A Comparison of One-Dimensional, Two-Dimensional, and Three-Dimensional Settlement Analyses of The Tower of Pisa

A Comparison of 1D, 2D, and 3D Settlement Analyses of the Tower of Pisa
A thesis submitted by
Andrew J. Klettke
In partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of
Master of Science
in
Civil and Environmental Engineering
TUFTS UNIVERSITY
August, 2009
Advisor: Professor Lewis Edgers
i
UMI Number: 1468186
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
______________________________________________________________
UMI Microform 1468186

Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
_______________________________________________________________
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
A Comparison of 1D, 2D, and 3D Settlement Analyses of the Tower of Pisa
by
Andrew J. Klettke
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155
Abstract:
This thesis compares and evaluates settlement analyses of the Tower of
Pisa by one, two, and three-dimensional computer models. The Tower of Pisa has
been an important settlement case study for more than a century. The Tower
settlement has been previously modeled using one-dimensional consolidation
models and more recently, two and three-dimensional finite element analysis.
The recent work provides a large amount of subsurface data used in these
analyses. The 1D analyses underestimate the average settlement of the Tower by
not accounting for shear induced deformations. In 2D, a plane strain analyses can
model the Tower’s tilt but the magnitude of the settlement must be calibrated for
the difference between the infinite strip plane strain loading and the actual circular
loading using the results of an axisymmetric analysis. The results of the 3D
analyses are comparable to the findings of the calibrated 2D analysis and provide
acceptable comparisons between the computed and estimated actual settlements
and inclinations.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Jesus Christ for all the gifts He has given me,
including the strength, patience, discipline and perseverance to complete this
thesis. I would like to thank my parents, Neal and Susan Klettke, as well my
entire family for their continued support in the entire process. I would also like to
especially thank the Powelson and Oien families for their help during the time
period I have spent working on this thesis.
I would like to thank my committee chair, Lewis Edgers, for taking on a
student like myself and being a consistent, strong advisor on my project. I would
like to thank my committee members, Christopher Swan and David Shields, for
their time invested in attending meetings and reviewing my thesis. I would like to
thank my fellow Tufts University CEE graduate students for their support,
especially Ms. Elsbeth Hearn for her assistance in teaching me some of the
software programs used in this thesis. I would like to acknowledge the Tufts
University CEE faculty as well as the staff, including Grace Clemence and Laura
Sacco.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Chapter 1: Purpose and Scope 1
1.1) Purpose 1
1.2) Scope 3
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Background Information - Tower

of Pisa 5
2.1) Construction 5
2.2) Inclination History 6
2.3) Stabilization Methods 10
2.4) Subsurface Conditions 12
2.5) Soil Properties Data 16
2.6) Causes of Inclination 20
2.7) Estimated Settlement 21
2.8) Previous Settlement Calculations 22
Chapter 3: One-Dimensional Analysis - Winsaf 32
3.1) Winsaf-I 32
3.1.1) Winsaf-TR 33
3.2) One-Dimensional Profile 34
3.3) Methods and Parameters 36
3.3.1) Assumptions 36
3.3.2) Settlement Parameters 37
iv
3.3.3) Consolidation Rate Parameters 40
3.3.4) Loading Sequence 42
3.4) Results 43
3.4.1) Primary Consolidation 44
3.4.2) Secondary Compression 44
3.5) Discussion 45
3.6) Winsaf Verification 47
3.6.1) Previous 1D Calculations 47
3.6.2) Olson Method 48
Chapter 4: Two-Dimensional Analysis – Plaxis 2D 50
4.1) Plaxis 2D 50
4.2.1) Soil Models 52
4.2.2) Soil Behavior Types 53
4.2.3) Parameters 54
4.3) Axisymmetric Analysis 57
4.3.1) Initial Conditions 58
4.3.2) Calculation Phases 59
4.3.3) Axisymmetric Results 60
4.4) Axisymmetric Verification 61
4.4.1) Mesh Fineness 62
4.4.2) Mesh Size 63
4.4.3) Excess Pore Pressure Verification 64
4.4.4) Plastic-Drained Analysis 66
4.4.5) φ = 0 Analysis 67
4.5) Plane Strain Analysis 68
4.5.1) Plane Strain Symmetric Loading 69
4.5.2) Plane Strain Non-Symmetric Loading 70
4.5.3) Plane Strain Calibration 73
v
Chapter 5: Three-Dimensional Analysis – Plaxis 3D 77
5.1) Plaxis 3D 77
5.3) Symmetric Loading 78
5.3.1) Initial Conditions 79
5.3.2) Calculation Phases 82
5.3.3) Symmetric Loading Results 83
5.3.4) Mesh Fineness 84
5.4) Non-Symmetric Loading 85
5.4.1) Non-Uniform Loading Results 87
Chapter 6: Comparison of 1D, 2D and 3D Computations 91
6.1) 1D, 2D, 3D Verification 91

6.2) Center Settlement 93
6.3) Differential Settlement 97
6.4) Parameters Comparisons 102
6.5) Setup and Execution 103
Chapter 7: Summary and Conclusions 106
7.1) Summary 106

7.2) Discussion 109
7.3) Recommendations and Future Work 112
References 114
Appendix 117
vi
LIST OF TABLES
2.1. Inclination History Values (Costanzo, 1994) 8

2.2. Effective Cohesion and Friction Angle (Lo Presti, 2003) 18
3.1. Winsaf-I Parameters 35

3.2. Maximum Past Pressures 39
3.3. Winsaf-TR Parameters 41
4.1. Plaxis 2D Input Parameters 55

4.2. Plaxis 2D Overconsolidation Ratios 57
4.3. Plaxis 2D Plate Parameters 60
4.4. Plaxis 2D Calculation Phases 60
4.5. φ = 0 Analysis - Undrained Strength Parameters 68
4.6. Layer A1 Parameters 69
4.7. Non-Symmetric Loading Increments 71
5.1. Plaxis 3D Input Parameters 80

5.2. 3D Wall and Plate Material Parameters 81
5.3. Plaxis 3D Calculation Phases 82
5.4. Plaxis 3D Line Loads 86
6.1. Input Parameter Comparison 102

6.2. Program Setup and Executions Time 103
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
2.1. Construction History (Burland, 2003) 6

2.2. Axis Correction During Construction (Costanzo, 1994) 7
2.3. Deduced Inclination History 8
2.4. Tower Inclinations after 1911 (Costanzo, 1994) 9
2.5. Tower Cross-Section (Potts, 2000) 11
2.6. Adopted Soil Extraction Technique (Burland, 2003) 12
2.7. Simplified Soil Profile (Mitchell, 1977) 13
2.8. Detailed Soil Profile (Rampello, 1998) 14
2.9. Percentage of Clayey Silt in Horizon A (Rampello, 1998) 15
2.10. Unit weight, Specific Gravity, Water Content (Lo Presti, 2003) 17
2.11. Cc, Cs, k, and Cα Values (Rampello, 1998) 18
2.12. Coefficient of Consolidation (Mitchell, 1977) 19
2.13. Overconsolidation Ratios (Lo Presti, 2003) 19
2.14. Non-Symmetric Soil Pressure from Leaning Tower (Terzaghi Figure 2,
1934) 23
2.15. Differential Settlement (Terzaghi Figure 3, 1934) 23
2.16. Estimated Tower of Pisa Soil Pressures and Settlement (Terracina,
1962) 24
2.17. 1D Average Settlement Calculation (Mitchell, 1977) 25
2.18. Center Settlement and Southward Heave (Leonards, 1979) 27
2.19. 2D Plane Strain Settlement and Inclination Calculations (Burland, 2003) 29
2.20. Plane Strain Settlement Curve (Bai, 2008) 31
2.21. Plane Strain Corresponding Inclination (Bai, 2008) 31
3.1. Winsaf-I Soil Properties Input 33

3.2. Winsaf-TR Consolidation Parameters Input 34
3.3. Simplified Subsurface Profile 35
3.4. Effective Stress and Maximum Past Pressure vs. Depth 40
3.5. 1D Computed Settlement – Center of Tower 43
3.6. 1D Computed Shear Induced and Consolidation Settlement – Center of
viii
Tower 46
3.7. Previous Settlement Calculations – Center of Tower 48
3.8. Olson Time-Rate Settlement Calculation 49
4.1. Plaxis 2D Axisymmetric Mesh 58

4.2. 2D Axisymmetric Settlement – Center of Tower 61
4.3. Plaxis 2D Mesh Fineness Analysis 63
4.4. Plaxis 2D Axisymmetric Mesh Size Analysis 64
4.5. Axisymmetric Total Displacements – 60m Wide Mesh 64
4.6. Excess Pore Pressure in Clay Layers Versus Time 65
4.7. Final Excess Pore Pressures 66
4.8. Plaxis 2D Plane Strain Cross Section 69
4.9. 2D Plane Strain Uniform Loading 70
4.10. 2D Plane Strain Non-symmetric Loading 72
4.11. 2D Plane Strain Total Displacements 73
4.12. Vertical Stress Under Strip and Circular Loading (Som and Das Figure
5.17, 2003) 74
4.13. 2D Plane Strain Calibrated Non-symmetric Load 75
5.1. Plaxis 3D Symmetric Uniformly Distributed Load Mesh 81

5.2. 3D Symmetric Uniformly Distributed Load – Center Settlement 83
5.3. Plaxis 3D Mesh Fineness 84
5.4. Non-Symmetric Distribution of 5 Line Loads 86
5.5. 3D Non-Symmetric Loading Settlement 88
5.6. 3D Tower Base Inclination 89
5.7. 3D Non-Symmetric Loading Shaded Displacements 89
5.8. 3D Non-Symmetric Loading North-South Cross Section Total
Displacements 90
6.1. One-Dimensional Verification Analysis 92
6.2. 1D, 2D, 3D Center Settlement 93
6.3. 2D Horizontal Displacements 94
6.4. 3D Horizontal Displacements (a) North-South (b) East-West 95
ix
6.5. 2D Axisymmetric 6-Noded vs. 3D Uniformly Distributed Center
Settlement 97
6.6. 2D Plane Strain Calibrated vs. 3D Non-Symmetric Loading 98
6.7. Inclination Angle vs. Time 99
x
Chapter 1: Purpose and Scope
1.1 Purpose
The use of the finite element method in geotechnical engineering involves
many complex issues specific to geotechnical engineering (Potts, 1999).
Problems involving cut slopes, embankments, piled foundations and embedded
walls where soil and structural interfaces exist can become rather involved with
varying materials and loading conditions. Traditional geotechnical design has
addressed such problems using simplified one dimensional analysis or empirical
approaches. The introduction of geotechnical computer hardware and software
has brought about considerable advances in these analyses, which includes the use
of the finite element method. The sophistication of finite element modeling
capabilities has also progressed with technology. Modeling that once was only
available in two dimensions can now simulate full three dimensional behavior.
Limitations exist in all types of models. A simplistic one dimensional
model requires far more approximations than a detailed three dimensional model
of the same problem. It would be expected that the results of the three
dimensional model be more accurate than those of the one dimensional model.
Each added level of complexity in a model should ideally provide an added level
of accuracy. Geotechnical software that can model in one, two, or three
dimensions should enhance the quality of the model with each added dimension.
A comparison of the results of one, two, and three dimensional calculations of the
same problem could reveal how much accuracy and quality each added dimension
brings.
1
The leaning tower of Pisa is a famous historical landmark. From the time
its construction began in August 1173 until the 1990s, the tower inclined
southward nearly 5.5o (Burland, 2003). At that point, fears of a collapse led to the
formation of a multi-disciplinary committee appointed by the Italian Government
to propose schemes for stabilization of the tower (Costanzo, 1994). As a result, a
thorough investigation of the subsurface conditions was conducted and the soils
beneath the tower have been well characterized. The Tower of Pisa also has
documented stages of construction as well as angles of inclination over eight
centuries. Therefore, in conjunction with the well characterized soil conditions,
the settlement of the soils beneath the Tower of Pisa are a good candidate for
performing settlement calculations. The simplicity of a symmetric, cylindrical
tower makes it a great case to make a comparison of 1D, 2D and 3D analyses.
Each different dimension of analysis can be compared to the actual movement
that has occurred.
As an internationally recognizable structure, the Tower of Pisa has been an
important settlement case study for much of the past century. As early as 1934,
when Karl Terzaghi proposed a time-differential settlement curve, the Tower has
been an intriguing problem to the geotechnical community. Since then, engineers
including Terracina, Mitchell, Jamiolkowski, Burland and Bai have made
attempts using one, two and three dimensional models.
Currently, there are many settlement software programs available. The
programs chosen for this study include Winsaf1 (1D), Plaxis 2D v.8.6, and Plaxis
3D Foundation v.2. The first program, Winsaf-I, calculates one-dimensional

1
Prototype Engineering Inc., Winchester, MA
2
settlements as a sum of the vertical strain. An accompanying program, Winsaf-
TR, computes the time-rate of settlement based on simple one-dimensional
consolidation theory parameters. A circular surface load option can be used to
compute the Tower induced stress increments corresponding to the Tower’s
construction sequence. Plaxis 2D can analyze the stability and deformation of
geotechnical problems in two dimensions (Plaxis 8.2, 1998). The program
includes far more input features including soil interfaces, boundary conditions,
and loading systems. It also generates two-dimensional graphical outputs of total
stresses, strains, and displacements. However, it is limited to either axisymmetric
of plane strain formulations. Plaxis 3D Foundation v.2 is developed specially for
analysis of foundation structures (Plaxis 3D, 2007). Many of the features are
similar to those found in Plaxis 2D, only calculations and graphics are performed
in a three-dimensional environment similar to a real world problem.
1.2 Scope
This thesis compares computations for the settlement of the Tower of Pisa
in one, two, and three dimensions. The goal is to provide a comparison of the
advantages and disadvantages of each added dimension.
This thesis has been organized into the following sections:
1.0 Introduction – includes an overview of the advances made in the
geotechnical engineering modeling process.
2.0 Literature Review and Background Information – reviews the literature
concerning the subsurface conditions and previous attempts to model the
3
settlement and inclination and provides a historical background of the Tower
of Pisa.
3.0 One-Dimensional Analysis – introduces the program Winsaf and presents
the results of the one dimensional settlement analysis.
4.0 Two-Dimensional Analysis – introduces the finite element program Plaxis
2D and presents the results of the two dimensional settlement analysis.
5.0 Three-Dimensional Analysis – introduces the finite element program Plaxis
3D and presents the results of the three dimensional settlement analysis.
6.0 Discussion – discusses and compares the results of each analysis and presents
advantages and disadvantages of each model.
7.0 Summary and Conclusions – includes a summary of the findings and
presents recommendations for future work.
References – lists the sources of information used in this thesis.
Appendix – presents the data obtained in this project.
4
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Background Information – Tower of Pisa
Finite element analysis has freed the geotechnical engineer from basing
analysis on over-simplified soil properties and boundary conditions (Duncan,
1999). In order to perform an acceptable finite element analysis, the history and
background of the site should be thoroughly investigated. Concerning the Tower
of Pisa, it is necessary to understand the stages of construction, the progression of
the inclination and the results of previous model attempts. From prior studies,
there is a great deal of subsurface data and modeling information available. The
following sections summarize this earlier work.
2.1 Construction
Built as a part of a religious monument complex in the Piazza dei
Miracoli, the Tower of Pisa is considered a fascinating geotechnical problem
(Costanzo, 1994). Construction of the Tower began on the 9th of August 1173. In
1178, after three and a half stories had been built, work was interrupted. The
cause for the stoppage is unknown although it likely involved politics or
construction difficulties (Mitchell, 1977). Had work continued without stoppage,
it is likely that soils beneath the foundation of the Tower would have experienced
an undrained bearing capacity failure (Burland, 2003).
After nearly a century, work on the tower resumed in 1272. At this point,
the strength of the soil beneath the tower had increased due to consolidation. By
1278, construction reached the seventh cornice when work again was stopped.
Political or military reasons are cited as likely causes and not the concern for
5
Tower stability. Again, a Tower collapse would have been almost certain if work
had continued at this stage (Burland, 2003).
FIGURE 2.1. Construction History (Burland, 2003)
Work on the bell chamber began in 1360 and the Tower was finally
completed in 1370. Figure 2.1 provides a timeline for the Tower construction. At
the time of its completion, it is evident from an inspection of the adjustments
made to the masonry layers that the lean of the tower to the south was significant
(Burland, 2003). The center line of the eighth floor changed and the fact that the
axis of the Tower is not perfectly straight both indicate southward inclination
(Figure 2.2).
2.2 Inclination History
It is known that the layers of masonry display relative inclinations and that
the center line of the tower is not straight (Costanzo, 1994). In 1991, Burland
reconstructed the history of the tilt of the Tower of Pisa. The reconstruction is
6
based upon the theory that the masons made continuous leveling adjustments
during construction. Following this assumption, Burland was able to formulate
the tilt history shown in Figure 2.3. The values displayed in Table 2.1 until 1758
are highly qualitative, while since the first plumb line measurement in 1817, the
angles are more quantitative.
FIGURE 2.2. Axis Correction During Construction (Costanzo, 1994)
During the first phase of construction, it is apparent the Tower was subject
to random inclinations in different directions (Costanzo, 1994). After
construction recommenced in 1272, the Tower began to move distinctly towards
the south (Potts, 2000). As the tower reached the seventh cornice in 1278,
inclination was about 0.103o. The tilt increased to 1.611o southward over the next
90 years. After the completion of the bell tower in 1370, the inclination
increased significantly. By 1550 it had reached 4.684o. Burland et al (2003)
surmise that leaning instability is responsible for this dramatic change. Another
7
possible explanation is with the already slight southward lean, the addition of the
bell chamber brought a very high stress concentration to the south side of the
footing. It is possible this brought the structural foundation material to a state of
failure causing the large rotation to the south (Bai, 2008).
S 6
o
1990 - 5.469
4
Inclination Angle ( )
O
3rd Load Phase (1360-1370)
2nd Load (1272-1278)
0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
Initial Load
(1173-1178)
-1
N
FIGURE 2.3. Deduced Inclination History
Year Activity Weight (MN) Tilt (degrees)

