www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47941794
Devastating, I don't think there will be much left.
|
|
Apparently all the artwork has been saved...
|
|
It's the water damage from controlling fire that will be the killer.
|
The BBC are reporting that the stone structure may be salvageable.
Such a shame, I guess it's the equivalent of our St Paul's being destroyed.
200 years to build, 850 years old and almost totally destroyed within a couple of hours.
|
>> The BBC are reporting that the stone structure may be salvageable.
Just seen an aerial shot, its like looking into a volcano, The stone structure walls will be severely weakened, and may need to be rebuilt even if they dont fall in.
>> Such a shame, I guess it's the equivalent of our St Paul's being destroyed.
Yes it is exactly that scenario, That iconic picture of St Pauls surviving the blitz, only to be lost in a peacetime fire, imagine the national shock.
|
>>The stone structure walls will be severely weakened
Will it be? I presume the structure is dry stone? Though I did read somewhere that the stone itself was already deteriorating before the incident.
|
>> >>The stone structure walls will be severely weakened
>>
>> Will it be? I presume the structure is dry stone? Though I did read somewhere
>> that the stone itself was already deteriorating before the incident.
Indeed, hence the renovation works, that probably caused the fire.
As for dry stone, It was a big hot fire, I would guess the heat was sufficient to cause even more cracking, and a large heat sump would have built up in the (probably very poor) foundations and subsoil.
I decided once, the best way to get rid of an old shed was to burn in situ. It cracked the concrete foundation in two, and the two halves separated by an inch
|
Structure saved apparently.
"Firefighters managed to save the 850-year-old Gothic building's main stone structure, including its two towers, but the spire and roof collapsed."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47943705
|
|
What they mean is "its currently still standing" Its not saved till they get scaffolding and supports in there to hold it up.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 16 Apr 19 at 08:42
|
|
No, it's a stone building. The vaulted arches support the walls pushing them outwards. The flying buttresses apply force in the opposite direction. The stonework is intact and is not in danger of collapse. Scaffolding is for access, not support.
|
>> The stonework is intact and is not in danger of collapse.
...whilst much of the stonework is still standing (which is, I think, essentially where the word "intact" still springs from), I for one wouldn't like to rely on its structural integrity without significant investigative work.
Stone suffers both chemical and physical change under intense heat, and, looking at how that went up, I doubt all of the original structural integrity remains.
The design does indeed involve counteracting forces, but if, say the internal vaulting has been fire-damaged, the external buttresses could/will be pushing against a much-weakened structure.
I don't really think the scale of what happened at York matches it.
|
|
We shall see but early reports indicate the stone vaulting is intact as are the the two towers. in effect it was the roof that burned above the stone vault so the structure should still be intact. Heat rises so would mostly have escaped through the roof. Fire was not unknown in medieval times and the vaulting, besides being integral to the strength of the building serves as a protection against fire completely destroying a building.
|
>> Heat rises so would mostly have escaped <<
I think that it is hot air that rises - radiant energy does not yet get used an anti-gravity force :)
|
>> No, it's a stone building. The vaulted arches support the walls pushing them outwards. The
>> flying buttresses apply force in the opposite direction. The stonework is intact and is not
>> in danger of collapse. Scaffolding is for access, not support.
The Vaulted arches are probably cracked, the roof timbers are gone, the flying buttress pressure is now not equally matched.
Look at any building in london where they preserve the stone facade and build behind it, and you will find scaffolding behind supporting it. Not your average access scaffolding, they pin it to the wall, and create steel buttresses.
|
Supporting a single wall is not the same thing as a medieval stone building which is inherently a very strong integral and fireproof structure. Time will tell of course but I believe the main issue will be the roof and glass.
|
>> Supporting a single wall is not the same thing as a medieval stone building which
>> is inherently a very strong integral and fireproof structure. Time will tell of course but
>> I believe the main issue will be the roof and glass.
Take a trip to Clandon park then and see for yourself.
|
|
Clandon House is a brick built 18th Century House. Notre Dame is a stone built medieval building which gets into strength and stability from the massive construction of its stone walls supported by a stone vaulted roof and flying buttresses. They are completely different animals. First reports suggest the structural integrity of the building remains but we shall see.
|
>>First reports suggest the structural integrity of the building remains but we shall see.
