How foundations were built in the old days. How our ancestors built houses in Russia in antiquity…. Building foundations in the Middle Ages

Both the house and the chapel are all made of wood.

Russia has long been considered a country of trees: there were plenty of vast, mighty forests around. The Rusichi, as historians note, lived in the "wooden age" for centuries. Frames were erected from wood and residential buildings, baths and barns, bridges and hedges, gates and wells. And the most common name for a Russian settlement - a village - said that the houses and buildings here are wooden. Almost ubiquitous availability, simplicity and ease of processing, relative cheapness, durability, good heat engineering qualities, as well as rich artistic and expressive possibilities of wood brought this natural material to the first place in the construction of residential buildings. The fact that wooden buildings could be erected in a fairly short period of time also played an important role here. High-speed construction from wood in Russia was generally highly developed, which indicates a high level of organization of carpentry. It is known, for example, that even churches, the largest buildings in Russian villages, were sometimes erected "in one day", which is why they were called ordinary.

In addition, log houses could be easily disassembled, transported over a considerable distance, and put back in a new place. There were even special markets in the cities where pre-made log cabins and whole houses made of wood with all interior decoration were sold "for export". In winter, such houses were shipped straight from the sled, disassembled, and assembly and caulking took no more than two days. By the way, all the necessary building elements and parts of log houses were sold right there, on the market here you could buy pine logs for a residential block (the so-called "mansion"), and beams hewn into four edges, and a solid roofing board, and various boards " dining rooms "," shop ", for sheathing" insides "of the hut, as well as" joists ", piles, door frames. There were also household items on the market, with which the interior of a peasant hut was usually saturated: simple country furniture, tubs, boxes, small "chips" down to the smallest wooden spoon.

However, with all the positive qualities of wood, one of its very serious drawbacks - susceptibility to decay - made wooden structures relatively short-lived. Together with the fires, a real scourge of wooden buildings, it significantly reduced the life of a log house - a rare hut stood for more than a hundred years. That is why the conifers of pine and spruce have found the greatest application in housing construction, the resinousness and density of the wood of which provided the necessary resistance to decay. At the same time, in the North, larch was also used for the construction of a house, and in a number of regions of Siberia, a log house was assembled from strong and dense larch, all the interior decoration was made from Siberian cedar.

And yet the most widespread material for the construction of housing was pine, especially upland pine, or, as it was also called, "kondovaya". The log from it is heavy, straight, almost without knots and, according to the assurances of the carpenters, "does not keep dampness." In one of the orderly records for the construction of housing, concluded in the old days between the owner-customer and the performers-carpenters (and the word "orderly" comes from the Old Russian "row" contract), it was quite definitely emphasized: "... to carve a pine forest, kind, vigorous , smooth, awkward ... "

Timber was usually harvested in winter or early spring, while "the tree is asleep and the excess water has gone into the ground," while the logs can still be taken out by sledging. It is interesting that even now experts recommend logging for log houses in winter, when the wood is less prone to shrinkage, decay and warping. The material for the construction of housing was procured either by the future owners themselves, or by hired master carpenters in accordance with the necessary need "as needed", as noted in one of the ordinances. In the case of "self-procurement", this was done with the involvement of relatives and neighbors. This custom, which existed from ancient times in Russian villages, was called "help" ("cleanup"). The whole village usually gathered for cleanup. This is reflected in the proverb: "Whoever called for help, go yourself."

We selected trees very carefully, in a row, indiscriminately, did not chop down, took care of the forest. There was even such a sign: if you didn’t like the three woods from the arrival in the forest, do not cut it at all that day. Specific prohibitions on logging associated with popular beliefs were common and strictly followed. For example, felling trees in "sacred" groves, usually associated with a church or cemetery, was considered a sin; old trees could not be cut down - they had to die their own natural death. In addition, trees grown by man were not suitable for construction, and a tree that fell during felling "at midnight", that is, to the north, or hung in the crowns of other trees was not suitable - it was believed that in such a house, residents would face serious troubles, illnesses and even death.

Logs for the construction of a log house were usually selected with a thickness of about eight vershoks in diameter (35 cm), and for the lower rims of a log house - and thicker ones, up to ten vershoks (44 cm). Often the contract stated: "and do not bet less than seven vershoks." Let us note in passing that today the recommended diameter of a log for a chopped wall is 22 cm. The logs were taken out to the village and put into "fires", where they lay until spring, after which the trunks were sanded, that is, they removed, scraped off the thawed bark with a plow or a long scraper, which was an arcuate blade with two handles.

Tools of Russian carpenters:

1 - woodcutter ax,
2 - pot,
3 - carpenter's ax.

When processing scaffolding, we used different kinds axes. So, when cutting trees, a special wood-cutting ax with a narrow blade was used, in further work a carpenter's ax with a wide oval blade and the so-called "pot". In general, possession of an ax was obligatory for every peasant. "The ax is the head of the whole business," said the people. Without an ax, wonderful monuments of folk architecture would not have been created: wooden churches, bell towers, mills, huts. Without this simple and universal tool, many tools of peasant labor, details of rural life, and familiar household items would not have appeared. The skill of carpentry (that is, "pulling together" logs in a building) from a widespread and necessary craft has turned in Russia into a true art - carpentry.

In Russian chronicles we find not quite ordinary combinations - "cut down the church", "cut the mansions". And carpenters were often called "cutters". And the point here is that houses in the old days were not built, but "chopped", doing without a saw and nails. Although the saw was known in Russia since ancient times, it was usually not used when building a house - sawn logs and boards absorb moisture much faster and easier than chopped and hewn. The builders did not saw off, but chopped off the ends of the logs with an ax, since the sawn logs are "blown by the wind" - they crack, which means they are destroyed faster. In addition, when processing with an ax, the log from the ends seems to be "clogged" and rots less. Boards were made by hand from logs - notches were marked at the end of the log and along its entire length, wedges were driven into them and split into two halves, from which wide boards were hewn out. For this, a special ax with a wide blade and one-sided cut - "pot" was used. In general, the carpentry toolbox was quite extensive - here, along with axes and scrapers, special "adzes" for picking out grooves, chisels and cuttings for punching a hole in logs and beams, "lines" for drawing parallel lines were adjacent here.

