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

net/publication/328369218

Cultural Heritage of Ancient China: The Engineering of the Great Wall of

China, the Jinshanling Section

Conference Paper · July 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 5,991

4 authors, including:

Jin Yang

18 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Virtual Reality View project

Fuzzy Logic View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jin Yang on 18 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cultural Heritage of Ancient China: The Engineering of the
Great Wall of China, the Jinshanling Section
Jin Rong Yang, Ph.D., Alumnus of Construction Engineering and Management, The Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
Fabian H. Tan, Dr. Eng., Professor of Construction Engineering and Management, The Ohio State
University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
Adrian Tan, Ph.D., Alumnus of Construction Engineering and Management, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, USA
Michael Parke, Ph.D., Professor in the Engineering Education Department, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, USA

Abstract
One way to encourage international exchanges among Chinese and foreign cultural scholars is to research
and promote the prominence, uniqueness, and heritage within one’s country. In particular, hallmarks of
engineering history heritage, such as the Great Wall of China, are good examples of such prominence, able
to promote tourism, education and innovative environmentally friendly construction methods in the future
for both sides, Chinese and international industry. This research discusses the ancient construction of Great
Wall of China in Jinshanling, from the surveying to the superstructure phase of the construction. The
results allow for the creation of virtual reality (VR) in engineering education, as well as examining the
various green construction techniques employed and how they can apply to modern construction. The
authors hope that this paper can promote cultural heritage among the citizens of the world with regards to
this prestigious monument and similar feats of ancient engineering.
Keywords: Great Wall of China, Jinshanling, Chinese technology, China’s cultural heritage, ancient
construction

1. Introduction
To laypeople elsewhere in the world, the first thing that comes to mind when discussing wall construction
and China is, naturally, the Great Wall of China. The Chinese were well known for wall building (the
Great Wall was continuously constructed after the fall and rise of many dynasties for almost 2,000 years),
and the Great Wall has been used as a benchmark for other wall monuments ever since, most recently
during the 2016 presidential campaign where it was compared to then-Republican-candidate Donald
Trump’s controversial proposal to construct a similar structure at the U.S./Mexico border. The
effectiveness of the Great Wall is just as controversial, and some researchers and scholars have argued that
the Wall did not serve its purpose effectively due to the fall of each dynasty that renovated it. On the other
hand, others could argue that some of the dynasties lasted for a very long time, with the Ming Dynasty
lasting more than 250 years for instance. Regardless of the purpose of the Wall, its construction has
inspired numerous researchers over the centuries, and some of the useful information from studying this
great monument has included, aside from numerous textbooks and academic papers, the creation of virtual
reality (VR) models for engineering education purposes and comparison of the ancient techniques with the
standards of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for green construction on a
global scale. Therefore, researching such an important monument is a prime example of the exchange of
cultural heritage and information among different nations.
The objective of this paper is to showcase the construction process of the Great Wall of China in
Jinshanling (Fig. 1). The Jinshanling section is located in Luanping, Chengde, Hebei, China,
approximately 150 km northeast of Beijing China. This area was chosen for the study due to the fact that it
was not a major tourist area and some structural components were well preserved from the initial
construction in the Ming Dynasty. This has allowed the authors to conduct an in-depth study from onsite
visits without performing non-feasible methods, such as destructive testing. Furthermore, due to the
1
relative dearth of scientific studies on the construction of the Great Wall in this specific section, many of
the citations in this paper are derived from the authors’ earlier work.

Fig. 1. Jinshanling section of the Great Wall of China (left) and one of the few renovated towers in Jinshanling (right).

