International Journal of Architectural Heritage

Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration

ISSN: 1558-3058 (Print) 1558-3066 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarc20

Geometry, Construction and Structural Analysis

of the Crossed-Arch Vault of the Chapel of
Villaviciosa, in the Mosque of Córdoba

Paula Fuentes & Santiago Huerta

To cite this article: Paula Fuentes & Santiago Huerta (2016) Geometry, Construction
and Structural Analysis of the Crossed-Arch Vault of the Chapel of Villaviciosa, in the
Mosque of Córdoba, International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 10:5, 589-603, DOI:
10.1080/15583058.2015.1025456

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2015.1025456

Published online: 12 Jul 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 638

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uarc20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE
2016, VOL. 10, NO. 5, 589–603
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2015.1025456

Geometry, Construction and Structural Analysis of the Crossed-Arch Vault of the

Chapel of Villaviciosa, in the Mosque of Córdoba
Paula Fuentes and Santiago Huerta
Department of Building Structures, Polytechnic University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The vault of Villaviciosa is one of the oldest existing examples of a true ribbed vault, and is the first of dome; crossing-arches;
the crossed-arch type. Although its perfection suggests earlier trials, none has been found so far. It geometry; Islamic
architecture; limit analysis;
predates the oldest Romanesque ribbed vaults by more than a century. Notwithstanding its masonry; Mosque of
importance, no construction and structural study has ever been done; neither has an accurate Córdoba; ribbed vault
survey been published. The purpose of this article is to fill this gap in the history of vault construc-
tion. A detailed survey has been made, providing the first accurate drawings of the vault. A close
inspection of the extrados, completed with a visual inspection of interior damages, has allowed
ascertaining the main construction features. With the geometry and the material data a structural
analysis has been carried out. This analysis explains the fundamental structural behavior of the vault
and throws new light into some historical issues; for example, it leads to discarding the widespread
belief that the ribs are decorative: they are supporting the weight of the vault.

1. Introduction
The extension of the Mosque of Córdoba made by the
Caliph Al-Hakam II (the second extension since its found-
ing in 785) was carried out between 962 and 965. Eleven
aisles were added to the south wall. Many publications
have been written since the first by Amador de los Ríos
(1879); it is worth mentioning Velázquez Bosco (1909),
Lambert (1939), Torres Balbás (1957), Ewert (1968),
Hernández Giménez and Terrasse (1972), Ruiz Souza
(2001), Momplet (2003), Marfil Ruiz (2004), Giese-
Vögeli (2007a, 2007b), Ruiz Souza (2006), Calvo (2008),
Abad (2009), and Fernández-Puertas (2009). After Torres
Balbás: “the great innovation in this extension of Al-
Hakam II,. . ., was the construction of four lanterns or
ciboria covered with domes bringing out the main parts,
and increasing at the same time the natural lighting”
(Torres Balbás 1957, p. 483; our translation). All of them
were crossed-arch vaults. These vaults feature arches that
don’t cross in the center, but draw a polygon or a star. The
Chapel of Villaviciosa was built over the former mihrab of
Abd-al Rahman II, and in the aisle of the new one. A
further vault was built in front of the new mihrab, and
two more in the sides of the earlier one, drawing a “T” on
the plan of the mosque (Figure 1). These four vaults are the
first known crossed-arch vaults. Later, further vaults of
this type appear not only in Spain, but also in the North of
Africa, Armenia, Persia, Mesopotamia, and even India.
Some examples also exist in European Gothic. These
domes are built continuously until the 16th century. In
the 17th and 18th centuries Guarini and Vittone used
them in some of their buildings. Even in the 20th century
Luis Moya build them in Spain. Many authors have con-
sidered that these vaults are of Eastern origin, but the first
crossed-arch vaults in Asia have been dated between the
end of the 11th century and the beginning of the 12th, that
is, more than 100 years after the vaults in Córdoba. A
complete study of this type of vaults is in Fuentes (2013).
In the vault in front of the mihrab, eight arches draw
two squares rotated in plan, and inscribed inside a third
square (Figure 2b). Thus, an octagon is drawn both
inside and outside. The two lateral vaults present the
most used pattern of ribs in the design of these vaults.
This scheme is obtained dividing the sides of a square
into three parts, and placing eight ribs spanning
between the internal divisions. Two ribs arrive at each
point, one rib parallel to the side of the square, and the
other in the diagonal direction.
2. The history of the Chapel
The Chapel of Villaviciosa was probably the first vault
built in the extension of Al-Hakam II, given its

CONTACT Paula Fuentes paula.fuentes@gmail.com Department of Building Structures, Polytechnic University of Madrid, Avda. Juan de Herrera, 4,
28040 Madrid, Spain
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/uarc.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
590 P. FUENTES AND S. HUERTA

Figure 1. Plan of the macsurah. Chapel of Villaviciosa, left side, center. (Detail of a plan of F. Hernández, slightly edited by the
authors, in Nieto Cumplido 1992.)

