell adniuk.26 Ugyancsak e fejedelmi rendeletbõl tud-juk, hogy milyennek kell lennie egy szál deszkának: „tudni illik két ölni hosszú, két araszni széles, másfél uyni temérdek”, és az árszabás rende-let azt is elárulja, hogy melyek voltak a fontosabb kereskedelmi vonalak a deszka eladásában: „százat helyében két forinton ötven pénzen. Udvar-helyen három forinton, Segesváratt négy forinton. Medgyesen öt forinton. Fejérváratt, Enyeden hat forinton. Colosváratt hét forinton” kell eladni. A gyergyói deszkából százat helyben három forinton, Brassóban négy forin-ton, Rikán, Apácán, Sárkányon, Kõhalmon és Fogarason öt forinton kell mérni. Száz szál orbai deszka helyben három forintot, Brassóban négy forintot, míg Fogarason és környékén öt forintot ér. Zetelaka kiváltságait BETHLEN Gábor 1622-ben erõsíti meg, akik évi százezer zsindelyt kell le-szállítsanak Fehérvárra. Egy zsindelynek három arasz hosszúnak, egy hü-velyk tenyérnyi szélesnek kellett lennie. A zsindelyek árát tekintve helyben egy forintért 1400-at, Segesvárott ezret, míg Fehérvárott és Enyeden 800-at mértek. Hasonló egységes árszabást találunk a zsindelytartó lécre is. A feje-delem 1627-es árucikk-szabályzatát igencsak érdemes volt betartani, mert ha nem, „deszkáját, Sendelyét, Az Városok Bírái el vegyék: két részét Õ Felsége számára tartsák, az harmad része az Magistratusé”.

A XVIII. században szaporodnak az adatok a fûrészmalmokra vonatko-zóan, a XIX. századból már pontos adatok tükrözik a fakitermelés és fafel-dolgozás területi megosztását és teljesítményét. 1799-ben a sóvidéki Paraj-don 7 fûrészmalom zakatolt.27 Az 1839-es összeírás szerint Erdélyben 691

25 KÁDÁR–PÁL-ANTAL, 22.26 HAÁZ, 46.27 KÁDÁR–PÁL-ANTAL, 65.

n 10. ábra: Ácsok munka közben. DIDERoT Enciklopédiája. XVIII. század közepe.n Figure 10. Carpenters at work. DIDERoT’s Encyclopedia. Middle of the 18th century.

n 9. ábra: Villard de HoNNECoURT fűrészmalomról készített vázlatrajza. 1235. n Figure 9. The sketch of a sawmill

by Villard de HoNNECoURT. 1235.

18 2009/1


Aiud for 800 shingles. We find the same flat rate in the case of laths as well. The sellers had to comply with the prince’s commod-ity rules from 1627, because if they didn’t: “their boards and shingles were taken away by the town’s mayor: two thirds for the prince and one third for the magistrate”.

There are more and more pieces of infor-mation on sawmills from the 18th century and exact data show the territorial division and de-velopment of the wood felling and conversion of timber in the 19th century. 7 sawmills were buzzing in Praid in 1799.27 According to the register from 1839, 691 sawmills functioned in Transylvania at that time. We know of 61 wa-ter-driven saws in Vlãhiþa in 1860, 63 in 1909 and 38 sawmills in 1950.28 There were 35 wa-ter-driven sawmills in Cãpãlnaş, 13 in Lueta and 4 sawmills cut the logs in Mereşti until 1948, when due to the nationalization all the saw-mills were closed down in the Szekler region.

The steam-powered sawmills appeared at the same time as the water-driven saw-mills in the 19th century. The steam-powered frame saw was patented in England in 1793 (others say the patent can be linked with MACDOWELL’s name in 1836), they began to gain ground in the Szekler region only in the 1880s: the first steam-powered sawmills (with steam turbines) were built in Reghin in 1888, in Târgu Mureş and Gheor gheni in 1889.29

27 KÁDÁR–PÁL-ANTAL, 65.28 KARDALLUS, 14–116.29 KÁDÁR–PÁL-ANTAL, 116–118.

fûrészmalom dolgozott. Nagyoláhfaluban 1860-ban 61 vízi fûrészrõl, 1909-ben 63, míg 1950-ben 38 fûrészmalomról van tudomásunk.28 Kápolnáson 35, Lövétén 13, míg Homoródalmáson 4 vízmeghajtású fûrészmalom sze-letelte a rönköt egészen 1948-ig, amikor az államosításnak köszönhetõen egyik napról a másikra szûnt meg valamennyi székelyföldi malom.

A vízmeghajtású fûrészmalmokkal párhuzamosan a XIX. században megjelennek a gõzmeghajtású, nagyobb teljesítményû fa fûrészüzemek. 1793-ban Angliában szabadalmaztatják a gõzmeghajtású keretesfûrészt (más vélemények szerint 1836-ban MACDOWELL nevéhez köthetõ a sza-badalom), Székelyföldön csak az 1880-as években kezdenek teret hódí-tani: Régenben 1888-ban, Marosvásárhelyen és Gyergyószentmiklóson 1889-ben29 épülnek az elsõ gõzmeghajtású (gõzturbinás) fa fûrésztelepek.

A történeti famegmunkálásra vonatkozóan közvetett úton a faszállítás is érdekes adatokkal szolgál. A faanyagnak nehézkes, szekéren való szál-lítása mellett a XVII. századtól kezdve egyre nagyobb teret nyer a vízen való úsztatás, tutajozás. A gyergyói tutajozásra vonatkozó elsõ írásos adat 1638-ból maradt fenn, melyben FERENCZI György gyergyószentmiklósi plébános a következõt tudatja: „A Fejérvári katollikusok templomának tor-nya hogy leroskatt volt, minden fáját megküldöttem az vizen”. A tutajo-zásra vonatkozó adatokat összegezve körvonalazódik, hogy a Maros folyá-sán Gyergyón és Régenen keresztül, Marosvásárhelyt érintve, rönkkel és fûrészáruval látták el Enyedet, Fehérvárat, Aradot, és számos szállítmány el is hagyta Erdélyt. A Nagyküküllõn a zetelakiak és az oláhfalviak úsztat-tak faanyagot Székelyudvarhely, Segesvár, Medgyes, Balázsfalva irányába. A Besztercén Moldova felé folyt faszállítás. A tutajozás vámvitái, periratai közvetett úton számos kultúrtörténeti és faanyag-megmunkálási informá-

28 KARDALLUS, 14–116.29 KÁDÁR–PÁL-ANTAL, 116–118.

n 11. kép: Magyarcsügés (Ciugheşul Maghiar). Vízmeghajtású keretes fűrész. 2002.n Photo 11. Ciugheşul Maghiar. Water-driven frame saw. 2002.


192009/1


The timber transport was also indi-rectly delivering some interesting informa-tion regarding the historic woodworking. Beside the slow and difficult transportation of timber by carts, the transportation by wa-ter, free floating and timber rafting became common starting from the 17th century. The first written mention of the timber rafting in Gheorgheni appeared in 1638, when György FERENCZI, the vicar in Gheorgheni stated the following: “As the tower of the Catholic Church in Alba Iulia collapsed, I sent all the timber on water”. By summa-rizing the data regarding timber rafting we found out that they transported logs and sawn timber on the Mureş River between Gheorgheni and Reghin, through Târgu Mureş to Aiud, Alba Iulia and Arad and the cargo often left Transylvania. Timber was transported from Zetea and Vlãhiþa on the Târnava Mare River to Odorheiu Secuiesc, Sighişoara, Mediaş, Blaj. On the Bistriþa River the timber was transported to Moldo-va. All the customs discussions and the case documents in the lawsuits involving timber rafting carry important cultural and woodworking information. Timber floating became a serious branch of industry in the second half of the 19th century, many timber merchant companies were founded at that time. The decline of this branch of indus-try was due to the building of the railway networks. The last timber rafter from Remetea transported timber on the Mureş River for the last time in 1913, although some data contradict this from the time of World War II. The first Transylvanian railway line was built between Arad and Alba Iulia in 1868.30 The entire Transylvanian railway network was built following this date, in ap-proximately 35 years (1871: Rãzboieni–Târgu Mureş, 1873: Sighişoara–Braşov, 1890–92: the narrow-gauge railway in Comandãu, 1896: Târgu Mureş–Reghin, 1897: Miercurea Ciuc–Ghimeş, 1905: Reghin–Deda, 1907: Si-culeni–Gheorgheni, 1909: Deda–Gheorgheni, 1912–15: the narrow-gauge railway along the Niraj River). Many big wood felling and timber merchant companies built their own (mainly narrow-gauge) railway lines for timber transportation. The timber was needed not for buildings, but rather for the construction and development of railway lines and mines. As a conclusion we can add to this chain of thoughts that a few wa-ter-mills functioned in the Szekler region until the nationalization in 1948 and some can still be found in the Gheorgheni and Ghimeş regions. In the middle of the 20th century the steam-powered wood cutting machines were slowly replaced by electricity-driven machines. Although Ányos JEDDLIK discovered the electric motor31 in 1861, al-most a century passes until it is used in the Transylvanian woodworking.

Finer wood cutting machines appear along with the mechanization of lumber-ing. In 1776 Leonard HATTON patented the first planing machine in England. The first circular saw can be linked with the name of N. C. A. Albert in Paris in 1799 (others say

30 KÁDÁR, 1993. 180–208.31 GHÍMESSY, 146.

ciót hordoznak. A XIX. század második felében a fa vízen való úsztatása komoly iparággá fejlõdik, több nagy fakereskedõ társaság alakul. Az iparág hanyatlása a vasúthálózat kiépítésének köszönhetõ. Az utolsó gyergyóre-metei tutajos 1913-ban úsztatott utoljára fát a Maroson, noha néhány adat erre rácáfol a második világháború idejébõl. 1868-ban megépül az elsõ er-délyi vasútvonal Arad és Gyulafehérvár között.30 Ezt követõen mintegy 35 év alatt kiépül Erdély és ezen belül a Székelyföld közel mai vasúthálózata (1871: Székelykocsárd–Marosvásárhely, 1873: Segesvár–Brassó, 1890–92: Komandói sikló, 1896: Marosvásárhely–Régen, 1897: Csíkszereda–Gyimes, 1905: Régen–Déda, 1907: Mádéfalva–Gyergyó, 1909: Déda–Gyergyó, 1912–15: Nyárádmente kisnyomtávú vasútvonala). Számos nagy fakitermelõ és fa-kereskedõ társaság saját fakitermelõ vasútvonalat (többnyire kisnyomtáv-út) épít. Az egyre nagyobb faigényt nem annyira a faépítkezés, mint inkább maga a vasútvonalak, a bányák kiépítése, fejlesztése igényelte. E gondolat-kör lezárásához még annyi fûzhetõ hozzá, hogy kevés számú székelyföldi vízimalom még 1948-ig, az államosításig mûködik, néhány hírmondó még napjainkban is föllelhetõ a Gyergyói-medencében, illetve a Gyimesekben. A gõzmeghajtású famegmunkáló gépeket a XX. század közepétõl kezdve szép fokozatosan a villamos energiával üzemeltetett gépsorok veszik át. Noha 1861-ben JEDDLIK Ányos fölfedezi a villanymotort,31 közel száz év telik el, míg az erdélyi famegmunkálásban teret nyer.

A fa fûrészáru gépesítésével párhuzamosan korszerûsödnek a fa fino-mabb megmunkálásának gépezetei. Az elsõ gyalugépet Leonard HATTON szabadalmaztatta 1776-ban Angliában. Az elsõ körfûrész N. C. A. Albert ne-véhez köthetõ, 1799-ben, Párizsban (más vélemények szerint a bécsi Mar-tin és Aloys MUNDING szabadalmaztatta 1817-ben32), míg az elsõ szalag-fûrészt az angliai szabadalmi hivatalban jegyzik W. NEWBERRY mérnök találmányaként.33 1824-ben Carl HUMMEL profilmarót szabadal maztat,34 majd 1826 és 1828 között Bajorországban levédik a párkány-fûrészgép, fényezõgép és fúrógép gyártási technológiáját. A fa gõzölésben való hajlí-tására TREW angol mérnök 1750-ben már technológiát dolgoz ki, viszont a folyamat részletes kidolgozása és nagyüzembe helyezése 1830-tól Michael TONETT nevéhez kötõdik, aki lefekteti a csereszavatos „olcsó”, hajlított bútor gyártási alapját.35 Más források alapján a hajóépítéshez szükséges vastag faanyag meghajlítására (hevítés, hajlítás, szárítás) Angliában 1720-ban J. CUMBERLAND, 1793-ban pedig S. BENHAMM, 1794-ben J. VIDLER (a fát sós, savas oldatban fõzték, majd ezt követõen hajlították) nyújtott be szabadalmat.36

Az olcsóbb, könnyen megmunkálható faanyag értékesebb, díszesebb rajzolatú falemezzel, furnérral való beborítása már régen foglalkoztatta az emberiséget. A korábbi idõk kézi munkával elõállított, igencsak idõigényes, vékony falemez gyártását gépesíteni próbálják. 1660 táján Georg RENNER neve alatt Augsburgban már furnérvágó malomról tudunk. 1806-ban to-vábbfejlesztik a technológiát, Mar Isambart BRUNEL, majd 1814-ben COCHOT furnérvágó gépet szabadalmaztat. Az elsõ furnérkéselõ gépet Charles PICOTT szabadalmaztatja 1834-ben,37 míg az elsõ furnérhántoló gép modelljét 1822-ben a bécsi Polytechnisches Institutban készítik el.38 Más vélemények szerint az elsõ hántoló gép 1844-ben születik GARAND mérnök találmányaként.39 A késelt, illetve hántolt furnér elõállításával kezdetét veszi a rétegelt lemez gyártása, melynek szabadalmaztatására

30 KÁDÁR, 1993. 180–208.31 GHÍMESSY, 146.32 HIMMELHEBBER, 71.33 GHÍMESSY, 110.34 HIMMELHEBBER, 72.35 HIMMELHEBBER, 75.36 GHÍMESSY, 171.37 CZIRÁKI, 6.38 HIMMELHEBBER, 72.39 CZIRÁKI, 6.

20 2009/1


Martin and Aloys MUNDING patented it in Vienna in 181732), while the first belt saw was patented in England as the invention of the engineer W. NEWBERRY.33 In 1824 Carl HUMMEL patented the profile cutter,34 then between 1826–1828 a patent was ob-tained for the technology of the moulding, glazing and drilling machines in Bavaria. The steam bending technology was worked out by TREW, an English engineer in 1750, but its development and mass-production application is linked with the name of Michael TONETT in 1830, who started making “cheap” bentwood furniture.35 Ac-cording to other sources for the bending of solid ship timber (heating, bending, dry-ing) J. CUMBERLAND took out a patent in England in 1720, S. BENHAMM took one out in 1793 and J. VIDLER patented another wood-bending process in 1794 (the wood was boiled in a salty, acidic so-lution and then it was bent).36

Men had showed great concern about the covering of the cheaper, easily cuttable wood with more valuable, decorative wood panels, veneer for a long time. They tried to mechanize the manufacturing of the formerly handmade, time consuming, thin wood pan-els. Around 1660 a veneering mill was set up at Augsburg by a man named Georg REN-NER. The technology was further developed in 1806, Mar Isambart BRUNEL and then in 1814 COCHOT patented the veneering machine. In 1834 Charles PICOTT patented the first veneer-slicing machine,37 while the model of the first veneer stripping machine was made at the Politechnisches Institut in Vienna in 1822.38 Others say that the first veneer peeling machine was the invention of an engineer named GARAND in 1844.39 In 1884 WITKOWSKY40 patented the produc-tion of laminated panels that began with the production of peeled or cut veneer. The first laminate panel factory in Europe opened at Tallin around 1885, where three-layer panels were produced for chair seats. The European laminate panel production was booming in the Baltic area, in Russia, Poland and Fin-land, where the first factories were built for the processing of birch and alder wood.

In Hungary the first sliced veneer was manufactured by Dániel LÕVY between 1880–1890, the first peeled veneer was pro-duced around 1910.41 The production of lam-inate panels began around the same time.

In Transylvania the Goldfinger and Templanszky firm in Reghin was one of the most important companies, where the first sawmill that used mainly beech wood was built in 1905. The small factory had 32 cir-cular saws, 3 steam chambers and 3 drying chambers. The first furniture lath and ve-neer plant was opened in Reghin in 1898.42

32 HIMMELHEBBER, 71.33 GHÍMESSY, 110.34 HIMMELHEBBER, 7235 HIMMELHEBBER, 7536 GHÍMESSY, 171.37 CZIRÁKI, 6.38 HIMMELHEBBER, 72.39 CZIRÁKI, 6.40 CZIRÁKI, 6.41 TÓTH, 34.42 KÁDÁR–PÁL-ANTAL, 131–142.

1884-ben kerül sor WITKOWSKY neve alatt.40 Európában az elsõ rétegelt-lemez-üzem 1885 körül indul Tallinban, ahol háromrétegû lemezt présel-nek székülések gyártására. Az európai rétegeltlemez-gyártás bölcsõje a Balti-tenger térsége, Oroszország, Lengyelország, Finnország, ahol nyír és éger alapanyag feldolgozására épültek az elsõ üzemek.

Magyarországon az elsõ késelt furnért 1880–1890 között LÕVY Dániel állította elõ, az elsõ hámozott furnért pedig 1910 körül41 készítették. A rétegelt lemez gyártása ezzel egy idõben indulhatott.

Erdélyben nagy jelentõséggel bír a Goldfinger és Templanszky cég Szászrégenben, ahol elõször – 1905-ben – építenek bükkfa hasznosítású fûrészüzemet. A kis gyárat 32 körfûrésszel, 3 gõzkamrával és 3 szárító-kamrával szerelték fel. Úgyszintén Szászrégenben jegyzik az elsõ bútor-léc- és furnérgyártó üzemet 1898-ban.42

A farostlemez-gyártás elsõ próbálkozásával 1772-ben találkozunk, amikor az angol Clay „papier-macher”-t készít 10 villa építésére. A tech-nológiát a XX. században továbbfejlesztik, 1926-ban Amerikában, majd 1929-ben Svédországban épülnek az elsõ mai típusú „keménylemezeket” elõállító gyárak. Erdélyben a második világháborút követõen indul el a farost- és a faforgácslemez ipari gyártása.

A fa mesterséges – gõzzel való – szárítására az 1820-as évekbõl van több adatunk Angliából és Németországból. 1827-ben faszárításra kap szaba-dalmat Friedrich LAFITE és Franz WEBER Grazban, és 1828-ban Leonard GLINK Münchenben. 1822-ben hallanak elõször az elsõ csiszolópapírok (üvegpapír) megjelenésérõl. Az erre vonatkozó elsõ szabadalmat FERMY adta be Párizsban.

Jelen tanulmányunkban nem törekszünk több ellentmondásos adat mé-lyebb kutatást igénylõ tisztázására, a sok évszámhoz kötött találmány fel-sorakoztatásával csupán az a szándékunk, hogy érzékeltessük különbözõ korszakokban az erdélyi faipar helyzetét Európa más részeihez képest, valamint segítsünk a hozzávetõleges tájékozódásban, bizonyos technikák, anyagfajták és gépek idõrendi megjelenését tekintve.

bibliográfia/bibliography

n HIMMELHEBBEL, Georg: Biedermeier bútorok. Budapest, 1982.n K. CSILLÉRY Klára: A magyar népi lakáskultúra kialakulásának kezdetei.

Budapest, 1982.n K. CSILLÉRY Klára: Az ácsolt láda. Összegyûjtött tanulmányok. Szerk:

KISS Margit. Budapest, 2007.n K. CSILLÉRY Klára: Magyar bútoripari (faipari) – munkaeszközök és

technikák. In: Régi famesterségek.n HAÁZ Ferenc: Udvarhelyszéki famesterségek. Kolozsvár, 1942. n Dr. GHIMESSY László: A fafeldolgozás évgyûrûi. Budapest, 2004. n NÉMETH Károly: A faanyag degradációja. Budapest, 1998.n Faanyagok és faanyagvédelem az építõiparban. Szerk: dr. NÉMETH

László. Budapest, 2003.n VEREBÉLYI Kincsõ: Korok és stílusok a magyar népmûvészetben. Bu-

dapest, 2002.n CZIRÁKI József: Falemezgyártástan. Egyetemi jegyzet, Sopron, 1966.

(Kézirat)n VADÁSZI Erzsébet: A bútor története. Budapest, 1987.n Erdõ és nyelv. Válogatás a Keleti-Kárpátok belsõ hajlata erdõ gazdál ko-

dásának magyar szókincsébõl. Anyagát gyûjtötte és szerkesztette: KÁDÁR Zsombor. Erdészettörténeti közlemények XLIII. Budapest, 1999.

40 CZIRÁKI, 6.41 TÓTH, 34.42 KÁDÁR–PÁL-ANTAL, 131–142.


212009/1


The first attempt in manufacturing fib-erboards was in 1772, when in England a man named CLAY made “papier-macher” for the building of 10 villas. The technology was then further developed in the 20th cen-tury, in America in 1926 and then the first “hardboard” factories were built in Sweden in 1929. The manufacturing of fiberboards and particle boards in Transylvania started after World War II.

We have several data about the artificial drying of wood – with steam – from Eng-land and Germany in the 1820s. In 1827 Friedrich LAFITE and Franz WEBER obtain a patent for wood drying in Graz and in 1828 Leonard GLINK obtains a similar pat-ent in Munich. The first glass papers appear in 1822. For this kind of paper FERMY took out the first patent in Paris.

