Trans, Newcomen Soc., 78 (2008), 173-205 Stabilising the Leaning Tower of Pisa: the Evolution of Geotechnical Solutions by John B. BURLAND The Dickinson Memorial Lecture read at the Science Museum, London on 9 May 2007 INTRODUCTION On Thursday 7 September 1995 ground freezing was being carried out around the Tower of Pisa when it began to increase its inclination dramatically. In one night, it moved southwards more than it would normally have moved in a year. The freezing operation had to be terminated and for three weeks desperate efforts were made to save the tower. This period has come to be known as Black September. The paper describes how and why the Pisa Commission got into this predicament and how it was resolved. More generally the paper traces the evolution of some of the ideas and schemes for stabilising the tower that were put forward by members of the Commission. Unravelling the history of the tower and understanding the mechanisms of its movement proved crucial to developing the successful stabilisation measures. A detailed technical description of the project is given by Burland etal! THE PISA COMMISSION In 1989, the civie tower of Pavia collapsed without warning, leading to the closure of the Pisa tower in early 1990, There was an immediate outcry from the Mayor and citizens of Pisa, who foresaw the damage that the closure would inflict on the economy of Pisa. Tn March 1990, the Prime Minister of Italy set up an international Commission, under the chairmanship of Professor Jamiolkowski, to develop and implement measures for stabilising the tower. The Commission consisted of fourteen members, ten of whom were from Italy, with expertise in a variety of disciplines including history of architecture, preservation and restoration of historic buildings, medieval art and archaeology, mineral- ogy, structural engineering and geotechnical engineering. Decisions were taken by majority vote. It is not widely appreciated that the decree establishing the Commission was set up under emergency legislation and was not ratified in the Italian Parliament until 1995. In Italian law, such a decree has to be ratified by the Italian Parliament within two months of publication or else it falls. Thus, every two months, the Commission’s decree had to be renewed and on a number of occasions the work of the Commission was suspended because of delays in renewal. Such an arrangement made the Commission very vulnerable to media and political pressures and long-term planning was very difficult. DOI: 10.1179/175035208X317657174 STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA. DETAILS OF THE TOWER AND GROUND PROFILE Standing in the Piazza dei Miracoli, the eight storey tower is 53.3 m high above ground level, it weighs 14 500 tonne and its masonry foundations are 19.6 m in diameter having a maximum depth of 5.5 m below ground level. The foundations slope towards the south at 5.5 degrees to the horizontal and the seventh floor overhangs the ground by about 4.5 m. Construction is in the form of a hollow cylinder surrounded by colonnades; Figure 1 shows a cross-section through the tower. The inner and outer surfaces of the cylinder are faced with tightly jointed marble cladding but the material between these facings consists of mortar and stones in which extensive voids have been found. The cladding elements are poorly bonded to the infill rubble and there is a danger that outward buckling of the cladding elements could take place. A spiral staircase winds up within the annulus of the walls of the tower. The stability of the masonry at second storey level on the south side has been a matter of major concern, As shown in Figure 2, the underlying ground consists of three distinct layers. Layer A is about 10 m thick and consists of variable soft silty deposits laid down in shallow water (lagoonal, fluvial and estuarine conditions) less than 10000 years ago. Layer B consists of very soft sensitive marine clays laid down up to 30000 years ago which extends to a depth of 40 m. This stratum is laterally very uniform. Layer C is a dense sand extending to considerable depth. The water table in Layer A is between | and 2 m deep. Within Layer B the water pressures are slightly sub-hydrostatic due to seasonal pumping from Layer C. The Fig. |. North-south cross-section through the tower.STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA 175 Elevation -m Fig. 2. Ground profile. many soil borings around, and even beneath, the tower show that the surface of Layer B is dish-shaped due to the weight of the tower above it. From this it can be deduced that the average settlement of the tower was at least 3m — a graphic demonstration of how very compressible is the underlying soil. HISTORY OF CONSTRUCTION, Construction of the tower began in August 1173 and, by about 1178, it had progressed to ‘one quarter the way up the fourth storey when work stopped. The reason for stopping is not known but had it continued much further the soil in Layer B would not have been strong enough to carry the load and the tower would have fallen over due to a bearing capacity failure of the foundations. Work recommenced in about 1272 by which time the strength of the clay had increased due to consolidation under the weight of the tower (although this would not have been known). By about 1278, construction had reached the seventh level when work again stopped. There can be no doubt that had the tower been completed at this stage it would have fallen over. In about 1360, when further consolidation of the underlying clay had taken place, work on the bell chamber commenced and was completed in about 1370 — nearly two hundred years after commencement of construction. Another important historical detail is that, in 1838, the architect Alessandro Gherard- esca excavated a walk-way (catino) around the base of the tower so as to reveal the column plinths and foundation steps as was originally intended. The result of this was an inrush of ‘water on the south side, since here the excavation is below the water table. There is evidence176 STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA Fig. 3. Examples of previous schemes involving massive temporary supporting structures, micro-piles and major foundations works. to suggest that the inclination of the tower increased by more than a quarter of a degree at this time. THE FIRST MEETING OF THE COMMISSION The first meeting of the Pisa Commission took place on 9 May 1990 in Rome. It became clear immediately that the members whose expertise lay in architectural history and conservation were very suspicious of any suggestions made by the engineers. Over the years, many solutions had been put forward by engineers and most of these were very invasive of the fabric of the tower and would have changed its essential character significantly. Figure 3 shows examples of schemes involving major temporary support structures followed by massive underpinning and major foundations interventions.’ It is hardly surprising that the engineers were regarded with considerable suspicion! ‘It was agreed at the first meeting that a ‘soft’ solution should be sought for stabilising, the tower. This would entail a minimum of invasiveness and avoiding the application of large forces directly to the monument either through the superstructure or the foundations. Various tasks were assigned to members and Professor Viggiani and I were invited to collect and analyse the data relating to the observed movements of the tower. Somewhat ominously, at this first meeting Professor Leonhardt’ presented what became known as the ‘North Pressing Slab Solution’. This involved constructing a reinforced concrete slab on the ground to the north of the tower and loading the slab by means of a large number of ground anchors. Professor Christian Veder had published a paper suggesting this approach and the diagrams in Figure 4 are taken from this publica- tion.