See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237262790

A Tale of Two Towers: Big Ben and Pisa

Article · January 2002

CITATION READS

1 342

1 author:

John Boscawen Burland

Imperial College London
144 PUBLICATIONS 5,382 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by John Boscawen Burland on 03 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2002 Joint Lecture

The Royal Academy of Engineering and

The Royal Society of Edinburgh

A tale of two towers:

Big Ben and Pisa
Speaker: Professor John Burland FREng FRS
A Tale of Two Towers:
Big Ben and Pisa
Professor John Burland DSc(Eng) FREng FRS FICE FIStructE
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

Born in the UK, Professor Burland was educated in

South Africa and studied Civil Engineering at the
University of the Witwatersrand. He returned to
England in 1961 and worked with Ove Arup and
Partners for a few years.

After studying for his PhD at Cambridge University,

Professor Burland joined the Building Research Station
in 1966, became Head of the Geotechnics Division in
1972 and Assistant Director in 1979. In 1980 he was
appointed to the Chair of Soil Mechanics at the Imperial
College of Science, Technology and Medicine. He is
now Emeritus Professor and Senior Research
Investigator at Imperial College.

In addition to being very active in teaching and research, John Burland has been responsible for
the design of many large ground engineering projects such as the underground car park at the
Palace of Westminster and the foundations of the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre. He was
London Underground’s expert witness for the Parliamentary Select Committees on the Jubilee
Line Extension and has advised on many geotechnical aspects of that project, including ensuring
the stability of the Big Ben Clock Tower. He was a member of the Italian Prime Minister’s
Commission for stabilising the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

He has received many awards and medals including the Kelvin Gold Medal for outstanding
contributions to Engineering and the Gold Medals of the Institution of Structural Engineers and
the Institution of Civil Engineers. He has been awarded three Honorary Doctorates including
one from Glasgow University.

Photograph courtesy of James Hunkin

2002 Royal Academy of Engineering/
Royal Society of Edinburgh Lecture
A Tale of Two Towers: Big Ben and Pisa
© Burland, John
ISBN 1-903496-04-7
February 2002

Published by
THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
29 Great Peter Street, Westminster, London SW1P 3LW
Telephone 020 7222 2688 Facsimile 020 7233 0054
www.raeng.org.uk

The Royal Academy of Engineering is a Registered Charity (No. 293074)

 A Tale of Two Towers

A Tale of Two Towers:

Big Ben and Pisa
1. INTRODUCTION

This lecture tells the story of the movements of two world famous towers resulting from nearby
construction activities and the application of novel geotechnical protective measures.

The Big Ben Clock Tower was

constructed in 1858, soon after the old
Houses of Parliament were destroyed
by fire. The clock tower consists of
load-bearing brickwork with stone
cladding rising to a height of 61m; this
supports a cast-iron framed spire, giving
a total height of 92m. The tower is
supported on a mass concrete raft 15m
square and 3m thick which is founded
within the Terrace Gravels of the River
Thames, at a depth of about 7m below
Aerial view of the Big Ben Clock Tower and the Palace of Westminster
ground level. The tower is estimated to
have a weight of 85MN, giving an
average bearing pressure of about 400kPa. The clock face is
55m above ground level and is out of plumb towards the north-
west by 220mm. Thus the inclination is about 1/250 - an
amount which is often quoted as being just discernable to the
casual onlooker. This explains why tourists are often seen
debating the verticality of the clock-tower!

