>>6257617

>concrete dome roof under it was supporting it, and now has less weight to hold

You're not entirely wrong, anon. The loss of the wood roof may be a wash. The masonry vaults under the wood just tie things together for when the wind blows though really. But now that the wood cover is gone, you need to protect the main arches which are essentially columns. Certain parts of the walls act as counterweights to the rest so nothing pops apart. Now if you lost some of counterweights or a main flyer to a main buttress, then yeah, you're in fucking trouble.

https://faithandform.com/feature/learning-from-gothic-cathedrals/

>>6258074

On heavy timber construction:

"The superior fire performance of timbers can be attributed to the charring effect of wood. As wood members are exposed to fire and the wood begins to burn, a char layer is formed. The char layer acts as an insulator and protects the core of the wood section."

https://awc.org/codes-standards/publications/tr10

"The excellent fire resistance of heavy timber framing has been demonstrated in many building fires over the years. Building codes recognize its superior performance by allowing larger sizes for buildings of this type. Heavy timber construction is also recognized in fire insurance rating schedules through lower rates."

https://www.awc.org/pdf/codes-standards/publications/wcd/AWC-WCD5-HeavyTimber-ViewOnly-0402.pdf

Though it does depend on how thick those timbers were to decide how fire resistant.

>>6258202

Hello, fellow structuralfag kek!

>>6258174

Nature Boy Jimmy's trees, you mean?

>>6258179

I'm sure that wood was dry as fuck, but older wood is generally stronger than the shit today anyway.

>>6258266

Yup, puts itself out essentially. Computer glitch, my ass.

>>6258290

And we thank you kek! Contractors are too cheap and lazy to trust sometimes.