Hiring carpenters to build a house, the owners specified in detail the most important requirements for the future construction, which was scrupulously noted in the orderly contract. First of all, the necessary qualities of the scaffold were recorded here, its diameter, processing methods, as well as the timing of the start of construction. Then a detailed description of the house that was to be built was given, the space-planning structure of the dwelling was illuminated, the dimensions of the main premises were regulated. "Give me a new hut," it is written in an old order, four fathoms without an elbow and from the corners "- that is, about six and a quarter meters, chopped" into a block ", with the remainder. Since no drawings were made during the construction of the house, in the contracts for the construction the vertical dimensions of the dwelling and its individual parts were determined by the number of crown-logs stacked in the frame - "and up to the hens there are twenty-three rows." The horizontal dimensions were regulated by the most commonly used long log - usually it was about three fathoms "between the corners" - about six and a half meters. Often in the ordinances, information was even given about individual architectural and structural elements and details: "to make doors on the jambs and windows on the jambs, as the owner commands to do." Sometimes, samples, analogs, examples from the immediate environment were directly named, focusing on which the masters had to do their work: "... but to make those rooms and canopy, and the porch, like Ivan Olferyev had, the small rooms at the gate were made." The entire document often ended with a disciplinary recommendation that instructed the craftsmen not to quit the work until it was completed, not to postpone or delay the construction that had been started: "And do not leave before finishing that mansion."

The beginning of the construction of a dwelling in Russia was associated with certain terms regulated by special rules. It was considered the best to start building a house by Lent (in early spring) and so that the construction process would include the feast of the Trinity in time, let us recall the proverb: "A house cannot be built without the Trinity." It was impossible to start construction on the so-called "difficult days" - on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, as well as Sunday. The time "when the month is filled" after the new moon was considered favorable for the beginning of construction.

The construction of the house was preceded by special and rather solemnly formalized rituals, which reflected the most important earthly and heavenly phenomena most significant for the peasant, the forces of nature acted in them in a symbolic form, various "local" deities were present. According to an old custom, when laying a house, money was put in the corners "to live richly", and inside the log house, in its middle or in the "red" corner, they put a freshly cut tree (birch, mountain ash or herringbone) and often hung an icon on it. This tree personified the "world tree", known to almost all peoples and ritually marking the "center of the world", symbolizing the idea of ​​growth, development, connection between the past (roots), present (trunk) and future (crown). It remained in the log house until the completion of the construction. Another interesting custom is associated with the designation of the corners of the future dwelling: in the supposed four corners of the hut, the owner poured four heaps of grain in the evening, and if the next morning the grain turned out to be intact, the place chosen for the construction of the house was considered good. If someone disturbed the grain, then they were usually wary of building on such a "dubious" place.

Throughout the construction of the house, one more custom, very ruinous for the future owners, was strictly adhered to, which, unfortunately, has not receded into the past and today is a rather frequent and abundant "treat" to carpenters who are building a house, with the aim of "appeasing" them. The construction process was repeatedly interrupted by "hand", "stowing", "matical", "rafter" and other feasts. Otherwise, the carpenters could take offense and do something wrong, or even just "play a trick" - to lay out the blockhouse so that "it will hum in the walls."

The structural basis of the log house was a four-coal log frame in terms of plan, consisting of horizontally stacked "crowns" logs. An important feature of this design is that during its natural shrinkage and subsequent settlement, the cracks between the crowns disappeared, the wall became denser and more monolithic. To ensure the horizontality of the rims of the frame, the logs were laid so that the butt ends alternated with the top ends, that is, thicker with those that are thinner. In order for the crowns to adhere well to each other, a longitudinal groove was selected in each of the adjacent logs. In the old days, the groove was made in the lower log, on its upper side, but since with this solution water got into the groove and the log quickly rotted, the groove began to be made on the lower side of the log. This technique has survived to this day.

a - "in oblo" with cups in the lower logs
b - "in oblo" with cups in the upper logs

In the corners, the frame was connected with special cuts, a kind of log "locks". Experts say that there were several dozen types and variants of cuttings in Russian wooden architecture. The most used were cuttings "in the field" and "in the paw". When felling "into the oblo" (that is, roundly) or "into a simple corner", the logs were connected in such a way that their ends protruded outward, beyond the frame, forming the so-called "remainder" that is why this technique was also called cutting with the remainder. The protruding ends well protected the corners of the hut from freezing. This method, one of the most ancient, was also called cutting "into a bowl", or "into a cup", since special recesses of the "cup" were chosen to fasten the logs in them. In the old days, the cups, like the longitudinal grooves in the logs, were cut out in the underlying log - this is the so-called "cutting into the lining", but later they began to use a more rational method with cutting in the upper log "into the overlay", or "into the hole", which is not allowed moisture to linger in the "lock" of the log house. Each cup was fitted exactly to the shape of the log it touched. This was necessary to ensure the tightness of the most important and most vulnerable to water and cold nodes of the frame - its corners.

Another widespread method of felling "in the paw" made it possible without a trace to increase the horizontal dimensions of the log house, and with them the area of ​​the log house, in comparison with the log cabin, since here the "lock" fastening the crowns was made at the very end of the log ... However, it was more difficult to execute, required high qualifications of carpenters, and therefore cost more than the traditional felling with the release of the ends of logs "corners". For this reason, and also due to the fact that cutting "in the field" took less time, the overwhelming majority of peasant houses in Russia were cut in this way.

The lower, "oklad" crown was often placed directly on the ground. In order to make this initial crown - "bottom" - less susceptible to rotting, and also in order to create a solid and reliable base for the house, the logs were selected for it thicker and more resinous. For example, in Siberia, larch was used for the lower rims - a very dense and rather durable wood material.

Often, large boulder stones were placed under the corners and in the middle of the foundation crowns, or scraps of thick logs were dug into the ground - "chairs", which were treated with resin or burned to protect them from decay. Sometimes, for this purpose, thick blocks or "paws" were used - uprooted stumps set down by the roots. During the construction of the dwelling hut, they tried to lay the logs so that the lower crown was tightly adjacent to the ground, often even slightly sprinkled with earth "for warmth". After the completion of the "hut salary" - the laying of the first crown, the assembly of the house "on the moss" began, in which the grooves of the log house for greater tightness were laid with a "woodworm" tattered in the lowlands and dried with bog moss - this was called "rubbing" the log house. It happened that for greater strength the moss was "curled" by tows - combed out with flax and hemp fibers. But since, while drying out, the moss nevertheless crumbled, at a later time they began to use tow for this purpose. And even now, experts recommend caulking the seams between the logs of a chopped house with tow for the first time during the construction process and then again, after a year and a half, when the final shrinkage of the log house occurs.