* The surcharged area would settle, causing a subsidence trough around it extending beneath the north side of the tower thereby causing the foundation to subside and the tower to rotate northwards. The objectives of this approach are most desirable but the shape and magnitude of the induced subsidence trough are very difficult to predict or to control in detail. There was also considerable uncertainty about the risks associated with the massive loading of the ground in this way for a tower which is very close to foundation failure,STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA 177 Belostury 30 Mp/n? | L - © onobertiéche ‘ongenommene Rackdrehung Oph as aes & Ny Setaungsmale inoige Tam oe ‘Set ide = a es reosirg x (o) Fig. 4. North pressing slab scheme proposed by Veder*. (a) Section, (b) Settlement profiles. Setzungen der Tonoberté ge MEASURED HISTORIC MOVEMENTS OF THE TOWER From 1911 onwards, accurate annual measurements have been made of the horizontal movements of points V, and V; on the first and seventh levels of the tower, respectively, using a high precision theodolite. Figure 5 shows the arrangement for doing this with the theodolite mounted on a concrete monument at E and a reference target located on a concrete reference monument at D. In 1928, precision levelling was commenced on four points around the plinth of the tower and referred to a datum on the Baptistry. The ‘measurements were repeated in 1929 but no further measurements were made until 1973 when the number of points around the plinth was increased to fifteen, In 1932, instrumentation was mounted inside the tower in the form of an accurate plumb line and a precision spirit level.’ Figure 6 shows a photograph of the plumb line (known as the GB pendulum). It consists of a 35-kg weight suspended on the end of three invar wires which are anchored at the sixth level. The weight hangs in an oil-filled container and the invar wires are suspended inside protective pipes. Mounted on the weight is a glass plate which is precisely inscribed with a graticule and is read through a microscope to an accuracy of greater than one tenth of a second of arc. The GB pendulum has been read daily since 1932, apart from a short break during World War 2. Considerable daily and seasonal fluctuations are observed due to thermal effects on the masonry. Figure 7 shows the precision spirit level (known as the GC level). The spirit level itself is mounted on a light steel truss of 4-m span with hemispherical bearings resting on steel plates. By moving the truss to a second set of bearings, readings in wo orthogonal directions can be made (north — south and east — west). This instrument has been read approximately once a year since 1932 with some breaks in the record. In the late 1960s, a Commission was appointed to gather as much information about the tower as possible as a preliminary to holding a design competition for finding a stabilisation solution. The chairman of the Commission was Professor Polvani, an eminent nuclear physicist. The report of the Polvani Commission’ contains the measurements made178 STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA. Fig. 5. Geodetic survey for measuring the horizontal movement of point V7 relative to point V1 (refer to Fig. 1 for the location of points VI and V7). Fig. 6. (left) The GB pendulum.STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA 179 with the above instruments up to about 1971. Professor Viggiani set about bringing them up to date, Tt is of interest to note that Professor Sir Alec Skempton (past President of the Newcomen Society) was a member of the Polvani Commission and Figure 8 shows a photograph of him with the other members of the geotechnical group on the Commission. Figure 9 shows the changes of inclination of the tower with time obtained from a number of instruments. It can be seen that the results from the geodetic measurements and the GB pendulum give slightly larger changes of inclination than the measurements made with the GC level and precision levelling which give the change of inclination of the plinth. This difference is caused by slight bending of the axis of the tower as the inclination increases. There is very good agreement between the results of the GC level and the precision levelling around the plinth. ‘The results of the measurements of the change of inclination of the foundations show a number of ‘kinks’ in the record which are due to various activities. In 1934, under engineer Girometti, the foundation masonry was consolidated by injecting 89 tonne of grout through 361 holes drilled into the masonry. Ground water lowering was undertaken to carry out the work. The record shows that, as a consequence of the works, the inclination of the tower increased by 31” (arc seconds) in a few days. The precise cause of this movement is not known. At various times, drilling has taken place around the tower and this has frequently given rise to rapid increases in inclination. During the early 1970s, when there was a major drought, pumping took place from the lower sands which resulted in an acceleration of the inclination of the tower. Analysis of the levelling records showed that the pumping caused differential subsidence of the Piazza towards the south that resulted in an amplified rotation of the tower towards the south. It is evident that the tower is very sensitive to any form of Fig. 8. Geotechnical Group of the Polvani Commission (Professor Sir Alec Skempton is on the far left).180 STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA. ‘ Teco, “| ri : i Te) ot a i. an I ; re rr Hr t ee ei ae Fig. 10. Deduced variation of inclination of Fig. 9. Measured variation of inclination of ‘tower plinth with time when the effects of the tower with time since 1911 using a variety various perturbations have been removed. of instruments. intervention, Removal of these local perturbations results in a smooth curve showing a steady increase in the rate of inclination as shown in Figure 10. This is the worrying trend that the Commission was faced with in late 1990 when Professor Viggiani and I had completed our analysis of the historical records of movement of the tower. Tn summary, it was evident that the tower was founded on very soft compressible soils, leaning dramatically and accelerating, It had been shown to be very sensitive to ground disturbance, particularly on the south side, which ruled out any form of underpinning. To make matters worse the masonry cladding is highly stressed and could be on the point of buckling, giving rise to an explosive failure. That is not all — the rules governing the conservation of historic monuments places very strict limits on the types of intervention that are permitted, Examples include requirements that the existing fabric has to be respected and should involve the least possible intervention, any modern technique of conservation has to be proved by experience and the essential character of the monument has to be preserved, It was all too evident that stabilising the Leaning Tower of Pisa represented the ultimate civil engineering challenge! TEMPORARY STABILISATION By the end of September 1990, it had been tacitly accepted that a two-stage stabilisation approach was needed. Short-term temporary measures were required as soon as possible to increase the margins of safety of both the masonry and the foundations thereby giving time to develop a permanent solution. A requirement of conservation is that any temporary measure must be reversible and non-invasive. Temporary stabilisation of the masonry was achieved by applying circumferential pre-stressed cables around the tower at four elevations on the second storey and at the first cornice. The arrangement is shown in Figure 11. The