Stabilising The Leaning Tower of Pisa: The Evolution of Geotechnical Solutions

Transactions of the Newcomen Society
ISSN: 0372-0187 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yhet19
Stabilising the Leaning Tower of Pisa: the Evolution

of Geotechnical Solutions
John B. Burland
To cite this article: John B. Burland (2008) Stabilising the Leaning Tower of Pisa: the Evolution
of Geotechnical Solutions, Transactions of the Newcomen Society, 78:2, 173-205, DOI:
10.1179/175035208X317657
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/175035208X317657
Published online: 19 Jul 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 32
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yhet19
Download by: [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] Date: 09 April 2016, At: 04:39
Trans. Newcomen Soc., 78 (2008), 173–205
Stabilising the Leaning Tower of Pisa:

the Evolution of Geotechnical Solutions
by
John B. BURLAND
The Dickinson Memorial Lecture read at the Science Museum, London on 9 May 2007
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 04:39 09 April 2016
INTRODUCTION
On Thursday 7 September 1995 ground freezing was being carried out around the Tower
of Pisa when it began to increase its inclination dramatically. In one night, it moved
southwards more than it would normally have moved in a year. The freezing operation had
to be terminated and for three weeks desperate efforts were made to save the tower. This
period has come to be known as Black September. The paper describes how and why the
Pisa Commission got into this predicament and how it was resolved. More generally the
paper traces the evolution of some of the ideas and schemes for stabilising the tower that
were put forward by members of the Commission. Unravelling the history of the tower and
understanding the mechanisms of its movement proved crucial to developing the successful
stabilisation measures. A detailed technical description of the project is given by Burland
et al.1
THE PISA COMMISSION
In 1989, the civic tower of Pavia collapsed without warning, leading to the closure of the
Pisa tower in early 1990. There was an immediate outcry from the Mayor and citizens
of Pisa, who foresaw the damage that the closure would inflict on the economy of Pisa.
In March 1990, the Prime Minister of Italy set up an international Commission, under
the chairmanship of Professor Jamiolkowski,2 to develop and implement measures for
stabilising the tower. The Commission consisted of fourteen members, ten of whom were
from Italy, with expertise in a variety of disciplines including history of architecture,
preservation and restoration of historic buildings, medieval art and archaeology, mineral-
ogy, structural engineering and geotechnical engineering. Decisions were taken by majority
vote.
It is not widely appreciated that the decree establishing the Commission was set up
under emergency legislation and was not ratified in the Italian Parliament until 1995. In
Italian law, such a decree has to be ratified by the Italian Parliament within two months
of publication or else it falls. Thus, every two months, the Commission’s decree had to be
renewed and on a number of occasions the work of the Commission was suspended because
of delays in renewal. Such an arrangement made the Commission very vulnerable to media
and political pressures and long-term planning was very difficult.
DOI: 10.1179/175035208X317657
174 STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA
DETAILS OF THE TOWER AND GROUND PROFILE
Standing in the Piazza dei Miracoli, the eight storey tower is 53.3 m high above ground
level, it weighs 14 500 tonne and its masonry foundations are 19.6 m in diameter having a
maximum depth of 5.5 m below ground level. The foundations slope towards the south at
5.5 degrees to the horizontal and the seventh floor overhangs the ground by about 4.5 m.
Construction is in the form of a hollow cylinder surrounded by colonnades; Figure 1 shows
a cross-section through the tower. The inner and outer surfaces of the cylinder are faced
with tightly jointed marble cladding but the material between these facings consists of
mortar and stones in which extensive voids have been found. The cladding elements
are poorly bonded to the infill rubble and there is a danger that outward buckling of
the cladding elements could take place. A spiral staircase winds up within the annulus of the
walls of the tower. The stability of the masonry at second storey level on the south side has
been a matter of major concern.
As shown in Figure 2, the underlying ground consists of three distinct layers. Layer A
is about 10 m thick and consists of variable soft silty deposits laid down in shallow water
(lagoonal, fluvial and estuarine conditions) less than 10 000 years ago. Layer B consists
of very soft sensitive marine clays laid down up to 30 000 years ago which extends to a
depth of 40 m. This stratum is laterally very uniform. Layer C is a dense sand extending to
considerable depth. The water table in Layer A is between 1 and 2 m deep. Within Layer B
the water pressures are slightly sub-hydrostatic due to seasonal pumping from Layer C. The
Fig. 1. North-south cross-section through

the tower.
STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA 175
Fig. 2. Ground profile.
many soil borings around, and even beneath, the tower show that the surface of Layer B is
dish-shaped due to the weight of the tower above it. From this it can be deduced that the
average settlement of the tower was at least 3 m — a graphic demonstration of how very
compressible is the underlying soil.
HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the tower began in August 1173 and, by about 1178, it had progressed to
one quarter the way up the fourth storey when work stopped. The reason for stopping is not
known but had it continued much further the soil in Layer B would not have been strong
enough to carry the load and the tower would have fallen over due to a bearing capacity
failure of the foundations. Work recommenced in about 1272 by which time the strength of
the clay had increased due to consolidation under the weight of the tower (although this
would not have been known). By about 1278, construction had reached the seventh level
when work again stopped. There can be no doubt that had the tower been completed at this
stage it would have fallen over. In about 1360, when further consolidation of the underlying
clay had taken place, work on the bell chamber commenced and was completed in about
1370 — nearly two hundred years after commencement of construction.
Another important historical detail is that, in 1838, the architect Alessandro Gherard-
esca excavated a walk-way (catino) around the base of the tower so as to reveal the column
plinths and foundation steps as was originally intended. The result of this was an inrush of
water on the south side, since here the excavation is below the water table. There is evidence
Fig. 3. Examples of previous schemes involving massive temporary supporting structures,