Figure 2. Vaults of the macsurah; cf. Fig. 1. © The authors. Reproduced by permission of the authors. Permission to reuse must be
obtained from the rightsholders.

position in plan. When the Mosque was transformed 3. The geometry of the vault
into a Christian church in 1236, the Chapel of
The vault covering the Chapel of Villaviciosa is unique,
Villaviciosa became the chevet of the first “Capilla
different from the more common designs for crossed-
Mayor” (Presbytery), and was so between 1236 and
arch vaults (Figure 4). The floor plan of the Chapel is
1607. In 1489 some works were carried out to adapt
rectangular and no drum is used to implement the change
the building to its new use. The west wall of the
from rectangle to octagon at the base of the dome. Four
Chapel was eliminated, and in its place, a great
arches parallel to the sides of the rectangle cross, forming
Gothic arch was built. A new aisle was built in this
a central square. A further four arches describe a rhombus
direction, with a timber roof over pointed arches. In
inscribed in the floor plan and cross the previous ones at
1607 the worship was moved to the new transept, and
the vertices of the square, thus generating an intersection
the place became known as the Chapel of “Nuestra
of three arches. A pumpkin dome stands on this central
Señora de Villaviciosa,” because of a statue of this
square, supported by the arches and four triangular pen-
Virgin that was installed there in 1698. In 1709 an
dentives. The webs between the arches are decorated with
altarpiece was placed in the Chapel, and the floor was
shells, with the exception of the four corners. Three cor-
raised. Some authors consider that also a new vault
ners feature a small crossed-arch dome, while the fourth
was built underneath the Islamic one, but the docu-
features a pumpkin dome. Each of the four sides has four
mentation suggests that the old vault was decorated in
windows. At present, the windows on two of the sides are
a baroque way (Figure 3). The altarpiece and the
blocked up.
baroque decoration were removed ca. 1880.

Figure 3. Section of the Chapel of Villaviciosa with the baroque
decoration in the vault. Enlargement of the section through the
mihrab’s aisle. © Amador de los Ríos. Reproduced by permission
of Amador de los Ríos. Permission to reuse must be obtained
from the rightsholder.
Figure 4. Vault over the Chapel of Villaviciosa.
This geometry will be repeated in one of the vaults of
the mosque of Bab al-Mardum, in Toledo, 40 years later.
In this case the geometry of the plan is a square instead of a
rectangle, but the eight ribs draw the same layout. Two
added ribs draw a diagonal cross in the central square
compartment (Figure 5a). In the very mosque of
Córdoba, next to the Chapel of Villaviciosa, the Royal
Chapel (Figure 5b) was built. In this case the plan is
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 591
approximately a square, the arches are covered with plas-
terwork forming lobes and the compartments formed by
the ribs are decorated with muqarnas. Outside Spain, we
find a similar vault in the Great Mosque of Isfahan, with
some differences. In this vault the four diagonal ribs do
not draw a rhombus, because they don’t spring in pairs
from the middle point of the side. They spring individu-
ally, so that there is not a square in the middle, but an
octagon (Figure 5c).
For a given rectangular space there is only one possible
layout for this pattern of vault. This design is explained in
Figure 6. Given a rectangle, we draw a rhombus with its
vertices on the midpoints of the sides of the rectangle. We
then need to draw a square inscribed in the rhombus, so
from the center of the rhombus we draw lines at 45º angles
to the sides of the rectangle. The vertices of the square will
lie where these lines intersect the sides of the rhombus.
The definition of the inside edge of the ribs is completed
by extending the sides of the square to the sides of the
rectangle.
Also, considering the design in 3D space, the form of
the arch is conditioned by the crossing of the three
arches at one point, as will be seen below.
It is interesting to note that the relationship between
the side of the inner square and the rectangle is a
simple fraction and is given by the simple expression
c = a b/ (a + b). We will use this expression below.
Three different methods have been used to measure
the vault. The intrados has been measured with a laser
total station. The extrados of the dome has been mea-
sured using measuring tapes and a laser distance meter.
The intrados and extrados measurements have been
correlated through the south wall windows.
Two horizontal profiles of the dome have been
obtained, one immediately underneath and one imme-
diately above the cornice. It is not possible to survey the
base because the cornice casts a shadow. Figure 7a
shows the surveyed layout of the dome.
As can be seen, the rectangle is near perfect. The
dimensions of the outermost rectangle shown in
Figure 7 have been measured at a height of 9.80 m
from the floor level, along the underside of the cornice.
The central square, defined by arches 1, 2, 3, and 4,
has a side length of 3.63 m and has been obtained with
great accuracy from the surveyed points. The central
octagon is almost regular.
The central dome has a radius of 1.62 m at the base,
and its center is very close to the center of the square,
with a deviation of only 1.39 cm.
With this data, an idealized geometry has been sug-
gested, showing how the design of the vault could have
been conceived. The plan has been imagined as a regular
592 P. FUENTES AND S. HUERTA

Figure 5. (a) Vault in the Mosque of Bab al-Mardum (Ewert 1977); (b) “Capilla Real” in the mosque of Córdoba (photo J. Laurent, ca.
1850; Archivo Ruiz Vernacci); (c) Vault n. 60, Great Mosque of Isfahan (Giese-Vögeli, 2007). Images © Ewety, Archivo Ruiz Vernacci,
and Giese-Vogeli, respectively. Reproduced by permission of Ewety, Archivo Ruiz Vernacci, and Giese-Vivo Ruiz Vernacci, and Giese-
Vögeli. Permission to reuse must be obtained from the rightsholders.