In this paper we do not strive for the explanation of any more contradictory data, which need a more detailed research, by enumerating all the inventions with their year of appearance we merely try to show the position of the Transylvanian timber in-dustry compared to other parts of Europe in different periods and we try to help in the chronological mapping of the develop-ment of certain techniques, materials and machines.

n Erdélyi Magyar Szótörténeti Tár I. Anyagát gyûjtötte és szerkesztette: SZABÓ T. Attila. Bukarest, 1975. n Quellen zur Geschichte de Stadt Hermannstadt / Documente privind

istoria oraşului Sibiu. Ed. Îngrijitã de MONICA Vlaicu. Sibiu–Heidel-berg, 2003. n Népélet a Kis-Homoród mentén. Szerk: KARDALLUS János. Szentegy-

háza, 1998.n KÁDÁR Zsombor: Székelyföldi erdészet- és faipar-történeti jegyzetek.

Erdészettörténeti közlemények. Budapest, 1993. n KÁDÁR Zsombor–PÁL-ANTAL Sándor: A székelyföldi erdészet és fa-

ipar. Marosvásárhely, 2002.n A céhes élet Erdélyben. Válogatta, bevezetéssel és jegyzetekkel ellátta

KOVÁCH Géza és BINDER Pál. Bukarest, 1981. n Bildband Schäßburg. Herausgeber: Heinz BRANDSCH, Heinz HELT-

MANN, Walter LINGNER. Düsseldorf, 2003.n TÓTH Sándor: A fafeldolgozás 1945 elõtt. Budapest, 1999.n DAHINTEN, Otto: Geschichte der Stadt Bistritz in Siebenbürgen. Studia

Transylvanica. Köln–Wien, 1988.n BATÁRI László: Mûvészet és mesterség. Fa – bútor. Katalógus, az Ipar-

mûvészeti Múzeum gondozásában. Budapest, 1989.n CAPESIUS, Roswith: Siebenbürgisch-sächsische Schreinermalerei. Bu-

karest, 1983.n NEGULICI, Dorina: Meşteşuguri în Braşovul medieval. Braşov, 1995.n ENTZ Géza: A gyulafehérvári Székesegyház. Budapest, 1958.n SIGERUS, Emil: Nagyszeben város Krónikája. 1100–1929. Nagyszeben,

2006.n DÉRY Attila: Történeti anyagtan. Budapest, 2000. n A magyar építõmesterség történetének kisenciklopédiája. Fõszerk: Csá-

szár László. Budapest, 1992.n A magyar kézmûvesipar története. Szerk: SZULOVSZKY János. Buda-

pest, 2005.n SZINNYAI Katalin–KOCSIS Ferenc–ZÁDOR Mihály: Fejlõdéstörténeti

érdekességek az építési múltból. Hogyan építettek elõdeink. Budapest, 1992.

n 11. ábra: Kovácsolt szögeket gyártó kovács a XV. század végén. (balra)n Figure 11. Blacksmith manufacturing

forged nails at the end of the 15th century. (left side)

n 12. ábra: Csigafúrót készítő kovács. Nürnberg, 1526. (jobbra)n Figure 12. Blacksmith manufacturing a

spiral drill. Nuremberg, 1526. (right side)

22 2009/1


abstract:

n For over two millennia, historic roof struc-tures – of many different types and still in use today – have been protecting historic build-ings against bad weather. Built in a great va-riety of shapes, historic roof structures have a significant heritage value and are now treated with more and more interest. Interventions necessary in order to meet the excellence requirements for historic roof structures ex-ploitation demand a complex theoretical and practical knowledge, since the manner in which the mechanical work is carried out is one of the main fields that need to be mas-tered. For the past 10-15 years, we have been able to use information allowing a correct quantitative assessment, which is essential in order to have a comprehensive set of conclu-sions related to the mechanics of historic roof structures. This paper is a synthesis of the mechanical behavior of continental historic roof structures, devided into frames having a Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque and Eclectic character, also focusing on the evaluation of their heritage value.

1. preamble – types of historic Roof Structures1

n Roof structures are load-bearing struc-ture sub-units placed in order to sustain the roof covering. They are a spatial network of lineal load-bearing elements, arranged in cross- [placed at 0.80 – 1.20 (1.50) m dis-tance among themselves] and longitudinal bracing frames or built as spatial systems (radial and annular) proper. They can be classified into historic and engineered roof structures, and are made of timber, steel, or reinforced concrete.

1 SZABÓ Bálint: Dicþionar ilustrat de structu-ri portante istorice * Illustrated dictionary of historic load-bearing structures * Történeti tar-tószerkezetek illusztrált szakszótára * Bildwör-terbuch Historischer Tragwerke / Cluj-Napoca, Editura Utilitas, 2004, Editura Kriterion et Uti-litas 2005 ISBN 973-9377-40-8

rezumat:

n De peste douã milenii, şarpantele istorice – de tipuri diferite, în ex-ploatare şi astãzi – asigurã protecþia construcþiilor istorice contra intem-periilor. Realizate în mare varietate, şarpantele istorice sunt valori deo-sebite de patrimoniu, fiind tratate cu un interes din ce în ce mai mare. Intervenþiile necesare asigurãrii exigenþelor de performanþe în exploata-rea şarpantelor istorice pretind cunoştinþe teoretice şi practice evoluate, modul mecanic de lucru fiind unul dintre subiectele majore care trebuie stãpânite. De 10-15 ani dispunem şi de un suport informaþional ce per-mite o evaluare cantitativã corectã, anexã indispensabilã concluziilor atotcuprinzãtoare în domeniul mecanicii şarpantelor istorice. În lucrare este prezentatã o sintezã a comportãrii mecanice a şarpantelor istorice continentale, scindabile în sisteme planare având caracter romanic, go-tic, baroc şi eclectic, punând accent inclusiv pe evaluarea valorilor pro-prii şi purtate de patrimoniu.

1. preambul – tipuri de şarpante istorice1

n Şarpantele sunt subansambluri de structurã portantã dispuse sã susþinã învelitoarea acoperişului, fiind reþele spaþiale de elemente portante liniare, ordonate (scindabile) în sisteme planare transversale [dispuse între ele la 0,80 – 1,20 (1,50) m distanþã] şi longitudinale sau concepute în sisteme (radiale şi inelare) spaþiale propriu-zise. Şarpantele se pot clasifica în cele istorice sau inginereşti, fiind realizate din lemn, oþel sau beton armat.

Şarpantele istorice sunt executate din lemn dupã o concepþie de structurã portantã empirico-intuitivã, fãrã suport teoretic ingineresc, carac-terizate prin rezemarea exclusivã pe subansamblurile portante de susþinere (pereþi portanþi, stâlpi, coloane), dispuse de regulã pe conturul exterior al clãdirilor, fãrã sã fie sprijinite pe subansambluri portante de planşee (bol-tite sau planare). Şarpantele istorice scindabile în sisteme planare – dupã modul mecanic de comportare – sunt clasificate în şarpante pe grinzi şi şarpante pe cãpriori şi corzi.

1 SZABÓ Bálint: Dicþionar ilustrat de structuri portante istorice * Illustrated dictionary of historic load-bearing structures * Történeti tartószerkezetek illusztrált szakszótára * Bildwörterbuch Historischer Tragwerke / Cluj-Napoca, Editura Utilitas, 2004, Editura Kriterion et Utilitas 2005 ISBN 973-9377-40-8

n szabó bálint

mecanica şarpantelor istorice the mechanics

of Historic Roof Structures


232009/1


Historic roof structures are roof struc-tures made of timber according to an em-pirical-intuitive load-bearing structure con-cept, without an engineered theoretic sup-port, characterised by their resting exclu-sively on supporting load-bearing sub-units (load-bearing walls, pillars, columns), usu-ally placed on the external outline of build-ings, without resting on slab load-bearing sub-units (vaulted or plane). According to their mechanical behaviour, historic roof structures are classified into roof structures on beams and roof structures on common rafters and tie-beams.

Historic roof structures on common raf-ters and tie-beams are load-bearing sub-units of great complexity, able to cover lay-outs of large spans. Spatial load-bearing structures with tensions, are made up of elements placed according to triangular outlines (common rafter – tie-beam – com-mon rafter), dead loads being divided into slanted compression components – following

Şarpantele istorice pe cãpriori şi corzi sunt subansambluri portante de complexitate pronunþatã, apte pentru acoperirea tramelor de dimensi-uni mari. Structurile portante spaþiale cu împingeri sunt formate din bare dispuse pe contururi triunghiulare (cãprior – coardã – cãprior), acþiunile gravitaþionale fiind defalcate în componente înclinate de compresiune – dupã direcþia cãpriorilor – echilibrate de întinderea corzii şi de reacþiunea cosoroabelor. Şarpantele istorice pe cãpriori şi corzi admit la rândul lor subgrupe marcate de modalitãþi distincte de alcãtuire, remarcându-se: (a) conformarea geometricã şi mecanicã; (b) materialele utilizate; (c) tehno-logiile de execuþie. Conformarea geometrico-mecanicã este caracterizatã prin: (1) volumetria acoperişului susþinut – panta cãpriorilor; (2) sistemele planare transversale (fermele) principale; (3) sistemele planare transver-sale (fermele) secundare; (4) sistemele planare longitudinale de rigidizare; (5) conlucrarea sistemelor planare – spaþialitatea şarpantelor; (6) prelua-rea şi transmiterea acþiunilor la nivel de subansamblu. Dacã se are drept criteriu de clasificare a şarpantelor istorice pe cãpriori şi corzi modalitatea de reducere a încovoierii cãpriorilor, avem douã mari categorii: şarpante (istorice) pe traverse şi şarpante (istorice) pe pane.

n Fig. 1. Şarpante a) scindabile în sisteme planare transversale şi longitudinale (Şarpanta dor-mitorului de băieţi al Colegiului Bethlen Gábor din Aiud-Alba), respectiv b) concepute în sisteme (radiale şi inelare) spaţiale propriu-zisen Figure 1. Roof structures

a) arranged in cross- and longitudinal bracing frames (The roof structure of the Boys’ Dormitory at the Bethlen Gábor School in Aiud –Alba), respectively b) built as spatial systems proper (radial and annular).

n Fig. 2. Acţiunile gravitaţionale defalcate în componente de compresiune – după direcţia căpriorilor – echilibrate de întinderea corzii şi de reacţiunea cosoroa-belor în cazul unei şarpante având caracter a) romanic (ferma principală a şarpantei bisericii reformate din Horoatu Crasnei – Sălaj), respectiv b) baroc (ferma principală a şarpantei pavilionului administrativ – corp I – din cetatea oradea)n Figure 2. Gravity actions divided into compression components – according to the direction of common rafters – balanced by the tension of the tie-beam

and the reaction of the wall-plates in the case of a: a) Romanesque (the main truss of the roof structure at the Calvinist Church in Horoatu Crasnei – Sălaj), respectively b) Baroque (the main truss of the roof structure at the administrative wing – building I – of oradea fortress) character roof structure

24 2009/1


the common rafter direction – balanced by the tension of the tie-beam and by the wall plate reaction. Historic roof structures on common rafters and tie-beams are divided into several sub-types marked by a differ-ent concept, according to: (a) the geometric and mechanical conformation; (b) the ma-terials used; (c) construction technologies. Geometric-mechanical conformation is characterised by: (1) the shape of the sup-ported roof’s volume – the common rafter pitch; (2) main cross frames/trusses; (3) secondary cross frames[trusses]; (4) longi-tudinal bracing frames; (5) co-working be-tween the frames – the spatiality of the roof structures; (6) taking over and transmitting actions at sub-unit level. If we classify roof structures on common rafters and tie-beams according to the following criterion: means of reducing the common rafters’ bending, two main categories result: (historic) roof structures on collar beams and (historic) roof structures on purlins.

Historic roof structure on collar beams is a roof structure on common rafters and tie-beams, in which the span of the common rafters is diminished by collar beams placed between the common rafters. The bending of the common rafters is reduced due to the compression rigidity of the collar beams. The secondary trusses, usually provided with tie-beams, can balance themselves (especially under the dead-loads), and thus it is possible that the two common rafters balance each other, without discharging on the main trusses. It is the system favoured in continental Romanesque, Gothic and Ba-roque roof structures.

Historic roof structure on purlins is a roof structure on common rafters and tie-beams, which ensures the reduction of bend-ing in the common rafters through interme-diate supports provided by purlins. Purlins resist with bending rigidity, therefore trans-mit the actions from the common rafters to the straining trusses or straining-hanging trusses. The secondary trusses, lacking tie-beams (their self-balancing not being pos-sible), discharge on the main trusses includ-ing through purlins. It is the system favored in coastal-type roof structures, as well as in continental Eclectic roof structures.

Coastal-type roof structures are historic roof structures on purlins that have been in use since the beginning of the Ist millennium all across the Roman Empire (on the coast-line of today’s Italy, France, Spain, Great Britain, Belgium and The Netherlands).

Continental roof structures are historic roof structures on collar beams (with Ro-manesque, Gothic, respectively Baroque character), as well as Eclectic historic roof structures (on purlins), preserved in the continental part of Europe ever since the beginning of the IInd millennium (older ex-amples have not been preserved): in today’s Germany, Poland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania.

In the 18th, respectively 19th centuries, the (historic) Eclectic roof structures on purlins were adopted throughout Europe.

Şarpantele istorice pe traverse sunt şarpante pe cãpriori şi corzi în care deschiderea cãpriorilor este diminuatã prin traverse dispuse între cãpriori, încovoierea cãpriorilor fiind redusã prin rigiditatea la compresi-une a traverselor. Fermele secundare – dispunând de regulã de corzi – sunt capabile de auto-echilibrare (mai ales la acþiuni gravitaþionale) şi astfel este posibil ca cei doi cãpriori sã se echilibreze reciproc, fãrã a se descãrca pe fermele principale. Este sistemul preferat al şarpantelor continentale cu caracter romanic, gotic şi baroc.

Şarpantele istorice pe pane sunt şarpante pe cãpriori şi corzi al cãror rol este de a asigura reducerea încovoierii cãpriorilor prin reazeme inter-mediare asigurate de pane, care prin rigiditatea lor la încovoiere trans-mit acþiunile cãpriorilor cãtre dispozitivele de tensionare sau de tensio-nare-suspendare. Fermele secundare fãrã corzi (auto-echilibrarea nefiind posibilã) se descarcã pe fermele principale inclusiv prin pane. Este siste-mul preferat al şarpantelor de coastã, precum şi al şarpantelor continen-tale cu caracter eclectic.

Sunt denumite şarpante de coastã şarpantele istorice pe pane utilizate de la începutul mileniului I pe teritoriul Imperiului Roman (pe partea de coastã a Italiei, Franþei, Spaniei, Angliei, Belgiei, Olandei de azi, etc.).

n Fig. 3. Şarpantă istorică (având caracter gotic tip GII) pe traverse (şarpanta bisericii reformate din Daia – Harghita): fermă a) principală, b) secundară şi c) sistemul planar longitudinaln Figure 3. Gothic roof structure (GII type) on collar beams (the roof structure at the Calvinist Church

in Daia – Harghita): a) main truss, b) secondary truss and c) longitudinal roof bracing frame


252009/1


2. forming the Continental Historic Roof Structures on Common rafters and tie-beams

n Continental historic roof structures on common rafters and tie-beams are Roman-esque, Gothic, Baroque and respectively Eclectic type ones. Certainly, throughout the evolution, intermediary types were also made, such as Romanesque-Gothic, Gothic-Baroque, or Baroque-Eclectic, each having the characteristics of two different types of roof structures.

“Romanesque” roof structureBuilt only of main trusses, each truss

having a tie-beam, common rafters, angle braces, upper collar, and (possibly) a col-lar beam; the major classification criterion is related to how the wind-bracing is built; thus, there are: type RI roof structures, with just one pair of angle braces and upper col-lar, and type RII respectively, with 2 pairs of angle braces, upper collar and collar beam. (a) The geometric and mechanical confor-mation of frames and elements takes into consideration the following: (1) the shape of the roof volume, characterised by the common rafter pitch, which hardly ever ex-ceeds 45°; (2) is built exclusively of main trusses, which in their turn have common

Sunt denumite şarpante continentale şarpantele istorice pe traverse (cu caracter romanic, gotic, respectiv baroc), precum şi şarpantele istorice eclectice (pe pane), pãstrate în partea continentalã a Europei de la începu-tul mileniului II (exemple mai vechi nu s-au pãstrat): pe teritoriul actual al Germaniei, Poloniei, Suediei, Cehiei, Slovaciei, Ungariei, României, etc.

În secolele XVIII, respectiv XIX sunt adoptate în toatã Europa şarpantele (istorice) pe pane cu caracter eclectic.

2. alcătuirea şarpantelor istorice continentale pe căpriori şi corzi

n Şarpantele istorice continentale pe cãpriori şi corzi sunt de caracter romanic, gotic, baroc, respectiv eclectic. Desigur, pe parcursul evoluþiei s-au realizat inclusiv tipuri intermediare de şarpante, cu caracter romano-gotic, gotico-baroc, respectiv baroco-eclectic, dispunând de caracteristice a douã caractere de şarpantã.

Şarpanta cu caracter romanic Alcãtuitã numai din ferme principale, fiecare fermã dispune de

coardã, cãpriori, colþari, moazã, (eventual) traversã; criteriul major de clasificare se leagã de modul de realizare a contravântuirilor; astfel existã: şarpante de tip RI, cu un sigur rând de colþari şi moazã, respec-tiv de tip RII, cu perechi de colþari, moazã şi traversã. (a) Conformarea geometricã şi mecanicã a elementelor şi a sistemelor planare are în

n Fig. 4. Şarpantă istorică (având caracter eclectic tip EI) pe pane (şarpanta clădirii principale a colegiului Bethlen Gábor din Aiud-Alba): fermă a) principală, b) secundară şi c) sistemul planar longitudinaln Figure 4. Historic roof structure (with type

EI Eclectic character) on purlins (the roof structure of the main building at the Bethlen Gábor School in Aiud –Alba): a) main truss, b) secondary truss and c) longitudinal roof bracing frame

26 2009/1


rafters(1), tie-beam(2), angle braces(3), upper collars(4), possibly collar beams(5); (3) there are no longitudinal bracing frames, longitu-dinal bracing was ensured through the ele-ments supporting the covering; (4) actions are transmitted to the founding ground mainly through wall plates(6) – usually dou-ble or triple – placed on longitudinal load bearing walls; longitudinal actions can be partially transmitted to the gables and transversal load bearing walls; (b) the ma-terial mainly used is hardwood (oak, ever-green oak etc.), fit for constructing thin elements; (c) the construction technology implies processing by trimming and the forming of joists achieved (possibly) by typical dovetail half-lap joints, reinforced by cylindrical fibrous oak pegs; pegs are capable of taking over the shear, prevent-ing the elements from detaching from each other at the joists.

vedere urmãtoarele: (1) volumetria acoperişurilor, caracterizatã de panta cãpriorilor, de regulã nu depãşeşte 45˚; (2) este realizatã exclusiv din ferme principale, care la rândul lor posedã cãpriori(1), coardã(2), colþari(3), moazã(4), eventual traverse(5); (3) nu existã sisteme planare longitudina-le de rigidizare, rigiditatea longitudinalã se asigurã prin elementele de susþinere a învelitorii; (4) acþiunile sunt transmise spre terenul de fun-dare preponderent prin cosoroabe(6) – de regulã duble sau triple – aşezate pe pereþi portanþi longitudinali; acþiunile longitudinale se pot transmite parþial frontoanelor, respectiv pereþilor portanþi transversali; (b) materi-alul preponderent utilizat este de esenþã tare (stejar, gorun etc.), adecvat confecþionãrii elementelor zvelte; (c) tehnologia de execuþie presupune prelucrare prin cioplire şi formarea nodurilor cu îmbinãri caracteristice re-alizate prin teşire pe jumãtatea secþiunii (eventual) în formã de coadã de rândunicã, solidarizate prin cuie cilindrice din lemn fibros de stejar; cuiele sunt capabile de preluarea eforturilor la forfecare, împiedicând deplasãrile relative ale barelor în noduri.

n Fig. 5. Şarpante de coastă: şarpante istorice pe pane din a) Italia, respectiv b) Anglian Figure 5. Coastal-type roof structures on purlins from a) Italy, respectively b) England

n Fig. 6. Şarpante continentale: şarpante istorice pe traverse având caracter a) romanic (Crasna-Sălaj), respectiv b) gotic (Sighişoara)n Figure 6. Continental roof structures: a) Romanesque (Crasna-Sălaj), respectively b) Gothic character (Sighişoara) historic roof structures on collar beams