micro-piles and major foundations works.
to suggest that the inclination of the tower increased by more than a quarter of a degree at
this time.
THE FIRST MEETING OF THE COMMISSION
The first meeting of the Pisa Commission took place on 9 May 1990 in Rome. It became
clear immediately that the members whose expertise lay in architectural history and
conservation were very suspicious of any suggestions made by the engineers. Over the years,
many solutions had been put forward by engineers and most of these were very invasive of
the fabric of the tower and would have changed its essential character significantly. Figure 3
shows examples of schemes involving major temporary support structures followed by
massive underpinning and major foundations interventions.3 It is hardly surprising that
the engineers were regarded with considerable suspicion!
It was agreed at the first meeting that a ‘soft’ solution should be sought for stabilising
the tower. This would entail a minimum of invasiveness and avoiding the application of
large forces directly to the monument either through the superstructure or the foundations.
Various tasks were assigned to members and Professor Viggiani4 and I were invited to
collect and analyse the data relating to the observed movements of the tower.
Somewhat ominously, at this first meeting Professor Leonhardt5 presented what
became known as the ‘North Pressing Slab Solution’. This involved constructing a
reinforced concrete slab on the ground to the north of the tower and loading the slab by
means of a large number of ground anchors. Professor Christian Veder had published a
paper suggesting this approach and the diagrams in Figure 4 are taken from this publica-
tion.6 The surcharged area would settle, causing a subsidence trough around it extending
beneath the north side of the tower thereby causing the foundation to subside and the
tower to rotate northwards. The objectives of this approach are most desirable but the shape
and magnitude of the induced subsidence trough are very difficult to predict or to control in
detail. There was also considerable uncertainty about the risks associated with the massive
loading of the ground in this way for a tower which is very close to foundation failure.
Fig. 4. North pressing slab scheme proposed by Veder6. (a) Section, (b) Settlement profiles.
MEASURED HISTORIC MOVEMENTS OF THE TOWER
From 1911 onwards, accurate annual measurements have been made of the horizontal
movements of points V1 and V7 on the first and seventh levels of the tower, respectively,
using a high precision theodolite. Figure 5 shows the arrangement for doing this with the
theodolite mounted on a concrete monument at E and a reference target located on a
concrete reference monument at D. In 1928, precision levelling was commenced on four
points around the plinth of the tower and referred to a datum on the Baptistry. The
measurements were repeated in 1929 but no further measurements were made until 1973
when the number of points around the plinth was increased to fifteen.
In 1932, instrumentation was mounted inside the tower in the form of an accurate
plumb line and a precision spirit level.7 Figure 6 shows a photograph of the plumb line
(known as the GB pendulum). It consists of a 35-kg weight suspended on the end of three
invar wires which are anchored at the sixth level. The weight hangs in an oil-filled container
and the invar wires are suspended inside protective pipes. Mounted on the weight is a glass
plate which is precisely inscribed with a graticule and is read through a microscope to an
accuracy of greater than one tenth of a second of arc. The GB pendulum has been read
daily since 1932, apart from a short break during World War 2. Considerable daily and
seasonal fluctuations are observed due to thermal effects on the masonry.
Figure 7 shows the precision spirit level (known as the GC level). The spirit level
itself is mounted on a light steel truss of 4-m span with hemispherical bearings resting on
steel plates. By moving the truss to a second set of bearings, readings in two orthogonal
directions can be made (north — south and east — west). This instrument has been read
approximately once a year since 1932 with some breaks in the record.
In the late 1960s, a Commission was appointed to gather as much information
about the tower as possible as a preliminary to holding a design competition for finding a
stabilisation solution. The chairman of the Commission was Professor Polvani, an eminent
nuclear physicist. The report of the Polvani Commission8 contains the measurements made
Fig. 5. Geodetic survey for measuring the

horizontal movement of point V7 relative to
point V1 (refer to Fig. 1 for the location of
points V1 and V7).
Fig. 7. (above) The GC level.
Fig. 6. (left) The GB pendulum.

with the above instruments up to about 1971. Professor Viggiani set about bringing them
up to date.
It is of interest to note that Professor Sir Alec Skempton (past President of the
Newcomen Society) was a member of the Polvani Commission and Figure 8 shows a
photograph of him with the other members of the geotechnical group on the Commission.
Figure 9 shows the changes of inclination of the tower with time obtained from a
number of instruments. It can be seen that the results from the geodetic measurements and
the GB pendulum give slightly larger changes of inclination than the measurements made
with the GC level and precision levelling which give the change of inclination of the plinth.
This difference is caused by slight bending of the axis of the tower as the inclination
increases. There is very good agreement between the results of the GC level and the precision
levelling around the plinth.
The results of the measurements of the change of inclination of the foundations show
a number of ‘kinks’ in the record which are due to various activities. In 1934, under engineer
Girometti, the foundation masonry was consolidated by injecting 89 tonne of grout through
361 holes drilled into the masonry. Ground water lowering was undertaken to carry out the
work. The record shows that, as a consequence of the works, the inclination of the tower
increased by 31q (arc seconds) in a few days. The precise cause of this movement is not
known. At various times, drilling has taken place around the tower and this has frequently
given rise to rapid increases in inclination. During the early 1970s, when there was a major
drought, pumping took place from the lower sands which resulted in an acceleration of the
inclination of the tower. Analysis of the levelling records showed that the pumping caused
differential subsidence of the Piazza towards the south that resulted in an amplified rotation
of the tower towards the south. It is evident that the tower is very sensitive to any form of
Fig. 8. Geotechnical Group of the Polvani Commission (Professor Sir Alec

Skempton is on the far left).
Fig. 10. Deduced variation of inclination of

Fig. 9. Measured variation of inclination of tower plinth with time when the effects of
the tower with time since 1911 using a variety various perturbations have been removed.
of instruments.
intervention. Removal of these local perturbations results in a smooth curve showing a

steady increase in the rate of inclination as shown in Figure 10. This is the worrying trend
that the Commission was faced with in late 1990 when Professor Viggiani and I had
completed our analysis of the historical records of movement of the tower.
In summary, it was evident that the tower was founded on very soft compressible soils,
leaning dramatically and accelerating. It had been shown to be very sensitive to ground
disturbance, particularly on the south side, which ruled out any form of underpinning.
To make matters worse the masonry cladding is highly stressed and could be on the point
of buckling, giving rise to an explosive failure. That is not all — the rules governing the
conservation of historic monuments places very strict limits on the types of intervention that
are permitted. Examples include requirements that the existing fabric has to be respected
and should involve the least possible intervention, any modern technique of conservation
has to be proved by experience and the essential character of the monument has to be
preserved. It was all too evident that stabilising the Leaning Tower of Pisa represented the
ultimate civil engineering challenge!
TEMPORARY STABILISATION
By the end of September 1990, it had been tacitly accepted that a two-stage stabilisation
approach was needed. Short-term temporary measures were required as soon as possible to
increase the margins of safety of both the masonry and the foundations thereby giving time
to develop a permanent solution. A requirement of conservation is that any temporary
measure must be reversible and non-invasive.
Temporary stabilisation of the masonry was achieved by applying circumferential
pre-stressed cables around the tower at four elevations on the second storey and at the first
cornice. The arrangement is shown in Figure 11. The prestressing was quite light, aimed
primarily at preventing the outward buckling of the marble cladding elements. This
measure, which satisfied the conservation requirements of being both reversible and
non-invasive, was agreed in May 1991 and successfully installed in June 1992.
Work on developing a temporary foundation stabilisation measure was greatly assisted
by the discovery of a rather curious and surprising motion of the foundations. At that time
Fig. 11. Temporary stabilisation of masonry