1173 Start Construction 0 0
1178 Complete 3 ½ Floors 94.8 0
1272 Consolidation/Resume Construction 94.8 -0.200
1278 Complete to 7th Floor 137.28 0.103
1285 Consolidation 137.28 1.112
1360 Consolidation/Resume Construction 137.28 1.112
1370 Complete Construction 144.53 1.611
TABLE 2.1. Inclination History Values (Costanzo, 1994)
8
In 1817, Cresy and Taylor recorded the first plumb line measurement of
the Tower. In 1838, a walkway was excavated around the base of the Tower
known as the catino. With the water table only 1 m to 2 m below the ground
surface, the excavation caused an inflow of water on the south side carrying
quantities of soil with it. The operation is believed to have caused an inclination
of 0.25o to 0.5o and brought the tower very close to collapse (Burland, 2000).
In 1911, a geodetic procedure known as Pizzetti’s method was used to
measure the inclination angle of the Tower and was found to be 5.246o (Croce,
1981). This method was used to record the angle until 1934 when a Girometti-
Bonechi’s inclinometer was installed in the tower. The readings from the
inclinometer were added to the measured value from Pizzetti’s method in 1934.
They were used as the primary inclination measurement tool until remediation
techniques on the Tower began in the early 1990s. Figure 2.4 provides a plot of
the readings during this time period.
FIGURE 2.4. Tower Inclinations after 1911 (Costanzo, 1994)
9
Some significant events were recorded after the installation of the
inclinometer. In 1934, a sudden increase of 31 arc seconds (0.0086o) was caused
by grout injections into the foundation. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s
pumping from the lower sands caused an approximate 41 seconds (0.0114o) of tilt
(Potts, 2000). Fifteen 12 m deep boreholes in 1953 and borings conducted by the
Polvani Committee in the late 1960s also generated small jumps in the inclination
angle. This shows how sensitive the Tower of Pisa is to disturbances of the
adjacent soil foundation.
2.3 Stabilization Methods
In 1989, the collapse of a similarly constructed bell tower in Italy, the
Cathedral of Pavia, caused the closing of Tower of Pisa to the public (Heiniger,
1995). By this time, the inclination of the tower was 5.469o and continually
increasing at a rate of 6 arc seconds (0.0017o) per year (Potts, 2000). Two
problems threatened the stability of the Tower at this point. First, the hollow
cylindrical structure of the Tower caused concern for the strength of the concrete
masonry (Figure 2.5). The second involved the stability of the soil foundation.
As a result, stabilization techniques were seriously investigated.
In 1992, lightly pre-stressed plastic covered steel tendons were installed
around the first and second levels of the Tower. The tendons significantly
reduced the buckling failure risk of the thin walls (Burland, 1998). Studies of
elevations around the outside of the Tower suggested a load applied to the
masonry at the foundation on the north side would help counteract the continual
lean. After a computer analysis, a temporary concrete ring was installed around
10
the base of the Tower and lead ingots were placed on the ring in calculated
phases. Ultimately, the application of lead weights reduced the overturning
moment of the tower by about 14 percent (Potts, 2000).
FIGURE 2.5. Tower Cross-Section (Potts, 2000)
Stabilization of the Tower also took place by methods of soil extraction.
A small diameter hollow stem auger inserted under the north end of the Tower,
was used to remove small volumes of the Horizon A sandy silt. Figure 2.6 shows
the drilling technique adopted to remove the soil.
The entire stabilization process reduced the inclination of the Tower by
approximately 0.5o. The correction methods were necessary to prevent failure of
the tower. However, they present many complexities in modeling the settlement
of the tower. As a result, they will be left out of the modeling comparison.
11
FIGURE 2.6. Adopted Soil Extraction Technique (Burland, 2003)
2.4 Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface profile of the Tower has been well characterized due to the
examination of the soils foundation of the Tower during the major remediation
efforts. As many as 16 committees have been created in the past century to
investigate methods to stabilize the Tower of Pisa (Lo Presti, 2003). As early as
1907, the first documented investigation was headed by Mario Canaveri. In 1965,
the Polvani Committee, appointed by the Ministry of Public works, divided the
soil beneath the Tower of Pisa into distinct three units: Horizons A, B, and C
(Rampello, 1998). More recently, the investigations by Jamiolkowski in 1990-
1992 provided laboratory results from some of the most current sampling and
testing techniques. Soils collected from this study were looked at in great detail.
The cone penetration tests and laboratory tests performed on samples from
standard tube and large diameter thin-walled samplers give a thorough description
of the soil. A simplified profile with soil descriptions from the efforts of the
12
Polvani Committee is shown in Figure 2.7 (Mitchell, 1977). Figure 2.8 provides a
north-south cross section created by Rampello and Callisto (1998) based on all
available borehole and CPT results.
FIGURE 2.7. Simplified Soil Profile (Mitchell, 1977)
The upper deposits known as Horizon A consist of varying thicknesses of
silt, clay and sand. It can be broken into four layers. After 3 feet of topsoil and
fill, Horizon A consists of a silty layer over a sand layer. The silty layer can be
divided into a clayey silt (A1’) and a silty sand (A1”). Layer A2 is a gray sand
with a roughly constant thickness of 2.0 m. Above A2 at the north end of the
Tower exists mostly the A1” layer with thin lenses of A1’ material. To the south,
the A1’ material predominates over the A1” material. Figure 2.9 presents the
percentage of A1’ (clayey silt) in Horizon A to the north and south of the Tower.
This uneven distribution of compressible soils is believed to be a cause of the
initial tilt of the Tower of Pisa.
13
Figure 2.8 Detailed Soil Profile (Rampello, 1998)
14
Much of the subsoil is composed of clayey deposits found in Horizon B.
In comparison to Horizon A, Horizon B is fairly uniform laterally (Potts, 2000).
This upper “Pancone” clay is highly plastic grey-blue silty clay and can be broken
into three sublayers (B1, B2 and B3) (Rampello, 1998). Layer B2 is a lower
plasticity grey clay than its surrounding layers B1 and B3.
The intermediate clay (B4, B5) and intermediate sand (B6) layers are
similar to the deposits of Horizon A. The B4, B5 layer is a stiff, silty clay with
less plasticity and higher unit weight than the upper clay. A 2.4-ft thick layer of
B6 material exists between the intermediate and lower clays.
FIGURE 2.9. Percentage of Clayey Silt in Horizon A (Rampello, 1998)
The lower clay (B7, B8, B9, B10) is a medium plastic silty clay. Sublayer
B7 can actually be divided into an upper part (B7’) with more clay and a lower
part (B7”) with less plasticity. The remaining sublayers (B8, B9, B10) are all
gray clays with little silt and sand lenses.
The deepest soil layer represented, Horizon C, is a medium uniform
slightly silty dense gray sand that extends to depths of 65 to 70 meters. Further
cohesive formations are known to be present below these depths including
15
estuarine clay, grey-blue marine clay, and littoral sediment of gravel and sand (Lo
Presti, 2003).
2.5 Soil Properties Data
The most detailed geotechnical characterization of the subsurface is
presented by Lo Presti et al (2003). The paper summarizes the vast amount of
data on the soils below the Pisa Tower from the past century and puts emphasis
on sample quality and testing procedures. Soil compressibility, creep, strength
and stress history are all addressed. Much of the data in the Lo Presti et al (2003)
paper is also presented in a Tower of Pisa subsoil study by Rampello and Callisto
(1998). This paper provides detailed analysis of cone penetration tests to
distinguish the sand and clay layers. Laboratory testing performed on standard
tube and large diameter thin-walled samplers revealed the clay deposits are
sensitive to sample disturbance. A comprehensive collection of soil parameters
are provided including compressibility values higher than those found by the
Polvani Committee. Mitchell et al (1977) made available to the English speaking
geotechnical community some of the results of the Polvani Committee (Nathan,
1978) and provides some basic one-dimensional analyses parameters. Many of
the parameters of these studies will be used in the settlement calculations of this
thesis.
Saturated unit weight, specific gravity, and water content for the soil
layers are available from Lo Presti et al (2003) and shown in Figure 2.10.
Multiple symbols are used to differentiate Laval, mechanical piston and Osterberg
samplers.
16
Figure 2.10. Unit weight, Specific Gravity, Water Content (Lo Presti, 2003)
The compressibility and consolidation parameters for the clay layers
shown in Figure 2.11 are from Rampello and Callisto (1998). Again, different
symbols indicate different samplings techniques and the vertical lines are drawn
in by the authors as proposed values. The compression index values, Cc, tend to
be slightly higher for samples obtained with the Laval sampler. The ratio of
swelling index, Cs, to Cc falls in the range of 0.1-0.2. The values for permeability,
k, show some scatter for the different methods used. The secondary compression
index, Cα, ranges from 0.002 to 0.04 with the highest values observed in the upper
clay.
Drained shear strength and friction angles from triaxial compression tests
of Lo Presti et al (2003) are reported in Table 2. The parameters have been
inferred from drained and undrained tests on undisturbed samples under both Ko
and isotropic conditions (Lo Presti, 2003).
17
FIGURE 2.11. Cc, Cs, k, and Cα Values (Rampello, 1998)
TABLE 2.2. Effective Cohesion and Friction Angle (Lo Presti, 2003)
Coefficient of consolidation parameters are available from Mitchell et al
(1977) in Figure 2.12. Results were obtained from the Polvani Committee and
average values have been selected as the vertical lines drawn in the figure.
18
FIGURE 2.12. Coefficient of Consolidation (Mitchell, 1977)
Overconsolidation ratios (OCR) values from Lo Presti et al (2003) are
shown in Figure 2.13 were inferred from oedometer tests using the Casagrande
method. Different symbols are used to differentiate the sampling methods.
Higher OCR values exist in Horizon A and the intermediate clay. The upper and
lower clays exhibit OCRs in the 1 to 2 range.
FIGURE 2.13. Overconsolidation Ratios (Lo Presti, 2003)
19
2.6 Causes of Inclination
A single clear explanation for the cause of the lean of the Tower of Pisa
does not exist. Rather, the inclination is believed to have been caused by a
combination of site specific issues. Subsurface conditions are commonly cited as
the initial cause of tilt of the tower. As alluded to in Section 2.4, there is a distinct
special variation in the layer of soil 5-8 m below the surface. Silty sand
predominates to the north while mostly soft clayey silt is present under the south
side of the Tower. The clayey silt is much more compressible and deformed more
quickly under the initial load of the Tower (Bai, 2008).
The soft, upper clay layer, called “Pancone” clay has contributed greatly
to the overall settlement of the tower. As shown in Figure 2.8, a depression exists
in the upper layers of Horizon B. The overall Tower load caused the clay to
consolidate resulting in as much as 3 m of settlement.
Once the Tower began to lean, overturning moments induced by the
eccentric weight of the Tower continued to affect its lean. As seen in Figure 2.3,
the inclination of the Tower grew rapidly following completion of the bell
chamber (1370-1550). There are multiple theories for this escalated rotation.
One involves a phenomenon termed “leaning instability” (Burland, 2003) where
insufficient soil stiffness causes failure. It happens usually in tall structures where
a small lean creates an overturning moment greater than the resisting moment in
the soil due to the same rotation (Potts, 2000). The analogy of children building
block towers on soft carpet is used to explain the phenomenon. No matter how
carefully a structure is built, once it reaches a critical height, the slightest
20
perturbation will cause rapid inclination (Burland, 2000). It is also possible the
high stress concentrations on the south side brought the foundation material to a
state of failure (Bai, 2008). This would be the case where insufficient soil
strength would cause a bearing capacity failure. It is quite possible the very soft
ground below the Tower in combination with the 19.6 m diameter base and 58.2
m height made it susceptible to either mechanism.
2.7 Estimated Settlement
There have been several engineers who have attempted to calculate
settlement of the Tower of Pisa and predict future movements. Terzaghi,
Terracina, Mitchell, Soga, Burland, Potts and Bai are among those who have
made such settlement calculations which are discussed in Section 2.8. However,
because original elevations of the Tower foundation in 1173 are unknown, an
absolute measured settlement history is not available for direct comparison.
Although, there are some estimated final settlements reported in the literature.
Based on the findings of the Commision of the Italian Ministry of Public Works
published in 1971, Mitchell et al (1979) estimate the final settlement of the Tower
to be approximately 140 cm on the north side, 220 cm in the center, and 310 cm
on the south side. Also reported in figures of the Bai et al (2008) paper are
observed final settlement values of 201 cm to the North and 390 cm to the South.
A linear interpolation between the two points produces an estimated final Center
settlement of 296 cm. The source of the Bai et al (2008) measurements is unclear.
Inconsistency exists between the estimated final settlements reported by Mitchell
21
et al (1977) and Bai et al (2008). Therefore, for comparison purposes in this
thesis a range of the values will be used.
2.8 Previous Settlement Calculations
In 1934, Terzaghi presented one of the first geotechnical explanations for
the lean of the Tower. Terzaghi (1934) attributed the cause to the differential
settlement of the soft highly plastic clays beneath the foundation. This resulted in
the non-symmetric distribution of soil pressures shown in Figure 2.14. The
analysis was based upon limited subsurface data. Even so, the results in Figure
2.15 provide a good representation of the maximum difference in elevation (i.e.
differential settlement) between the highest and lowest points of the base of the
Tower versus time. The final differential settlement of about 155 cm, assuming
the base of the Tower to be rigid, projects to an inclination of 4.54o in 1934
compared to the actual measured inclination in 1990 of 5.469o (Costanzo, 1994).
Unfortunately, at this time an English translation of the Terzaghi (1934) paper is
currently not available and information gathered is mostly based on the figures
presented.
22
FIGURE 2.14. Non-Symmetric Soil Pressure from Leaning Tower (Terzaghi, 1934)
FIGURE 2.15. Differential Settlement (Terzaghi, 1934)
Terracina (1962) states two likely phenomenon for the Tower’s
inclination, the difference in soil consistency from the north to the south and the
uneven distribution of contact pressures as a result of the overturning moment
from the continual incline of the Tower. While the mean contact pressure is
known to be about 490 kPa, the paper attempts to reconstruct the history of the
inclination and estimates the soil pressures in 1962 to be 50 kPa at the North and
23
930 kPa at the South side. This extreme distribution has strengthened the soils to
the south and reduced their compressibility. The Tower continues to settle on the
south side though because pressures are still increasing. The curves calculated by
Terracina (1962) for settlement at the north, center, and south are shown in Figure
2.16.
FIGURE 2.16. Estimated Tower of Pisa Soil Pressures and Settlement (Terracina, 1962)
Mitchell et al (1977) make a thorough attempt at calculating the one
dimensional settlement of the Tower of Pisa. The analysis had the benefit of
utilizing the comprehensive studies carried out by the Polvani Commission (1965-
1970) and published by the Italian Ministry of Public Works (1971). The curve
constructed in Figure 2.17 is based on dividing the subsoil into an upper 7 m thick
sand zone and a 30 m thick clay beneath the sand. Immediate settlements of the
sand were assumed to be total settlements while immediate settlements of the clay
were calculated using linear elastic theory with consideration given to the effects
of local yielding. Both were assumed to occur at the time of load application.
The consolidation of the clay layer was assumed to begin at the middle of each
construction stage and continued at a three dimensional drainage rate by
converting the time from one dimensional consolidation conditions to three
24
dimensional conditions using relationships developed by Davis and Poulos (1968)
for circular foundations. Secondary compression was added by dividing the clay
into upper and lower layers and forming reasonable Cα values based on the water
contents and compressibility characteristics. A rate of 26 cm/log cycle was added
at the point when the primary consolidation curve slope became less than 26
cm/log cycle. The calculation generated an ultimate settlement at the center of the
Tower to be about 173 cm.
FIGURE 2.17. 1D Average Settlement Calculation (Mitchell, 1977)
Following the publication of the Mitchell et al (1977) paper, several
technical discussions were submitted in response as well as a closure by the
original authors. Cambefort (1978) suggested much of the recent settlement has
occurred due to increase in the pumping rates from the deep sand layer and
approached the current problem of inclination using the results of more recent
observations. Using the original authors immediate and consolidation settlement
data, Nathan (1978) re-calculated an estimated final center settlement to be 152.3
25
cm and suggested, contrary to the author’s conclusions, that a bearing capacity
failure did occur within the upper sands due to their volcanic silt and clayey sand
properties. Nathan (1978) also contested the original author’s conclusion that the
Tower continues to rotate due to secondary compression, as 20th century activity
including drilling and lowering of the water table are known to have caused
measurable settlement and inclination. Mascardi (1978) presented a plot of the
elevation of the water table with respect to the time period 1967-1977 and
explained its affects on the angle of tilt. While the recent settlement, after 1967,
may be neglected if compared to the overall total, the estimated final settlement
from the literature at the center of the foundation should be 230-260 cm and
greater than the 180 cm presented by Mitchell et al (1977). Leonards (1979) also
argued that, consistent with Terzaghi (1934), the estimated final settlement at the
center of the Tower is at least 240 cm. Leonards (1979) contended the results of
the penetration tests in the upper sand layer favor a random distribution of
compressibility and not one of directional bias which Mitchell et al (1977) uses to
support the theory that initial inclination is caused by greater immediate
settlement on the south side. In addition, it cannot be certain any of the floors
beyond the third story were constructed exactly horizontal and any record of
tilting versus time is not reliable until the 1800s. Leonards (1979) felt the best
theoretical concept for secondary compression used by the author was not
adequate for the soft clays beneath the Tower. From Figure 2.18 based on
subsurface explorations in the north-south plane, Leonards (1979) found a
depression in the center of 254 cm and an unmistakable heave to the south of 42
26
cm. These findings favor a local shear failure in the upper clay stratum. In
response to each of the discussions, the original authors reexamined the Italian
Commission report to find estimated final settlements of 140 cm at the north, 220
cm at the center and 310 cm at the south side of the Tower. The discrepancy
between Nathan’s (1978) recalculated 152.3 cm and the original 180 cm is
ascribed to resetting secondary compression to zero at each construction stage.
As far as the bearing capacity failure theory supported by Nathan (1978) and the
local shear failure by Leonards (1979), Mitchell et al (1979) reiterates that (p.
1364), “no one can state the cause of the leaning with certainty.” Also, it was
conceded the Terzaghi (1934) curve, shown in Figure 2.17, is of differential
settlement and is improperly compared to the Terracina (1962) and Mitchell et al
(1977) curves.
Figure 2.18. Center Settlement and Southward Heave (Leonards, 1979)
A three dimensional numerical analysis of the Tower was conducted by
Soga and Mitchell (1995) to first evaluate the complex stress conditions and then
used those results to estimate the time-dependent deformation of the soils. The
study used the finite element program FEAP for the three dimensional analysis
and the soil parameters from the explorations summarized by Calabresi in 1993.
27
The results of the analysis significantly under estimated the actual tilt of the
Tower. The study found an elasto-plastic finite element analysis provided more
realistic stress distributions than an elastic analysis. Triaxial creep tests
performed on Pisa clays indicated larger deformations than those predicted by the
Cam clay model used in the analysis, suggesting creep played a significant role in
the Tower’s tilt. It is recommended, in order to predict the Tower’s present
rotation, the actual loading stress path of the Tower should be followed rather
than the effective stress path.
A large amount of work on development and application of a numerical
model of the Tower for stabilization purposes was performed in the late 1990s. In
order to calibrate a model to simulate the history of tilting, Burland and Potts
(1994) developed a hypothesis that with the construction of each story, the
masons attempted to bring the center line of the Tower back over the center of the
foundation. The deduced inclination history, shown in Figure 2.3, actually
indicates the Tower oscillated in different directions for many years until a
significant tilt of 1.6o southward was present in 1272. Each analysis used the
finite element program ICFEP using a constitutive soil model that is non-linear
elastic/work hardening plastic. The analyses were carried out using the Modified
Cam Clay Model with fully coupled consolidation. The soil parameters used
were those reported by Calabresi et al (1993) and Lancellota and Pepe (1990).
Initial efforts by Burland generated a two dimensional plane strain model. The
mesh extended 100 m to all sides of the Tower and all layers were modeled as
laterally homogeneous with the exception of layer A1 which introduced a tapered
28
layer of slighty more compressible material to the south. The analysis
incorporated an equation to apply an overturning moment to the foundation if any
inclination occurred. The results of the model are shown in Figure 2.19,
computing a maximum 380 cm of settlement in 1990. The overestimate was
believed to be due to the plane strain formulation of the analysis. The results of
the inclination analysis matched the deduced values fairly well. When running
the three dimensional model, a maximum settlement of 310 cm was computed,
which was much closer to the estimated final range of values. The entire purpose
of the modeling was to enhance the understanding of the mechanisms controlling
the Tower so remediation efforts could be proposed.
FIGURE 2.19. 2D Plane Strain Settlement and Inclination Calculations (Burland, 2003)
Bai et al (2008) model the Tower three dimensionally using the effects of
soil creep. The creep investigated by Bai is a complex way of modeling
traditional secondary compression, beyond the scope of this thesis. The finite
element modeling program PISA with the double-yield surface Cam-clay
plasticity model was used in the analyses. Initially, the problem was modeled two
dimensionally in plane strain using a mesh that extended horizontally 60 m on
29
either side of two rigid plates that served as the foundations of the Tower. The
soil parameters were based on values from the previous studies and the loading
was based on the corresponding actual construction stages. The results showed
that creep is important in the upper layers of Horizons A and B. The final
settlement calculated (in 1990) is 330 cm. The settlement curve shown in Figure
2.20 corresponds to an inclination curve in Figure 2.21 and a final angle of 3.4o
when accounting for creep. A sensitivity analysis performed found that the
present angle of 5.469o could not be achieved simply by changing the parameters
suggesting other mechanisms such as “leaning instability” may have contributed
to the considerable tilt between 1370 and 1550. The three dimensional analysis
was performed both with and without incorporating the Tower structure. Without
the structure, a more complex load increment scheme was used and incorporated a
more compressible clayey silt layer thinning to the north. The analysis that
included creep calculated an ultimate settlement of 313 cm at the north and 415
cm to the south but still underestimated the angle of inclination at 2.98o. In
modeling with the Tower structure, eight weaker elements were introduced to the
south edge in order to initiate southward inclination in order to avoid applying a
load and overturning moment. The Tower structure was modeled as linear elastic
material with densities correlating to the actual weight of the Tower. The results
continued to underestimate inclination angle (2.5o) and no calculated settlement
was presented.
30
FIGURE 2.20. Plane Strain Settlement Curve (Bai, 2008)
FIGURE 2.21. Plane Strain Corresponding Inclination (Bai, 2008)
The efforts of these investigations relate to this thesis in that there are
comparisons between the calculations made in one, two and three dimensions.
From the early one dimensional investigations of Terracina (1962) and Mitchell et
al, reasonable estimates of average Tower settlement can be made. The
preliminary two dimensional analyses by Burland et al (2003) and Bai et al (2008)
are able to roughly model the inclination. These models, though, require more
input parameters and, unless calibrated, overestimate settlement due to their plane
strain formulation. The three dimensional efforts do not require much more input
than the two dimensional models and are superior in terms of computing final
settlement. Yet, the three dimensional models underestimated the inclination
angle.
31
Chapter 3: One-Dimensional Analysis
A one-dimensional settlement analysis will be made for the average
settlement at the center of the Tower. An analysis at the center will be compared
to one-dimensional calculations made by previous investigators. The analysis
uses the computer software program Winsaf. Soil properties obtained from
previous investigations at the Tower described in Section 2.5 are used for this
analysis.
3.1 Winsaf-I
The computer software program Winsaf-I2 uses conventional one-
dimensional primary consolidation theory to compute settlement as a function of
vertical design loads acting on a soil profile created as a set of horizontal layers.
The stresses can be calculated using either Bossinesq or Westergaard solutions
and are based upon the prescribed surface loading. The options for computing the
settlement include change in void ratio from stress changes, change in void ratio
from compression and rebound curves, vertical strain from stress changes, and
volumetric change from stress. A typical input page is shown in Figure 3.1.
From these inputs, Winsaf-I computes an ultimate primary settlement for the
entire profile. Winsaf-I is capable of calculating secondary compression based on
a specified number of log cycles, however, an alternate method is chosen in this
analysis. The secondary settlement used for this analysis is made with an
independent calculation (discussed in Section 3.4.2) and added to the Winsaf-I
total for primary because the number of log cycles is dependent upon when the
2
Prototype Engineering Inc., Winchester, MA
32
end of primary consolidation occurs. The exact timing of the end of primary in
the soils beneath the Tower is unknown and, if specified incorrectly, would cause
an over estimation in the Winsaf-I calculation.
FIGURE 3.1. Winsaf-I Soil Properties Input
3.1.1 Winsaf-TR
The computer software program Winsaf-TR1 computes one-dimensional
consolidation times based on Terzaghi’s theory (1925). The program can analyze
a radially drained systems, and vertically drained single or double layered
systems. Figure 3.2 is a typical input page for a double layered system. Based on
pore pressure, ultimate settlement, and time-rate of consolidation (cv), Winsaf-TR
calculates the percent consolidation, U, and settlement for specified soil
thicknesses at times after loading.
33
FIGURE 3.2. Winsaf-TR Consolidation Parameters Input
3.2 One-Dimensional Profile
The one-dimensional profile selected for this analysis is a simplification of
a north-south profile created by Rampello and Callisto (1998) shown in Figure
2.8. The settlement program Winsaf-I is able to analyze a maximum of ten layers.
The profile to be analyzed was split into eight layers (Figure 3.3) based on the
simplified profile of Figure 2.7. Of these layers, four were considered
compressible. They include the Clayey Silt (A1), the Upper Clay (B1, B2, B3),
the Intermediate Clay (B4, B5) and the Lower Clay (B7, B8, B9, B10). The
ground surface elevation was set at +3.0 m. The base of the Tower was placed at
an elevation of 0.0 m and the water table was set below the surface at an elevation
of +1.8 m.
To refine the ultimate settlement calculation, some of the compressible
soil layers were subdivided using the Winsaf-I multiple sublayer option. A
sublayer evaluation was performed in which the number of sublayers was
increased until the change in settlement was not significant. The number of
sublayers used is summarized with the Winsaf-I soil parameters in Table 3.1.
34
Top of
Soil Type γ (kN/m3) 2 Compressible Sublayers eo 3 CR 4 RR 5 SR 6 Cα 7
Layer (m) 1 sat
Fill +3.0 20.00 No 1 - - - - -
A1 - Clayey Silt 0.0 18.94 Yes 5 0.84 0.122 0.014 0.014 0.004
A2 - Upper Sand -5.4 18.07 No 1 - - - - -
B1,B2,B3 - Upper
-7.4 16.94 Yes 6 1.45 0.348 0.058 0.058 0.015
Clay
B4,B5 - Intermediate
-17.8 19.68 Yes 1 0.75 0.169 0.024 0.024 0.004
Clay
B6 - Intermediate
-22.0 19.11 No 1 - - - - -
Sand
B7,B8,B9,B10 - Lower
-24.4 18.88 Yes 3 0.95 0.266 0.042 0.042 0.010
Clay
C - Lower Sand -37.0 20.52 No 1 - - - - -
(1) Figure 2.8 - Detailed Soil Profile, Rampello and Callisto (1998)
(2) Figure 2.10 - Unit Weight, Lo Presti et al (2003)
(3) eo = (Gs*wn)/S, Gs, wn, S = 100% - Figure 2.10, Lo Presti et al (2003)
(4) CR = Cc/(1+eo), Cc - Figure 2.11, Rampello and Callisto (1998)
(5) RR = SR
(6) SR = Cs/(1+eo), Cs - Figure 2.11, Rampello and Callisto (1998)
(7) Figure 2.11, Rampello and Callisto (1998)
TABLE 3.1. Winsaf-I Parameters
+3.0
Fill
0.0
A1 - Clayey Silt
-5.4
-7.4 A2 - Silty Sand
B1,B2,B3 - Upper
Clay
-17.8
B4,B5 - Intermediate
Clay
-22.0
B6 - Intermediate
-24.4 = Pervious
Sand
B7,B8,B9,B10 -
Lower Clay
-37.0
C - Lower Sand
FIGURE 3.3. Simplified Subsurface Profile
35
3.3 Methods and Parameters
For the ultimate settlement computation in Winsaf-I, the circular loading
method was chosen to approximate the Tower’s hollow cylindrical structure seen
in Figure 2.5. Also, since maximum past pressures are known, settlement was
computed by the vertical strains computed from changes in logarithmic stress.
For the Winsaf-TR time-rate analysis, the soil profile was broken into
three clay sections based on the locations of the A2 and B6 sand layers to allow
for top and bottom drainage for each layer system. The A1-Clayey Silt drained
into the Fill and A2 layers. The B7, B8, B9, B10-Lower Clay drained into the B6
and C sand layers. Both of these were modeled as single layer systems with top
and bottom drainage. The B1, B2, B3-Upper Clay and B4, B5-Intermediate Clay
were modeled together as a double layered system. The A2 and B6 layers served
as top and bottom drainage routes for the double layered system. The excess pore
pressure distributions for the three systems were modeled as rectangular.
3.3.1 Assumptions
The analysis performed using Winsaf was used to compute a settlement
for the center of the Tower. Results obtained for the north and south sides of the
Tower would not reflect the varying soil layers and the eventual non-uniform
loading. The one dimensional analysis cannot account for an applied overturning
moment associated with a leaning tower. A crude analysis of the effect of the
north-south variation in the soil profile and overturning moment is possible by
varying the profile and applied pressure to represent the conditions at the north
and south sides. However, the Winsaf software is not designed for such analysis.
36
Additionally, the calculation assumes the thicknesses of the soil layers are
constant. Most notably, the A1 layer is considered a single layer and not divided
as A1’ and A1” as shown in Figure 2.8. In reality, the clayey silt predominates
the A1 layer on the south side (Mitchell, 1977). The uniform thicknesses of a one-
dimensional analysis cannot take this into account.
The Tower is not a solid cylinder, but rather a hollow cylinder with a
helicoidal staircase leading to the bell chamber at the top of the structure
(Costanzo, 1994). In the analysis, however, it was assumed to be a homogeneous
structure with a circular footing that carries an equally distributed load. This
assumption leads to the generation of different pressures than those actually
imposed by the weight of the Tower.
The construction history of the Tower was approximated as well. It was
assumed in the analysis that for the 5, 6, and 10 year periods of construction,
uniform ramp loading occurred. The actual stages of construction are unknown
and likely did not follow a linear loading path.
Historically there are several other factors that are cited as potentially
affecting the Tower settlement. In 1838, a walkway around the base of the Tower
was excavated to expose original parts of the structure (Burland, 2003).
However, with such a shallow water table, inflow of water occurred during
excavation. In 1935, repeated angled drilling into the foundation of the Tower
took place (Burland, 1998). Both of these instances are believed to have caused
additional settlement and inclination of the Tower. Neither, though, was
accounted for in the one-dimensional analysis.
37
In order to remain consistent in the analysis process, the major
assumptions of this section, unless specified otherwise, will be carried over to the
2D and 3D settlement analyses.
3.3.2 Settlement Parameters
The subsoil at the Tower of Pisa has been well studied as discussed in
Section 2.5. Papers written by Mitchell et al (1977), Rampello and Callisto
(1998), and Lo Presti et al (2003) were used as the primary sources of
geotechnical parameters for the 1D analysis. A description of the basic soil
parameters used in this analysis and their sources can be found in Section 2.5.
The parameters selected for the Winsaf-I settlement calculation are shown
in Table 3.1. As mentioned in Section 3.2, the layers and their thicknesses are a
simplification of a north-south profile. The soil densities are weighted averages
collected from Figure 2.10 (Lo Presti, 2003). The clay layers are compressible,
while the sand and fill layers are assumed incompressible. The values for initial
void ratio, eo, are calculated from water content, wn, and specific gravity, Gs,
gathered from Figure 2.10 (Lo Presti, 2003) using the equation:
G s ⋅ wn
eo = (Eq. 3.1)
S
The samples are assumed to be fully saturated, S = 1.0.
Compression ratio values, CR, are found using compression index, Cc,
values from Figure 2.11 (Rampello, 1998) and eo values in the following
equation,
Cc
CR = (Eq. 3.2)
1 + eo
38
Likewise, swelling ratios, SR, were found in a similar manner. Swelling
index, Cs, values were obtained from Figure 2.11 (Rampello, 1998) and were used
in calculations with eo,
Cs
SR = (Eq. 3.3)
1 + eo
Recompression Ratios, RR, were set equal to SR since there is no available data
for recompression index, Cr.
The values for maximum past pressure, σ’vm, used to define stress history
as a function of depth are shown in Table 3.2. Values are calculated as a product
of effective overburden stress and average OCR values at the same depth
estimated from Figure 2.13 (Lo Presti et al, 2003). Effective stresses, σ’, are
found by the following equation,
σ ' =σ −u (Eq. 3.4)
where total stress, σ, is calculated from the unit weight of the soil and pore
pressures, u, are found based on a piezometric surface at elevation +1.8 m.
Effective stress and maximum past pressure are plotted versus depth in Figure 3.4.
Maximum
Elevation
Total Stress, σ Pore Pressure, u Effective Stress, Past
Layer Top of Layer γsat (kN/m3) 1
OCR
5
(kPa) 2 (kPa)
3
σ'vo (kPa) 4 Pressure, σ'
σ vm
(m) 6
(kPa)
Fill 3.0 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - -
A1- Clayey Silt 0.0 18.94 57.60 17.66 39.94 4.07 162.56
A2 - Upper Sand -5.4 18.07 159.88 70.63 89.24 2.38 211.95
B1,B2,B3 - Upper Clay -7.4 16.94 196.02 90.25 105.76 2.00 211.53
B4,B5 - Intermediate Clay -17.8 19.68 372.19 192.28 179.92 1.25 224.90
B4,B5 - Intermediate Clay -17.8 19.68 372.19 192.28 179.92 2.00 359.83
B6 - Intermediate Sand -22.0 19.11 454.85 233.48 221.37 2.00 442.74
B7,B8,B9,B10 - Lower Clay -24.4 18.88 500.71 257.02 243.69 1.25 304.61
C - Lower Sand -37.0 20.52 738.60 380.63 357.97 1.25 447.47
(1) Figure 2.8 - Detailed Soil Profile, Rampello and Callisto (1998)
(2) σ = γsat*Depth
(3) u = γwater*Depth Below Water Table (Elevation +1.8m)
(4) σ'vo = σ - u
(5) Figure 2.13, Lo Presti et al (2003)
(6) σ'vm = σ'vo*OCR
TABLE 3.2. Maximum Past Pressures
39
σ vm (kPa)
σ, σ'
0 100 200 300 400 500
0.0
A1
-5.0
A2
-10.0 Effective Stress

