Structural ratchet mechanisms, ancient and modern

Doug Jenkins, Principal, Interactive Design Services, Sydney, Australia

Abstract: The dome of the Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence was completed in 1436, and
cracking was observed on the internal surface shortly after. The size and extent of the cracks has been
observed since then, with increasing precision over time, providing one of the longest histories of structural
monitoring of any structure in the World. Over the last 50 years the sophistication of the monitoring system
has been greatly increased, and detailed finite element analyses have been carried out to determine the
cause of the continued growth of crack width, and to ensure the continued stability of the structure. In this
paper these analyses are reviewed, showing that the continued growth of the cracks over 550 years can be
explained by the combination of annual thermal strain variations with ratchet mechanisms in the stone and
brickwork. Similar mechanisms can occur in modern concrete structures, but this source of deflection is
often overlooked. Examples are provided of modern structures where ratchet mechanisms have resulted
in greater than expected deflections, including abutment structures, slabs on ground, buried structures, and
slabs subject to differential temperature effects.
Keywords: Ratchet mechanisms, crack development, historical structures.

1.

Introduction

The dome of the Santa Maria del Fiore, completed in 1436, was the first dome structure larger than the
Pantheon in Rome (126 AD) and the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (537 AD). Some sources say it is a
little larger in diameter than the Pantheon, some a little smaller, but in overall size it was unquestionably the
largest dome ever constructed, and it remains the largest masonry dome in the world. It is an impressive
structure that still dominates the city skyline today.
The first documented information about cracks in the dome dates back to 1639, but indirect evidence
suggests that the cracks were initiated soon after the completion of construction, possibly having been
caused by the strong earthquake of 1453. A survey of the cracks in 1695 reported cracks of up to 2.9 cm
width, and stone spies placed over cracks at this time broke after the earthquake of September 1695.
Differing causes of the cracking were suggested by the authors of the survey (Nelli and Viviani), and an
architect (Cecchini). Viviani applied Galileos theories of materials resistance to the problem, calculating
the restraint action of iron ties, and the thrust action of the dome at its springing point. A more detailed
survey of the cracks was carried out in 1757 which reports only 2 of the 4 major cracks now present. A
probable cause of the later cracks is the seismic event of 1895 (1).
The first investigation of the variation of crack widths over time was commenced in 1934 and continued over
three years, recording the relation between the crack widths and temperature variations. Two monitoring
systems are now in place; a mechanical one installed in 1955 and a digital one installed in 1987 (1).
The detailed records since 1955, combined with the surveys of 1934, 1757 and 1695, and earlier indirect
evidence present a consistent record of crack development over nearly 600 years. This record, together
with recent structural analysis work, present convincing evidence that the gradual increase in crack width is
the result of the interaction of daily and annual thermal strain cycles with ratchet mechanisms in the stone
and brickwork. This paper will examine the evidence for this process, and consider the implications for
restoration and strengthening work on the dome and similar historical structures, and also implications for
the design of new structures where similar mechanisms may take place.

2.

Design and construction of the dome

The history of the design and construction of the dome is described in detail in many publications (for
instance (2), (3)), but four aspects which may affect the formation and development of cracks over time
deserve particular attention:

The hexagonal plan and provision of reinforcing ties following a circular path within the width of the
walls.
The dome profile and double layered ribbed construction in cross section.

The construction of the dome in self-supporting layers, without falsework, and placing of bricks in a
herring bone pattern, to a slack line profile.
Support of the eight dome segments by a vertical drum with large central circular opening in each
face, supported by alternating solid walls and large gothic arches.

The dome is hexagonal in plan, with a maximum internal span of about 44.3 metres, and external span of
about 53.6 metres (2), as shown in Figure 1. The dome was reinforced by four circumferential stone chains
and a single ring of wooden ties, following a circular path (Figures 2, 3). Each face of the dome is cut from
a cylindrical segment with an internal radius of about 36 m, passing through a vertical angle of about 60
degrees. The bricks were placed in curved layers (known as a slack line profile) with a herring-bone
pattern, allowing the structure to be self-supporting and construction to be completed without centring
(Figures 4, 5). A developed elevation of the structure showing the support arrangements and a
diagrammatic representation of the crack pattern is shown in Figure 6.
The method of construction, with its slack line layers, herring-bone brickwork pattern, and stone and timber
chains is often credited with giving the structure superior resistance to cracking but it is doubtful if these
factors are significant, since the major cracking occurs at the centre of the segments where the brick layers
are close to horizontal, and the tensile resistance of the chains is negligible compared with the force
required to restrain the dome from lateral spreading. Of greater significance is the double layered
construction, and high circular segment profile, topped with a heavy lantern structure. This arrangement
helped to minimise vertical flexural stresses, but the requirement for a transverse horizontal restraining force
at the base of any arch or dome will result in significant circumferential stresses if the transverse restraint is
insufficient.