272009/1


“Gothic” roof structureHistoric roof structure, in which each

truss is provided with a tie-beam2 (thus being self-bearing), common rafters, up-per collar, collar beams, and angle braces; the main trusses possess hanging truss(es) [usually built of queen posts (possibly in-cluding pairs of slanted struts) (possibly) compound rafters], while the longitudinal bracing frames are (only) vertical; the major classification criterion being the hanging truss composition, including the poten-tial «wind bracing systems» [made of two St. Andrew’s cross-shaped counter-braces, additionally bracing the common rafters among which they are placed. Thus, there are: type GI roof structures, with king posts [(possibly) slanted struts] placed includ-ing in the symmetry axis of the truss, type GII, only with queen posts in pairs of sym-metrical planes, (sustained by braces) and type GIII, with «wind bracing systems»; type GI allows for versions without slanted struts, or with asymmetrical slanted struts. (a) Geometric and mechanical conforma-tion of frames and elements: (1) the com-mon rafter pitch varies between 50° and 75°; (2) the quality of main truss is mainly manifest at non-gravity actions, with a dif-ference in rigidity between the two kinds of trusses; main trusses have: common raf-ters(1), tie-beam(2), collar beams(3) (on one or two levels), upper collar(4), angle braces(5) (bracing the joists formed by common raf-ters – tie-beams, or common rafters – col-lar beams), king/queen posts(6), compound rafters(7), and possibly counter-braces(8); (3) secondary trusses have some common characteristics with main trusses (both are self-bearing, have common rafters(1), tie-beam(2), collar beams(3), upper collar(4), angle braces(5) and maybe counterbraces(8)); secondary trusses rest on main trusses es-pecially under non-gravity actions; (4) lon-gitudinal bracing frames are well-defined, positioned (in the roofing volume) depend-ing on the roof structure span, in the ver-tical symmetry axis, or – symmetrically to this axis – in permanently vertical pairs of planes, on one or several levels; they have plates, and between the upper(9) and lower plates(10) there are wedged king/queen posts, braced by compound rafters and (maybe) angle braces; the upper and lower plates of the longitudinal frames are placed on tie-beams or collar-beams [upper collars] usually without joints, or simply notched; (5) the distribution of main and secondary trusses varies; typically, the row of trusses starts with and ends in a main truss (M), and every second truss is secondary (S), thus: M–S–M–S–M; a more rare type is the one having only main trusses: M–M–M–M–M, or the one in which between two successive main trusses there are two secondary ones: M–S–S–M–S–S–M; the connection between trusses and longitudinal bracing frames is achieved by king/queen posts belonging to both; (6) actions are transmitted to the

2 Rarely encountered tho, it exists also in a vers-ion without tie-beams, if the roof slab made of barrel vault is comprised in the roof structure volume

Şarpanta cu caracter goticŞarpantã istoricã, la care fiecare fermã dispune de coardã 2(fiind astfel

auto-portantã), cãpriori, moazã, traverse şi colþari; fermele principale admit dispozitiv(e) de agãþare [realizate din bare de agãþare verticale (eventual în-clinate) – dispuse de regulã în perechi – (eventual) arbaletrieri], iar sisteme-le planare longitudinale de rigidizare sunt (numai) verticale; criteriul ma-jor de clasificare este dupã modul de alcãtuire a dispozitivului de agãþare, remarcându-se inclusiv eventualele «sisteme de contravântuire» (realizate din douã contrafişe montate în cruce, rigidizând suplimentar cãpriorii între care sunt plasate); astfel existã: şarpante de tip GI, cu bare de agãþare [verticale

2 Foarte rar, existã şi varianta fãrã corzi, dacã planşeul de acoperiş realizat din boltã ci-lindricã intrã în volumul şarpantei

n Fig. 7. Şarpante continentale: şarpante istorice pe a) traverse având caracter baroc (Republica Cehă), respectiv pe b) pane, având caracter eclectic (Biserica ortodoxă din Şanţ, Bistriţa-Năsăud)n Figure 7. Continental roof structures: historic roof structures on a) collar beams having a Baroque

character (Czech Republic), respectively b) purlins, having an Eclectic character (orthodox Church of Şanţ, Bistriţa-Năsăud)

28 2009/1


founding ground usually on a transversal direction, mainly through wall plates(11) – usually double or triple – situated on the longitudinal load bearing wall; longitudinal actions can partly be taken over by gables or transversal load bearing wall, as well.

(b) the material mainly used is hard-wood (oak, evergreen oak etc. – having a durability of 500-1000 years in a dry en-vironment), fit for constructing thin ele-ments; (c) the construction technology im-

(eventual) înclinate], dispuse inclusiv în axul de simetrie al fermei, de tip GII, cu bare de agãþare numai în perechi de planuri simetrice (susþinute de arbaletrieri), respectiv de tip GIII, cu «sisteme de contravântuire»; tipul GI admite variante fãrã bare înclinate de agãþare, respectiv cu bare înclinate de agãþare asimetrice. (a) Conformarea geometricã şi mecanicã a elementelor şi sistemelor planare: (1) panta cãpriorilor variazã între 50° şi 75°; (2) calitatea de fermã principalã se manifestã preponderent la acþiuni ne-gravitaþionale, existând o diferenþã de rigiditate între cele douã sisteme planare transver-sale; ferma principalã are: cãpriori(1), coardã(2), traverse(3) (pe unul sau douã

n Fig. 8. Şarpantă având caracter romanic: a) vedere şi b) axonometrie (Şarpanta bisericii reformate din Horoatu Crasnei – Sălaj) 1 – căprior, 2 – coardă, 3 – traversă, 4 – moază, 5 – colţar n Figure 8. Romanesque roof structure: a) general view and b) axonometry (The roof structure at the Calvinist Church in Horoatu Crasnei – Sălaj)

1 – common rafter, 2 – tie-beam, 3 – collar beam, 4 – upper collar, 5 – angle brace

n Fig. 9. Şarpantă având caracter gotic: a) axonometrie şi b) vedere (Şarpanta bisericii evanghelice din Deal – Sighişoara) 1 – căprior, 2 – coardă, 3 – traversă, 4 – moază, 5 – colţar, 6 – bară de agăţare, 7 – arbaletrier, 9 – tălpi superioare şi 10 – inferioare

n Figure 9. Gothic roof structure: a) axonometry and b) general view (The roof structure of the Lutheran Church on top of the Hill – Sighişoara) 1 – common rafter, 2 – tie-beam, 3 – collar beam, 4 – upper collar, 5 – angle brace, 6 – king/queen posts, 7 – compound rafter, 9 – upper and 10 – lower plates


292009/1


plies processing by trimming and the form-ing of joists achieved by the typical dovetail half-lap joints, reinforced by cylindrical fibrous oak pegs; pegs are capable of tak-ing over the shear, preventing the elements from detaching from each other at the joists; dovetail lap joints contribute to taking over axial and bending stresses, achieving more strongly fixed joints.

“Baroque” roof structureHistoric roof structure, characterised

through longitudinal roof bracing frames placed in the plane of the common rafters, and through the specific discharging sys-tem within the main trusses, it is of four types, according to three features: (i) with continuous or broken common rafters, (ii) how horizontal thrusts from the secondary truss common rafters are taken over, and (iii) whether there are tie-beams placed in each truss or only in the main trusses; thus, there are four sub-types: (BI) roof structures of the first sub-type have continuous com-mon rafters and tie-beams in each truss; (BII) roof structures of the second sub-type (mansard-type), with broken common raf-ters and tie-beams in each truss; (BIII) the third roof structure sub-type is built with continuous common rafters, and tie-beams only in the main trusses, and horizontal thrust from the secondary truss common rafters is taken over by headers and trim-mers and transmitted to the main truss; and (BIV) the fourth roof structure sub-type possesses continuous common rafters, and tie-beams only in main trusses, the

nivele), moazã(4), colþari(5) (rigidizând nodurile formate de cãpriori – corzi, sau cãpriori – traverse), bare de agãþare(6), arbaletrieri(7) şi eventual contra-fişe(8); (3) fermele secundare au o serie de caracteristici comune cu cele principale, (ambele sunt auto-portante; posedã cãpriori(1), coardã(2), traver-se(3), moazã(4), colþari(5) şi eventual contrafişe(8)), rezemându-se pe fermele principale mai cu seamã la acþiuni ne-gravitaþionale; (4) sistemele planare longitudinale de rigidizare sunt bine delimitate, dispuse (în volumul aco-perişului) în funcþie de deschiderea şarpantei, în axul de simetrie vertical, şi/sau – simetric faþã de acest ax – în perechi de planuri întotdeauna verticale, pe unul sau mai multe nivele; posedã tãlpi, având între tãlpile superioare(9) şi inferioare(10) bare de agãþare împãnate, rigidizate prin arbaletrieri şi (even-tual) colþari; tãlpile inferioare şi superioare ale sistemelor planare longitudi-nale sunt aşezate pe corzi sau traverse [moaze] – de regulã – fãrã îmbinare sau legate prin chertare; (5) distribuþia fermelor principale şi secundare este variabilã, caracteristicã fiind situaþia în care şirul de ferme [început şi termi-nat cu ferme principale (P)] admite fiecare a doua fermã secundarã (S), astfel: P–S–P–S–P; mai rare sunt situaþiile în care existã numai ferme principale: P–P–P–P–P, respectiv cazuri în care între douã ferme principale consecutive se aflã douã ferme secundare: P–S–S–P–S–S–P; interdependenþa sistemelor planare transversale şi longitudinale este materializatã prin bare de agãþare comune; (6) acþiunile sunt transmise la terenul de fundare de obicei dupã direcþia transversalã, preponderent prin cosoroabe(11) – de regulã duble sau triple – aşezate pe pereþi portanþi longitudinali; acþiunile longitudinale se pot transmite parþial frontoanelor, respectiv pereþilor portanþi transversali.

(b) Materialul preponderent utilizat este de esenþã tare (stejar, gorun etc. – cu o durabilitate de 500-1000 ani în mediu uscat), adecvat confecþionãrii elementelor zvelte; (c) tehnologia de execuþie presupune prelucrare prin cioplire şi formarea nodurilor cu îmbinãri caracteristice prin teşire pe jumãtatea secþiunii în formã de coadã de rândunicã, solidarizate prin cuie cilindrice din lemn fibros de stejar; cuiele sunt capabile de preluarea efor-

n Fig. 10. Şarpantă având caracter baroc: a) vedere şi b) axonometrie (Şarpanta pavilionului administrativ – corp I – din cetatea oradea) 1 – căprior, 2 – coardă, 3 – arbaletrier, 4 – antretoază, 5 – traversă, 6 – moază, 7 – colţar, 8 – bară dublă de agăţare, 10 – arbaletrier, 12 – pana de streaşină, 13 – pana intermediară, 14 – pana superioară, 15 – cosoroabă n Figure 10. Baroque roof structure: a) general view and b) axonometry (The roof structure of the administrative wing – building I – in oradea fortress)

1 – common rafter, 2 – tie-beam, 3 – compound rafter, 4 – straining beam, 5 – collar beam, 6 – upper collar, 7 – angle brace, 8 – double king strut in tension, 10 – compound rafter, 12 – eaves purlin, 13 – intermediate purlin, 14 – upper purlin, 15 – wall-plate

30 2009/1


horizontal thrust from the secondary truss common rafters being taken over by eaves purlins and transmitted to the main truss.

(a) Geometric and mechanical con-formation of frames and elements: (1) the common rafter pitch is of max. 45° (except for mansard-type roof structures, where the pitch of the lower common rafters is between 60° and 75°); (2) the quality of main truss is manifest to the same extent at all types of actions; main trusses have: common rafters(1), tie-beam(2), compound rafters(3), straining beam(4), collar beam(5), upper collar(6), angle braces(7) (bracing the joists formed by common rafters – tie-beams), and (possibly) double king strut in tension(8); (3) secondary trusses have com-mon rafters(1), collar beam(3), upper collar(4), maybe tie-beam(2) or headers(9), rest on main trusses alike in the case of all types of ac-tions, especially those of the types iii or iv, which lack tie-beams, thus not being self-bearing; (4) longitudinal bracing frames are made of three purlins(12,13,14) and compound rafters(10), are always situated in the slanted common rafter plane, usually on one level; (5) 2-3 (more rarely) 4 secondary trusses are placed between two consecutive main trusses; the connection between trusses and longitudinal bracing frames is achieved by posts/struts belonging to both (common raf-ters), and by elements through which sec-ondary trusses rest on the main ones: trim-mers(11) and headers (at the BIII truss-type), and eaves purlins(12) (with typical pentago-nal sections) having a double role, by tak-ing over strains coming from longitudinal actions, as well as from transversal ones transmitted from secondary to main trusses (at the BIV truss-type); (6) usually, actions are transmitted to the foundation on a trans-versal direction, mainly through – generally simple or double – wall plates(15), located on the longitudinal load bearing walls; longi-tudinal actions can partially be taken over by gables, or by the transversal load bear-ing walls, too; (b) the material used mainly is softwood (forest fir-tree, spruce etc., the life-span of which is 200-500 years inside the building, in a dry environment), fit for trimming, more robust elements; the ten-sion from the king struts is usually trans-mitted towards tie-beams through metal strap-irons; (c) the construction technology implies the trimming of timber, and the use of half-lap, notch, grooved, or mortice and tenon joints, reinforced with pegs made of softwood; pegs can take over the shearing strain and can also prevent component el-ements from detaching from each other at the joists; as compared to Gothic ones, these joints are less capable of taking over bending stresses; the wrought metal parts signal quite accurately the age of the load-bearing structure.

“Eclectic” roof structureHistoric roof structure, built with hang-

ing trusses and (as a rule) straining trusses, using purlins for supporting the second-ary trusses, it implies longitudinal bracing frames placed (in the roof volume) in vertical or slanted planes; only main trusses have tie-

turilor la forfecare, împiedicând deplasãrile relative ale barelor în noduri; îmbinãrile prin teşire în coadã de rândunicã faciliteazã preluarea solicitãrilor axiale şi de încovoiere, realizând un grad avansat de încastrare.

Şarpanta cu caracter barocŞarpantã istoricã, caracterizatã prin sisteme longitudinale de rigidizare

dispuse în planul cãpriorilor, respectiv prin sistemul specific de descãrcare din fermele principale; presupune patru tipuri în funcþie de trei calitãþi: (i) cu cãpriori continui sau întrerupþi, (ii) dupã modalitatea preluãrii îm-pingerilor orizontale ale cãpriorilor din fermele secundare, respectiv (iii) cu corzi dispuse în fiecare fermã sau numai în fermele principale; astfel existã patru subgrupe: (BI) şarpantele din prima subgrupã au cãpriori con-tinui şi coardã în fiecare fermã; (BII) şarpantele din subgrupa a doua (de tip mansardã) dispun de cãpriori întrerupþi şi de coardã în fiecare fermã; (BIII)

n Fig. 11. Şarpantă având caracter eclectic: a) axonometrie şi b) vedere (şarpanta liceului agricol din Salonta) 1 – căprior, 2 – coardă, 3 – traversă, 4 – bară de agăţare, 5 – arbaletrier, 7 – cleştin Figure 11. Eclectic roof structure: a) axonometry and b) general view (the roof structure of the

Agricultural High School in Salonta, Bihor) 1 – common rafter, 2 – tie-beam, 3 – collar beam, 4 – queen post, 5 – compound rafter, 7 – tongs


312009/1


beams; horizontal thrust from the secondary trusses is taken over (to a greater or smaller extent, and strictly according to the rigid-ity of headers or to how joists are made at the ends of the trimmers) by the tie-beams within the main trusses through headers and trimmers; divided into three sub-types ac-cording to how actions are transmitted from the purlins to the wall plates by the main trusses (having consequences including as regards the way longitudinal bracing frames are placed): (EI) the first roof structure sub-type has straining-hanging trusses, actions being transmitted through the compression of the straining beam and compound rafters; (EII) roof structures from the second sub-type transmit actions through pairs of sheared tongs and pairs of compressed compound rafters; (EIII) the third roof structure sub-type

şarpantele din subgrupa a treia se executã cu cãpriori continui, dar numai fermele principale posedã corzi, iar împingerile orizontale ale cãpriorilor din fermele secundare sunt preluate şi transmise fermelor principale de longeroane şi grinzişoare, respectiv (BIV) şarpantele din subgrupa a patra se executã cu cãpriori continui, numai fermele principale posedã corzi, iar împingerile orizontale ale cãpriorilor din fermele secundare sunt preluate şi transmise fermelor principale de pane de streaşinã.

(a) Conformare geometricã respectiv mecanicã a elementelor şi sisteme-lor planare: (1) panta cãpriorilor are cel mult 45° (excepþie fac şarpantele de tip mansardã, cu panta cãpriorilor inferiori între 60° şi 75°); (2) calitatea de fermã principalã se manifestã deopotrivã la toate tipurile de acþiuni; fer-ma principalã are: cãpriori(1), coardã(2), arbaletrieri(3), antretoazã(4), traversã(5), moazã(6), colþari(7) (rigidizând nodurile formate de arbaletrier – antretoazã) şi (eventual) barã dublã de agãþare(8); (3) fermele secundare posedã cãpriori(1), traversã(3), moazã(4), eventual coardã(2) sau grinzişoare(9), rezemându-se pe

n Fig. 12. a) Cosoroabă parţial înglobată în masa zidăriei de susţinere (biserica evanghelică din Drăuşeni – Braşov), b) Sisteme planare transversale dispuse între ele la 0,80 – 1,20 (1,50) m distanţă (biserica din Republica Cehă)n Figure 12. a) Wall plate partially included into the supporting wall (Lutheran Chruch in Drăuşeni – Braşov), b) Cross frames placed at 0.80 – 1.20 (1.50) m

distance among themselves (Chruch in Czech Republic)

n Fig. 13. Şarpantele având caracter romanic alcătuite numai din ferme principale (a) – biserica reformată din Horoatu Crasnei – Sălaj, b) – biserică din Suedia)n Figure 13. Roof structures with Romanesque character built only of main trusses (a) – Calvinist Church in Horoatu Crasnei – Sălaj, b) – church in Sweden)

32 2009/1


has compressed angled posts, a king post in tension, sheared tie-beams and compressed compound rafters for transmitting the actions from the purlins: (a) geometric and mechani-cal conformation of elements and frames: (1) the common rafter pitch varies between 30° and 45°; (2) the quality of main truss is mani-fest to the same extent at all types of actions; main trusses consist of common rafters(1), tie-beam(2), (possibly) upper collar(3), king/queen post(4), compound rafters(5), and straining beam(6) (EI truss-type), tongs(7) (EII truss-type), or angled posts(8) (EIII truss-type);

(3) secondary trusses possess common rafters(1), (possibly) upper collar(3), and trim-mers(9); not being self-bearing, they obliga-torily rest on the main trusses for support at all types of actions; (4) the longitudinal roof bracing frames are built, according to how the roof structure is conformed, in the ver-tical symmetry axis or – symmetrically to this axis – in two vertical or slanted planes, usually on one single level; they have upper plates [usually also working as ridge(10) or/and intermediate purlins(11)] and – between the upper plate and the tie-beams – posts, braced by counterbraces(12); (5) 2–4 (more seldom) 5 secondary trusses are placed between two consecutive main trusses; the connection between trusses and longitudinal frames is achieved by posts belonging to both, while purlins have a double role, taking over stresses coming from longitudinal as well as transversal actions transmitted from the sec-ondary to the main trusses, and the trimmers are connected to the main trusses through headers; (6) actions are transmitted to the founding ground usually on a transversal direction, mainly through simple or double wall plates(13), situated on the longitudinal load bearing walls; longitudinal actions can partly be taken over by gables or transversal load bearing walls; (b) the predominant ma-terial is softwood (forest fir-tree, spruce etc., with a life-span of 200-500 years inside the building, in a dry environment), fit for trim-ming, more robust elements; tension from

fermele principale deopotrivã la toate tipurile de acþiuni, mai ales cele de tip iii sau iv, care nu dispun de corzi şi astfel nu sunt auto-portante; (4) sis-temele planare longitudinale de rigidizare sunt realizate din trei pane(12,13,14) şi arbaletrieri(10), întotdeauna în planurile înclinate ale cãpriorilor, de regulã pe un singur nivel; (5) între douã ferme principale consecutive sunt dis-puse 2-3 (mai rar) 4 ferme secundare; interdependenþa sistemelor plana-re transversale şi longitudinale este materializatã prin montanþi comuni (cãpriori), prin elemente care asigurã rezemarea fermelor secundare pe cele principale: longeroane(11) şi grinzişoare (la tipul de fermã BIII) şi pane de streaşinã(12) – cu secþiune caracteristicã pentagonalã – cu rol dublu, pre-luând solicitãrile provenite din acþiunile longitudinale, respectiv din cele transversale transmise de la fermele secundare cãtre cele principale (la tipul de fermã BIV); (6) acþiunile sunt transmise la terenul de fundare de obicei pe direcþia transversalã, preponderent prin cosoroabe(15) – de regulã simple sau duble – aşezate pe pereþi portanþi longitudinali; acþiunile lon-gitudinale se pot transmite parþial cãtre frontoane, respectiv spre pereþi portanþi transversali; (b) materialul preponderent utilizat este de esenþã moale (brad de pãdure, molid etc. – cu o durabilitate de 200-500 ani în in-teriorul clãdirii, în mediu uscat), adecvat confecþionãrii elementelor mai robuste; întinderea din bare de agãþare se transmite de obicei la coardã prin platbenzi metalice; (c) tehnologia de execuþie presupune prelucra-re prin cioplire şi formarea nodurilor cu îmbinãri teşite pe jumãtatea secþiunii, chertãri, cepuiri sau crestãri, solidarizate prin cuie din lemn de esenþã moale; cuiele sunt capabile de preluarea eforturilor de forfecare, împiedicând deplasãrile elementelor componente; îmbinãrile (faþã de va-rianta goticã) preiau în mai micã mãsurã solicitãrile la încovoiere; piesele metalice forjate indicã cu suficientã exactitate vârsta structurii portante.

