Rescuing the Leaning Tower of

Pisa
Professor John Burland
22nd February 2016
 Details of the Tower
53.3m high
14,500tons
Diameter of foundations =
19.6m
A hollow cylinder
surrounded by colonnades
Faced with tightly jointed
cracking marble
Rubble infill between inner
and outer facing
Spiral staircase in the walls
Cracking on the south side
 Water table

Estuarine silts

Marine clays

Dense sand
120 mm since 1911
 International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)

Article 3 (Burra Charter 1970)

Conservation is based on respect for the existing fabric and
should involve the least possible intervention. It should not
distort the evidence provided by the fabric.

Article 10 (Venice Charter 1966)

Where traditional techniques prove inadequate, the
consolidation of a monument can be achieved by the use of any
modern technique for conservation and construction, the
efficacy of which has been shown by scientific data and proved
by experience.
 The Challenge
• A magnificent world heritage tower founded on
very soft ground
• Leaning dramatically with the inclination
increasing and accelerating
• Any disturbance to the ground on the leaning
side would cause the tower to fall over
• The fragile masonry is on the point of exploding
• The international rules of conservation require
that the essential character and fabric of the
building must be preserved. As far as possible
interventions should be non-invasive
Some examples of previous suggested solutions
Examples of suggested temporary support
Examples of suggested underpinning
 Short-term temporary stabilisation measures

• Stabilisation of the masonry

• Stabilisation of the foundations
• Both measures had to be reversible and non-
invasive
Stabilising the masonry
 The Foundations

The importance of history

Measured profile of Tower axis
Computer Modelling
Comparison between deduced and predicted history of
inclination
So why is the Tower leaning and
about to fall over?
What is the mechanism of behaviour?
 Stability and instability

Stable Neutral

Unstable
The Behaviour during 20th
Century
Plan showing geodetic surveying
Measured mode of continuing movement
• Cause shallow-seated.
• Led us to identify the
cause as a seasonally
fluctuating water table.
• Underlying marine clay
not involved - had
become aged.
• Movement consistent
with leaning instability
rather than bearing
failure.
• Temporary measure -
north counterweight.
• Soil extraction
Modelling of the north counterweight

Initially our analysis gave negative

results – why?
Difference between elastic and plastic response

Elastic Plastic
Mode of deformation Mode of deformation
controlled by increment controlled by resultant
of force force
Effects of ageing
of the marine clay
Eccentricity of 6.4m

Response of the
Tower for various
eccentricities of
counterweight
Instrumentation
The GM plumb-line - 1932
The GC Level - 1932
Electrolevel transducer for real-time monitoring
The North Counterweight
600 tonnes of lead
Ten Anchor solution leading to
Black September
 In mid-1994 the Decree was not renewed

• Criticism of the lead counterweight solution.

• Members of the Commission were fearful that it
would be dissolved and the lead weights left in
place.
• The alternative of non-visible ground anchors was
proposed and voted for.
• The attempt to implement this provoked a near
disaster – Black September 1995.
 Ancient concrete
ring

Temporary ten anchor solution intended to replace the north

counter-weight
Gherardesca Concrete - 1832
Girometi Pipes - 1937
900 tonnes of lead!
The Black September wobble
Permanent Solution
We needed to find a non-invasive
solution that did not change the
visible character of the Tower
Soil extraction – non-invasive, incremental and controlled.
Terracina proposal 1962
Would soil extraction work for a tower on the point of
falling over?
Helen Edmunds
Soil extraction trial
Details of drill – 150mm dia. Casing and hollow-
stem continuous flight auger (Archimedes' screw)
Contra-rotating
drill
 Two Years of Frustration

April 1996: Decision taken to implement preliminary soil

extraction to start in August 1996.
May 1996: The agreement with the consortium of contractors
expired and was not renewed.
October 1996: Commission dissolved.
January 1997: New Commission appointed with a number of
new members. Over the next 18 months all possible permanent
solutions were re-examined.
August 1998: Decision again taken to implement preliminary
soil extraction.
STABILISATION
Temporary safeguard cables
Preliminary soil extraction using 12 tubes – commenced early 1999
Back to the future?
Full soil extraction using 41 tubes – commenced early 2000
Removal of last
lead weight 16th
January 2001
Removal of temporary steel tendons. Placing permanent s/s wire
reinforcement below first cornice – earthquake robustness
Connecting Gherardesca’s ancient concrete ring to the Tower
16th June 2001
16th June 2001
EDUCTION OF THE TOWER INCLINATIO

Before intervention After intervention

8 OCT
 ROTATION OF TOWER PLINTH
AFTER STABILIZATION WORKS

G-272 PISA-06
Compare these massive and hazardous
interventions
With soil extraction
Suggestion received
from a 9 year old child
from Bangladesh
Tense Times!!