prestressing was quite light, aimed primarily at preventing the outward buckling of the marble cladding elements. This measure, which satisfied the conservation requirements of being both reversible and non-invasive, was agreed in May 1991 and successfully installed in June 1992. Work on developing a temporary foundation stabilisation measure was greatly assisted by the discovery of a rather curious and surprising motion of the foundations. At that timeSTABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA. 181 Fig. 11. Temporary stabilisation of masonry with light circumferential pre-stressing. it was widely believed that the increasing inclination of the tower was due to creep in the underlying soft marine clay — the upper clay in Figure 2, The implication was that the tower was settling but the south side at a greater rate than the north side, This assumed mechanism of movement had been dominating the approach to developing stabilisation measures for some years, Close examination of the geodetic measurements contained in the Polvani Report revealed that the motion of the foundations throughout the 20" century was actually very different from the widely assumed one. The theodolite measurements commenced in 1911 showed that point V, on the first cornice (see Figure 1) had not moved horizontally relative to the reference point D in the Piazza (see Figure 5) apart from during the man-made interventions referred to previously. Similarly the precision levelling commenced in 1928 showed that the centre of the plane of the plinth (see Figure 1) had not moved vertically relative to the ground nearby the tower. These measurements led to the conclusion that the foundations of the tower have been moving around a point of instantaneous rotation level with the first cornice and vertically above the centre of the plinth as shown in Figure 12. The mechanism of movement revealed in Figure 12 shows that, far from settling, the north side of the tower has been rising, This led directly to the suggestion that it might be safe to place counterweights on the north side of the tower thereby reducing the overturning moment. Such an approach would have been unacceptable if the north side had been settling. The mechanism shown in Figure 12 also indicated that the seat of the continuing movement must be very shallow, well above the upper marine clay. This latter deduction eventually led us to identify the cause of the continuing movement as a seasonally fluctuating water table in the upper silt deposits. Figure 13 shows the scheme that I presented to the Commission in September 1990 for the application of counterweights to the north side.’ The arrangement was strongly influenced by the need to minimise the visual impact of the weights. The proposal was accepted in principle subject to demonstrating analytically that there was no risk of increasing the inclination of the tower. Professor David Potts!® and I then set about what proved to be a mammoth task of numerically modelling the behaviour of the foundations and underlying ground. The approach was to use the Finite Element method with the ground modelled by advanced Critical State constitutive equations and with the deformations and fluid flow coupled to give time dependent behaviour. The Critical State model is based on the concepts of clastic-work hardening plasticity."182 STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA. Fig. 12. Observed motion of the tower foundation since 1911 Fig. 13. Temporary north weighting scheme presented to the Commission in. September 1990 The initial results of the analysis were not encouraging. Application of a counterweight on the north edge of the foundations caused the tilt of the tower to increase. At first sight this result may seem surprising. However, it is an inevitable result of the flow laws of work-hardening plasticity during yielding. Thus, when a structure is deforming plastically, it will tend to continue in the same mode when it is subjected to a perturbation causing further yield, I reported this negative result to the Commission in January 1991. There was a major crashing of gears and the temporary north counterweight solution went on hold for over a year. Unfortunately, this hiatus opened the door for speculation about the possible use of ground anchors, as will be described later.STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA 183 HISTORY OF THE INCLINATION OF THE TOWER It was clear from the initial results that we needed to refine our computer modelling of the tower and underlying ground and, above all, it was necessary to calibrate and validate it, The only way we could think of doing this was to attempt to reproduce the history of inclination of the tower. This is not documented and it proved necessary to attempt to work it out. ‘An important clue to the history of the tit lies in the adjustments made to the masonry layers during construction and in the resulting shape of the axis of the tower which is shown in Figure 14. At the elevation of each successive floor the masons made corrections for the current inclination of the tower by inserting tapered masonry layers. If the method of correcting for the inclination were known it would be possible to work out the history of inclination from the shape of the tower axis. A widely used hypothesis, which I call the horizontal ricorsi hypothesis is that at the top of each successive storey the masons would create a level surface from which to build the next storey. This is illustrated in Figure 15(a) and was used by the Polvani Commission to reconstruct the history of inclination. There are two problems with the horizontal rieorsi hypothesis. The first is that itis counter intuitive for a tall high aspect ratio tower. Simply building the next storey vertically does little to reduce the overturning moment generated by the eccentric centre of gravity. Secondly, when the Height above plinth (m) = 05 8800 North Offset im) South Fig. 14. Measured profile of the axis of the tower,184 STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA [J ester a eo Fig. 15. Hypotheses for correcting the inclination of the tower during construction, (a) Horizontal ricorsi hypothesis, (b) Axis correction hypothesis, hypothesis is applied to the Pisa tower, the deduced relationship between the weight of the tower and its inclination gives a very erratic history as shown in Figure 16(a). A more logical approach is to attempt to bring the succeeding storey back over the centre of the foundations. It is interesting that children, when building wooden brick towers on a soft carpet, will automatically do this when the tower begins to tilt! The scheme we adopted was to assume that the next storey was aimed so that on completion its centre lay vertically above the centre of the foundations as shown in Figure 15(b). We called this the axis correction hypothesis. The architectural historians on the Commission assured us that Weight of tower (2x 10°) Inclination of plinth — degrees Incinaton of plinth —degroos. Fig. 16, History of inclination of the tower deduced from the two hypotheses.STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA. 185 the masons would have had the tools and instruments to achieve such a correction, It is believed that the masonry blocks for each storey were carved and assembled at ground level before being hoisted up to the working level. Figure 16(b) shows the deduced relationship between the weight of the tower and its inclination using the axis correction hypothesis and was presented to the Commission in July 1991. Tt can be seen that initially the tower moved north by a small amount. In 1272, when the second phase of construction commenced a major correction was made about a quarter of the way up the fourth storey. From then on the tower began to move southwards and accelerate. By the time work commenced on the bell chamber in 1360, the tower was leaning at about 1.6° southwards. In 1817, two British architects, Cresy and Taylor, measured the inclination of the tower using a plumb line and deduced that it was leaning at about S°.! These measurements were repeated in 1859 by a French architect de Fleury."