Maximum Past Pressure
B1,B2,B3 s'vm2
-15.0
Depth (m)
-20.0 B4,B5
B6
-25.0
-30.0
B7,B8,B9,B10
-35.0
C
-40.0
FIGURE 3.4. Effective Stress and Maximum Past Pressure vs. Depth
3.3.3 Consolidation Rate Parameters
The parameters for the consolidation rate portion of the analysis are
displayed in Table 3.3. As mentioned in the Section 3.3, the subsoil is divided
into three separate layer systems where each system has top and bottom drainage.
Each layer has an initial thickness that decreases with each stage of settlement.
The initial pore pressure, uo, is the product of the hwater at mid-depth and the γwater
(9.81 kN/m3). The ultimate settlement for each loading stage was computed using
Winsaf-I.
Winsaf-TR requires values for the coefficient of consolidation, cv, to
compute settlement over time. The values of cv for the Horizon B layers are
shown in Figure 2.12 and were presented in Mitchell et al (1977). According to
Lo Presti et al (2003), the B6 intermediate sand layers are very similar to the
40
deposits of Horizon A. As a result, the cv found for the B6 layer was used for the
A1-Clayey Silt layer.
Fill
2 1
cv - 15.77m /yr
2
Load Thickness uo (kN/m ) ρultimate (cm)
Number (m) 2 3
A1 - Clayey Silt
1 5.40 26.5 19.75
2 5.20 25.5 9.89
3 5.10 25.0 1.39
A2 - Upper Sand
2 1
cv - 0.85 m /yr
2
B1,B2,B3 - Upper Number (m) 2 3
Clay
1 10.40 51.0 54.13
2 9.86 48.4 35.45
3 9.50 46.6 5.31
2 1
cv - 3.15 m /yr
Load Thickness uo ρultimate (cm)

B4, B5 - Number (m) 2
(kN/m )
2 3
Intermediate Clay
1 4.20 20.6 1.39
2 4.19 20.6 0.57
3 4.18 20.5 0.09
B6 - Intemediate Sand
2 1
cv - 1.26 m /yr
2
B7,B8,B9,B10 - Number (m) 2 3
Lower Clay
1 12.60 61.8 2.77
2 12.57 61.7 2.4
3 12.55 61.6 0.72
C - Lower Sand
(1) cv - Figure 2.12, Mitchell et al (1977)

