# Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of the Early Christian Temples of the Roman Fortress of Pitiunt
## 3 Results and Discussion
Additionally, the calculation revealed significant forces in the capitals of columns and in the places where the arches are supported. The compressive stresses in the walls (as shown in Figure 7) do not exceed 0.35 MPa (35 t/m\({}^{2}\)), which is less than the calculated compressive strength of the material used for the walls and arches. The estimated deformations of wall structures do not exceed 2 mm, and the deflections of truss structures do not exceed 6 mm. Our calculations have shown that the loads in \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Building Elements**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Standard Values**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Values Used in the Calculation**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **Range of Modulus** & **Range of Volumetric** & **Compressive** & **Poisson’s** & **E Value,** & **Value p,** \\  & & **of Elasticity, E, \(\mathbf{\mu}\)/m\({}^{2}\)** & **Weight, \(\mathbf{\rho}\), \(\mathbf{\mu}\)/m\({}^{3}\)** & **Strength, R, \(\mathbf{\mu}\)/m\({}^{2}\)** & **Ratio, V** & **t/m\({}^{2}\)** & **t/m\({}^{3}\)** \\ \hline
1. & Wall masonry & 2.7–2.9 \(\times\) 10\({}^{8}\) & 2.2–2.4 & 150–200 & 0.25 & \(2.8\times 10^{5}\) & 1.8 \\ \hline
2. & Marble columns & 5.7–7.3 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) & 2.3–2.6 & 3000–15,300 & 0.25 & \(5.7\times 10^{6}\) & 2.5 \\ \hline
3. & Arches of order and openings & 1.6–2.4 \(\times\) 10\({}^{8}\) & 1.6–2.00 & 100–150 & 0.25 & \(2.0\times 10^{5}\) & 1.8 \\ \hline
4. & Wooden elements (struts, trusses) & 3.3–3.7 \(\times\) 10\({}^{5}\) & 0.65 & - & 0.5 & \(3.5\times 10^{5}\) & 0.65 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Mechanical characteristics of the building elements considered in the calculation. Figure 6: Calculation scheme (**A**) and spatial model (**B**). Figure 7: Stress distribution in the walls. our proposed reconstruction of Temple No. 2 do not exceed the compressive strength of the materials, and the resulting deformations are insignificant. These results validate the technical solutions that we have adopted. Temple No. 2 is characterized by its asymmetrical apse, both internally and externally, which covers all three naves. Its length is almost a third of the basilica's total length. The reason for this asymmetry, which makes the construction of the roof very difficult, is not known. There are no known examples of such a solution on any contemporary monument. Over the last fifty years, various explanations have been proposed for this geometry, most of them based on the assumption that the central platform was more important than the outline of the apse, and that the apse was moved to accommodate the older platform with the Martyrium [7,10]. However, analysis has shown that this assumption cannot be an explanation for the actual shape of the apse. A revised version of the observed geometry is proposed in Figure 8.  
The proposed displacement of the central platform to the south is based on its position relative to the apse of the later Temple No. 3 (Figure 8c). Upon careful analysis of the relative position of the platform and the contour of Temple No. 2, it becomes evident that the platform is precisely centred with respect to the lines of the colonnades of Temple No. 2. Consequently, there is no necessity for the deformation of the apse, as illustrated in Figure 8b. If Temple No. 2 had a symmetrical semicircular (or polyhedral) apse with the same longitudinal walls (Figure 8e), the central platform would fit more organically than the actual asymmetrical apse. This implies that the rationale behind this particular geometry may not lie in the positioning of the platform, but rather in the builders' desire to circumvent an obstacle in the way of constructing a symmetrical version of the apse. It is possible that this decision was made due to unforeseen circumstances during the construction process. Two possible scenarios can be considered.