Figure 6. Geometrical design method to obtain the layout of the vault.

Figure 7. (a) Layout of the dome as obtained from the survey; (b) Idealized symmetrical layout.

rectangle, and the arches 1 and 2, and 3 and 4, as equal and
parallel. This idealized geometry is shown in Figure 7b.
A study of the metrology of the Mosque was done by
Hernández (1961). This study sets two types of cubits:
mā’mūnī, and raššāšī cubits. Mā’mūnī cubit measures 24
fingers, while raššāšī cubit measures 30 fingers. After the
analysis of the measurements of the Mosque, and the his-
torical texts, he established a mā’mūnī cubit between 46.5
and 47.9 cm. Torres Balbás (1957) considers a mā’mūnī
cubit of 48 cm. Al-Idrisi (1949) writes about a bigger unit of
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 593

sensible to suppose that the architect used arcs of

circumference to design the ribs. With this method,
we obtain that arches 1 and 2 are segmental arches,
while arches 3 and 4 are comprised of three circular
arcs, which are not tangential, but form “kinks” at their
intersections (points A, B, C, and D in Figure 7). This
has to be necessarily so to assure the geometrical com-
patibility of the intersection of the three arches at a
point, as we have explained before.
Arches 5, 6, 7, and 8 are slightly horseshoe shaped.
The radii of these arcs are given in Tables 1 and 2.
Arches 6 and 7 are asymmetric. Undoubtedly, the bot-
Figure 8. Dimensions of the plan of the Chapel in mā’mūnī tom ends of these two arches, as well as the cornice,
cubits (1 cubit = 48.4 cm).
were cut off when the Gothic arch was built so that it
measure, the “brasse” (fathom), that corresponds to four reached the desired height (Figure 4).
mā’mūnī cubits. Our study leads to a mā’mūnī cubit To obtain a hypothetical geometry, which could be
between 48.4 cm and 48.6 cm, and a fathom between the design geometry, we have assumed a perfect rec-
1.936 m and 1.944 m. tangle in plan so that arches 1 and 2, and 3 and 4 would
If we express the lengths of the sides in integers that be equal and parallel two by two, and all four diagonal
are approximately multiples of the mā’mūnī cubit, we arches would be equal (Figure 7b). This geometry is
obtain 16 by 14 cubits, that is, 4 by 3.5 fathoms. shown in Figure 9, and data is given in Tables 1 and 2.
Applying the expression cited above the inner square In Figure 9 we can see that there are differences in
side is (16)(14)/(16+14) = 7.46 or nearly 7.5. A height between the idealized arcs of arches 3 and 4 and
hypothetical reconstruction of the original measures is the points A, B, C, and D. The question that arises from
shown in Figure 8. The central octagon is almost reg- this is: why do the points surveyed on arches 3 and 4
ular with sides of approximately of 3 cubits. yield an arch that is lower than the point of intersection
However, in order to interpret the measurements with the other arches? The explanation is not evident. A
obtained in the survey we need more than a simple metro- possibility is that the arch does not have a horizontal
logical study. The whole process of design and construc- intrados. This could respond to an adjustment intro-
tion, and their possible effects, should be considered. More duced during construction so that the arches would
specifically, the methods of geometric design, and the intersect at a point.
technique of vaulting should be taken into account. Our
knowledge of all these aspects in Islamic architecture is very
scarce. Holod (1988) and Bloom (1993) studied the Islamic
Table 1. Radii of intrados of the circular arches 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
design of buildings from original sources. Surprisingly, so
Arch Arch Arch Arch Arch Arch
far, no comprehensive work on Islamic vaulting techniques Radii 1 2 5 6 7 8
has been written. Only within this broader frame is it Measurements (m) 3.13 3.15 2.16 2.20 2.20 2.20
possible to propose reasonable hypotheses about the geo- Idealized Geometry (m) 3.14 3.14 2.19 2.19 2.19 2.19
Deviation between 0.3% 0.3% 1.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
metry of the ribs, the form of the webs and the process and measurements and
order of construction. This situation contrasts, for example, idealized geometry (%)
with our deep knowledge of Gothic construction of vaults
(Fitchen 1961; Müller 1990; Nussbaum 1999). In the very
specialized aspect of the geometry of gothic vaults (initiated Table 2. Radii of intrados of the three-centered arches 3 and 4.
by Robert Willis 1842), numerous accurate surveys have Radii Arch 3 Arch 4
been done in the last 15 years, coinciding with the avail- Radius 1 Measurements (m) 2.35 2.39
Idealized Geometry (m) 2.49 2.49
ability of laser measurement tools; for a recent work with a Deviation between measurements 6% 4%
summary of the relevant literature, see Wendland (2010). and idealized geometry (%)
Radius 2 Measurements (m) 3.25 3.30
Idealized Geometry (m) 3.14 3.14
Deviation between measurements 3.5% 5%
and idealized geometry (%)
3.1. Geometry of the ribs Radius 3 Measurements (m) 2.54 2.51
Idealized Geometry (m) 2.49 2.49
Deviation between measurements 2% 0.8%
The first step to obtain the geometry of the ribs was to and idealized geometry (%)
adjust arcs of circumferences between the points; it is
594 P. FUENTES AND S. HUERTA
Figure 9. Intrados of the arches 1, 2, 3, and 4. Idealized geometry and surveyed points.
Next, the discrepancies between the idealized arches
and those obtained interpolating a circumference
through the surveyed points are shown.
The deviations from the “measured” radii (expressed
as %) are astonishingly small in the case of arches 1, 2, 5,
6, 7, and 8. Errors of less than 1% indicate an outstand-
ing degree of accuracy during construction. The devia-
tion of arches 3 and 4 is greater, but within the usual
margin in masonry construction. Indeed, this may give a
clue about the order of construction: arches 1 and 2,
semicircular, would have been built first (Figure 10). The
layout of the vault would have been drawn on the plat-
form of the scaffold (or on the floor) and the position of
the intersection of the ribs would have been marked in
arches 1, 2. Then, arches 5, 6, 7, 8, which form the
rhombus, should have been traced on a horizontal
plane; it is not possible to use a semicircular shape and
the horseshoe shape is used to find the adequate profile.
This is the most difficult aspect of the design. However,
the geometrical problem is trivial: tracing a circumfer-
ence through three points. Then, arches 3 and 4 would
have been the last to be built. As they are composed of
two different circular arcs and there is no tangency, it is
easy to adapt the design, adjusting it to the possible
errors of previous construction.
3.2. Central dome
The central dome is a pumpkin dome, resting on a 12-
side polygon, and has a pendant in the center. The dome
projects over the border of the octagonal base formed by
the walls over the arches and the pendentives.
On measuring the base, different radii have been
obtained in plan for the different segments of the dome,
in the region between 0.38 and 0.42 m. The average is
0.40 m. This measurement is very close to 1/4 of the radius