2. A Brief History of the Great Wall

The Great Wall of China is a series of walls in northern China built for strategic military defenses [1,
p.30]. It runs from east to west of northern China. The direct translation of the “Great Wall of China” from
Chinese is “ten-thousand-li-long wall”; 10,000 li is equivalent to 6,500 km. However, 10,000 li
metaphorically represents “infinite”, therefore the translation for the Great Wall of China is “the long wall
of infinity” [2, p.11]. The exact length of the wall is still unknown; it was recently estimated to be 21,200
km long, according to reports from the BBC and NBC news networks. Construction of the wall first started
in the 5th century BC, and since then, the wall has been renovated and rebuilt for military purposes for
approximately 2000 years. The oldest wall was no way near the majestic wall one often sees. It was built
during the Han Dynasty (ca. 206 BC – AD 220), about 5 km from Yumenguan Pass, now only 300-m long
remains. The 2.6-m high and 3-m wide wall was made of 0.05-m thick tamped tamarisk reed, 0.20-m thick
layer of stones and sand shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. The Han Dynasty ‘Great Wall’ of China, ca. 2,000 years ago (left). Close-up view of the wall that consists of
alternating layers of tamped reed and mixture of stones and sand (right).

The major construction period ended at the end of Ming Dynasty, at around 1644 AD. The idea of behind
the Great Wall first emerged from the Warring States, which consisted of small numbers of independent
states prior to the unification of China, including the Wei, Zhao, Qin, Yan states among others. Because
they constantly fought one another, these states collectively came up with the idea of building a wall in
order to defend their own territories, known as fortification. The Wei started their fortification construction
in 445 BC and continued with it until 225 BC; their contribution is located in what is now known as the
Henan Province of China. The Zhao began wall construction in 424 BC and continued until 222 BC, the
end result being located in the Hebei, Shanxi and Shaanxi provinces of China. The Qin State started wall
construction in 361 BC and continued until 221 BC, and their wall is located in Shaanxi, China. Lastly, the

2
Yan started wall construction in approximately 300 BC and continued until 222 BC, located in what is now
Hebei, China. However, Qin Shi Huang from the Qin State defeated all the other states and united China in
221 BC, forming the Qin Dynasty. He destroyed the wall that divided his empire to make way for a new
one to connect with the rest of the wall and form a new northern frontier; the Qin Dynasty constructed this
wall from 221 BC to 206 BC. After the Qin Dynasty, other dynasties took control of China and also carried
out extensive renovations, reconstruction and additions to the Great Wall to defend their borders from the
invading Mongolians to the north. For instance, the Han Dynasty renovated, reconstructed, and added
sections to the Great Wall between 206 BC and 8 AD and between 25 AD and 220 AD. Afterward, the
Northern Wei Dynasty renovated, reconstructed, and added sections to the Great Wall from 386 AD to 584
AD. After that, the Northern Qi Dynasty continued these restorations from 550 AD to 577 AD. They built
the Mutianyu section in Huairou County and the Simatai section north of Miyun County, both are located
northeast of Beijing (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4). The Mutianyu wall is about 2.2 km long; it has 22 beacon towers;
while the Simatai wall, about 5 km long, has 35 watch towers.

Fig. 3. The Mutianyu wall was first built by the Northern Qi in the 6 th century, 7 to 8-m high and 4 to 5-m wide (left). Its
watchtowers was constructed every 100 meters (right).

Fig. 4. The Simatai section of the wall was also built by the Northern Qi in the 6th century depicting narrow walls (ca. 2.5 m)
on the way to the remains of Tower 5 (top left) and one of the many treacherous steps of the wall (bottom left). Roman style
arches were ubiquitous inside the towers (top right). Several fired-kiln bricks were stamped to signify its origin (bottom
right).
3
Next, the Sui Dynasty renovated, reconstructed, and added sections to the Great Wall from 581 AD to 618
AD. After the Sui ended, however, there was a long period when no construction took place. The dynasties
after Sui did not see the need for the wall, at least until the Liao and Jin Dynasties. The Liao re-started
construction of the wall in 1066 and continued until 1125. The Jin took over after the fall of Liao and
continued construction from 1125 to 1234. The final dynasty that restored the wall for military purposes
was the Ming dynasty, which the authors of this report will focus on; the Ming revived the wall from 1368
to 1644. Other sections of the wall built in Ming dynasty included Badaling (Fig. 5).