Under the residential part of the house, either a low underground was arranged, or the so-called "basement" or "podzbitu" - a basement that differed from the underground in that it was rather high, did not go deep, as a rule, into the ground and had a direct exit to the outside through a low door. Putting the hut on the basement, the owner protected it from the cold coming from the ground, protected the residential part and the entrance to the house from snow drifts in winter and floods in spring, created additional utility and utility rooms right under the dwelling. A pantry was usually arranged in the basement; it often served as a cellar. Other utility rooms were also equipped in the pod, for example, in areas where handicrafts were developed, a small workshop could be located in the basement. They also kept small livestock or poultry in the basement. Sometimes the podzbit was also used for housing. There were even two-story, or "two-core" huts for two "living quarters". But still, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the basement was a non-residential, utility floor, and they lived in a dry and warm "top", raised above the cold, damp ground. This method of placing the residential part of the house on a high basement was most widespread in the northern regions, where very harsh climatic conditions required additional insulation of residential premises and reliable and isolation from the frozen ground, while in the middle lane they often arranged a low and convenient underground for storing food.

After completing the equipment of the basement or underground, work began on the construction of the floor of the hut. To do this, first of all, they cut into the walls of the house "joists" - rather powerful beams on which the floor rested. As a rule, they were made four or less often three, placing two huts parallel to the main facade at the walls and two or one in the middle. To keep the floor warm and not ventilated, it was made double. The so-called "black" floor was laid directly on the joists, collecting it from a thick slab with humps up, or a log roll, and covered "for warmth" with a layer of earth. A clean floor of wide planks was laid on top.

Moreover, such a double, insulated floor was made, as a rule, over a cold basement-basement, a podzbit, and over the underground, a regular, single floor was arranged, which facilitated the penetration of heat from the living quarters into the underground, where vegetables and various products were stored. The boards of the upper, "clean" floor were tightly fitted to each other.

Male roof construction:

1 - stupid (shell)
2 - towel (anemone)
3 - mooring
4 - eyelet
5 - red window
6 - drag window
7 - stream
8 - chicken
9 - slag
10 - tes

Usually, the floorboards were laid along the line of the window entrance, from the front door to the living quarters to the main facade of the hut, explaining this by the fact that with this arrangement, the floorboards are less destroyed, less chipped around the edges and last longer than with a different layout. In addition, according to the peasants, such a floor is more convenient than revenge.

The number of interfloor ceilings - "bridges" in the erected house was determined in the order: "... yes, in the same rooms inside, pave three bridges each." The laying of the walls of the hut was completed by installing at the same height where they were going to make the ceiling of the "skull" or "bending" crown, in which the ceiling beam - "matitsa" was cut in. Its location was also often noted in ordinal records: "and put that hut on the seventeenth matitsa".

Great importance was attached to the strength and reliability of the base matrix - the base of the ceiling. The people even said: "A thin womb is everything - the house is in turmoil." The installation of the mat was a very important moment in the process of building the house, it ended with the assembly of the log house, after which the construction entered the final phase. Laying the floor and installing the roof. That is why the laying of the mat was accompanied by special ceremonies and another "matical" treat for the carpenters. Often the carpenters themselves reminded the "forgetful" owners of this: installing the mat, they shouted: "the womb is bursting, it does not go", and the owners were invited to arrange a feast. Sometimes, raising the matitsa, a cake baked for the occasion was tied to it.

Matitsa was a powerful four-sided beam, on which thick boards or humpbacks were laid, placed flat downwards. In order to prevent the mother from sagging under the weight, the lower side was often cut along a curve. It is curious that this technique is still used today in the construction of log houses - this is called "to hew out the building lift". Having finished laying the ceiling - "podvoloki", they tied the frame under the roof, laying on top of the skull crown also "stupid" or "okhlobutny" logs, which were used to fix the ceilings.

In the Russian folk dwelling, functional, practical and artistic issues were closely interrelated, one complemented and followed from the other. The fusion of "benefit" and "beauty" in the house, the inseparability of constructive and apxitectural and artistic solutions manifested themselves with particular force in the organization of the completion of the hut. By the way, it was at the end of the house that folk craftsmen saw the main and main beauty of the entire building. The design and decoration of the roof of a peasant house still amaze with the unity of practical and aesthetic aspects.

Surprisingly simple, logical and artistically expressive is the construction of the so-called nailless male roof - one of the most ancient, which is most widespread in the northern regions of Russia. It was supported by the log gables of the end walls of the house - "zalobniki". After the upper, "stupid" crown of the felling, the logs of the main and rear facades of the hut were gradually shortened, rising to the very top of the ridge. These logs were called "males" because they stood "by themselves." Long log slopes were cut into the triangles of the opposite gables of the house, "which was the base of the roof with a" lath. "

Natural hooks - "hens" - uprooted and hewn trunks of young spruces were attached to the lower slopes. They were called "hens" because the craftsmen gave their bent ends the shape of a bird's head. Chickens supported special troughs for water drainage "streams", or "water streams" - hollowed out along the entire length of the log. The gaps of the roof rested against them, which were laid along the slabs-purlins. Usually the roof was double, with a lining of birch bark - "rock", well protected from moisture penetration.

In the ridge of the roof, on the upper ends of the roof gaps, they "pressed" a "shell" - a massive trough-shaped log, the end of which went out onto the main facade, crowning the entire building. This heavy log, also called "okhlupnem" (from the ancient name of the roof "okhlop"), clamped the gaps, keeping them from being blown away by the wind. The front, butt end of the ochlupnya was usually made in the form of a horse's head (hence the "horse") or, more rarely, a bird. In the northernmost regions, the silkworm was sometimes shaped like a deer's head, often with genuine deer antlers on it. Thanks to their developed plasticity, these sculptural images were well "read" against the sky and were visible from afar.

To maintain the wide overhang of the roof from the side of the main facade of the hut, an interesting and ingenious constructive technique was used - the successive lengthening of the ends of the upper rims that extend beyond the frame. At the same time, powerful brackets were obtained, on which the front part of the roof rested. Protruding far ahead from the log wall of the house, such a roof reliably protected the crowns of the log house from rain and snow. The brackets that supported the roof were called "outlets", "supports" or "fellings". Usually, a porch was arranged on the same brackets-outlets, bypass galleries - "gulbis" were laid, balconies were equipped. Powerful log outlets, decorated with laconic carvings, enriched the austere appearance of the peasant house, giving it even greater monumentality.

In a new, later type of Russian peasant dwelling, which became widespread, mainly in the regions of the middle lane, the roof already had a covering on the rafters, while the log pediment with males was replaced by plank filling. With such a solution, the sharp transition from the plastically saturated rough-textured surface of the log frame to the flat and smooth plank pediment, being tectonically quite justified, nevertheless did not look compositionally inexpressive, and the carpenters planted it to cover it with a rather wide frontal board, richly decorated with carved ornaments. Subsequently, a frieze developed from this board, which went around the entire building. It should be noted, however, that in this type of peasant house, some of the earlier constructions also survived for quite a long time, with brackets decorated with simple carvings, and carved moorings with "towels". This determined mainly the repetition of the traditional scheme of distribution of carved decorative decorations on the main facade of the dwelling.

