See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/287219959

Brunelleschi's bricks

Article · June 2015

CITATIONS READS

4 1,263

1 author:

Attilio Pizzigoni
University of Bergamo
14 PUBLICATIONS   52 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Brunelleschis harringbone View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Attilio Pizzigoni on 24 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF

THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL

Vol. 56 (2015) No. 2

STRUCTURES
FORMERLY BULLETIN OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES

Prof. D. h-C Eng .E. TORROJA, founder

June n. 184

Vol. 56 (2015) No. 2

June n. 184
international association
for shell and spatial structures ISSN: 1028-365X

28/12/04 07:06:09
 Journal
Journal
VOL. 56 (2015) No. 2 contents
n. 184 June

Memorial Statement
Memorial to Frei Otto 87
E. Ramm

Technical Paper
Dynamic Performance Analysis of Single-Layer Cylindrical Reticulated 91
Shell Considering Pile- Soil-Structure Interaction
S.-d. Xue, Y. Liu and X.-y. Li

Bottom-Up Design, Construction and Control of a Reconfigurable 101

Structural System
O. Kontovourkis, M.C. Phocas and P. Konatzii

Upcoming Events 112

Overall Self-Stress Modes Analysis and Optimal Prestress Design of the 113
Kiewitt Dome
L.-m. Chen, Y.-y. Zhou and S.-l. Dong

Polar Method to Design Foldable Plate Structures 125

V. Beatini

Brunelleschi’s Bricks 137

A. Pizzigoni

COVER: Figure from paper by A. Pizzigoni

IASS Secretariat: CEDEX-Laboratorio Central de Estructuras y Materiales

Alfonso XII, 3; 28014 Madrid, Spain
Tel: 34 91 3357409; Fax: 34 91 3357422; iass@cedex.es; http://www.iass-structures.org

Printed by SODEGRAF ISSN:1028-365X Depósito legal: M. 1444-1960

 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: J. IASS

BRUNELLESCHI’S BRICKS
Attilio PIZZIGONI
Architect, Professor , attilio.pizzigoni@unibg.it, Department of Engineering , University of Bergamo Italy.

Editor’s Note: Manuscript submitted 3 January 2014; revisions received 15 January and 20 April 2015; accepted 20 April.
This paper is open for written discussion, which should be submitted to the IASS Secretariat no later than December
2015.

ABSTRACT

This paper investigates the link between the bond between the bricks and the overall masonry pattern in the
dome of the Santa Maria del Fiore Cathedral in Florence, Italy. The pattern is usually described as a
“Herringbone”, but the true nature of the three-dimensional layers of bricks in the dome’s spatial geometry is
never discussed. This paper presents a plausible hypothesis, founded on a special three-dimensional, reciprocal
interaction of the Cupola’s bricks, that is verified by virtual models and physical prototypes. This research
indicates a possible procedure that would allow the construction of whole or parts of masonry domes using such
a non-traditional type of brick, through mountable and demountable reciprocal interaction. Moreover, we have
employed a parametric modelling software that enables us to generate different shapes by varying the ruling
algorithm.

Keywords: Brunelleschi’s Cupola, Herringbone, 3-dimensional reciprocal bricks bond, building without
formwork

1. INTRODUCTION final (very slow) setting time of lime mortar – just by

“…Si faccia di mattoni grandi ... i quali si murino
con quello spinapesce sarà deliberato per chi l’avrà
a conducere … e murisi con gualandrino con tre
corde…”, quote from Rapporto dei Provveditori of
24th January 1426.- ( translation: “…let us make it
with big bricks ... which will be processed with such
an "herringbone" how decide who will have to work
it….and let us make it with ‘gualandrino’ with three
ropes”)
This paper focuses on how the brick bond and
masonry pattern are configured inside the dome of the
Santa Maria del Fiore Cathedral in Florence, Italy:
“Herringbone” is the word that’s always used to
describe them, but there’s hardly a mention of the
true nature of the three-dimensional layers of bricks
in the dome’s spatial geometry. This paper intends to
address these issues and to provide a likely and
plausible hypothesis regarding them. Said hypothesis
is founded on a very special three-dimensional,
reciprocal interaction of the Cupola’s bricks, and is
verified by virtual models and physical prototypes.
The questions this paper intends to answer are:
How to reach static equilibrium of masonry with or
without the use of mortars, or otherwise before the
relying upon three-dimensional reciprocal bonding.
How to lay such three-dimensional reciprocal bricks
on a ring bed with a centre around which all the
bricks are aligned, and thus build a shell as a solid of
revolution. This the only kind of dome which may be
constructed without scaffolding or ribs, as testified by
Leon Battista Alberti in De re aedificatoria, Lib.III
Cap XIV.
How to lay these bricks using a very particular
device, the so-called gualandrino (a kind of geometric
square rule with three rulers not just the usual two), in
order to obtain spatial coordinates beyond those two
in the plan of brick layers. From this point of view all
former and current references to Brunelleschi’s
masterwork do not refer to normal, traditional bricks.
Instead we discuss the very unusual, outsized bricks
which he himself designed and modelled by cutting
experimental shapes from enormous turnips. Their
design was so particular that he oversaw their
manufacture personally, even as far as the furnaces.
This research indicates a possible procedure that
would allow the construction of whole or parts of
masonry domes using such a non-traditional type of
brick, through mountable and demountable reciprocal
interaction. Moreover, we have employed a

Copyright © 2015 by Attilio Pizzigoni.

