This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Dr. Christos Tsatsanifos Managing Director, PANGAEA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD 131 Kifissias Avenue, Athens, GR-11524, GREECE firstname.lastname@example.org
«My first contact with the ancient city of Sparta, buried under the new city, comes from my childhood. I was at the first year of the elementary school when a marble vase was found during the excavations for the foundation of a new building at the field next to our house. In a very short time the head of the Archaeological Service arrived and he started to caress it, like being his erotic companion. The intensive excavation stopped and a slow and careful excavation started by the workers of the Archaeological Service. And in a few days the ruins of a building of the roman era, according to the specialist, appeared. The site remained as a field for a long time after, to the delight of the children of the neighbourhood, who were playing there. I recall that I wondered at that time, with my childish thought, why the ancient people were burying these wonderful things under the ground. The answer came a few years later from my teacher, who was talking to our class for the “privilege” of the new Sparta to have been built over the ancient one. He was also talking about her past history, the catastrophic earthquakes, which buried her under the ground and about her historic phases, which are depicted from the archaeological excavations’ findings… Today, after many – many years, I confess that I am not in a position to say if it is a “privilege” of having the new Sparta built over the ruins of the old city. For certain the Spartan land hides in her bowels a very important part of her historic past and I believe that it is our duty and concern to bring it up “to the air”. However this common effort should not be an obstacle to the progress and growth of the city of Sparta» (Matalas, 1994). The above paragraphs are the preface of the Mayor of the city of Sparta at the proceedings of the conference held there in 1994 under the title “New Cities over Old Cities – The Example of Sparta”. However, these words could be the words of many Greeks, all over the country, including the author. The majority of the major Greek cities have been built over the ancient ones, some of them over a series of old cities (modern over medieval, medieval over Byzantine, Byzantine over ancient, ancient over prehistoric, prehistoric over Neolithic etc.).
XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture, Monday, May 26, 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic, Národní tř. 3, Praha 1
1 / 53
The existence of antiquities in the ground environment in urban areas makes it unfavourable for the developer, mainly for two reasons: Firstly because there is a demand that the archaeological resource, if significant, be preserved in situ and secondly because the need for construction of new buildings and other structures next to existing monuments and historic buildings pose, most of the times, significant construction difficulties. In both cases innovative engineering solutions are required to overcome these difficulties. Athens, a large modern city with a history of more than 5,200 years (starting in prehistoric period, around 3200 B.C.) and one of the largest economical, political and cultural centres of antiquity, holds into its substratum an archaeological treasure. Fig. 1 shows the major archaeological sites in the centre of Athens and among them the walls of the city constructed in the 5th century B.C. by Themistocles. Experience has shown that practically there is no square metre within the walls where shallow excavations will not find ancient ruins.
Fig. 1. Major archaeological sites in the centre of Athens Any excavation in the centre of Athens is supervised by the archaeological service and, depending on the significance of the ruins and the cost of the land expropriation (if they are found in a private property), decision is made whether they should remain in situ, either in the open air or in the basement / ground floor of the new building to be visited, or can be moved or can be thoroughly backfilled and build on top of the fill without destroying
XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture, Monday, May 26, 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic, Národní tř. 3, Praha 1
2 / 53
them. Of course, there are many cases where the construction of the new building was completely cancelled because of the significance of the antiquities found. It is obvious that in the case where the antiquities are kept visit able under the new buildings, the role of the geotechnical and structural engineers is very significant, since they have to design the foundations without destroying the antiquities and the immediate superstructure in a way that permits the nice display of the antiquities. Similarly, the construction of a new building next to a monument or a historic building requires elegant geotechnical design in order to avoid damaging the monument. Finally, the preservation, the restoration or the rehabilitation of an old structure poses many challenges to be solved by the geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical interventions in the process of building in ancient cities range from simple measures as thorough backfilling the antiquities, to complex applications as micro piling and fore poling under the antiquities or ground movement control using integrated hydraulic jacks to push back retaining walls. In this paper the general principles of intervention in ancient structures and a quick review of the methods for the geotechnical intervention in monuments are presented, as well as examples of the contribution of geotechnical engineering for solving problems related to preservation, restoration and rehabilitation of monuments and historic buildings in ancient cities, some from the authors’ experience, some from the literature.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERVENTIONS IN ANCIENT STRUCTURES – THE AUTHENTICITY PRINCIPLE FOR THE FOUNDATIONS
The principles on the conservation and restoration of monuments were initially set at the 1st and 2nd International Congresses of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments held in Athens (1931) and Venice (1964) respectively, which adopted the so-called “The Athens Charter” and “The Venice Charter”. “The Athens Charter” introduced the word anastylosis as defining the conservation method that intends to keep the authenticity of the monuments: “In the case of ruins, scrupulous conservation is necessary, and steps should be taken to reinstate any original fragments that may be recovered (anastylosis), whenever this is possible; the new materials used for this purpose should in all cases be recognizable”. Later on, in “The Venice Charter” it was stated that “The process of restoration is a highly specialized operation. Its aim is to preserve and reveal the aesthetic and historic value of
XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture, Monday, May 26, 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic, Národní tř. 3, Praha 1
3 / 53