Şarpanta cu caracter eclecticŞarpantã istoricã, executatã cu dispozitive de agãþare şi (regulat) de ten-

sionare, utilizând pane în susþinerea fermelor secundare, presupune siste-me longitudinale de rigidizare dispuse (în volumul acoperişului) în planuri verticale sau înclinate; numai fermele principale posedã corzi; împingerile orizontale de la fermele secundare sunt preluate (într-o mãsurã mai micã sau mai mare, şi în strictã concordanþã cu rigiditatea longeroanelor ori cu modul de alcãtuire a nodurilor de la capetele grinzişoarelor) de corzile din fermele principale prin longeroane şi grinzişoare; dupã modalitatea transmiterii de cãtre fermele principale a acþiunii de la pane cãtre cosoroabe (cu consecinþe

n Fig. 14. Tipuri de ferme principale romanice. Ferme principale cu caracter romanic de la: biserica a) ortodoxă Lupşa - Alba, b) reformată Horoatu Crasnei – Sălaj (1 – căprior, 2 – coardă, 3 – traversă, 4 – moază, 5 – colţar) şi variante de eforturi axiale în bare la acţiuni gravitaţionalen Figure 14. Types of Romanesque main trusses. Romanesque main trusses at: a) the orthodox Church in Lupşa - Alba, b) the Calvinist Church Horoatu Crasnei – Sălaj

(1 – common rafter, 2 – tie-beam, 3 – collar beam, 4 – upper collar, 5 – angle brace) and variations of axial stress in the bars under dead-loads actions


332009/1


the king/queen posts is usually transmitted towards tie-beams through metal strap-irons; (c) the construction technology implies the trimming of timber, and the use of half-lap, notch, grooved, or mortice and tenon joints, reinforced with pegs made of softwood; pegs can take over the shearing strain and can also prevent component elements from de-taching from each other at the joists; as com-pared to Gothic ones, these joints are less capable of taking over bending stresses; the wrought metal parts signal quite accurately the age of the load-bearing structure.

3. the mechanics of historic Continental roof structures on Common rafters and tie-beams

n The mechanical behaviour of historic roof structures on common rafters and tie-beams is characterised by the way gravity and non-gravity actions are taken over, respectively transmitted to the supporting sub-unit of the load-baring structure.

inclusiv asupra modului de dispunere a sistemelor planare longitudinale de rigidizare), se clasificã în trei subgrupe: (EI) şarpantele din prima subgrupã deþin dispozitive de tensionare-suspendare, acþiunile transmiþându-se prin compresiunea antretoazei şi a arbaletrierilor; (EII) şarpantele din subgrupa a doua transmit acþiunile prin perechi de cleşti forfecaþi şi perechi de arba-letrieri comprimaþi; (EIII) şarpantele din subgrupa a treia au popi înclinaþi comprimaþi, barã de agãþare întinsã, corzi forfecate şi arbaletrieri comprimaþi în vederea transmiterii acþiunilor de la pane. (a) Conformarea geometricã şi mecanicã a elementelor şi sistemelor planare: (1) panta cãpriorilor variazã între 30° şi 45°; (2) calitatea de fermã principalã se manifestã deopotrivã la toate tipurile de acþiuni; fermele principale deþin urmãtoarele: cãpriori(1), coardã(2), (eventual) moazã(3), barã(e) de agãþare(4), arbaletrieri(5) şi antretoazã(6) (tipul de fermã EI), cleşti(7) (tipul de fermã EII), respectiv popi înclinaþi(8) (tipul de fermã EIII);

(3) fermele secundare posedã cãpriori(1), (eventual) moazã(3) şi grinzi-şoare(9); nefiind auto-portante, se reazemã obligatoriu pe fermele principale deopotrivã la toate tipurile de acþiuni; (4) sistemele planare longitudinale de rigidizare sunt realizate, în funcþie de alcãtuirea şarpantei, în axul de simetrie vertical, sau – simetric faþã de acest ax – în perechi de planuri ver-ticale sau înclinate, de regulã pe un singur nivel; posedã o talpã superioarã

n Fig. 15. a) Fermă principală, b) fermă secundară şi c) sistem planar longitudinal gotic tip GII. (şarpanta bisericii reformate din Daia – Harghita) 1 – căprior, 2 – coardă, 3 – traversă, 4 – moază, 5 – colţar, 6 – bară de agăţare, 7 – arbaletrier, 9 – talpă superioară şi 10 – inferioarăn Figure 15. a) Main truss, b) secondary truss

and c) Gothic longitudinal bracing frame, type GII. (The roof structure at the Calvinist Church in Daia – Harghita) 1 – common rafter, 2 – tie-beam, 3 – collar beam, 4 – upper collar, 5 – angle brace, 6 – king/queen post, 7 – compound rafter, 9 – upper and 10 – lower plate

34 2009/1


The actions of the roof structure sub-unit are transmitted to the supporting sub-unit (walls, pillars, columns) through wall plates (simple or double) placed on longitu-dinal walls (usually) marginal. Often, wall plates are partially enclosed in the support-ing wall, but it is possible for the contact between the wall plates and the load-baring wall to be made only by friction.

[de obicei inclusiv cu rol de panã de coamã(10) sau /şi intermediarã(11)] şi – între talpa superioarã şi corzi – montanþi; rigidizate prin contrafişe(12); (5) între douã ferme principale consecutive sunt dispuse 2–4 (mai rar) 5 ferme secundare; interdependenþa sistemelor planare transversale şi longitudina-le se materializeazã prin montanþi comuni; panele au rol dublu, pre luând solicitãrile provenite din acþiunile longitudinale respectiv transversale transmise de la fermele secundare cãtre cele principale, iar grinzişoarele sunt legate de fermele principale prin longeroane; (6) acþiunile sunt trans-mise la terenul de fundare de obicei dupã direcþia transversalã, preponde-rent prin cosoroabe(13) – simple sau duble – aşezate pe pereþi portanþi lon-gitudinali; acþiunile longitudinale sunt transmise parþial frontoanelor sau pereþilor portanþi transversali; (b) materialul preponderent utilizat este de esenþã moale (brad de pãdure, molid etc. – cu o durabilitate de 200-500 ani în interiorul clãdirii, în mediu uscat), adecvat confecþionãrii elementelor mai robuste; întinderea din bare de agãþare se transmite de obicei la coardã

n Fig. 17. Eforturi în dispozitivele de suspendare în ferme principale gotice Ferme principale cu caracter gotic ale bisericilor reformate din a) Sângeorgiu de Pădure b) Daia – Harghita, c) romano-catolică Armăseni – Harghitan Figure 17. Stresses in the hanging elements of the

Gothic main trusses. Gothic main trusses at the Calvinist Churches in a) Sângeorgiu de Pădure b) Daia – Harghita, and c) Roman Catholic Church in Armăseni – Harghita

n Fig. 16. Eforturi în sistemele planare longitudinale gotice (Sisteme planare longitudinale de rigidizare de la biserica a) romano-catolică Armăseni – Harghita, b) reformată Daia – Harghita)n Figure 16. Stresses in Gothic longitudinal bracing frames (Longitudinal bracing frames at the

a) Roman Catholic Church in Armăseni – Harghita, b) Calvinist Church in Daia – Harghita)


352009/1


Continental roof structures on tie-beams and collar beams are spatial networks of lineal load-baring elements, arranged in cross- [placed at 0.80 – 1.20 (1.50) m dis-tance among themselves] and longitudinal bracing frames.

Cross frames (main and secondary truss-es) are sub-units simply propped up (more rarely continuous), usually connected to the wall plate through notches. These notches – placed at the ends of the tie-beams (possibly in front of the intermediary supports) – facil-itate the co-working between the wall plates and the trusses at horizontal displacements.

Usually, longitudinal frames do not lean on the supporting sub-unit in the load-baring structure. There is, however, an ex-ception: roofs with built-in gables, where it is possible to anchor longitudinal frames on to this masonry element.

The pitch of the roof also influences the intensity and distribution of the strain from gravity, respectively non-gravity actions. In the case of gravity actions, the more the pitch is reduced, the more the vertical ac-tion is transformed in a bigger axial force in the posts (the roof pitch also has the role of retaining snow, up to a certain extent). In the case of non-gravity actions, the roof pitch is usually directly proportional to the actions’ intensity.

3.1. The Mechanics of “Romanesque” roof structures Since Romanesque roof structures are

only made of main trusses, it is obvious that the transfer of gravity and non-gravity actions is taken over exclusively by these main trusses. Not having a spatial load-baring structure, they are not capable of a three-dimensional mechanical behaviour. (naturally, there is a certain stiffness in the plan of the roofing, which, to a smaller ex-tent, helps with taking over and transmit-ting actions).

prin platbenzi metalice; (c) tehnologia de execuþie presupune prelucrare prin cioplire şi formarea nodurilor cu îmbinãri teşite pe jumãtatea secþiunii, chertãri, cepuiri sau crestãri, solidarizate prin cuie din lemn de esenþã moa-le; cuiele sunt capabile de preluarea eforturilor de forfecare, împiedicând inclusiv deplasãrile axiale ale elementelor componente; îmbinãrile (faþã de varianta goticã) preiau în mai micã mãsurã solicitãrile la încovoiere; piesele metalice forjate indicã cu suficientã exactitate vârsta structurii portante.

3. mecanica şarpantelor istorice continentale pe căpriori şi corzi

n Mecanica şarpantelor istorice continentale pe cãpriori şi corzi este caracterizatã de modul în care acþiunile gravitaþionale şi ne-gravitaþionale sunt preluate, respectiv transmise subansamblului de susþinere în structurã portantã.

Acþiunile subansamblului de şarpantã sunt transmise subansamblului de susþinere în structurã portantã (pereþi, stâlpi, coloane) prin cosoroabe (simple sau duble), dispuse pe pereþii longitudinali (de regulã) marginali. Cosoroabe-le – de multe ori – sunt parþial înglobate în masa zidãriei de susþinere, dar este posibil contactul între cosoroabe şi peretele portant, numai prin frecare.

Şarpantele continentale pe cãpriori şi corzi sunt reþele spaþiale de ele-mente portante liniare, ordonate (scindabile) în sisteme planare transversa-le [dispuse între ele la 0,80 – 1,20 (1,50) m distanþã] şi longitudinale.

Sistemele planare transversale (fermele principale şi secundare) sunt subansambluri simplu rezemate (mai rar continue), fiind legate (de regulã) prin chertare de cosoroabe. Chertarea – realizatã în zona capetelor corzi-lor (eventual în dreptul reazemelor intermediare) – asigurã conlucrarea cosoroabe-fermã la deplasãri orizontale.

Sistemele planare longitudinale de regulã nu se sprijinã pe subansam-blul de susþinere în structura portantã. Fac excepþie acoperişurile cu fron-toane zidite, în care caz este posibilã ancorarea sistemelor planare longitu-dinale de aceste zidãrii.

Panta acoperişurilor influenþeazã deopotrivã intensitatea şi distribuþia solicitãrilor provenite din acþiunile gravitaþionale, respectiv ne-gravita-þionale. La acþiunile gravitaþionale, cu cât panta este mai redusã, cu atât

n Fig. 18. Şarpantele având caracter baroc (şarpantele având caracter baroc de la a) biserica reformată din Aluniş – Mureş, respectiv b) castelul Teleki din Satulung – Maramureş)n Figure 18. Baroque roof structures (baroque roof structures at the a) Calvinist Church in Aluniş – Mureş, respectively

b) the Teleki Mansion in Satulung – Maramureş)

36 2009/1


The lack of longitudinal bracing systems from Romanesque roof structures makes them vulnerable to longitudinal non-gravity actions. Therefore, the presence of frontal tympana has a positive role, the roof struc-ture’s durability being substantially influ-enced by the existence of these gables.

3.1.1. Behaviour under gravity actions Gravity actions are taken over (respec-

tively transmitted by the supporting sub-units of the load-bearing structure) exclu-sively by cross frames: main frames (usu-ally symmetrical to the vertical symmetry axis, which goes through the ridge of the roof structure). These bracing frames are load-bearing structures with thrusts, made of bars placed on triangular outlines (com-mon rafter - tie-beam - common rafter), the gravity actions being divided into slanted compression components – according to the pitch of the common rafters – balanced by the stretching of the tie-beam and the vertical reaction of the wall plates.

These triangular outlines (frames) are completed by lineal elements having the following roles: (i) to reduce the bending

acþiunea verticalã se transformã în bare într-o forþã axialã mai mare (pan-ta mai are rol inclusiv de a reþine în mai micã sau în mai mare mãsurã zãpada). În cazul acþiunilor ne-gravitaþionale, mãrimea pantei este – de regulã – direct proporþionalã cu intensitatea acþiunilor.

3.1. Mecanica şarpantelor având caracter romanicŞarpantele având caracter romanic fiind alcãtuite numai din ferme

principale, este evident cã transmiterea acþiunilor gravitaþionale şi ne-gravitaþionale se face în exclusivitate de cãtre aceste ferme principale. Ne-având structurã portantã spaþialã, nu sunt capabile de un mod mecanic de lucru tridimensional (desigur, învelitoarea are şi ea o rigiditate în planul ei, care – într-o mãsurã redusã – contribuie la preluarea şi transmiterea acþiunilor).

Lipsa sistemelor planare longitudinale de rigidizare la şarpantele cu ca-racter romanic face ca acestea sã fie vulnerabile la acþiuni ne-gravitaþionale longitudinale. Prezenþa timpanelor frontale are un rol pozitiv în acest sens, durabilitatea şarpantelor fiind substanþial afectatã de existenþa acestor fron-toane.

3.1.1. Comportarea la acþiuni gravitaþionaleAcþiunile gravitaþionale sunt preluate (respectiv transmise cãtre suban-

samblurile de susþinere în structurã portantã) în exclusivitate de sistemele

n Fig. 19. a) Fermă principală, b) fermă secundară şi c) sistem planar longitudinal baroc tip BII (şarpanta dormitorului de băieţi al Colegiului Bethlen Gábor din Aiud-Alba) (1 – căprior, 2 – coardă, 3 – arbaletrier, 4 – antretoază, 5 – traversă, 6 – moază, 7 – colţar, 10 – arbaletrier, 12 – pana de streaşină, 13 – pana intermediară, 14 – pana superioară)n Figure 19. a) Main truss, b) secondary truss and

c) Baroque longitudinal frame type BII (the roof structure of the Boys’ Dormitory at the Bethlen Gábor School in Aiud – Alba) (1 – common rafter, 2 – tie-beam, 3 – compound rafter, 4 – straining beam, 5 – collar beam, 6 – upper collar, 7 – angle brace, 10 – compound rafter, 12 – eaves purlin, 13 – intermediate purlin, 14 – upper purlin)


372009/1


of common rafters (under direct stress from the gravity load from the roofing, respective-ly the loads acting on the roofing) – collar beams and upper collars; (ii) to fix the com-mon rafters, respectively the collar beam in joists – angle braces. The angle braces can be placed in one or in several rows.

Since the trusses were only meant to have a relatively small span, no hanging trusses were necessary.

3.1.2. Behaviour under non-gravity actions Non-gravity actions on a transversal

direction (in the plan of the main trusses) are also taken over by the triangular outline strengthened by the aforementioned ele-ments. Each element has the role of taking over and transmitting non-gravity actions, only the extent to which they take part in the gravity/non-gravity actions differs as follows: collar beams are important in tak-ing over gravity actions, being less useful in taking over non-gravity actions. Upper col-lars and angle braces play an important part in taking over non-gravity actions.

The Romanesque roof structure does not have any load-baring sub-units meant to take over non-gravity actions on the lon-gitudinal direction (perpendicularly on the plan of the main trusses). These actions are reduced by the existing gables, and are made uniform by the elastic coat of the roofing (battens, etc.).

3.2. The mechanics of gothic roof structuresGothic roof structures are made of

cross frames (main and secondary trusses), respectively longitudinal bracing frames. Having a spatial load-baring structure, they are capable of a three-dimensional mechan-ical behaviour.


tively transmitted by the supporting sub-units of the load-baring structure) exclu-sively by cross frames: (at least in Ist order

planare transversale: fermele principale (de regulã simetrice faþã de axa verticalã de simetrie, ce trece prin coama şarpantei). Aceste sisteme plana-re sunt structuri portante cu împingeri, formate din bare dispuse pe con-tururi triunghiulare (cãprior - coardã - cãprior), acþiunile gravitaþionale fiind defalcate în componente înclinate de compresiune – dupã direcþia cãpriorilor – echilibrate de întinderea corzii şi de reacþiunea verticalã a cosoroabelor.

Contururile triunghiulare sunt completate de elemente lineare, având rol de: (i) reducere a încovoierii cãpriorilor (direct solicitaþi de sarcina gravitaþionalã provenitã din învelitoare, respectiv de încãrcãrile care acþioneazã asupra învelitorii) – traverse şi moaze; (ii) încastrare a cãpriorilor, respectiv a corzii în noduri – colþari. Colþarii se pot dispune într-un singur rând, sau în mai multe rânduri.

Fermele fiind realizate pentru deschideri relativ mici, nu a fost necesarã prevederea unor dispozitive de agãþare.

3.1.2. Comportarea la acþiuni ne-gravitaþionaleAcþiunile ne-gravitaþionale dupã direcþia transversalã (în planul ferme-

lor principale) sunt de asemenea preluate de conturul triunghiular întãrit cu piesele mai sus descrise. Fiecare dintre elemente au rol inclusiv în pre-luarea şi transmiterea acþiunilor ne-gravitaþionale, doar ponderea în care participã la acþiuni gravitaþionale sau ne-gravitaþionale diferã, astfel: tra-versele au rol important în preluarea acþiunilor gravitaþionale, fiind mai puþin utile în preluarea celor ne-gravitaþionale. Colþarii şi moazele au rol important în preluarea acþiunilor ne-gravitaþionale.

Şarpanta romanicã nu dispune de subansambluri portante nece-sare preluãrii acþiunilor ne-gravitaþionale dupã direcþia longitudinalã (perpendicularã pe planul fermelor principale). Aceste acþiuni sunt re-duse de existenþa frontoanelor, respectiv uniformizate de şaiba elasticã constituitã de învelitoare (şipci, etc.).

3.2. Mecanica şarpantelor având caracter goticŞarpantele gotice sunt compuse din sisteme planare transversale (ferme

principale şi secundare), respectiv longitudinale. Având structurã portantã spaþialã, sunt capabile de un mod mecanic de lucru tridimensional.


samblurile de susþinere în structurã portantã) în exclusivitate de sistemele

n Fig. 20. Comportare la acţiuni gravitaţionale la şarpante baroc şi baroc mansardă (Fermele principale baroce ale şarpantelor a) pavilionului administrativ (corp I) din cetatea oradea, respectiv b) dormitorului de băieţi al Colegiului Bethlen Gábor din Aiud – Alba)n Figure 20. Behaviour under gravity actions of the Baroque and Gothic mansard roof structure (Baroque main trusses of the roof structures at the

a) administrative wing (building I) of the oradea fortress, respectively b) the Boys’ Dormitory at the Bethlen Gábor School in Aiud – Alba)

38 2009/1


theory) main and secondary trusses (in most cases, symmetrical to the vertical symmetry axis, which is through the ridge of the roof structure). Usually, these bracing frames are load-baring structures with thrusts, made of elements placed on a triangular outline (common rafter – tie-beam – common rafter), gravity actions being divided into slanted compression components – according to the pitch of the common rafters – balanced by the tension of the tie-beam and the vertical reac-tion of the wall plates. [With the exception of roof structures without tie-beams (where the central part of the tie-beam is suppressed by the vaulted roof plate, with the keystone above the level of the tie-beam); in this case, the wall plate takes over some of the actions’ horizontal component].

The triangular frames are completed by lineal elements having the role of: (i) reduc-ing the bending of common rafters (under direct stress from the gravity load from the roofing, respectively the loads acting on the roofing) – collar beams and upper collars; (ii) fixing the common rafters, respectively the collar beam in joists – angle braces. The an-gle braces can be placed in one or in several rows; (iii) hanging the horizontal elements – vertical posts and hanging posts. Compound rafters are also placed there, as they must also support the vertical hanging posts.

3.2.2. Behaviour under non-gravity actions Non-gravity actions on a transversal

direction (in the plan of the main trusses) are also taken over by the triangular frame strengthened by the aforementioned ele-

planare transversale (cel puþin în teoria de ordinul I): fermele principale şi secundare (în majoritatea cazurilor simetrice faþã de axa verticalã de si-metrie, ce trece prin coama şarpantei). Aceste sisteme planare – de regulã – sunt structuri portante cu împingeri, formate din bare dispuse pe con-tururi triunghiulare (cãprior – coardã – cãprior), acþiunile gravitaþionale fiind defalcate în componente înclinate de compresiune – dupã direcþia cãpriorilor – echilibrate de întinderea corzii şi de reacþiunea verticalã a cosoroabelor. [Fac excepþie şarpantele fãrã corzi (unde partea centralã a corzii este suprimatã de planşeul boltit de acoperiş, având cheia bolþii deasupra cotei corzii); în acest ultim caz cosoroabele preiau o parte din componenta orizontalã a acþiunilor].