5
4

8
1

Figure 1. Plan view of the dome with segment numbering (1)

3.

Crack surveys and reports

The first remaining written report on the cracks in the dome dates from 1639 when the architect Gherardo
Silvani wrote that the cracks were not serious, and could be fixed with plastering and metal brackets. By
1695 however a commission headed by Giovan Battista Nelli recommended encircling the dome with four
iron chains. The installation of the chains was officially approved, but immediately after approval two
unsigned manuscripts (written by architect Alessandro Ceccini) argued that the cracks were due to
subsidence, and that the chains would be useless because the weight of the shells was pressing inwards,

Figure 2. Stone chain (2)

Figure 4. Dome Section (4)

Figure 3. Wood chain (2)

Figure 5. Brickwork slack-line profile (2)

Figure 6. Developed internal elevation with diagrammatic crack pattern (2)

rather than outwards. Work was suspended, and Nelli produced a new report in 1697 with conclusions
opposite to those of 1695 (2).
Between 1748 and 1930 numerous reports were prepared on the dome, covering both the history and
methods of construction, and the condition and reasons for the cracks. In spite of new recommendations
to encircle the dome with chains, and the recorded widening of the cracks following the earthquake of 1885,
no significant strengthening work was carried out over this period (2).
Between 1934 and 1937 a commission headed by Rodolfo Sabatini, and including Pier Nervi, carried out
the first analysis of the dome using modern techniques and the first sensors to measure the cyclic movement
of the joints were installed. The cracking of the drum and subsequent cracking of the dome was generally
attributed to thermal factors. It was recognised that it was necessary to extend the study to include the
overall structure, and this work was commenced in 1950 (2).
From 1983 further concerns on the stability of the dome were given prominent airing in the local press (2),
and by 1987 these were given international recognition with a report in the New York Times claiming that
Cracks in a Great Dome in Florence May Point to Impending Disaster (5). In October 1987 alarmism had
increased to the extent that the California based Merced Sun-Star reported the cracks to be opening at a
rate of 3 inches per century (6). These reports were based on the work of Lando Bartoli who maintained
that the filling of 48 staging holes with concrete had resulted in the reversal of the previous crack opening
and closing cycle, and a great increase in the rate of width increase (7). These concerns led to the reappointment of a commission to study the structure, and the installation of much more sophisticated
monitoring equipment, and detailed computer analyses of the structure behaviour over time. These
analyses showed that the rate of crack width increase had in fact reduced over the period in which
scaffolding had been in place, and that the same seasonal cycle was evident before and after the filling of
the staging holes (1).
The monitoring of the dome and its supporting structure has continued to the present day, and the results
have been analysed with increasing sophistication. Recent published works include structural analyses by
Fanelli (2), analyses of the development of cracks over time by Ottoni et al. (1, 8), and statistical analysis
by Gabbanni et al. (9).
The Los Alamos National Laboratory has recently (February 2013) published a paper proposing further
detailed numerical analysis of the dome, focussing on annual cyclic behaviour and behaviour under dynamic
loading, including dynamic soil-structure interaction (10). The focus of the proposed paper is to confirm the
mechanics leading to the current crack pattern, determine the potential for catastrophic collapse, and seek
possible mitigation strategies. At the time of writing funding for this proposal was yet to be agreed.

4.

Evolution of the cracks over time

Figure 7 shows estimated evolution of crack width over time based on historical records, and monitoring
over the last 60 years, indicating a current rate of crack width increase of about 6 mm per century (8). The
more detailed records since 1955 (Figures 8, 9) indicate a reduced growth rate of about 3 mm per century,
with significantly reduced growth in the period 1980 to 1996 when scaffolding was in place, with a return to
the earlier rate after removal of the scaffold. Figures 10 and 11 show the clear correlation between crack
width and temperature, giving rise to the cyclical annual variation of about 1 mm, on top of the long term
trend.

5.

Causes of crack initiation and continued growth

The pattern of cracking in the dome is shown schematically in Figure 12, together with an example of a
large crack visible in segment 6 (see Figure 1 for segment numbering) (8). The significant features of the
crack pattern are:

The large primary cracks through the centre of the segment are only present in the even numbered
segments with solid supports.
These cracks pass through the full depth of both layers of the dome, effectively dividing it into four
free-standing quadrants.
The cracks in the eastern segments (4 and 6) are larger than in 2 and 8, and appeared earlier.
The cracks in the south-facing segments (2 and 4) are larger than those in the corresponding northfacing segments.