* The tower was found to have increased its inclination by about 0.4° which is evidence for the effects of the excavation of the catino by Gherardesca in 1838 as described previously. Figure 16(b) was used to calibrate our computer model of the tower as described in detail by Burland and Potts. Figure 17 shows a comparison of the prediction of the computer model with the deduced history of inclination and it can be seen that the agree- ment is good, particularly during the later stages of construction and thereafter, including the excavation of the catino, The predicted time dependent inclination and settlement of the tower are plotted in Figure 18. The model did not attempt to reproduce the small initial northward movements. It is interesting to note that the work on deducing the history of inclination of the tower and its close replication with a numerical model made a profound impression on those members of the Commission whose expertise lay in architectural Load (tx10°) o 4 2 3 & 5 6 Inclination of foundations - degrees Fig. 17. Comparison of predicted and deduced histories of inclination.186 STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA. Inclination - degrees le 1008 200 “1300 1400 1500 1600-700 18001900 2000 Date ‘Settlement -m 4! Fig. 18. Predicted time history of inclination and settlement of the tower. history and conservation. Indeed, it could be regarded as a watershed in the relations between these members of the Commission and the engineers. ‘The numerical model revealed very clearly that the instability of the tower foundation is not due to an impending bearing capacity failure of the ground but can be attributed to the high compressibility of the upper marine clay. This phenomenon is known as ‘leaning instability’. No matter how carefully the structure is built vertically, once it reaches a critical height the smallest perturbation will induce leaning instability. Once again we can learn from the experience of children building wooden brick towers on a soft carpet who will have experienced this phenomenon! Importantly, the observed motion of the tower during the 20% Century as shown in Figure 12 is consistent with leaning instability. BACK TO THE NORTH COUNTERWEIGHT The development of the fully calibrated Finite Element model of the tower and underlying ground was not completed until about July 1991. There remained the problem that the model was predicting increasing inclinations when a counterweight was applied to the north side of the foundations, ‘The significance of the mechanism of movement revealed by Figure 12 then began to dawn on me. As stated previously, the measured motion of the foundations implied that the seat of the continuing movements was shallow — largely within the upper silt of Horizon A. This meant that the upper marine clay was not involved and must have been at rest for well over 150 years — probably since the excavation of the catino in 1838. This ageing process would have led to an increase in the yield stress of the clay which would therefore exhibit elastic behaviour for smalll increases in stress. An analysis of the application of the north counterweight was carried out with a small increase in yield stress in the clay and the results are given in Figure 19. It was found that as the counterweight is increased the tower rotates northwards initially. However, once the counterweight exceeds 1500 t, yield begins to take place and the tower begins to rotate southwards.STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA. 187 ins Load - t Settlement - mm 100! Fig. 19. Predicted response of tower to the application of north counterweights allowing for ageing of the Upper Clay, ‘The results of the above analysis were presented to the Commission in February 1992 when Professor Leonhardt also presented a sketch of a revised north counterweight scheme. In April 1992, the scheme illustrated in Figure 20 was approved by the Commission and an upper limit of 600 t was placed on the north weighting. LONG-TERM GEOTECHNICAL STABILISATION From early on in the work of the Commission we had been giving thought to possible long-term geotechnical stabilisation measures. In January 1991, the Commission discussed the concept of what was termed controlled differential subsidence aimed at slightly reducing the inclination of the tower thereby simultaneously reducing the foundation and masonry stresses. At that time, three possible ways had been identified of doing this: 1. The north pressing slab being strongly advocated by Professor Leonhardt, 2. Drainage of the marine clay on the north side by means of electro-osmosis, 3. Drainage from the intermediate sands beneath the north side by pumping from wells. ‘The north pressing slab In July 1991, Professor Leonhardt presented the north pressing slab solution which involved applying 6000 t of force by means of ground anchors to a reinforced concrete plate located. north of the tower." The arrangement is shown in Figure 21. My concern about the188 STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA. ~_ ‘CONCRETE RING 0 Fig. 20. Counterweight on north edge of tower plinth, proposal, expressed at the meeting, was that the profile of the settlement trough around the slab was likely to be locally confined and difficult to control in any detail. Tt was agreed that the effectiveness of the north pressing slab should be evaluated using the numerical model when it had been properly calibrated. An intermediate proposal was presented in April 1992 at the same meeting at which the temporary north counterweight solution was approved. The proposal, termed Phase 2, was to replace the lead counterweight after a few months with ten ground anchors as a preliminary to the implementation of the permanent north pressing slab (now termed Phase 3). In July 1992, the Commission agreed that a detailed design study should be undertaken of the ten anchor (Phase 2) solution. The reasons for the ten anchor solution were not spelled out at this stage and neither were the potential difficulties of installing them. Some members of the Commission expressed the view that ground anchors would be more effective and give a greater degree of control than the lead counterweights but the technical justification for these views was far from clear. Over succeeding months and years the ten anchor solution kept being strongly advocated. Drainage of the upper marine clay by means of electro-osmosis For many years, the possibility had been discussed of using electro-osmosis to induce controlled subsidence in the upper marine clay beneath the north side of the tower (e.g. Mitchell)!" Laboratory experiments on the clay had proved promising. In April 1992, approval was given for detailed study and this led to a full-scale field trial in the Piazza commencing in August 1993. This trial proved to be a complete failure as it induced positive ‘excess pore pressures in the subsoil with excessive temperature increases and gas generation at the electrodes. In August 1994, electro-osmosis was ruled out as a suitable means of stabilising the tower.STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA 189 82 tendons each 2000 KN E circumferential # + t+ +44 were S * a *" ae catino edge x foundation edge » KS {otal load on siab 60 MN Fig. 21. North pressing slab scheme (Leonhardt)."