>>
Seeing the latest pictures,my guess is that by a lot of the roof structure burning in situ, far less crashed down inside and that restricted the damage considerably.
One photo shows what appears to be loudspeakers on many columns and all look intact.
Many photos :-
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6926807/Devastating-aftermath-Notre-Dame-inferno-leaves-world-mourning.html
POTUS answer to the fire:-
Paris’ iconic Notre Dame Cathedral was engulfed in flames last Monday, spurring President Donald Trump to offer his two cents on how to remedy the destruction.
In a tweet, Trump suggests that officials should extinguish the fire with what he calls “flying water tankers.” He even urges the team to “act quickly.”
The French civil defence department has since posted four responses on Twitter—one of which was in English—debunking the effectiveness of the idea. Without naming POTUS, the squad argues that “water-bombs could lead to the collapse of the entire structure of the cathedral.”
|
>> Supporting a single wall is not the same thing as a medieval stone building which
>> is inherently a very strong integral and fireproof structure. Time will tell of course but
>> I believe the main issue will be the roof and glass.
It's been pointed out on another forum that many UK Abbeys and similar have remained roofless and standing since the reformation.
|
>> It's been pointed out on another forum that many UK Abbeys and similar have remained
>> roofless and standing since the reformation.
Their walls were not heated to 800 degrees c for several hours.
|
>> Their walls were not heated to 800 degrees c for several hours.
Neither, on present evidence, were the walls of Notre Dame. Roof catches fire flames and heat go upwards. Indeed the interior damage seems to be more due to water than fire.
Same years ago when roof of office over way from ours caught fire - again while repairs were going on.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5012379/Huge-fire-breaks-out-in-Holborn-London-at-immigration-tribunal.html
Photographer was pretty much standing in doorway of my then office.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 16 Apr 19 at 17:18
|
>> >> Their walls were not heated to 800 degrees c for several hours.
>>
>> Neither, on present evidence, were the walls of Notre Dame. Roof catches fire flames and
>> heat go upwards.
Burning roof falls to floor. They tend not to stay in one piece when in flames. Ask firemen.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 16 Apr 19 at 17:53
|
>>
>> Their walls were not heated to 800 degrees c for several hours.
>>
Nor fortunately were the wall of Notre Dame. The fire was in the roof and most of the heat was dissipated vertically.
|
>>
>> >>
>> >> Their walls were not heated to 800 degrees c for several hours.
>> >>
>>
>> Nor fortunately were the wall of Notre Dame. The fire was in the roof and
>> most of the heat was dissipated vertically.
Burning roof falls to floor. They tend not to stay in one piece when in flames. Ask firemen.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47943705
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 16 Apr 19 at 17:57
|
If you look at the pictures you will see that the roof did not collapse in its entirety on to the cathedral floor. By and large the vaulting survived although there were collapses over the transept and where the spire penetrated the roof Fortunately most of the fire was in the roof void. The three rose windows and organ have survived intact which certainly would not be the case if the inferno had raged for hours on the cathedral floor
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 16 Apr 19 at 18:14
|
>> Burning roof falls to floor. They tend not to stay in one piece when in
>> flames. Ask firemen.
But for most part at least that's not what happened. Fire, heat and ash were conducted upwards as determined by pre O level Physics/
Listen to UCL fire expert on tonight's Radio 4 PM programme shortly before 17:30.
|
|
Another straw in wind on temperature inside building is report that altar candles survived unmelted.
|
>> Another straw in wind on temperature inside building is report that altar candles survived unmelted.
>>
Many pews survived too.
IMO the vast amount of the roof burning in situ ensured that so little timber hit the floor.
|
What saved the building was the stone vault. Effectively the nave of Notre Dame has a stone roof. Above this is a pitched wooden roof which caught fire. The vault remained more or less intact leaving the nave below undamaged.
Compare that with the fire at York cathedral which has a wooden rather than stone vault. At York the entire roof collapsed into the interior.
Medieval builders were actually well aware of protection against fire from stone vaulting. Roof fires caused by lightning were pretty common until the invention of the lightning conductor
|
>> It's the water damage from controlling fire that will be the killer.
The national trust have an emergency plan when it comes to fire. They have a first responder team with a critical list, sometimes its the structure sometimes its the contents.