Contururile triunghiulare sunt completate de elemente lineare, având rol de: (i) reducere a încovoierii cãpriorilor (direct solicitaþi de sarcina gravitaþionalã provenitã din învelitoare, respectiv de încãrcãrile ce acþioneazã asupra învelitorii) – traverse şi moaze; (ii) încastrare a cãpriorilor, respectiv a corzii în noduri – colþari. Colþarii pot fi dispuşi într-un singur rând sau în douã rânduri; (iii) suspendare a elementelor orizontale – bare verticale şi înclinate de agãþare. Sunt dispuşi de ase-menea arbaletrieri, având inclusiv rol de suspendare a barelor verticale de agãþare.

n Fig. 21. Transmiterea acţiunilor gravitaţionale prin sisteme planare orizontale formate din pane de streaşină – grinzişoare (a) Ferma secundară, b) principală barocă, respectiv sistemul planar orizontal de descărcare la c) sarcini gravitaţionale a şarpantei pavilionului administrativ (corp I) din cetatea oradea)n Figure 21. Transmitting gravity actions by

horizontal frames made of eaves purlins-headers (a) The secondary and b) the main truss, respec-tively c) the horizontal plan for gravity actions discharging, at the Baroque roof structure of the administrative wing (building I) of the oradea fortress)


392009/1


ments. Each element has the role of taking over and transmitting non-gravity actions; only the extent to which they take part in the gravity or non-gravity actions differs, as follows: collar beams are important in tak-ing over gravity actions, being less useful in taking over non-gravity actions. Upper collars, angle braces, compound rafters and hanging posts play an important part in tak-ing over non-gravity actions.

Non-gravity actions on a longitudinal direction are taken over by longitudinal brac-ing frames, always placed vertically, being symmetrical to an axis going through the ridge of the roof structure. These systems have several elements in common with the main trusses (hanging posts); There is also a connection between the main truss and the longitudinal plates through the passing braces or angle braces, even though the truss - longitudinal frame joint is not always made by longitudinal plates with notches.

3.3. The Mechanics of baroque roof structuresBaroque roof structures are made of

cross frames (main and secondary trusses), respectively longitudinal bracing frames. Having a spatial load-baring structure, they are capable of a three-dimensional me-chanical behaviour.


tively transmitted to the support sub-units of the load-baring structure) differently, according to the composition of the roof structure. If secondary trusses also include tie-beams, the only ones to take over and transmit gravity actions (at least in Ist level theory) are cross frames: main and second-ary trusses (usually symmetrical to the ver-tical symmetry axis, going through the ridge of the roof structure). These bracing frames are load-baring structures with thrusts, made of elements forming triangular out-lines (common rafter - tie-beam - common rafter), gravity actions being divided into slanted compression components – following

3.2.2. Comportare la acþiuni ne-gravitaþionaleAcþiunile ne-gravitaþionale dupã direcþia transversalã (în planul fermelor)

sunt de asemenea preluate de conturul triunghiular întãrit cu piesele mai sus descrise. Fiecare dintre elemente au rol inclusiv în preluarea şi transmi-terea acþiunilor ne-gravitaþionale, doar ponderea în care participã la acþiuni gravitaþionale sau ne-gravitaþionale diferã, astfel: traversele au rol impor-tant în preluarea acþiunilor gravitaþionale, fiind mai puþin utile în preluarea celor ne-gravitaþionale. Colþarii, moazele, arbaletrierii şi barele înclinate de agãþare au un rol important în preluarea acþiunilor ne-gravitaþionale.

Acþiunile ne-gravitaþionale dupã direcþia longitudinalã sunt preluate de sistemele planare longitudinale, dispuse întotdeauna vertical, simetri-ce faþã de un ax ce trece prin coama acoperişului. Aceste sisteme dispun de elemente comune cu fermele principale (bare de agãþare); existã de asemenea o legãturã fermã principalã – tãlpi longitudinale prin arbaletri-eri sau colþari, chiar dacã îmbinarea fermã – sistem planar longitudinal nu se face întotdeauna prin chertarea tãlpilor longitudinale.

3.3. Mecanica şarpantelor având caracter barocŞarpantele având caracter baroc sunt compuse din sisteme plana-

re transversale (ferme principale şi secundare), respectiv longitudinale. Având structurã portantã spaþialã, sunt capabile de un mod mecanic de lucru tridimensional.


samblurile de susþinere în structurã portantã) diferenþiat, în concordanþã cu alcãtuirea şarpantelor. În cazul în care şi fermele secundare dispun de corzi, preluarea şi transmiterea acþiunilor gravitaþionale se face în exclusivitate de sistemele planare transversale (cel puþin în teoria de ordinul I): fermele principale şi secundare (de regulã simetrice faþã de axa verticalã de sime-trie, ce trece prin coama şarpantei). Aceste sisteme planare sunt structuri portante cu împingeri, formate din bare dispuse pe contururi triunghiulare (cãprior - coardã - cãprior), acþiunile gravitaþionale fiind defalcate în com-ponente înclinate de compresiune – dupã direcþia cãpriorilor – echilibrate de întinderea corzii şi de reacþiunea verticalã a cosoroabelor.

Cazul şarpantelor baroc mansardã constituie caz special, din cauza existenþei conturului trapezoidal la partea inferioarã a şarpantei. Conturul superior triunghiular se descarcã prin contact direct continuu pe conturul inferior trapezoidal.

n Fig. 22. Şarpantele având caracter eclectic a) tip EII (şarpanta Centrului militar judeţean Zalău) şi b) EIII (şarpanta bisericii reformate din Şimleu Silvaniei – Sălaj)n Figure 22. Eclectic roof structures, a) type EII (the roof structure of the Military Centre of the Zalău County) and b) EIII (the roof structure of the Calvinist

Church in Şimleu Silvaniei – Sălaj)

40 2009/1


the direction of the common rafters – bal-anced by the tension of the tie-beam and the vertical reaction of the wall plates.

The case of Baroque mansard roof struc-tures is a special one, because of the existence of the trapezoidal frame on the lower part of the roof structure. The upper, triangular out-line is discharging through a direct, continu-ous contact on the lower trapezoidal frame.

If secondary trusses are not on tie-beams, longitudinal bracing frames made of trim-mers-headers or eaves purlins-headers take over and transmit gravity actions, as well.

3.3.2. Behaviour under non-gravity actions Non-gravity actions on a transversal di-

rection (in the plan of the trusses) are also taken over by the triangular outline strength-ened by the elements described. Each ele-ment takes over and transmits non-gravity actions, only the extent to which they take part in gravity or non-gravity actions differs, as follows: collar beams are important in taking over gravity actions, being less use-ful in taking over non-gravity actions. Angle braces, upper collars and compound rafters play an important role in taking over non-gravity actions.

Non-gravity actions on a longitudinal di-rection are taken over by longitudinal bracing frames, always placed in the plan of the com-

Dacã fermele secundare nu dispun de corzi, preluarea şi transmiterea acþiunilor gravitaþionale se face inclusiv prin sisteme planare longitudina-le formate din longeroane-grinzişoare, sau pane de streaşinã-grinzişoare.

3.3.2. Comportarea la acþiuni ne-gravitaþionaleAcþiunile ne-gravitaþionale dupã direcþia transversalã (în planul ferme-

lor) sunt de asemenea preluate de conturul triunghiular întãrit cu piesele mai sus descrise. Fiecare dintre elemente au rol inclusiv în preluarea şi transmiterea acþiunilor ne-gravitaþionale, doar ponderea în care participã la acþiuni gravitaþionale sau ne-gravitaþionale diferã, astfel: traversele au rol important în preluarea acþiunilor gravitaþionale, fiind mai puþin utile în preluarea celor ne-gravitaþionale. Colþarii, moazele, arbaletrierii, au rol important inclusiv în preluarea acþiunilor ne-gravitaþionale.

Acþiunile ne-gravitaþionale dupã direcþia longitudinalã sunt prelu-ate de sistemele planare longitudinale, dispuse întotdeauna în planul cãpriorilor. Aceste sisteme posedã elemente comune cu fermele prin-cipale (cãpriori); existã de asemenea legãtura fermã secundarã – tãlpi longitudinale prin arbaletrieri sau colþari. Fiind dispus în planul înveli-torii, sistemul planar longitudinal baroc este de departe cel mai eficient sistem planar longitudinal istoric, contribuind esenþial la durabilitatea şarpantelor baroce.

n Fig. 23. a) Fermă principală, b) fermă secundară şi c) sistem planar longitudinal eclectic tip EI (şarpanta clădirii principale a Colegiului Bethlen Gábor din Aiud-Alba) (1 – căprior, 2 – coardă, 3 – antretoază, 4 – bară de agăţare, 5 – arbaletrier, 7 – moază, 8 – longeron, 9 – grinzişoară, 10 – pană intermediară, 11 – pană de streaşină) n Figure 23. a) Main truss, b) secondary truss and

c) Eclectic longitudinal frame, type EI (the roof structure of the main building at the Bethlen Gábor School in Aiud-Alba) (1 – common rafter, 2 – tie-beam, 3 – straining beam, 4 – king/queen post, 5 – compound rafter, 7 – upper collar, 8 – header beam, 9 – trimmer, 10 – intermediate purlin, 11 – eaves purlin)


412009/1


mon rafters. These systems have elements in common with the main trusses (common rafters); there is also a connection secondary truss – angle braces, by the means of com-pound rafters or angle braces. Placed in the plan of the roofing, the Baroque longitudinal frame is by far the most efficient historic brac-ing frame, thus contributing greatly to the du-rability of Baroque roof structures.

3.4. The mechanics of eclectic roof structuresEclectic roof structures are made of

cross frames (main and secondary trusses), respectively longitudinal bracing frames. Having a spatial load-baring structure, they are capable of a three-dimensional me-chanical behaviour.

3.4.1. Behaviour under gravity actions Since secondary trusses are not on tie-

beams, gravity actions are also taken over and transmitted by longitudinal frames made of trimmers – headers. Through these systems, secondary trusses discharge on main trusses. These bracing frames are load-baring structures with thrusts, made of ele-ments forming triangular frames (common rafter - tie-beam - common rafter), gravity actions being divided into slanted compres-sion components – following the direction

3.4. Mecanica şarpantelor eclecticeŞarpantele având caracter eclectic sunt compuse din sisteme plana-

re transversale (ferme principale şi secundare), respectiv longitudinale. Având structurã portantã spaþialã, sunt capabile de un mod mecanic de lucru tridimensional.

3.4.1. Comportarea la acþiuni gravitaþionaleDeoarece fermele secundare nu dispun de corzi, preluarea şi trans-

miterea acþiunilor gravitaþionale se face inclusiv prin sisteme planare longitudinale formate din longeroane – grinzişoare. Prin aceste sisteme

n Fig. 24. Transmiterea acţiunilor gravitaţionale prin sisteme planare orizontale de formate din longeroane – grinzişoare (a) ferma secundară, b)principală, respectiv c) sistemul planar orizontal de descărcare la sarcini gravitaţionale eclectică a şarpanta bisericii romano-catolice Mănăştur-Calvaria din Cluj-Napoca)n Figure 24. Transmitting gravity actions through

horizontal frames made of header beams – trim-mers (a) the secondary and b) the main truss, respectively c) the horizontal plan for gravity actions discharging, at the Eclectic roof structure of the Roman Catholic Church in Mănăştur-Calvaria, Cluj-Napoca)

42 2009/1


of the common rafters – balanced by the stretching of the tie-beam and the vertical reaction of the wall plate.

The triangular frames are completed by lineal elements, having the following roles: (i) to reduce the bending of common rafters (under direct stress from the grav-ity load from the roofing, respectively the loads acting on the roofing) – purlins and upper collars; (ii) to hang the horizontal el-ements – hanging posts. Compound rafters can be placed there as well, also in order to suspend the vertical hanging posts.

3.4.2. Behaviour under non-gravity actionsNon-gravity actions on a transversal di-

rection (in the plan of the trusses) are also taken over by the triangular frame strength-ened by the aforementioned elements. Each element takes over and transmits non-grav-ity actions, only the extent to which they take part in gravity or non-gravity actions differs, as follows: collar beams are less use-ful in taking over gravity actions, upper col-lars, straining beams, compound rafters and hanging posts also play an important role in taking over non-gravity actions.

In the longitudinal direction, non-gravity actions are taken over by longitudinal bracing frames, always placed under the roof volume. These systems have elements in common with the main trusses (vertical hanging posts, angled posts); being also made of purlins, respectively counter-braces – which reduce even the span of the purlins.

The spatiality of the trusses is more ac-centuated, as compared to other historic roof structures categories, the lack of tie-beams from secondary elements, respectively the presence of purlins require a longitudinal discharge, in-cluding in the case of gravity actions.

4. Conclusions

4.1. The terms Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, respectively Eclectic character as-sociated to roof structures are connected to several mechanical systems, which were created in the historic periods in which the architectural style was Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, or Eclectic.

4.2. Thus, the Romanesque roof struc-ture is considered to be a mechanical sys-tem made of main trusses alone (with no secondary trusses, respectively no longi-tudinal bracing frames), regardless if they were carried out in the 11th or 18th century, or if the roof pitch is 45˚ or 60˚.

4.3. Elaborate classifications also in-volve mechanical properties, which allow for a reduction of the number of categories to a minimum. For instance, despite the fact that in our region, stretching over an area having a 500 km radius, there are tens of thousands of Eclectic roof structures, only three categories of Eclectic roof structures are identifiable: (1) EI, with hanging truss, (2) EII with a hanging-straining truss, re-spectively (3) EIII, with slanted posts.

4.4. A conscious preoccupation to achieve the spatial co-working between the roof structures on collar beams divided into

planare longitudinale, fermele secundare se descarcã asupra fermelor principale. Aceste sisteme planare sunt structuri portante cu împingeri, formate din bare dispuse pe contururi triunghiulare (cãprior - coardã - cãprior), acþiunile gravitaþionale fiind defalcate în componente înclinate de compresiune – dupã direcþia cãpriorilor – echilibrate de întinderea corzii şi de reacþiunea verticalã a cosoroabelor.

Contururile triunghiulare sunt completate de elemente lineare, având rol de: (i) reducere a încovoierii cãpriorilor (direct solicitaþi de sarci-na gravitaþionalã provenitã din învelitoare, respectiv de încãrcãrile ce acþioneazã asupra învelitorii) – pane şi moaze; (ii) suspendare a elemen-telor orizontale – bare verticale de agãþare. Sunt dispuşi de asemenea arbaletrieri, având inclusiv un rol de suspendare a barelor verticale de agãþare.

3.4.2. Comportarea la acþiuni ne-gravitaþionaleAcþiunile ne-gravitaþionale dupã direcþia transversalã (în planul fer-

melor) sunt de asemenea preluate de conturul triunghiular întãrit cu pie-sele mai sus descrise. Elementele au fiecare rol inclusiv în preluarea şi transmiterea acþiunilor ne-gravitaþionale, doar ponderea în care participã la acþiuni gravitaþionale sau ne-gravitaþionale diferã, astfel: traversele sunt mai puþin utile în preluarea celor ne-gravitaþionale; moazele, an-tretoazele, arbaletrierii, barele de agãþare au un rol important inclusiv în preluarea acþiunilor ne-gravitaþionale.

Acþiunile ne-gravitaþionale dupã direcþia longitudinalã sunt preluate de sistemele planare longitudinale, dispuse întotdeauna în volumul aco-perişului. Aceste sisteme dispun de elemente comune cu fermele prin-cipale (bare de agãþare verticale, popi înclinaþi), fiind alcãtuite şi din pane, respectiv contrafişe – care la rândul lor reduc inclusiv deschiderea panelor.

Spaþialitatea fermelor este mai pronunþatã, în comparaþie cu celelalte categorii de şarpante istorice, deoarece lipsa corzilor în elementele se-cundare, respectiv prezenþa panelor pretind o descãrcare longitudinalã inclusiv în cazul acþiunilor gravitaþionale.

4. Concluzii

4.1. Denumirile de şarpantã cu caracter romanic, gotic, baroc, respec-tiv eclectic se leagã de nişte sisteme mecanice care au apãrut pentru prima datã în perioadele istorice în care stilul arhitectural a fost romanic, gotic, baroc, respectiv eclectic.

4.2. Astfel considerãm (de exemplu) şarpantã având caracter romanic sistemul mecanic compus numai din ferme principale (fãrã ferme secun-dare, respectiv sisteme planare longitudinale), indiferent dacã s-au reali-zat în secolul al XI-lea, sau al XVIII-lea, sau dacã are panta acoperişului de 45˚ sau 60˚.

4.3. Clasificãrile elaborate privesc de asemenea proprietãþi mecanice, care permit reducerea la minimum a numãrului de categorii. De exemplu în cazul şarpantelor eclectice – deşi numai pe o razã de 500 km, în regi-unea noastrã existã zeci de mii de şarpante eclectice – sunt identificabile numai trei clase de şarpante eclectice: (1) EI, cu dispozitiv de suspen-dare, (2) EII cu dispozitiv de tensionare-suspendare, respectiv (3) EIII, cu scaune înclinate.

4.4. Preocupãri conştiente de a asigura conlucrarea spaþialã a şarpan-telor pe traverse, scindabile în sisteme planare, apar de odatã cu şarpan-tele având caracter gotic, fiind introduse sistemele planare longitudina-le. Aceste sisteme planare – în opoziþie cu panele utilizate la şarpantele (romane) cu pane – nu transmit (numai în teoria de ordinul II) acþiuni


432009/1


frames, is traceable only with the construc-tion of Gothic roof structures, respectively the introduction of longitudinal bracing frames. Unlike the purlins used in (Roman) roof structures on purlins, these frames do not transmit (except for the IInd order theory) gravity actions from secondary trusses to main trusses (In most cases, their only con-nection to the secondary trusses is through friction): their only role is to carry non-grav-ity actions.

4.5. Roof structures become more and more spatial throughout the centuries. Since the Romanesque roof structure is practically bi-dimensional (it does not have a longitudi-nal bracing frame) and although the Gothic roof structure has a longitudinal bracing frame, neither of these systems are used for the taking over and transmitting gravity actions, their three-dimensional qualities prevail only at non-gravity longitudinal ac-tions. The Eclectic roof structures discharge bi-directionally also under gravity actions.

4.6. The efficiency of the bracing is not directly related to the spatial behaviour. Thus, the Baroque roof structure is the most heavily braced of all historic roof struc-tures, although the spatiality of the confor-mation is reduced, as compared to Eclectic roof structures (where the bi-directional discharging is supported by a longitudinal bracing frame much more inefficient than its Baroque counterpart).

gravitaþionale de la ferme secundare la cele principale (În majoritatea ca-zurilor se leagã de ferme secundare numai prin frecare): au numai rolul de a prelua acþiunile ne-gravitaþionale.

4.5. Şarpantele devin din ce în ce „mai spaþiale” de-a lungul istoriei. Dacã şarpanta romanicã este practic bidimensionalã (neavând sistem pla-nar longitudinal de rigidizare), iar şarpanta goticã – deşi posedã sistem planar longitudinal de rigidizare, aceste sisteme nu sunt utilizate la prelu-area şi transmiterea acþiunilor gravitaþionale – doar la acþiuni longitudina-le ne-gravitaþionale exercitã calitãþile tridimensionale, şarpantele eclecti-ce se descarcã bidirecþional inclusiv la acþiuni gravitaþionale.

4.6. Eficienþa rigidizãrilor nu este în relaþie directã cu modul spaþial de lucru. Astfel, dintre şarpantele istorice, şarpanta cea mai rigidã este cea barocã, chiar dacã spaþialitatea conformãrii este mai redusã faþã de şar-pantele eclectice (unde modul bidirecþional de descãrcare este susþinut de un sistem planar longitudinal mult mai ineficient, în comparaþie cu varianta barocã).

bibliografie/bibliography

n SZABÓ Bálint: Dicþionar ilustrat de structuri portante istorice * Illustrated dictionary of historic load-bearing structures * Történeti tartószerkezetek illusztrált szakszótára * Bildwörterbuch Historischer Tragwerke / Cluj-Napoca, Editura Utilitas, 2004, Editura Kriterion et Utilitas 2005 ISBN 973-9377-40-8

n Fig. 25. Clase de şarpante eclectice (EI – şarpanta bisericii romano-catolice Mănăştur-Calvaria din Cluj-N., EII – şarpanta clădirii principale a colegiului Bethlen Gábor din Aiud-Alba, EIII – şarpanta bisericii ortodoxe din satul Corvineşti – Bistriţa-Năsăud): a) EI, cu dispozitiv de suspendare, b) EII cu dispozitiv de tensionare-suspendare, respectiv c) EIII, cu scaune înclinaten Figure 25. Classes of Eclectic roof trusses (EI – the

roof structure at the Roman Catholic Church in Mănăştur-Calvaria, Cluj-Napoca, EII – the roof structure of the main building at the Bethlen Gábor School in Aiud-Alba, EIII – the roof structure at the orthodox Church in Corvineşti village – Bistriţa-Năsăud): a) EI, with hanging truss, b) EII with a hanging-straining truss, respectively c) EIII, with slanted posts

44 2009/1


bevezetés

n Épületfenntartási tervezõrendszerek mûködtetése épületdiagnosztikai adat- és állapotfelvételi szakértõi munkamódszer, algoritmus, épületdi-agnosztikai kézikönyvek, szerkezetkatalógusok kialakítását, fejlesztését igényli. Az épületfenntartási tervezõrendszerek a számviteli szempontú in-gatlan- és épületállomány-nyilvántartással szemben a fenntartás és felújítás mûszakilag megalapozott tervezésére alkalmas adatbázisok megteremtését, folyamatos karbantartását kívánják meg, ami egyre szûkebb térstruktúrákra vonatkozó, mûszaki tartalmában növekvõ információhalmazok idõben is tagolt felvételét és rögzítését igényli. Az épületdiagnosztikai szakértõi rend-szerek épületszintû, átfogó; „fõszerkezetekre” vonatkozó, továbbá szerkezet- és helyiségszintû, részletes konstrukciós, mennyiségi és állapotjellemzõ információk felvételének, megállapításának, rögzítésének és elemzésének, értékelésének módszereivel foglalkoznak. A vázolt struktúra vezet a sokol-dalúan használható mérnöki szakmai adatbázisok kialakításához.