(2) uo = (γwater * Thickness)/2
(3) ρultimate - Winsaf-I Calculation
TABLE 3.3. Winsaf-TR Parameters
In order to make a secondary compression calculation, values for the
secondary compression index, Cα, were taken from Figure 2.11 from Rampello
and Callisto (1998). The data is from multiple studies that used different sampling
techniques. An average Cα value was selected for each of the four compressible
layers. The values for the Upper Clay layer, which is considered the softest, were
found to be almost a full order of magnitude greater than the other layers.
41
3.3.4 Loading Sequence
The construction of the Tower occurred in three distinct phases. As a
result, the one-dimensional settlement calculation of the Tower was performed
using three separate runs. For each calculation, the ultimate settlement was found
first using Winsaf-I. Then for the consolidation portion, Winsaf-TR was used to
compute the time rate settlement.
The first calculation simulates the construction of three and a half stories
of the Tower, a loading of 94,800 kN over 5 years and a consolidation of 94
years. The second phase, construction up to the seventh cornice, brings the total
load to 137280 kN over 6 years. Consolidation following the second phase lasts
for 82 years. The final construction phase represents the completion of the
construction with the addition of the bell tower. It occurred over 10 years
bringing the total cumulative load to 144530 kN. This is followed by
consolidation until the end of primary is reached. In the analysis, the end of
primary is assumed to occur at 90 percent of the total settlement of the final load,
which equates to a period of approximately 30 years. At this point, it is assumed
secondary consolidation began (in the year 1390, 217 years after initial
construction). The calculation for secondary consolidation ran from this point to
the year 1990, a period 600 years. Secondary compression was neglected during
the first two phases of construction since the purpose of the one-dimensional
analysis is to provide a simple calculation for the settlement of the Tower. The
incorporation of secondary into the first and second phases would complicate the
calculation.
42
3.4 Results
The ultimate settlement under the center of the Tower using Winsaf was
computed to be 152 cm. Figure 3.5 is a plot of the settlement versus time
produced by Winsaf. Also shown is the estimated final settlement under the
center of the Tower which ranges from 220-296 cm. As discussed in Section 2.7,
there is no settlement history for comparison during the earlier stages of
construction. The time-settlement plot shows a reasonable curve with incremental
changes in slope corresponding to each of the three loads during a construction
sequence.
150
Tower Load (MN)
100
50
0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
-50
-100
1990 - 152 cm
-150
-200
-250 ACTUAL
CENTER
-300
Settlement (cm)
-350
-400
-450
-500
FIGURE 3.5. 1D Computed Settlement – Center of Tower
From the initial construction load of the first three floors and the 99 years
until the next phase, computed settlement was 78 cm. The construction up to the
seventh floor that took 6 years and the ensuing 82 year consolidation was
computed to create an additional 48 cm of settlement. The final construction
43
phase of the bell tower accounted for an additional 8 cm of settlement. At the end
the construction and primary consolidation, the soil was computed to compress an
additional 18 cm due to secondary compression.
3.4.1 Primary Consolidation
The Tower of Pisa construction was completed over 600 years ago. It is
reasonable to assume then that the soil beneath it has reached the end of primary
consolidation. Using coefficient of consolidation, cv, values from Mitchell et al
(1977) for each of the compressible layers and assuming 90 percent settlement to
be the end of primary consolidation, Winsaf-TR computed end of primary
consolidation to be 30 years after the final load application, 217 years after the
beginning of construction. The settlement at this time is computed to be 134 cm.
3.4.2 Secondary Compression
For this analysis, the secondary compression was assumed not to begin
until the end of primary consolidation. This assures that secondary compression
occurs at constant effective stress after excess pore pressures have dissipated
(Ladd, 1973). As noted is Section 3.1, secondary compression was not computed
with the Winsaf program. The formula for secondary compression is given by:
t
ρ sec = Cα ⋅ H ⋅ Log ( ) (Eq. 3.5)
tp
where Cα is the secondary compression index, H is the thickness of the soil layer,
t is the total time, and tp is the time for primary consolidation. Secondary
compression began around the year 1390 and computed 18 cm of settlement over
the final 600 years of the model.
44
3.5 Discussion
The computation made by Winsaf of 152 cm is less than the estimated
final settlements of 220-296 cm reported in the literature. Several reasons should
be noted as potential causes for the difference. The first entails the neglect of
shear-induced immediate settlements that occur instantaneously and prior to
consolidation, an issue addressed by Mitchell et al (1977). The analysis
conducted using Winsaf assumes consolidation begins immediately, neglecting
the shear-induced settlement. In the settlement analysis Mitchell et al (1977)
make a rough calculation for shear-induced immediate settlements based on linear
elastic theory using an estimated modulus of elasticity for clays. Mitchell et al
(1977) calculate these immediate settlements as 26 cm, 24 cm for the second
phase and 2 cm for the third phase. By including these shear induced immediate
settlements to the beginning of each Winsaf phase, total settlement increases to
204 cm (Figure 3.6).
Secondly, secondary compression was neglected during the first two
phases of Tower construction. Primary consolidation ends roughly 30-50 years
into each phase, meaning about half of the time from the 99 years of the first
phase and the 88 years from the second phase could have contributed to
secondary settlement. However, the incorporation of secondary compression in
the first two phases would have complicated the simple calculation intended by a
one-dimensional analysis. Actual estimates suggest that this would have
contributed at most 2-3 cm of additional settlement.
45
150
Tower Load (MN)

100
50
0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
-50
-100
Winsaf
1990 - 152 cm
-150
1990 - 204 cm
-200 Winsaf + Shear Induced Settlement
-250 ACTUAL
CENTER
-300
Settlement (cm)
-350
-400
-450
-500
FIGURE 3.6. 1D Computed Shear Induced and Consolidation Settlement – Center of Tower
Settlement calculation also is very dependent on the scatter of the data
points for the consolidation parameters Cc and Cs. The data presented in Figure
2.11 is compiled from three different studies using three different techniques.
Lancellota and Pepe (1990) summarize data collected using thin walled piston
samplers by the Project Team in 1986. A 1990-1992 investigation chaired by
Jamiolkowski collected samples using a sampler developed at the University of
Laval. The points associated with Calabresi (1993) are a collection of data from
all previous investigations that have been reanalyzed and used to derive a new set
of soil parameters (Rampello, 1998). With all the variation, it is difficult to assess
which set is the best. Parameters used in this study and the Cc and Cs input into
Winsaf are the proposed values given by Rampello and Callisto (1998). The large
variation is one possible source for the under calculation of Tower settlement.
Higher Cc values in the A1 or B1, B2, B3 layers would lead to more settlement.
46
3.6 Winsaf Verification
When calculations are made using computer software, it is worthwhile to
verify the solution it presents (Barbour, 2004). Previous investigations of the
Tower of Pisa have been made and are presented in Section 3.6.1 for comparison
purposes. Also, a calculation check is made using a method presented by Olson
(1977) for replacing the load-time curve.
3.6.1 Previous 1D Calculations
Terracina (1962) and Mitchell et al (1977) are among the engineers who
have made previous one-dimensional settlement calculations under the center of
the Tower. These analyses were performed lacking more sophisticated sampling
devices used for the geotechnical information gathered in the 1990s and 2000s.
Figure 3.7 shows each curve from the past analyses compared to the results of this
investigation. The Terracina (1962) curve does not take into account the lapses in
the Tower’s construction and ultimately surpasses the Mitchell et al (1977) and
Winsaf curves, but still under estimates final settlement.
The analysis by Mitchell et al (1977) calculates settlement based on three
different loading periods and an average rate of consolidation. The computed
ultimate settlement of the Mitchell et al (1977) curve is 173 cm. Both the Winsaf
and the Mitchell et al (1977) curves compute settlements less than the estimated
final center settlement and both show rapidly accelerating settlements at the times
corresponding to each of the Tower construction periods. However, the Mitchell
et al (1977) curve has a much steeper slope after these loads are added while the
Winsaf curve is more gradual. This is likely due to that fact Mitchell et al (1977)
47
assume shear-induced instantaneous consolidation of some of the layers, whereas
the Winsaf curve applies the same consolidation rate to each layer. The Winsaf
curve also shows less settlement following the final load.
150
Tower Load (MN)
100
50
0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
-50
-100
Winsaf
-150
Mitchell et al (1977)
-200 Terracina (1962)
-250 ACTUAL
CENTER
-300
Settlement (cm)
-350
-400
-450
-500
FIGURE 3.7. Previous Settlement Calculations – Center of Tower
3.6.2 Olson Method
A method by Olson (1977) proposes replacing the load-time curve with a
series of step loads and applying the theory for instantaneous loading to each step.
The calculation is based upon ultimate settlement, Su, and computing the time
factor, T, defined as,
cv ⋅ t
T= (Eq. 3.6)
H2
where H is the drainage distance and t is the time since the load was applied.
The result of the method is compared to the Winsaf analysis in Figure 3.8.
The settlement curves generated are nearly identical to those made in Winsaf.
48
Both curves indicate rapid initial settlements followed by a tapering of the
settlement 30-40 years after each loading increment. The agreement of the curves
indicates Winsaf is computing a time-rate settlement similar to the Olson method.
The ultimate settlement of about 133 cm is reached by the year 1390 and
secondary compression was assumed to start at this time. The same secondary
calculation was made for the Olson method as in Winsaf, an additional 19 cm
until the year 1990.
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
0
-20
-40
-60
Settlement (cm)
Winsaf
-80 Olson Method
-100
-120
-140
-160
FIGURE 3.8. Olson Time-Rate Settlement Calculation
49
Chapter 4: Two-Dimensional Analysis – Plaxis 2D
This analysis will use the finite element analysis program, Plaxis 2D. The
2D analysis makes it possible to investigate differential settlement, which causes
the tilt of the Tower. The 2D analysis will consider both, axisymmetric and plane
strain models. The axisymmetric model can accurately represent the circular
foundation loading the Tower exerts on the underlying soils and generate a
computed average settlement, but cannot model the inclination. The plane strain
model can establish a well defined cross-section and will be able to account for
the tilt but requires a calibration for the difference between the infinite strip plane
strain loading and the actual circular loading conditions.
4.1 Plaxis 2D
The finite element software package Plaxis 2D v.8.6 (Plaxis 2D) was used
for the 2D analysis. By inputting common geotechnical parameters and defining
soil conditions and boundaries, the program can perform detailed computations
and output total displacements, stresses, dissipation of pore pressures and soil
deformation. The calculations are made using robust numerical procedures using
either 6-node or 15-node elements. Plaxis 2D is capable of modeling soil
behavior problems as either plane strain or axisymmetric. Plaxis 2D has the
ability to model the effects of loads, displacements, walls, plates, anchors, and
geotextiles on soils. It can generate a finite element mesh with five standard
options for coarseness, described as very coarse to very fine. Refinement of the
mesh can occur at specific clusters or line segments to create finer meshes. Plaxis
50
2D also introduces the use of constitutive soil models. Several soil models are
available and include Linear Elastic, Mohr-Coulomb, Soft-Soil, Soft-Soil Creep
and Hardening Soil models. Within each soil model, layers can be considered
drained or undrained. Pore pressures in these layers can be calculated by
establishing phreatic levels or defining a groundwater flow. Initial stresses can be
generated by inputting soil unit weights, Ko values and overconsolidation ratios.
In the Calculation mode, calculation phases include plastic, consolidation and phi-
c reduction. Calculation phases can be defined as staged construction, pore
pressure dissipation, or incremental multiplier. The outputs of Plaxis 2D can be
viewed at any nodes within the cross-section. Each node can be examined for
total horizontal and vertical displacements, strains, total and effective stresses,
active and excess pore pressures.
Plaxis 2D introduces the use of multiple constitutive models available to
simulate the mechanical behavior of soils. Each soil model requires a different set
of input parameters that will govern the behavior of soil.
In order to perform a finite element calculation, Plaxis 2D also requires
the definition of calculation types as well as construction stages. While in
Winsaf-I, three different calculations were made for each of the three different
phases of construction, in Plaxis 2D the entire calculation can be made in a single
run by establishing multiple phases. Each phase can specify a calculation type
and can account for changes in loading and time increments.
51
4.2.1 Soil Models
The constitutive soil models available are intended to capture the essential
features of soil and rock behavior. For this analysis the Mohr-Coulomb (MC)
model is chosen for the sand and fill layers. The Soft Soil Creep (SSC) model is
selected to model the compressible clay layers.
The MC soil model is a simple elastic-plastic approximation of soil and
rock behavior. The sands beneath the Tower of Pisa do not contribute much to
the foundation settlement. Therefore, a basic soil model like the MC is suitable.
The five input parameters include Young’s Modulus, E, Poisson’s ratio, ν,
Friction angle, φ, Cohesion, c, and Dilatancy Angle, ψ. The values E and ν affect
soil elasticity, while φ and c govern soil plasticity. Young’s Modulus is the basic
stiffness modulus based on the initial slope of the stress-strain curve of a soil.
Poisson’s ratio can be defined as the ratio of horizontal to vertical strain and for
Plaxis 2D purposes usually falls into the 0.3-0.4 range. Cohesion, or cohesive
strength, often pertains to clays. In the case of sand c is typically equal to zero. A
nominal c should be of at least 0.2 kPa should be used (Plaxis 8.2, 1998) to
improve the numerical performance of the program. The friction angle plays a
large role in determining the shear strength of the soil as calculations are made
based on the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. The dilatancy angle defines the
angle at which compression increases the volume of a dense sand. For the sands
beneath the Tower, the dilatancy angle is set equal to zero.
The SSC model is a more advanced model than the MC. The clays
beneath the Tower are an integral part of the settlement analysis and such an
52
advanced model is appropriate. The SSC model is intended for near normally
consolidated clays, clayey silts, and peat. It is capable of modeling secondary
compression, an item not included in the other soil models.
The input parameters needed for the SSC model include: compression
index, Cc, swelling index, Cs, secondary compression index, Cα, initial void ratio,
eo, and the φ, c, and ψ parameters common to the MC model. The first four
parameters listed are used by Plaxis 2D to compute the basic stiffness. The final
three serve as failure parameters as they do in the MC model. The Cc and Cs are
derived from the void ratio versus log effective stress plots. The Cα can be found
using the change in strain over the change in logarithmic time. Values for eo can
be calculated as they were in the one-dimensional analysis based on water content
and specific gravity. The c, φ, and ψ are the same as described in the MC model.
4.2.2 Soil Behavior Types
All input material parameters in Plaxis 2D are meant to represent effective
soil conditions. Since pore pressures greatly influence soil response, the presence
of water is important. The two behavior types chosen in the analysis are drained
and undrained. Drained behavior generates no excess pore pressures and is
recommended by Plaxis 2D to be used for dry soils or those with high
permeability. Therefore, drained behavior is chosen for the sand and fill layers
beneath the Tower. Undrained behavior is available for full development of
excess pore pressures. In undrained layers, the program accounts for the stiffness
of water in addition to the soil strength and stiffness. It is reasonable then to use
the undrained behavior for the relatively slow draining clay layers.
53
4.2.3 Parameters
Following the selection of the material models and behavior types, it is
necessary to select the appropriate soil parameters. A description of the basic soil
parameters used in this Plaxis 2D analysis and their sources can be found in
Section 2.5. To remain consistent with the one dimensional analysis, the common
input parameters as well as the thicknesses of the soil layers remained the same.
The compression index, Cc, swelling index, Cs, and void ratio, eo, values are the
same as those used to find the Compression Ratio, CR, and Swelling Ratio, SR
values used in the Winsaf calculation. Values for coefficients of secondary
compression, Cα, were also kept consistent.
The input parameters introduced in section 4.3.2, while not seen in the one
dimensional analysis, are necessary to use the appropriate soil models. The
majority of the values are obtained from the same primary sources. The entire
collection of Plaxis 2D input parameters are listed in Table 4.1.
The literature does not provide any values for Unsaturated Unit Weights
because the water table rests at an elevation of about +1.8 m and all of the critical
layers are assumed to be fully saturated. The program will not function if
parameters are left blank so for the analysis reasonable unsaturated unit weights
are taken as 2 kN/m3 less than their corresponding saturated unit weights. The
only affected layer is the fill with an assumed unsaturated unit weight of 18
kN/m3 applied to the upper 1.2 m of the layer.
54
Initial
Saturated Unsaturated Horizontal Vertical Young's Secondary Friction Dilatancy
Material Behavior Poisson's Compression Swelling Void Cohesion, Overconsolidation
Soil Layer Unit Weight, Unit Weight, Permeability, Permeability, Modulus, Compression, Angle, ϕ ( Angle, ψ
Model Type 3 1 3 2 Ratio, ν 4 Index, Cc 3 Index, Cs 3 Ratio, eo cref (kPa) 6 Ratio, OCR 7
γsat (kN/m ) γunsat (kN/m ) kx (m/day) 3 ky (m/day) 3 Eref (kPa) 4 Cα 3
5
o 6
) (o)
Mohr-
Fill Drained 20.00 18.00 1 1 22000 0.3 - - - - 1 34 0 -
Coulomb
Soft Soil
A1 - Clayey Silt Undrained 18.94 16.94 0.00086 0.00086 - - 0.225 0.026 0.0035 0.84 6.8 34 0 3.23
Creep
Mohr-
A2 - Upper Sand Drained 18.07 16.07 1 1 13000 0.3 - - - - 1 34 0 -
Coulomb
B1,B2,B3 - Upper Soft Soil

Undrained 16.94 14.94 0.0000173 0.0000173 - - 0.853 0.141 0.015 1.45 9.78 24 0 1.63
Clay Creep
B4,B5 - Soft Soil

Undrained 19.68 17.68 0.0000173 0.0000173 - - 0.296 0.042 0.004 0.75 1 29 0 2
Intermediate Clay Creep
B6 - Intermediate Mohr-
Drained 19.11 17.11 1 1 18000 0.3 - - - - 1 34 0 -
Sand Coulomb
B7,B8,B9,B10 - Soft Soil

Undrained 18.88 16.88 0.0000259 0.0000259 - - 0.518 0.081 0.01 0.95 3.1 26 0 1.25
Lower Clay Creep
Mohr-
C - Lower Sand Drained 20.52 18.52 1 1 100000 0.3 - - - - 1 34 0 -
Coulomb
(1) Figure 2.10, Lo Presti et al (2003) - Figure 6