The Leaning Tower of Pisa stands within the Piazza dei

Miracole and is the bell tower of the magnificent Romanesque
Cathedral. The tower is an architectural gem and would be
one of the most important monuments of medieval Europe
even if it were not leaning. The Pisa tower is very nearly 60m
high, has a 20m diameter masonry foundation and weighs
145MN. The foundation rests on a deep deposit of very soft
estuarine and marine sediments. The tower leans due south
and in 1990 the seventh level, which forms the base of the bell
chamber, overhung the ground by 4.5m. It is estimated that The Leaning Tower of Pisa

The Royal Academy of Engineering 3

A Tale of Two Towers

the bearing pressure beneath the south edge of the

foundation is about 1000kPa. Construction of the tower
began in 1173 and took place in three stages. By 1178 the
fourth level had been reached when work ceased for
nearly 100 years. Between 1272 and 1278 construction
took place up to the seventh level when work again
ceased. Finally in 1360 work on the bell chamber
commenced and was completed in about 1370. Our
calculations show that if the long pauses between the
three phases of construction had not taken place the tower
would have fallen over. The pauses allowed consolidation
of the soft sediments to take place thereby increasing the
strength of the ground. There is one further important
historical feature relating to the construction of the tower.
In 1838 the architect Alessandro della Gherardesca
Vertical cross-section through the Leaning excavated a walk-way (catino) around the base of the
Tower of Pisa
tower. It is known that the tower lurched to the south by
nearly half a metre which brought it very close to
collapse. Because of fears for its stability brought about by the collapse of a bell tower in Pavia
in 1989, the Pisa Tower was closed to the public in January 1990 and the Italian Prime Minister
set up a Commission in March 1990, under the chairmanship of Professor Michele
Jamiolkowski, to implement stabilisation measures.

2. CONSTRUCTION OF THE UNDERGROUND CAR PARK AT THE PALACE OF

WESTMINSTER

In the early 1970’s an 18.5m deep underground car park

was constructed in New Palace Yard and the project is
described by Burland and Hancock (1977)1. The
excavation comes to within 16m of the Big Ben Clock
Tower and 3m of Westminster Hall. It was constructed
using what is termed ‘top-down’ construction. The pile
foundations and reinforced concrete diaphragm retaining
walls were constructed first. Then the ground floor was
cast and thereafter excavation took place downwards with
successive floors being constructed from the top
downwards. This method provides very effective support
to the retaining walls thereby minimising surrounding
surface ground movements. It is also environmentally
friendly since it reduces noise and dust during construction.

Model of the underground car park at the

Palace of Westminster

4 The Royal Academy of Engineering

 A Tale of Two Towers

Ground movements and possible building damage were of major concern for this project
situated as it is close to priceless historic buildings. The Department of the Environment called
in the Building Research Establishment to advise on the project. Predictions of the ground
movements were made using computer modelling. This is one of the earliest examples of the
application of the finite element method in geotechnical design. For the analysis the London
clay was assumed to behave in a linearly elastic way and laboratory testing at that time
supported the use of such simple behaviour. The assumed values of Young’s modulus increased
with depth and were based on the back-analysis of measurements of retaining wall movements
of other excavations in London Clay (Cole and Burland, 19722). The predictions from the
computer model were published prior to commencement of the work (Ward and Burland,
19723). Such a prediction published prior to construction has come to be known as a Class A
prediction.

The graph adjacent shows the observed

inward displacements of the southerly
retaining wall on completion of excavation
(full line) which can be compared with the
Class A prediction. It can be seen that the
agreement, though not perfect, is very
reasonable. The situation proved to be far less
satisfactory for the ground surface
movements around the excavation.The graph
below shows the horizontal and vertical
surface movements with distance from the
edge of the retaining walls. The points show
measurements made on various buildings
and the full line shows the class A prediction. Observed and predicted horizontal displacements of the
It can be seen that, although the
predicted horizontal movements are
once again in reasonable agreement
with the observations, the shape of
the predicted settlement profile
differs significantly from the
observations. The observed
settlements were concentrated much
closer to the edge of the excavation
than the predicted values and were
larger than them. A consequence of
this was that, whereas the Big Ben
Clock Tower was predicted to tilt
away from the excavation by about Observed and predicted ground surface displacements outside
1/6000 it actually tilted towards the the car park
excavation by about 1/7000. We had
got the magnitude about right but the
direction wrong!