Erecting a log house, creating a traditional hut, Russian carpenters for centuries have discovered, mastered and improved specific methods of wood processing, gradually developed strong, reliable and artistically expressive architectural and structural units, original and unique details. At the same time, they fully used the positive qualities of wood, skillfully identifying and revealing its unique capabilities in their buildings, emphasizing in every possible way its natural origin. This further contributed to the consistent entry of buildings into the natural environment, the harmonious fusion of man-made structures with pristine, untouched nature.

The main elements of the Russian hut are surprisingly simple and organic, their form is logical and beautifully "traced", they accurately and fully express the "work" wooden log, log cabins, roofs of the house. Benefit and beauty merge here into a single and indivisible whole. The expediency, the practical necessity of anyone did it clearly in their strict plasticity, laconic decor, in the general structural completeness of the entire building.

Ingenuous and truthful and general constructive solution a peasant house - a powerful and reliable log wall; large, solid cuts in the corners; small windows decorated with trims and shutters; a wide roof with an intricate ridge and carved moorings, as well as a porch and a balcony, that's, it would seem, that's all. But how much latent tension is in this simple structure, how much strength is in the tight joints of the logs, how firmly they "hold" each other! For centuries, this ordered simplicity has been isolated, crystallized, this is the only possible structure, reliable and captivating with the skeptical purity of lines and forms, harmonious and close to the surrounding nature.

Calm confidence emanates from simple Russian huts, soundly and thoroughly they settled in their native land. When you look at the buildings of the old Russian villages that have darkened with time, the feeling that they, once created by man and for man, lives at the same time some kind of separate life, closely connected with the life of the surrounding nature - they are so close to that place where they were born. Living warmth of their walls, laconic silhouette, strict monumentality of proportional relations, some kind of "non-artificiality" of their entire appearance make these buildings an integral and organic part of the surrounding forests and fields, of everything that we call Russia.

More than once I heard about noble estates and stables, where they made warm floors and walls. They passed channels from the stoves, where warm air passed. But I see this option for the first time.

I found this technology on the blog of Gleb Tyurin, the author is the owner of the house Elena Bukovskaya

Our family inherited a grandmother's Voronezh region... 10 years ago, at a family council, they decided not to leave the house, to put it in order as much as possible.
At the house - an allotment of land, 50 acres of Voronezh chernozem, a vegetable garden, a garden, a mowing.
The house has never regretted the decision and the garden never ceases to delight and amaze us and our friends who come from Moscow “just to sleep off and catch their breath, remember the taste of“ potatoes and apples ”.
Thanks to deep pruning in 2008, the garden survived the drought of 2009, 2010, 2011, and last summer even old apple trees, trunks with a diameter of 50 cm, all in hollows that were “silent” for 10 years, gave an excellent harvest. Jam from Antonovka, cooked in cast iron on pear coals, has no equal!
And our house allows us to make a lot of discoveries.
The house of grandmother and grandfather is built of oak logs, the walls on the outside and inside are smeared with clay and straw, on the outside they are sheathed with iron (they brought galvanized troughs from the Urals, dismantled and covered the walls and roofs - believe me, this “siding” stood for 60 years!
The house is an environmentally friendly thermos that keeps warm in winter and wonderful coolness on hot days.
An example of a wonderful old technology would be the wattle fence,



In August, the floors in the house were repaired, and a sample of energy-saving technologies of the early 19th century was revealed to us - at a distance of 1 meter from the dam along the perimeter of the entire room, a fence 50-60 cm high was laid out, smeared with clay from the outside, with an open corner facing the Russian stove - to us told that such "reflectors" were done to "drive" the heat from the stove under the floor and keep it there - what is not a kind of floor heating? Without a single nail, only natural materials - clay, sand, straw, vine - and hands!


The Russian stove stands in the corner farthest from the windows, on an adobe foundation. The perimeter of the wattle fence opens about 1.5 meters near the furnace, just at the level of the foundation. With constant use of the stove, the foundation gradually warmed up and gave off heat. Under the floor between the wall and the fence, everything is really covered with earth, and an air cushion is left inside the fence - an empty space between the floorboards and the ground, where the warm air "flowed" from the foundation. We learned this from the stories of the old-timers. We are restoring the Russian stove, the floor has already been moved, we will be happy to inform you how the technology will be tested.

We need to re-learn how to live with respect for nature, then it will not remain in debt either ...

Prospects and tasks of its further development
In the distant times of human history, the first primitive wooden dwellings and defensive structures were erected directly on the surface of the soil. With the beginning of the use of stone as a building material, the lower part of the structure began to be buried below the surface of the soil in order to protect it from soaking by atmospheric precipitation and to prevent the associated softening of the soil and the appearance of possible distortions, sediment and damage to the structure. This is how shallow foundations arose, arranged on a natural foundation. If the bearing layer of soil lay at a considerable depth, the foundations were erected using the simplest drop wells made of masonry. In the construction of bridges across rivers, where soil erosion at the supports is possible, foundations of wooden piles buried in the bottom of the channel were used.

Thus, until the 19th century. the structures were erected on natural foundations, pile foundations and sink wells.

New types and designs of foundations began to appear in the 19th century. In 1841, the French engineer Trichet proposed a caisson method for constructing mine shafts in water-saturated soils. In 1856, Russian engineers first used this method to build foundations for the supports of the bridge across the river. Neman in the city of Kovno. Subsequently, this method was significantly improved and caisson foundations were widely used in the construction of large bridges. In 1836, the English engineer Mitchell proposed metal screw instead of driven wooden piles. However, then this type did not become widespread. In 1897, the engineer Gennebik proposed driven solid sections, which are now widely used both in our country and abroad. In 1899, the Russian engineer Straus developed a method for the manufacture of concrete rammed piles, which, with various improvements, is now widely used in construction practice.

After the end of World War II, when it was required to restore in a short time a large number of destroyed bridges, instead of caisson foundations, foundations from steel pipes loose piles filled. Later, in order to reduce the consumption of extremely scarce steel pipes, they began to be replaced with reinforced concrete piles and shells. Reinforced concrete shells have become especially widespread in our country since 1958, when the necessary equipment was created and the technology for erecting foundations of a new type was developed. Over the past decades, many bridges, flyovers and berthing facilities have been built using shells up to 5 m in diameter.