Published by the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) with permission. 137
 Vol. 56 (2015) No. 2 June n. 184
parametric modelling software that enables us to
generate different shapes by varying the ruling
algorithm.
2. JANUARY 24TH 1426
On January 24th, 1426 the notary Tomaso di
Guccio drafted a report to the Wardens and
Superintendent Officials of the Opera di Santa
Maria del Fiore (the board of works of the
Florentine Dome) citing the words of Filippo
Brunelleschi, Lorenzo Ghiberti and Battista
d'Antonio. Surprisingly the debate recounted
therein is not between the ancient and the modern,
or the classical and the anticlassical but instead,
with just a few definitive phrases, the plan to
complete the construction of the great Dome is set
out.
The terms of the questions at hand were clear, and
the debate must have been lively because on one
side the building had already reached the second
walkway, that’s about eleven meters above the level
where the construction of the Cupola itself began.
Important decisions, however, had yet to be made
as to whether wooden or stone chains were
necessary to absorb the pressure of the vault, and if
so how many. Doubts also remained regarding how
to ensure that enough light would penetrate into the
dome’s interior. On top of all of that it became
evident that the decision to vault the dome without
the help of ribs or supporting armature was a
foregone conclusion for obvious economic reasons,
but no one except Filippo di Ser Brunellesco knew
exactly how to proceed with such a construction. To
make matters worse the man in question seemed to
be quite reluctant to provide anything but the most
vague indications of how it might be done, as is
testified by the aforementioned report where he is
quoted as saying: “from thirty braccia upwards”,
(braccia were arms, an old Florentine measure
equal to 0.583 meters), the bricks “shall be built up
with the herringbone technique” … “following the
instructions of he who will be put in charge”.
By contrast the geometric lines and the proportional
geometry of the structure had been defined several
decades beforehand. Some fifty years earlier, long
discussions between master builders had concluded
with the creation of a model which we can still see
today in Andrea Buonaiuti’s fresco in the church of
Santa Maria Novella. It should be noted that
Franceso Talenti had the most influence on the final
138
form of this model as he was responsible for its
greatest transformations and expansions beyond the
original scope of Arnolfo di Cambio’s primitive
design. At that time, in 1367, the “Masters and
Painters” of the cathedral’s board of works, (the
Opera), had solemnly sworn that they would
respect the “geometry” of that model. Indeed for
them the geometry represented that which today we
define as a right and proper structural principle. We
know that the constructional practices of the period
founded their technical knowledge on the
proportional and geometric sizing of the parts of the
buildings. The twelfth and thirteenth century
choices of pointed fifth arches were, in that sense,
derived from gothic structural concepts.
Furthermore they were coherent with the weight of
the Cupola lantern, which would not easily have
been sustained by a hemispherical dome like the
Roman one. At the same time however, Buonaiuti’s
design seems to distance itself from the gothic
vision, especially if we consider that the five meter
thick drum seems more closely linked to the
massive piers of the Roman domes than the slender
flying buttresses typical of that period’s
architecture. Moreover the presence of three semi-
domes on the transept and apse, most certainly
(also) intended to play a role in absorbing the push
of the horizontal forces, clearly recall the floorplan
of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul – a work many scholars
claim Brunelleschi knew of.
On the date of the aforementioned report the
building was therefore at the height of the second
walkway. It was almost sixty meters high and had a
frightening void of forty meters in diameter. The
first portion of the vault had already risen ten
degrees above the level where the Cupola’s
construction began. At about 12 Florentine braccia
or 7 meters above the quota of the planking level of
the first platform, the material used was no longer
pietra forte (a type of areanaceous limestome).
Since 21.10.1422 in fact, building proceeded using
bricks of large sizes (these so-called “quadroni”
were of varying measurements, of about 50x25x6
cm and 40x20x5.5cm [4]). That was the state of the
work in progress at about halfway through the third
decade of the fourteenth century … and many
serious doubts still remained as to how the dome
would eventually be vaulted. To the modern reader
it may seem strange to think that the ruling class of
what was then one of the world’s most powerful
city-states, could have had such blind trust as to
take a gamble on some quite experimental attempts
 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: J. IASS
at construction, and indeed on a thereto unproven
claim to be able to construct a similar work without
using a supporting framework, especially
considering that with this high profile project they
intended to emulate the greatness of Imperial Rome
and outclass the rival cities of Pisa and Siena.
Today, we may think that the awareness that such a
choice was not without foundation. In fact the
Parthenon in Rome, with its oculus or open eye,
stood to demonstrate that domes could be built
using superimposed concentric rings, but here the
constructive difficulty regarded a dome with an
octagonal base. Moreover the mystique that even
today still surrounds the genius of Filippo
Brunelleschi has certainly intensified the belief that
he was a solitary visionary inventor. In reality,
documentation from the period clearly shows that
Filippo’s consultancy and relationship with the
Opera continued fairly steadily from at least 1404
onwards, long before the famous “competition” of
1418. Similarly well documented are his relations
with mathematicians of the day, specifically
addressing the problems of the Cupola’s geometry.
Figure 1: Herringbone brickwork in the upper reaches of
the Dome temporary exposed during the restoration of the
frescoes in 1988-1995
3. THE HERRINGBONE BOND
It is beyond the scope of this paper to review the
ideas and experiences of Filippo Brunelleschi, or
the history of his works against the backdrop of the
early Florentine renaissance. Here instead we may
better explore his building methods and his
bricklaying methodology, particularly his use of the
herringbone bond – a technique which he refined.
To begin with we must say that such know-how
was already in use in the building practices of that
period. Needless to cite the examples of the ancient
Romans and Byzantines, which used particular
“inverse” recumbencies of the bed joints, as even
beyond these there are numerous other
constructions which demonstrate the use of such
techniques in Italy: from San Lorenzo and Santo
Spirito in Florence, to the churches of Calcinaio and
of Santa Maria Nuova in Cortona.
Figure 2: Traces of the 'cordablanda' brick bed joints, on
the extrados of the Cupola during the repair works of the
cover in 1970
Figure 3: Antonio da Sangallo il Giovane, about 1500,
Firenze, Gabinetto Uffizi, drawing 1330
Moreover, the modern day interpretations of the
herringbone technique are well known and date
back to 1925 at least, when Piero Sanpaolesi [18]
was the first to identify and describe it. The most
recent analyses include those of Rowland
Mainstone [11] and of Salvatore di Pasquale [6]
carried out in the seventies. Thanks to their
contributions we now have an understanding of
139
 Vol. 56 (2015) No. 2 June n. 184