The Royal Academy of Engineering 5

A Tale of Two Towers

We found this result very puzzling. However, shortly after we published our measurements
(Burland and Hancock, 19771), Dr Brian Simpson FREng of Ove Arup showed that, by using a
bilinear stress-strain law with a high initial stiffness, the agreement between observations and
predictions could be greatly improved - particularly with respect to the vertical movements as
shown by the broken lines in the two graphs on page 5 (Simpson et al, 19794). Simultaneously
with this theoretical work, Professor Vaughan FREng began laboratory studies at Imperial
College in which axial strains were measured locally on soil samples instead of between the
end plattens as had traditionally been done. These measurements gave highly non-linear stress-
strain behaviour with stiffnesses at small strains which were much larger than those inferred
from traditional measurements. It now became clear that the pattern of ground movements
observed at New Palace Yard, in which the vertical movements are concentrated close to the
edge of the excavation, is due to the non-linear nature of the stress-strain behaviour of the soil.

This process of prior publication of predictions, though uncomfortable at the time, has proved
highly beneficial as it forced us all to ponder long and hard as to the explanation for the
discrepancies. Without such public disclosure it would have been all too tempting to quietly
ignore the discrepancies and move on to other things. The work at New Palace Yard and the
measured response of the Clock Tower has spawned a whole new important area of study of the
behaviour of the ground at small strains - indeed whole international conferences are now
devoted to the subject. These studies are proving vitally important for modelling interaction
effects between ground and structure, particularly in the urban environment where underground
construction is a vital part of infrastructure development. We now travel to Italy to consider the
challenges faced by the Pisa Commission.

3. MOVEMENTS OF THE PISA TOWER

The ground underlying the Pisa Tower consists of three distinct layers. Layer A is about 10m
thick and primarily consists of soft estuarine deposits of sandy and clayey silts laid down under
tidal conditions. Layer B consists of soft
sensitive normally consolidated marine clay
which extends to a depth of about 40m. This
material is very sensitive and loses much of its
strength if disturbed. Layer C is a dense sand
which extends to considerable depth. The
water table in Horizon A is between 1m and
2m below ground surface. The surface of the
marine clay is dished beneath the Tower
showing that the average settlement is between
2.5m and 3.0m - a good indication of how very
soft the ground is.
Soil profile beneath the Leaning Tower of Pisa

The axis of the tower is not straight - it bends to

the north. In an attempt to correct the lean during construction the masons placed tapered
blocks of masonry at the level of each floor to bend the axis of the tower away from the lean.

6 The Royal Academy of Engineering

 A Tale of Two Towers

Careful analysis of the relative inclinations of the masonry layers has revealed the history of the
tilting of the tower. At the end of the first construction phase it was actually leaning north-
wards by about one quarter of a degree. Then, as construction advanced above the fourth storey,
it began to move towards the south and accelerate so that by 1278, when the seventh level had
been reached, it was inclining southwards by about 0.6 of a degree. This had increased to about
1.6 degrees by 1360 when work on the bell chamber commenced. In 1817 two British ar-
chitects used a plumb line to measure the inclination which by then was 5 degrees. Thus the
construction of the bell chamber caused a very significant increase in inclination. Advanced
computer modelling has revealed that the rapid increase in inclination as the seventh level was
reached and the bell chamber was added is directly analogous to constructing a tower from
model bricks on a soft carpet (Burland and Potts, 19945). It is possible to build to a certain
critical height, but no higher, however careful one is - a phenomenon known as leaning
instability. The tower was just at its critical height and was very close to falling over! The
excavation of the catino brought the tower even closer to collapse.

Precise measurements begun in 1911 show that during the twentieth century the inclination of
the tower has been increasing inexorably each year and the rate of tilt has doubled since the
1930’s. In 1990 the rate of tilt was equivalent to a horizontal movement at the top of about
1.5mm per year. Moreover any interference with the tower resulted in significant increases in
tilt. For example, in 1934 consolidation of the foundation masonry by means of grout injection
resulted in a sudden movement south of about 10mm and ground water abstraction from the
lower sands in the 1970’s resulted in an increase in movement of about 12mm. These responses
confirm how very sensitively poised the tower was and how delicate any method of stabilisation
would have to be.