With the fire at Clandon park, the plan was to save the most important contents, so fire control (where possible) was directed to keep water away from certain areas even if that meant losing parts of the structure.
I think it was the first time the system had been put into action.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 15 Apr 19 at 22:13
|
|
I hope Quasimodo got out OK
|
|
...I think he did, though it's only a hunch........
|
I fear he didn't hear the fire alarm
|
|
These kinds of fires often seem to be linked to building works (Windsor and that Scottish Art school spring to mind)
|
Hmmm. I suppose it's a rather special building. But still a building. They should restore it. It will cost zillions, but probably no more than HS2 which is about as useful.
I see no mention of loss of life, I hope that's because there is none.
I've been thinking a lot about fire this week, as my house caught fire on Tuesday in quite a big way.
|
>> I've been thinking a lot about fire this week, as my house caught fire on Tuesday in quite a big way.
Hope you and yours are all OK Manatee!?
|
>> Hope you and yours are all OK Manatee!?
No casualties, thanks for asking. I won't divert the Notre Dame thread too far with it but we seem to be moving forward, meeting the building surveyor on site today.
My little bungalow is hardly a comparison, but it did demonstrate the problem with roof fires. Our pompiers were chucking water on it for three hours but the roof of course is designed to keep water out, and even after the rafters and battens burnt through and the roof tiles had fallen on/through the ceilings they still couldn't easily get at the flames spreading under the remaining parts.
|
|
Glad you're ok Manatee, and hope it gets sorted tout de suite.
|
Manatee, how did fire start if you don't mind me asking?
As some may know, I have first hand knowledge of dealing with a house fire and aftermath, insurers etc etc so if you need any assistance drop me an email via mods
|
>> Manatee, how did fire start if you don't mind me asking?
We will probably never know. The insurer commissioned a forensic investigation (for a large loss they are interested in who else might be liable, as was evident from some of the questioning). Best bet I am told is a poor connection probably in a junction box(they degrade over time with movement/contraction/expansion) causing resistance and heating. Rodents are often cited, and can certainly chew insulation, but are much less likely to cause fires.
>>
>> As some may know, I have first hand knowledge of dealing with a house fire
>> and aftermath, insurers etc etc so if you need any assistance drop me an email
>> via mods
I think I still have your email Bobby - a .org one? Yes I can probably use some advice. We wnat to improve the house substantially in addition to the reinstatement (and for which additional work we will clearly have to pay), to which the insurer is amenable in principle, but it will clearly complicate matters. Thank you
|
>> Rodents are often cited, and can certainly chew insulation, but are much less likely to cause fires.
I know someone, not a million miles from you, who had a roof fire that was blamed on edible dormice chewing electrics.
|
Yes that should be the address.
Interesting re your modifications - that's what we got stung by and after the event, a throwaway comment by my loss adjuster told me how we could have done things so differently!
In short, the company appointed by the insurer for the rebuild only did insurance work. So when I asked them to quote for additional work they were astronomical as they just did not want the work.
So we did not get our additional work done at that time.
Loss adjuster later told me that I could have appointed my own contractor to do all the work and they would have paid the fee that their contractor had quoted to me towards it.
|
|
Very pertinent comment Bobby. The architect from the firm preparing the list of works is going to call me on Tuesday.
|
>> They should restore it. It will cost zillions
And will no doubt want us Brits to chip in with the repair costs as we're still part of Europe.
|
>>And will no doubt want us Brits to chip in with the repair costs as we're still part of Europe.
And that's your first thought? You really are scared of and obsessed with Europe, aren't you. I think you're confusing Europe and The EU. We'll always be part of Europe.
|
|
Quasimodo walked into our local and said to the Landlord, "Large Whisky please", Landlord replied, "Bells alright", Q> replied, "Mind yer own efffin business." I'll get me coat:-)
|
>> You really are scared of and obsessed with Europe, aren't you.
Not really. What makes you presume that? Have I harped on endlessly in the Brexit threads about it? - nope don't think so. I've made one or two comments and that's about it, mainly about the ridiculous amount of time it's taking IIRC.
>> I think you're confusing Europe and The EU. We'll always be part of Europe.