the monument and is based on respect for original material and authentic documents … Where traditional techniques prove inadequate, the consolidation of a monument can be achieved by the use of any modern technique for conservation and construction, the efficacy of which has been shown by scientific data and proved by experience”. In other words, anastylosis is nothing more than a reassembly of “existing” but “dismembered parts” which could be put together again provided that the material used for integration is always identifiable. Furthermore, “its use should be the least that will ensure the conservation of the monument and the reinstatement of its form” (Dimacopoulos, 1985). The authenticity principle was concluded in “The Nara Document on Authenticity”, drafted by the participants at the Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention, held at Nara, Japan, 1-6 November 1994. Accordingly, the authenticity should be determined in a manner respectful of cultures and heritage diversity to include any variation of the regional tradition of conservation of heritage. According to “The Athens Charter” and “The Venice Charter” and “The Nara Document on Authenticity”, reconstruction is to be “ruled out a priori”. However, reconstruction is extensively used for the “restoration” of ancient monuments in some parts of the world. Generally, the authenticity has been discussed for the super-structures of historic monuments and not for their foundations. Interventions on the foundations have not usually been deemed necessary, while, some times, the foundations were not considered as one of the elements that constitute historic monuments. However, there are many examples where either the type of the foundation was developed in some special way according to regional characteristics, or the foundation itself was historic heritage. In these cases, the type of the foundation might be preferred to keep its originalities. Based on the authenticity and anastylosis principle, one could argue that also in the case of foundations only repositioning of all of the original material is allowed for the restoration of monuments, however minute in size, to which only a limited number of new pieces, always identifiable should be added as absolutely necessary for the operation. However, over the years of the life of the monument, disrupting agents introduce changes in the prevailing geotechnical conditions of the site. “Natural agents like torrential rains, flooding or earthquakes, even tsunamis in coastal areas, may reduce shear strength or increase applied stress leading to bearing capacity failures. Antropic agents can be equally disrupting and are mainly related to man – induced changes in water content within soil masses
XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture, Monday, May 26, 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic, Národní tř. 3, Praha 1
4 / 53
like leakage from cisterns, sewage water supply lines, construction of dams or channels, or, among others, excavations in neighbouring sites, construction of buildings in the vicinity or tunnelling under the monument” (Ovando-Shelley, 2005). Hence, the complete compliance with the authenticity and anastylosis principle is not always possible and major interventions have to be made in order to strengthen the foundation of the monument. In his draft on the TC19 Guidelines - General Principles of the Interventions, D’ Agostino excellently presents the necessary procedures for the interventions on the monuments’ foundations having in mind the authenticity and anastylosis principle (D’ Agostino, 2005). He states: “… it is necessary to analyse the global stability of the soil - structure unit, and of its immediately surrounding area. If the results are not satisfactory, stabilization measures need to be taken. Such stabilizations measures, however, should not modify the soil - structure relation and they must respect any archaeological finds that may be present. Interventions on the foundations will have to seek to be uniform throughout the load – bearing area, with preference being given to the conservation of the existing foundation structures. In general, with a view to the best possible soil – structure relation, and assuming that there are no archaeological finds, it is preferable to consolidate the foundation system applying modern geotechnical engineering methods of analysis and techniques. The use of piles or micro-piles is to be avoided as they significantly alter the construction design and the state of stress of the underpinned structure and they require the introduction of extraneous structures for the distribution of loads into the ancient ones. Moreover, a different behaviour is induced between the underpinned zones and those where the original foundations have been saved, and this has often proven to be the cause for future structural damages. And finally, using piles definitively alters the location of the building itself and conceals forever any archaeological find that were to be present. Where there are archaeological items and the foundations are in need of support (or reinforcement), the existing structures will have to be underpinned. Great care needs to be exercised in perfectly identifying the portions to be underpinned, and in carrying out the excavations.”
XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture, Monday, May 26, 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic, Národní tř. 3, Praha 1
5 / 53
or the low bearing capacity of the foundations. further stabilization measures could include: • Underexcavation. Národní tř. silication. METHODS OF GEOTECHNICAL RESTORATION OF MONUMENTS The main reasons for which the restoration of a monument is required are either the uneven settlements. Monday. • Strengthen the existing foundation body by its extension or addition of new footings and shear beams connecting the footings. • Underpin the foundations by means of oscillated piles or bored piles constructed through the body of the foundation. underexcaXVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. increasing of the footing level of the foundation. • Provide additional supports.monument. • Improve the subsoil (cementation.). • In case of pile foundations extend the pile caps or rafts to provide additional bearing capacity and stiffness. increasing of the foundation bearing area. high pressure grouting capable of stabilising the soil mass. which the monument may have presented. • Induced changes in the pore water pressures by local injection of water or by electro – osmosis. compared to the loads which will be applied. • Increase the footing level of the foundation.3. Praha 1 6 / 53 . 3.type foundation in the underground area of the monument.chemical strengthening. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. Stabilization measures concerning either the subsoil or the foundation of the monument may be attained by means of one of the following methods (or combination thereof) (Ulitsky. chemical and electro . • Isolation or separation trenches between new and existing building . In addition to strengthening measures. 2005): • Repair of the existing foundation. In this way the existing foundation could also stiffened and the foundation bearing area is increased. etc. which contain imperfections or defects. deep soil mixing. • Provide a slab underneath the monument or a box . May 26. From the above methods only those of strengthening of the foundation body.