with light circumferential pre-stressing.
it was widely believed that the increasing inclination of the tower was due to creep in the
underlying soft marine clay — the upper clay in Figure 2. The implication was that the
tower was settling but the south side at a greater rate than the north side. This assumed
mechanism of movement had been dominating the approach to developing stabilisation
measures for some years.
Close examination of the geodetic measurements contained in the Polvani Report
revealed that the motion of the foundations throughout the 20th century was actually very
different from the widely assumed one. The theodolite measurements commenced in 1911
showed that point V1 on the first cornice (see Figure 1) had not moved horizontally relative
to the reference point D in the Piazza (see Figure 5) apart from during the man-made
interventions referred to previously. Similarly the precision levelling commenced in 1928
showed that the centre of the plane of the plinth (see Figure 1) had not moved vertically
relative to the ground nearby the tower. These measurements led to the conclusion that the
foundations of the tower have been moving around a point of instantaneous rotation level
with the first cornice and vertically above the centre of the plinth as shown in Figure 12. The
mechanism of movement revealed in Figure 12 shows that, far from settling, the north side
of the tower has been rising. This led directly to the suggestion that it might be safe to place
counterweights on the north side of the tower thereby reducing the overturning moment.
Such an approach would have been unacceptable if the north side had been settling. The
mechanism shown in Figure 12 also indicated that the seat of the continuing movement
must be very shallow, well above the upper marine clay. This latter deduction eventually led
us to identify the cause of the continuing movement as a seasonally fluctuating water table
in the upper silt deposits.
Figure 13 shows the scheme that I presented to the Commission in September 1990
for the application of counterweights to the north side.9 The arrangement was strongly
influenced by the need to minimise the visual impact of the weights. The proposal was
accepted in principle subject to demonstrating analytically that there was no risk of
increasing the inclination of the tower.
Professor David Potts10 and I then set about what proved to be a mammoth task of
numerically modelling the behaviour of the foundations and underlying ground. The
approach was to use the Finite Element method with the ground modelled by advanced
Critical State constitutive equations and with the deformations and fluid flow coupled
to give time dependent behaviour. The Critical State model is based on the concepts of
elastic-work hardening plasticity.11
Fig. 12. Observed motion of the tower

foundation since 1911.
Fig. 13. Temporary north weighting scheme presented to the Commission in

September 1990.9
The initial results of the analysis were not encouraging. Application of a counterweight
on the north edge of the foundations caused the tilt of the tower to increase. At first
sight this result may seem surprising. However, it is an inevitable result of the flow laws of
work-hardening plasticity during yielding. Thus, when a structure is deforming plastically,
it will tend to continue in the same mode when it is subjected to a perturbation causing
further yield. I reported this negative result to the Commission in January 1991. There was
a major crashing of gears and the temporary north counterweight solution went on hold for
over a year. Unfortunately, this hiatus opened the door for speculation about the possible
use of ground anchors, as will be described later.
HISTORY OF THE INCLINATION OF THE TOWER
It was clear from the initial results that we needed to refine our computer modelling of the
tower and underlying ground and, above all, it was necessary to calibrate and validate
it. The only way we could think of doing this was to attempt to reproduce the history of
inclination of the tower. This is not documented and it proved necessary to attempt to work
it out.
An important clue to the history of the tilt lies in the adjustments made to the masonry
layers during construction and in the resulting shape of the axis of the tower which is shown
in Figure 14. At the elevation of each successive floor the masons made corrections for the
current inclination of the tower by inserting tapered masonry layers. If the method of
correcting for the inclination were known it would be possible to work out the history of
inclination from the shape of the tower axis. A widely used hypothesis, which I call the
horizontal ricorsi hypothesis is that at the top of each successive storey the masons would
create a level surface from which to build the next storey. This is illustrated in Figure 15(a)
and was used by the Polvani Commission to reconstruct the history of inclination. There are
two problems with the horizontal ricorsi hypothesis. The first is that it is counter intuitive for
a tall high aspect ratio tower. Simply building the next storey vertically does little to reduce
the overturning moment generated by the eccentric centre of gravity. Secondly, when the
Fig. 14. Measured profile of the axis of the

tower.
Fig. 15. Hypotheses for correcting the inclination of the tower during
construction. (a) Horizontal ricorsi hypothesis, (b) Axis correction hypothesis.
hypothesis is applied to the Pisa tower, the deduced relationship between the weight of the
tower and its inclination gives a very erratic history as shown in Figure 16(a).
A more logical approach is to attempt to bring the succeeding storey back over the
centre of the foundations. It is interesting that children, when building wooden brick towers
on a soft carpet, will automatically do this when the tower begins to tilt! The scheme we
adopted was to assume that the next storey was aimed so that on completion its centre lay
vertically above the centre of the foundations as shown in Figure 15(b). We called this the
axis correction hypothesis. The architectural historians on the Commission assured us that
Fig. 16. History of inclination of the tower deduced from the two
hypotheses.
the masons would have had the tools and instruments to achieve such a correction. It is
believed that the masonry blocks for each storey were carved and assembled at ground
level before being hoisted up to the working level.
Figure 16(b) shows the deduced relationship between the weight of the tower and its
inclination using the axis correction hypothesis and was presented to the Commission in
July 1991.12 It can be seen that initially the tower moved north by a small amount. In 1272,
when the second phase of construction commenced a major correction was made about a
quarter of the way up the fourth storey. From then on the tower began to move southwards
and accelerate. By the time work commenced on the bell chamber in 1360, the tower
was leaning at about 1.6° southwards. In 1817, two British architects, Cresy and Taylor,
measured the inclination of the tower using a plumb line and deduced that it was leaning at
about 5°.13 These measurements were repeated in 1859 by a French architect de Fleury.14
The tower was found to have increased its inclination by about 0.4° which is evidence for
the effects of the excavation of the catino by Gherardesca in 1838 as described previously.
Figure 16(b) was used to calibrate our computer model of the tower as described
in detail by Burland and Potts.11 Figure 17 shows a comparison of the prediction of the
computer model with the deduced history of inclination and it can be seen that the agree-
ment is good, particularly during the later stages of construction and thereafter, including
the excavation of the catino. The predicted time dependent inclination and settlement of the
tower are plotted in Figure 18. The model did not attempt to reproduce the small initial
northward movements. It is interesting to note that the work on deducing the history of
inclination of the tower and its close replication with a numerical model made a profound
impression on those members of the Commission whose expertise lay in architectural
Fig. 17. Comparison of predicted and