In parallel with this, domestic bridge builders use foundations from bored piles up to 1.7 m in diameter and with a widened fifth diameter up to 3.5 m. Dozens of large bridges have been built with such foundations.

For a long time, the technology of foundation engineering has developed on the basis of the use of one practical experience. New structures were built by analogy with the most successful previously implemented structures. Only from the second half of the XIX v. Foundation engineering receives a scientific basis, in the development of which domestic scientists V.M. Karlovich, V.I. Kurdyumov, P.A.Minaev and others played a significant role.

Especially great successes in the field of foundation engineering have been achieved in our country after the Great October Socialist Revolution. Thanks to the work of a whole galaxy of talented scientists and engineers, among whom we should note professors N.P. Puzyrevsky, N.M. Gersevanov, V.A.Florin, V.K.Dmohovsky, B.D. Vasiliev, E.L. N. Ya. Denisov, A. A. Luga, N. A. Tsytovich, the Soviet foundation building took one of the leading places in the world.

Further technical progress in foundation engineering, as in all other sectors of construction, is inextricably linked with the need for rapid development and improvement of the construction industry.

The solution of the problem of industrialization of construction and the related tasks of maximizing labor productivity, reducing costs and reducing the time of work is possible only with the widespread introduction of new progressive structures and methods of work, ensuring more efficient use of materials, the use of prefabricated reinforced concrete and complex mechanization technological processes... In the field of foundation engineering, these tasks are complemented by the need to improve working conditions and, in this regard, to minimize the use of labor-intensive and expensive caisson work, which is harmful to the health of workers. These requirements are best met by the currently widely used deep pile foundations. different types and precast concrete shells.

The generalization and analysis of the experience of building bridges and other structures in recent years show that, despite the successes achieved in the use of foundations from piles, shells and pillars, there are still significant reserves for further increasing their economic efficiency.

Among the priority tasks in the field of foundation engineering are:
1) improvement of methods and norms for calculating foundations in order to increase the degree of use of the strength properties of soils and foundation materials;
2) development of structures of foundations and load-bearing elements with the maximum use of their bearing capacity in terms of material strength;
3) development of high-performance methods of manufacturing and immersion in the ground of bearing elements of foundations; 4) creation of highly efficient technological equipment and mechanisms for the construction of foundations.

Hello dear readers!

She warned that Montferrand would certainly be remembered: o)

“Buildings placed under a building and not bringing any immediate benefit, but intended only to take on the entire load of the building and to transfer it to the mainland, are called the foundation of the building.
It consists of two parts:
1.reinforcing the sole of the building
2. the foundation.
The foundation is the lower part of the structure, extending below the surface of the earth until it meets the earth layer, which is able to resist the pressure produced by the load of the structure.
The upper surface of the soil in contact with the lower surface of the foundation, the surface over which the pressure of the foundation is transferred to the ground, is called the foot of the building. " (Krasovsky A. "Civil architecture. Parts of buildings. 1886)

Since we are talking about how the monument to Alexander II was built in the very late XIX century, then in order to understand the complexity of the engineering problem solved by the architects for the construction of the foundation of the monument, I will cite the previous experience of construction in Russia.

A look from our time:

“As a rule, there is no information about the construction of foundations and, moreover, about their technical condition, in historical drawings. Architects of the past centuries, with rare exceptions, did not depict the foundations in the drawings. The purpose of the structure, materials, basic dimensions of the foundations was the prerogative of the contractor, who relied on a century-old tradition and his own experience. The quality of the foundations largely depended on the decency of the contractor as a professional. The type of foundation was determined by the mass of the building, the soil conditions of the site, about which there was not always sufficient information, and a set of local materials.

For these reasons, until the 60s of the 20th century, it was technically impossible to provide buildings with a non-settling foundation, since wooden piles could not be longer than 12 m. The example of St. Isaac's Cathedral confirms what has been said. It is known that this building, approximately 100x100 m in plan dimensions, weighing about 3,000,000 kN, was built on a foundation consisting of 24,000 wooden piles and a solid slab of natural stone buried 5 m into the ground. The costs of this foundation were very high. : according to the estimates available in the archive, they accounted for 10% of the costs (2 million rubles in silver). Despite this, the settlement of the building exceeded 1 m, the difference in the settlement, expressed in the form of a tilt of the floors of the building, reached almost 40 cm
The deterioration of the underground structures of buildings was also facilitated by such factors as the uncontrolled growth of the cultural layer, a high level of groundwater and the forces of frost heaving of soils, vibrations caused by transport loads, construction, industry.
During the first 100-120 years from the day the city was founded, the foundations of the "state" buildings were built especially carefully. In trenches dug under strip foundations load-bearing walls, walls were hammered in wooden piles, on top of which foundations were laid. This is how the foundations of the walls of the Peter and Paul Fortress, Peter and Paul Cathedral, Rostral Columns, Alexander Column, St. Isaac's Cathedral, and many others were built. Some buildings (for example, the Winter Palace, the New Hermitage) were built on solid slabs…

All sorts of fictions with "bewilderment" are still being published about St. Isaac's Cathedral. Therefore, I give a description of its foundation from the book 1869 year of publication

from which there will be more quotes below: o) https: //neb.rf/catalog/00...

Along the way, I will inform everyone who is not yet aware that construction drawings of the early 19th century(that is, the time of the construction of St. Isaac's Cathedral and the construction of the Alexander Column) were significantly different from the drawings of our time... Therefore, before declaring that what Montferrand published in his albums are not drawings, I ask you to familiarize yourself with other drawings of the same time. So, before you is a drawing from the book " Practical drawings for the construction of the Church of the Presentation of the Most Holy Theotokos in the Temple in the Semenovsky Regiment c. St. Petersburg, compiled and executed by the architect professor of the Academy of Arts ... Konstantin Ton "The tone of K.A. 1845 g.

Here you can find out that the base was strengthened (compacted) by driving piles, on top of which a rubble grillage was arranged. (remember Isaac). The drawing has a scale ruler, a drawing of a pile driver. Compare with Montferrand's drawing. Alexander Column:

Saint Isaac's Cathedral

Along the way, we can also compare the drawings of the domes made by Ton

and Montferrand

As you can see, attention is paid to the base and the structure of the foundation. In this book, we also find the same blueprints as those of Montferrand. That is, when one of you suddenly wants to declare that there are no drawings for the construction of St. Isaac's Cathedral, remember that first you need to get acquainted with what the drawings of the beginning and middle of the XIX century were, so as not to "see a fig in the book":O))).