You know what I meant, else you wouldn't have passed comment about it.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 16 Apr 19 at 08:30
|
|
I rather suspect that a lot o people in the U.K. will be saddened by the loss and will wish to donate to the rebuilding fund. Norte Dame is a symbol of European Culture, part of our shared history and it’s a huge loss to us all.
|
>> I rather suspect that a lot o people in the U.K. will be saddened by
>> the loss and will wish to donate to the rebuilding fund. Norte Dame is a
>> symbol of European Culture, part of our shared history and it’s a huge loss to
>> us all.
I suspect you are some way off. Yeah its a shame, but its no symbol to our culture, (the EU referendum should have told you that) no part of our shared history other than a few films* and I suspect donations from the general public will be nominal.
*It has one big issue of course. It's Catholic. Doesn't vibe with a country that is generally catholic hostile by history and nature.
|
>> I rather suspect that a lot o people in the U.K. will be saddened by
>> the loss and will wish to donate to the rebuilding fund.
Unfortunately I doubt it. Half the people wouldn't pay if it was St. Pauls never mind a furrin place. The refrain of "why should I pay" would echo throughout the land.
|
|
When I think back to the Windsor fire I recall people saying the taxman ought not pay for repairs, the Queen should do it herself. So I agree with the above
|
>> I've been thinking a lot about fire this week, as my house caught fire on
>> Tuesday in quite a big way.
Ohmygosh, I can imagine how traumatic that must be. At times like that you suddenly realise why you had insurance.
|
Estimates on the news are that it might take 10 years and €2.5 bn to rebuild it.
|
We've got some experience of this type of thing, Windsor Castle, York minister etc. I'd imagine people who have some experience in this sort of thing will be offering their help.
Although I did read there had been a fair few churches in France have had fires in the past few years, perhaps they are well experienced in this type of thing.
|
>> Estimates on the news are that it might take 10 years and €2.5 bn to
>> rebuild it.
>>
...In an interview with Claude Carillion:
"Oui, c'est un gros problème, mais, bof, je peux le réparer. Retour rapide d'une estimation Gitanes-paquet est de 10 ans et 2,5 milliards d'euros
Je peux commencer lundi si tu veux?"
Good luck with that. ;-)
|
They'll be making enquiries now.
Where was Bobby last night? That's where I'd start.
|
|
French firefighters have located the source of the fire. Someone in the belltower was ironing their shirt over a wok.
|
|
Looking at this afternoon's pictures of the interior it looks like they've got away relatively lightly inside the building. The charred roof timbers look neatly stacked in the centre !
|
Macron says five years ( the Olympics are coming) so no pressure then.
Headline funds are arriving but I hope macron's pockets are deep for the balance.
IIRC A forest of oak has been donated .
My skills extend to DIY but is a fancy wooden roof required?
I suspect the last wooden roof was hidden for 800 years by the stone vaulting.
Why not use modern materials and save a forest.
fortune.com/2019/04/16/notre-dame-after-fire-rebuild/
New external roofing material could mimic the original.
Restore the acoustics ?
I understand that an archealogical type excavation of the debris is required and that will not be quick. Meanwhile supporting the structure and removing the old scaffolding and getting a temporary cover on, protecting the remaining stained glass windows etc. is required while the sun shines.
Five years seems a dream timescale to me.
|
Just removing the reportedly 250te of current scaffold which was mostly engulfed in the fire, and therefore unsafe to work on is going to be a headache!
If France has the equivalent of English Heritage / Hysterical Scotland(*) then they will want it rebuilt exactly like for like, hand hewn Oak timbers etc etc
* being France I have no doubt they have - with bureaucratic knobs on
|
>> * being France I have no doubt they have - with bureaucratic knobs on
Indeed they do:
www.monuments-nationaux.fr/
Visited a few French historic sites over last 50+ years.
Not sure if the Pont du Gard is one of the Monument Nationaux. Having been there on a couple of occasions 20+ years apart it's apparent the French now have their own brand of Health and Safety Monkeys (Les Singes de Sainte et Securite?) telling you obvious stuff about risk of falls from height etc.
|
Someone will blame Brexit for the fire :-)
|
Meanwhile the cock of/off the spire has been recovered after its rapid flight to earth.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47959313
|
>>Why not use modern materials and save a forest.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47971914
How new tech might help the rebuild
|
Notre Dame on fire... - R.P.