There has been much debate about the cause of this progressive increase in inclination. It has
usually been attributed to creep in the underlying soft marine clay, the assumption being made
that the south side was settling more than the north side.
A careful study of the geodetic survey measurements
going back to 1911 revealed a most surprising form of
motion of the foundations which was radically different to
previously held ideas. The theodolite measurements onto
the first cornice (V1 in the diagram on page 4) showed that
it had not moved horizontally - apart from two occasions
when man had intervened. Also precision level measure-
ments which commenced in 1928 showed that the centre of
the foundations had not displaced vertically relative to the
surrounding ground. Therefore the rigid body motion of
the Tower could only be as shown here, with an
instantaneous centre of rotation at the level of the first
cornice vertically above the centre of the foundations.
Motion of Tower foundations during
The direction of motion of points FN and FS are shown by progressive increase in inclination
vectors and it is clear that the foundations have been
moving northwards with FN rising and FS sinking.

The Royal Academy of Engineering 7

A Tale of Two Towers

The discovery that the motion of the Tower was as shown has turned out to be crucial in three
respects:
1. The observation that the north side had been steadily rising led directly to the suggestion
that the application of a lead counterweight to the foundation masonry on the north side could
be beneficial as a temporary stabilising measure by reducing the overturning moment.
2. The pattern of ground movements depicted led to the very important conclusion that the seat
of the continuing long-term rotation of the Tower lies in horizon A and not within the underlying
marine clay as had been widely assumed in the past. It can therefore be concluded that the
latter stratum must have undergone a considerable period of ageing since last experiencing
significant deformation (which was probably in 1838 when Gherardesca excavated the catino).
This ageing resulted in an increased resistance to yield - a conclusion that proved to be of great
importance in the successful modelling of the application of the temporary counterweights.
3. In the light of the measured motion of the Tower foundations, and consistent with the seat of
the movement lying within Horizon A, it was concluded that the most likely cause of the
progressive seasonal rotation was a seasonally fluctuating ground-water level in Horizon A due
to seasonal heavy rainstorms that always occur in the period September to December each
year. Accordingly a number of stand-pipes were installed in this Horizon around the Tower.
Measurement made over a four year period have confirmed this hypothesis - commencement of
rotation each year coincides with very sharp rises in the ground water level in the Horizon
following each heavy rainstorm. Measures have been proposed to stabilise the ground water
levels beneath the Tower.

It is true to say that the identification of the form of motion of the foundations of the Leaning
Tower of Pisa is the single most important finding in the development of the strategy for
temporary stabilisation in which 600t of lead weights were placed on a concrete ring clamped to
the base of the Tower by circumferential post-tensioning. This measure was implemented
between July 1993 and January 1994 and proved to be very effective.

Immediately following the application of the lead weights, activities commenced in London
alongside the Big Ben Clock Tower that required urgent attention. We therefore have to return
to London to attend to these and leave the Tower for a while to ponder on its permanent
stabilisation.

4. THE INFLUENCE OF THE JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION ON THE BIG BEN

CLOCK TOWER

The construction of Westminster Station on London Underground Limited’s new Jubilee Line
Extension (JLE) was predicted to produce significant movements of the Big Ben Clock Tower
6
(Harris et al 2000 ). A north-south cross-section through the new Westminster Station and the
Clock Tower is shown in opposite. The Station consists of two 7.4m diameter platform tunnels
in a vertically stacked arrangement below Bridge Street at depths of 21m and 30m below
ground level. Alongside is a 39m deep excavation which forms an underground ‘box’ to house
the access escalators and is the deepest basement ever to have been constructed in London.

8 The Royal Academy of Engineering

 A Tale of Two Towers

Prior to any substantial excavation within the station escalator box, the 4.85m diameter running
tunnels were driven as pilot tunnels. The lowest west-bound tunnel was constructed in March
1995 and the upper east-bound tunnel in October 1995. The running tunnels were then
enlarged to 7.4m diameter to form the platform tunnels, the westbound and east-bound
enlargements being carried out in February 1996 and November 1996 respectively.