(2) γunsat = γsat - 2 kN/m3
(3) Figure 2.11, Rampello and Callisto (1998) Figure 12
(4) Bai et al (2008) - Table 5
(5) eo = (Gs*wn)/S, Gs, wn, S = 100% - Figure 2.10, Lo Presti et al (2003) - Figure 6
(6) Table 2.2, Lo Presti et al (2003) - Table 8
(7) Figure 2.13, Lo Presti et al (2003) - Figure 11
TABLE 4.1. Plaxis 2D Input Parameters
55
The permeability values used for the clay layers are from Figure 2.11
(Rampello, 1998). The input values are identical to the proposed values of the
figures but converted to m/day. The sand and fill layers are considered to be
highly permeable, therefore, the permeability values for each are assumed to be 1
m/day. These values correlate well with those used in the numerical analysis by
Potts and Burland (2000). Permeability is assumed to be the same in the vertical
and horizontal directions.
Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio apply only to the layers modeled
with the MC soil model, the sands and fill. The values are obtained from the soil
parameters used in the three dimensional analysis performed by Bai et al (2008).
With the exception of the very dense sand of Horizon C, the Young’s Modulus
values used fall in the typical range for Loose Sand according to the Elastic
Constants of Various Soils (FHWA, 1999). All Poisson Ratio’s are set to 0.3. As
recommended by the Plaxis 2D manual, the value should be in the range of 0.3-
0.4 for soils with the MC model under loading conditions.
As the sands beneath the Tower are non-cohesive, it is reasonable to input
c = 0 for each of the sand layers. However, Plaxis 2D recommends values of 0.2
kPa or greater to avoid complications in the computation. This analysis used a
value of 1 kPa in the sand layers. Plaxis 2D uses effective soil parameters and the
values for effective cohesion in the clay layers should be relatively small. Values
for each clay layer are taken from Table 2.2 (Lo Presti, 2003) and are in the range
of 1-10 kPa. The values for both the sand and clay layers friction angles are also
56
taken from Table 2.2 (Lo Presti, 2003). Values for all dilatancy angles are
considered negligible and assumed to be zero.
The final column in the parameter Table 4.1 represents overconsolidation
ratio (OCR) values. The values used (Table 4.2) are consistent with those used in
the Winsaf calculation. However, in Winsaf the values are input based on the
OCR values at the top and bottom of each layer. The Plaxis 2D values are those
taken at the midpoint of each layer, which are straight line averages of the top and
bottom of the Winsaf OCRs.
Winsaf Plaxis 2D
OCR OCR OCR
Layer
(Top) (Bottom) (Midpoint)
Fill - - -
A1- Clayey Silt 4.07 2.38 3.23
A2 - Upper Sand - - -
B1,2,3 - Upper Clay 2.00 1.25 1.63
B4,5 - Intermediate Clay 2.00 2.00 2.00
B6 - Intermediate Sand - - -
B7,8,9,10 - Lower Clay 1.25 1.25 1.25
C - Lower Sand - - -
TABLE 4.2. Plaxis 2D Overconsolidation Ratios
4.3 Axisymmetric Analysis
Within Plaxis 2D the option exists to create a plane strain or axisymmetric
model. The Tower itself is circularly symmetric, so an initial axisymmetric
analysis will be performed. An axisymmetric model however, can only
reasonably compute settlement beneath the center of the Tower. The varying soil
layers beneath the Tower will have to be modeled as layers of uniform thickness
as they were in the one dimensional analysis. Also, an overturning moment
induced from the weight of the portion of the Tower overhanging the south edge
cannot be modeled in the axisymmetric case. These issues will be addressed in
the 2D plane strain portion of the analysis.
57
4.3.1 Initial Conditions
After establishing the necessary soil parameters, the mesh used in the
analysis can be created. This includes defining the geometry of the soil profile,
the placement of the Tower, and the size and fineness of the mesh. The soil layers
of the Plaxis 2D axisymmetric analysis were defined as layers of uniform
thickness consistent with the 1D Winsaf analysis. The Tower was represented as
an evenly distributed vertical load acting on a plate with a 9.8 m radius and
negligible weight acting as the base of the Tower. A 3.0 m long vertical plate
(also of negligible weight) acted as the outside wall. The coarseness and size of
the mesh were determined in mesh fineness and mesh size analyses discussed in
Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2. The results of the analyses supported the use of a 60 m
wide mesh with a very fine mesh fineness with the layer A1 and B1, B2, B3 soil
clusters refined one time each. The mesh, shown in Figure 4.1, consists of 2622
15-noded elements and 21193 nodes.
FIGURE 4.1. Plaxis 2D Axisymmetric Mesh
58
Following the generation of the mesh, the initial conditions are defined
within Plaxis 2D. This involves the elevation of the phreatic surface, flow
boundaries, and calculation of Ko values to generate initial pore pressures and
stresses. Consistent with the literature and one dimensional analysis, a general
phreatic surface is established at an elevation of +1.8 m (Burland, 2003). The
vertical boundaries of the soil layers as well as the horizontal boundary beneath
the C (Lower Sand) layer are assumed to be open and free to drain. Therefore, no
flow or consolidation boundaries are defined in the 2D model. Plaxis 2D then
calculates pore pressures based on phreatic levels.
Plaxis 2D generates initial stresses based on the Ko procedure relating
horizontal effective stress to vertical effective stress using Jaky’s formula for Ko
(1-sinφ) and the unit weight of the soil layers. The Ko values can be defined by
the user, but for the case of the Tower those calculated by the program are
considered acceptable.
4.3.2 Calculation Phases
Following the generation of a finite element model, the actual finite
element calculations can be carried out. In Plaxis 2D, it is necessary to define
which types of calculations are performed, the types of loading, and the
construction stages. In the case of the Tower of Pisa, the calculation type
consolidation is chosen for each stage of construction. The consolidation analysis
is available for situations where dissipation of excess pore pressures occurs in
saturated clay-like soils over time. The use of consolidation calculation type is
appropriate to model this long term consolidation problem.
59
To represent the load of the Tower, a distributed load system is applied.
In Plaxis 2D distributed loads are applied in terms of force per area. The load can
be applied across a cross-section and increased during various construction stages.
The corresponding pressures can be calculated from the weights during the
construction stages of the Tower. It should be noted before construction of the
Tower begins in Plaxis 2D, a level surface of fill at elevation +3.0 is assumed.
Upon construction, fill is excavated to a depth of three meters and replaced with
plates intended to simulate the base and outside wall of the Tower foundation.
The parameters of the plate material are given in Table 4.3. The weight of the
plate material is small enough in comparison to the load of the Tower that it can
be neglected in the calculation of the loads and overturning moments.
Normal Flexural Equivalent

Weight, w Poisson's
Material Type Stiffness, EA rigidity, EI thickness, d
2 (kN/m/m) Ratio, ν
(kN/m) (kNm /m) (m)
Elastic 1.0E+10 9.3E+07 0.334 0.1 0.15
TABLE 4.3. Plaxis 2D Plate Parameters
In Plaxis 2D, the entire construction and consolidation was performed in a
single run. For the simplest case, the construction can be broken into six phases,
three loadings followed by three consolidations. Table 4.4 summarizes the stages
used in the axisymmetric run.
Tower
Actual Number Calculation Tower
Load No. Actual Stage Pressure
Year of Years Type Weight (kN)
(kPa)
Construct 3 1/2
1 1173-1178 5 Consolidation 94800 314.20
Stories
2 Consolidation 1178-1272 94 Consolidation 94800 314.20
Construct up to
3 1272-1278 6 Consolidation 137280 454.99
7th Story
Construct Bell
5 1360-1370 10 Consolidation 144530 479.02
Chamber
TABLE 4.4. Plaxis 2D Calculation Phases
60
4.3.3 Axisymmetric Results
The axisymmetric analysis uses the parameters of Table 4.1 and the
loading phases defined in Table 4.4. The mesh used is shown in Figure 4.1. The
curve generated by the axisymmetric Plaxis 2D analysis is presented in Figure
4.2. The Plaxis 2D settlement of 260 cm falls in the range of the estimated actual
settlement. The curve indicates rapid initial settlement corresponding to each
loading increment. At the completion of Tower construction, the curve tapers off
significantly indicating much of the settlement occurred during the first 200 years.
This suggests the end of primary consolidation has been reached and much of the
Tower settlement over the final 600 years has been due to secondary compression.
150
Tower Load (MN)
100
50
0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250 ACTUAL
CENTER
1990 - 260 cm
Settlement (cm)
-300
-350
-400
-450
-500
FIGURE 4.2. 2D Axisymmetric Settlement – Center of Tower
4.4 Axisymmetric Verification
To assure the axisymmetric analysis has been performed correctly, several
checks were made concerning the definition of the geometry and input settings.
61
These checks include a mesh fineness study, a mesh size study, a pore pressure
check, a plastic-drained settlement analysis, and a φ = 0 analysis. As Plaxis 2D is
a complex modeling tool, this verification is worthwhile to ensure the basic
functions of the program are performing proper computations.
4.4.1 Mesh Fineness
As discussed in Andreson et al (2008), there are an optimum number of
nodes to operate a mesh on. The objective is to create a mesh fine enough to
generate an accurate result, yet coarse enough to not waste time performing
excessive amounts of calculations.
As mentioned in Section 4.1, when creating a mesh in Plaxis 2D, five
options are available for global coarseness: very coarse, coarse, medium, fine, or
very fine. Within each of these levels of coarseness, mesh refinement can occur
around geometric components of the cross-section whether it be a point, a line, or
a cluster. In this way, a concentration of nodes can be placed in areas where more
deformation is expected. For the analysis of the Tower of Pisa, it was found a
global coarseness of very fine along with refinement of soil layer clusters A1 and
B1, B2, B3 would generate the most accurate result while using a reasonable
number of approximately 21000 nodes. As shown in Figure 4.3, the data points to
the far left represent different levels of global coarseness. The data points to the
right represent results from selective soil layer clusters that have been refined
within each level of coarseness. As evident in the graph, cluster refinement
brings about an increase in nodes, but not much change in computed settlement.
62
Number of Nodes
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
230
235
240
Settlement (cm)
245
250
255
260
265
270
FIGURE 4.3. Plaxis 2D Mesh Fineness Analysis
4.4.2 Mesh Size
A large mesh allows strains to develop laterally as well as vertically. A
small mesh constrains soil movements. Figure 4.4 plots mesh width versus
displacement for the axisymmetric mesh size analysis. Figure 4.4 shows larger
settlement for small mesh width. The frictionless vertical boundaries in the
smaller mesh width increase the intensity of the vertical stress (greater than
Boussinesq stresses) at depth below the Tower. For this analysis, a 60 m wide
cross-section was selected as the optimal width, more than six times larger than
the 9.8 m wide Tower. Figure 4.5 shows a shaded rendering of the total
displacements from the 60 m wide mesh.
63
400
380
360
340
Settlement (cm)
320
300
280
260
240
220
200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Mesh Width (m)
FIGURE 4.4. Plaxis 2D Axisymmetric Mesh Size Analysis
FIGURE 4.5. Axisymmetric Total Displacements – 60m Wide Mesh
4.4.3 Excess Pore Pressure Verification
In the Plaxis 2D calculation setup, each phase is considered to be
calculation type consolidation. This accounts for the fact that consolidation of
soils was occurring even during the construction phases. One of the concerns
with a program like Plaxis 2D is how it handles the application of the load in
64
consolidation calculation. Excess pore pressures will develop in saturated soils
under the application of a load. By investigating the excess pore pressures in the
clay layers during construction, it can be determined whether or not the Tower
load in Plaxis 2D is being properly applied. As shown in Figure 4.6, spikes occur
at the years 1173, 1272, and 1360, the same years each of the construction phases
of the Tower occurred. During periods of no construction, the excess pore
pressures dissipate as they should. Also noted, the largest excess pore pressures
occur after the second loading in the B1, B2, B3 clay layer (Figure 4.7). This all
suggests that the loads are being correctly applied.
80
70
60
Excess Pore Pressure (kPa)
50
40
A1
B1,B2,B3
B4,B5
B7,B8,B9,B10
30
20
10
0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
FIGURE 4.6. Excess Pore Pressure in Clay Layers Versus Time
65
FIGURE 4.7. Final Excess Pore Pressures
4.4.4 Plastic-Drained Analysis
In the Plaxis 2D axisymmetric analysis the sand layers are modeled as
drained and the clay layers as undrained. These selections were based upon
recommendations of the Plaxis 2D users manual. Plaxis 2D also requires all input
parameters to be effective (i.e. drained parameters). To determine the role of
undrained shear deformation in the Plaxis 2D analysis, the following check was
made. All soil parameters were kept the same, but the previously undrained clay
layers were changed to drained and all calculation phases were changed from
consolidation to plastic. The analysis found a settlement beneath the Tower
center of 246 cm compared to the 260 cm of the original axisymmetric analysis.
While not exactly the same, the fully drained plastic analysis suggests that lower
shear strength during undrained shear deformation is not a large contributor in the
partially drained condition. The additional 14 cm in the undrained analysis is
likely coming from soil that is slightly weaker in undrained conditions. This can
66
be considered a good verification that Plaxis 2D is behavior type undrained for
the clay layers is appropriate.
4.4.5 φ = 0 Analysis
An additional check would be to run a φ = 0 analysis using undrained
strength, c, parameters to investigate the role of undrained shear deformation in
Plaxis 2D. In each of the behavior type undrained clay layers, the values for φ
were set to 1 (Plaxis 2D cannot compute both φ = 0 and ψ = 0). Values for c were
estimated from Rampello and Callisto, 1998 and summarized in Table 4.5. The
results of the φ = 0 analysis produced a failure with plastic points developing in
the A1 layer. In the initial axisymmetric analysis, a φ = 34 and c = 6.8 in layer
A1, 260 cm of settlement was produced. In the φ = 0 analysis, the undrained
failure occurs due to either φ or c being too low. Similar to the conclusions of
Burland et al (2003), this suggests the Tower was close to an undrained failure
(but remained standing likely due to the actual partial drainage). Upon further
investigation, the undrained shear strength data from Rampello and Callisto
(1998) was obtained in unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression testing.
These test results are highly influenced by sample disturbance and measure
strengths that are probably too low. The results of the φ = 0 analysis indicate it
cannot be ruled out whether or not undrained shear is a significant factor in the
Tower settlement. Any additional investigation of undrained shear, however, is
considered beyond the scope of this thesis.
67
Cohesion, Friction
Soil Layer
cref (kPa) Angle, ϕ ( o )
Fill 1 34
A1 - Clayey Silt 60 1
A2 - Upper Sand 1 34
B1,B2,B3 - Upper Clay 50 1
B4,B5 - Intermediate Clay 125 1
B6 - Intermediate Sand 1 34
B7,B8,B9,B10 - Lower Clay 110 1
C - Lower Sand 1 34
TABLE 4.5. φ = 0 Analysis - Undrained Strength Parameters
4.5 Plane Strain Analysis
While the axisymmetric model provides a settlement computation for the
center of the Tower, it does not model the Tower’s inclination. Inclination can be
modeled using the plane strain formulation available in Plaxis 2D. Within the
plane strain model it is possible to model varying thicknesses in the soil layers as
well as a non-symmetric load. However, the plane strain model is a slice of an
infinite strip footing which generates larger soil pressures at depth than the
circular symmetric model and will over estimate settlements. The results of the
plane strain analysis will require a calibration for non-plane strain conditions.
The detailed soil profile presented in Figure 2.8 was used as a basis for the
cross-section of the Plaxis 2D plane strain model. The profile was created based
on available borehole and CPT data. The greatest difference in this profile from
the simplified profile of the axisymmetric analysis is the division of the A1 layer
into A1’-Clayey Silt and A1”- Silty Sand. Layer A1’ is more prevalent to the
south and tapers out to the north. Table 4.6 shows the properties associated with
these layers. The lower clays (B4, B5, B7, B8, B9, B10) and sands (B6, C) do not
contribute as much as A1 and B1, B2, B3 to the settlement or lean of the Tower,
and therefore are generally horizontal (Burland 2003). The model of Figure 4.8
68
attempts to represent pre-Tower conditions based on the geometry of Figure 2.8.
The bowl shaped depression beneath the Tower is replaced with straight line
interpolations of soil layers from the north to south sides (Figure 4.8).
Unsaturated Saturated Unit Horizontal Vertical Young's Secondary Friction Dilatancy
Material Behavior Poisson's Compression Swelling Initial Void Cohesion, Overconsolidation
Soil Layer Unit Weight, Weight, γ sat Permeability, Permeability, Modulus, Eref Compression, Angle, ϕ Angle, ψ
Model Type 3 Ratio, ν Index, Cc Index, Cs Ratio, eo cref (kPa) Ratio, OCR
γ unsat (kN/m ) (kN/m3) kx (m/day) ky (m/day) (kPa) Ca (o) (o)
Soft Soil
A1' - Clayey Silt Creep
Undrained 16.94 18.94 0.00086 0.00086 - - 0.25 0.026 0.0035 0.84 60 34 0 3.23
Soft Soil
A1" - Sand and Silt Creep
Undrained 16.94 18.94 1 1 - - 0.15 0.026 0.0035 0.84 60 34 0 3.23
TABLE 4.6. Layer A1 Parameters
Fill
A1” A1’
A2
B1,B2,B3
B4,B5
B6
B7,B8,B9,B10
C
FIGURE 4.8. Plaxis 2D Plane Strain Cross Section
4.5.1 Plane Strain Symmetric Loading
The plane strain analysis was first performed using symmetric loading. As
mentioned in Section 2.6, one hypothesis from the literature suggests that the
initial southward inclination of the Tower is due to a tapered layer of slightly
more compressible material to the south in Horizon A. By executing the same
construction phases as the axisymmetric analysis, the Tower under symmetric
loading in the initial plane strain analysis exhibits a very small differential
settlement. After the first construction phase, the north end settles 2 cm more
than the south end, which actually causes a northward inclination of 0.06o. This is
consistent with the Potts and Burland (2000) model in that during the early stages
of loading, before an overturning moment was applied, the model did show a
69
small inclination to the north. It is believed that consolidation of the thin northern
end of the tapered layer occurred more rapidly than the southern end. Eventually,
the final computed settlement is 365 cm at the north and 366 cm at the south
(Figure 4.9). This small amount of differential settlement suggests that
differential subsurface conditions are not a major cause of the Tower’s present
day tilt. The symmetric load alone applied in this initial plane strain analysis is
not representative of the Tower of Pisa structure and the overturning moment
associated with it. A further investigation of the tilting Tower and the moments it
generates is necessary to model the inclination.

150
Tower Load (MN)
100
50
0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
-50
-100
-150
ACTUAL
NORTH
-200
ACTUAL
-250 CENTER
Settlement (cm)
-300
NORTH 365 cm ACTUAL

-350 CENTER 365.5 cm SOUTH
SOUTH 366 cm
-400
-450
-500
FIGURE 4.9. 2D Plane Strain Symmetric Loading
4.5.2 Plane Strain Non-Symmetric Loading
Much of the inclination of the Tower may be due to the load and
overturning moment experienced at the foundation. To simulate the actual load
and overturning moments, the inclinations shown in Table 2.1 were used to
70
calculate the non-symmetric load at various times throughout the Tower’s
existence. The history of the Tower’s inclination is discussed in Section 2.2. The
distribution of loading is determined by first calculating stresses due to the weight
and area of the Tower. The overturning moment, σoverturn, is then calculated using
the equation,
M ⋅c
σ overturn = (Eq. 4.1)
I
where M is the moment, c is the distance from center to the extreme edge of the
Tower, and I is the moment of inertia for the circular base of the Tower. Moment
values associated with inclination angle are obtained from Costanzo et al (1994).
The calculated σoverturn is then added to the stresses at the south edge of the Tower
and subtracted from the north edge. Stresses calculated from these inclinations
are summarized in Table 4.7.
1 o 1 Moment σ overturn σ-north σ-south