how, through the herringbone constructive system, explore the upper part of the Cupola that, in the
the rotational dome (Fig. 7 and 8) took its particular above-cited in the report of 1425/6, is described as
form - it was in fact the only type of dome that built with the “herringbone bond”.
could be built without supporting armature, as it
appears in the works of the Roman period. This is
further affirmed by LeonBattista Alberti in his
treatise written in the years closely following those
of the Dome [1].

Since the publication of the structural analyses of

diPasquale it has been widely accepted that there is
some kind of “hidden” rotational dome inside the
octagonal form, and that this was indeed created
thanks to the herringbone bond and the conical lay
of the brick beds. It was the same Mainstone and
diPasquale who provided the geometric explanation
of the “cordablanda” or “slackline” as the
intersection of the brick’s laying cone with the eight
semi-elliptical, extradossal vaults. (Fig. 2)
Meanwhile other scholars, including the same
Sanpaolesi, not having guessed the rotational nature
of the Cupola, had attributed various other
structural functions to the cordablanda. All of the
above today seem exhaustively demonstrated by the
studies of the dome which have been carried out Figure 4: Diagrams of the building of the Cupola with
since the end of the Seventies: a convincing materials (see Massimo.Coli [4] )
confirmation of such constructive geometry is put
forward in the essay by Lamberto Ippoliti and
Chiara Peroni [10], in the experimental analyses of
Chiarugi and di Blasi [3], in the samples of R. Della
Negra [7], in the material analysis of Massimo Coli
[4], and in the research of Margaret Haines [9]. At
the same time, however, it is indeed from these
same studies that one unmet need emerges: the need
for a deeper knowledge of the characteristics of the
materials used in that final part of the Cupola where
weaving together of the herringbone bricks occurs.

Basically it seems that this enormous mass of

studies regarding the dome is today somewhat
suspended in judgement. We still need a deeper
understanding of the methods and materials used
for the upper part of the vault that reaches from the
second walkway to the closing ring. It involves a
220cm-thick wall, plastered inside and out. This
means it is difficult to define the dimensions and
lay of the materials used in its most internal part. Figure 5: Diagrams of the building of the Cupola with
Cross section (H.Saalmann [17] )
Even the few core samples that have been taken
leave room for much doubt; they were mostly 4. THE GUALANDRINO
executed in the lower parts of the dome, and their
direction does not always coincide with the corners The fundamental clue to this self-supporting bond is
of orientation of the bricks in the three-dimensional found in the words of Brunelleschi himself, as
space of the vault. In this text we therefore seek to recorded in the aforementioned report. His words in