The retaining walls for the station box consist of reinforced concrete diaphragm walls. Like the
adjacent Palace of Westminster car park, excavation was carried out using the top-down
method with the struts and floors being installed progressively from the top down as excavation
progressed. In order to minimise surrounding ground movements, low-level struts were installed
in tunnels close to the base of the diaphragm walls prior to excavation below the main roof
slab. Excavation within the diaphragm walls was undertaken between September 1995 and
September 1997.

Careful computer modelling of the

tunnelling and excavation was carried
out and was greatly aided by the
measurements made during the
construction of the underground car park
in the 1970’s. Despite the provision of
very stiff diaphragm walls and low level
tunnelling struts, it was recognised that
the combination of the two platform
tunnels and the station box could lead to
unacceptable tilting of the Clock Tower.
The concern was that excessive tilting
would lead to cracking where the Tower
and the Palace of Westminster were Cross-section showing proximity of the new Westminster station
connected. A contingency protective measure to Big Ben
was called for and the relatively new
technique of compensation grouting was adopted.

The principle of compensation grouting is to inject grout (a mixture of cement, sand and water)
under pressure into the ground at chosen locations so as to counter any subsidence that an
overlying building might be experiencing. This is done by installing into the ground a number of
steel tubes (known as TAMs, the abbreviation for ‘tubes à manchettes’) with holes machined
into them at regular intervals, typically about 0.3m. Covering each hole is a short rubber sleeve
which acts as a one-way valve allowing grout to be pumped out under pressure without flowing
back in. Any hole can be selected for grout injection and the system allows repeated grouting
through the same hole if required.

The provision of grouting tubes below one of London’s busiest areas was not a simple matter
and the horizontal array of grouting tubes were installed by drilling radially outwards from a
vertical shaft which was located in the middle of Bridge Street. The tubes were about 50m long
and were drilled beneath the foundation of the Clock Tower and immediately to the north.

The Royal Academy of Engineering 9

 A Tale of Two Towers

The elevation of the tubes was chosen so that they were just within the London Clay to avoid
encountering the ground water in the overlying gravel. Sixteen tubes were installed beneath the
foundation having a maximum spacing of about 2.5m.

The graph below shows the measured tilt of the Clock Tower throughout the construction period
and for three years afterwards. The tilt is expressed as horizontal movements northwards in
mm at a height of 55m. The dates of the various construction activities are indicated on the
figure: the passage of the four tunnel drives are shown across the top of the figure and the dates
of installation of the props at various depths within the escalator box are shown along the
bottom. The maximum permissible limit on the change in tilt had been set at 1/2000 which is
equivalent to 27.5mm at a height of 55m. A trigger level for initiating grouting was set 1/2500
40
(22mm). A construction control
Tunnel Progress:
Pilots
range of between 15mm and
Enlargements

30
WB EB WB 25mm tilt was adopted.
EB
Tilt of Clock Tower (mm/55m)

Construction
Control
As anticipated, northward tilt of
20
Range
the Clock Tower commenced as
the west-bound running tunnel
10 Grouting Episodes
passed by and an immediate tilt
Start of
Grouting
of 4mm was recorded. Time
0
dependent movements then took
Box Excavation

9
Progress [m]:
1 3 16 place and it became clear that it
22 25 31 35 39

-10
Nov-94 Nov-95 Nov-96 Nov-97 Nov-98 Nov-99 Nov-2000
would be necessary to implement
Optical Plumb
compensation grouting in order
to keep the tilt of the Clock
Measured horizontal movements of Big Ben at clock face level between 1994 Tower within permissible limits.
and 2000
Between February 1996 and
September 1997, when the deepest level of the escalator box was reached, grouting was
undertaken to keep the tilt within the construction control range and this was generally
achieved. Altogether 24 grouting episodes were undertaken in which a total volume of 122m3
of grout was injected. Without any compensation grouting the cumulative increase in tilt of the
Clock Tower would have been at least 120mm which would certainly have resulted in
significant cracking of the Palace of Westminster.