Figure 10. Hypothetical order of the construction process.
Figure 11. Sections of the central dome with the measured points.
of the circular base, and is the value used in the reconstruc-
tion of the ideal geometry (Figure 11).
As for the dome itself, four sections have been surveyed.
Two different radii have been obtained in each section,
which means that the central dome is not spherical, but
that a circular arc springs on either side of the central
pendant. The radius is 1.21 m, which corresponds to 2.5
mā’mūnī cubits. The dome is slightly raised. On the extra-
dos, a radius of 1.89 m has been obtained by measuring the
circumference at the base (close to 4 mā’mūnī cubits or 1
fathom). The thickness of the dome is not uniform. The
maximum thickness corresponds to a section through the
“ribs” and is 0.46 m, which is a little less than 1/6 of the
internal span (see section B in Figure 11). If we section the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 595
dome through the concave part, where the thickness is
about 0.22 m, we obtain nearly 1/12 of the span. The
dome is evidently robust enough to support its own weight
and the weight of the big pendant, as we will see below.
3.3. Corner domes
As we have seen before, three corners feature a small
crossed-arch vault, while the fourth features a pumpkin
dome (Figure 12). In these crossed-arch vaults, the arches
draw a hexagon in the center. This polygon is rarely found
in crossed-arch vaults. There are no other known exam-
ples among Spanish vaults (interesting examples appeared
in Armenia some centuries later). In the Northeast and
596 P. FUENTES AND S. HUERTA

the geometry of the plan of crossed-arch vaults is more

extensively developed in Fuentes and Huerta (2010)

3.4. Extrados
The geometry of the extrados is very irregular. The
dome rests on a platform that is approximately hori-
zontal. A prism rises in the center, coincident with the
central square defined in the intrados by the four
arches parallel to the side walls. A second prism rests
on this one. It has an octagonal base and it is well
defined. A further prism, also octagonal but with
rougher edges, rests on the second prism. On this
final prism stands the base of a circular row of stones
that support the central dome (Figures 13–16).

Figure 13. Plan of the extrados. In broken line the projection of

the vault.

Figure 12. (a) Northeast dome; (b) Southeast dome; (c)

Northwest dome; (d) Southwest dome. Extrados and intrados.

Southwest corners, the domes have six poly-lobed arches,

with a pumpkin dome in the center. The dome in the
southeast corner is singular. It appears to have a very
common layout. With an octagonal base, eight ribs span
from the corners, skipping two corners, so that two ribs
arrive at each point, one rib parallel to the side of the
square, and the other in the diagonal direction. This layout
is found in many crossed-arch domes, two of them in the
very Mosque of Córdoba (Figure 2). However, in these
vaults the arches draw an octagon in the center; while, in
the case of the little dome in the corner of Villaviciosa, the
eight arches draw a hexagon (Figure 12d). The matter of Figure 14. Extrados of the vault. Southwest side.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 597

Figure 15. Extrados of the central dome Northwest side.