Reading the book of the adjunct professor Karlovich, one can be convinced that at the end of the 19th century, engineers in Russia accumulated a lot of experience in building structures, developed a method for calculating structures, methods for determining the mechanical characteristics of soils and building materials. Therefore, when I came across a drawing of the foundation of the monument to Alexander II, I realized that it was necessary to write about its construction separately.

The architect of the monument N. Sultanov says:

“In pursuance of the Highest command, from June 20, 1890, the Committee began the construction of temporary structures for the construction of the monument and earthworks at the site of the future foundation. Start earthworks, as we have already said, revealed the presence of the foundations of ancient buildings, as well as the remains of ancient cemeteries. This circumstance immediately made it necessary to replace ordinary earthworks with correct archaeological excavations, which made it possible to acquire many precious remains of antiquity. Excavations continued throughout the summer of 1890, and the excavation was carried out to a depth of 2 fathoms, that is, to the bottom of the ancient foundations. The area occupied by the excavation was about 60 fathoms long and about 20 fathoms wide, or approximately 1,200 square meters. fathom ... "

A little about the history of the demolition of the Kremlin buildings and orders, the remains of which were found at the construction site of the monument to Alexander II.

Bartenev"The Grand Kremlin Palace, palace churches and court cathedrals" https: //neb.rf/catalog/00...

In the spring of 1891, earthworks were resumed and continued until August, and were carried out first to the level of the horizon of the lower Kremlin garden, and after a winter break, by the beginning of spring 1892, they were brought to the horizon, lying 4 arshins below the level of the Kremlin garden, and the mainland was found , quite reliable and suitable for the base of the foundation of the side parts. monument. This duration of excavation work was due to the fact that it was necessary to take out more than 6, 5 thousand cubic meters of land. fathoms and fold it on top of the mountain, therefore raising it to a height of 8 fathoms. "

The deeper the excavation, the clearer it became that it was necessary to finalize the project of the monument, for “ ... it turned out that if the monument was erected as it is shown in the general plan, presented together with the model for the Highest approval in May 1890, then only the back wall of the monument would stand on good ground, while the middle part (the foundation in the shade) would stand on only half of it, and the front wall of the monument, which is closest to the river, will have to be on alluvial, useless soil, and will require a very deep and complex foundation, which is extremely expensive. All this required Highest approval or permission ... «

When the sketches of the statue were ready, the modified model and sections of the monument and soil were presented to the emperor for examination. The emperor was notified of the difficulties, and after examining everything in detail, he deigned to permit: So that all the walls of the monument stood on a good mainland, push it into the depths of the mountain by four sazhens, and cut off the resulting extra part of the slope of the mountain and round it off from the sides. ... Thus, the misunderstandings that arose were resolved, and it was possible to proceed with the further production of work. The approved sketch of the statue and the modified model of the monument were kept in the office building throughout its construction, and the dismantling of the office was transferred for temporary storage to the Historical Museum.

“The monument to Alexander Ivanovich II, both in terms of its design and in its considerable height - thirty-one fathoms from the base of the caisson to the top of the eagle - is a very complex structure. There are three distinctly distinct parts in it:
1) Base and foundations.
2) The foot of the monument or terrace, and
3) Superstructure, i.e. galleries, entrances and middle canopy.
For the sake of clarity, we will consider each part separately.
a) Base and foundations.
By the end of August 1891, the excavation was brought to the level of the lower Kremlin garden and stopped there. It was impossible to continue further, because, in view of the coming autumn time, it was too late to start the foundations, and, as we have already said, it was necessary to leave a free runoff for the spring waters. If the bottom of the excavation were below the Kremlin Garden, then the spring waters would fill it and loosen the mainland, which could cause a useless deepening of the excavation. In addition, it was necessary to drill for the final selection of the foundation system.

(quotes from Karlovich's book)

The foundation of the monument could be located in two ways: either by large ledges corresponding to the slope; or on one horizontal square, cutting into the interior of the mountain.
The first device would be much cheaper, the second incomparably more reliable. In addition, the study of the foundations of open ancient buildings showed the following: all the transverse walls, perpendicular to the ridge of the mountain, were torn across, and the longitudinal wall extreme to the ridge had a deviation with the upper end outward. All this showed that the component parts of the mountain could not withstand the load of even relatively low buildings and slid down under their pressure. These observations made it clear back in the fall of 1890, that is, immediately after the archaeological excavations, that the yielding position of the foundations was unthinkable and gave the contractors the determination to excavate the next year to the level of the lower garden, in order to place the foundation of all parts on the same horizon, regardless of the choice grounds.
When the bottom of the excavation opened in August 1891, it appeared to be quite diverse in its composition: the entire southern part, facing the foot of the slope of the mountain, consisted of saturated soil, in places completely black; the other half, facing inward of the mountain, was mostly yellow sand, and in some places white or red. It was obvious that it became impossible to substantiate the base of the foundation on this surface, since in this case a good half of the structure would fall on the alluvial highly compressible soil. In addition, the heterogeneous composition of the bottom surface of the excavation turned into a complete puzzle the answer to the most important question: what layers of soil lie below this surface?

The only way to resolve this issue was the production of drilling, which was entrusted, according to the choice of the contractors and the invitation of the Committee, to engineer NI Zimin. Drilling holes were laid in nine places: four at the corners of the area of ​​the future monument, one in the middle and four at the ends of two mutually perpendicular diameters. Thus, wells No. 1, 2 and 3 were located on the southern side of the monument; No. 4, 5 and 6 along its middle transverse axis and No. 7,8,9 in its northern part. Drilling gave the following results, located by wells

All these wells were brought to a level below the horizon of the Moskva River by 0.565 fathoms and 7.2 from the upper edge of the cut. The drilling results combined in three profiles gave a clear picture of the underlying soil layers. In general, as can be seen from Fig. 147-149), they represent the following layering:
1) Below is a mountain limestone, almost horizontal in the left profile, uplifted at the northern end in the middle profile and rising at the southern end in the right profile (VII).
2) Above it is a thick layer of white clay with the level of lower, stronger groundwater (VI-V).
3) Above it, there is a relatively thin layer of red clay (IV).
4) Above all this, there is a very thick layer of dissimilar sand with a level of weaker upper groundwater (I-III).

The sand surface to the left of the middle borehole was horizontal, and to the right of it rapidly sloped downward, probably following the former natural slope of the hill towards the river; over this sloping part lay a black bulk layer of earth, which was evidently formed by historical layering. Thus, half of the structure fell on the alluvial soil. To avoid this unpleasant historical condition, it was necessary to move it further into the depths of the mountain, so that the foot of the foundations of its outer walls fell on the sandy continent, which, as we have already said, was followed by the Highest permission. "

(to be continued)

Photo. 1. Foundation in the form of wooden piles.