Since the end of construction, no further grouting has been undertaken. It can be seen from the
graph above that time-dependent tilt has continued at a decreasing rate. This is consistent with
computer predictions and is still being monitored very closely. The measurements indicate that
the long-term tilt has almost stabilised at around 35mm. The damage to the Palace of
Westminster has been very localised and very slight.

The innovative technique of compensation grouting, which has never before been applied to a
structure as fragile and of such historic importance as the Big Ben Clock Tower, has been
extremely successful and is a great credit to the contractor, Balfour Beatty/AMEC. In the
controversy that surrounds London Underground, the successful construction of the Jubilee
Line Extension has not been given the recognition that it deserves.

10 The Royal Academy of Engineering

 A Tale of Two Towers

The problems at Pisa are now pressing and we need to return there to decide on the permanent
stabilisation measures.

5. STABILISATION OF THE PISA TOWER USING SOIL EXTRACTION

The internationally accepted conventions for the conservation of valuable historic monuments
requires that their essential character should be preserved, together with their history,
craftsmanship and enigmas. Thus any invasive interventions on the Tower had to be kept to an
absolute minimum and permanent stabilisation schemes involving propping or visible support
were unacceptable and in any case could have triggered the collapse of the fragile masonry.

As described on our previous visit to Pisa, temporary stabilisation of the foundations was
achieved during the second half of 1993 by the application of 600t of lead weights to the north
side of the foundations via a post-tensioned removable concrete ring cast around the base of the
Tower at plinth level. This caused a reduction in inclination of about one minute of arc and,
more importantly, reduced the overturning moment by about ten percent. In September 1995
the load was increased to 900t in order to control the movements of the Tower during an
unsuccessful attempt to replace the unsightly lead weights with temporary ground anchors.

A permanent solution was sought that would result in a small reduction in inclination by about
half a degree which is not enough to be visible but which would reduce the stresses in the
masonry and stabilise the foundations. Given that the foundation of the Tower was on the point
of instability and that any slight disturbance to the ground on the south side would almost
certainly trigger collapse, finding a method of reducing the inclination was far from straight
forward and gave rise to many heated debates within the Commission. Many possible methods
of inducing controlled subsidence of the north side were investigated. These included drainage
by means of wells, consolidation beneath the north side by electro-osmosis and loading the
ground around the north side of the Tower by means of a pressing slab pulled down by ground
anchors. None of these methods proved satisfactory.

A method known as soil extraction

gradually evolved. This involves
installing a number of soil extraction
tubes adjacent to and just beneath
the north side of the foundation as
illustrated . The method had been
successfully used previously,
notably to reduce the damaging
differential settlements within the
Metropolitan Cathedral of Mexico
City. But using it on a tower that
was on the point of falling over was
altogether another matter. How
could we be sure that removal of soil Location of soil extraction tubes adjacent to and beneath the Tower

The Royal Academy of Engineering 11

A Tale of Two Towers

from beneath the high side would not create instability of the Tower? Over a number of years
the method was studied first by means of physical models, then by numerical modelling and
finally by means of a large-scale trial. A key finding from the model studies and numerical
analysis was the existence of a critical line located about half a radius in from the northern edge
of the foundation. Provided soil extraction from beneath the foundation took place north of this
line the response of the Tower appeared always to be positive. However, if extraction took
place south of this line the Tower would become unstable.

Using a large-scale trial foundation in the Piazza, a drill was developed by the contractor Trevi
which consisted of a hollow-stemmed continuous flight auger (otherwise known as an
Archimedes screw) housed inside a contra-rotating 180mm diameter casing. This arrangement
ensured that the drill could be advanced without any disturbance to the surrounding ground.
The sequence of operations for carrying out an extraction is illustrated below. The trials showed
that the cavities formed in the silty soil of Layer A closed gently and that repeated extractions
could be made from the same location. The trial
foundation was successfully rotated by about 0.25o and
directional control was maintained even though the
ground conditions were somewhat non-uniform. Very
importantly, an effective system of communication,
decision taking and implementation was developed.