Year # Years # Days Weight (kN) Tilt ( ) 1 σ (kPa)
(kNm) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
1173 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1178 5 1825 94800 0.000 0 314.2 0.0 314.2 314.2
1272 94 34310 94800 -0.200 -7500 314.2 -10.1 324.4 304.1
1278 6 2190 137280 0.103 5500 455.0 7.4 447.6 462.5
1285 7 2555 137280 1.112 59900 455.0 81.0 374.0 536.1
1360 75 27375 137280 1.112 59900 455.0 81.0 374.0 536.1
1370 10 3650 144530 1.611 97700 479.1 132.2 346.9 611.2
1550 180 65700 144530 4.684 284720 479.1 385.2 93.9 864.2
1758 208 75920 144530 4.831 293540 479.1 397.1 82.0 876.2
1817 59 21535 144530 5.103 310160 479.1 419.6 59.5 898.6
1911 94 34310 144530 5.246 318980 479.1 431.5 47.5 910.6
1990 79 28835 144530 5.469 332560 479.1 449.9 29.2 928.9
(1) Costanzo et. al (1994)
TABLE 4.7. Non-Symmetric Loading Increments
An eleven phase calculation was established in Plaxis 2D based on the
loading increments of Table 4.7. By applying a distributed load between the
maximum and minimum values of the loading calculated, a fairly good
approximation can be made of the actual loads experienced by the Tower during
71
the specific years. Several sources in the literature support this linear distribution
of contact pressure. Terzaghi (1934) calculates maximum and minimum values
σnorth = 65.7 kPa and σsouth = 942.7 kPa (Figure 2.14). Terracina (1962) estimates
soil pressures σnorth = 50 kPa and σsouth = 930 kPa. Both sets correlate fairly well
with the nonsymmetric present day loading calculations of this paper.
The Plaxis 2D plane strain non-uniform loading calculation produces the
three curves shown in Figure 4.10 for locations beneath the north, center and
south ends of the Tower. Figure 4.11 is a shaded rendering of the total
displacements. The results are far greater than the estimated actual settlements
presented by Mitchell et al (1979) and Bai et al (2008) due to the plane strain
analysis model. Thus, the plane strain model requires a calibration as discussed in
the next section, 4.5.3.
150
Tower Load (MN)
100
50
0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
-50
-100
-150
ACTUAL
NORTH
-200
-250 ACTUAL
CENTER
-300 NORTH 310 cm
ACTUAL
-350 SOUTH
Settlement (cm)
CENTER 392 cm
-400
-450 SOUTH 475 cm
-500
FIGURE 4.10. 2D Plane Strain Non-Symmetric Loading
72
FIGURE 4.11. 2D Plane Strain Total Displacements
4.5.3 Plane Strain Calibration
Figure 4.12 compares the vertical stresses under uniform strip and uniform
circular loadings. By comparing the two figures it is evident the vertical stresses
under a strip load are greater than those of a circular load. The differences in
these stresses are the cause of the large differences in displacements computed by
Plaxis 2D for the axisymmetric and plane strain models.
73
FIGURE 4.12. Vertical Stress Under Strip and Circular Loading (Som and Das Figure 5.17,
2003)
In order to compute more reasonable settlements a scaling factor can be
applied to calibrate the results of nonsymmetric loading plane strain model to
mimic axisymmetric results. As shown in Section 4.4.6, the axisymmetric model
with uniform soil layers generates a settlement at the center of 260 cm. In order
to produce a proper scaling factor, a new plane strain model was created. Like the
axisymmetric model, this model did not have variation in the A1 layer and had the
same uniform layers, size and loading sequence. The settlement at the center of
the plane strain model was computed to be 380cm. The scaling factor, SF, can be
calculated as follows,
ρ AXISYMMETRIC 260cm
SF = = = 0.683 (Eq. 4.2)
ρ PLANE _ STRAIN 380cm
where the settlements are collected from the same geometry point in both models
beneath the center of the footing. By applying the scaling factor to the results of
the non-symmetric loading solution, the curves for the north, center and south
points of the Tower are generated as shown in Figure 4.13.
74
Tower Load (MN)
150
100
50
0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
-50
-100
-150
ACTUAL
NORTH
-200 NORTH 211 cm
ACTUAL
-250 CENTER 268 cm CENTER
-300 SOUTH 324 cm
ACTUAL
-350 SOUTH
-400
Settlement (cm)
-450
-500
FIGURE 4.13. 2D Plane Strain Calibrated Non-Symmetric Load
It is good verification that the calibrated settlement at the center point of
the Tower from the plane strain analysis is 268 cm. The settlement from the
axisymmetric model is 260 cm. This a good check that the scaling factor is
producing reasonable results as the differences between the values are likely due
to the varying soil thicknesses and the subdivision of the A1 layer into A1’ clayey
silt and A1” silty sand introduced in the plane strain analysis. While applying the
scaling factor reduces the settlement, it also reduces the computed angle of
inclination. Assuming the foundation of the Tower is rigid, the inclination is
calculated by:
ρ south − ρ north
Inclination = sin −1 ( ) (Eq. 4.3)
Diameter
Prior to the scaling factor, the computed inclination angle is 4.84o which is
reduced to 3.30o after calibrating the settlements. The actual inclination reported
75
by Costanzo et al (1994) prior to remediation efforts is 5.469o (Table 2.1). The
plane strain formulation can model differential settlement. However, even after
calibration, it underestimates the tilt that occurs at the Tower of Pisa.
76
Chapter 5: Three-Dimensional Analysis – Plaxis 3D
The software package Plaxis 3D Foundation is a finite element program
intended for use in geotechnical engineering. The 3D analysis introduces the
capability of calculating non-uniform inputs in a circularly symmetric problem
like that of the Tower of Pisa. A 3D analysis can also consider radial drainage as
well as stresses and displacements in all three directions without the need of any
calibration.
5.1 PLAXIS 3D
Plaxis 3D Foundation (Plaxis 3D) is a finite element software package
developed for 3D deformation analysis of foundations and excavations in soil and
rock materials (Plaxis 3D, 2007). Based upon input soil conditions and the
manner of construction, computations are made defining the interaction of the
structure and the soil. Plaxis 3D contains the same basic features of Plaxis 2D but
also introduces many new choices for structures including beam, piles, and floors.
In Plaxis 3D, the input phase is a plan view of the x, z plane. Boreholes are used
to define soil layers and work planes are horizontal planes used to create
geometry point, lines, structures and loads. In the Plaxis 3D mesh generation, the
elements are 15-node wedge elements composed of 6-node triangular elements
connected with 8-node quadrilateral elements in the vertical direction. The mesh
refinement procedures as well as the soil models and behavior types are consistent
with Plaxis 2D. The outputs of Plaxis 3D can be examined for total horizontal
77
and vertical displacements, strains, total and effective stresses, active and excess
pore pressures.
The three dimensional finite element analysis uses methods and
procedures very similar to the two dimensional analysis. For example, in the
Plaxis 3D analysis the Mohr-Coulomb model will remain as the soil model for the
sand and fill layers. The Soft Soil Creep model will be used to model the
compressible clay layers. These soil models used are discussed in depth in
Section 4.2.1.
The soil behavior types selected in Plaxis 3D are also the same as those of
the Plaxis 2D analysis. The sand and fill layers will be modeled as drained type
behavior and the clay layers will be modeled as undrained. These selections are
discussed in Section 4.2.2.
The soil parameters required in the Plaxis 3D analysis, summarized in
Table 5.1, are the exact same parameters used in the Plaxis 2D axisymmetric
analysis. The sources and a basic description of these soil parameters can be
found in Section 2.5. Explanations for the calculation of parameters not taken
directly from the literature can be found in Section 4.2.
5.3 Symmetric Loading
Prior to attempting to incorporate any inclination into the model in the 2D
analysis, an axisymmetric case with symmetric, uniform loading was investigated
to attempt to model the center settlement of the Tower. In the same manner, as a
78
preliminary calculation of the 3D analysis, a uniform circular loading over
uniformly thick soil layers was performed.
5.3.1 Initial Conditions
The soil parameters and soil layer thickness for the Plaxis 3D analysis are
the same as those determined in the Plaxis 2D analysis. The mesh, however, is
not the same as it now models a volumetric cuboid instead of a cross-sectional
area. The mesh size was established as 120 m (width) x 120 m (length) x 43 m
(depth). As the Plaxis 2D axisymmetric mesh size analysis used a mesh that
extended 60m from the center of the Tower, the boundaries of the Plaxis 3D mesh
are also to be 60 m from the center. The layer thicknesses and the height of the
mesh are the same. The fineness selection of the mesh was also different. In a
three dimensional finite element analysis, the number of nodes and elements is
critical as execution times can easily exceed 24 hours, but if the mesh is too
coarse, the results will be inaccurate. The procedure for mesh fineness is
discussed in Section 5.3.4. The mesh used in the uniform distributed load
analysis was originally established with a global coarseness of coarse. In the +3.0
m work plane, a 60 m x 60 m box was centered around the Tower. The cluster
within the box was refined 2 times. The mesh created was composed of 19250
elements and 51998 nodes and is shown in Figure 5.1. In Plaxis 2D, the load of
the Tower was replicated by excavating the fill, installing plates of negligible
weight as a base and exterior wall, and adding a distributed load equal to the
weight of the Tower to the top of the plate. To match the Plaxis 2D loading, the
79
Saturated Unsaturated Horizontal Vertical Young's Secondary Friction Dilatancy
Material Behavior Poisson's Compression Swelling Initial Void Cohesion, Overconsolidation
Soil Layer Unit Weight, Unit Weight, Permeability, Permeability, Modulus, Compression, Angle, ϕ Angle, ψ
Model Type 3 1 3 2 3 3 4 Ratio, ν 4 Index, Cc 3 Index, Cs 3 3 Ratio, eo 5 cref (kPa) 6 Ratio, OCR 7
γsat (kN/m ) γunsat (kN/m ) kx (m/day) ky (m/day) Eref (kPa) Cα (o)6 (o)
Mohr-
Fill Drained 20.00 18.00 1 1 22000 0.3 - - - - 1 34 0 -
Coulomb
Soft Soil
A1 - Clayey Silt Undrained 18.94 16.94 0.00086 0.00086 - - 0.225 0.026 0.0035 0.84 6.8 34 0 3.23
Creep
Mohr-
A2 - Upper Sand Drained 18.07 16.07 1 1 13000 0.3 - - - - 1 34 0 -
Coulomb
B1,B2,B3 - Upper Soft Soil

Undrained 16.94 14.94 0.0000173 0.0000173 - - 0.853 0.141 0.015 1.45 9.78 24 0 1.63
Clay Creep
B4,B5 - Soft Soil

Undrained 19.68 17.68 0.0000173 0.0000173 - - 0.296 0.042 0.004 0.75 1 29 0 2
Intermediate Clay Creep
B6 - Intermediate Mohr-
Drained 19.11 17.11 1 1 18000 0.3 - - - - 1 34 0 -
Sand Coulomb
B7,B8,B9,B10 - Soft Soil

Undrained 18.88 16.88 0.0000259 0.0000259 - - 0.518 0.081 0.01 0.95 3.1 26 0 1.25
Lower Clay Creep
Mohr-
C - Lower Sand Drained 20.52 18.52 1 1 100000 0.3 - - - - 1 34 0 -
Coulomb

(2) γunsat = γsat - 2 kN/m3
(3) Figure 2.11, Rampello and Callisto (1998)
(4) Bai et al (2008)
(5) eo = (Gs*wn)/S, Gs, wn, S = 100% - Figure 2.10, Lo Presti et al (2003)
(6) Table 2.2, Lo Presti et al (2003)
TABLE 5.1. Plaxis 3D Input Parameters
80
input in the Plaxis 3D analysis required a slightly different technique. A 19.6 m
diameter pile with no interfaces or thickness was installed on +3.0 m work plane
and was extruded down to the 0.0 m work plane. The wall element of the pile
was given the same properties as the Plaxis 2D wall. The fill material within the
pile was excavated and a plate was installed at elevation 0.0 m. A uniformly
distributed load equal to the weight of the Tower was then placed on the plate.
The wall and plate material parameters are shown in Table 5.2.
Thickness, Density, γ Poisson's

Material Type Stiffness, E
d (m) (kN/m3) Ratio, ν
Linear Elastic,
1.0E+10 3.0E-01 0.1 0.015
Isotropic
Table 5.2. 3D Wall and Plate Material Parameters
FIGURE 5.1. Plaxis 3D Symmetric Uniformly Distributed Load Mesh
In Plaxis 3D the elevation of the phreatic surface is established in the
definition of the boreholes. Consistent with the previous analyses, a general
phreatic surface was established at an elevation of +1.8 m (Burland, 2003). The
lower and outer boundaries were allowed to be open and free to drain. The
81
calculation of Ko values to generate initial pore pressures and stresses still uses
Jaky’s formula for Ko (1-sinφ) and the unit weight of the soil layers.
5.3.2 Calculation Phases
After generating the finite element mesh, the calculation phases must be
defined. The calculation type consolidation is chosen for each stage of
construction. The distributed load system defined in the input also is activated.
The distributed load is applied in terms of force per area. The load can be applied
over the circular area within the pile wall and can be changed during various
construction stages. The weight of the Tower at the end of each the construction
stage is known. Corresponding pressures are calculated and applied using the
distributed load system. The construction and consolidation analysis was
performed in a single run. For the uniformly distributed load case, the
construction can be broken into six phases, each period of construction followed
by three consolidations. Table 5.3 summarizes the phases defined in the
uniformly distributed load analysis.
Tower
Phase Actual Number Calculation Tower
Actual Stage Pressure
No. Year of Years Type Weight (kN)
(kPa)
Construct 3 1/2
1 1173-1178 5 Consolidation 94800 314.2
Stories
Construct up to
3 1272-1278 6 Consolidation 137280 455.0
7th Story
Construct Bell
5 1360-1370 10 Consolidation 144530 479.0
Chamber
TABLE 5.3. Plaxis 3D Calculation Phases
82
5.3.3 Symmetric Loading Results
The symmetric uniform distributed load analysis uses the parameters of
Table 5.1, the loading phases defined in Table 5.3, and the mesh shown in Figure
5.1. The settlement curve generated by the axisymmetric Plaxis 3D analysis is
presented in Figure 5.2. The final value of 240 cm from the 3D analysis is in the
range of the estimated final center settlement. The curve indicates rapid initial
settlement corresponding to each loading increment. After the year 1370,
completion of Tower construction, the curve tapers off significantly indicating
much of the settlement occurred during the first 200 years. The shallow slope of
the curve around the year 1400 suggests the end of primary consolidation has
been reached and much of the Tower settlement over the final 600 years has been
due to secondary compression. The settlement calculation is a good indication the
basic inputs of Plaxis 3D are appropriate and the analysis can move forward.
150
Tower Load (MN)
100
50
0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250 1990 - 240 cm ACTUAL

CENTER
-300
-350
-400
Settlement (cm)
-450
-500
FIGURE 5.2. 3D Symmetric Uniformly Distributed Load – Center Settlement
83
5.3.4 Mesh Fineness
In order to verify the result of the distributed load analysis, a mesh
fineness study was conducted. Figure 5.3 is a plot of number nodes versus total
settlement following a particular refinement algorithm. In Plaxis 3D, there are
many more options for refinement than in Plaxis 2D. Particularly with a
consolidation analysis, the global coarseness of the mesh cannot be too fine,
otherwise too many nodes will exist before any refinement begins. The algorithm
used in this mesh refinement study started with a globally coarse mesh. From
there a 60 m x 60 m box in plan view encompassed the extents of the Tower and
the cluster within the box was refined multiple times. The leveling of the curve in
Figure 5.3 indicates the optimum number of nodes for a mesh of this size is
between 35000 and 50000. Ideally a mesh of this size and fineness will be used
in the non-symmetric loading analysis.
Number of Nodes
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000
100
120
140
Settlement (cm)
160
180
200
220
240
260
FIGURE 5.3. Plaxis 3D Mesh Fineness
84
5.4 Non-Symmetric Loading
Following the preliminary analysis with uniform circular loading, a more
complex set of calculation phases were implemented to simulate the inclination of
Tower. The Tower of Pisa leans due to a combination of reasons, namely its tall,
slender structure with a shallow foundation resting over soft, highly compressible
materials. As discussed in Section 2.2, it is evident from the inclination
reconstruction, the Tower oscillated in random directions until near the end of the
second stage of construction when a distinct southward lean was apparent and the
resulting shape is presented in Figure 2.2. To approximate the inclination history
of the actual Tower it was modeled as a series of five line loads representative of
the overturning moments calculated from estimated historical inclination angles
(Table 2.1). The loads were placed on a thin, stiff plate element in the Plaxis 3D
model. This is similar to the load application in the Plaxis 2D Plane Strain Non-
Symmetric analysis (Section 4.5.1).
A series of loads consisted of a uniformly distributed line load through the
center of the circle, with two line loads 4.9 m and 8.33 m to the north and two line
loads 4.9 m and 8.33 m to the south ends (Figure 5.4). The loads were calculated
by first finding the differential stress between the north and south ends using the
inclination angles. A straight line interpolation between the two stress values was
taken and used to determine what the stresses would be at 1/8, 3/8, 5/8, and 7/8
across the diameter of the Tower. The average stresses between these points were
then translated into line loads in dividing by the length of the east-west line they
acted over. The calculated loads are presented in Table 5.4. Each historical
85
FIGURE 5.4. Non-Symmetric Distribution of 5 Line Loads
Calculated Line Loads

North- South-
Phase Calculation Weight Moment North Center South Load Moment
Year # Years Tilt (o) 1 Center Center
No. Type (kN) 1 (kNm) 1 (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m) Check Check
(kN/m) (kN/m)
1 1173-1178 5 Consolidation 94800 0 0 662.4 1510.0 1523.4 1510.0 662.4 94800 0
2 1178-1272 94 Consolidation 94800 -0.200 -7500 681.1 1534.4 1523.4 1485.7 643.7 94800 -7275
3 1272-1278 6 Consolidation 137280 0.103 5500 945.5 2168.8 2206.0 2204.6 973.0 137280 5335
4 1278-1285 7 Consolidation 137280 1.112 59900 809.8 1992.0 2206.0 2381.4 1108.7 137280 58104
5 1285-1360 75 Consolidation 137280 1.112 59900 809.8 1992.0 2206.0 2381.4 1108.7 137280 58104
6 1360-1370 10 Consolidation 144530 1.611 97700 766.1 1984.6 2322.5 2619.8 1253.7 144530 94771
7 1370-1550 180 Consolidation 144530 4.684 284720 299.4 1376.6 2322.5 3227.7 1720.5 144530 276183
8 1550-1758 208 Consolidation 144530 4.831 293540 277.4 1347.9 2322.5 3256.4 1742.5 144530 284739
9 1758-1817 59 Consolidation 144530 5.103 310160 235.9 1293.9 2322.5 3310.4 1783.9 144530 300861
10 1817-1911 94 Consolidation 144530 5.246 318980 213.9 1265.2 2322.5 3339.1 1805.9 144530 309416
11 1911-1990 79 Consolidation 144530 5.469 332560 180.0 1221.1 2322.5 3383.2 1839.8 144530 322589
(1) Costanzo et al (1994)
TABLE 5.4. Plaxis 3D Line Loads
86
inclination angle required a new of loading and construction phase, which resulted
in 11 total phases. Each phase was set as a consolidation type calculation.
The total loads and moments represented by the series of line loads were
calculated to ensure proper values were being applied. As seen in Table 5.4, the
loading checks but the moment is consistently under calculated by about 3
percent. This is due to the integration of the distributed soil pressure into only
five segments. The pressures at the outermost points of the circle are slightly
underestimated and thus not enough moment is being generated and the actual
moment is under calculated. Since Plaxis 3D is not capable of distributing a non-
uniform pressure across a circle, the only way to improve the moment is to
integrate the area with more line loads. Considering the calculation already
consists of 11 phases, more line loads greatly increase the setup time of the
problem. As a result, five line loads are selected as an optimum tradeoff between
accuracy and setup effort.
5.4.1 Non-Symmetric Loading Results
The mesh for the non-symmetric loading analysis was created using the
same algorithm used to find the optimal mesh in the uniform loading case. The
mesh was composed of 13882 elements and 37602 nodes, with an average
element size of 3.55 m. As shown in Figure 5.5, the computed north (201 cm)
and center settlement (250 cm) fall in the range of the estimated final settlements.
The computed south settlement (299 cm) is less than the estimate final range. By
assuming a rigid foundation, the final inclination of 2.85o was calculated using
Equation 4.2. This is well below the final measured 5.469o inclination. The
87
shapes of the curves of Figures 5.5 indicate rapid initial settlement. Differential
settlement is not evident until after the end of the second construction phase.
Shortly after that the slope of the settlement curves level off, indicating a long
period of secondary compression.