140
 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: J. IASS
Figure 6: Diagrams of the building of the Cupola with
scheduled times and events (M. Haines) [9]
fact affirm that the work must be carried out with a
“gualandrino”, a very special and elusive
instrument which is quite difficult to describe, and
of which there is only a single mention in all of the
vast documentation of the Opera. Even though we
cannot reconstruct the mysterious mechanism of
this tool we can be certain that it served to control
the wall bond (or pattern) by indicating three
directions of alignment. The “gualandrino” is
indeed sometimes refered to in the antique
dictionaries of the fifteenth century as a sort of
“folding square” with three mobile arms instead of
the usual two. [19]
Brunelleschi is universally recognised as the
“inventor” of renaissance linear perspective, i.e. of
that which projective geometry would define as the
representation of a three-dimensional object on a
flat plane using a central projection of straight lines
passing through an eye-point. It would be opportune
here to review what Brunelleschi’s concept of
prospect was, with respect to the knowledge of the
period. Still today it is widely acknowledged, but
certainly is distinct from that which Alberti and
Piero della Francesca would later formulate, and
even more different to that which we believe to be
the hypotheses of Leonardo and of di Paolo
Uccello. These differences were well noted by
Erwin Panofsky [15], and they regarded the three-
dimensional concept of space: intended as a
continuum rather than as a juxtaposition of single
bodies. Carrying on from the same Panofsky some
scholars, like Argan [2] have examined these
characteristics which distinguish the perspective
concept of Brunelleschi from that of Alberti as well
as the so-called “legitimate construction” that
would become the predominant interpretation of the
representation of perspective up until the end of the
XIX century. It is beyond the scope of this paper to
explore this topic. It remains however one of
Brunelleschi’s most recognized and celebrated
abilities, which leads us to confidently assert that he
could not possibly have been without a three-
dimensional vision of space. It was certainly quite
clear to him how the potential structural bonds of
the bricks should be aligned three-dimensionally
within a complex and double curved surface such as
that of a rotational vault.
When we see the traces of herringbone on the inside
or outside walls of the Cupola we notice just two
directions of bond which must necessarily be
continuous and three-dimensional. In order to
adhere to the three-dimensional spatiality of the
vault this bond must continue in space, and follow
that irregular spiral of which we see traces in the
faces of the vertical bricks that emerge where the
plaster has fallen away (Fig. 10). It is a spiral line,
also called a conchoid, which is similar in shape to
a shell. It can also, and more correctly, be called a
loxodrome or a rhumb line, just like that spiral so
well know to navigators, as it maintains constant
angles with respect to the meridians and parallels.
(Fig. 12)
Of course it follows that the bricks which compose
such a spiral form must be adapted to a continuous
alignment of their reciprocal beds. This is in fact the
role of a tracing instrument like a “gualandrino”. In
order to define the alignments of the bricks in space
this tool had to assume three different reference
points: the central axis of the dome (it being a
rotational dome), the almost horizontal plane (in
that bricks laid without a supporting armature must
of course weigh one upon the other), and the
vertical section along the meridians. The evidence
of these meridian reference points is still visible in
the tracks of the tracing ribs outlined on site
according to the pointed fifth arch, found on the
inner edges of the octagon and fixed with clamp-
141
 Vol. 56 (2015) No. 2 June n. 184

irons which are still in place beneath the plaster of

the fresco (see fig 12 pag 21 of Dalla Negra [7]).

The “gualandrino” is therefore the instrument

needed to trace the threads, that is the alignments,
which are always different in each brick course,
which the bricks follow according to the three
geometries of the construction: in the first place to
the continuous circular trace of the conical brick
bed joints, with the vertice on the dome’s vertical
axis; then to the pointed fifth arch of the vertical
section provided by the tracing ribs; and finally a
third alignment is that which is almost “horizontal” Figure 8: Outlines of the conical brick bed joints of the
to avoid the sliding of the bricks on the fresh mortar bricks according to a segment of conical layers
as the inclination of the beds increased. If they were superimposed and aligned to the central axis (cf
to follow the inclination of the range of rotation diPasquale)
they would incline well over sixty degrees. This last
alignment of the inclination of the bed joints
towards the outside is drawn partly from a
constructive technique that was already in use in the
Roman and Bizantine domes (Tempel of Roma at
Rome Roman, or Murano Cathedral) and is recalled
by R. Mainstone in the ancient examples of the
dome of Santa Sofia (Hagia Sofia) and the
Mausoleum of Oljeitu a Sultaniya. [11]

Figure 9: Cable curvature control device, by Guastavino,

St. John Cathedral New York 1909

bond, beyond absorbing the complex equilibrium of

Figure 7: Outlines of the conical brick bed joints of the
bricks according to a segment of conical layers
5. THREE-DIMENSIONAL BRICK BOND
Our thesis is thus based on the evidence that a three-
dimensional spatial structure like the Florentine dome
cannot be built by laying and bonding bricks unless
those bricks are themselves three-dimensional. The
herringbone technique that is the subject of our
investigation is therefore rather unique. It cannot be
constructed through the (more or less orthogonal)
arrangement of two bricks. Instead it must connect
three bricks with each other reciprocally supported in
the space. A wall with a three-dimensional brick
a dome, redirecting them as combinations of
compression forces can be adapted to the crooked
tracings required to develop the shape of a vault
that is spherical or ellipsoidal. Rather than a flat
brick bond as it appears in the well known drawing
attributed to Sangallo (Fig. 3) which can be found
in the Uffizi. Or instead how it is outlined in
Sanpaolesi’s sketch [18] this herringbone bond
must have a “three-dimensional ” brick arrangement
from which we must reconstruct the triple geometry
of the brick bond starting from the dimensions of
the bricks used.
The most reliable data we possess regarding the
actual dimensions of the bricks Brunelleschi used to
build this part of the Cupola (the part bonded with
the herringbone technique) is most certainly that