In August 1996 the Commission agreed to carry out

limited soil extraction from beneath the Tower with a
view to observing its response. A target of a minimum
of 20 arc seconds reduction in inclination was set as
being large enough to demonstrate unequivocally the
effectiveness of the system. Due to bureaucratic and
administrative delays it was not until the end of 1998
that preparatory work actually began. In December
1998 some temporary safeguard cables were attached
to the third storey of the Tower. These stretched
horizontally some 100m north of the Tower, passed
over pulleys on the top of two massive A frames and
Sequence of operations of the soil extraction drill were lightly tensioned by means of lead weights. In
the event of adverse movements of the Tower these
safeguard cables could be tensioned by adding 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 twelve bore holes
lined with 220mm diameter casings. The auger and rotating casing had to be moved from hole to
hole so that the operation was slow and cumbersome with a maximum of two extractions each
day. The carefully developed system of communication and control involved a system of twice
daily faxes from the site containing real-time information on the inclination and settlement of the
Tower. A daily fax was issued by the responsible engineer (the author) summarising the

12 The Royal Academy of Engineering

 A Tale of Two Towers

observed response, commenting on it and then giving a signed instruction for the next
extraction operation with clearly stated objectives. It was rather like riding a bicycle by fax!

Green, amber and red trigger levels were

set for taking action in the event of
adverse responses of the Tower. These
included both rates and magnitudes of
changes of inclination and settlement.
The trigger levels were set after a careful
study of about six years of records of
movements of the Tower so as to avoid
over stringent requirements and false
alarms.

On 9th February 1999, in an atmosphere

of great tension, the first soil extraction
took place. For the first few days, as the
Results of soil extraction
drills were advanced towards the edge of
the foundation, the Tower showed no
discernable response. Then slowly it began to rotate northwards. The results of preliminary soil
extraction are shown at the left hand side of this figure. When the northward rotation had
reached about 80 arc seconds by early June 1999 soil extraction was stopped. Northward
rotation continued at a decreasing rate until July 1999 when three of the lead weights were
removed whereupon all movement ceased.

The success of preliminary soil extraction persuaded the Commission that it was safe to
undertake full soil extraction over the full width of the foundations. Accordingly, between
December 1999 and January 2000, 41 extraction holes were installed at 0.5m spacing with a
dedicated auger and casing in each hole as shown below. Full soil extraction commenced on
21st February 2000 and the results of both
preliminary and full soil extraction are
shown above. It can be seen that a much
higher rate of northward rotation was
achieved than for preliminary soil
extraction averaging about 6 arc seconds
per day resulting from the removal of about
120 litres of soil. It was gratifying to note
that significant uplift of the southern edge
of the foundation took place indicating a
reduction in bearing pressure at this highly
stressed region.

Towards the end of May 2000 progressive Drilling rig and 41 extraction tubes

removal of the lead ingots commenced,

The Royal Academy of Engineering 13

A Tale of Two Towers

initially with two ingots per week (about 18t). 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 16th 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 which resulted in a southward rotation
of a few arc seconds. To counter this, a small amount of additional soil extraction was carried
out with the final extraction and auger removal taking place on 6th June 2001 - the date when
the Tower was released by the Commission from intensive care.

The target reduction of

inclination had been half a
degree, being an amount not
visible to the casual observer
but sufficient to stabilise the
foundations and reduce the
stresses in the masonry by a
significant amount. In fact a
total reduction of 1830 arc
seconds was achieved which
is equivalent to a northward
movement of the seventh
floor of 440mm. The Tower is
now back at its inclination in
Pageantry during hand-over ceremony on 16 June 2001 1838 at the time Gherardesca
dug the catino and before its
dramatic lurch south.