deduced histories of inclination.
Fig. 18. Predicted time history of inclination and settlement of the tower.
history and conservation. Indeed, it could be regarded as a watershed in the relations

between these members of the Commission and the engineers.
The numerical model revealed very clearly that the instability of the tower foundation
is not due to an impending bearing capacity failure of the ground but can be attributed to
the high compressibility of the upper marine clay. This phenomenon is known as ‘leaning
instability’. No matter how carefully the structure is built vertically, once it reaches a critical
height the smallest perturbation will induce leaning instability. Once again we can learn
from the experience of children building wooden brick towers on a soft carpet who will have
experienced this phenomenon! Importantly, the observed motion of the tower during the
20th Century as shown in Figure 12 is consistent with leaning instability.
BACK TO THE NORTH COUNTERWEIGHT
The development of the fully calibrated Finite Element model of the tower and underlying
ground was not completed until about July 1991. There remained the problem that the
model was predicting increasing inclinations when a counterweight was applied to the north
side of the foundations.
The significance of the mechanism of movement revealed by Figure 12 then began to
dawn on me. As stated previously, the measured motion of the foundations implied that the
seat of the continuing movements was shallow — largely within the upper silt of Horizon A.
This meant that the upper marine clay was not involved and must have been at rest for well
over 150 years — probably since the excavation of the catino in 1838. This ageing process
would have led to an increase in the yield stress of the clay which would therefore exhibit
elastic behaviour for small increases in stress. An analysis of the application of the north
counterweight was carried out with a small increase in yield stress in the clay and the results
are given in Figure 19. It was found that as the counterweight is increased the tower rotates
northwards initially. However, once the counterweight exceeds 1500 t, yield begins to take
place and the tower begins to rotate southwards.
Fig. 19. Predicted response of tower to the

application of north counterweights allowing
for ageing of the Upper Clay.
The results of the above analysis were presented to the Commission in February 1992
when Professor Leonhardt also presented a sketch of a revised north counterweight scheme.
In April 1992, the scheme illustrated in Figure 20 was approved by the Commission and an
upper limit of 600 t was placed on the north weighting.
LONG-TERM GEOTECHNICAL STABILISATION
From early on in the work of the Commission we had been giving thought to possible
long-term geotechnical stabilisation measures. In January 1991, the Commission discussed
the concept of what was termed controlled differential subsidence aimed at slightly reducing
the inclination of the tower thereby simultaneously reducing the foundation and masonry
stresses. At that time, three possible ways had been identified of doing this:
1. The north pressing slab being strongly advocated by Professor Leonhardt,
2. Drainage of the marine clay on the north side by means of electro-osmosis,
3. Drainage from the intermediate sands beneath the north side by pumping from wells.
The north pressing slab

In July 1991, Professor Leonhardt presented the north pressing slab solution which involved
applying 6000 t of force by means of ground anchors to a reinforced concrete plate located
north of the tower.15 The arrangement is shown in Figure 21. My concern about the
Fig. 20. Counterweight on north edge of tower plinth.
proposal, expressed at the meeting, was that the profile of the settlement trough around
the slab was likely to be locally confined and difficult to control in any detail. It was agreed
that the effectiveness of the north pressing slab should be evaluated using the numerical
model when it had been properly calibrated.
An intermediate proposal was presented in April 1992 at the same meeting at which the
temporary north counterweight solution was approved. The proposal, termed Phase 2,
was to replace the lead counterweight after a few months with ten ground anchors as a
preliminary to the implementation of the permanent north pressing slab (now termed Phase
3). In July 1992, the Commission agreed that a detailed design study should be undertaken
of the ten anchor (Phase 2) solution. The reasons for the ten anchor solution were not
spelled out at this stage and neither were the potential difficulties of installing them. Some
members of the Commission expressed the view that ground anchors would be more
effective and give a greater degree of control than the lead counterweights but the technical
justification for these views was far from clear. Over succeeding months and years the ten
anchor solution kept being strongly advocated.
Drainage of the upper marine clay by means of electro-osmosis

For many years, the possibility had been discussed of using electro-osmosis to induce
controlled subsidence in the upper marine clay beneath the north side of the tower (e.g.
Mitchell).16 Laboratory experiments on the clay had proved promising. In April 1992,
approval was given for detailed study and this led to a full-scale field trial in the Piazza
commencing in August 1993. This trial proved to be a complete failure as it induced positive
excess pore pressures in the subsoil with excessive temperature increases and gas generation
at the electrodes. In August 1994, electro-osmosis was ruled out as a suitable means of
stabilising the tower.
Fig. 21. North pressing slab scheme

(Leonhardt).15
Drainage from the intermediate sands beneath the north side by pumping from wells
An alternative method of locally draining the upper marine clay was investigated in parallel
with electro-osmosis. This method involved sinking pumping wells into the intermediate
sand north of the tower and recharge wells south of the tower. It soon became obvious that
such a scheme would probably require the construction of surrounding slurry trench cut-off
walls and would be prohibitively expensive. A major limitation of the scheme is that it would
take weeks to obtain a response from a particular pumping action and this made the opera-
tion far too uncertain. In September 1992, further study of this method was put on hold as
the method of soil extraction was looking more promising.
Soil extraction
For some time I had had the feeling that there must be a way of inducing subsidence
by removal of ground from beneath the north side of the tower in an incremental and
controlled way. I had been advising London Underground on the issues of subsidence
induced by tunnelling. No doubt influenced by this, in January 1991, I suggested that a
possible approach might be to drive a tunnel from the north to within a few metres of the
foundations. Soil could then be extracted by means of tubes inserted from the face of the
tunnel. This initial idea was not taken seriously but during 1992 and 1993, it was steadily
refined to a number of small diameter tubes drilled at an incline from the surface as shown
in Figure 22.
As so often proves the case this was not a new idea — in 1962, Terracina17 published
a paper in Geotechnique suggesting this approach and Figure 23 is taken from his paper.
The Mexicans took up Terracina’s idea for correcting buildings in Mexico City which had
suffered differential settlements either due to earthquake effects or due to subsidence of the
very soft Mexico City clays. Soil extraction was carried out from horizontal holes drilled
radially from the bottom of vertical shafts. The technique was termed under-excavation and
indeed that is precisely the way it is used in Mexico City. The shafts are sunk alongside
or within the building to be treated and soil extraction is carried out directly beneath the
building. The method was used very successfully in the stabilisation of the metropolitan
Cathedral of Mexico City18 — a project on which I advised. Subsequently Professor Sir Alec
Skempton drew our attention to the work of James Trubshaw in straightening the tower
of St Chad’s church, Wybunbury, in 1832 using soil extraction. Johnston and Burland19
describe this and other early examples of the use of the method.
Although the method of soil extraction had been used successfully elsewhere, using it
on a tower that was on the point of falling over was a different proposition altogether. How
Fig. 22. Soil extraction scheme from north side of tower.