The first foundations in history.

The first residential buildings in the history of mankind had, as a rule, the shape of a hemisphere with the usual diameter of 3 ... 6 m. Freshly cut rods were pressed by hand in a circle into the ground, their tops were bent to the center and tied with a vine, then covered with leaves, laying them on top of each other like a tile. Later, such huts, round and rectangular in plan, were raised above the ground to a small height on wooden piles (for safety). The first foundations in history were in the form of wooden piles.

The use of foundations based on earth foundations began in antiquity, when people learned to build more capital and heavy dwellings and other structures. Even then, the builders knew that the better the foundation, the better the structures resist the influence of external forces. The first builders supported heavy structures on solid rock. So, the builders of the Cheops pyramid used as a base a low hill, at the top of which there was a completely exposed rock. They leveled the surface of the rock and laid on it a solid bed of three-ton blocks of limestone in the form of a square with a side of 225 m.On this pillow was erected a pyramid weighing 7 million tons and a height of 144 m, which stood for 5000 years without any deformation.

The builders of Babylon, when building a city in a less durable alluvial valley, first made a continuous bedding of soil with a height of 1.5 to 4.5 m and up to 1.5 km in diameter. Under each structure, they arranged a cushion of sun-dried and baked bricks bound together with bituminous materials. On such pillows 0.9 ... 1.2 m thick, they built city walls, temples and public buildings. To prevent uneven settlement of heavy stone structures on soft ground foundations, builders divided the structures into separate parts of such rigidity that allowed them to undergo different settlements without damage. Blocks adjoining each other were connected vertically into a tongue, which did not interfere with separate draft, ensured tight contact and did not allow independent rotation of the blocks. In ancient Greece and China, buildings were supported on cushions made of cut stone.

The ancient Romans built structures in different countries, so they adapted the foundations to different soil conditions: in soft soils they used wooden piles, on denser soils they laid wooden grillages directly on the surface of the soil, and then they erected stone structures on them. Sometimes the foundations were erected from flat stones, held together with cement or lime mortar. Apparently, this was the earliest experience in the construction of rubble concrete foundations. The foundations for the temples were continuous stone walls under each line of columns. When designing these foundations, the rule was that their width should be 1.5 times the diameter of the widest part of the column, unless the soil was so weak that the use of piles was required. The density of the soil was assessed by the builders "by eye". The Maya people in Yucatan (circa AD 200) used solid slab foundations. A layer of stones 0.3 ... 0.6 m in size was laid on the leveled area.Then smaller stones and lime mortar were laid on the large stones to obtain a solid slab 0.9 ... 1.2 m thick. The slab simultaneously served as a foundation for building walls and flooring for indoor use.

Medieval foundations.

In the Middle Ages, the foundations were still arranged in the form of solid stone cushions, laid with bandaging the seams on the leveled ground surface. When Gothic architecture required the construction of walls and columns with a large pitch, solid slabs began to be divided into separate foundations. Apparently, there were no special rules for their design. If the underlying soil was solid, then the foundation was made the same width as the structure supported by it. If the soil was soft, then the foundations expanded and protruded beyond the columns or walls that supported them. The dimensions of these foundations have rarely been associated with column loads; usually they were determined by the available space or the shape of the columns or walls that supported them. If failure occurred, then the corresponding structure was increased until it could withstand the load. In weak soils, pillows of brushwood tens of centimeters thick were arranged: then the masonry of the foundations rested on them.

Construction of ever taller and heavier structures at the end of the 19th century. in many cases caused difficulties in the construction of foundations and aroused interest in the problem of their design. A requirement arose: during the construction of stepped stone foundations, for each foot of widening outside the column or wall, it is necessary to make an additional deepening of the foundation by I foot. Therefore, the foundations became wider under heavier loads; at the same time they became deeper and heavier. As a result, the weight of the foundations began to account for most of the load from the structure. Therefore, to lighten the foundations in the XIX century. tried to use reverse arches to distribute the load. Reducing the weight of foundations was achieved by using grillages from rows of wooden or steel beams, with each row being laid at right angles to the row below. Such grillages were first used in the 80s. XIX century. in Chicago (USA). They made it possible to make foundations protruding 3 m beyond the columns at a depth of only about 1 m. The spread of reinforced concrete at the beginning of the XX century. allowed to get the same result at a lower cost.

Significant progress in understanding the “behavior” of foundations has been in the notion that the area of ​​the foundation should be proportional to the load and that the center of gravity of the load should be above the center of gravity of the foundation. This idea, first published by F. Bauman in the USA in 1873, was used by designers for many years. Significant precipitation and isolated cases of destruction of foundations at the end of the 19th century. forced engineers to reconsider design methods: for the first time, they began to indicate in projects the maximum allowable pressure from the foundation on soils of various types and test soils with a test load to determine their bearing capacity.

Foundations in Ancient Rus.

In Ancient Russia during the early Middle Ages, the main building material there was a tree. Stone construction began to develop in the 10th century, mainly during the construction of fortifications, temples and monasteries. It is known, for example, the widespread use of stone during reconstruction at the end of the 10th century. Kiev fortifications, erected on solid massive foundations. Stone and brick were especially widely used in 1485-1495. during the construction of the walls of the Moscow Kremlin to replace the old wooden ones, the first construction of which from wood by Yuri Dolgoruky dates back to 1156. Similar construction of kremlin and other structures of stone and brick was carried out in the 16th-17th centuries. in many Russian cities.

Since ancient times, the issues of the construction of foundations and the choice of solid soils as the basis for them have always been of great importance. The famous Roman architect and military engineer under Julius Caesar Vitruvius in his works "Ten Books on Architecture", written even in the 1st century. BC, gives a number of practical instructions on the construction of foundations: For foundations ... you need to dig a ditch to the mainland, if you can reach it, and in the mainland itself, to a depth corresponding to the volume of the building being erected, and withdraw but the entire bottom the most solid masonry ... If it is impossible to get to the bottom of the mainland and the ground in place will be alluvial or swampy to the very depths, it is necessary to dig this place, empty and hammer in alder, oil or oak piles and drive them in with machines as closely as possible, and the gaps between fill them with coal, and then lay out the most solid foundation as possible. "

The outstanding Italian architect and builder A. Palladio in his treatise "Four Books on Architecture" (1570) wrote: ... of all the mistakes occurring in the building, the most pernicious are those that relate to the foundation, as they entail death the whole building and are corrected only with the greatest difficulty .... He recommended to lay foundations in solid soil to a depth equal to 1/6 of the building's height, and in soft soils to use oak piles and drive them to "good and strong ground." If this is not possible, then you should use piles one-eighth of the height of the wall and a thickness of a twelfth of its length "and" put them so closely that there is no room between them for others, and hammer in with frequent blows rather than heavy, in order to so that the earth beneath them settles down more densely and holds better. * Piles at different periods of time were constantly used in construction. In Lake Lucerne (Switzerland), piles were discovered, on which prehistoric dwellings rested. Caesar built a bridge on piles across the river. Rhine. Ancient builders hammered these piles with hand wooden sledgehammers, hand overhead hammers, pile drivers with hand winches, or used the power of water wheels. Modern methods pile driving arose after the appearance of steam pile hammers in 1885. * Laletin N.V. Foundations and foundations / N.V. Laletin. M.: Higher. shk., 1964.