Removal of soil support In any case. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. which rely on processes which produce corrective foundation movements by inducing appropriate ground movements. Praha 1 7 / 53 .Fracture grouting ii. like: . “Hard” methods. it is advisable to follow the general recommendations provided by “The ISCARSAH Charter” (International Scientific Committee for Analysis and Restoration of Structures of Architectural Heritage) of ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) (ISCARSAH. in treating the foundations of monuments. Národní tř.Soil extraction . which rely on the application of some form of direct force to the building.vating and using isolation or separation trenches seem to comply with the authenticity and anastylosis principle.Jetting of the soil beneath the pile tips . in one way or another. The rest.Jacking of the foundation on the “low” side . like: . thus keeping intervention to the minimum to guarantee safety and durability with the least harm to heritage values.Cutting of piles. because the design will be dependent upon them. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. “Soft” methods.Compensation grouting .Application of force by anchor stressing . alter either the soil conditions or the original soil – structure system.Dewatering . • The design of intervention should be based on a clear understanding of the kinds of actions that were the cause of the damage and decay as well as those that are taken into account for the analysis of the structure after intervention. 3. Poulos (2005) proposed the division of the methods for correcting the uneven settlements of monuments’ – buildings’ foundations into two broad categories: i. Monday. 2001): • Each intervention should be in proportion to the safety objectives set. May 26.Application of additional loading . in the case of deep foundations .
• Intervention should be the result of an overall integrated plan that gives due weight to the different aspects of architecture.g. easiness.• The choice between “traditional” and “innovative” techniques should be weighed up on a case-by-case basis and preference given to those that are least invasive and most compatible with heritage values. techniques and historical value of the original or earlier states of the structure and leaves evidences that can be recognised in the future. as far as possible. bearing in mind safety and durability requirements. 4. ballast. Monday. et al. however. Praha 1 8 / 53 . 3. For example. May 26. is conceived as a temporary solution (e. structure. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic.e. So. at the Tower of Pisa and at many buildings in Mexico City) (Almatzi. the expected problems are restricted mostly to the locations of the stations. Finally. To avoid as much as possible meeting antiquities and to minimize their influence in the construction activities. CASE STUDIES – BUILDING NEXT. i. OVER OR UNDER ANTIQUITIES AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS 4. due to their density near the XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. Národní tř.1. Antiquities and Historic Buildings and the Athens METRO Construction The design and construction of an underground Metro system in a city as Athens is certainly a complicated project with much more difficulties than usual. respect the concept. reliability and authenticity. installations and functionality. due to the existence of precious archaeological remains over and underground. The geotechnical investigations were designed having in mind the problems and restrictions arising from the expectance of antiquities. The authenticity principle can be somehow violated in the case of interim or temporary remedial measures. applied on certain areas in a monument or next to it to introduce corrective settlement to compensate inclinations and tilts. below the depth up to which antiquities are anticipated (usually ranging from 10 m to 15 m). special design and construction solutions must be considered. 1997). • Each intervention should. Iwasaki (2005) proposed to consider the following factors in the process for the evaluation and selection of the intervention method: cost. the Athens METRO tunnels were and are excavated at a depth below the “archaeological depth”. So.
intact or in pieces. after the cavities had stopped being used. fell into the tunnel. The work was executed by conventional means and under archaeological supervision. The usual solution to this problem was the filling of the cavities with concrete. 2. Additionally. were found. 68 along the Line 3 of the Athens METRO. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. 68. phlaskia. the material. In antiquity. which probably originated from the clearing of surrounding areas. the excavation crews came across the Well No. Filling material of the Well No. For example. It contained a great number of pots. they became a dumping ground for useless everyday objects. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. it divided into two sections. the filling material of which tumbled onto the tunnel floor as soon as it was disrupted. 133 almost intact pots were gathered (stamnia. pieces of oil lamps. which were approximately 300 m long each and headed north and south. Monday. The main obstacles that the tunnels met were various ancient cavities. shells etc. 3. a pilot tunnel was dug. originally wells or cisterns. laginoi. loom weights. as well as hundreds of shells from other clay pots. oinochoes). there were numerous cases of problems created due to their presence.ground surface. Starting from the station. bones. Praha 1 9 / 53 . May 26. as these described hereafter. Fig. small bone objects and fragments of sculpture and of architectural members. 2). On their route. amphorae. As soon as the tunnel reached the well. Národní tř. after removing all the findings. that was filling it. during the construction of the tunnel from the Acropolis Station and to ensure the safe passage of the large tunnel-boring machine used. primarily of the Byzantine era (Fig.
sometimes as they have been found in-situ. Fig. Exhibition of antiquities in the Athens METRO Stations. During the excavation of all the central stations of the Athens METRO antiquities were found. the location of the station as well as the alignment of the tunnel was changed. May 26. 3). Praha 1 10 / 53 . In the case of the KERAMEIKOS Station. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. Monday. 3. In all the cases except one a thorough archaeological investigation preceded the main excavation and the antiquities found within the limits of the excavation were moved to the museums. due to the density of the antiquities and their significance.A thorough archaeological investigation followed and then the cavity was filled with concrete for the safe passage of the TBM. while some of them are displayed in glass show-cases in the stations (Fig. 3. Národní tř.
May 26. Deep Green: Athenian Schist – Siltstone phase) XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. Fig. the main concern was to minimize the deformations due to the excavation of the tunnel or of the station to the acceptable level for each structure. Ground plan of Athens METRO PERISTERI Station. 4 shows the plan of the excavation. Monday. 5. An example of a complex. 6 the geotechnical section used for the design of the support of the excavation’s walls. Excavation as a tunnel Cut & Cover construction Fig.Regarding the problems associated with historic buildings over the tunnels or close to the stations. 4. Národní tř. Geological section along the PERISTERI Station (Yellow: surface deposits. 5 the geological section along the station and Fig. station next to a historic building. with a combination of support methods is that of the PERISTERI Station at the north-west extension of Line No 2. Praha 1 11 / 53 . The structural engineers had estimated these deformations and the geotechnical engineers had to design either the tunnel lining or the support of the walls of the stations’ open excavation to result in smaller deformations. Fig. Fig. 3. Magenta: conglomerate – breccia. in geometry. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. Pink: Athenian Schist – Sandstone phase.