* ‘Drainage from the intermediate sands beneath the north side by pumping from wells An alternative method of locally draining the upper marine clay was investigated in parallel with electro-osmosis. This method involved sinking pumping wells into the intermediate sand north of the tower and recharge wells south of the tower. It soon became obvious that such a scheme would probably require the construction of surrounding slurry trench cut-off walls and would be prohibitively expensive. A major limitation of the schemes that it would take weeks to obtain a response from a particular pumping action and this made the opera- tion far too uncertain. In September 1992, further study of this method was put on hold as the method of soil extraction was looking more promising.190 STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA Soil extraction For some time I had had the fecling that there must be a way of inducing subsidence ‘by removal of ground from beneath the north side of the tower in an incremental and controlled way. I had been advising London Underground on the issues of subsidence induced by tunnelling. No doubt influenced by this, in January 1991, I suggested that a possible approach might be to drive a tunnel from the north to within a few metres of the foundations. Soil could then be extracted by means of tubes inserted from the face of the tunnel. This initial idea was not taken seriously but during 1992 and 1993, it was steadily refined to a number of smalll diameter tubes drilled at an incline from the surface as shown in Figure 22. As so often proves the case this was not a new idea — in 1962, Terracina'” published a paper in Geotechnique suggesting this approach and Figure 23 is taken from his paper. The Mexicans took up Terracina’s idea for correcting buildings in Mexico City which had suffered differential settlements either due to earthquake effects or due to subsidence of the very soft Mexico City clays. Soil extraction was carried out from horizontal holes drilled radially from the botiom of vertical shafts. The technique was termed under-excavation and indeed that is precisely the way it is used in Mexico City. The shafts are sunk alongside or within the building to be treated and soil extraction is carried out directly beneath the building. The method was used very successfully in the stabilisation of the metropolitan Cathedral of Mexico City'"— a project on which J advised. Subsequently Professor Sir Alec Skempton drew our attention to the work of James Trubshaw in straightening the tower of St Chad’s church, Wybunbury, in 1832 using soil extraction. Johnston and Burland describe this and other early examples of the use of the method. Although the method of soil extraction had been used successfully elsewhere, using it ‘on a tower that was on the point of falling over was a different proposition altogether. How 180mm dia. extraction drill Fig. 22. Soil extraction scheme from north side of tower.STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA. 191 Fig. 23. Soil extraction scheme presented by Terracina.” could the members of the Commission be sure that removing soil from beneath the high side would not create instability in the tower? Over the course of several years, the method was studied first by means of physical models and then by means of our numerical model ‘One of the early model studies was carried out by Helen Edmunds" as a MSc project at Imperial College. She performed a number of small-scale physical tests on a model tower resting on a bed of fine sand to study the effect of soil extraction on a tower close to collapse. A photograph of the arrangement is shown in Figure 24. The model tower was first brought very close to collapse by loading it with a hanger and lead weights. An ingenious system of soil extraction was developed using stainless steel tubes which could be bored into the sand without disturbance and then withdrawn by a small amount, leaving cavities which closed as the sand flowed into them. Helen Edmunds found that, if the cavities were formed at a distance greater than about half a radius from the centre of the foundation, then the response was always positive even though the model was on the point of collapse. However, if the cavities were formed nearer the centre then the model tower fell over. She therefore discovered the existence of a critical line beyond which it was unsafe to extract soil The existence of this critical line at about half a radius away from the direction of lean was confirmed by more sophisticated model tests on a centrifuge and then by detailed numerical modelling, By June 1994, the Commission was sufficiently impressed by this work to authorise a large-scale field trial on the Piazza in order to develop the appropriate drilling technology and check on the practicability of the method. Working with the Italian drilling contractors192 STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA. Fig. 24. Model studies of soil extraction carried out by Helen Edmunds.” Trevi, we devised a way of extracting soil using the arrangement illustrated in Figure 25. The drill consists of a hollow-stemmed continuous flight auger (a type of Archimedes’ screw) housed within a contra-rotating casing 180 mm in diameter. When the drill is withdrawn to form a cavity, an instrumented probe located in the hollow stem can be left in place to measure the closure of the cavity. A 7-m-diameter eccentrically loaded trial foundation was constructed in early 1995 on the Piazza just to the north of the Baptistry. Figure 26 shows a photograph of the trial foundation and inclined drill. But I am now getting ahead of the story as application of the temporary north counterweight commenced in July 1993, having been approved by the Commission in April 1992 and the detailed design approved in February 1993, APPLICATION OF THE NORTH COUNTERWEIGHT ‘The scheme for applying the lead counterweights to the north side of the tower is shown in Figure 20. A temporary post-tensioned concrete ring was clamped to the base of the tower and acted as a platform on which the 9-t lead ingots rested. Before the application of the north counterweight, very precise instrumentation was installed in the tower so that changes of inclination could be monitored in real time. Work on the concrete ring commenced in April 1993 and the first lead weight was placed on 14 July 1993 as shown in Figure 27(a). Approximately 600 t of lead ingots was placed on the tower aver a period of about seven months with the last one being placed on 21 February 1994 — see Figure 27(b). Asa consequence the tower moved northwards by about 48” which represents a northward movement of about 14mm at the top of the tower. More importantly the overturning moment of the tower was reduced by about 10 percent.STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA 193 220mm casing 180mm casing CAVITY CLOSURE jg. 25. The process of soil extraction. Following the successful application of the lead counterweight a fierce debate broke out in the Commission. The immediate implementation of the ten anchor (Phase 2) scheme — see Figure 28 — was strongly advocated coupled with the permanent north pressing slab solution, At that time, the renewal of the law for the Commission was very uncertain and there was grave concern that it would be disbanded with the lead weights still in place. The technical arguments in favour of the ten anchor proposal became very confused, particularly in its linkage with the north pressing slab solution which had yet to be fully evaluated. Nevertheless, the view was expressed that it was unthinkable that the lead weights could be left in place indefinitely. The situation was not helped by the threatened resignation of two key members of the Commission. On 5 June 1994, the Commission voted by a large majority in favour of replacing the lead weights with ten ground anchors. THE TEN ANCHOR PROPOSAL. Figure 28 is a schematic view of the ten anchor proposal with each anchor intended to carry a maximum