Fig. 23. Soil extraction scheme presented by

Terracina.17
could the members of the Commission be sure that removing soil from beneath the high side
would not create instability in the tower? Over the course of several years, the method was
studied first by means of physical models and then by means of our numerical model.
One of the early model studies was carried out by Helen Edmunds20 as a MSc project
at Imperial College. She performed a number of small-scale physical tests on a model tower
resting on a bed of fine sand to study the effect of soil extraction on a tower close to collapse.
A photograph of the arrangement is shown in Figure 24. The model tower was first brought
very close to collapse by loading it with a hanger and lead weights. An ingenious system of
soil extraction was developed using stainless steel tubes which could be bored into the sand
without disturbance and then withdrawn by a small amount, leaving cavities which closed
as the sand flowed into them. Helen Edmunds found that, if the cavities were formed at
a distance greater than about half a radius from the centre of the foundation, then the
response was always positive even though the model was on the point of collapse. However,
if the cavities were formed nearer the centre then the model tower fell over. She therefore
discovered the existence of a critical line beyond which it was unsafe to extract soil.
The existence of this critical line at about half a radius away from the direction of lean was
confirmed by more sophisticated model tests on a centrifuge and then by detailed numerical
modelling.
By June 1994, the Commission was sufficiently impressed by this work to authorise a
large-scale field trial on the Piazza in order to develop the appropriate drilling technology
and check on the practicability of the method. Working with the Italian drilling contractors
Fig. 24. Model studies of soil extraction carried out by Helen Edmunds.20
Trevi, we devised a way of extracting soil using the arrangement illustrated in Figure 25.
The drill consists of a hollow-stemmed continuous flight auger (a type of Archimedes’ screw)
housed within a contra-rotating casing 180 mm in diameter. When the drill is withdrawn to
form a cavity, an instrumented probe located in the hollow stem can be left in place to
measure the closure of the cavity. A 7-m-diameter eccentrically loaded trial foundation
was constructed in early 1995 on the Piazza just to the north of the Baptistry. Figure 26
shows a photograph of the trial foundation and inclined drill. But I am now getting ahead
of the story as application of the temporary north counterweight commenced in July 1993,
having been approved by the Commission in April 1992 and the detailed design approved
in February 1993.
APPLICATION OF THE NORTH COUNTERWEIGHT
The scheme for applying the lead counterweights to the north side of the tower is shown in
Figure 20. A temporary post-tensioned concrete ring was clamped to the base of the tower
and acted as a platform on which the 9-t lead ingots rested. Before the application of
the north counterweight, very precise instrumentation was installed in the tower so that
changes of inclination could be monitored in real time. Work on the concrete ring
commenced in April 1993 and the first lead weight was placed on 14 July 1993 as shown in
Figure 27(a). Approximately 600 t of lead ingots was placed on the tower over a period of
about seven months with the last one being placed on 21 February 1994 — see Figure 27(b).
As a consequence the tower moved northwards by about 48q which represents a northward
movement of about 14 mm at the top of the tower. More importantly the overturning
moment of the tower was reduced by about 10 percent.
Fig. 25. The process of soil extraction.
Following the successful application of the lead counterweight a fierce debate broke out
in the Commission. The immediate implementation of the ten anchor (Phase 2) scheme —
see Figure 28 — was strongly advocated coupled with the permanent north pressing slab
solution. At that time, the renewal of the law for the Commission was very uncertain and
there was grave concern that it would be disbanded with the lead weights still in place.
The technical arguments in favour of the ten anchor proposal became very confused,
particularly in its linkage with the north pressing slab solution which had yet to be fully
evaluated. Nevertheless, the view was expressed that it was unthinkable that the lead weights
could be left in place indefinitely. The situation was not helped by the threatened resignation
of two key members of the Commission. On 5 June 1994, the Commission voted by a large
majority in favour of replacing the lead weights with ten ground anchors.
THE TEN ANCHOR PROPOSAL
Figure 28 is a schematic view of the ten anchor proposal with each anchor intended to carry
a maximum of 100 t. The bottoms of the anchors were to be secured in the dense lower sand.
The reaction with the tower was to be through a post-tensioned concrete ring connected to
the foundation masonry below the level of the floor of the catino so that it would not be
visible. It was intended that, once in place, the anchors would be progressively loaded as the
lead weights were removed — thereby removing the unsightly north counterweight.
Fig. 26. Large-scale soil extraction trial.
Construction of the post-tensioned reaction beam involved excavating in the floor of

the catino beneath the water table on the south side, an operation of the utmost delicacy.
Originally, it had been intended that such excavation should be carried out under
compressed air so as to prevent inflow of the ground water. This proposal proved to be very
expensive and instead it was decided to use ground freezing just beneath the floor of the
catino, but well above the tower foundation level. The intention was to install the reaction
ring in short lengths so as to limit the length of open excavation and the extent of ground
freezing at any time.
In September 1994, exploration boring was carried out in the floor of the catino and the
presence of a 0.8-m-thick cement-conglomerate ring was detected. It appears that this ring
was cast by Gherardesca in 1838 after the catino had been excavated — no doubt to control
the inflow of ground water that took place at that time. The discovery of this ancient
concrete ring, which is nowhere referred to in the archaeological literature, raised the serious
concern that it might be mechanically connected to the tower. If this were the case then
freezing beneath it could cause movements of the tower. Accordingly radial drilling was
carried out and it was found that there was a mud-filled circumferential gap between the
concrete and the foundation masonry. It was therefore concluded that the concrete ring was
not connected to the tower and work on the scheme continued.
Ground freezing turned out to be a significant civil engineering operation involving the
drilling and installation of 157 freezing pipes beneath the catino for the transmission of
liquid nitrogen. The freezing operations consisted of 36 hours of continuous freezing
Fig. 27. Placing the north counterweights between July 1993 and February 1994.
Fig. 28. Ten anchor scheme.