All the dates listed above before the First Empire of the Qin Dynasty are estimated by the authors of the
paper using several resources including Lovell, Luo and Roberts [3, pp. 361-365] [4, pp. 57-59] [5, p. 187]
[6, p. 289]. All the dates listed above on and after the First Empire Qin Dynasty can be found on page 286
of The Great Wall Revisited: From the Jade Gate to Old Dragon’s Head by William Lindesay [7]. The
Great Wall was built to protect the Chinese Empire from the Mongolians and other invaders. Author Luo
Zewen supported this argument, but stated that it was difficult for the Great Wall to prevent attacks from
nomadic tribes because they could move easily thanks to their horses. Additionally, the wall seems to have
been built to create a peaceful relationship with the northerners. Luo argued that it could be expensive
because the people have to give gifts such as food, crops, daughters and princesses to marry the nomadic
tribes. Another suggested reason as to why the Great Wall was constructed was to slow invaders and
enable military defense [5, p. 43]. The wall proved more effective earlier in earlier dynasties, because the
ancient people only had limited techniques and weapons such as horsemen, knives, spears and bows and
arrows. Furthermore, Zhewen and fellow author Zhao Luo also described another military purpose for the
construction of the Great Wall in a different textbook, suggesting that the Great Wall was used to
communicate during a military attack. For instance, if the fire signals in the watchtowers and barracks were
to light up, then it was a warning signal to alert the troops that invaders were coming [4, p. 14]. However,
as time passed, the Great Wall eventually shown to be ineffective against more advanced enemies, with
various reasons for such including the invention of gun powder and other stronger weapons, corrupted
officers in charge of the Wall, poorly trained soldiers, and inadequate amounts of soldiers.

Fig. 5. The Badaling section of the wall constructed directly on the rock (left). The wall in this section crosses a small body
of water (right).

3. Jinshanling Section of the Great Wall

The present research is specifically focused on the Wall and the towers in Jinshanling (Fig. 6), which is
located in Luanping County, approximately 150 km northeast of Beijing China (Google Map, 2015). This
research centers on the time period of the Ming Dynasty, since all standing structures in Jinshanling are
from this period, with minimal renovations after the dynasty era. The current construction performance of
Jinshanling can be found in the authors’ earlier work [8][9]. The Jinshanling section of the Great Wall has
67 towers, 5 passes and 3 beacon towers. The beacon towers are freestanding towers that were separated
from the wall and towers connecting the wall. The passes are cut-off sections of the wall where people can
pass the wall from the north to the south and vice versa.

4
Fig. 6. Craggy and damaged walls reaching the Jinshanling are a common scene in this region (left), while some towers
founded on solid rocks survived (right).

4. Surveying Techniques of the Great Wall in Jinshanling

A construction project usually begins with an on-site survey, which involves staking out reference points
and markers on the ground: in this case, the ground area to measure is the Jinshanling section of the Great
Wall. During the construction of the Great Wall, there were no modern survey devices such as laser levels,
scanners, or GPS surveying equipment; however, the ancient Chinese did have geometrical methods and
equipment that could measure the distances where structures were being built. The geometrical approach to
surveying that could have been used in Jinshanling was the Haidao Suanjing (海岛算经) [10], a direct
Chinese translation of The Sea Island Mathematical Manual, which solves survey field problems without
direct measurements. The equipment employed for construction consisted of a gnomon or staff, a sighting
square, a water level plumb line and others [10][11]. The section below contains explanations on how the
Haidao Suanjing and the survey equipment were used during the survey phase of the construction on the
Great Wall.

4.1 Surveying Equipment and Methods

The equipment that was used during the surveying phase included sighting or reference poles, a set square,
a water level plumb line and others (see Fig. 7). In Fig. 7a, the tall standing pole was known as the biao
(sighting or reference pole). It has measurements on the pole [11, pp. 4-6]. Brock [10, p. 4] argues that the
height of the pole was between 20 and 30 chi (7 and 10.5 meters). The set-square, also called the gnomon
or ju, and its use are shown in Fig. 7a [11, p. 4]. The set-square had a square opening for viewing and
aligning purposes [11, pp. 4-6]. The length and width of the set-square was 2 chi (equivalent to 0.7 meters)
on each side, and it could adjust to heights as tall as 12 to 23 chi (4.2 to 9.1 meters) for accuracy [10, p. 4].
The legs of the set-square were approximately two feet long (0.6 meters) [11, p. 6]. Fig. 7b shows the
plumb line, xian, and the water level, zhun [10, p. 3]. Based on the figure and current plumb line and water
level design, the Chinese plumb line and the water level were attached by a string and held together by a
stand with water on the top for balance measurement. The measuring tape shown in Fig. 7 (right), also
known as the bu che, was comparable to a modern tape measure [11, p. 6]. The ancient Chinese started out
with ropes and cords to measure distance, which were replaced by measuring tapes before the Ming
Dynasty’s Great Wall construction in Jinshanling. All the items mentioned — sighting or reference poles,
set square, water level, plumb line and measuring tape — were available before the Ming Dynasty, and
therefore were most likely to be implemented during the construction of the Great Wall in Jinshanling [10,
pp. 1-13].