A „fõ” épületszerkezeti csoportokat a gyõri Széchenyi István Egyetem Építészeti és Épület-szerkezettani Tanszékén végzett rendszerfejlesztõ K+F tevékenység keretében határoztuk meg:

1. Alapok;2. Függõleges teherhordó és térelhatároló szerkezetek; 3. Vízszintes teherhordó és térosztó szerkezetek; 4. Lépcsõk; 5. Tetõk, tetõfelépítmények, kémények, szellõzõk; 6. Homlokzatok.

A szerkezetcsoportosítás hierarchiája: 1-6.x 1-6.0x 1-6.00x 1-6.000x

Tartó- szerkezetek

Kapcsolódó, kiegészítõ szerkezetek

Rétegek, bevonatok, szakipari szerkezetek

Szerelvények

The hierarchy of structural groups:

A szerkezetlista rugalmasan bõvíthetõ, igény szerint frissíthetõ. A szer kezetek tezauruszában a fedélszerkezetek az 5. számú fõszerkezetek (tetõk, tetõfelépítmények, kémények, szellõzõk) 5.1 jelû szerkezetcsoportja.

1-6.x 1-6.0x 1-6.00x 1-6.000xLoad-bearing structures

Connected, supplementary structures

Layers, coatings, installations

Fittings

Introduction

n The operation of the building mainte-nance planning systems requires the devel-opment of a professional work method re-garding building diagnostic data collection, the development of an algorithm, of build-ing diagnostic manuals and of structural catalogues. As opposed to the accountancy-oriented real estate and building stock in-ventory, the building maintenance planning systems require the creation and constant monitoring of databases that are suitable for the technically founded planning of mainte-nance and retrofitting, which in their turn require the chronological collection and registration of the growing pile of technical information concerning the more and more limited spatial structures. The building di-agnostic systems include the collection, de-termination, registration, analysis and eval-uation of all the complex information relat-ed to “main structures” on the level of build-ings, as well as those on the level of struc-tures and rooms, which are detailed pieces of information characterizing the structures, quantities and states. The outlined structure leads to the development of multilaterally usable professional engineering databases.

The “main” building structural groups were determined within the R+D activi-ties of the Department of Architecture and Building Construction of the Széchenyi Ist-ván University in Gyõr, Hungary:

1. Foundations; 2. Vertical load-bearing and compart-

menting structures; 3. Horizontal load-bearing and compart-

menting structures; 4. Stairs; 5. Roofs, roof superstructures, chimneys,

ventilation;6. Façades.

The list can be completed and updated if needed. In the thesaurus of structures the roof structures represent the group of struc-tures at No. 5.1 within the main structures marked at No. 5 (roofs, roof superstructures, chimneys, ventilation). The types of struc-tures are marked with the numbers 5.1X (X = 0...9) according to the material and

Történeti tetőszerkezetek diagnosztikája

Diagnostics of Historic Roof Structures

n fátrai györgy


452009/1


A tartószerkezet anyaga és építési technológiája szerinti szerkezetfajták az 5.1X (X = 0...9) kódszámokat kapták. A következõ kódszám (5.1Xx; x = 0...9) az egyes szerkezetváltozatokat, ezek konkrét szerkezetpéldáit jelöli.

A ma használatos fa fedélszerkezetek számára az alábbi kódrendszer alkalmazását javasoltuk: 5.1 Fedélszerkezetek; 5.101 Ácsolt üres fedél-szék; 5.102 Ácsolt torokgerendás fedélszék; 5.103 Ácsolt egyállószékes fe-délszék; 5.104 Ácsolt kétállószékes fedélszék; 5.105 Ácsolt kétdûltszékes fedélszék; 5.106 Ácsolt bakdúcos fedélszék; 5.107 Ácsolt ötszelemenes fedélszék; 5.108 Ácsolt hétszelemenes fedélszék; 5.109 Ácsolt feszítõ/függesztõmûves fedélszékek; 5.110 Ácsolt manzárd fedélszék; 5.111 Egye-di toronytetõ ácsolt fa fedélszéke; 5.112 Ácsolt egyedi szerkezetû fedélszék; 5.113 Szegezett kötésû, fa szarufedél; 5.114 Szeglemezes kötésû fa szaru-fedél; 5.115 Csavarkötésû, fa szarufedél; 5.116 Egyéb, korszerû kötésû fa szarufedél; 5.121 Szegezett kötésû, rácsos fa fedélszerkezet; 5.122 Szegle-mezes kötésû, rácsos fa fedélszerkezet; 5.123 Csavarkötésû rácsos fa fedél-szerkezet; 5.124 Egyéb rácsos fa fedélszerkezet; 5.131 Ragasztott fatartós szarufedél; 5.132 Ragasztott fa, keretszerkezetes fedélszék; 5.133 Ragasz-tott fa, ívszerkezetes fedélszék;

Szerkezetspecifikáció a fedélszerkezetekhez: 1. félnyeregfedél; 2. nye-regfedél; 3. kontytetõ; 4. sátortetõ; 5. manzárdtetõ; 6. bazilikális tetõ; 7. shed-tetõ; 8. egyszer görbült felületû, íves tetõ; 9. kétszer görbült felületû, kupolatetõ; Példa: 5.1042 Ácsolt, kétállószékes nyeregfedél.

ácsolt, (hegyvidéki – kárpát-medencei) történeti tetők szerkezetazonosítása

n A szerkezetazonosító tezaurusz és kódrendszer kiegészítendõ a hazai (és közép-európai, más szóval: szárazföldi) történeti fedélszerkezetek fõ változatainak besorolásával. A járatos szerkezetek csoportja (5.10x) elé illeszthetõk 5.100x szerkezetkódolással: 5.100 Történeti fedélszerkezetek 5.1001 Üres, kötött szarupáros történeti fedélszerkezetek 5.1002 Torokgerendás történeti fedélszerkezetek 5.10021 Kötõgerenda nélküli kapcsolt szarupáros, torokgerendás tör-

téneti fedélszerkezetek 5.10022 Kötõgerendasoros, kötött szarupáros, torokgerendás történeti

fedélszerkezetek 5.1003 Szögletkötõkkel merevített torokgerendás történeti fedélszer-

kezetek 5.1004 Fõ- és mellékszaruállásokból, függõleges hosszrácsokból álló

középkori jellegû történeti fedélszerkezetek 5.10041 Egy hosszrácsos („magyarországi” típusú) középkori jellegû

történeti fedélszerkezetek 5.10042 Több (páros számú) hosszrácsos („erdélyi” típusú) középkori

jellegû történeti fedélszerkezetek 5.10043 Több (páratlan számú) hosszrácsos („egyesített” típusú) kö-

zépkori jellegû történeti fedélszerkezetek 5.1005 Térbeli tetõvázból és állásonként azonos, torokgerendás kap-

csolt szaruzatokból álló barokk jellegû történeti fedélszerke-zetek

5.0006 Tetõvázaiban és szaruzataiban középkori jegyeket viselõ, ke-vert rendszerû történeti fedélszerkezetek

5.0007 Eklektikus jellegû történeti fedélszerkezetek, fedélszékek 5.0008 Barokk jellegû tetõvázakkal bíró átmeneti történeti fedélszer-

kezetek 5.00081 Átmeneti, történeti fedélszerkezet középkori szaruzatokkal 5.00082 Átmeneti, történeti fedélszerkezet eklektikus elemekkel

building technology of the load-bearing structure. The next part of the number (5.1Xx; x = 0...9) represents certain ver-sions of structures, their concrete structure examples. The application of the follow-ing system of codes was suggested for the timber roof structures used today: 5.1 Roof structures; 5.101 Timber roof structure on common rafters and tie-beams; 5.102 Tim-ber roof structure on collar beams; 5.103 King-post roof structure; 5.104 Queen-post roof structures; 5.105 Timber roof structure on double-angled purlins; 5.106 Timber roof structure on angled posts; 5.107 Timber roof structure with five purlins; 5.108 Timber roof structure with seven purlins; 5.109 Tim-ber roof structures with straining-hanging trusses; 5.110 Timber mansard roof struc-ture; 5.111 Timber roof structure of unique tower; 5.112 Unique timber roof structure; 5.113 Timber roof structure on common rafters with nailed joints; 5.114 Timber roof structure on common rafters with nail-plate joints; 5.115 Timber roof structure on com-mon rafters with bolted joints; 5.116 Tim-ber roof structure on common rafters with other modern joint-types; 5.121 Grid timber roof structure with nailed joints; 5.122 Grid timber roof structure with nail-plate joints; 5.123 Grid timber roof structure with bolted joints; 5.124 Other types of grid timber roof structures; 5.131 Roof structure on com-mon rafters with glued timber beams; 5.132 Glued timber framed roof structure; 5.133 Glued timber arch-supported roof structure; Roof structure specification: 1. Half-gabled roof; 2. Gabled roof; 3. Hipped roof; 4. Tent roof; 5. Mansard roof; 6. Basilica roof; 7. Shed roof; 8. Single curved roof; 9. Double-curved dome roof; Example: 5.1042 Timber gabled roof with queen-post truss

structural identification of historic timber roof structures (in the mountainous region, the Carpathian basin)

n The structure identification thesaurus and code system has to be completed with the main types of the national (and Central European, in other words: continental) his-toric roof structures. They can be added to the group of frequent structures (5.10x) marked with the 5.100x structure codes: 5.100 Historic roof structures 5.1001 Historic roof structures on joined

common rafter pairs 5.1002 Historic roof structures on col-

lar beams 5.10021 Historic roof structures on col-

lar beams, joined common raf-ter pairs, with no tie-beams

5.10022 Historic roof structures on col-lar beams, joined common rafter pairs, with tie-beams arranged in rows

5.1003 Historic roof structures on collar beams secured by angle braces

5.1004 Medieval historic roof struc-tures with main and secondary trusses and vertically placed lon-gitudinal frames

46 2009/1


Megjegyzések: a középkori szerkezet a fedett épület építészeti stílusára utalhat; a barokk és eklektikus jelzõk sem építészeti stílust jelölnek, ese-tenként azonban a fedett épület stílusára utalhatnak; középkori (román, gótikus), barokk vagy eklektikus jellegû a szerkezet, ha kora bizonytalan, építési ideje a szokásos helyi szerkezethasználat idõintervallumán kívül esik. (A tengermelléki szerkezetekre nem tértünk ki, bár a vizsgált terüle-ten számos – olasz hatást mutató – példa található.)

Az épületdiagnosztikai szakértõi rendszerek fejlesztése, kiterjesztése a történeti szerkezetek körére elõsegítheti a hatékony épületfenntartási kultúra kialakulását. A rendszer csak egységes értelmezésû, a történeti tetõk szerkezetmûködését, elemeinek többszerepû sajátosságait, a kutatás tapasztalatait is figyelembe vevõ teljes körû és részletes szerkezettermino-lógia használatával hozható létre és mûködtethetõ hatékonyan a tudomá-nyos kutató-fejlesztõ tevékenység katalizáló információforrásaként is.

Történeti faszerkezetek elemzésére is alkalmas diagnosztikai módszerek fejlesztése

n Tanszékünk épületdiagnosztikai fejlesztésre alakult kutatókollektívá-ja az intézmény Belsõ Kutatási Fõirányok támogatására kiírt pályázatán elnyert és külsõ K+F megbízás alapján – Épületdiagnosztikai rendszer fejlesztése címmel új alkalmazott kutatást végzett [3]. A munka épület-állományok és szerkezetek állapotmeghatározására alkalmas, épületdi-agnosztikai és szerkezetállapot regisztrációs rendszerének kialakítására irányult, és további innovációs fejlesztési feladatok megoldását tûzte ki közvetlen célként.

A nyilván- és fenntartási tervezõrendszer mérnöki szakmai adatbázi-sait felmért és megállapított szerkezeti információhalmaz képezi helyi-ségcentrikus rendezettséggel; a mennyiségi jellemzõk felvétele mellett konstrukciós behatárolás (kódolás) is szükséges.

A kutatási program fontos célja volt az épületvizsgálati eredmények vizuá-lis megjelenítési lehetõségeinek elemzése és az értékelést, döntéselõkészítést szolgáló, könnyen, gyorsan áttekinthetõ (transzparens) jelrendszer kidolgo-zása és az adatbevitelt, feldolgozást, grafikai megjelenítést lehetõvé tevõ tá-mogatószoftver elõkészítése.

Állapot-kód

Állapot,Fenntartási szintek

Tennivalók

01 Nem javítható, szerkezetcsere szükséges, illetve bontás javasolt ⇒

Azonnali és soron kívüli élet- és/vagy vagyonvédelmi beavatkozás utánKizárólag külsõ szakvizsgálat alapján dönthetõ el!02 Teljes felújításra szorul ⇒

03 Részleges felújításra szorul ⇒

04 Fokozott és/vagy soron kívüli karbantartást igényel ⇒

Külsõ szakvizsgálattal összekapcsolva dönthetõ el!

Hibaelhárítás utáni védõjellegû beavatkozások (mint 05. alatt)

05 Idõszerû karbantartást igényel Korrózióvédelem, biológiai fertõtlenítés (-védelem), burkolat-, bevonatjavítás, esetleg -csere

06 Újszerû állapotban van Beavatkozásra nincs szükség

5.10041 Medieval (“Hungarian”) historic roof structures with one longitu-dinal frame

5.10042 Medieval (“Transylvanian”) his-toric roof structures with mul-tiple (even-numbered) longitu-dinal frames

5.10043 Medieval (“unified”) historic roof structures with multiple (odd-numbered) longitudinal frames

5.1005 Baroque historic roof structures on collar beams, evenly-spaced joined cross frames, with space frames

5.0006 Mixed-type historic roof struc-tures showing medieval fea-tures in their cross frames

5.0007 Eclectic historic roof structures 5.0008 Baroque historic roof structures

with interim systems 5.00081 Transitional historic roof struc-

ture with medieval cross frames 5.00082 Transitional historic roof struc-

ture with eclectic elementsNotes: the medieval structure can suggest the architectural style of roofed buildings; the Baroque and Eclectic characteristics do not indicate an architectural style either, but from one instance to another they can suggest the style of the roofed building; the structure is medieval-, (Romanesque-, Gothic-), Baroque- or Eclectic-type, if its age is uncertain, its building period falls out of the time frame when the structure was usually used. (The Coastal – struc-tures are not mentioned here, although in the examined regions there are numerous examples, which show signs of Italian in-fluence.)

The development and extension of the professional building diagnostic systems to the historic structures may promote the cre-ation of an efficient building maintenance culture. The system has only one interpre-tation, which can be established with the use of a complex and detailed structural terminology, taking into consideration the structural functioning of historic roof struc-tures, the multifunctional characteristics of their elements and the experiences gained during the research, as well as it can ef-ficiently function also as the information source that catalyses the scientific research-development activity.

the development of diagnostic methods suitable also for the analysis of historic timber structures

n Having won the commission through a tender announced for the support of the Main Research Directions of the institution and based on an R+D commission received from outside, the building diagnostic devel-opment research team of our department carried out a new applied research entitled “The development of a building diagnostic system”[3]. The aim of this work is to solve the additional innovative development problems and to create a building diagnos-tic and structural state registration system

n 1. táblázat: A szerkezetek állapotának jellemzésére ajánlott kódskála fokozatai, a fő szerkezetcso-portok általános megítélésének értelmezése


472009/1


A diagnosztikai rendszer alkalmazása során összegyûjtött és értékelt információk megjelenítésére olyan speciális hatszögletû morfológiai szek-rényt (1. ábra) szerkesztettünk, amelyen már elsõ pillantásra felismerhetõ, hogy melyik szerkezetcsoportban észleltünk hibákat, és azok a hierarchikus szerkezeti rendszer melyik szintjén (fõszerkezet, komponens, szerkezetrész stb.) jelentkeztek. A hat fõszerkezetcsoportból a vizsgált szerkezetek együt-tese egyszerûen kiemelhetõ a részletesebb tanulmányozás érdekében.

A hatszöges megjelenítés egyik szelete a tetõszerkezeteket tartalmazza. A konkrét – immár a történeti tetõszerkezetekre is kiterjesztett kódrendszer-ben történõ – szerkezetregisztráción és állapotmeghatározáson túlmenõen a kidolgozott eljárás alkalmat nyújt a hibafeltárás és okelemzés patológiai tanulságainak levonására is, hiszen az adatbevitel során nemcsak kódolás-ra, állapotbesorolásos minõsítésre, de fotók, ábrák, szöveges feljegyzések tárolására is lehetõség nyílik (2. ábra). A további fejlesztések statisztikai módszerek alkalmazását is célozzák.

StateCode

State,Maintenance levels

What to do

01 Cannot be repaired, the replacement or demolition of the structure is recommended ⇒

It can be decided only based on an external assessment!After an immediate and urgent intervention regarding life safety and/or property protection!

02 Needs complete retrofitting ⇒

03 Needs partial retrofitting ⇒

04 Requires increased and/or urgent maintenance ⇒

Decision making connected with external assessment!

Protective interventions after defect removal (as under 05.)

05 Needs current maintenance Protection against corrosion, biological disinfection (-protection), pavement-, coating repair, possibly replacement

06 It is in good condition No intervention needed

suitable for the determination of the state of building stocks and structures.

The professional engineering databases of the registration and maintenance plan-ning system consist of surveyed and defined structural information in a space-oriented arrangement; beside the registration of quan-titative characteristics, the structural delimi-tation (encoding) is also necessary.

An important goal of the research pro-gram was the analysis of the visual presen-tation of the building assessment results, the elaboration of a notation system that is easy to survey (transparent) and furthers the evaluation and the decision making and the preparation of a software that makes the data recording and processing, as well as their graphic presentation possible.

We have created a special hexagonal morphological box (Figure 1) for the pre-sentation of all the information collected and evaluated during the application of the diagnostic system, on which one can imme-diately recognize in which structure group we found defects and on which level of the hierarchical structural system these were to be found (main structure, component, part of a structure etc.). The examined struc-tures can be easily taken out from the six main structure groups for a detailed study.

One segment of the hexagonal presen-tation contains the roof structures. In ad-dition to the concrete structure registration – carried out in the code system, which has already been extended to the historic roof structures as well – and state determination, this procedure gives an opportunity to dis-cover defects and to draw the pathological conclusions of the analysis of the causes, be-cause during the data recording, beside the encoding and condition-based evaluation it also makes the storing of photos, figures and written notes possible (Figure 2). Further developments aim also at the application of statistic methods.

n Table 1: Different grades of codes proposed for the characterization of the states of the structures and the general view of the main structure groups

Lépcsők, erkélyek, függőfolyosók, galériák és kiegészítő szerkezeteik

Stairs, balconies, outside balconies, galleries and their supplementary structures

AlapokFoundations

Tetők, tetőszerelvények, kémények, szellőzők

Roofs, roof superstructures, chimneys, ventilation

Függőleges teherhordók, térelhatároló szerkezetek és

kiegészítő szerkezeteik

Vertical load-bearing and compartm

enting structures

and their supplementary structures

Vízs

zinte

s teh

erho

rdó,

téro

sztó

szer

keze

tek

és ki

egés

zítő

szer

keze

teik

Horiz

onta

l load

-bea

ring

and

com

partm

entin

g

struc

ture

s and

their

supp

lemen

tary

stru

ctur

es

Hom

lokz

atok

Faça

des

n 1. ábra: Állapot-visszajelző tárcsa a szerkezetállapotnak megfelelő szín-jelzésekkeln Figure 1. Condition indicating disc with

corresponding colors for various condi-tions of the structures

48 2009/1


Lépcsők, erkélyek, függőfolyosók, galériák és kiegészítő szerkezeteik

Stairs, balconies, outside balconies, galleries and their supplementary structures

AlapokFoundations

Tetők, tetőszerelvények, kémények, szellőzők

Roofs, roof superstructures, chimneys, ventilation

Függőleges teherhordók, térelhatároló szerkezetek és

kiegészítő szerkezeteik

Vertical load-bearing and compartm

enting structures

and their supplementary structures

Vízs

zinte

s teh

erho

rdó,

téro

sztó

szer

keze

tek

és ki

egés

zítő

szer

keze

teik

Horiz

onta

l load

-bea

ring

and

com

partm

entin

g

struc

ture

s and

their

supp

lemen

tary

stru

ctur

es

Hom

lokz

atok

Faça

des

n Páros lengő oszlopok, mellszorító, torokger-enda, hosszmerevítő kapcsolata. Károsodott állapot. Hibás megerősítés.n Joint between queen

post in tension, strain-ing beam, collar beam and longitudinal brace. Degraded state. Faulty reinforcement.

n Korhadt, tönkrement alsó fakapcsolat (kötőgerenda, ferde dúc, szarufa)n Rotten, degraded

lower joint (tie-beam, compound rafter, common rafter)

n 2. ábra: Történeti tetőszerkezet állapotának minősítése fotómellék-letekkel, szövegmagyarázatokkaln Figure 2. Condition evaluation in the case of historic roof structures

with photographs and textual commentary

Minősített elem: Evaluated element:Fedélszerkezetek Roof structuresMinősítés EvaluationNem javítható, bontás vagy szerkezetcsere szükséges: 40%

Unrepairable, demolishing or struc-ture replacement is needed: 40%

Teljes felújításra szorul: 20% Total restoration is needed: 20%Részleges felújításra szorul: 40% Partial restoration is needed: 40%Fokozott soron kívüli karbantartást igényel: 0%

Urgent maintenance is needed:0%

Időszerű karbantartást igényel: 0% Timely maintenance is needed: 0%Nem meghatározott az állapota: 0%

Its state of preservation is undefined: 0%

Korhadt, tönkrement alsó fakapcsolat (kötőgerenda, ferde dúc, szarufa)

Rotten, degraded lower joint (tie-beam, compound rafter, common rafter)

Páros lengő oszlopok, mellszorító, torokgerenda, hosszmerevítő kapcsolata. Károsodott állapot. Hibás megerősítés.