followed by a maintenance period when freezing was carried out for 1 hour per day so as
to limit the expansion of the ice front. Ground freezing commenced at the north side on 26
May 2005 and continued to the 16 July 2005. As a result of this, the tower moved south-
wards by about 11q. Sections of the Gherardesca concrete were removed for the construc-
tion of short lengths of the post-tensioned reaction ring. When the ancient concrete was
removed, contrary to our expectations, it was found to be connected to the foundation
masonry of the tower by steel grout filled pipes. It was clear that the pipes had been installed
by Engineer Girometti in 1935 when he drilled 361 holes into the foundation masonry for
grout injection. This finding explained why the tower had moved during the initial freezing
operation. No reference to either the Gherardesca concrete or the grout pipes was made in
Girometti’s report on the grouting operation which was written some years after the event.
On 3 September 2005, freezing commenced on the south-west and south-east sides
of the tower. During the initial 36 hours of continuous freezing, no rotation of the tower was
observed. However, as soon as freezing was stopped for the maintenance phase, the tower
began to move southwards at a rate of 4q per day. On Thursday 7 September 2005 the
operation was stopped. The southward rotation was controlled over the next three weeks
while thawing took place by the progressive application of further lead weights on the north
side eventually reaching a total of approximately 900 t. A key reason for stopping the
operation was uncertainty about the strength of the structural connection between the
ancient concrete ring and the masonry formed by the steel grout pipes. If this connection
had suddenly failed as a result of the southward rotation, the tower could well have
collapsed. This episode has come to be called Black September!
SOIL EXTRACTION TRIAL
Almost the only method left to the Commission to stabilise the tower was controlled
subsidence by means of soil extraction. By March 1995, both centrifuge tests and numerical
analysis had shown that the north pressing slab had, at best, very minor benefits and some
huge uncertainties. It was clear that the method had been pushed too strongly before a
detailed evaluation.
As mentioned previously, a full-scale trial of the soil extraction method was commenced
in early 1995 — see Figure 26. As a result of Black September the Commission urged that
the work be accelerated. Previous opponents of the method even went so far as to suggest
that the method might be used on the tower as an emergency measure!
Soil extraction beneath the trial foundation commenced on 19 September 2005.
Initially the results were very successful and the trial foundation rotated northwards. But we
became over enthusiastic and soil extraction took place beyond the critical line. As a result
the south side of the trial foundation began to settle at a greater rate than the north and the
trial foundation rotated rapidly southwards as shown in Figure 29. The trial was stopped
immediately. On 29 September 2005 I wrote in my diary:
‘For the first time the prospect of not being able to find a permanent solution for the tower is
very real — this is terrible news’
Some days later on 9 October 2005 I wrote:
‘Have been losing sleep this week — I hope I can steady things’
By 1 November 2005, the trial foundation had indeed steadied and we began soil extraction
again in a much more controlled way. The trial proved very successful and, by the end of
Fig. 29. Change of inclination of trial foundation during first phase of soil extraction trial.
December 2005, we had succeeded in rotating the trial foundation northwards by about
one quarter of a degree with good directional control. It was found that the cavities formed
in the silt closed smoothly and rapidly and the response of the trial foundation to each
extraction was rapid, taking only a few hours. The measured contact stress changes beneath
the foundation were small and beneficial, decreasing on the south side and increasing on the
north side. Very importantly, an effective system of communication, decision taking and
implementation was developed.
TWO YEARS OF FRUSTRATION
The results of all the investigations carried out on soil extraction were positive, but the
Commission was well aware that these investigations might not be fully representative of
the possible response of a tower affected by leaning instability. Therefore, it was decided
to implement soil extraction on the tower itself in a limited preliminary manner, with the
objective of observing its response. It was planned to use only twelve extraction holes with
a target of reducing the inclination of the tower by about 20q.
The decision in principle to implement preliminary soil extraction was taken in
February 1996. However, the funding for the work of the Consortium of Contractors
ceased and, although the Commission continued to meet regularly, no decisions could be
implemented. In September 1996 the contract with the Consortium was not renewed
and in October 1996 the Commission was dissolved. There can be little doubt that these
bureaucratic and financial set-backs were due in no small part to the events of Black
September described previously.
In January 1997 a new Commission was appointed by the Italian Government.
However, for administrative reasons, the new Commission could not meet until July 1997.
Representation on the Commission changed. The number of structural engineers increased
from three to five and the number of geotechnical engineers, excluding the chairman,
reduced from four to two. It was insisted that all possible permanent solutions should
be re-examined and there were many fierce debates. By early August 1998 the new
Commission began to come around to soil extraction as a permanent solution. Finally on
11 December 1998 the decision to go ahead with preliminary soil extraction was ratified.
PRELIMINARY SOIL EXTRACTION
In December 1998 temporary safeguard cables were attached to the third story of the
tower as shown in Figure 30. These extended horizontally some 100 m north of the tower,
then passed over pulleys on top of two massive A-frames and were lightly tensioned by
means of lead weights. In the event of untoward movements of the tower these cables were
to be tensioned by additional lead weights to hold the tower steady. It was never intended
that they should be used to actually move the tower northward.
Preliminary soil extraction was carried out over a limited width of 6 m using 12
extraction bore holes — also visible in Figure 30. The centreline was offset by 1 m to the
west to induce a small westward movement intended to counteract the eastward movement
that took place during Black September. Since the auger and rotating casing had to be
moved from hole to hole, the operation was slow and cumbersome and no more than two
extractions could be made each day.
Based on the findings of the large-scale field trial, a detailed system of communication
and control was put in place between the drilling contractor on site and the engineers on the
Commission who were responsible for the soil extraction. This involved two sets of faxes
each day to the offices of the engineers (Professor Viggiani and myself) containing real-time
information on the inclination and settlement of the tower. In turn, each day a fax was
Fig. 30. Safeguard cables and extraction tubes for preliminary soil
extraction.
issued by the engineers summarising the observed response and commenting on it. Signed
instructions were included for the next extraction operation along with explicitly stated
objectives.
Green, amber and red trigger levels for both the rates and magnitudes of change
in the inclination and settlement were set after careful study of records covering six years
of movement. This broader historical perspective was intended to avoid over-stringent
requirements and false alarms.
On 9 February 1999, in an atmosphere of immense tension, the first soil extraction took
place. For the first few days, as the drills advanced towards the edge of the foundation, the
tower exhibited no discernible response. Then slowly it began to rotate northwards. By 23
February it had rotated 7q northwards, but at that point it suddenly began to rotate south-
wards and rotated 2q in one day. A careful examination of the results showed that this
was not associated with settlement at the south, which was reassuring. It turned out that a
northerly gale coupled with snow in the Alps had caused a sudden drop in temperature,
which, according to previous records, usually results in small southward movements. When
the gale subsided and the temperature rose, the tower began to move to the north again, to
the relief of all involved. This small episode illustrates the vigilance required at all times
during soil extraction.
Figure 31 shows the relationship between time and the rotation and settlement of the
tower during preliminary soil extraction. When, in early June 1999, the northward rotation
had reached about 80q soil extraction was discontinued. Northward rotation continued at a
Fig. 31. Results of preliminary soil extraction.