5
Fig. 7. Ancient Chinese Survey Equipment and Measuring Tape [11, pp. 4-5].

4.2 Planning Methodology and Calculations

Logically, the towers were most likely built first to accommodate soldiers and workers. The towers were
also likely to be used to store construction equipment and materials. The interval between each pair of
towers was no more than 300 meters. Towers at the western end were closer together than the towers on
the eastern end. The data is from the 1981-1987 on-site study [12, pp. 141-144]. Explanation for the
intervals may be due to military strategies, such as the sighting distance to see the signal from a tower if
the enemy is coming. Similarly, closer intervals may be due to the fact a given area is a weaker point of the
area. Furthermore, during the planning stage of the wall in the Ming Dynasty, the engineers planned to
build the new structure on the existing surface of the wall as much as possible to save construction
materials. Other explanations included finding a suitable area for the foundation, like large area of bedrock.
The wall was then built to connect the towers. During this time, the surveyor may have been required to
use the outlined survey methods to figure out the length of the wall, slope of the wall and the elevations
involved in order to create a construction plan (or blueprint). This information may have been used to
estimate the quantity of construction material required. To find this information, the Sea Island Method is
needed, which is explained in the next section.

4.3 Site Elevation Profile

The authors extracted the site elevation profile of the Jinshanling area using Google Earth Pro and
calculated the length using the Haidao Suanjing method. These components were then compared to ensure
accuracy, as outlined in the following sections of this paper.

4.3.1 The Sea Island Method

A surveyor would most likely to encounter the following problems, with only one known elevation at the
beginning of the building. The surveyor does know the other variables, such as the height of the reference
pole, or the distance needed to move back to line up the building. See Table 1 for the statement problems
from Unnamed Building 11 to Unnamed Building 10.

6
Table 1. Statement Problem

Building Elevation (without the wall) at

Elevation at Ending Path Total Distance
Name Starting Path
Unnamed
427.4 meters (known to surveyor)
Building 11
Unnamed 436.5 meters (unknown to
Building 10 surveyor)
113 meters (unknown to
surveyor)

In Jinshanling’s Unnamed Building 11, the elevation at the starting path without the wall is 427.4 meters
(431.9 meters from Google Earth Pro minus 4.5 meters from the base of the wall) above sea level. The
elevation of the ending path is 436.5 meters (441.0 meters from Google Earth Pro minus 4.5 meters from
the base of the wall) at Unnamed Building 10. The height difference between the beginning and the ending
path is 9.1 meters. Since an ancient surveyor would not have this information given at that time of
construction, they would find the height using the equipment and the method mentioned above. Fig. 8 is
the diagram used to solve the height of the two towers, which is AB. To do this, the surveyor would take
the two measurements at the starting path, 427.74 meters above sea level at points D and F. The reference
poles are modified to 3 meters each: CD and EF are 3 meters in Fig. 8. For the first pole, the surveyor
would move back 22.92 meters to align the top of the pole with the top of the mountain: DG in Fig. 8.
Their second backward distance for the second pole is 37.25 meters: FH = 37.25 meters in Fig. 8. The
distance between the first pole and the second pole is 29.15 meters: DF = 29.15 meters in Fig. 8. Then, the
height of the two towers AB could be calculated, Equation 2, using the Equation 1:

(𝐶𝐷) × (𝐷𝐹)
𝐴𝐵 = + 𝐶𝐷
(𝐹𝐻 − 𝐷𝐺)
(1)
(3) × (29.15)
𝐴𝐵 = + 3 = 9.103 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠
(37.25 − 22.92)
(2)
(𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 9.10 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐺𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ 𝑃𝑟𝑜).
The vertical distance between the ground and the set-square where the surveyor holds in his/her hand
should have been added to the 9.103 meters to get the final height.
The elevation of the Unnamed Building 10, Equation 3, is:

𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 @ 𝑈𝑛𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝐵𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 10 = 427.4 + 9.103

= 436.503 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 (𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 436.5 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐺𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ 𝑃𝑟𝑜).
(3)

Using the given information, the surveyor could also find the distance between the center of the mountain
to the first reference pole using Equation 4:

(𝐷𝐺) × (𝐷𝐹)
𝐵𝐷 =
(𝐹𝐻 − 𝐷𝐺)
(4)

Therefore BD, Equation 5, is:

(22.92) × (29.15)
𝐵𝐷 = = 46.62 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠
(37.25 − 22.92)
(5)

7
The length between the two towers are (based on the figure), Equation 6:

𝐻𝐵 = (𝐵𝐷) + (𝐷𝐺) + (𝐷𝐹 − 𝐷𝐺) + (𝐻𝐹) = 46.62 + 22.92 + (29.15 − 22.92) + (37.25) =
113.02 𝑚. (𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 113 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐺𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝐸𝑎𝑟𝑡ℎ 𝑃𝑟𝑜)
(6)

Note that without the calculated values (measurements from the height of the reference pole, how far the
surveyor had to move back to line up the set square, to the references and other information), the authors
would have to conduct the survey via reference poles and set squares to obtain the those variables, which is
not feasible; therefore, these numbers are calculated.
The authors believe that the surveyors would likely use the height between the two towers and the distance
between them to calculate the average surface distance of the two tower’s interval (hypotenuse of the
triangle) using a technique similar to the Pythagorean Theorem, Equation 7.

𝐴2 + 𝐵2 = 𝐶 2
(7)

In this case, the average surface distance of the two tower’s interval, Equation 8:

= (113.0222 + 9.10322 )1/2 = 113.39 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠

(8)

The same method could be used to find the elevation of the first higher tower related to the sea level by
flipping the triangle rightward and other directions, depending on the type of problem. See Fig. 8 for the
diagram to solve the problem above. See Fig. 9 (left) for the diagram of the tower elevation if the first
tower is higher than the second tower, thus resulting in a downward slope. See Fig. 9 (right) for a
downward slope used for measurement of the elevation at the higher ground.

Fig. 8. Diagram for the Problem.

8
Fig. 9. Diagram of the Find the Elevation at First Higher Tower (Left) and Diagram of Different Problems with Same
Method (Right).

To return more accurate measurements, the surveyors would likely have taken the readings at smaller
increments (such as critical points) instead of at tower-to-tower intervals. The same mathematical
procedure would applied to such a smaller increment. Based on Fig. 10 (left) from Unnamed Building 11
to Unnamed Building 10, the critical points were at 39 meters, 83 meters and 113 meters from Unnamed
Building 11 (128 feet, 273 and 370 feet respectively on the Google Earth Pro). Here, the slope changed
rapidly. For instance, there was a steep slope from 0 to 39 meters measuring from Unnamed Building 11.
The slope flattened out from 39 meters to 83 meters and dropped immediately at 83 meters.
A site elevation profile could be created from the Sea Island method calculations. The site profile is similar
to what is produced by Google Earth Pro, Fig. 10 (right). This site elevation profile was necessary for the
creation of a construction blueprint and also served other purposes during the building process, such as
estimating material usage during the erection of the Great Wall in Jinshanling.

Fig. 10. Map Showing Critical Points (Left) and Elevation Profile from Tower with Unnamed Building 11 to Unnamed
Building 10 (Right) (Google Earth Pro, 2015).

4.4 Research Findings and Verifications

Google Earth Pro was used to verify both the calculations and results, being employed to display the
elevation profile, distance and other information. The authors then compared these with the results from
the 1981-1987 study [12]. The reason that two methods were compared with each other was due to source
of errors. Therefore, the comparison was necessary for validity of the results.