150
Tower Load (MN)
100
50
0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
-50
-100
-150
ACTUAL
NORTH
NORTH - 201 cm
-200
CENTER - 250 cm
-250 ACTUAL
CENTER
SOUTH - 299 cm
-300
ACTUAL
-350 SOUTH
Settlement (cm)
-400
-450
-500
FIGURE 5.5. 3D Non-Symmetric Loading Settlement
Figures 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8 are some of the final outputs produced in the
Plaxis 3D non-symmetric loading. Figure 5.6 is a view of the deformed mesh at
the foundation looking from the west. The shaded portion represents the base of
the Tower. Figure 5.7 is a shaded rendering of the total displacements
experienced by the soil beneath the Tower. The majority of deformation occurs
directly adjacent to the south side of the Tower. Figure 5.8 is a shaded north-
south cross-section of the Figure 5.7 displacements.
88
N S
FIGURE 5.6. 3D Tower Base Inclination
FIGURE 5.7. 3D Non-Symmetric Load Shaded Displacements
89
FIGURE 5.8. 3D Non-Symmetric Loading North-South Cross Section Total Displacements
90
Chapter 6: Comparison of 1D, 2D and 3D Computations
This chapter verifies and compares the 1D, 2D and 3D computations
described in the preceding chapters. The computed settlement, input parameters
and setup procedures are compared.
6.1 1D, 2D, 3D Verification
It is necessary to verify that the programs can produce similar results
under the same conditions. Each program is capable of making a one-
dimensional settlement computation at the Tower of Pisa where the soil pressure
applied at the surface does not dissipate with depth. In Winsaf-I, this can be done
by running an analysis with a constant increment of vertical stress with depth.
Plaxis 2D approximates one-dimensional conditions by using an axisymmetric
model with the outermost vertical boundary 9.8 m from the center. In Plaxis 3D,
a one-dimensional model is defined where soil only exists beneath the extents of
the Tower and the mesh boundaries do not extend beyond it. The depth in all
three cases was set to 43 m involving all the same soil layers. Each analysis
applied the same stress of 479.0 kPa, representative of the final load of the Tower
of Pisa. The same soil parameters established in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 were used
for this verification analysis. The fineness of the meshes in the Plaxis 2D and
Plaxis 3D cases were the same as those found in the mesh fineness studies for
each program.
The results for the 1D, 2D, and 3D one dimensional computations are
318.8 cm, 314.3 cm, and 314.2 cm respectively and are shown in Figure 6.1. The
91
settlements are larger than those found in the center settlement analyses but only
because stress was applied constantly with depth. The high level of agreement of
these results indicates that the software programs are consistent. From this check,
it is justifiable to move forward in the comparison of the analyses.
FIGURE 6.1. One-Dimensional Verification Analysis
A few reasons could account for the small differences in these
calculations. The parameters and sophisticated soil models available in Plaxis 2D
and Plaxis 3D are likely to produce a different settlement than Winsaf. The
excellent agreement between the Plaxis 2D and Plaxis 3D analyses further
supports this notion. Also, because Winsaf does not incorporate secondary
compression, in Plaxis 2D and Plaxis 3D the Cα of the Soft Soil Creep model was
set very low to 0.0001 for the analysis (Plaxis calculations cannot function with a
Cα=0). While some secondary compression may be incorporated into the final
92
displacement, a value of 0.0001 is small enough that it can be considered
negligible.
6.2 Center Settlement
In each analysis, a computation of settlement versus time was made for a
point directly beneath the center of the Tower of Pisa. In the 1D analysis (Section
3.4), the only curve generated was for beneath the center of the Tower. In the 2D
analysis (Section 4.3.3) the curve for center settlement was produced in a
preliminary axisymmetric analysis. The 3D center settlement was produced in a
preliminary uniformly distributed load analysis (Section 5.3.3). Figure 6.2 shows
the computed settlement versus time.
150
Tower Load (MN)
100
50
0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
-50
-100
WINSAF - 152 cm
-150
-200
PLAXIS 3D - 240 cm
-250 ACTUAL
PLAXIS 2D - 260 cm CENTER
-300
-350
Settlement (cm)
-400
-450
-500
FIGURE 6.2. 1D, 2D, 3D Center Settlement
During the first construction stage (1173-1272), the curves are very
similar, showing a great deal of settlement initially followed by a distinct
93
flattening of the curve. Also, the portions of the curves after the year 1400 are
fairly parallel, meaning the magnitudes of incremental displacements from 1400-
1990 are very similar. The major difference exists during the second phase of
loading from 1272-1278. The immediate settlement of the Tower in Plaxis 2D
and Plaxis 3D during this time is greater than Winsaf-I by about 50 cm. This
disparity can be explained by the presence of shear displacements experienced in
two and three dimensional loading. In the one dimensional case, the loading can
only cause movement in the vertical direction. In two and three dimensions, soil
movement can be both horizontal and vertical. Figure 6.3 shows a shaded
representation of horizontal displacements in the Plaxis 2D axisymmetric
analysis, while Figure 6.4 shows cross sections of the Plaxis 3D uniform loading
case. The horizontal displacements are especially evident in the B1, B2, B3 layer,
registering as high as 45 cm. The large horizontal displacements may indicate
that the Tower is close to a bearing capacity failure. This coincides with the
Burland et al (2003) study that the Tower would have experienced an undrained
bearing capacity failure had construction continued past the 7th story.
B1, B2, B3
FIGURE 6.3. 2D Horizontal Displacements
94
B1, B2, B3
(a)
B1, B2, B3
(b)
FIGURE 6.4. 3D Horizontal Displacements (a) North-South (b) East-West
While the neglect of horizontal displacements is the main cause for the
smaller settlements in the 1D analysis, there are a few other potential causes. The
basic compression functions of WINSAF-I may be less accurate than the more
95
advanced soil models in Plaxis 2D and Plaxis 3D, Soft-Soil Creep and Mohr-
Coulomb. Also, the consolidation rate portion of the 1D computation was
performed using the Winsaf-TR program and largely based on input values for
coefficient of consolidation, cv, found in Mitchell et al (1977). In Plaxis 2D and
3D, consolidation computations were made using permeability values obtained
from Rampello and Callisto (1998). Any variation in the consolidation
parameters may affect the slope portion of the curves, although not the ultimate
settlement.
While the 1D analysis produces significantly less settlement than both the
2D and 3D settlement computations, the 3D settlement of Figure 6.2 is also
noticeably less than the 2D computation. The reasons for this lie in mesh fineness
and density of nodes. In Plaxis 2D, 15-noded elements were used. Due to the
significant volume in the 3D analyses, Plaxis 3D only uses 6-noded triangular
elements connected with 8-noded quadrilateral elements. As a result the number
of nodes (21193) and average element size (0.992 m) of the 2D analysis signify a
much higher density of nodes than the 3D analysis (nodes - 51998, average
element size – 3.18 m). While gaining the ability to model problems in three
dimensions, there is a sacrifice in accuracy due to the lack in the number of nodes
that can be used.
As another check between Plaxis 2D and Plaxis 3D, the 6-noded option
was selected for the 2D axisymmetric case since Plaxis 3D only uses 6-noded
elements. This decreased the number of nodes to 5353 (average element size
remained the same). The resulting curve is compared to the Plaxis 3D curve in
96
Figure 6.5. The Plaxis 2D 6-noded element final settlement of 239 cm is much
closer to the Plaxis 3D 240 cm. This suggests further that the disparity in Figure
6.2 is due to node density.

150
Tower Load (MN)
100
50
0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
-50
-100
-150
2D 6-Noded
-200 3D Distributed Load
-250 ACTUAL
CENTER
Settlement (cm)
-300
-350
-400
-450
-500
FIGURE 6.5. 2D Axisymmetric 6-Noded vs. Plaxis 3D Uniformly Distributed Center Settlement
6.3 Differential Settlement
As discussed in Section 3.3.1, the 1D analysis is incapable of computing a
reasonable differential settlement. Therefore, the comparisons of differential
settlement and corresponding inclination will only be between the 2D and 3D
analyses.
The 2D and 3D results plotted in Figure 6.6 are from the Plaxis 2D plane
strain calibrated analysis and the Plaxis 3D Non-Uniform Loading. The curves
are in good agreement, with the 2D settlements slightly greater than the 3D
values. This is likely due to the node density as discussed in Section 6.2. In
Plaxis 3D, there is a sacrifice of mesh refinement for the ability to model a
97
complete three dimensional problem. Also, potential for error in the 2D
calibration must be considered. Compared to the estimated actual settlements,
both curves show settlements that are low on the south side and high on the north
side of the Tower. This suggests that the tilts computed by Plaxis 2D and Plaxis
3D are less than the measured tilt of the Tower.

150
Tower Load (MN)
100
50
0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
-50
3D NORTH
-100 3D CENTER
3D SOUTH
2D CALIBRATED NORTH
2D CALIBRATED CENTER
-150 2D CALIBRATED SOUTH
Load ACTUAL
NORTH
NORTH
-200
-250 ACTUAL
CENTER
CENTER
-300 SOUTH
ACTUAL
-350 SOUTH
Settlement (cm)
-400
-450
-500
FIGURE 6.6. 2D Plane Strain Calibrated vs. 3D Non-Symmetric Loading
As described in Section 2.7 there has been some debate over the reliability
of the actual estimated settlements of the Tower of Pisa. As a result, comparing
final settlements from the 2D and 3D analyses with the actual ranges may not be
the best way to evaluate if the proper amount of differential settlement is being
computed. By assuming a rigid Tower foundation and diameter of 19.6 m, the
differential settlements of the analyses can be translated into corresponding angles
of inclination using Equation 4.2. Shown in Figure 6.7, 2D and 3D inclinations
are compared to the measured inclination angles used to calculate the overturning
98
moment applied in the analyses. Once again the Plaxis 2D results (3.30o) are
slightly closer to the actual value (5.469o) than the 3D results (2.85o), but both
under compute the inclination.
S
6
o
1990 - 5.469
4
Measured (Burland, 1991)
2D o
1990 - 3.30
3D
o
)
3
Inclination Angle (
o
1990 - 2.85
0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
-1
N
FIGURE 6.7. Inclination Angle vs. Time
Reasons for the underestimate of the Tower’s differential settlement and
inclination angle include:
Validity of measured settlement and inclination
True hollow cylindrical shape of the Tower
Stresses from non-symmetrical structure of the Tower
Discretization error
Pancone clay (B1, B2, B3) very sensitive to sample disturbance
99
Some of the error associated with the underestimate may lie in the validity of the
measured settlement and inclination angles. The settlements are estimated
measurements based on assumed original elevations of 1173. Up until 1817,
when the first plumb line measurement of inclination was made, the tilt of the
Tower was based upon the changes in the angles in the levels of masonry.
Differences in computed and actual values could be a result of these rough
measurements. The largest variance between the inclination curves and the
measured curve lies in the period between the years 1370 and 1550. This is
similar to the findings of Bai et al (2008). Neither the analyses of this thesis nor
the Bai et al (2008) work can model the 3 degree tilt increase during this period.
Bai et al (2008) suggests it is possible the tilt from 1370 to 1550 is due to external
effects including foundation material failure, high stress concentrations on the
south side, or leaning instability as proposed by Burland and Potts (1995).
It must also be considered that the Tower of Pisa is actually a hollow
cylinder. Both the 2D and 3D analyses modeled the circular foundation of the
Tower without the 4.5 m diameter hole in the center. This assumption was made
to simplify the input process and to remain consistent with the 1D analysis. In
doing so, a notable amount of the load was incorrectly concentrated at the center
of the Tower. Moving the load towards the outer wall, while not affecting the
center of gravity or moment, would increase the contact pressures as there is less
area to distribute the load. Increasing the contact pressures would likely increase
differential settlement. However, attempting to model the hole in the center of the
foundation significantly complicates the input procedures of the Plaxis programs,
100
especially in 3D. Representing the load of the hollow Tower with a series line
and point loads would be difficult and time consuming. Additionally, as
discussed in Section 2.2 and shown in Figure 2.2, the central axis of the Tower is
not straight (but rather more banana-like) due to leveling adjustments were made
during construction. Modeling a structure in such detail would require
considerable time and effort. Investing such effort may not be worthwhile
considering other issues such as soil parameters, mesh fineness, and construction
history may also affect the settlement computations. It should be kept in mind
that modeling is a process (Barbour, 2004) and before becoming too complex, all
pertinent variables must be considered.
Just as there is a difference in the 2D and 3D results based on node
density, numerical discretization may also be a source of the underestimate.
Nodes are assigned to all the layers within the large areas or volumes of the
meshes. The nodes within each layer are given the same soil properties. As
shown in Section 2.5, there is large scatter in the soil property values for soils
beneath the Tower of Pisa. For this thesis, in layers with large amounts of scatter,
proposed average values were used. So, a higher refinement of the mesh along
with a more accurate assignment of soil properties would likely provide more
accurate computations.
Noted by Rampello and Callisto (1998), the upper clay found in the B1,
B2, B3 layers has shown to be very sensitive material. Sampling disturbance may
have led to an underestimate of the compressibility parameters of these clays.
101
While high quality samples were used, there may continue to be and
underestimate of the parameters.
6.4 Parameter Comparisons
Input soil parameters are of great importance in any type of modeling. In
this thesis, a different grouping of parameters is required for each set of analyses.
The different parameters have an effect on the complexity and sophistication of
the computations.
Software Package Winsaf Plaxis 2D Plaxis 3D Software Package Winsaf Plaxis 2D Plaxis 3D
Secondary
Layer Thickness x x x x x x
Compression, C α
Saturated Unit
x x x Initial Void Ratio, eo x x x
Weight, γsat
Unsaturated Unit
x x Cohesion, cref x x
Weight, γunsat
Permeability, kx and
x x Friction Angle, ϕ x x
ky
Young's Modulus,
x x Dilatancy Angle, ψ x x
Eref
Stress History, OCR
Poisson's Ratio, ν x x x x x
or σ'v m
Compression, CR Coefficient of
x x x x
or C c Consolidation, cv
Recompression, RR Plate and Wall
x x x
or C r Parameters
Swelling, SR or C s x x x TOTAL 9 15 15
TABLE 6.1. Input Parameter Comparison
The parameters used in each software package are designated with an “x”
in the column in Table 6.1. Winsaf required a total of 9 input parameters, while
Plaxis 2D and Plaxis 3D each required 15. In total there are 7 parameters
common to each program. By simply evaluating the quantity of parameters,
Winsaf is clearly simpler than Plaxis 2D and Plaxis 3D. This is consistent with
the simplicity intended by a one-dimensional analysis.
In this thesis, all parameters were obtained from published literature.
However, the parameters in the literature were determined by collecting samples
102
on site and performing appropriate laboratory testing. It is important to consider
how the parameters are obtained. For example, of the Winsaf parameters, 7 of 9
can be found from the traditional laboratory consolidation test. They include:
Compression Ratio (CR), Recompression Ratio (RR), Swelling Ratio (SR),
Secondary Compression (Cα), Initial Void Ratio (eo), Maximum Past Pressure
(σ’vm), and Coefficient of Consolidation (cv). In Plaxis 2D and Plaxis 3D, a much
smaller percentage, 6 of 15, can be found with the consolidation test. These
parameters are: Compression Index (Cc), Swelling Index (Cs), Cα, eo, permeability
(k), and Overconsolidation Ratio (OCR). Parameters such as cohesion and
friction angle, specified by the Soft Soil Creep model of the Plaxis programs,
require more testing. The Winsaf program is thus, less intensive in the amount of
testing needed before performing a calculation.
6.5 Setup and Execution Comparisons
Each software program has a different setup associated with it. A more
complex setup usually means more setup time but should provide more detailed
results. The details of the setup associated with each program are described in the
respective chapters. The order of magnitude of time for the setup, calculation,
and verification of each software program, beyond the time necessary to present
and interpret subsurface soil property data, is listed in Table 6.2.
Software Execution Verfication/Mesh