On 16th June 2001 the Tower was formally handed back to the civic authorities at a colourful
ceremony and celebrations continued throughout the next day to mark the feast of San Ranieri,
the patron saint of Pisa. On the 15th December 2001 the Tower was re-opened to the public
nearly twelve years after it had been closed.

An obvious question is how will the Tower behave in the future? Two scenarios have been
developed. A pessimistic one is that the Tower will remain stable for a while, followed by a
resumption of rotation southwards at a much reduced rate. With this scenario it would take
over 100 years before another intervention on the foundation is required. An optimistic
scenario is that continuing rotation will cease apart from small cyclic movements caused by
seasonal changes in the ground water table and also the influence of differential subsidence
which is affecting the whole Piazza and which is reflected in the Tower.

14 The Royal Academy of Engineering

 A Tale of Two Towers

6. CONCLUSION

The conservation of both the Big Ben Clock Tower and the Tower of Pisa has provided
immense civil engineering challenges. Both compensation grouting and soil extraction are highly
innovative methods of stabilisation that are completely consistent with the requirements of
architectural conservation. Their implementation has required advanced computer modelling,
large-scale development trials, an exceptional level of continuous high precision monitoring and
carefully developed systems of day by day communication and control.

REFERENCES

1. J.B. Burland and Hancock,R.J.R.(1977). Underground car park at the House of Commons,
London: Geotechnical aspects. The Structural Engineer, 55;2;87-100.

2. K.W. Cole and Burland,J.B.(1972). Observations of retaining wall movements associated

with a large excavation. Proc. 5th European Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Madrid 1972, 1;445-453.

3. W.H. Ward and Burland,J.B.(1972). The use of ground strain measurements in civil engi-
neering. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc, London, A, 274, pp 421-428.

4. B. Simpson, O’ Riordan, N.J. and Croft, D.D. (1979). A computer model for the analysis of
ground movements in London Clay. Geotechnique 29, No 2, 149-175

5. J.B.Burland and Potts,D.M.(1994). Development and application of a numerical model for

the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Proc. Int. Symp. on Pre-failure Deformation Characteristics
of Geo-materials, Hokkaido, Japan, Vol 2; 715-738.

6. D.I.Harris, Mair, R.J., Burland, J.B.and Standing, J.R.(2000). Compensation grouting to

control tilt of Big Ben Clock Tower. Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction
in Soft Ground. Ed. by Kusakabe, Fujita & Miyazaki, Balkema, 2000, p.225-232.

The Royal Academy of Engineering 15

A Tale of Two Towers

16 The Royal Academy of Engineering

 The Royal Academy of Engineering
The objectives of The Royal Academy of Engineering are to pursue, encourage and
maintain excellence in the whole field of engineering in order to promote the
advancement of the science, art and practice of engineering for the benefit of the
public.

The Academy comprises the United Kingdom’s most eminent engineers of all
disciplines. It is able to take advantage of their wealth of knowledge and experience
which, with the interdisciplinary character of the membership, provides a unique
resource with which to meet the objectives.

Its activities include an extensive education programme, research chairs and

fellowships, visiting professorships, industrial secondments and international travel
grants. It provides expert advice on engineering matters to government and other
bodies and administers the UK’s premier annual prize for innovation in engineering,
The Royal Academy of Engineering MacRobert Award.

Election to The Academy is by invitation only. Up to sixty Fellows may be elected

annually, together with Honorary Fellows and Foreign Members who have made
exceptional contributions to engineering. All are elected by their peers for personal
achievement of exceptional merit and distinction. Fellows are distinguished by the title
“Fellow of The Royal Academy of Engineering” and use the designatory letters
“FREng”.

The Academy was founded in 1976 as The Fellowship of Engineering on the initiative
of HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and a group of distinguished engineers. It was granted
its Royal Charter in 1983 and, with the consent of HM The Queen, adopted the present
title in 1992.

The Royal Academy of Engineering

29 Great Peter Street, Westminster, London SW1P 3LW
Telephone: 020 7222 2688 Facsimile: 020 7233 0054
Website: www.raeng.org.uk
Registered Charity No. 293074

View publication stats