4.5 Discussion of Methodologies, Results and their Limitations

The Sea Island method was accurate because the results were derived from the properties of triangles and
rectangles. Modern technology (such as calculators, GPS, digital level, and other surveying equipment) did
not exist at the time, so the reduction of human-made or random errors was not possible. Thus, any
inaccuracies in the surveying stage of construction during the Ming Dynasty were more likely to come
from such errors.

There are errors that may affect the results. The errors may come from false readings on the Google Earth
Pro for security reasons [13]. For instance, the coordinates, elevations and other information from Google
Pro may not be the same when inputting them on a Chinese GPS system. Other errors were produced by
9
the author’s inability to draw a straight path using Google Pro. Therefore, one way to improve the results
presented by an onsite survey could be via the use of GPS or other modern surveying equipment.

5. Construction Sequence of the Great Wall in Jinshanling

From the authors’ earlier work [14], analysis of the Jinshanling wall section reveals that the main
construction methods and materials used to create the wall were rammed earth and rubble construction,
foundation stone masonry, and brick masonry with a mostly Flemish configuration; the wall consisted of
outer and inner layers, which were erected in different ways and from different materials. The main
construction technique used to build the inner wall was rammed earth and rubble. The rubble and rammed
earth method (the inner core of the wall) was a procedure of installing the rubble and compressing the
materials of earth into the shape of a wall. Mortar may have been mixed with earth first to then be poured
after the rubble was neatly stacked with the outer core of the wall. In many areas, fire kiln bricks and
foundation stones (the outer core of the wall) were used to act as permanent formwork to hold the rubble
and rammed earth together. In some areas, only rubble and mortar were used for the outer core of the wall;
it is believed that these sections were built earlier in the Ming Dynasty, and the bricks for later sections of
the wall were integrated into the earlier sections using a key-in feature. Fire kiln bricks were made from a
mixture of clay and water, and were then baked in the kilns until the bricks were hardened or vitrified.
The main construction method that was used to form the towers was rammed earth and rubble (inner core
of the base). Similar to the wall, the outer core of the base was installed with fire kiln bricks and
foundation stones, and they were used as permanent formwork to hold the rammed earth and rubble for the
inner core of the base. This core was built either on bedrock or existing structure from the earlier Ming
Dynasty. In either case, the bedrock or the existing structure had to be leveled. Additionally, wood, fire
kiln bricks, and stones were used for the columns, stairs, and walls of the towers. Inside the towers, wood
or bricks and arched columns were used to transfer the weight of the second floor to the first floor. The
wood column towers were likely built at lower and higher elevations, while brick and arch column towers
were likely built mostly at higher elevations. The plinths and bases of the wood columns were made of one
monolithic piece of carved stone.

5.1 Wall Construction Process

The first phases of construction of the Wall were the pre-plan and plan stages. In these stages, surveying
using the Sea Island Mathematical Manual was likely to be implemented to determine the overall
dimensions of the wall. Note that surveying would be needed in every phase of the construction. The next
phase was the construction of the substructure (base). This phase is separated into three stages: excavation,
foundation, and substructure. In excavation, manual labor, fire-setting, and other methods were used to cut
the ground bedrock. In the foundation stage, rubble or existing structures were leveled or sloped. In some
areas, the bedrock was cut and filled with rubble to form stair-like shapes. In the substructure stage, the
outer and inner (core) walls were constructed in a bottom-up technique using a load-bearing configuration
of stonework (conglomerate) and a Flemish Bond brickwork configuration throughout most of the
foundation. Timber scaffolding was likely used for safety reasons and for building at greater heights.
Lastly, the superstructures of the walkway, battlement, wall, and barrier wall (if applicable) were all
constructed in a bottom-up fashion at a slope following the slope of the terrain. Drainage systems and other
openings were constructed using bricks and stones with mortar, and walkway pavers were installed to
correct the slope to drain holes. Then the second layers were installed, overlapping with the mortar points
of the first layers. The step-by-step construction sequence in VR is shown in Fig. 11.