The central dome has a very irregular extrados. The

low part has an almost vertical springing, with a notice-
able change of the radius of curvature, approximately at
mid-height. In some parts there are tracks of old beams
resting on the dome, with important reduction of the
section (Figure 15). At present, the roof has an inde-
pendent timber structure.
Part of the masonry of the webs, delimited by the
diagonal arches and those parallel to the side walls, is
visible on the sides of this prism. The rest of the webs
lie under the fill, which forms a roughly horizontal
platform. The webs located at the four corners feature
a flat base that supports a small dome (Figure 17).

4. Construction
There is not much information about the construction
of the vault. Throughout time there have been different
opinions about the materials used and the structural
behavior. In 1927 Felix Hernández, in a letter to Henri
Terrasse (Hernández 1972), said that he does not think
the arches are made of wood, in allusion to the work of
Girault de Prangey (1841). He believes the arches to be
made of stone, partly because that is what Velázquez
Bosco said when he restored the vault, and also because
of the intersections of the ribs. In his reply, Terrasse
disagreed with the idea of the arches being made of
stone an added: “. . .whether the ribs are made of brick
or of coated wood, I believe that the Omayyad ribbed
domes have above all a decorative meaning, and that
only in Christian Spain these type of domes have been
treated in an architectural sense” (Hernández and
Terrasse 1972, p. 344; our translation).
Figure 16. Schematic representation of the vault: (a) extrados;
(b) intrados.
Recently, archeologist Marfil Ruiz has performed a
study of these four domes and states that the arches
are supported on a system of crossing wooden beams,
stressing the difference between the internal structure
and the external aspect (Marfil Ruiz 2004). Fernández
Puertas (2009) calls them “decorative domes”, based
on Marfil Ruiz’s work. It is not possible to see the
materials by looking at the intrados because the vault
is plastered. Indeed, some wood can be appreciated in
the photographs of Marfil Ruiz of the vaults just
before the Mihrab (now not accessible), but in visits
to the extrados of the Chapel of Villaviciosa, the
authors have found no timber structure in connection
with the vault.
598 P. FUENTES AND S. HUERTA

Figure 18. Web of the Northwest side. Notice the stonework

with some bricks in the upper part.

Figure 17. Longitudinal section of the vault (looking East)

(drawing by P. Fuentes; lower arcade after Ewert 1968).

The extrados of the vault, the central dome, the prism,

the emerging parts of the webs and the little corner domes
are coated with very hard mortar and, as a result, it is not
easy to see what material lies underneath. However, at
close inspection, there are points where the mortar is
damaged and it is possible to see stone and, to a lesser
extent, bricks (Figure 18). The prism is made of stone, as
is the central dome (the same as the domes in the vaults
before the mihrab, from the photos of Marfil Ruiz): the
joints are visible in some places (Figure 19).
The extrados of the cross arches emerges at some points,
and they are made of stone. This is confirmed by some
joints visible on the intrados where plaster has fallen.
The vault of Villaviciosa is, without a doubt, a masonry
construction and it is structurally analyzed as such. Figure 19. Detail of the joints of the central dome.

5. Structural analysis
The theory of Limit Analysis of Masonry Structures
was developed mainly by Heyman in the last four
decades (see for example, Heyman 1995, 1996, 2008).
This theory which is a rigorous confirmation of the
so-called “old theory of vaults” used by the engineers
throughout the entire 19th Century (Huerta 2001,
2008) represents, in our opinion, the best approach
for an understanding of masonry and has been applied
in this study.
The structure is considered to be made of a rigid-
unilateral material, which resists compression but
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 599