Geotechnical section along the Athens METRO PERISTERI Station The geological and geotechnical sections were based on the results of detailed geotechnical investigations consisting of boreholes (their locations are shown). obtained from the pressure meter tests. May 26. 6. Simplified Hoek and Diederichs equation: ⎛ 1− D / 2 Erm (MPa ) = 100 000 ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ 1 + e ((75 + 25 D − GSI ) / 11) ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. as proposed by Hoek and Diederichs (2006). Národní tř. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. The relationship between the rock mass deformation modulus Erm and GSI is based on a sigmoid function. In the process of evaluating the results of the investigations.Fig. The simplified equation depends on GSI and D (disturbance factor to account for stress relaxation and blast damage) only and it should only be used when no information in the intact rock properties are available. 3. could be estimated from the intact rock strength σci and a modulus reduction factor MR. Ei = MR ⋅ σ ci . They have proposed two forms of the relationship. in-situ tests (standard penetration tests and pressure meter tests) and laboratory tests. Praha 1 12 / 53 . were compared with its estimations based on the procedure using the Geological Strength Index – GSI. if not available. Monday. The more comprehensive equation includes the intact rock modulus. which. the modulus of deformation.
General view of the excavation of the PERISTERI Station. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. On the contrary. 4 and 7) has a depth of 25. Praha 1 13 / 53 . The response of the structures to the excavation supports the later finding. The question that arises is what is considered as intact rock in such case and how can we measure the Ei or σci of this intact rock.35 m. Monday. It was suggested that when dealing with heavily weathered and / or heavily fragmented rock masses the MR or σci should be taken from the literature. Fig.⎜ Hoek and Diederichs equation: Erm = Ei ⎜ 0. depending on the assumption on the values of Ei or σci to be used.67 m are constructed with the cut & cover method and 44. the estimations of the rock mass deformation modulus were in very good agreement with the pressure meter’s measurements. a flysch formation. while there are locations where it is completely altered (“soily”). The Athenian Schist in this specific location appears as a rock mass of very poor to medium quality (GSI ranges from 10 to 60). hence the assumption on the intact rock strength needs a modification. Applying values of σci and MR from the literature led to big discrepancies between these estimations of the rock mass deformation modulus and the pressure meter’s measurements. The excavation for the construction of the PERISTERI Station (see Figs. 3. the estimated deformations of the structure to be constructed or the retained neighbouring structures may vary considerably. Hence.02 + ⎝ ⎛ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ 1 + e((60 +15 D −GSI ) /11) ⎠ 1− D / 2 It has been found that in rock masses like the Athenian Schist. the rock mass deformation modulus could extremely vary. 7. length of 112.25 m of which 67. May 26. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. when average σci values from uniaxial compression tests on weathered – altered rock specimens were used. Národní tř.58 m would be tunnelled and width ranging from 21 m to 32 m.
50 m x 1. at the level -20.00. 3.75.50 m. All the anchors were pre-stressed with a force of Fp = 600 kN. the second at level -4. Národní tř.50 and the in-between distance of the rows is 3. the width and the height of the pile cup beam is 1.50 m. where applied. The first row was placed at level -1. Praha 1 14 / 53 .25 m below the lowest truss. So. The lengths of the anchors vary from 19 m to 27 m.00 m length (4. The distance between the anchors of each row is 1.50 m. The distance between the trusses of each row is 4.45. Monday. the main load being that from the truss. constructed with C 25 / 30 reinforced concrete. 8): • Four (4) rows of tube steel trusses. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. which is offering more “inflexibility” to its upper part. The lengths of the anchors vary from 19 m to 23 m.20 m x 1. for the section of the excavation next to the Evaggelistria Church a “mixed” system was selected. have been used (seven rows) along the whole depth of the excavation. The dimensions of the pile cup beam vary depending on the applied loads from place to place. The support system consists of the following: • Bored piles of Ø 1000 mm diameter every 1.65 m embedment). with an in-between distance of 3. The distance between the anchors of each row is 1. At the other sections of the excavation only pre-stressed ground anchors.00. The rest parts of the support system vary from place to place depending on the support loads and the deformation limitations of the neighbouring structures.50 m.75 and the fourth at -14. due to the requirement for smaller deformations (maximum allowed settlement 15 mm). 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic.20 m where a truss is based on the pile cup beam.50 m. So. May 26.00 m where only ground anchors are used for the support and 1. with 30. the third at -9. similar to the previous ones.6’’ tendons of special prestressing steel 1700 / 1900. The system consists of (see Fig. the first placed on the pile cup beam at level -1.50 m. • Two rows of pre-stressed ground anchors. with 4 Ø 0. and the first row was placed 5.To design the temporary support system an extensive series of parametric elastoplastic analyses was conducted using the computer code PLAXIS. • Pile cup beam from C 25 / 30 reinforced concrete.
5 m and width of 18 m and it was storing the gear of 1. The excavation support system of the PERISTERI Station next to the Evaggelistria Church. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. 6. according to Pliny. The warehouse was designed by the famous architect from Elefsis Filon and was constructed during the period between 340 BC and 330 BC. The warehouse was destroyed in 86 BC by the Roman general Syllas. Praha 1 15 / 53 . Monday. of Ø 53 mm diameter. every 5 m were constructed.00 m length. using this corridor as access to the archaeologiXVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. with a length of 132.10 m of shotcrete was applied in front of the piles. the foundations as well as important architectural parts of the north end section of the Filon Warehouse were found. the port of Athens. 3.Fig. in 1989. Národní tř. May 26. Since the expropriation of the land was very expensive but the antiquities were considered of great importance.000 ships. the decision was made leave the obligatory free space (30% of the total area of the land) to the side of the antiquities and to erect the building at a distance of 1. 4. a layer of 0. 8. It was a long two storey building.2. Finally. reinforced with steel wire mesh DIN T 188 and drainage holes. Harmonic Coexistence: The Filon Warehouse (340 BC) and a Contemporary Office Building During the preliminary investigations for the construction of an office building at Piraeus.30 m from the warehouse foundations.