10
 (A) (B)

(C) (D)

(E) (F)

(G) (H)

(I) (J)
Fig. 11. Construction sequence of the Wall.

11
5.2 Tower Construction Processes
The erection of the base of the towers for the substructure were similar to the construction of the wall, in
which foundation stonework (conglomerate stones) to fire kiln brickwork was constructed in a bottom-up
fashion for the outer base of the towers. Additionally, stacked rubble, rammed earth, and possibly a small
amount of rubble aggregate with mortar were used for the inner base of the towers, shown in Fig. 12. For
the superstructure (floor structure of wood column towers), timber columns with stone plinths were erected
in the center and corners and sides of the floor plan (Fig. 13a). The wood columns on the corners and sides
of the towers was likely erected as the same time as the brickwork for the exterior walls. Next, timber
beams and boards were constructed for the ceiling. As with the walls, wood scaffolding would have been
used for safety, especially at higher elevations. Windows, entrances, exits and other openings were likely
constructed closer to the time of the exterior wall’s construction. Stairs and openings (second floor) were
constructed (Fig. 13b). Stones and/or bricks with mortar were installed in a bottom-up structure. The
battlement (second floor) was installed using bricks. Stone was placed with mortar for windowsills and
drainage systems. Floor finishing (pavers), actual doors, actual windows, and other miscellaneous items
were likely installed in the final stages of construction.
For the brick-and-arch towers (Fig. 14), the exterior and interior walls were constructed in a bottom-up
structure using bricks. Roman arches, vaults, and domes were constructed for the ceiling of the first floor,
and wood framework was implemented to hold the arch, vault, and dome until the mortar was cured. For
entrances, exits, windows and other openings of the first floor, stonework and/or brickwork were
implemented. For the stairs and openings on the second floor, stones and/or bricks with mortar were
installed in a bottom-up structure. Also, the main tower was constructed in a bottom-up fashion with bricks
and timber. The installation of wood column posts and beams were likely to be implemented for the roof of
the mini tower. Next, the battlement on the second floor was constructed using bricks. As with the timber-
frame towers, stonework was used to construct the windowsills and drainage system. The floor finishing of
pavers, actual doors, actual windows, and other miscellaneous items was likely to be installed at the last
stage of construction. As previously, wood scaffolding was likely used for safety purposes, particularly at
higher heights at different stages of the construction.

(a) (b)
Fig. 12. Construction sequence of the substructure (base) of the towers.

(a) (b)
Fig. 13. First and second floor of the wood column towers.

12
 (a) (b)
Fig. 14. First and second floor of the bricks and arches towers.

6. Discussion of the Importance of the Cultural Heritage

One considerable advantage of using an immersive tool such as VR is that users can safely ‘see’ the
monument and ‘feel’ as if they were on the site, without having to climb on the treacherous steps of the
wall. Moreover, users can ‘see’ how the ancient Chinese built the wall one step at the time without the
need to be on the site. The tool provides users the ability to ‘visit’ the virtual sites at any time. Next, the
VR models could be implemented for engineering education purposes [15]. Obviously, much research still
needs to be done, especially to improve the models with much more realistic features Fig. 15. This
research also preserves the historical value of the structures. If the structure needs future repairs, one can
use the knowledge and simulations from this research to restore the structure with authentic repairs using
the ancient construction techniques. Another potential benefit of this study is that it could encourage future
researchers to investigate the sustainability of the construction methods featured here. If possible, future
investigators could also consider implementing these methods, similar to the authors’ earlier research, by
applying the Leadership Energy and Environmental Design guide and an artificial intelligence component
of the fuzzy set concepts to evaluate the sustainability of the structure [16].

Fig. 15. VR equipment (left) and simulation of the construction method and walkthrough in the virtual world (right).