decreasing rate until July 1999 when three of the lead weights were removed. All movement
then ceased. Two features can be seen from Figure 31. First, a small westward component
of rotation took place, as planned. Secondly, the southern edge of the foundation rose
during soil extraction. This was most gratifying as it demonstrated that the soil extraction
was remote from the critical line and that the bearing pressure was being reduced on the
highly stressed south side.
FULL SOIL EXTRACTION
The success of the preliminary soil extraction convinced the Commission that it was safe to
use the method over the full width of the foundations. Accordingly, between December 1999
and January 2000, 41 extraction tubes were installed at 0.5-m spacing, each having a
dedicated auger and rotating casing. Full soil extraction commenced on 21 February 2000
and the results of both preliminary and full soil extraction are shown in Figure 32. A much
higher rate of northward rotation was achieved than for preliminary soil extraction. The
full soil extraction caused an average daily movement of about 6q, reflecting the removal of
about 120 litres of soil per day. The same detailed system of communication and control was
adopted as for the preliminary soil extraction.
During the process, the tower exhibited a tendency to move towards the east. It proved
necessary to extract about 20 percent more soil from the western side than from the eastern
Fig. 32. Results of full soil extraction.

side to control this movement. In spite of this tendency the tower was steered northwards
in a remarkably straight path. It was also gratifying to note that significant uplift of the
southern edge of the foundation took place.
Towards the end of May 2000 progressive removal of the lead ingots was commenced,
initially with two ingots per week (about 18 t). In September 2000 this was increased to
three per week and then to four per week in November 2000. Removal of the lead ingots
resulted in a significant increase in overturning moment, but the soil extraction continued
to be effective.
On 16 January 2001 the last lead ingot was removed from the post-tensioned concrete
ring, and thereafter only limited soil extraction was undertaken. In the middle of February
the concrete ring itself was removed and, at the beginning of March, progressive removal of
the augers and casings commenced with the holes being filled by a bentonitic grout. Finally,
in the middle of May, the safeguard cables were removed from the Tower causing a
southward rotation of a few arc seconds. To counter this, a small amount of additional soil
extraction was carried out with the final extraction and auger removal taking place on 6
June 2001. The tower was out of intensive care!
ADDITIONAL WORKS
In addition to reducing the inclination of the tower by half a degree, a limited amount
of strengthening work has been carried out on the most highly stressed areas of masonry.
This has involved grouting voids in the rubble core and employing radial stainless-steel
reinforcing in locations where there is a risk of masonry cladding buckling outwards. The
circumferential steel tendons around the first cornice and second storey have been replaced
with less intrusive prestressed wires embedded in resin.
The ancient concrete ring that was placed in the floor of the catino by Gherardesca in
1838 has been securely attached to the foundation of the Tower by means of stainless-steel
reinforcement and has been strengthened by circumferential post tensioning — see
Figure 33. Thus, the effective area of the foundations has been substantially increased.
As mentioned previously, the mechanism of motion of the tower foundation revealed
in Figure 12 led us to the conclusion that the continuing movement was due to a seasonally
variable water table in the silt layer. During intense rainfall events in the autumn and winter
the water table rises sharply producing southward rotations of the tower which are
not fully recoverable. In order to minimise this effect it was necessary to eliminate the
continuous fluctuations of the water table. To do this a drainage system was installed
consisting of three wells sunk on the north side with radial sub-horizontal drains running
into them from beneath the north side of the catino. The water levels in the wells are
controlled by the level of the outlet pipes. The arrangement is shown schematically in
Figure 34. The drainage system was implemented in April and May 2002 and the decrease
in the pore water pressure associated with it induced a further small northward rotation
of the tower.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The stabilisation of the Tower of Pisa has proved to be an immensely difficult challenge to
civil engineers. The Tower is founded on weak, highly compressible soils and its inclination
Fig. 33. Connecting ancient concrete ring to

the tower foundation.
has been increasing inexorably over the years to the point at which it was in a state of
leaning instability. Any disturbance to the ground on the south side was very dangerous,
ruling out conventional geotechnical processes such as underpinning and grouting.
Moreover, the masonry was highly stressed and at risk of collapse. The internationally
accepted conventions for the conservation of valuable historic monuments, of which the
tower is one of the best known and most treasured, require that their essential character
should be preserved, with their history, craftsmanship and enigmas. Thus, any invasive or
visible intervention in the tower had to be kept to an absolute minimum.
Two historical studies proved to be most valuable in arriving at suitable stabilisation
measures. The first was a study of the history of inclination of the tower during and
subsequent to construction. This study was used to calibrate a sophisticated numerical
model of the tower and the underlying ground. The second study was of measurements
of movement made since 1911. This latter study revealed an unexpected mechanism of
foundation movement which proved crucial in developing the temporary and permanent
stabilisation measures.
A technique of soil extraction evolved for progressively reducing the inclination of
the tower in a controlled manner. The technique has provided an ultra soft method of
increasing the stability of the tower which, at the same time, is completely consistent with
the requirements of architectural conservation. Its implementation has required advanced
computer modelling, large-scale development trials, an exceptional level of continuous
Fig. 34. Drainage scheme for stabilising the water table at north edge of tower.
monitoring and day-by-day communication and control. On 16 June 2001 a formal

ceremony was held in which the tower was handed back to the civic authorities. Figure 35
is a photograph taken on that day. The tower was officially re-opened to the public on 15
December 2001.
Fig. 35. Photograph of tower taken on

16 June 2001.
Monitoring of the tower is continuing. Over the last three years the movements
have been very small with a slight tendency for a continuing rotation towards the north
amounting to a few arc seconds. It will be many years before a well defined long-term trend
is established.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe a special debt of gratitude to my friends and colleagues Professor Michele