142
 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: J. IASS
which emerges from the on site samples taken
during the restoration works that ended in 1995. In
taking these measurements Riccardo Dalla Negra
and his staff [7] (Figure 1) detected the recurring
presence of brick smaller than those recorded and
employed between the first and second walkways.
Indeed, in high part of the Cupola we have bricks of
mm.170x220x45-50 and sometimes of
220x220x45-50. Based on these it would also seem
that they were sized for modularity with other,
larger bricks which constantly maintain the two
dimensions of the base module, varying only in the
third (mm. 220x340x 45-50, mm.440x170x45-50 or
more rarely mm.280). Leaving aside for now the
thickness of the brick, that indeed is strangely
identified with a measure which is not absolute (45-
50 mm.), one may deduce that the larger bricks, just
because of their size (170x440mm. or
340x220mm.) in fact act as diatones or bondstones -
that is as modular multiples of the basic quadrone
of mm.220x170 which were used to bond the wall,
and in this case were laid in two of the three brick-
laying directions, that is longitudinally and
orthogonally with respect to the extrados surfaces.
(Fig 16)
Figure 10: The Bricks herringbone
Figure 11: Rendering of the three dimensional
herringbone brick bond
Figure 12: Representation of the laying line of the
loxodromical (rhumb line) spiral on the hemisphere
6. THE BRICKS
It might seem odd that bricks of such unusual
dimensions were used, were it not for the fact that it
is precisely from their strange form that the design
of their three-dimensional bond emerges. Since the
smallest measurement of the brick summed to the
thickness is equal to the larger measurement
(17+5=22), it is from their three-dimensional
arrangement that the possibility of creating a wall
bond that is perfectly gripped in every spatial
direction arises, using three bricks that are
connected to each other in an orthogonally
reciprocal bed joint. A horizontal brick, a
transversal and a vertical one, so compose the
“three-dimensional herringbone” design which we
are trying to recreate. It is indeed a reciprocal
structure that is formed by this triple bond, with the
three bricks which are laid on a right trihedral
defined by the faces of a cube with a 33 cm side.
Aggregating them then, and juxtaposing a
successive set of three bricks, they give rise to the
ribbing of the wall structure. Such a ribbing can be
deformed to follow along a crooked line by laying
the vertices of a trihedral along a generative curve.
A successive deformation in the spatial sense of
such ribbing depends on the variation of the angle
of interface which connects the bricks to each other.
In our case this angle can be controlled by the
thickness of the mortar. To materially construct a
similar spiral ribbing it is necessary to maintain
control of the angle of variation with which each set
of three bricks is juxtaposed with the next. From the
geometric models studied it resulted that we are not
dealing with a single variation, but instead with a
triple inclination of the trihedral obtained rotating it
143
 Vol. 56 (2015) No. 2 June n. 184
successively on the three outgoing radii of its
vertex. The three bed joints (or interfaces) of the
bricks thus vary constantly in order to give the
desired form to the geometry of the construction.
The three rotations imposed upon the trihedral are
therefore those already described: 1. – the
curvation of the (parallel) plan of the rotational
dome; 2. – the curvature in elevation (meridians) of
the apparently ogival vault, which in reality is made
of five superimposed spherical caps whose centres
are aligned on the central axis ( fig. xx) ; 3.- the
overturning of the (brick) plane towards the exterior
to avoid slippage of the courses above. The
rotations to be imposed when laying the bricks
depend on the measurements of the dome and that
of the bricks. Considering the procedure which
Brunelleschi would have employed to keep such
inclinations under control, the variable
measurement of the thickness of the bricks that
Dalla Negra detected (45-50mm), could be
indicative. It seems more likely however that this
inclination was in fact obtained by thickening the
mortar to suit the differing inclination of the bed
joints. And it is here that the use of a square rule
with three mobile rulers becomes indispensable,
that is the “gualandrino”, a tool able to maintain
control of three different alignments. It was indeed
the gualandrino that was trusted to regulate the
bricklaying, as it can define three alignments, three
non right angles: the centre of the rotational cone of
the Cupola positioned on the central vertical axis of
the same (for the “vertical” brick); the horizontal
plne of the circular brick arrangement (for the
“horizontal” brick); and the tangential direction of
the tracing and positioning ribs on the eight
meridians (the third “transversal” brick).
Figure 13: Drawing of the three-dimensional disposition
of the bricks for the herringbone brickwork within a
22x22x22cm cube
144
7. THE MODELS
Here we will present 3D models (both physical and
digital) in which the volume of the brick is merged
and made unique with that of the mortar bed. In this
way it appears more clearly that the volumetric unit
of mortar/brick remains constant. All this, beyond
just illustrating the hypothesis of the most probable
procedure adopted by Filippo Brunelleschi in