7. Conclusions
The construction of the Jinshanling section of the Great Wall of China can be divided into several sections
which could be reconstructed via a combination of historical literature, engineering practices, and digital
simulation. For a start, the surveying stage of the construction of the Jinshanling section was reverse
engineered and verified using Google Earth Pro. The pre-plan and planning stage for the construction of
the wall involved the use of surveying equipment, such as sighting or reference poles, set squares, and
water level plumb lines. Surveying techniques from The Sea Island Mathematical Manual were also
implemented. Several different planning methodology and calculations could have been used to draft the
proposed dimensions of the wall section; the Sea Island method could provide the site elevation profile
needed for this stage. Research findings and verifications included site visits, analysis using Google Earth
Pro, and extensive literature searches. Sources of error from Google Earth were also discussed in this

13
paper. The construction methods of the Jinshanling section of the Great Wall could then be recreated using
various methods such as onsite visits, literature searches, and expert opinions, and were displayed using
the state-of-the-art technique known as virtual reality. The importance of cultural heritage with respect to
this monument section was also noted, showing the positive impact on engineering education (the use of
VR) and the construction industry (the examination of environmental friendly methods). The knowledge
described in this paper would be valuable in China’s cultural heritage exchange with other nations. The
authors hope this paper will help to open and promote the global exchange of cultural heritage information,
so individuals can learn from each other’s cultural engineering and historical heritage.

8. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Arie Tan whose review comments have greatly improved this paper. All
photographs were taken by the authors.

9. References

[1] Waldron, A. The Great Wall of China: from history to myth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1990.

[2] Geil, W.E. The Great Wall of China. New York: Sturgis & Walton, 1909.

[3] Lovell, J. The Great Wall: China against the World, 1000 BC-AD 2000. New York: Grove, 2006.

[4] Luo, Z. and L. Zhao. The Great Wall of China in History and Legend. Beijing: Foreign Languages,
1986.

[5] Luo, Z., W. Dai, D. Wilson, J.P. Drege, and H. Delahaye. The Great Wall. London: Michael Joseph,
1981.

[6] Roberts, C. and G. Barme. The Great Wall of China. Sydney: Powerhouse, 2006.

[7] Lindesay, W. The Great Wall Revisited: From the Jade Gate to Old Dragon's Head. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard UP, 2008.

[8] Yang, J., F. H. Tan, A. Tan, and M. Parke. “Analysis of the Current Construction Performance of the
Great Wall of China in Jinshanling: Knowledge Base and General Performance,” Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering History and Heritage, Apr. 2018.

[9] Yang, J., F. H. Tan, A. Tan, and M. Parke. “Performance evaluation of the current construction of the
Great Wall of China in Jinshanling: using a fuzzy system,” Civil Engineering and Environmental
Systems, 2018.

[10] Brock, J. F. THE GREAT WALL OF CHINA: The World’s Greatest Boundary Monument! Article of
the Month. International Federation of Surveyors. 2014. Retrieved October 6, 2014,
https://www.fig.net/resources/monthly_articles/2014/june_2014/monthly_article_june_20 14.pdf

[11] Swetz, F.J., and L. Hui. The Sea Island Mathematical Manual: Surveying and Mathematics in Ancient
China. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State, 1992.

[12] Zheng, S. Jinshanling - Gubeikou - Ming Dynasty Great Wall -Year 1981-1987 Thistle Town
Archaeological Report. Beijing China: Cultural Relics, 2013.

14
 [13] Russon, M. The curious case of Google Maps in China: Why is it so inaccurate? 2016. Retrieved
January 19, 2017, from http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/curious-case- google-maps-china-why-it-so-
inaccurate-1576834

[14] Yang, J., Hadipriono Tan, F.H. Tan, and A. Tan. “The Ancient Construction Materials and Methods:
The Great Wall of China in Jinshanling as a Case Study,” KICEM Journal of Construction
Engineering and Project Management, 2017: 7, 37-50.

[15] Yang, J. R., F. H. Tan, A. H. Tan, and M. Parke. Classroom Education Using Animation and Virtual
Reality of the Great Wall of China in Jinshanling Paper presented at 2017 ASEE Annual
Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio. https://peer.asee.org/28035

[16] Yang, J., F.H. Tan, A. Tan, and M. Parke. “Sustainability evaluation of the Great Wall of China using
fuzzy set concepts by incorporating Leadership Energy and Environmental Design, Civil
Engineering and Environmental Systems,” Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 2017:
1-33. doi:10.1080/10286608.2017.1293662

15

View publication stats