of 100 t. The bottoms of the anchors were to be secured in the dense lower sand. ‘The reaction with the tower was to be through a post-tensioned concrete ring connected to the foundation masonry below the level of the floor of the catino so that it would not be visible. It was intended that, once in place, the anchors would be progressively loaded as the Jead weights were removed — thereby removing the unsightly north counterweight.194 STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA Fig. 26. Large-scale soil extraction trial. Construction of the post-tensioned reaction beam involved excavating in the floor of the catino beneath the water table on the south side, an operation of the utmost delicacy. Originally, it had been intended that such excavation should be carried out under compressed air so as to prevent inflow of the ground water. This proposal proved to be very expensive and instead it was decided to use ground freezing just beneath the floor of the catino, but well above the tower foundation level. The intention was to install the reaction ring in short lengths so as to limit the length of open excavation and the extent of ground freezing at any time. In September 1994, exploration boring was carried out in the floor of the catino and the presence of a 0.8-m-thick cement-conglomerate ring was detected. It appears that this ring, was cast by Gherardesca in 1838 after the catino had been excavated —no doubt to control the inflow of ground water that took place at that time, The discovery of this ancient concrete ring, which is nowhere referred to in the archaeological literature, raised the serious concern that it might be mechanically connected to the tower. If this were the case then freezing beneath it could cause movements of the tower. Accordingly radial drilling was carried out and it was found that there was a mud-filled circumferential gap between the concrete and the foundation masonry. It was therefore concluded that the concrete ring was not connected to the tower and work on the scheme continued. Ground freezing turned out to be a significant civil engineering operation involving the ing and installation of 157 freezing pipes beneath the catino for the transmission of liquid nitrogen. The freezing operations consisted of 36 hours of continuous freezingSTABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA. 195 (b) @ Fig. 27. Placing the north counterweights between July 1993 and February 1994. . r ‘ost Fensined eae Tnlemaate doy 25.9) intemal sd Elevation-m & 35] ~40} Fig. 28. Ten anchor scheme,196 STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA. followed by a maintenance period when freezing was carried out for 1 hour per day so as to limit the expansion of the ice front. Ground freezing commenced at the north side on 26 May 2005 and continued to the 16 July 2005, As a result of this, the tower moved south- wards by about 11”. Sections of the Gherardesca concrete were removed for the construc- tion of short lengths of the post-tensioned reaction ring. When the ancient concrete was removed, contrary to our expectations, it was found to be connected to the foundation masonry of the tower by steel grout filled pipes. It was clear that the pipes had been installed by Engineer Girometti in 1935 when he drilled 361 holes into the foundation masonry for grout injection. This finding explained why the tower had moved during the initial freezing operation. No reference to either the Gherardesca concrete or the grout pipes was made in Girometti’s report on the grouting operation which was written some years after the event. ‘On 3 September 2005, freezing commenced on the south-west and south-east sides of the tower. During the initial 36 hours of continuous freezing, no rotation of the tower was observed. However, as soon as freezing was stopped for the maintenance phase, the tower began to move southwards at a rate of 4” per day. On Thursday 7 September 2005 the operation was stopped. The southward rotation was controlled over the next three weeks while thawing took place by the progressive application of further lead weights on the north side eventually reaching a total of approximately 9001. A key reason for stopping the operation was uncertainty about the strength of the structural connection between the ancient concrete ring and the masonry formed by the steel grout pipes. If this connection had suddenly failed as a result of the southward rotation, the tower could well have collapsed. This episode has come to be called Black September! SOIL EXTRACTION TRIAL Almost the only method Ieft to the Commission to stabilise the tower was controlled subsidence by means of soil extraction. By March 1995, both centrifuge tests and numerical analysis had shown that the north pressing slab had, at best, very minor benefits and some huge uncertainties. It was clear that the method had been pushed too strongly before a detailed evaluation. As mentioned previously, a full-scale trial of the soil extraction method was commenced in early 1995 — see Figure 26, As a result of Black September the Commission urged that the work be accelerated. Previous opponents of the method even went so far as to suggest that the method might be used on the tower as an emergency measure! Soil extraction beneath the trial foundation commenced on 19 September 2005. Initially the results were very successful and the trial foundation rotated northwards. But we became over enthusiastic and soil extraction took place beyond the critical line. As a result the south side of the trial foundation began to settle at a greater rate than the north and the trial foundation rotated rapidly southwards as shown in Figure 29. The trial was stopped immediately. On 29 September 2005 I wrote in my diary: “For the first time the prospect of not being able to find a permanent solution for the tower is very real — this is terrible news’ Some days later on 9 October 2005 I wro' “Have been losing sleep this week — I hope I can steady things’ By 1 November 2005, the trial foundation had indeed steadied and we began soil extraction again in a much more controlled way. The trial proved very successful and, by the end ofSTABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA 197 40 -80 + ‘Change of inclination - arc seconds -120 N -160 9/95 16/9/95 Y10/95 16/10/95 V5 Fig. 29. Change of inclination of trial foundation during first phase of soil extraction trial. ‘sol estracton (st paso) December 2005, we had succeeded in rotating the trial foundation northwards by about one quarter of a degree with good directional control. It was found that the cavities formed in the silt closed smoothly and rapidly and the response of the trial foundation to each extraction was rapid, taking only a few hours. The measured contact stress changes beneath the foundation were small and beneficial, decreasing on the south side and increasing on the north side. Very importantly, an effective system of communication, decision taking and implementation was developed. ‘TWO YEARS OF FRUSTRATION The results of all the investigations carried out on soil extraction were positive, but the Commission was well aware that these investigations might not be fully representative of the possible response of a tower affected by leaning instability. Therefore, it was decided to implement soil extraction on the tower itself in a limited preliminary manner, with the objective of observing its response. It was planned to use only twelve extraction holes with a target of reducing the inclination of the tower by about 20”. The decision in principle to implement preliminary soil extraction was taken in February 1996. However, the funding for the work of the Consortium of Contractors ceased and, although the Commission continued to meet regularly, no decisions could be implemented. In