Joint between queen post in tension, straining beam, collar beam and longitudinal brace. Degraded state. Faulty reinforcement.

n A minősített épület: Király u.12n The evaluated building: 12 Király St. n Az épületben található szerkezetek állapotan The state of the building’s structures

bibliográfia/bibliography

n KIRIZSÁN Imola–SZABÓ Bálint (szerk.): Történeti fedélszerkezetek – A történeti tartószerkezetek. 3. Tudományos Ülésszak kiadványa, Kolozs-vár, Utilitas, 1999.n VÁNDOR András: 16–19. századi ácsolt tetõszerkezetek Magyarorszá-

gon. Budapest, 1996. In. Az Országos Mûemlékvédelmi Hivatal Év-könyve (1976–1990) X. 77–101. n KOPPÁNY Attila–FÁTRAI György–HORVÁTH Zsolt: Épületdiagnoszti-

kai rendszer fejlesztése. 2007. december, K+F tanulmány.

492009/1


n Biserica de lemn este un rapel al spaþiului construit, un element care nu poate fi ignorat sau subapreciat în habitatul rural. În plus, biserica se în-scrie perfect în ansamblul expresiilor formale şi simbolice, ea marcheazã într-un fel specific peisajul, prin prezenþa sa fizicã şi prin semnificaþie.

Întâlnitã pe întreg teritoriul României, inclusiv în zonele de câmpie, având în vedere dominanþa materialului lemnos şi experienþa meşteşu-gului prelucrãrii lemnului, construcþia bisericii exprimã clar şi la super-lativ aplicarea tehnicilor şi chiar a proporþiilor folosite şi la arhitectura locuinþei. Bisericile de lemn sunt aproape în totalitate fructul iniþiativelor locale, opere ale unor meşteri care se specializaserã în mare mãsurã şi acti-vau pe arii întinse. Imaginarea şi punerea în operã a unor soluþii construc-tive perfecþionate şi durabile, precum şi plastica arhitecturalã variatã mai ales prin compoziþie, fie ea compoziþie volumetricã sau decorativã, sunt caracteristici ce impun deopotrivã valoarea acestei realizãri excepþionale, apreciate chiar în contextul european al arhitecturii în sistem Blockbau.

n The timber church has a prominent place in the built environment, an element of the rural habitat that cannot be ignored or un-derestimated. Moreover, the church fits per-fectly into the formal and symbolical expres-sions’ ensemble, functioning as a landmark of the environment in which it is placed, thanks to its physical presence and the meaning is carries.

Encountered all over Romania’s terri-tory, including in the country’s plain areas, due to the predominance of timber and to the locals’ mastership in wood processing, the erection of the timber church mirrors clearly and brilliantly the implementation of the techniques and even proportions used in the architecture of private dwell-ings. Timber churches are almost entirely the fruits of local initiatives, masterpieces of skilled specialists working over extended areas. The conception and implementation of long-lasting, improved constructive solu-tions, as well as the rich, wide-ranging archi-tectural expressiveness, especially through volumetric or decorative composition, are characteristics underlying the worth of these exceptional works of art, acknowledged even in the context of the European Block-bau architecture.

The architectonic age of the timber church is revealed both by oral information and written documents. The toponym “old church” referring to the first church built in a rural community, followed by a second one, also made of timber, built for instance in the 17th or 18th century, as well as local legends preserving the memory of a timber church that nearly always offered itself to be the starting point for a subsequent masonry building, are nothing but proofs passed on by tradition, to join the collection of notes on old books, on the back of religious paint-ings or village documents, as well as refer-ences in cartographic or conscription docu-ments. 18th century churches still preserve 16th century religious paintings, on which inscriptions mention older timber churches that had disappeared.

Most churches preserved up to the pres-ent date from the 18th–19th centuries. The historic evolution of the Church as an insti-tution explains the overwhelming presence of timber churches, both in the medieval

n ana bÂrCĂ

biserica de lemn - între arhitectură şi pictură. Ce alegem?

timber Churches – architecture versus painting. what Do we Chose?

n Foto 1. Budeşti Susani, biserică cu hramul „Sf. Nicolae”, pictura din 1760, zugrav Alexandru PoNEHALSKI (nu în totalitate)n Foto 1a. Naos, scena

Lameh şi femeile lui plâng moartea lui Cain şi a lui Tubalcain şi Lupta lui Nestor cu Lie păgânul (detalii)n Foto 1b. Naos,

Drumul Crucii; n Photo 1. Budeşti

Susani, “Saint Nicholas” Church, painting from 1760, the work of Alexandru Ponehalski (not entirely)n Photo 1a. Nave,

scene of Lamech and his women bewailing the death of Cain and Tubalcain and the fight between Nestor and Lie the pagan (details)n Photo 1b. Nave, Way

of the Cross

50 2009/1


Vechimea programului arhitectonic al bisericii de lemn este conþinutã atât în informaþia oralã, cât şi în documente scrise. Toponimul de „bisericã bãtrânã” pentru biserica ce a ocupat locul dintâi într-o aşezare ruralã şi cãreia i-a urmat una tot din lemn ridicatã, de exemplu, în secolele XVII sau XVIII, precum şi legendele locale în care se pãstreazã amintirea unei biserici de lemn care şi-a oferit mai totdeauna „vatra” unei construcþii ulte-rioare din zid sunt dovezi transmise de tradiþie, ce se alãturã însemnãrilor de pe cãrþile vechi, icoane sau acte sãteşti, din documentele cartografi-ce sau conscripþii. În biserici de secol XVIII se pãstreazã icoane de secol XVI, pe care inscripþiile pomenesc mai vechile biserici de lemn care au dispãrut.

Cele mai multe biserici pãstrate pânã în prezent dateazã din secole-le XVIII-XIX. Evoluþia istoricã a instituþiei Bisericii explicã prezenþa co-vârşitoare a bisericii de lemn, în perioada medievalã şi în cele douã se-cole amintite. La construirea bisericilor de lemn au contribuit în bunã mãsurã diversele circumstanþe istorice şi chiar perioadele de constrângere administrativã, dar tradiþia acestui tip de arhitecturã se modeleazã dupã disponibilitãþile comunitãþilor rurale şi este profund ataşatã întregii ar-hitecturi a lemnului. Numeroase biserici de lemn din Transilvania sunt atestate documentar în secolele XIV–XVI, când regii angevini ai Ungari-ei legifereazã interdicþia pentru români de a construi biserici de piatrã. Pentru puþine dintre ele existã dovada ridicãrii în secolul XVII, chiar dacã şi în acest frãmântat secol (marcat de luptele pentru putere şi de cele cu turcii) principii Transilvaniei acordã o serie de înlesniri românilor. Inscripþiile de datare existente pe diferite pãrþi ale construcþiei pot fi con-fundate adeseori cu date ale unor reparaþii petrecute în timp; prin urmare, numai urmãrirea unor tipologii formale existente pe arii mai largi, precum

period and in the two centuries mentioned. To a great extent, the prevalence of timber churches was due to the various historic circumstances, and even to the periods of administrative constraints, but the tradition of this type of architecture evolves in ac-cordance to the availability of rural commu-nities and is deeply attached to timber ar-chitecture. Many timber churches in Tran-sylvania are mentioned in documents in the 14th– 16th centuries, when the Angevin kings of Hungary legislated the interdiction for Romanians to build churches made of stone. Only few of them are proven to have been built in the 17th century, although even in this century of turmoil (marked by conflicts for power and the wars against the Turks) the princes of Transylvania granted

a series of facilities to Romanians. The dat-ing inscriptions present on various parts of the construction can often be mistaken for the dates attesting various repairs hav-ing occurred at different times. Only by following a formal typology encounters on larger areas and by applying the methods of dendrochronology can the construction periods be identified with certainty.

The causes of the oldest timber church-es’ disappearance can be natural, accidental or of a historic nature. Timber’s perishable character did not allow for a long-lasting preservation of these constructions; there-fore, after several repairs, the solutions pre-ferred were a substantial modification or the complete replacement. Furthermore, fires – either caused by negligence or by natural phenomena – destroyed some churches. Others burnt down or were demolished dur-ing the Tartars’ invasions (the last of which occurred in 1717) or the Turkish ones.

In 1688, Transylvania became part of the Hapsburg Empire and the Orthodox Church was channeled towards a union with the Church of Rome, which did not fail to occur after the year 1700. At that point, restrictions to erect religious build-ings made of materials other than timber increased. At mid-18th century, religious movements were followed by reprisals and other organizational measures. However, in the 9th and 10th decades, thanks to the Bills of tolerance and union issued by Em-

n Foto 2. Bârsana, biserică cu hramul „Intrarea Maicii Domnului în Biserică”, pictura din 1806, zugrav Toader HoDoR (clădirea a fost restaurată; restaurarea picturii este în curs de finalizare)n Foto 2a. Naos, Irodiada (detaliu) n Foto 2b. Altar, Sf. Patriarh Chiril; n Photo 2. Bârsana, Church of the “Presentation of the

Virgin Mary at the temple”, painting from 1806, the work of Toader HoDoR (its architecture was conserved; the painting’s conservation is in a final process)n Photo 2a. Nave, Herodias (detail)n Photo 2b. Sanctuary, Saint Patriarch Cyril

512009/1


peror Joseph II in 1781 and 1782, new tim-ber churches were built.

From 1761 onwards, a frontier guards’ regiment was created in Bistriþa and Nãsãud area. This event, which preceded the Bills of Joseph II, stepped up the social and na-tional emancipation of Romanians in Tran-sylvania and had as outcome an increase in the building of churches made of tim-ber, and subsequently of stone, in the 19th century. Thus, churches made of stone re-placed those made of timber, which would be transported to other villages, either giv-en up or sold. This phenomenon of moving timber churches around is encountered all over the country. Cases in which severely deteriorated churches were taken to pieces were recorded in the first decades of the 20th

n Foto 3. Ieud Deal, biserică cu hramul „Naşterea Maicii Domnului”, pictura din 1762, zugrav Alexandru PoNEHALSKI (restaurarea picturii este în curs de finalizare)n Foto 3a. Naos, Cain fuge din faţa Domnuluin Foto 3b. Naos, Răstignirea n Foto 3c. Naos, Punerea în mormânt n Foto 3d. Naos, Pilda Bunului Samaritean n Foto 3e. Naos, Isus cu viţa de vien Photo 3. Ieud Deal, Church of “The Birth of the Holy Virgin”, painting from 1762, the work of

Alexandru PoNEHALSKI (the painting’s conservation is at a final stage)n Photo 3a. Nave, Cain runs away from the face of Godn Photo 3b. Nave, Crucifixionn Photo 3c. Nave, Entombmentn Photo 3d. Nave, Parable of the Good Samaritann Photo 3e. Nave, Jesus with the vine

52 2009/1


century. The material was then sold to villag-ers, to build houses or household annexes.

For timber churches it is not the plan that is eloquent, but the elevation; the lat-ter expresses the organization of the inner space, it synthesizes dimensional attributes and particularizes volumetric composi-tion, thus adding up the characteristics of the space. The inner space of the timber church is being singled out either thanks to the elements sculpted in the walls separat-ing the narthex from the nave and the nave from the altar, and to the vaulting elements’ architecture, or thanks to the wall paint-ing applied directly on the timber. Unlike in Moldova, in the south of Romania and especially in Transylvania and Maramureş, the inside painting is the one that domi-nates the decoration. Unfolding in large

n Foto 3f. Pronaos, Vămile văzduhului n Foto 3g. Pronaos - Sf. Cristofor n Foto 3h. Pronaos, Serafimi n Foto 3i. Pronaos, Iadul (detaliu)n Foto 3j. Pronaos, Pilda celor zece fecioare (detaliu cu fecioarele cuminţi) şi Isus

cu Biserica Mireasă n Foto 3k. Pronaos, ansamblu interiorn Photo 3f. Narthex, The aerial toll-housesn Photo 3g. Narthex - Saint Christophern Photo 3h. Narthex, Seraphsn Photo 3i. Narthex, Hell (detail)n Photo 3j. Narthex, Parable of the ten virgins (detail with the wise virgins) and

Jesus with the Church as His Briden Photo 3k. Narthex interior ensemble

532009/1


şi aplicarea metodelor dendrocronologiei ar putea aduce certitudini în sta-bilirea perioadelor de construcþie.

Cauzele dispariþiei celor mai vechi exemplare pot fi naturale, acciden-tale sau de ordin istoric. Perisabilitatea lemnului nu a permis pãstrarea îndelungatã a acestor construcþii, aşa încât, dupã multe reparaþii, s-a pre-ferat modificarea substanþialã sau înlocuirea totalã. Apoi incendiile, cau-zate de neglijenþã sau fenomene naturale, au distrus unele biserici, la care s-au asociat cele incendiate sau dãrâmate în invaziile tãtare (ultima a fost în anul 1717) şi turceşti.

În anul 1688, Transilvania devine parte a Imperiului Habsburgic şi Biserica ortodoxã este orientatã cãtre unirea cu Roma, lucru care se şi petrece dupã anul 1700. Acum se înmulþesc restricþiile privind altfel de construcþii decât cele din lemn pentru arhitectura religioasã. La jumãtatea secolului XVIII, mişcãrile religioase sunt urmate de represalii şi mãsuri organizatorice. În deceniile 9 şi 10 însã, prin patentele de toleranþã şi uni-re emise de împãratul Iosif al II-lea în 1781 şi 1782, se ridicã noi biserici de lemn.

Începând cu anul 1761, se hotãrãşte înfiinþarea regimentului grãniceresc pe teritoriul Bistriþei şi al Nãsãudului. Acest eveniment, care a premers patentelor lui Iosif al II-lea, a sporit emanciparea socialã şi naþionalã a românilor din Transilvania şi a avut drept efect dezvoltarea construcþiei bisericilor de lemn şi mai apoi de piatrã, în secolul XIX. Astfel, bisericile de piatrã le înlocuiesc pe cele din lemn, care vor fi mutate, prin cedare sau vânzare, în alte sate. Fenomenul mutãrii bisericilor de lemn este întâlnit în toatã þara. Demontarea unor biserici aflate într-o anume stare de degra-dare se înregistreazã în primele decenii ale secolului XX. Materialul este vândut sãtenilor pentru case şi anexe gospodãreşti.

depicting scenes from the Old and New Testament, but also including representa-tions from the rural world, the painting in a timber church contains, besides its strict meaning, with all the inherent moral mean-ings, an exceptional expressive worth. Veg-etal elements and representations of vari-ous creatures complete the inside iconogra-phy and increase the savor of the ensemble. The painting inside timber churches in Transylvania and Maramureş is organized in different compositional registers, delim-ited by decorative borders. These contain vegetal and floral motives, bound together by a sinuous line, which grants dynamism to the wall ensemble. The frames are made of geometrical figures: the drawings and colors enhance the surface. The intention of the entire decorative unfolding, in which a free-hand drawing and an inner rhythm imposed to the chromatic palette and to the shapes’ details are preeminent, can also be discerned in the overall compositional or-ganization of the painting.

The frontal perspective, noticeable in the way shapes are treated, places objects, trees, stars and biblical characters in an order dictated by the use of the qualitative perspective. The expressive language of the wall decoration is characterized by an styl-ized drawing, including details allowing for an identification of the character or the illustration of the biblical text. The chro-matic range contains few colors, but the

n Foto 4. Păuşa, biserică cu hramul „Sf. Nicolae” şi „Adormirea Maicii Domnului”, pictura din 1800, zugrav Ioan PoP din Românaşin Foto 4a. Pronaos, Spălarea picioarelorn Foto 4b. Pronaos, Fecioarele cuminţin Foto 4c. Pronaos, Fecioarele nebune n Photo 4. Păuşa, “Saint Nicholas” Church and the Church of “The

Dormition of the Holy Virgin”, painting from 1800, the work of Ioan Pop from Românaşin Photo 4a. Narthex, Foot washing Narthex n Photo 4b. The wise virginsn Photo 4c. Narthex, The foolish virgins

54 2009/1


Pentru biserica de lemn, nu planul este elocvent, ci elevaþia; ea este cea care exprimã organizarea spaþiului interior, sintetizeazã atributele di-mensionale şi particularizeazã compoziþia volumetricã, totalizând carac-teristicile spaþiale. Spaþiul interior al bisericii de lemn se remarcã fie prin sculptura elementelor de la pereþii despãrþitori dintre pronaos - naos, naos - altar şi prin arhitectura sistemelor de boltire, fie prin pictura parietalã, realizatã direct pe lemn. Spre deosebire de Moldova, în regiunile de sud ale þãrii şi mai cu seamã în Transilvania şi Maramureş, pictura interioarã este cea care dominã decoraþia. Desfãşuratã în largi scene, urmãrind Ve-chiul şi Noul Testament, dar cuprinzând şi reprezentãri regãsite în lumea ruralã, pictura bisericii de lemn conþine, pe lângã semnificaþia sa strictã, cu înþelesurile ei morale, o valoare plasticã de excepþie. Elementele ve-getale şi reprezentãrile unor felurite vieþuitoare completeazã iconografia

tones are different, according to the author, school or period.

The wall painting from Maramureş or Transylvania mirrors the principles of Post-Byzantine art, providing interpretations of this traditional background. We can find here a rich diversity of stylistic directions, but saturated with an availability for deco-rativeness and a playful mindset; a stimu-lating human nature, in perfect agreement with itself. In this painting, all the elements specific to an artwork outline recognizable styles, broken down in groups of monu-ments and regional areas. More than the repertoire of timber decoration granting unity to the architectural program of the church, this painting can be an individu-alizing element, conferring variety and an identity at the same time. The painting en-sembles brilliantly complement the monu-ments’ architectural and historic worth.

The wall between the narthex and the nave, once containing only a door, under-went some changes over the centuries, by the means of several openings created in it. This change is explained by the conformation and the purpose of the ritual area. In the process of the space division according to genders, due to the crowded space and so as people could hear the mess better, the separating wall was endowed with a few small windows. The moment in which the openings appeared in the wall can be identified according to the way the beam cuts are treated and from the

n Foto 5. Solomon, biserică cu hramul „Sf. Arhangheli”, pictura făcută după 1800, zugrav Iosif PERSon Foto 5a. Uşa dintre pronaos-naos, vas cu florin Photo 5. Solomon, “Holy Archangels” Church,

painting after 1800, the work of Iosif Person Photo 5a. The door between the narthex and

the nave, flower vase

n Foto 6. Voivodeni, biserică cu hramul „Sf. Arhangheli”, pictura făcută după 1800 (clădirea a fost restaurată)n Foto 6a. Pronaos, Parabola fecioarelor

(detaliu Fecioarele nebune)n Photo 6. Voivodeni, “Holy Archangels”

Church, painting immediately after 1800, (the architecture has been conserved)n Photo 6a. Narthex, Parable of the ten virgins

(detail with the foolish virgins)

n Foto 7. Racâş, biserică cu hramul „Sf. Arhangheli”, pictura din 1783 (altarul), zugrav Ioan PoP din Românaşi; după 1800 - pronaos, naos (clădirea şi pictura au fost restaurate; fotografii făcute după restaurare)n Foto 7a. Altar, Naşterea lui Isusn Photo 7. Racâş, “Holy Archangels” Church,

painting from 1783 (the sanctuary), the work of Ioan Pop from Românaşi; after 1800 - narthex, nave (the architecture and paintings have been conserved); photographs after the conservation)n Photo 7a. Sanctuary, Nativity

552009/1


interiorului şi sporesc savoarea ansamblului. Pictura interioarã a biseri-cilor de lemn din Transilvania şi Maramureş este organizatã în registre compoziþionale, care sunt împãrþite prin frize decorative. Acestea conþin motive vegetale şi florale, legate printr-o linie sinuoasã, care imprimã di-namism ansamblului peretelui. Chenarele formate din figuri geometrice fac suprafaþa sã vibreze, prin desen şi cromaticã. Intenþia desfãşurãrii de-corative în care proeminente sunt desenul liber, ritmarea cromaticã şi a detaliilor de forme se citeşte şi în organizarea compoziþionalã de ansam-blu a picturii.

Perspectiva frontalã, remarcatã în tratarea formelor, plaseazã obiecte, copaci, stele şi personaje biblice într-o ordine desemnatã de folosirea per-spectivei calitative. Limbajul plastic al decoraþiei murale se caracterizeazã printr-un desen esenþializat, cu amãnunte de identificare a personajului sau a ilustrãrii textului biblic. Gama cromaticã conþine puþine culori, dar tonalitãþile sunt diferite în funcþie de autor, şcoalã sau epocã.