does not resist tension. That is to say, we imagine the 5.2. Analysis of the vault and its buttress system
masonry as a set of rigid blocks in dry and direct
First, the stability of the vault will be assessed, choosing
contact. Further assumptions are that stresses are
a reasonable equilibrium solution for the vault itself.
low, there is no risk of compressive failure of the
Then, the “weakest” part of the buttress system will be
material, and that friction between the stones is suf-
examined, the South wall, which is the thinnest of the
ficiently high to prevent sliding. These three hypoth-
short walls supporting the thrust of the longest arches
eses comprise Heyman’s Principles of Masonry Limit
(3 and 4) (Figure 20 right). (A similar analysis could be
Analysis: masonry has an infinite compressive
made to check the stability of the other walls.)
strength, it does not resist tension and sliding failure
Following the equilibrium approach, we have ima-
is impossible. These hypotheses lead to the conclu-
gined the vault divided into parts. First, there is the
sion that the key issue of masonry structures is not
central dome. This dome exerts a weight and a hori-
the strength, but the equilibrium.
zontal thrust; the horizontal component of the thrusts
The Safe Theorem states that, given a structure, if it
is taken by the webs, which eventually transfer it to the
is possible to find a state of equilibrium, compatible
wall, and the weight is taken by arches 1, 2, 3, and 4,
with the loads and that does not violate the yield con-
acting as a uniformly distributed load. The webs are
ditions, the structure will not collapse. Applied to
supported by the four arches and the perimeter walls.
masonry this means that, if it is possible to find an
Finally, the diagonal arches have been considered to
equilibrium solution (to draw a set of thrust lines)
only carry their self-weight. All these assumptions are
contained inside the structure, the structure will not
“arbitrary”—they represent, as mentioned, a possible
collapse. The power of the Theorem lies in the fact that
situation of static equilibrium, but are “safe”.
the line of thrust, that is to say, the state of equilibrium,
The eight arches thrust against the side walls of the
can be chosen freely. Once a line is chosen, we will be
Chapel. These walls can be considered as a standing up
able to apply the safety conditions to each of the sec-
flat arch that transfers the thrust to the corners, where
tions it crosses and obtain, thus how, a lower bound for
again the thrust divides between the walls that meet at
the geometric safety factor: we know that the structure
the corner (Figure 20). At the height of the cornice the
has that safety factor at least.
north wall has a thickness of 2.22 m, the south wall of
The analyst is free in handling the equilibrium equa-
1.28 m, and the west and east walls of 1.06 m.
tions looking for possible states of compressive forces
The central pumpkin dome has been analyzed apply-
inside the masonry. The powerful and well-known “sli-
ing the slicing technique, imagining it divided into
cing technique”, which originated in the 18th century
“orange-slices” (Figure 21a), and a thrust of 2.45 kN
(Poleni’s analysis of St. Peter’s in Rome; Heyman 1988),
per slice has been obtained. It has been assumed that
can be used. The structure can be imagined divided or
the internal forces concentrate on the edges of the
“cut” into smaller parts or blocks. Eventually, the ana-
“ribs” and the minimum thrust has been calculated
lyst will “mount” the system of blocks in equilibrium. If
(Figure 21b).
this solution of equilibrium is safe enough, the internal
The minimum thrust of each arch has been calcu-
forces are comfortably inside the masonry, then, this is
lated. Arches 1 and 2 exert a horizontal thrust of 48 kN,
an absolute proof that the structure is safe (although
the structure would certainly be in another unknown
state of equilibrium).
The Chapel of Villaviciosa is a highly hyperstatic
structure and in the analysis of the vault we have
made full use of the equilibrium approach.

5.1. Materials and loads

The mosque is built in limestone. The specific weight
for an average limestone, around 22 kN/m3, has been
used in the analysis. In those areas where brick and
stone are mixed an intermediate specific weight has
been assumed with a value of 20 kN/m3.
The fill has a height of 3.20 m from the base of the
dome. A specific weight of 18 kN/m3 has been adopted Figure 20. Transmission of the horizontal thrusts through the
for the fill. walls.
600 P. FUENTES AND S. HUERTA

Figure 21. (a) “Slicing technique” for an equilibrium analysis (Heyman 1988); (b) thrust line in one of the “slices” of the pumpkin-dome.
© Heyman. Reproduced by permission of Heyman. Permission to reuse must be obtained from the rightsholder.

arches 3 and 4 of 71.8 kN, and the diagonal arches (5, 6,
7 and 8) of 5.4 kN (Figure 22). The precise profile of
the extrados of the arches is not known and the ashlar
masonry on top of them is of very good quality, bonded
by excellent lime mortar: therefore the arch and the
upper wall have been considered as a single structural
element (a consideration of thrust lines inside the con-
jectural arches would only slightly raise the thrust).
Next to the south wall, the upper part of the buttres-
sing system, is analyzed. The section and elevation
drawn by Ewert (1968) have been used to calculate the
weight of the wall (Figure 23a). The different loads Ww,
WA, WB, etc., are the weights of the different parts into
which the wall is imagined to be divided; WR represents
the weight of the fill adjacent to the wall. The thrusts of
arches 3 and 4 are represented by T3-4, the thrusts of
arches 7 and 8, by T7-8, and the horizontal thrust of the
central dome by Td (it has been assumed, as mentioned
before, that the vertical component of the load is taken
by the central arches). All these thrusts act on the inter-
nal face of the wall. It is obvious that the wall, considered
in isolation, is too thin to support these thrusts. The only
way in which the thrusts can be buttressed is in a
horizontal way, transmitting the horizontal components
of the thrusts to the walls in the corners.
The calculations have been done in two parts. The
horizontal component, H = 71.8 kN, of the thrust of
Arches 3 and 4 (the biggest part of the thrust) and the
horizontal thrust of the central dome, are considered to
go through the wall horizontally. The rest of the forces
are considered to go down to the floor inside the wall.
The flat arches allow changing the direction of the
thrust. Flat arch A changes the direction of the thrust
T3-4, absorbing a part of the horizontal component, H’ =
51.1 kN, so that the resultant force passes through point
C. The remaining horizontal component, H” = H – H’ =
71.8 – 51.1 = 20.7 kN, is now absorbed by flat arch B, so
that, eventually, the whole vertical component of thrust
T3-4 is transmitted through the middle axis of the wall
(Figure 23b). The small eccentric forces T7-8 and WR
would slightly deviate the resultant at the base. Taking
moments, it is easy to obtain this deviation x as 20 mm.
It is not actually possible to know precisely how the
total weight of the wall is distributed between the
columns. When calculating the stress, it has been sup-
posed that the total weight splits in four, obtaining an
average stress at the base of the columns of 2.85 N/

Figure 22. Thrust lines for the arches. (a) Arches 1 and 2; (b) Arches 3 and 4; (c) Arches 5, 6, 7, and 8. The lines of extrados of the
arches are conjectural.