Setup Time
Program Time Fineness Time
Winsaf Hour Seconds Day
Plaxis 2D Hours Minutes Days
Plaxis 3D Day Hours Weeks
TABLE 6.2. Program Setup, Execution, and Verification Time
103
The simplest of the setups for the Tower of Pisa settlement analyses was
within Winsaf. The Winsaf computation was split into two programs, Winsaf-I
and Winsaf-TR. The Winsaf-I setup consisted of inputting the number of soil
layers and thicknesses, the soil parameters, the stress history of the soil, and
description of the load. The Winsaf-TR analysis required the definition of
consolidation parameters and the results of the Winsaf-I calculation. Given all the
parameters, the entire setup takes less than an hour to complete and the
calculation time is only a few seconds. Verification involved comparing the
results with previous calculations and applying a different method for the
consolidation rate. Verification time is about a day and no mesh refinement study
is involved.
The Plaxis 2D problem setup was more involved than Winsaf. In Plaxis
2D it is necessary draw the appropriate cross-section, assign soil parameters,
generate a mesh, define initial conditions, and prescribe calculation phases.
Selecting a properly sized and refined mesh takes a considerable amount of effort
as it is a process of trial and error. Given all parameters and settings, the setup of
a 2D model takes hours. The execution of the computation can be completed
within an hour. For the mesh fineness, mesh size and other verification analyses,
the amount of time can take days.
The formulation of the Plaxis 3D model was very similar to Plaxis 2D,
only in three dimensions. The model is first defined in plan view and then
extruded to an appropriate depth, using boreholes and work planes. A mesh is
generated, first in the 2D plan view and then in 3D. Again, much effort is
104
required to find the proper mesh fineness. The calculation phases are then
prescribed with the initial conditions defined in the first phase. The entire setup
process can take hours. The duration of the computation may last 24 hours.
These long execution times lead to a lengthy verification process which can take
at least a week depending on the capability and quantity of the computers utilized.
Beyond the length of time for setup, the interpretation process must also
be considered. For example, as detailed in Section 4.5.3, a plane strain analysis
was calibrated using a scaling factor produced by running equivalent
axisymmetric and plane strain cases. In Plaxis 3D, there is no additional
calibration required after completing the non-symmetric stress analysis. The 3D
analysis does not require multiple analyses involving axisymmetric and plane
strain formulations and can be considered more reliable since there is no
calibration. While the agreement of results in Figures 6.6 and 6.7 are good
indication the calibration is performed correctly, it also means that the 2D result is
not significantly superior to the 3D. So considering the shorter procedure, it is
probably more beneficial to run a 3D analysis.
105
Chapter 7: Summary and Conclusions
7.1 Summary
A settlement analysis for the Tower of Pisa has been performed using 1D,
2D, and 3D computation methods. The 1D analysis was completed using the
computation program Winsaf. The 2D and 3D analyses utilized the finite element
programs Plaxis 2D and Plaxis 3D. Each added level of dimension introduced
new capabilities but also more complexity. Each analysis has also shown to have
limitations.
The Tower of Pisa is an important historical structure and is a documented
known geotechnical problem. The Tower has a known construction history,
measured final settlements, and measured angles of inclination over the past eight
centuries. The settlement of the Tower has occurred due to the compressible soils
beneath the foundation. The remediation efforts of the latter part of the 20th
century to stabilize the Tower have provided a well detailed description of the
subsurface. Several settlement analyses have been conducted by previous
engineers to investigate the mechanisms that triggered the extreme settlement and
inclination of the Tower. All of these items make the Tower of Pisa a great case
to perform a settlement analysis comparison.
The 1D analysis used the complimentary programs Winsaf-I and Winsaf-
TR to perform a settlement computation. A simplified soil profile was developed
and necessary soil property parameters were collected from various sources of
literature. An ultimate settlement computation was first performed (Winsaf-I)
followed by a consolidation rate computation (Winsaf-TR). The analysis
106
produced a result that underestimated the settlement beneath the center of the
Tower and was unable to properly model the Tower’s differential settlement
The 2D settlement analysis introduced the use of the finite element
method in the software package Plaxis 2D. Computation features of the program
included automated mesh generation, advanced constitutive soil models, and soil
behavior drainage conditions. The soil property parameters were gathered from
the literature. A preliminary analysis was performed using an axisymmetric
model to compute the settlement beneath the center of the Tower. Several
verification analyses were performed including a mesh refinement study, a mesh
size study, a pore pressure verification, a plastic-drained analysis, and a φ = 0
analysis. The axisymmetric analysis produced a result within the range of
estimated final center settlement. The 2D analysis was used to model differential
settlement by means of a plane strain model formulation. However, in a
circularly symmetric problem like the Tower of Pisa, this required a calibration
process from plane strain to axisymmetric conditions. In the plane strain analysis
it was possible to create non-uniformly thick soil layers, such as the A1’-Clayey
Silt lens beneath the Tower. However, it was found the overturning moment
produced from the ever increasing inclination of the Tower had a far greater affect
on differential settlement than the non-uniformity in the soil layers. Based on
historical inclination angles, a loading scheme was developed to represent the
overturning moment generated by the tilt of the Tower and input into the
calculation portion of a plane strain analysis. The results overestimated Tower
settlement and required a calibration consisting of a scaling factor that represented
107
a ratio between the results of the axisymmetric analysis and a new plane strain
analysis with uniformly thick soil layers. The calibrated results were in better
agreement with the estimated final settlement but still underestimated the
differential settlement of the Tower.
The 3D analysis also made use of the finite element method with the
software program Plaxis 3D and involved many input procedures common with
the 2D analysis. The same sets of soil property parameters, soil models and
drainage behavior types from 2D were used in 3D. The observation in the 2D
analysis that non-uniform soil layers have little affect on differential settlement
was applied to the 3D analysis in keeping all soil layers of uniform thickness. By
modeling the problem in 3D, the calibration process of the 2D analysis was
eliminated. A mesh refinement study was performed to find the optimum number
of nodes at which to operate a computation. A preliminary 3D uniformly
distributed load analysis computed a settlement beneath the center of the Tower
that was within the range of the estimated final settlement. From there a 3D
analysis was created to represent the non-symmetric stresses produced by the
historical inclination of the Tower by means of a series of five line loads applied
over a rigid plate foundation. The magnitudes of the line loads were based upon
their location along the north-south plane of the foundation and the overturning
moments created by the Tower. The results of the 3D non-symmetric analysis
found reasonable results for settlement at the north, center and south locations of
the Tower, but underestimated the differential settlement.
108
7.2 Conclusions
Geotechnical software is available to perform settlement computations in
one, two, or three dimensions. The purpose of this thesis was to investigate how
the results of one, two, and three dimensional computations of the settlement of
Tower of Pisa compare to one another. The computations were evaluated on how
well the results compared with actual estimated values, the complexity of setup
process, and the length of time associated with setup and execution. The
conclusions reached for each dimensional analysis are summarized and discussed
below:
• The 1D analysis involved the least amount of setup and execution
time, although, the settlement results were the least accurate. The
analysis could not properly compute the differential settlement. The
1D analysis underestimated settlement because it does not account for
shear displacements.
• The 2D analysis, while requiring a calibration, provided reasonable
results for the settlement and inclination of the Tower. The
verification process, as well as the calibration, required more time than
the 1D analysis. The non-uniform thicknesses in the soil layers,
especially the A1 layer, were found to have little effect on the
inclination of the Tower. The overturning moment generated from the
Tower weight and the center of gravity moving horizontally was the
primary cause of the Tower’s increasing inclination with time.
109
• The 3D analysis produces results that agree well with the 2D analysis
but does not require any calibration. Execution time of the 3D
analysis is the longest, on the order of 24 hours, while setup time is
comparable to the 2D analysis. A sacrifice of accuracy is made in 3D
as the density of nodes decreases from that of a 2D analysis. The
verification and mesh fineness studies required more effort in 3D than
for 2D.
The 1D analysis provided the least accurate settlement results. The
settlement calculation beneath the center of the Tower of 152 cm underestimated
the actual settlement of the Tower. The 1D analysis was unable to account for the
varying stress distribution generated by the leaning Tower and therefore, could
not make a proper differential settlement calculation. In terms of settlement
results, the performance of the calibrated 2D analysis provided outputs that agreed
best with the estimated final settlements. The computed settlement of 260 cm
beneath the center of the Tower was within the range of estimated final settlement
of 220 cm to 296 cm. The 2D analysis also provided the best approximation of
the differential settlement which occurred beneath the base of the Tower. The
associated inclination angle of 3.30o, although low, was closest to the value of
5.469o measured in 1990. The results of the 3D analysis were similar to those
found in 2D. A settlement of 240 cm for the Tower’s center settlement fell in the
estimated final range. The inclination angle associated with the differential
settlement though, was 2.85o and less accurate than the 2D analysis.
110
In terms of the complexity of program operations, the 1D analysis was the
least intensive. The 1D settlement analysis required the fewest number of
parameters. It also took the least amount of effort to setup and execute a
calculation. The 2D and 3D analyses were fairly similar in program setup time,
with the 3D analysis requiring more time and effort for the execution and
verification. Both analyses required the same number of input parameters. The
programs were comparable in the amount of effort involved in establishing
geometry, mesh generation, and the definition of calculation phases. While the
2D analysis took less execution time, the lack of calibration necessary in the 3D
analysis should be seen as a major benefit. In 2D, multiple problem formulations
were made in order to generate a scaling factor used to calibrate results of a plane
strain calculation to an axisymmetric case. The scaling factor is a level of
uncertainty not present in the 3D analysis. Thus, the setup and execution of the
3D analysis is considered slightly superior. Although, it is equally important to
evaluate the time associated with the mesh fineness and verification analyses that
ensure a proper computation is being made. This aspect is much less time
intensive in the 2D analysis than in 3D, and therefore makes 2D a very viable
alternative.
While the 2D and 3D settlement analyses provide reasonable results, both
compute differential settlements that are less than the actual measured settlements
of the Tower. This may be because of errors in the measured settlements and
inclinations. Throughout the analysis, the results are compared to estimated final
settlements. The settlements are presented as a range as the actual elevations at
111
the Tower in the year 1173 are unknown. If a more refined settlement history
existed, the process of evaluating the accuracy of the analyses would be much
more definitive. Other sources for the underestimate of settlement include the
assumption to treat the hollow cylindrical Tower as a complete circle, how the
non-uniform load was modeled as a series of line loads, numerical discretization
error, and variation in the soil properties. Also, as suggested in the literature, the
large 3o increase in tilt from years 1370 to 1550 could be a result of external
effects including foundation material failure, high stress concentrations on the
south side, or leaning instability.
7.3 Recommendations for Future Work
The comparison of settlement analyses in three different dimensions
presented in this thesis investigated a historical, well known geotechnical problem
in the Tower of Pisa. Many documents concerning the Tower’s subsurface, the
soil parameters, the Tower’s construction and the inclination history are available.
For these reasons, the Tower of Pisa was considered a good choice for a case
study.
If future work is to be performed, it is recommended a structure of a more
complex shaped be analyzed. In some ways the shape of the Tower was
beneficial but also provided limitations. The Tower is actually a hollow cylinder,
but for the analysis, it was modeled as having a solid circular base. This circular
formation was easy to model in all three dimensions, which made it reasonable to
make settlement comparisons. However, the circularly symmetric Tower does not
really take advantage of 2D or 3D modeling programs. Supposing the Tower had
112
been rectangular, a cross, or L-shaped the 1D analysis would have been far more
complicated and the capabilities of the 2D and 3D programs to model non-
uniform structures would have been displayed. The circularly symmetric Tower
provided a level playing field, but also inhibited some of the potential of the more
sophisticated programs.
As more sophisticated modeling programs become available, it is
important to stay current and verify its place in the state of practice. If further
analysis is to be done in comparing the results of 1D, 2D and 3D settlement
calculations, it is suggested to use a case study that satisfies the recommendations
discussed above. It is also important to maintain a geotechnical problem with a
well defined soil profile and set of parameters.
113
REFERENCES
Andreson, L., Edgers, L. and Jostad, H.P. (2008). “Capacity Analysis of Suction
Anchors in Clay by PLAXIS 3D Foundation”, PLAXIS Bulletin, Vol. 24,
pp. 5-9.
Bai, J., Chan, D., and Morgenstern, N. (2008). “Numerical Analysis of Time-
Dependent Behaviour for the Leaning Tower of Pisa”, Japanese
Geotechnical Society, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 207-220.
Bai, J., Morgenstern, N., and Chan, D. (2008). “Three-Dimensional Creep

Analysis of the Leaning Tower of Pisa”, Japanese Geotechnical Society,
Soils and Foundations, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 195-205.
Barbour, S.L. and Krahn, J. (2004). “Numerical modeling – prediction of

process?” Geotechnical News, December, pp. 44-52.
Burland, J.B. and Potts, D.M. (1995). “Development and application of a

numerical model for the leaning tower of Pisa”, Pre-failure Deformation
of Geomaterials. Shibuya, Mitachi & Miura, Rotterdam. pp. 715-738.
Burland, J.B., Jamiolkowski, M., and Viggiani, C. (2003). “The Stabilisation of

the Leaning Tower of Pisa”, Japanese Geotechnical Society, Soils and
Foundations Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 63-80.
Burland, J.B., Jamiolkowski, M. and Viggiani, C. (1998). “Stabilising the leaning

tower of Pisa”, Bull Engineering Geological Environmental, Vol. 57, pp.
91-99.
Calabresi, G., Rampello, S., and Callisto, L. (1993). “The leaning Tower of Pisa:
Geotechnical characterization of the tower’s subsoil within the framework
of the critical state theory.” Universita degli studi di Roma “La Sapienza”,
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnia, Studi e Ricerche
Cambefort, H. (1978). Discussion of “Foundation Performance of Tower of Pisa”.

ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. GT1, pp. 156-160.
Costanzo, D., Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R. and Pepe, B. (1994). “Leaning

Tower of Pisa-Description of the Behaviour”, International Symposium on
Settlement 94, Invited Lecture, Austin, Texas.
Croce, A., Burghignoli, A., Calabresi, G., Evangelista, A., and Viggiani, C.
(1981). “The Tower of Pisa and the Surrounding Square: Recent
Observations”, 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering (ICSMFE), Stockholm, Vol. 3, pp. 61-70.
114
Davis, E.H. and Poulos, H.G. (1968). “The Use of Elastic Theory Settlement
Prediction Under Three-Dimensional Conditions,” Geotechnique, London,
England, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 67-91.
Duncan, J.M. (1999). “Applying the Finite Element Method to Practical Use in
Geotechnical Engineering”, Civil Engineering Practice, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.
75-80.
FWHA. (1999). “Shallow Foundations Reference Manual (Draft)”, Training

Course in Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering, NHI course No.
13237, Module 7, p. 260.
Heiniger, P., (1995). “The Leaning Tower of Pisa”, Scientific American,

December, pp.62-67.
Ladd, C.C. (1973). “Estimating Settlements of Structures Supported on Cohesive

Soils”, MIT Report, p. 70.
Lambe, T.W. and Whitman, R.V. (1969). “Soil Mechanics” p. 553., John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York.
Lancellotta, R. and Pepe, C. (1990). Pisa Tower – A preliminary report.

Politecnico di Torino, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale, Torino,
Internal Reports, No. 2.1-2.3.
Leonards, G.A. (1979). Discussion of “Foundation Performance of Tower of

Pisa”. ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. GT1,
pp. 95-106.
Lo Presti, D.C.F., Jamiolkowski, M., and Pepe, M. (2003). “Geotechnical

characterization of the subsoil of Pisa Tower”, Characterisation and
Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse. pp.
909-946.
Nathan, S.V. (1978). Discussion of “Foundation Performance of Tower of Pisa”.

ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. GT2, pp. 296-
298.
Mascardi, C. (1978). Discussion of “Foundation Performance of Tower of Pisa”.

ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. GT2, pp. 299-
301.
Mitchell, J.K., Vivatrat, V., and Lambe, T.W. (1977). “Foundation Performance
of Tower of Pisa”, ASCE, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division, Vol. 103, No. GT3, pp. 227-249.
115
Mitchell, J.K., Vivatrat, V. and Lambe, T.W. (1979). Closure of “Foundation
Performance of Tower of Pisa”. ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Division, Vol. GT11, pp. 1363-1365.
Olson, R.E. (1977). “Consolidation Under Time Dependent Loading”. ASCE,

Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 103, No. GT1, pp.
55-60.
Potts, D.M. and Burland, J.B. (2000). “Development and application of a

numerical model for simulating the stabilization of the Leaning Tower of
Pisa”, Development in Theoretical Geomechanics, Smith and Carter,
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Potts, D.M. and Zdravkovic (1999). “Finite element analysis in geotechnical

engineering: theory”, p. 440, Thomas Telford, London, UK.
PLAXIS 8.2. (1998). Finite element code for soil and rock analysis, version 8.2,
R.B.J. Brinkgreve and P.A. Vermeer, eds., Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
PLAXIS 3D Foundation Version 2 (2007). Finite element code for soil and rock
analysis, version 2, R.B.J. Brinkgreve and W.M. Swolfs, eds., Rotterdam,
The Netherlands.
Rampello, S. and Callisto, L. (1998). “A Study on the subsoil of the Tower of

Pisa based on results from standard and high-quality samples”, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 1074-1092.
Soga, K. and Mitchell, J.K. (1995). “Numerical and experimental studies related
to the deformation history of the Tower of Pisa”, Compression and
Consolidation of Clayey Soils. Yoshinkuni and Kusakabe, Balkema,
Rotterdam.
Son, N.N. and Das, S.C. (2003). “Theory and Practice of Foundation Design”, p.
517, PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., New Dehli, India.
Terracina, F., (1962). “Foundations of the Tower of Pisa”, Geotechnique, Vol.

XII, No. 4, pp. 336-339.
Terzaghi, K., (1934). “Die Ursachen der Schiefstellung des Turms von Pisa,” Der
Bauingenieur, No. ½, 1934, pp. 1-4.
Terzaghi, K., (1925). “Erdbaumechanik auf Bodenphysikalischer Grundlage”,

Franz Deuticke, p. 399, Leipzig und Wein.
116
APPENDIX
117
Plaxis 2D Runs
Number of Number of Average Element Extreme Total

Description File Name
Elements Nodes Size (m) Displacement (m)
Axisymmetric Axisymmetric 2622 21193 0.992 2.60
Axisymmetric, Drained Behavior AxiSymDrained 2622 21193 0.992 2.46
Axisymmetric, Phi = 0 Analysis AxiSymPhi0 2622 21193 0.992 -
Plane Strain, Non-Uniform Layers, Symmetric Loading TOPsymload1 2286 18525 1.500 3.66
Plane Strain, Non-Uniform Layers, Non-Symmetric Loading TOPnonsymload 2286 18525 1.500 4.79
Plane Strain, Uniform Layers, Symmetric Loading PlaneStrainUniLoad 2680 21681 1.390 3.80
Axisymmetric, Boundary at Outer Wall AxiSym98Ca0 2720 22069 0.394 3.14
Axisymmetric, 6-Noded Elements AxiSymw01AB1x6noded 2622 5353 0.992 2.39
118
Plaxis 3D Runs
Number of Number of Average Element Extreme Total

Description File Name
Elements Nodes Size (m) Displacement (m)
Circular Symmetric Loading Coarse4x_30x302x 19250 51998 3.180 2.40
Circular Non-Symmetric Loading, 5 Line Loads 5LineCoarse20x204x 13882 37602 3.550 2.99
Circular Symmetric Loading, Boundary at Outer Wall TOPverificationVF 40344 106661 0.743 3.14

A Comparison of One-Dimensional, Two-Dimensional, and Three-Dimensional Settlement Analyses of The Tower of Pisa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

A Comparison of One-Dimensional, Two-Dimensional, and Three-Dimensional Settlement Analyses of The Tower of Pisa

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

A Comparison of One-Dimensional, Two-Dimensional, and Three-Dimensional Settlement Analyses of The Tower of Pisa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Comparison of 1D, 2D, and 3D Settlement Analyses of the Tower of Pisa

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

Civil and Environmental Engineering

Advisor: Professor Lewis Edgers

UMI Microform 1468186

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155

This thesis compares and evaluates settlement analyses of the Tower of

settlement has been previously modeled using one-dimensional consolidation

analyses. The 1D analyses underestimate the average settlement of the Tower by

loading using the results of an axisymmetric analysis. The results of the 3D

acceptable comparisons between the computed and estimated actual settlements

including the strength, patience, discipline and perseverance to complete this

period I have spent working on this thesis.

I would like to thank my committee chair, Lewis Edgers, for taking on a

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii

Chapter 1: Purpose and Scope 1

Chapter 2: Literature Review and Background Information - Tower

Chapter 3: One-Dimensional Analysis - Winsaf 32

Chapter 4: Two-Dimensional Analysis – Plaxis 2D 50

Chapter 6: Comparison of 1D, 2D and 3D Computations 91

6.1) 1D, 2D, 3D Verification 91

Chapter 7: Summary and Conclusions 106

7.1) Summary 106

2.1. Inclination History Values (Costanzo, 1994) 8

3.1. Winsaf-I Parameters 35

4.1. Plaxis 2D Input Parameters 55

5.1. Plaxis 3D Input Parameters 80

6.1. Input Parameter Comparison 102

2.1. Construction History (Burland, 2003) 6

3.1. Winsaf-I Soil Properties Input 33

4.1. Plaxis 2D Axisymmetric Mesh 58

5.1. Plaxis 3D Symmetric Uniformly Distributed Load Mesh 81

The use of the finite element method in geotechnical engineering involves

many complex issues specific to geotechnical engineering (Potts, 1999).

Problems involving cut slopes, embankments, piled foundations and embedded

varying materials and loading conditions. Traditional geotechnical design has

addressed such problems using simplified one dimensional analysis or empirical

approaches. The introduction of geotechnical computer hardware and software

of the finite element method. The sophistication of finite element modeling

Limitations exist in all types of models. A simplistic one dimensional

of accuracy. Geotechnical software that can model in one, two, or three

formation of a multi-disciplinary committee appointed by the Italian Government

to propose schemes for stabilization of the tower (Costanzo, 1994). As a result, a

documented stages of construction as well as angles of inclination over eight

centuries. Therefore, in conjunction with the well characterized soil conditions,

performing settlement calculations. The simplicity of a symmetric, cylindrical

tower makes it a great case to make a comparison of 1D, 2D and 3D analyses.

Each different dimension of analysis can be compared to the actual movement

that has occurred.

As an internationally recognizable structure, the Tower of Pisa has been an

been an intriguing problem to the geotechnical community. Since then, engineers

including Terracina, Mitchell, Jamiolkowski, Burland and Bai have made

attempts using one, two and three dimensional models.

Currently, there are many settlement software programs available. The

3D Foundation v.2. The first program, Winsaf-I, calculates one-dimensional

TR, computes the time-rate of settlement based on simple one-dimensional