building the Cupola, also opens an interesting
direction in which to take research on the materials
and methodologies of a constructive technique that
is completely current and innovative, which could
be updated to build vaulted structures, dry-mounted
and not requiring any scaffolding or support
framework. The exact shape of the bricks needed to
build such vaulted structures can in fact be perfectly
modelled by computer and then made out of poor,
also recycled or eco-friendly materials, or anyway
with technologically elementary products, possibly
with pieces which self-support when laid dry, even
without mortars or glues, because the stability of
the bricks is ensured by the perfect adherence
provided by their particular shape and weight.
8. THE PHYSICAL MODEL
The moulds used to cast the plaster model of the
bricks (Fig.8) are made with three faces (trihedrals),
corresponding to cubes of 22 cm one merged into
the other (Fig. 6). The vertex of the second trihedral
was placed at a distance of about 5 cm from the
vertex of the first, and this distance was measured
along a crooked curved line, theoretically definable
as a loxodromical spiral - a rhumb line – lying on
the surface of the Cupola which, for simplicity, we
have imagined as spherical. In reality, the Dome of
Florence is composed with four overlapping
spherical caps whose centers are positioned on the
central axis of the building. The model must also
take into account the starting and finishing points of
the spiral and above all the size of the bricks,
especially their thickness. In the specimen the curve
of the spiral was emphazised, reducing the radius of
the dome to make the deformations of the bricks
(quadrone + mortar) more evident. The bricks were
in any case kept within the measurements of the
originals (circa cm 17x22x4-5).
To geometrically define the second trihedral – that
which corresponds to the internal faces of the first
bricks – in addition to the movement of the vertex
along the rhumb line, the second trihedral was
 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: J. IASS
given a triple spatial rotation around the three
outgoing radii of the vertex of the same trihedral.
The angles of rotations thus set cause the definition
of the faces of the three bricks which as a result are
slightly, but significantly different to each other. In
this variation is the deformation that generates the
shape of the dome or the desired cover.
In the physical model we can see how the
transformation of the alignments generates the
spiral shape of the herringbone ribbed structure.
Evidently the dome’s walling is then completed by
the brick beds that connect between contiguous ribs,
also aided by double size bricks - so-called
“diatones”- which guarantee its grip and stability. In
herringbone ribbing the trihedral of the three bricks
always maintains the orthogonality of the internal
angles, but, rotating on the three edges it also makes
the bed joints of the next trihedral of bricks rotate.
This gives rise to a spiralling transformation which
follows and generates the curve of the vault. Thus
while the first two rotations (that on the tangent
radius and the normal one) define the double
curvature of the vault in the horizontal plane and in
vertical section, it is the third rotation of the
binormal radius of the trihedral which causes an
outward inclination of the “horizontal” brick and
maintains the structural geometry that is able to
support (by gravity) the laying of the next trihedral
of bricks, identical to that below it just so deformed
in the parallelism between the opposing faces.
Figure 14: Making gypsum brick models
9. THE VIRTUAL MODEL
The goal of this model is to show the transformations
of the herringbone ribbing following a spiral form in
order to adhere to the shape of the Cupola, imposing
the translations and rotations described above in the
Figure 15: Formwork to cast the physical model
physical model. This is done through algorithms
and differential numeric parameters deduced from
the shape and the curvature of the Cupola which
one intends to raise, and from the measurements of
the “bricks”. The virtual model was designed using
Rhino software with the transformation
parameterizations, of iteration and rotation carried
out with Grasshopper. Like in the physical model,
the virtual one also begins from the base trihedral
that generates the laying of the bricks, but its goal,
which still today we can say has been defined but
only partially reached, will be that of defining all of
the parameters of its construction. We can list these
as follows:
A.- The formula of the crooked curve (loxodromical
or rhumb line) on which the vertices of the
trihedrals are laid. In the specific case of the
Florentine dome we must take into account that it is
generated by five spherical superimposed caps with
their centres aligned in the symmetrical axis.
B.- The intersections of the laying cones of the
brick bed joints with the cylindrical surface of the
intrados and extrados of the Dome’s vaults,
readable in the lines of the so-called “cordablanda”.
C.- The lay of the trihedral briks in the geometry of
the Cupola.
D.- The three angles of the trihedral with respect to
the radius of the sphere. (normal, tangent,
binormal).
Even if the graphics we have designed allow us to
envisage the possible structural and geometrical
solution, two paths in particular emerge as possible
ways forward for our future studies: the first is that
145
 Vol. 56 (2015) No. 2 June n. 184