Jamiolkowski, for his dedicated and wise leadership of the Commission, and to Professor
Carlo Viggiani who shared with me the responsibility of guiding the soil-extraction
operation over a period of three years.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. J.B. Burland, M. Jamiolkowski and C. Viggiani, ‘The Stabilisation of the Leaning Tower of
Pisa’, Soils and Foundations, vol. 43, no. 5 (2003), pp. 63–80.
2. Professor Michele Jamiolkowski is Professor of Geotechnical Engineering, Technical University
of Torino, Italy.
3. Ministero dei Lavori Publici, La Stabilitá della di Pisa — Sintesi delle Attivitá Svolte dalle
Commissioni Ministeriali (Istituto Poligrafico e Zacca dello Stato, Roma, 1979).
4. Professor Carlo Viggiani is Professor of Geotechnical Engineering, University Federico II,
Napoli, Italy.
5. The late Professor Fritz Leonhardt was Emeritus Professor, University of Stuttgart, Germany.
6. C. Veder, ‘Sanierungsvorschlag für den Schiefen Turm von Pisa’, Der Bauingenieur, vol. 50
(1975), pp. 204–06.
7. A detailed description of the instrumentation and the interpretation of the historical measure-
ments is given by J.B. Burland and C. Viggiani, ‘Osservazioni sul comportamento della Torre di
Pisa’, Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica, vol. XXVIII, no. 3 (1994), pp. 179–200.
8. Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici, Rierche e studi sulla torre di Pisa, 3 vols (IGM, Firenze 1971).
9. J.B. Burland, unpublished report to the Pisa Commission, Sept 1990.
10. Professor David Potts is Research Professor of Analytical Soil Mechanics at Imperial College
London.
11. J.B. Burland and D.M. Potts, ‘Development and Application of a Numerical Model for the
Leaning Tower of Pisa’, IS Prefailure Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, vol. 2 (1994),
pp. 715–38.
12. J.B. Burland, unpublished report to the Pisa Commission, July 1991.
13. E. Cresy and G.L. Taylor, Architecture of the Middle Ages in Italy: illustrated by views, plans,
elevations, sections and details of the cathedral, baptistry, leaning tower or campanile and campo
santo, at Pisa: from drawings and measurements taken in the year 1817: accompanied by descriptive
accounts of their history and construction (London 1829).
14. G. Rohault de Fleury, ‘Le campanile di Pise’, Encyclopédie de l’Architecture (Bance, Paris,
1859).
15. F. Leonhardt, ‘The Commission to Save the Tower of Pisa: A Personal Report’, Structural
Engineering International 3/97 (1997), pp. 201–12.
16. J.K. Mitchell, ‘Conduction Phenomena: From Theory to Geotechnical Practice’, Géotechnique,
vol. XLI, no. 3 (1991), pp. 299–340.
17. F. Terracina, ‘Foundations of the Leaning Tower of Pisa’, Géotechnique, vol. XII, no. 4 (1962),
pp. 336–39.
18. E. Tamez, E. Ovando and E. Santoyo, ‘Underexcavation of Mexico City’s Metropolitan

Cathedral and Sagrario Church’, 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Hamburg, vol. 4 (1997), pp. 2105–26.
19. G. Johnston and J.B. Burland, ‘Some Historic Examples of Underexcavation’, Proc. Int. Conf.
on Advances in Geotechnical Engineering, The Skempton Conference, ed. R.J. Jardine, D.M. Potts
and K.G. Higgins (Thomas Telford, London, 2004), vol. 2, pp. 1068–79.
20. H. Edmunds, ‘The Use of Underexcavation as a Means of Stabilising the Leaning Tower of Pisa:
Scale Model Tests’, MSc thesis, Imperial College London, 1993.

Stabilising The Leaning Tower of Pisa: The Evolution of Geotechnical Solutions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stabilising The Leaning Tower of Pisa: The Evolution of Geotechnical Solutions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transactions of the Newcomen Society

ISSN: 0372-0187 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yhet19

Stabilising the Leaning Tower of Pisa: the Evolution

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/175035208X317657

Published online: 19 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

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

Stabilising the Leaning Tower of Pisa:

THE PISA COMMISSION

DETAILS OF THE TOWER AND GROUND PROFILE

Fig. 1. North-south cross-section through

Fig. 2. Ground profile.

Fig. 3. Examples of previous schemes involving massive temporary supporting structures,

THE FIRST MEETING OF THE COMMISSION

MEASURED HISTORIC MOVEMENTS OF THE TOWER

Fig. 5. Geodetic survey for measuring the

Fig. 7. (above) The GC level.

Fig. 6. (left) The GB pendulum.

Fig. 8. Geotechnical Group of the Polvani Commission (Professor Sir Alec

Fig. 10. Deduced variation of inclination of

intervention. Removal of these local perturbations results in a smooth curve showing a

Fig. 11. Temporary stabilisation of masonry

Fig. 12. Observed motion of the tower

Fig. 13. Temporary north weighting scheme presented to the Commission in

HISTORY OF THE INCLINATION OF THE TOWER

Fig. 14. Measured profile of the axis of the

Fig. 17. Comparison of predicted and

history and conservation. Indeed, it could be regarded as a watershed in the relations

BACK TO THE NORTH COUNTERWEIGHT

Fig. 19. Predicted response of tower to the

LONG-TERM GEOTECHNICAL STABILISATION

The north pressing slab

Fig. 20. Counterweight on north edge of tower plinth.

Drainage of the upper marine clay by means of electro-osmosis

Fig. 21. North pressing slab scheme

Fig. 22. Soil extraction scheme from north side of tower.

Fig. 23. Soil extraction scheme presented by

APPLICATION OF THE NORTH COUNTERWEIGHT

Fig. 25. The process of soil extraction.

THE TEN ANCHOR PROPOSAL

Fig. 26. Large-scale soil extraction trial.

Construction of the post-tensioned reaction beam involved excavating in the floor of

Fig. 28. Ten anchor scheme.

SOIL EXTRACTION TRIAL

TWO YEARS OF FRUSTRATION

PRELIMINARY SOIL EXTRACTION

Fig. 31. Results of preliminary soil extraction.

FULL SOIL EXTRACTION

Fig. 32. Results of full soil extraction.

Fig. 33. Connecting ancient concrete ring to

monitoring and day-by-day communication and control. On 16 June 2001 a formal

Fig. 35. Photograph of tower taken on

I owe a special debt of gratitude to my friends and colleagues Professor Michele

NOTES AND REFERENCES

18. E. Tamez, E. Ovando and E. Santoyo, ‘Underexcavation of Mexico City’s Metropolitan

You might also like