September 1996 the contract with the Consortium was not renewed and in October 1996 the Commission was dissolved. There can be little doubt that these bureaucratic and financial set-backs were due in no small part to the events of Black September described previously. In January 1997 a new Commission was appointed by the Italian Government. However, for administrative reasons, the new Commission could not meet until July 1997. Representation on the Commission changed. The number of structural engineers increased198 STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA from three to five and the number of geotechnical engineers, excluding the chairman, reduced from four to two. Tt was insisted that all possible permanent solutions should be re-examined and there were many fierce debates. By carly August 1998 the new ‘Commission began to come around to soil extraction as a permanent solution. Finally on 11 December 1998 the decision to go ahead with preliminary soil extraction was ratified. PRELIMINARY SOIL EXTRACTION In December 1998 temporary safeguard cables were attached to the third story of the tower as shown in Figure 30. These extended horizontally some 100m north of the tower, then passed over pulleys on top of two massive A-frames and were lightly tensioned by means of lead weights, In the event of untoward movements of the tower these cables were to be tensioned by additional lead weights to hold the tower steady. It was never intended that they should be used to actually move the tower northward. Preliminary soil extraction was carried out over a limited width of 6m using 12 extraction bore holes — also visible in Figure 30. The centreline was offset by 1 m to the ‘west to induce a small westward movement intended to counteract the eastward movement that took place during Black September. Since the auger and rotating casing had to be moved from hole to hole, the operation was slow and cumbersome and no more than two extractions could be made each day. Based on the findings of the large-scale field trial, a detailed system of communication and control was put in place between the drilling contractor on site and the engineers on the Commission who were responsible for the soil extraction. This involved two sets of faxes cach day to the offices of the engineers (Professor Viggiani and myself) containing real-time information on the inclination and settlement of the tower. In turn, each day a fax was Fig. 30. Safeguard cables and extraction tubes for preliminary soil extraction.STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA 199 issued by the engineers summarising the observed response and commenting on it. Signed instructions were included for the next extraction operation along with explicitly stated objectives: Green, amber and red trigger levels for both the rates and magnitudes of change in the inclination and settlement were set after careful study of records covering six years of movement. This broader historical perspective was intended to avoid over-stringent requirements and false alarms. On 9 February 1999, in an atmosphere of immense tension, the first soil extraction took place. For the first few days, as the drills advanced towards the edge of the foundation, the tower exhibited no discernible response. Then slowly it began to rotate northwards. By 23 February it had rotated 7” northwards, but at that point it suddenly began to rotate south- wards and rotated 2" in one day. A careful examination of the results showed that this was not associated with settlement at the south, which was reassuring. It turned out that a northerly gale coupled with snow in the Alps had caused a sudden drop in temperature, which, according to previous records, usually results in small southward movements. When the gale subsided and the temperature rose, the tower began to move to the north again, to the relief of all involved. This small episode illustrates the vigilance required at all times during soil extraction. Figure 31 shows the relationship between time and the rotation and settlement of the tower during preliminary soil extraction. When, in early June 1999, the northward rotation had reached about 80" soil extraction was discontinued. Northward rotation continued at a Safeguard cables tensioned re seconds (north and west) 8 I s 1 3 j 4 14 2 5 = = 100 i i sani i ——s : Ta al 2-3-5 BNS MGMT 0S BOMB 279 IME 5 es é ‘South edge 4 3 ° i Fig. 31. Results of preliminary soil extraction.200 STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA decreasing rate until July 1999 when three of the lead weights were removed. All movement then ceased. Two features can be seen from Figure 31. First, a small westward component of rotation took place, as planned. Secondly, the southern edge of the foundation rose during soil extraction. This was most gratifying as it demonstrated that the soil extraction was remote from the critical line and that the bearing pressure was being reduced on the highly stressed south side. FULL SOIL EXTRACTION ‘The success of the preliminary soil extraction convinced the Commission that it was safe to use the method over the full width of the foundations. Accordingly, between December 1999 and January 2000, 41 extraction tubes were installed at 0.5-m spacing, each having a dedicated auger and rotating casing, Full soil extraction commenced on 21 February 2000 and the results of both preliminary and full soil extraction are shown in Figure 32. A much higher rate of northward rotation was achieved than for preliminary soil extraction. The full soil extraction caused an average daily movement of about 6”, reflecting the removal of about 120 litres of soil per day. The same detailed system of communication and control was adopted as for the preliminary soil extraction. During the process, the tower exhibited a tendency to move towards the east. It proved necessary to extract about 20 percent more soil from the western side than from the eastern 2 preemeaeiceeenen emer enennsnerennene yt ~ i i iw ee i Ess i i i i ] = i os a ee Sa a apa ae a a om = = a — ———z====:=_aee = zo ™ i a) ; jo wl Fig. 32. Results of full soil extractionSTABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA 201 side to control this movement. In spite of this tendency the tower was steered northwards in a remarkably straight path. Tt was also gratifying to note that significant uplift of the southern edge of the foundation took place. ‘Towards the end of May 2000 progressive removal of the lead ingots was commenced, initially with two ingots per week (about 18 t). In September 2000 this was increased to three per week and then to four per week in November 2000. Removal of the lead ingots resulted in a significant increase in overturning moment, but the soil extraction continued to be effective. ‘On 16 January 2001 the last lead ingot was removed from the post-tensioned concrete ring, and thereafter only limited soil extraction was undertaken. In the middle of February the concrete ring itself was removed and, at the beginning of March, progressive removal of the augers and casings commenced with the holes being filled by a bentonitic grout. Finally, in the middle of May, the safeguard cables were removed from the Tower causing a southward rotation of a few are seconds. To counter this, a small amount of additional soil extraction was carried out with the final extraction and auger removal taking place on 6 June 2001. The tower was out of intensive care! ADDITIONAL WORKS In addition to reducing the inclination of the tower by half a degree, a limited amount of strengthening work has been carried out on the most highly stressed areas of masonry. This has involved grouting voids in the rubble core and employing radial stainless-steel reinforcing in locations where there is a risk of masonry cladding buckling outwards. The