which tends to define the constant geometry of the

generative polyhedron of the three bricks in the
constant modular polyhedron (see in this regard the
studies on the three-dimensional origami) aligned to
and generated by the rhumb line spiral, which in
turn generats the herringbone. The second
prospective study is that of the organization of the
alignments of the three edges of the polyhedron
(and therefor of the three bricks of the herringbone)
with respect to the points referring to the axis of the
dome.

The study of the virtual model further allows us to

verify the exact position of the linked walling
between the herringbone ribs in their positioning on
the conical bed joints and to ascertain the
“coradablanda” configuration that they take in the
intersection between the conical bed joints and the
Figure 17: Image shows the hypothesis of ‘diatones’
cylindrical surfaces of the extrados and intrados bricks which are needed to tie the herringbone ribs with
surfaces of the Dome. brickwork wall. (draw of V Paris)

Figure 16: Drawing out of scale. The figure emphasizes

the tridimensional bricks alignment relative to circle radius
along the circumference of rotation of the building, and
with the vertex of the trihedral lined up on the rhumb line
10. CONCLUSIONS
In setting out to draw our conclusions we can say that
our investigation might also be viewed as a
constructive proposal. Though it was initially based
on the historical reality of the Florentine dome and
the research to reconstruct the principles of its
structural stability, rather than presenting itself as yet
another revelation of the many mysteries hidden
within the genius of prescientific construction, this
text prefers to offer itself as the proof/evidence
which, from the careful observation of an exemplary
building could develop itself beyond an accurate and
Figure 18: Herringbone tridimensional brick’s bond
(drawing by V. Paris)
philological historical reconstruction also the
suggestion of an opening towards new evolutions of
technology. In other words we don’t want to hazard
fanciful hypotheses – the fact is that still today no
one can confirm with any certainty what the
bricklaying pattern inside the thick walls of the
Brunelleschian Cupola is like. There “irregularity”
has even led some to elaborate theories of a
“muratura a sacco” or rubble fill masonry. In the
absence of more detailed fact-finding investigations
– faced with the obvious impossibility of a
destructive approach – even this hypothesis could
be counted as a geometric possibility, as the outline
of a study- for the most part yet to be carried out –