Figure 23. Equilibrium of the south wall. (a) Forces on the vertical section; (b) transmission of forces in Flat Arches A and B.
mm2. This figure is, at least, one order of magnitude
smaller (i.e., less than 1/10) than the crushing stress of
the good marble of the columns. Besides, this value
represents an upper limit: the masonry wall over the
tracery of crossing arches (see Figure 24) would allow
forming “relieving arches,” which could reduce this
value considerably. Even in the case of the East wall
(Figure 17) the upper 2 m, just below the cornice are
built in solid masonry and a relieving arch could be
formed (the moldings of the tracery give an impression
of lightness and simulate holes in this area).
6. Conclusions
The vault of the Chapel of Villaviciosa is one of the first
ribbed vaults built, predating the earliest Romanesque
examples by more than a century. The vault has a
degree of perfection, both in design and construction,
that suggests earlier simpler examples; however, so far,
none has been found. The vault, together with the other
three built in the macsurah, featured a completely new
type of ribbed vault: the crossed-arch vault, where the
ribs, instead of meeting in the center, run parallel in
pairs forming a polygon in the center. This type of vault
extended later throughout Spain and the North of
Africa, reaching Armenia and Persia in the 12th cen-
tury. Its use can be tracked through the Renaissance,
Baroque, and Late Baroque, until the 20th century.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 601
This study presents the first detailed survey of the
geometry of the vault of Villaviciosa. The results of the
survey made with a laser total station have been inter-
preted and hypotheses about its original geometry
have been proposed; besides its principal dimensions
have been compared with the unit of measures of the
time. The use of the mā’mūnī cubit has been shown,
and also the employment of simple multiples or frac-
tions of the cubit. In all, the vault is a masterpiece of
practical geometry.
A detailed inspection of the extrados of the vault and
the visual inspection of the intrados has allowed ascertain-
ing the nature of the masonry. The vault is mainly a stone
construction, with some brickwork added. The masonry is
coated and decorated on the interior. The extrados is also
coated with very hard lime mortar, although the joints
between the stones can be seen in several places. Fill covers
most of the perimeter webs surrounding the central
pumpkin dome. No wood elements have been found.
The powerful stone arches that form the ribs are sup-
porting most of the weight of the vault. The constructive
and structural analysis proves this beyond any doubt,
contradicting old theories that have survived until today.
In the structural analysis full use has been made of the
“equilibrium approach,” the main corollary of the Safe
Theorem of Limit Analysis. Among the infinite number
of equilibrium solutions, a reasonable solution has been
found that explains the main behavior of the vault, with
602 P. FUENTES AND S. HUERTA
Figure 24. South wall of the Chapel of Villaviciosa (Ewert 1968).
Note the possibility of forming relieving arches in the upper part of
the masonry. © Ewert, 1968. Reproduced by permission of Ewert.
Permission to reuse must be obtained from the rightsholder.
masonry working in compression at very low stress
levels, even in the most loaded elements (the columns).
The ribs fulfill, besides the structural role, other func-
tions: they define the geometry, hide the difficult inter-
section of the webs and, finally, play an architectural-
decorative role in defining the space of the Chapel.
The architects of the Chapel of Villaviciosa began in
the second half of the 10th century the tradition of rib
vaulting with a masterpiece, which combines geometry,
architecture, and mechanics. The work expresses all the
beauty of Islamic art, combined with a constructive-
structural design that has survived through a millen-
nium and has never needed any structural repair.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank architect Gabriel Ruiz Cabrero,
surveyor and curator of the cathedral, as well as the
Chapter of the Cathedral of Córdoba, for granting access to
survey and visit the extrados of the Chapel of Villaviciosa.
References
Amador de los Ríos, J. 1879. Monumentos latino-bizantinos
de Córdoba. Madrid: Imprenta de Fortanet.
Bloom, J. M. 1993. On the transmission of designs in early
Islamic architecture. Muqarnas 10: 21–28.
Calvo, S. 2008. La ampliación califal de la Mezquita mayor de
Córdoba: Mensajes, formas y funciones. Goya 323: 89–96.
Ewert, C. 1968. Spanisch-islamische Systeme sich kreuzender
Bögen. I.- Die senkrechten ebenen Systeme sich kreuzender
Bögen als Stützkonstruktionen der vier Rippenkuppeln in
der ehemaligen Hauptmoschee von Córdoba. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
Ewert, C. 1977. Die Moschee am Bab al-Mardum in Toledo.
Eine “Kopie” der Moschee von Córdoba. Madrider
Mitteilungen 18:287–354.
Fernández-Puertas, A. 2009. Mezquita de Córdoba. Su estudio
arqueológico en el siglo XX. Granada: Universidad de Granada.
Fitchen, J. 1961. The construction of Gothic Cathedrals: A
Study of Medieval Vault Erection. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Fuentes, P. and S. Huerta. 2010. Islamic domes of crossed-
arches: Origin, geometry and structural behavior. In Arch´
10. 6th International Conference on Arch Bridges. Fuzhou,
October 11–13, 2010, China: College of Civil Engineering.
Fuentes, P. 2012. The Islamic Crossed-arch domes in
Córdoba. Geometry and Structural Analysis of the
“Capilla de Villaviciosa”. In Nuts and Bolts of
Construction History. Paris: Picard. 1:317–24.
Fuentes, P. 2013. “Bóvedas de arcos entrecruzados entre los
siglos X y XVI. Geometría, construcción y estabilidad.” Ph.
D. dissertation, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.
Giese-Vögeli, F. 2007a. Das islamische Rippengewölbe:
Ursprung, Form, Verbreitung. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.
Giese-Vögeli, F. 2007b. Die Gewölbe der grossen Mosche von
Córdoba und der islamische Osten. Ursprung, Verbreitung
und Auflösung eines Wölbsystems. Madrider Mitteilungen
48:306–22.
Hernández Giménez, F. and H. Terrasse. 1972. Dos cartas
sobre las cúpulas de la Mezquita de Córdoba. Cuadernos de
la Alhambra 12:339–45.
Heyman, J. 1988. Poleni’s problem. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 1 84:737–59.
Heyman, J. 1995. The stone skeleton. Structural engineering of
masonry architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Heyman, J. 1996. Arches, vaults and buttresses. Collected
essays. Aldershot: Variorum, Ashgate Publishing.
Heyman, J. 2008. Basic Structural Theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Holod, R. 1988. Text, Plan and Building: On the
Transmission of Architectural Knowledge. In: Theories
and Principles of Design in the Architecture of Islamic
Societies. M. B. Sevcenko, ed. Cambridge, MA: Aga Khan
Program for Islamic Architecture.
Huerta, S. 2001. Mechanics of masonry vaults: The equili-
brium approach. In Historical Constructions 2001.
Proceedings of the 3rd. International Seminar. Guimaraes,
November 7–9, P. B. Lourenço and P. Roca, eds.
Guimaraes: Universidade do Minho; pp. 47–69.
Huerta, S. 2008. The analysis of masonry architecture: a his-
torical approach. Architectural Science Review 51:297–328.