Figure 7. Estimated development of crack widths from completion to present (8)

Figure 8. Crack widths 1955 to 2009 (1)

Figure 9. Crack widths 1955 to 2009 with 3 part regression (8)

Figure 10. Crack widths 1987-2007 with annual cyclical interpolation (1)

Figure 11. Correlation between crack width and temperature (1)

Figure 12. Schematic plan of 4 major cracks and crack on segment 6 visible on inside face (8)

Secondary cracks occur at the junction of each segment of the dome, over the lower third, on the
inner face of the upper parts of the odd numbered segments, and under the large circular openings
(oculi) in the drum under the odd numbered segments, over the crown of the supporting arches
(Figure 6).
The cracks increase in width with increasing temperatures, with a movement range of approximately
1.5 mm for 20 C temperature range (Figure 11).

The original cause and date of the cracking cannot be established with any certainty, but computer analyses
indicate that circumferential tensile stresses would have been close to the estimated strength of the
brickwork at the time of completion, so cracking may have been initiated by the dead weight of the structure
alone, or in combination with thermal stresses and or a seismic event (possibly the Earthquake of 1453).
The drum supporting the dome acts as a deep beam, transferring load from the arches over the apses to
the solid supports (Figure 6). This results in compressive transverse stresses at the base of the dome over
the crowns of the arches, and tensile stresses in the alternating segments over the solid supports. This
pattern of stresses is consistent with the observed four major vertical cracks through the centre of the even
numbered segments, and also the minor cracks under the oculi under the odd numbered segments.
The earlier and wider cracks in segments 4 and 6, at the east end of the structure, are a result of the lesser
restraint along the east-west axis, compared with segments 1, 2 and 8 which are restrained by the nave of
the cathedral; and the wider cracks on the south-facing segments (2 and 4), compared with the
corresponding north-facing segments (8 and 6), are consistent with cracks developing over time under the
influence of solar thermal induced strains.
In summary, although the initial cause of the cracks in the dome cannot be determined with any certainty,
their gradual and continuing growth over nearly 600 years is consistent with the cumulative effect of small
residual strains due to the combination of the annual cyclic thermal movement with ratchet mechanisms in
the dome and supporting structures.
The detailed monitoring and analysis of the structure over the last 60 years provides no support for Bartolis
hypothesis that maintenance works had fundamentally changed the response of the structure to annual
thermal cycles; however the response of the structure to strong earthquake activity remains a matter for
valid concern. It is to be hoped that the proposed research in this area (10) will proceed.

6.

Ratchet mechanisms in modern concrete structures

The effect of ratchet mechanisms is rarely addressed in a design context in modern structures, but these
effects may arise in any situation where non-recoverable strains occur in a structure or its support.
Examples that frequently occur in practice include cracking of concrete, compaction of soils, and slip at any
friction interface. These effects can give rise to significant total strains over time and should be considered
in structures that may be susceptible, both at design time and as a possible cause when greater than
expected movements are observed. Some examples of ratchet mechanisms occurring in actual structures
are given below.

6.1

Integral bridge abutments

Integral abutment bridges, in which the bridge deck is made continuous with the abutments at both ends,
have become increasingly popular in recent years, especially in the USA and Europe. Thermal expansion
of the bridge deck is absorbed in the soil behind the abutments, allowing the road above to be joint-free.
The effect of ratchet mechanisms at the abutments is well recognised and documented (e.g. (11)), and
research on these structures provides one of the few sources of well-researched data and design
methodology for ratcheting at soil-structure interfaces.

6.2

Slabs on ground

Expansion joints in on ground slabs are subject to cyclic thermal movements, which may result in end or
edge slabs being pushed outwards. These movements may be cumulative as joints fill from above and
below when fully open during winter, allowing additional movement of the end slab during the following
summer. Significant sideways movements may also occur in slabs constructed on a horizontal curve, for
instance curved footpaths. An example of movement of this type occurred in a paving slab at the top of a
reinforced soil retaining wall, forming a square U-shape in plan. Concerns were raised that the wall was
sliding or rotating, as gaps of the order of 50 mm opened between the top of the wall and the edge of the

slab over a number of years. Surveys showed that the wall was in fact stable, and that the slab was moving
away from the wall due to cumulative transverse thermal movements, initiated as the slab passed around a
right angle at the corners of the U.

6.3

Buried structures

Buried structures are not normally subject to the same cyclic thermal effects as integral bridge abutments,
but may be influenced by long term cyclic loading from other sources such as ground water variations or
traffic loading. Another source of possible ratchet mechanisms occurs during backfilling, where filling in
layers on opposite sides of the structure results in the previously placed layers being subject to alternate
active and passive pressure conditions. If the placement procedures are not symmetrical about the centre
line of the structure it is possible for these alternating pressures to result in a ratchet mechanism, and
excessive lateral deflections. This effect may be exacerbated by placement of fill stockpiles within the zone
of influence of the structure.

6.4

Differential temperature and load cycle effects in flexural members

Differential temperature stresses are normally treated as a short term effect, but cyclic temperatures may
result in ratchet mechanisms that cause significant growth in crack widths and deflections, as occurred in
the dome of the Florence cathedral. Situations in which cyclic differential temperatures may lead to the
formation of ratchet mechanisms include:

7.