Figs. thus permitting the optical contact to the antiquities to everybody walking along the building (Boubiotis & Floros. otherwise it desiccates to soil.cal site (see Figs 9 and 10). 1994). lime or / and marly sandstone and conglomerate. 9 and 10. Ground-plan and sections of the office building and the Filon’s warehouse antiquities From the geological point of view the area of the building is covered by the Neocene geological formation named “Piraeus Marl”. An ancient road (location 5) was also found preserving on its sur- XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. Monday. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. 3. consisting of lime marl.3. To maintain the stability of the slopes the simplest measure was to protect them from loosening their original humidity by covering them with polythene sheets. the section of the building’s ground floor neighbouring the antiquities was left open (pilotis). however the marl or marly limestone phases prevail. May 26. For the construction of the building the excavations reached a level of three to six meters below the antiquities with vertical stable slopes. The strength of the marl phase of the formation (qu = 150 ÷ 500 kPa) permits the excavation of vertical slopes of considerable height without any support. 11). marly limestone. 4. The National Bank of Greece Administration Building and the Acharnian Gate The archaeological excavation prior to the construction of the new administration building of the National Bank of Greece (Karatzas Building) at the centre of modern Athens brought to light important antiquities concerning the approach to the most important Acharnian Gate of the ancient Athens circuit wall (location 2 at Fig. Scanty remains of the city wall (most likely foundations of a tower – location 1) as well as extended parts of the front rampart (proteichisma – location 3) and the moat (tafros – location 4) were discovered. providing that it retains much of its original water content. Furthermore. Národní tř. Praha 1 16 / 53 .
12 shows a drawing of the building with the antiquities preserved in the ground floor – basement. It is identified with the ancient road from Athens to Acharnai. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. May 26. Fig. The archaeological excavation started in 1974. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. while the design of the building started in 1997. The preservation and the exhibition of the antiquities were prerequisites for constructing the building at this site. requiring innovative solution to be overcome. The building was designed taking into account these requirements. 11. Národní tř. This. Praha 1 17 / 53 . Fig. 3. The road crosses the peripheral road (location 6) of the circuit wall and intersects the front-rampart and the moat. combined with the other operational prerequisite that the building should have underground floors formulated a serious geotechnical problem.face the grooves of cartwheels (location 7). Fig. 14 & 15 the cross sections T1 and T4 with the antiquities preserved in the ground floor – basement. Monday. Location of the Acharnian Gate and the antiquities found at the site of the National Bank of Greece Administration Building. 13 the ground – basement plan and Figs.
2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. Fig. 13.Fig. 3. Monday. May 26. Národní tř. Praha 1 18 / 53 . Ground – basement plan of of the National Bank of Greece Administration Building XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. 12. Drawing of the National Bank of Greece Administration Building with the antiquities preserved in the ground floor – basement.
3. 14 & 15. Národní tř. May 26. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture.Figs. The underground floors below the antiquities are also shown. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. Monday. Praha 1 19 / 53 . Cross sections T1 and T4 of the National Bank of Greece Administration Building with the antiquities preserved in the ground floor – basement.
16) to avoid destruction. Praha 1 20 / 53 . while the main geological formation of the site is bold schist with the following geotechnical parameters: XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture.40 and the bottom at -2. According to the geotechnical investigations. φ = 38°. the subsoil consists of a surface fill layer of about 2. Fig. for which the geotechnical parameters are: γ = 19 kN/m3.50 m thickness.00. Protection of the antiquities before earth filling. 3. the antiquities were wrapped with wooden plaques (2.50.00. May 26. In order to create a working platform for the construction of the temporary support.60. with the top of the antiquities at -0. the whole site was filled with earth materials up to the level ±0. while layers of geotextile were put in the fill for more safety. Before this. Monday.50 to -1. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. The final depth of the excavation would be at -14. Národní tř. c = 5 kPa.The construction of the building started with the construction of the temporary support of the excavation slopes and of the antiquities.5 cm thick) and polythene sheets (Fig. Es = 50 MPa. while the anticipated foundation level of the ancient city wall was at -6. 16.
First. earth anchors and shotcrete (Fig. This is a rather flexible support system consisting of vertical steel beams (2 U 260) (sometimes of bored reinforced concrete piles).γ = 21 kN/m3. 18). 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. Plan of the temporary support system for the construction of the National Bank of Greece Administration Building The “Berlin” type wall was used for the temporary support of the vertical slopes of the excavation. c = 20 ÷ 80 kPa. Fig. 18. Es = 60 ÷ 80 MPa Fig. i. steel tube piles were places round the antiquities. Monday. The “Berlin” type of wall used for the temporary support of the excavation slopes The method of the forepoles (horizontal micro piles) was used for the support of the antiquities. May 26. φ = 25°. In the next stage the foreXVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. Fig. that for the excavation walls and that for the antiquities. 17. Národní tř. 17 shows the plan of the whole temporary support system. Praha 1 21 / 53 . 3.e.
XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. 19. After the construction of the fore poles horizontal steel beams HEA 260 were welded to the steel piles under the fore poles. Fig. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. The micro piles were filed with cement mortar with a 2 : 1 cement to water ratio. Národní tř. To ensure the good contact of the fore poles and the steel beams. the external having external diameter Ø 193. 20. Praha 1 22 / 53 .7 mm and thickness 7.7 mm and thickness 7. Fig. 3.1 mm. Finally.poles were constructed using Ø 250 mm rotary hammer drill and reinforcement consisting of two concentric steel tubes. steel tube trusses Ø 508 mm / 8 mm thick were used for the lateral support of the system. Monday. shotcrete was applied. in order to act as their support after the excavation of the ground under the fore poles (Fig. May 26. Construction of the fore poles under the antiquities. Details of the support of the antiquities. 20 shows details of the support of the antiquities.1 mm and the internal having external diameter Ø 139. Fig. 19).
9 occurred in the north-western suburbs of Athens. have been designed to sustain seismic loads. Excavation under the antiquities. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. providing special attachments for the continuity of the steel reinforcement bars (see Figs. 23 & 24). the concreting of the slab was made in sections. Monday. Accelerations as much as a = 0. 21). which develop mainly in the neighbouring property and “siroi” (large storage earthen jars in the ground) of the Byzantine era (Figs 25 ÷ 28).00. Due to the presence of the members of the temporary support system (steel tubes and beams). at a distance of about 18 km from the construction site.229 g and a = 0. because of the significance of the antiquities. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. Temporary supports of steel frames were used in some places (Fig. Temporary or Permanent Burial of Antiquities Many antiquities have being found during the excavations for the reconstruction of an old 3 storey and a basement building at the Plaka area of Athens. a shallow earthquake of magnitude M 5. the support systems of the excavation slopes and of the antiquities. without any failures and damages. Fig. 21) and a layer of shotcrete. Národní tř.In the next stage the ground under the fore poles was excavated (Fig.4. though temporary.5 km from the site). Temporary support with steel frames. 1999. The final difficult step was the concreting of the roof slab of the 2nd basement. reinforced with steel wire mesh was applied. just under the fore poles supporting the Acharnian Gate. 3.511 g have been measured in the centre of Athens (at a distance of about 0. 22 shows views of the excavation and the support of the antiquities. Fig. 4. 21. consisting of parts of marble roman baths. however the support responded extremely well. Praha 1 23 / 53 . May 26. On September 7. when the excavation had reached the level of -10. It is worth to notice that.
Praha 1 24 / 53 . 3. May 26. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. Národní tř. 22. Partial excavation (a) and excavation to the final level (b. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture.(a) (b) (c) Fig. Monday. c).
23 and 24. Praha 1 25 / 53 . 3. Details of the preparations for concreting the slabs under the antiquities. The antiquities at the 1 Cherofontos Str. 25 and 26. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture.. Plaka property. May 26. Monday.Figs. Plan of the foundation of the building at Cherefontos with the antiquities found. 27. Fig. Národní tř. Fig. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic.
in order to achieve the following: • Reversibility of the burial: The burying materials must easily be removed leaving the monument at the same condition as before the burial. However. which would result in considerable delays of the construction programme. since the burial of any ancient monument is considered as intervention to the monument. 25. 11.Fig. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. the archaeological service decided that the antiquities could be buried and the new structure be built over them. 10. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic.00 m length (about 4 m embedment). 12. 18 mini piles were drilled. particularly the Articles 9. some rules should be followed. Section along the Cherefontos site with the antiquities found. 28. 26 and 29). reinforced with ΙΡΕ 140 steel beams. Fig. Because of these findings and the consequent necessary detailed archaeological investigation to a depth well below the foundation level of the neighbouring structures. 14 and 15 of the Venice Charter. May 26. with Ø 250 mm diameter and 7. 3.Detail of the temporary support of a neighbouring structure at the Cherefontos cite. Národní tř. Monday. the temporary support of the neighbouring structure was necessary. 29. 13. Praha 1 26 / 53 . After the investigations. Similar beams were used as pile cap beams (Figs.
Monday. 3. This method offers the following advantages: • The minimal load transfer to the antiquities. ii. iii. • Infinite project life. Národní tř. Placement of separation geotextile on top of the fill and then concreting of the raft foundation slab. • Low cost. • The burial method should secure the maximum life time for the monument. The Museum has been constructed over antiquities. In order to meet this requirement. temporary this time is that of the extension of the Iraklion Museum. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. which should remain visit able at the basement of the new building. Another case of burying the antiquities. • Ease construction. May 26. Gradual filling of the excavation with sand. the building was founded on piles drilled in the prevailing geological formation in Iraklion named “Iraklion Marl”. consisting of Neocene white marls and marly limestones. • Minimization of the change in the appearance of the brick masonries: The burial should not change the technological and construction characteristics of the brick masonries. as they are considered witnesses of the ancient technology. Praha 1 27 / 53 . The piling pattern was dictated by the location of the antiquities in order to avoid their destruction. In this particular case the new building will have a raft foundation and the burial would be performed using well graded sand with less than 5% fines. Cleaning of the bottom of the excavation. • Easy excavation and removal of the burying material. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. • Minimization of the loads transferred to the structural members of the monument. • Ability of load bearing: The burial should be able to bear safely the loads of any structure at its top (the loads of the new building). starting from the “siroi” and continuing to the rest parts of the excavation. The construction sequence is the follow: i.• Preservation of the structural condition of the monument: The burial should not change the performance of the structural members of the monument during the whole period of the burial. • Short construction time.