Lambert, E. 1939. La croisée d´ogives dans l´architecture
islamique. Recherche 1: 57–71.
Marfil Ruiz, P. 2004. Estudio de las linternas y el extradós de las
cúpulas de la Maqsura de la Catedral de Córdoba, antigua
mezquita Aljama. Arqueología de la Arquitectura 3:91–107.
Müller, W. 1990. Grundlagen gotischer Bautechnik. München:
Deutscher Kunstverlag.
Nieto Cumplido, M. 1992. La mezquita de Córdoba: planos y
dibujos. Córdoba: Colegio Oficial de Arquitectos de
Andalucía Occidental.
Nußbaum, N. and S. Lepsky. 1999. Das gotische Gewölbe. Eine
Geschichte seiner Form und Konstruktion München, Berlin:
Deutscher Kunstverlag.
Prangey, Girault de. 1841. Essai sur l´architecture des arabes
et des mores, en Espagne, en Sicilie et en Barbarie. Paris: A.
Hauser.
Ruiz Cabrero, G. 2009. Dibujos de la catedral de Córdoba:
visiones de la mezquita. Córdoba: Cabildo de la Catedral.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE 603
Ruiz Souza, J. C. 2006. Capillas Reales funerarias catedralicias
de Castilla y León: Nuevas hipótesis interpretativas de las
catedrales de Sevilla, Córdoba y Toledo. Anuario del
Departamento de Historia y Teoría del Arte 18:9–29.
Torres Balbás, L. 1957. La ampliación de la Mezquita de
Córdoba por Al-Hakam II (962-966). In: Historia de
España. Vol. 5. España Musulmana hasta la caída del
Califato de Córdoba (711-1031 de J. C.). R. Menéndez
Pidal, ed. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1957, 477–569.
Wendland, D. 2012. Arches and spirals: the geometrical con-
cept of the curvilinear rib vault in the Albrechtsburg at
Meissen and some considerations on the construction of
late-Gothic vaults with double-curved ribs. In Nuts and
Bolts of Construction History: Culture, Technology and
Society. R. Carvais et al. Paris: Picard: 351–57.
Willis, R. 1842. On the construction of the vaults of the
Middle Ages. Transactions of the Royal Institute of British
Architects 1:1–69.