Differential temperature stresses combined with shrinkage stresses may reduce the effective
flexural tensile strength of the concrete to close to zero, significantly reducing the cracking moment
and reducing the effect of tension stiffening, leading to the extent of flexural cracking and deflections
being greater than expected.
Cracking and deflections may be further increased if cracks become partially filled, either from
internal spalling and abrasion or external sources. This is most likely to occur in top surfaces under
tension, exposed to the full sun.
Flexural cracks at reinforcement level result in slip between the reinforcement and the concrete,
giving rise to a ratchet mechanism when strains cycle over time. This effect is well known and
investigated for gross changes in strain, such as under seismic conditions, but is usually neglected
for smaller amplitude strains.
In any situation where exposed structures are supported by non-elastic materials the potential exists
for ratchet mechanisms to form.

Conclusions

Detailed monitoring and analysis of the dome of the Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence has built up a
convincing picture of the history of crack growth over nearly 600 years, driven primarily by thermal strain
effects combined with ratchet mechanisms in the supporting structures. Concerns that renovation work on
the dome had accelerated the rate of crack growth have proved to be not well founded, but significant
concern remains about the ability of the structure to withstand strong earthquake effects.
Similar ratchet mechanisms are seen in a wide variety of modern concrete structures, but in most cases
these mechanisms are not explicitly recognised in the design process, and analysis and design procedures
for dealing with the effects are not well documented.
Further research is therefore desirable, both into the effect of ratchet mechanisms on existing structures,
and methods of analysing, designing and detailing susceptible structures to minimise any adverse effects.

8.

Afterword

The scepticism expressed in this paper about the effectiveness of some of the features that Brunelleschi
designed into the construction of the dome in resisting the formation and growth of cracks may be seen as
disrespectful of his reputation as an architect. This was not the intention. At the time of Brunelleschi the
construction experience of the Roman and Ottoman empires had been largely lost, and the knowledge that
was to be built up by Da Vinci, Galileo, Hooke, Euler and many others over the coming centuries did not
yet exist. If he needed to find a way to construct a dome structure without the use of temporary supports,
or a way to lift thousands of tonnes of materials to work platforms high in the air, he needed to design, detail,

and manage the construction of these things himself. In The Science of Art (12) Kemp describes his
approach as: ingenious, empirical, methodical, and oriented towards specific problems capable of material
resolution. In his spare time he was the first to establish the basic principles of the use of perspective
projection that would transform western art over the coming centuries. He was then not just the architect of
the structure that remains the Worlds largest masonry dome, but also an artist, a scientist, but most of all
the first of the great Renaissance engineers.

9.

References
1. Ottoni, F., Coisson, E. et al., The Crack Pattern in Brunelleschi's Dome in Florence: Damage
Evolution from Historical to Modern Monitoring System Analysis, Advanced Materials Research,
133-134, 2010, pp 53-64.
2. Fanelli G., Fanelli M., Brunelleschis Cupola, Past and Present of an Architectural Masterpiece,
Mandragora, 2004, Florence, Italy.
3. King, R., Brunelleschis Dome, The Story of the Great Cathedral in Florence, Pimlico, 2000,
London, UK.
4. Como, M, A Static Analysis of the Brunelleschis Dome in Florence, Proceedings of the
International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium, 2009, pp 1661-1673.
5. Suro, R., Cracks in a Great Dome in Florence May Point to Impending Disaster, The New York
Times, July 28 1987, New York, USA
6. DEmilio, F., Florence worries about the cracks splitting Brunelleschis marvel, Merced Sun-Star
23 Oct 1987, Merced, USA
7. Fontana, A., Ciccanti, C., Brunelleschi's Florentine dome after the stopping of the staging holes,
Executive Intelligence Review, Vol 15, No. 13, Mar 25 1988, Leesburg, USA
8. Blasi, C., Ottoni, F., 60 Years results of the monitoring system on Santa Maria Del Fiore in
Florence, OPA Workshop, Monitoring of Great Historical Structures, Florence, Italy, 2012
9. Gabbanini, F., Vannucci, M., et al., Wavelet Packet Methods for the Analysis of Variance of Time
Series With Application to Crack Widths on the Brunelleschi Dome, Journal of Computational and
Graphical Statistics, Volume 13, Number 3, 2004, pp 639658
10. Keller, C. F. Jr., Salmon, M. W., et al., Characterization and Computer Modelling for Brunelleschi's
Dome of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence, Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA, Feb 2013
11. England, G.L, Tsang, N.C.M. et al., Integral Bridges, Thomas Telford Publishing, 2000, London,
UK.
12. Kemp, M., The Science of Art, Yale University Press, 1990, New haven, USA