146
 JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR SHELL AND SPATIAL STRUCTURES: J. IASS
on the Brunelleschian walling, but already the
carrier of a result that seems realistic enough to
allow us to see in it the path to an innovative
constructive technology. The lack of a specific
research/survey of the bricks in the upper part of the
dome [9] leads us to leave open the possibility of a
different match/correspondence on the reality of the
construction. It could be that the Brunelleschian
herringbone bond is not a reciprocal and three-
dimensional bond of three bricks as has been
described here. It may be just a bi-dimensional
artifice as it appears on the extrados and intrados
surfaces of the vault; it could be that the
gualandrino was not that instrument which served
to manage the three alignments of the generative
trihedral of the herringbone; but, in all of the
physical and virtual models made and described,
what appears to result are the concrete ways of a
technology – perhaps a very ancient one, or perhaps
a very modern one, or perhaps just a possible on.
And this suffices for us to affirm the reality of it. A
deeper field investigation still needs to be carried
out to confirm this hypothesis not just as a possible
reconstruction but also as regards to the technology
effectively adopted by Brunelleschi. Even so it
seems that the same kind of evidence may be
traceable in the endoscopes of some bore holes – in
reality precious few core samples were taken in
parts of the dome with the herringbone structure –
left by the surveys and diagnostic probes carried out
on the Cupola in the past. In spite of the consistent
thicknesses of the mortar beds between the bricks
and the not always perfect correspondence between
the bed joints of the bricks and the track of the
perforation of the probes (orthogonally to the
extrados surfaces), it in fact emerges that such
investigations into the masonry – above all into its
central part – the presence of quite oddly sized
bricks with an incidence that alternates between
long bricks and short ones. (Fig.14 right), as if the
drill hole of the core sample was sectioning bricks
laid side by side alternating between themselves in
a horizontal and a vertical sense.
This is indeed what seems to confirm the special tri-
directional lay of the brick bed joint, as can be seen
in the 3D models we made. This therefore adds
credibility to the hypothesis that we initially
described, as deduced from a projective and
geometric vision. Geometry and structure, nature
and architecture, hence seem to show evidence of
their unity in the simplicity and in the greatness of
this work. In their time Alberti and Vasari observed
and described the conceptual clarity that it is
characterised by, comparing even to Nature itself.
Rightfully it is dedicated to a Fiore (flower), this
Cupola, which still today encloses among its
mysteries the knowledge of an art and a science that
are weeded in the Humanistic vision of the
Florentine Renaissance, in the heart of that
civilisation that forged the men and the ideas that
would give life to the western culture for centuries
to come and open the path forward to new arts and
new sciences.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A special thank goes to all those who have helped
me with their precious advice and recommendations
and to those I mentioned in the references. I
especially thank Margaret Haines, Massimo Coli.
Furthermore I owe a special acknowledgement and
thanks to Vittorio Paris, my student at the
Department of Engineering of University of
Bergamo.
REFERENCES
[1] Alberti, Leonbattista, De re aedificatoria,
edited by P.Portoghesi, translated by di
Orlandi, Libro III, cap.XIV, p.244 Milan
1966. More significantly with reference to
the rotational domes without a supporting
framework is the fifteenth century translation
by Cosimo Bartoli today reproduced in an
anastatic copy by the editor Forni di Bologna,
entitled L’Architettura di Leonbattista
Alberti.
[2] Argan, GiulioCarlo, The architecture of
Brunelleschi and the origins of perspective in
the fifteenth Century in Journ. of the
Warburg and Court. Inst., London, 1946, IX,
pp.96 sgg. .- The critical readings of Argan
bears witness to the historical environment in
which the theses of this text occur. This is
also expressed in the volume Brunelleschi,
A.Mondadori ed., 1955. where the themes of
space and of architecture crossover with
those of shape and perspective in a
formulation from which emerges the
conception of the herringbone pattern as
three-dimensional spatial bricklaying bond,
and as an architectonic form. pp. 56-57.
147
 Vol. 56 (2015) No. 2 June n. 184
[3] Blasi, Cesare, e AAVV, La Cupola di S.
Maria del Fiore a Firenze, Bollettino
ACMAR n. 12, Ravenna, Edition ACMAR,
December 1983.
[4] Coli, Massimo, Cfr. the results of his
research on the core samples with a more
exact measurement on
www.lapideiculturali.unifi.it. All of the
measurements should be verified and if
needed brought in line with the units of
measurement in operation: Braccio fiorentino
(cm58,36) soldo (cm.2,91) denari (cm.0,24)
quattrino (cm. 0,97), and of their more
frequently used fractions (2/3 of a braccio; 4
denari; 18 quattrini, etc).
[5] Cesaro, Ernesto, Lezioni di Geometria
Intrinseca, p.141, Naples, 1896.
[6] Di Pasquale, Salvatore, Brunelleschi: La
costruzione della cupola di Santa Maria del
Fiore, Venice, 2002.
[7] Dalla Negra, Riccardo, ‘‘La Cupola del
Brunelleschi: Il cantiere, le indagini, i
rilievi’’, in La Cupola di Santa Maria del
Fiore: Il cantiere di restauro 1980-1995,
edited by Cristina Acidini Luchinat and
Riccardo Dalla Negra, 15-22, Rome, 1995.
For the survey of the bricks used for the
herringbone bond in the upper part of the
Cupola, see in particular pag 26 .-
[8] Guasti, Cesare, La Cupola di Santa Maria
del Fiore, Florence, 1857.
[9] Haines, Margaret, Myth and management in
the construction of Brunelleschi’s Cupola , in
I Tatti Studies, vol 14-15, 2011-2012 , pp 47-
97, Leo Olschki Ed, , Florence.
[10] Ippolito, L. and Peroni, C., La Cupola di
Santa Maria del Fiore, Rome,1997.
[11] Mainstone, Rowland, Brunelleschi’s Dome
in Architectural Rewiew, CLXII (1977)
p.156.
[12] Manetti, Antonio, Vita di Filippo
Brunelleschi preceduto da La Novella del
148
View publication stats
Grasso, critical edition by Domenico De
Robertis and Giuliano Tanturli, Milan,
1976.
[13] Morolli, Gabriele, ‘‘Architetture laterizie a
Firenze e in Toscana: Tre millenni di
storia’’, in Il cotto dell’Impruneta: Maestri
del Rinascimento e le fornaci di oggi, edited
by Rosanna Caterina Proto Pisani and
Giancarlo Gentilini, 111-138, Florence,
2009.
[14] Ottoni, Federica, Brunelleschi architetto
paranoico, in “Delle cupole e del loro
tranello”, pp. 215-280, Roma, 2012.
[15] Panofsky, Erwin, Die perspektive als
symbolische form, 1924.25. Reconnecting to
the interpretation of E.Panofsky, the cited
analysis by Argan [2] and also the essays of:
Wittkower, Rudolf, Brunelleschi and
Proportion in Perspective - and - The
Perspetive of Piero della Francesca
Flagellation, in Journ. of the Warburg and
Court. Inst., London, 1953, XVI .
[16] Pizzigoni, Attilio, Brunelleschi, Feltrinelli,
Bologna, 1987. –Artemis Verlag, Zurich,
1989.
[17] Saalman, Howard, F. Brunelleschi: The
Cupola of Santa Maria del Fiore, London,
1980.
[18] Sanpaolesi, Piero, Brunelleschi, Club del
Libro, Milano, 1962.
[19] Tommaseo, Niccolo, of the “Dizionario della
Lingua Italiana”, 1830: the Gualandrino tool
is remembered as a “square rule with mobile
arms”, and as such it is also described in the
Dizionario dei Termini Artistici by d'Abate
D'Alberti di Terranova, a “folding square”
used by faces which have different non right
angles between them.
[20] www.operaduomo.firenze.it/cupola/home_en
g.html (Florence, English)
[21] duomo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/home_eng.html
(Berlin, English)