Also. condition of the arches etc.5 mm. Národní tř. Monday. The selection of piles of Ø 800 mm diameter was based on the account of their diameter as well as on the relative low weight of the piling machine. temporarily.) as well as on the antiquities themselves (sort of ancient masonry.30 m) of fill material (coarse sand with fine gravels. 3. permitting their easy removal after the construction of the basement of the building. the antiquities were buried. Placement of a first layer (0. iii. (b) (a) (a) (b) (b) (b) Fig. Praha 1 28 / 53 . (b) non-woven polypropylene geotextile ii. Ø 2 12 mm) at the bottom of the excavation (see Fig 31). dimensions of the tracks etc. 30). May 26. Filling the arches with masonries of low strength. 30. which is acceptable. in order to create free space on top of them. Protection – wrapping of the antiquities with geotextile. The partly destroyed arches were completed to avoid the nonuniform loading (see Fig. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic.Since there was not enough space for the piling machine to move between the antiquities. Protection of ancient masonry: (a) low strength masonry. The construction sequence was the following: i. A non-woven geotextile has been selected. simple walls or walls with arches.). XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. The calculations of the vertical pressures induced by the loads of the piling rig as well as of the horizontal forces induced by the fill compaction showed that for a height of the embankment of 1 m the vertical deformation of the arch is of the order of 0. application of geotextile at the bottom of the excavation between the antiquities. thus minimizing the load that would be applied to the antiquities. dimensions. The height and the material for the construction of the embankment depend on the characteristics of the piling machine (weight.
Praha 1 29 / 53 . Placement of the last layer of fill (0. vi. The calculations have shown that the placement of the fill on each side of the masonry should not differ more than 0. Construction of the embankment using gravels (Ø < 70 mm) up to 0.40 m).30 m) consisting of sand and gravels (Ø 2 . 3. Placement of the next layer of fill (0.70 mm). 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. v. May 26. 31. Construction of the embankment over the ancient masonries. Monday.50 m in order to avoid the one side horizontal loading of the masonry. sand + gravels gravels rectangular geogrid gravels gravels low strength masonry coarse sand + fine gravels coarse sand + fine gravels non-woven polypropylene geotextile Fig. viii.iv.30 m over the arches. Placement of a first layer of a rectangular geogrid. vii. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. This material requires minimum compaction and results in the minimum compaction pressures applied to the ancient masonries and arches. Národní tř. Placement of the second layer of a rectangular geogrid. assuring the smooth transfer of the stresses produced by the movements of the piling machine.
Fig. The Archaeological Service was called and they start the detailed investigation of the site. For converting the buildings into a museum. the buildings. an annex of the Benaki Museum. The metal buttressing partitions were placed so that they might later be used in the construction (support) of the new floors (Fig. after the demolition of the inside walls and partitions. had to be appropriately buttressed to ensure the safety of the work teams. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. ancient stone blocks were encountered at a depth of approximately 3 m in the three storey building. situated in the historical centre of Athens. In order for the archaeologists to carry out their excavations. the architects designed wide-scale interventions in both buildings. however without any interference in the facades. as to the preservation of their facades. Buttressing of the facades of the two-storey building of the Islamic Art Museum. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. abolishing all the inside walls and partitions.5. Praha 1 30 / 53 . Národní tř. 33). May 26.4. The Benaki Museum of Islamic Art in Athens The new Museum of Islamic Art. i. which had also a basement. 3. is housed in a two-building complex built between 1915 and 1935. 33. Both buildings are of the neoclassical architectural form and were declared as listed buildings. During the excavations for the foundation of the building complex. in 1989.e. Monday.
The rampart is preserved to a height of 13 courses of masonry. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. It was a new defensive enceinte erected in the 4th century B.. in front of the Themistoclean Wall. Praha 1 31 / 53 . 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. to reinforce the Athenian defences.C. 34. May 26.After the construction of the buttressing system the archaeological excavation continued and proved that the antiquities were a part of the rampart of ancient Athens. Monday. 3. 34). Initial and final stage of the archaeological excavations at the Islamic Art Museum. Fig.C.60 m and running along an east-west line (Fig. measuring 5. Národní tř. built in 478 B.
Národní tř.D. which. was found. Demosion Sima was the cemetery extending on either side of the road leading to the Academy. It was a road constructed in the 4th century B. 1997) showed that the soil profile consists of a surface fill layer (0. except one.70 m thick). in the 1st century A. When the city’s fortifications were destroyed by the Romans. in Building B. the trench was covered by the debris of the rampart. appears in the form of weathered and altered peridotite and clayey schist (NSPT = refusal). in order to ensure uniform foundation of the structural members of the building micro piles were used for all (Fig. sometimes with gravels (down to 7. The reinforced concrete columns of Building A were founded on spread footings on the bedrock.C. a micro pile foundation was implemented. 35).C. The ground water table was found at a depth of 5. NSPT = 5 ÷ 13 (Nmean = 8). the need for their preservation and display in the basement of the buildings were considered in the final design of the new buildings. Within the perimeter of the rampart the Peripheral Road. due to the lack of space. in this part of Athens. Later. between the Themistoclean Wall and the rampart. a small section of the Valerian’s Wall (3rd century A.60 ÷ 8. among which a Memorial Stele of the last quarter of the 5th century B. it disappeared completely under the large quantity of rubble produced by the clearing of the city’s ruins. measuring approximately 9 m in width. followed by layers of screes and weathering mantle of the bedrock in the form of clayey sand with gravels or sandy clay.00 m below the ground surface. On the other hand. The final excavation reached the depth of approximately 8. The strength of these layers is low. somewhere in the middle of the antiquities.00 m). For the construction of this wall marble architectural members from the ruined monuments were used.30 ÷ 0. where..) was uncovered. On the surface of the road the grooves caused by the carriage wheels can be seen. immediately outside the city walls in the area of the Kerameikos. Monday. preserved to a limited width. Finally. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic.30 m below the ground surface. encircling the city and linking the suburbs. expertly built of large stone blocks and smaller irregular stones. Demosion Sima. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. where the antiquities to be preserved were of different time era and found at different levels. The bedrock consists of the geological formation known as “Athenian Schist”.D. as well as its retaining wall. The geotechnical investigations performed (Malandraki and Tsatsanifos. 3. May 26. Praha 1 32 / 53 . The importance of the antiquities found.Outside the rampart a trench was found. In both buildings the pattern – locations of the columns of their skeletons was again dictated by the presence of the antiquities.