As the height and capital of buildings and structures increased, the loads on the foundations increased, the manifestation of deformations and cases of destruction increased interest in the design of more reliable foundations and foundations, and the first studies began. In 1773, the French scientist C. Coulomb proposed a solution to the problem of the shear resistance of soils and their pressure on retaining walls, which is still used today. In 1801, the Russian academician N.I. Fuss, studying the formation of a track on dirt roads, first expressed the idea of ​​a proportional dependence of soil deformation on the load. He believed that these deformations are residual and occur only within the area of ​​the load. The same proposal was made in 1867 by E. Winkler, who considered the deformations of the soil to be elastic and introduced the proportionality coefficient to determine their value, which was then called the bedding coefficient. A major event was the creation of K. Terzaga soil mechanics, described in 1925 in the monograph "Structural soil mechanics". This was the first analysis of the behavior of soils under load.

Domestic scientists and engineers have made a valuable contribution to the development of science and technology of foundation engineering. In 1899, engineer A. N. Lentovsky first used reinforced concrete for the construction of reinforced concrete caissons. In the same year, engineer A.E. Straus invented and for the first time introduced into the practice of construction concrete rammed piles in boreholes and rammed reinforced concrete piles. A significant contribution to the development of foundation engineering as a scientific discipline was made by the famous Russian scientist V.I. Outstanding Russian scientist N.M. Gersevanov major works on various problems of soil mechanics. In 1917, he published a formula for determining the resistance of piles from the results of dynamic tests. The largest specialist in this field, V.K.Dmokhovsky, has done a lot for the development of domestic foundation engineering. The works of G.I. Pokrovsky (a statistical method for solving problems in soil mechanics) are widely known. An outstanding contribution to science was the solution of the problem of calculating the strength of natural foundations, proposed by N.P. Puzyrevsky in 1923. The study of the properties of permafrost is most fruitfully presented in the works of V.A.Obruchev, M.I.Sumgin. N.A.Tsytovich and other scientists. Works by V.A.Florin are known in a number of areas of foundation structure. V. V. Sokolovsky. D. D. Barkan, monographs by B. I. Dalmatov, B. D. Vasiliev. E.A. Sorochana, N.V. Laletina and others.

For scientific work in the field of foundation engineering, the All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Foundations of Structures (now the Scientific Research Institute of Foundations and Underground Structures (NIIOSP)) was established in 1931. Numerous outstanding solutions for foundations belong to domestic scientists and designers: the box-shaped foundation of the Moscow State University building, the shallow foundation of the Ostankino TV tower (by the outstanding engineer N.V. Nikitin), pile foundations for the development of territories with permafrost soils while maintaining their condition, foundations in a rammed bed, shell piles, etc. In world practice, original solutions of reinforced concrete foundations in the form of shells for tower-type structures, for high-rise civil and frame industrial buildings are known; created various layers of prestressed foundations, "floating" foundations, etc.

But the actual work of reinforced concrete foundations has been insufficiently studied, there were no studies of a number of foundation structures (slab, including round and ring, etc.). Some important studies were carried out in a simplified manner, without deep study of the destruction process (pushing through foundations without studying internal cracking, the operation of plates without taking into account membrane forces acting in their plane, etc.). This led to contradictory judgments about their actual stress-strain state (about a two-digit or single-valued diagram of bending moments for slab foundations, about punching, etc.). On the one hand, this was caused by the complexity of experimental studies of foundations, the lack of a number of certified instruments and techniques. On the other hand, historically, there was a situation in which foundations turned out to be at the junction of research of two leading research institutes: the head research institute of concrete and reinforced concrete (NIIZhB) investigated above-foundation structures, and NIIOSP, first of all, investigated foundations and underground structures. Therefore, for example, in the large collection published by the NIIZhB Institute for the 1st All-Russian and International Conference on Concrete and Reinforced Concrete "Reinforced Concrete in the XXI Century", there are no foundations and research results of domestic scientific groups. Now at NIIOSP, work is underway to introduce design issues of reinforced concrete foundations into regulatory documents (in SP 50-101-2004, small (1 ... 2 pages) sections on the design of columnar, strip and slab foundations have appeared).

S.A. Rivkin and his students (Kiev) contributed to the experimental and theoretical studies of reinforced concrete foundations. E.A. Sorochan, E.V. Palatnikov. N.N.Korovin (Moscow), Yu.N. Murzenko and her students (Novocherkassk). LN Tetior and his students (Sverdlovsk, Simferopol. Zaporozhye) and many other researchers who solved more specific issues. A major contribution to the theory of calculating foundations, taking into account the formation and opening of cracks, was made by N.I. Karpenko and his students (Moscow), V.I.Solomin and his students (Chelyabinsk) and others. elastic foundation, but these studies with a high degree of convention can be attributed to reinforced concrete foundations, since they do not take into account the actual inelastic work reinforced concrete structures... Many domestic researchers have made a major contribution to the development and research of various types pile foundations and walls in the ground (BV Bakholdin, MI Smorodinov, KS Silin, Yu. G. Trofimenkov, etc.), foundations in a rammed bed (VL Matveev and others). foundations of reconstructed buildings (P.A.Konovalov, S.N.Sotnikov, etc.), foundations in special conditions (S.S. Vyalov, V.I.Krutov. N.N. Morareskul, etc.).

Currently, due to the appearance of all more new various types of buildings and structures (high-rise buildings, large-span industrial and public buildings, tension-stretched roof structures, underground buildings, television towers, etc.) and the successful development of a wide variety of soils as foundations that were previously considered unsuitable for construction (weak soils , peat, etc.), a large number of different types of foundations are used. Transitional types of foundations have appeared (for example, pile-piles and short rammed piles with broadening that work as columnar foundations; “wall-in-the-ground” foundations that work as rammed piles; driven block foundations that combine the properties columnar foundations and driven piles, etc.).