circumferential steel tendons around the first cornice and second storey have been replaced with less intrusive prestressed wires embedded in resin. ‘The ancient concrete ring that was placed in the floor of the catino by Gherardesca in 1838 has been securely attached to the foundation of the Tower by means of stainless-steel reinforcement and has been strengthened by circumferential post tensioning — see Figure 33. Thus, the effective area of the foundations has been substantially increased. As mentioned previously, the mechanism of motion of the tower foundation revealed in Figure 12 led us to the conclusion that the continuing movement was due to a seasonally variable water table in the silt layer. During intense rainfall events in the autumn and winter the water table rises sharply producing southward rotations of the tower which are not fully recoverable. In order to minimise this effect it was necessary to eliminate the continuous fluctuations of the water table, To do this a drainage system was installed consisting of three wells sunk on the north side with radial sub-horizontal drains running into them from beneath the north side of the catino, The water levels in the wells are controlled by the level of the outlet pipes. The arrangement is shown schematically in Figure 34. The drainage system was implemented in April and May 2002 and the decrease in the pore water pressure associated with it induced a further small northward rotation of the tower. CONCLUDING REMARKS ‘The stabilisation of the Tower of Pisa has proved to be an immensely difficult challenge to civil engineers. The Tower is founded on weak, highly compressible soils and its inclination202 STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA. Fig. 33, Connecting ancient concrete ring to the tower foundation. has been increasing inexorably over the years to the point at which it was in a state of leaning instability. Any disturbance to the ground on the south side was very dangerous, ruling out conventional geotechnical processes such as underpinning and grouting. Moreover, the masonry was highly stressed and at risk of collapse. The internationally accepted conventions for the conservation of valuable historic monuments, of which the tower is one of the best known and most treasured, require that their essential character should be preserved, with their history, craftsmanship and cnigmas. Thus, any invasive or visible intervention in the tower had to be kept to an absolute minimum. Two historical studies proved to be most valuable in arriving at suitable stabilisation measures. The first was a study of the history of inclination of the tower during and subsequent to construction, This study was used to calibrate a sophisticated numerical model of the tower and the underlying ground, The second study was of measurements of movement made since 1911. This latter study revealed an unexpected mechanism of foundation movement which proved crucial in developing the temporary and permanent stabilisation measures, A technique of soil extraction evolved for progressively reducing the inclination of the tower in a controlled manner. The technique has provided an ultra soft method of increasing the stability of the tower which, at the same time, is completely consistent with the requirements of architectural conservation. Its implementation has required advanced computer modelling, large-scale development trials, an exceptional level of continuousSTABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA. 203 Corrugated steel pipe Catino wall 1.29 2. Fig. 34. Drainage scheme for stabilising the water table at north edge of tower. monitoring and day-by-day communication and control. On 16 June 2001 a formal ceremony was held in which the tower was handed back to the civic authorities. Figure 35 is a photograph taken on that day. The tower was officially re-opened to the public on 15 December 2001. Fig. 35. Photograph of tower taken on 16 June 2001204 STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA Monitoring of the tower is continuing. Over the last three years the movements have been very small with a slight tendency for a continuing rotation towards the north amounting to a few arc seconds. It will be many years before a well defined long-term trend is established. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe a special debt of gratitude to my friends and colleagues Professor Michele Jamiolkowski, for his dedicated and wise leadership of the Commission, and to Professor Carlo Viggiani who shared with me the responsibility of guiding the soil-extraction operation over a period of three years. NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. LB. Burland, M, Jamiolkowski and C. Viggiani, “The Stabilisation of the Leaning Tower of Pisa’, Soils and Foundations, vol. 43, no. 5 (2003), pp. 63-80. 2. Professor Michele Jamiolkowski is Professor of Geotechnical Engineering, Technical University of Torino, Italy. 3. Ministero dei Lavori Publici, La Stabilité della di Pisa — Sintesi delle Autivité Svolte dalle Commissioni Ministerial (Istituto Poligrafico e Zacca dello Stato, Roma, 1979). 4, Professor Carlo Viggiani is Professor of Geotechnical Engineering, University Federico TI, Napoli, Italy. 5, The late Professor Fritz Leonhardt was Emeritus Professor, University of Stuttgart, Germany. 6. C. Veder, ‘Sanierungsvorschlag flir den Schiefen Turm von Pisa’, Der Bauingenieur, vol. 50 (1975), pp. 204-06. 7. detailed description of the instrumentation and the interpretation of the historical measure- ‘ments is given by J.B, Burland and C. Viggiani, ‘Osservazioni sul comportamento della Torre di Pisa’, Rivista laliana di Geotecnica, vol. XXVIII, no. 3 (1994), pp. 179-200. 8 Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici, Rierche e studi sulla torre di Pisa, 3 vols (IGM, Firenze 1971), 9. J.B. Burland, unpublished report to the Pisa Commission, Sept 1990. 10. Professor David Potts is Research Professor of Analytical Soil Mechanics at Imperial College London. 11. J.B. Burland and D.M. Potts, ‘Development and Application of 2 Numerical Model for the Leaning Tower of Pisa’, IS Prefailure Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, vol. 2 (1994), pp. 715-38, 12, J.B. Burland, unpublished report to the Pisa Commission, July 1991. 13. E. Cresy and GL. Taylor, Architecture of the Middle Ages in Italy: illustrated by views, plans, elevations, sections and details of the cathedral, baptistry, leaning tower or campanile and campo santo, at Pisa: from drawings and measurements taken inthe year 1817: accompanied by descriptive ‘accounts of their history and construction (London 1829). 14. G. Rohault de Fleury, ‘Le campanile di Pise’, Encyclopédie de l'Architecture (Bance, Paris, 1859), 15. F. Leonhardt, ‘The Commission to Save the Tower of Pisa: A Personal Report’, Structural Engineering International 3197 (1997), pp. 201-12. 16. JK. Mitchell, ‘Conduction Phenomena: From Theory to Geotechnical Practice’, Géotechnique, vol. XLI, no. 3 (1991), pp. 299-340. 17. F, Terracina, ‘Foundations of the Leaning Tower of Pisa’, Géotechnique, vol. XII, no. 4 (1962), pp. 336-39,STABILISING THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA. 205 18. BE, Tamez, E. Ovando and E. Santoyo, ‘Underexcavation of Mexico City’s Metropolitan Cathedral and Sagrario Church’, 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, vol. 4 (1997), pp. 2105-26. 19. G. Johnston and J.B. Burland, ‘Some Historic Examples of Underexcavation’, Proc. Int. Conf. on Advances in Geotechnical Engineering, The Skempton Conference, ed. R.J. Jardine, D.M. Potts and K.G. Higgins (Thomas Telford, London, 2004), vol. 2, pp. 1068-79. 20. H. Edmunds, “The Use of Underexcavation as a Means of Stabilising the Leaning Tower of Pisa: Scale Model Tests’, MSc thesis, Imperial College London, 1993.