În pictura muralã maramureşeanã şi transilvãneanã se disting prin-cipiile artei post-bizantine şi interpretãrile acestui fond tradiþional. O diversitate de direcþii stilistice, dar saturatã de o disponibilitate pentru decorativism şi joc. O naturã umanã tonicã, în acord cu ea însãşi. Toate elementele specifice unei creaþii artistice contureazã, în aceastã picturã, stiluri recognoscibile pe grupuri de monumente şi pe arii regionale. Mai mult decât repertoriul decoraþiei în lemn, care aduce unitate în progra-mul arhitectural al bisericii, pictura aceasta poate fi un element de in-dividualizare, de varietate şi de identitate în acelaşi timp. Ansamblurile picturale completeazã strãlucit valoarea arhitecturalã şi istoricã a monu-mentelor.

Peretele dintre pronaos şi naos, altãdatã prevãzut numai cu o uşã, suferã modificãri în decursul timpului, prin practicarea unor deschideri. Aceastã schimbare este explicatã de conformaþia şi rostul spaþiului ritual. În cadrul diviziunii spaþiului pe sexe, datoritã aglomerãrii şi pentru o mai bunã ascultare a slujbei, peretele despãrþitor capãtã mici ferestre. Momen-tul apariþiei acestei strãpungeri a peretelui poate fi identificat din felul în care sunt tratate tãierile bârnelor şi din analiza scenei pictate. Deschideri-le pot fi profilate şi mãrginite de ornamente pe lemn sau metal şi împãrþite de stâlpişori decorativi, iar pictura urmãreşte, coerent, suprafaþa. În cazul în care peretele plin a fost tãiat dupã data zugrãvirii bisericii, pictura este pe alocuri pierdutã.

Investigaþia ştiinþificã a tehnicii de realizare, coroboratã cu studiul is-toricului de artã sunt chei în alegerea şi propunerea metodelor specifice de intervenþie, salvare şi punere în valoare a ansamblului sau elementelor

analysis of the painted scenes. The openings can be shaped and bordered by ornaments on timber or metal and divided by decora-tive small posts, and the painting follows the surface coherently. If the wall undertook the openings after the church had been painted, parts of the painting will be missing.

The scientific investigation of the real-ization technique, corroborated with studies carried out by an art historian are crucial for choosing and proposing specific interven-tion methods, so as to save and set in value either the ensemble, or separate artistic el-ements. The elaboration of the documenta-tion for the restoration and preservation of the painting follows a general framework adapted to specific cases. In this structure, one can catch a glimpse of the “philosophy” guiding the approach of the subject.

Stages in writing the documentation for the restoration of the mural painting

I. Presentation of the historic monumentII. Examination of the general preserva-

tion stateIII. On-site research1. Study of the mural surface

1.1. Stratigraphic tests 1.2. Tests/ probing1.3. Preservation state - deterioration

and manifestation forms, original execution technique

1.3.1. Preservation state of the mon-ument, of the architecture - structure

1.3.2. Preservation state of the paint-ing’s support layer

1.3.3. Preservation state of the layer of color

2. Investigations 2.1. Chemical analyses of the support

layer, pigments, adhesive and non-adhesive sediment layers

2.2. Biological analyses 3. Defining the technological process

3.1. Restoration operations3.2. Description of the preservation-res-

toration process broken down into stages, operations, implementation methodologies of the intervention techniques.

n Foto 7b. Altar, Abel şi Cain n Foto 7c. Naos, detaliu ornament floral n Photo 7b. Sanctuary, Abel and Cainn Photo 7c. Nave, detail of a flower ornament

56 2009/1


artistice disparate. Elaborarea documentaþiei care propune restaurarea şi conservarea picturii urmãreşte un cadru general adaptat la cazurile parti-culare. În aceastã structurã se întrevede „filozofia” care orienteazã apro-pierea de subiect.

Etape în redactarea documentaþiei de restaurare a picturii muraleI. Prezentarea monumentului istoricII. Examinarea stãrii generale de conservareIII. Cercetarea in situ1. Studiul suprafeþei murale

1.1. Sondaje stratigrafice1.2. Teste/probe1.3. Starea de conservare - degradãri şi forme de manifestare, tehnica

originarã de execuþie 1.3.1. Starea de conservare a monumentului, arhitecturii - structurii 1.3.2. Starea de conservare a stratului suport al picturii 1.3.3. Starea de conservare a stratului de culoare2. Investigaþii

2.1. Analize chimice pentru strat suport, pigmenþi, depuneri neade-rente şi aderente

2.2. Analize biologice3. Definirea procesului tehnologic

3.1. Operaþiuni de restaurare 3.2. Descrierea procesului de conservare-restaurare pe faze, operaþiuni,

metodologii de aplicare a tehnicilor de intervenþie

Tehnica picturii care decoreazã biserica de lemn este cea a temperei (distemper), bazatã pe coloranþi naturali, solubili în apã, pentru stratul de picturã şi suportul pregãtit dintr-un grund alb cu liant organic. Pentru obþinerea unei suprafeþe relativ uniforme, interstiþiile dintre bârne s-au acoperit cu benzi textile, lipite cu un clei tot organic. Straturile de grund şi culoare, de grosimi în general mici dar variabile, permit sã se citeascã structura neregulatã a lemnului cioplit manual. Spre deosebire de secole-le XVII şi XVIII, secolul XIX face cunoscutã o tehnicã mai slabã de reali-zare a decorului pictat; în consecinþã este mai puþin stabil, mai vulnerabil la degradare.

Formele de deteriorare au cauze puþine, dar modul lor de combinare şi de exercitare - din punctul de vedere al duratei – se exprimã foarte variat:

– Degradãrile fizice, produse prin frecarea hainelor pe jumãtatea inferioarã a pereþilor sau prin fixarea mobilierului şi a altor obiecte sunt

The technique characterizing the paint-ing decorating the timber church is tem-pera (distemper), based on natural coloring agents, soluble in water for the painting lay-er on a support layer made of a white prime color with an organic binding agent. In or-der to achieve a relatively uniform surface, the cracks between the beams were covered with textile strips, held together by some organic glue. The thickness of the prime color and color layers, rather small but vari-able, allow for an examination of the irregu-lar structure of the manually-carved timber. Unlike the 17th and 18th centuries, the 19th century reveals a less impressive realiza-tion technique for the painted decoration; therefore, it is less stable, and more vulner-able to deterioration.

Deterioration forms have fewer causes, but the manner in which they combine and manifest themselves differs greatly from the viewpoint of the duration:

– Physical deterioration, produced by rubbing clothes on the lower part of the walls or by bolting pieces of furniture or other objects to the wall, is identified by the means of superficial erosions, greasy, oily stains or the loss of color in certain areas, down to the prime color layer.

– The deterioration of the roof and espe-cially of the shingle coverage and the con-stant negligence and failure to take emer-gency protection measures have as an effect an increase in the biological attack and the migration of certain substances contained in the timber mass (tannin, for instance) having different forms and colors, as well as fungi and molds, distorting the original chromatic appearance. Moreover, chemical modifications of the two main components of the painting occur. The prime color loses its binding component and the painting layer becomes friable and exfoliates. Un-controlled, the deterioration phenomenon goes on, leading to major painting losses.

– The abundant use of candles contrib-utes to the formation of sediments of greasy smoke sticking to the painted surfaces. Be-sides the shrouded appearance of the im-age (loss of visibility), the biological attack launched on these sediments further com-

n Foto 7d. o fereastră a fragmentat medalionul n Foto 7e. Iconostasuln Photo 7d. A window has fragmented the medallionn Photo 7e. The iconostasis

572009/1


identificate prin eroziuni superficiale, lustruiri grase sau pierderi de strat de culoare, pânã în zona grundului.

– Degradarea acoperişului şi mai ales a învelitorii din şindrilã şi persistenþa în neglijarea protecþiei urgente au ca efect dezvoltarea atacului biologic şi migrarea unor substanþe conþinute în masa lemnului (taninul de exemplu) şi având forme şi culori diferite, ciupercile şi mucegaiurile distorsioneazã aspectul cromatic originar. Totodatã, se petrec modificãri chimice ale celor douã componente principale ale picturii. Grundul îşi pierde liantul şi deci coeziunea, iar stratul pictural devine friabil şi se exfoliazã. Necontrolat, fenomenul de degradare continuã pânã la pierderi ample de picturã.

– Folosirea din abundenþã a lumânãrilor contribuie la formarea unor depozite aderente de fum gras pe suprafeþele pictate. Pe lângã înecarea imaginii (pierderea vizibilitãþii), atacul biologic care se dezvoltã şi pe aceste depuneri se complicã în efectele chimice determinante.

– Un sistem impropriu de încãlzire discontinuã a spaþiului interior în sezonul rece are consecinþe nefaste asupra condiþiei picturii, care se exfoliazã.

Caracterul multidisciplinar al abordãrii restaurãrii, în cazul bisericii de lemn decorate cu picturã, impune o echipã pe mãsurã: arhitect, istoric de artã, inginer de rezistenþã, chimist, biolog-conservator. Numai în acest fel proiectul elaborat are consistenþã şi acoperire în realitate şi se stabileşte o reþea de lucru eficientã. Restauratorul de picturã va deþine astfel informaþii utile privind amploarea intervenþiilor pe structura constructivã a monu-mentului, privind modul de execuþie a diverselor lucrãri de dulgherie, durata şi etapele cele mai critice, care determinã protejarea temporarã sau asigurarea într-un mod specific a zonelor pictate. Pentru aceastã ultimã situaþie, amintim câteva exemple:

a. Suspendarea construcþiei în scopul înlocuirii tãlpilor perimetrale şi/sau transversale, operaþie care implicã posibile mişcãri minore, dar im-portante pentru unele suprafeþe acoperite cu o picturã aflatã într-o stare avansatã de degradare.

b. Înlocuirea de elemente din bolþi sau tavane pictate, care presupu-ne înlãturarea materialului lemnos deteriorat, ce nu asigurã rezistenþa necesarã unei structuri importante pentru ansamblul constructiv. Prin decuparea din masa lemnoasã a suprafeþei pictate şi montarea ei pe piesa nouã de lemn, decoraþia picturalã este salvatã.

c. Demontarea acoperişului şi refacerea învelitorii de şindrilã. O schelã acoperitã, plasatã peste întreaga construcþie, va asigura intervenþia la aco-periş fãrã periclitarea picturii interioare.

plicates the situation, because of the chemi-cal reactions that are produced.

– An incorrect, discontinuous heating of the inside in winter leads to unwanted consequences for the painting, which be-gins to exfoliate.

The multidisciplinary character of the restoration approach, in the case of the timber church with a painting decoration requires the collaboration of a team made of an architect, an art historian, a resistance engineer, a chemist, a biologist–preserva-tion specialist. This is the only way for the elaborated project to have consistency and to be successful in real life, by creating an efficient network. The painting-restorer will thus obtain valuable information regarding the scope of the interventions on the monu-ment’s structure, regarding the execution of the various carpentry interventions, dura-tion and the most critical stages, which de-termine a temporary protection or the spe-cific protection of the painted areas. For this latter situation, there are a few examples:

a. Suspending the construction so as to replace perimetral and/or transversal plates, operation possibly involving dis-placements – minor, but important if some of the surfaces are covered in a severely de-teriorated painting.

b. Replacement of elements from paint-ed vaults or ceilings, which requires the re-moval of the deteriorated timber material, which does not have the strength necessary for a structure that is important for the built ensemble. By cutting up the painted surface from the timber mass and fixing it up on the new timber piece, the painting is saved.

c. Taking the roof apart and redoing the shingle coverage. Covered scaffolding, placed over the entire building will make sure that the intervention on the roof will not put the interior painting at risk.

The secret behind the success is this consistent, well-maintained cooperation be-tween people specialized in the restoration of timber constructions, and the sequential participation to the preparation of the inter-vention stages. A continuous dialog between carpenters – specialists actually implement-ing the architecture project and the special-

n Foto 7f. Naos, Sfinţi mucenici n Foto 7g. Naos, Sf. Nicolae

n Photo 7f. Nave , The Forty Martyrs of Sebasten Photo 7g. Nave, Saint Nicholas

58 2009/1


Secretul reuşitei este aceastã cooperare consecvent întreþinutã, între persoanele specializate în restaurarea construcþiilor din lemn, prin parti-ciparea secvenþialã la pregãtirea etapelor de intervenþii. Dialogul conti-nuu între meşterii dulgheri care pun în aplicare proiectul de arhitecturã şi specialistul în restaurarea componentelor artistice este o probã de apropi-ere beneficã. În acest fel şi monumentul istoric va fi mai bine înþeles.

Ctitorii şi meşterii de biserici din aşezãrile rurale (şi nu numai) au fost mereu atenþi la preceptul „Ia seama cum construieşti!”. Parafrazând, restauratorul ar putea exprima o hotãrâre: „Mã strãduiesc sã fac sã dãinuie ceea ce aþi construit”.

Notã:Biserici de lemn cu picturã restauratã sau în curs de finalizare în urmã-

toarele judeþe: – judeþul Maramureş: Bârsana (bisericã UNESCO), Bogdan Vodã (Cuhea)

(bisericã UNESCO), Budeşti Josani (bisericã UNESCO), Cãlineşti-Cãieni, Deseşti (bisericã UNESCO), Ieud Deal, Rogoz (biserici UNESCO)

– judeþul Sãlaj: Racâş.Dominã restaurarea picturii din bisericile aflate în Maramureşul isto-

ric. Sperãm extinderea lucrãrilor de restaurare în bisericile de lemn din judeþul Sãlaj, unde se mai pãstreazã încã ansambluri excepþionale de picturã muralã. Ilustraþia exemplificã deosebita calitate artisticã a picturii şi starea ei de conservare în biserici din judeþele Maramureş şi Sãlaj.

Prin restaurare s-au executat urmãtoarele operaþii mari:– curãþarea depunerilor de praf, fum şi cearã– consolidarea straturilor de grund şi culoare– tratamente de eradicare şi stopare a atacului biologic– completãri de benzi textile şi zone cu pierderi restrânse de lemn, la

pereþi şi bolþi– chituiri de lacune mici– integrãri cromatice selective.

ist in the restoration of the artistic compo-nents is a beneficial collaboration and a chal-lenge. Thus, the historic monument will be better understood.

The founders, the creators of churches in rural settlements (but they are not the only ones to do so) have always been aware of the precept “Be careful of the manner in which you are building!”

Paraphrasing, the restorer could also express his credo: “I’m doing my best to make your buildings last forever”.

Note:Timber churches with the painting re-

stored or currently being restored in the fol-lowing Counties:

– Maramureş County: Bârsana (UNESCO church), Bogdan Vodã (Cuhea) (UNESCO church), Budeşti Josani (UNESCO church), Cãlineşti-Cãieni, Deseşti (UNESCO church), Ieud Deal, Rogoz (UNESCO church)

– Sãlaj County: RacâşThe restoration of the painting in church-

es in the historic part of Maramureş is pre-dominant. We are hoping that restoration interventions will be extended to timber churches in Sãlaj County, where exceptional mural painting ensembles are still preserved. The illustration exemplifies the painting’s artistic quality and its preservation state in churches from Maramureş and Sãlaj.

The restoration involved the following major operations:

– cleaning existing sediments made of dust, smoke and wax

– consolidating the layers of prime col-or and color

– treatments to eradicate and stop the biological attack

– by the means of textile strips filling in the areas having a minor loss of tim-ber, on the walls and vaults

– putty applied in areas with minor losses – selective chromatic integrations.

n Foto 7h. Pronaos, Parabola fecioarelor (detaliu)n Photo 7h. Narthex, Parable of the ten virgins (detail)

592009/1


News n Ştiri n Hírek n News n Ştiri n Hírekn The 14th edition of the Interna-tional Conference Series on Theo-retical and Practical Issues of Built Heritage Conservation – TUSNAD will be organized at Rimetea/Colþeşti on May 19–24, 2009. This year’s event topic is The Vernacular and the Multicultural Dialogue.

On the first two days of the con-ference there will take place a docu-mentary field trip, having the topic multiculturalism, migration, and glo-balism. On the first day, the partici-pants will depart from Sibiu and visit Cisnãdie, Rãşinari, Câlnic and Alba Iulia. On the second day, the field trip will continue from Alba Iulia to Roşia Montanã and Rimetea/Colþeşti. Since Rimetea and Colþeşti are going to host the event, the accommodation will also be provided here.

After arriving in Rimetea the par-ticipants will visit the village, meet the inhabitants and also take part in the exhibition varnishing. Here will be presented Western- and Eastern-European models regarding “historic” tests of investigation and rehabilita-tion, examples from other continents, and summer schools. The official opening reception will take place dur-ing the same evening, in Rimetea.

n Cea de a 14-a ediþie a Seriei Conferinþelor Internaþionale Ştiinþifice de Teoria şi Practica Reabilitãrii Patrimoniului Construit – TUŞNAD va avea loc în perioada 19-24 mai 2009 în Rimetea/Colþeşti, pe tema Arhitectura vernacularã în regiuni multietnice.

Primele douã zile ale conferinþei vor debuta cu o excursie de documen-tare pe tema multiculturalism, migra-re, globalizare. În prima zi, partici-panþii la excursie vor porni din loca-litatea Sibiu, vizitând Cisnãdie, Rãşi-nari, Câlnic şi Alba Iulia. În cea de-a doua zi, excursia va continua din Alba Iulia spre Roşia Montanã şi Ri-metea/Colþeşti. Deoarece Rimetea şi Colþeşti sunt localitãþile care vor gãz-dui evenimentul, cazarea parti ci pan-þilor va fi asiguratã în acest decor.

Dupã sosirea în Rimetea, partici-panþii vor vizita satul, se vor întâlni cu localnicii şi vor participa la ver-nisajul unei expoziþii. Aici vor fi prezentate modele vest- şi est-euro-pene, cât şi exemple de pe alte con-tinente, teste „istorice” de investiga-re şi reabilitare, şcoli de varã. Recepþia oficialã de deschidere a evenimen-tului va avea loc de asemenea în aceeaşi searã, în Rimetea.

n Az épített örökség felújításának el-méleti és gyakorlati kérdései nemzet-közi konferencia-sorozat – Tusnad 14. ülésszakára 2009. május 19-24. kö-zött kerül sor Torockón/Torockó szent-györgyön (Fehér megye/Romá nia), amely 1999-ben elnyerte az Europa Nostra díj Romániai Mûemlék-hely re-állítás számára elõször megítélt érem fokozatát. A nemzetközileg is jelen-tõs esemény idei tematikája a Több-nemzetiségû régiók népi építészete.

A konferencia rendhagyó módón tanulmányi kirándulással kezdõdik multikulturalitás, migráció, globali-záció témakörben. 2009. május 20-án Nagyszebenbõl (Sibiu) indulnak a résztvevõk, elsõ állomás Nagydisznód (Cisnãdie), majd Resinár (Rãşinari), Kelnek (Câlnic) és Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia) következnek, ahol a résztvevõk meg is szállnak. A második nap, 2009. május 21-én Gyulafehérvárról (Alba Iulia) Verespatak (Roşia Montanã) irányába, a Mócok földjén tekinthe-tik meg az érdeklõdõk a román fal-vakra jellemzõ népi építészeti érté-keket, majd az Aranyos-völgyén To-rockóra érve sor kerül kiállításmeg-nyitókra, majd a helyi lakossággal való találkozással folytatódik a program. A kiállítások témáit a nyugat-euró-

60


2009/160

pai, kelet-európai és más kontinens-beli modellek – terepfelvételek az or-szágból és a határon túlról – történeti kutatási és rehabilitációs próbálkozá-sok – hazai és külföldi egyetemek nyári felmérõ programjai képezik.

A konferencia 2009. május 22–23-án elõadásokkal folytatódik, ame-lyek keretén belül a szakma jeles kép-viselõi bemutatják munkáikat, dol-gozataikat, kutatásaikat körüljárva a konferencia témáját. Az eseménnyel párhuzamosan sor kerül a Népi épí-tészet - ICOMOS Szakbizottságának éves gyûlésére is.

Érdeklõdni és jelentkezni a www.transsylvanianostra.eu honlapon, a [email protected] vagy [email protected] címén, il-letve a 0040-264-435489 vagy a 0040-730-909636-as telefonszámok egyikén lehetséges.

Conferinþa propriu-zisã se va desfãşura pe parcursul celei de-a 4-a şi a 5-a zi, între 22 şi 23 mai 2009. Prelegerile vor fi împãrþite pe module, când personalitãþi recunos-cute pe plan internaþional din acest domeniu vor prezenta lucrãrile şi cercetãrile lor pe tema conferinþei.

De asemenea o mare onoare o re -pre zintã organizarea întâlnirii anua le a membrilor Comitetului Inter na þio-nal ICOMOS – CIAV în cadrul oferit de aceastã conferinþã.

Pentru informaþii suplimentare şi înregistrare vã rugãm vizitaþi site-ul nostru www.transsylvanianostra.eu. Puteþi de asemenea sã ne contactaþi la numerele de telefon +40-730909630; +40-264-435689, sau la adresele de e-mail [email protected] ºi [email protected].

The conference itself will be held on the 4th and 5th day, on May 22–23, 2009. The lectures will be divided on modules, where interna-tionally acknowledged and repre-sentative personalities of this field will present their works and re-searches on the conference’s topic. It is also a great honour that the an-nual meeting of the International ICOMOS Committee for Historic Towns and Vernacular Architecture will also take place within the frame-work of the conference.

For further information and reg-istration please visit our website www.transsylvanianostra.eu. Con-tact us at the following phone numbers +40-730909630; +40-264-435689, or the [email protected] and [email protected] e-mail addresses.

TN 1_2009_BT

Documents

Transcript of TN 1_2009_BT