Construction of micro piles at the Benaki Islamic Art Museum. May 26. 36 show the plan of the basement of the museum. again with the preserved antiquities and Figs. 37 cross sections of the buildings. 36. 35. Figs. 3. 38 the final display of the antiquities at the basement of the museum. Monday. Praha 1 33 / 53 . Fig.Fig. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. Plan of the basement floor of the Islamic Art Museum with the antiquities. Fig. Národní tř. with the antiquities as they have preserved and exhibited.
XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture.The Benaki Islamic Art Museum was inaugurated in August 2004. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. just before the Athens Olympic Games. Fig. May 26. Cross sections of the Islamic Art Museum with the antiquities preserved in its basement. 3. Monday. Praha 1 34 / 53 . Národní tř. 37.
6. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. A view of the archaeological excavation is shown in Fig. 38. A whole block of buildings has been expropriated and extensive archaeological investigations preceded the construction of the Museum.Fig. The New Acropolis Museum in Athens The new Acropolis Museum has been constructed at the skirts of the Acropolis hill. 40 show 3D drawings of the museum building in front of the Acropolis hill. Monday. The display of the antiquities at the basement of the Benaki Islamic Art Museum. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. which has 3 underground floors and the other at the western – north-western side of the site. 4. The museum consists of two sections. Fig. 3. Fig. The central entrance is located at the northwest side of the building. The museum has been designed by the Bernard Tschumi Architects Office having in mind that the antiquities should remain visit able under the museum. The beige colour corresponds to the section of the building without basement. May 26. permitting the viewing of the antiquities through the glass first flour of the building. Národní tř. 39. 41 shows the ground plan of the museum over the antiquities. without basement. one at the south – south-eastern side of the site. Praha 1 35 / 53 .
Národní tř. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. Fig. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. 40. Praha 1 36 / 53 . Monday.Fig. 39. View of the archaeological excavation at the site of the New Acropolis Museum. 3D drawings of the museum building in front of the Acropolis hill. 3. May 26.
ii. Monday. the only feasible mode of foundation was that of the concrete bored piles (Ø 1200 mm. for which the existence of the antiquities immediately to the east side and the proximity to the Athens METRO ACROPOLIS Station. due to the existence of the antiquities. The main geotechnical problems. May 26.Fig. Ground plan of New Acropolis Museum with the antiquities found. The main problem in this section was the support of the vertical slopes. Národní tř. were the following: i. 16 m long) at locations dictated by the existence of the antiquities. The section of the museum with the 3 underground floors was founded on a raft at a depth of 10 m to 15 m below the ground surface. shaft and tunnels should be considered. Due to the density of the antiquities (of the Roman era) at the main section of the museum. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. 3. Praha 1 37 / 53 . 41. For the construction of the piles the antiquities were temporarily buried. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. The cylindrical columns of the building are direct extensions of the piles.
The geological setting of the area consists of a thin surface layer of fill. 42). the seismic isolation of the building and the small depth of the underground water table were taken into account for the solution of the geotechnical problems. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic.50 m to 6. 3. 42. Fig. with sampling and in-situ testing (Standard Penetration Tests). The geotechnical investigations comprised 11 boreholes. Monday. 4 series of cross-hole tests. which. Praha 1 38 / 53 . consists of three main layers: Layer Ι: Weathering – alteration mantle of varying thickness (2.iii. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. In the section with the underground floors the thickness of the mantle varies from 2. followed by the bedrock of the area in the form of the Athenian Schist.50 m to 8. 3 pressure meter boreholes and laboratory testing (Fig. Typical results of cross-hole and pressure meter tests. May 26. in turn. Národní tř.00 m) from place to place within the limits of the site.10 m. Finally.
The ground water table was found at depths ranging from 3. do not result in stresses that can not be sustained by the antiquities. and then successive layers of well graded coarse materials (fine gravels. ii. The layer extends to depths ranging from 17. Layer ΙΙΙ: Very weathered – soily dark grey to black-grey clayey schist or fragmented from place to place. 44). a system of successive frames consisting of two concrete bored piles (with a distance of 4 – 5 m among them) bridged with steel beams was used (Fig. a geotextile was placed between the final two layers. with 2 to 5 rows of temporary prestressed anchors Ø 120 mm with Ad = 540 kN design load (Fig.00 m to 5. initially. So. did not allow for the construction of the pre-stressed anchors. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. Monday.50 m from the ground surface. Two types of support systems were used: i. Praha 1 39 / 53 . mixtures of sand and gravels. Initially. produced by the loads of the pile rigs (490 kN).50 m from the ground surface. Národní tř. The design of the required thickness of fill was based on the requirement that the combination of the vertical and horizontal pressures on the antiquities – brick walls. successive hollow concrete drums were placed at the locations where the piles would be bored. for covering the antiquities. The proximity of the Athens METRO Acropolis Station. using simplified elasticity formulas. A non-woven geotextile was used afterwards. Regarding the vertical slopes of the excavation.Layer ΙΙ: Brown-green to grey-green clayey schist with layers of weak sandstone from place to place. to the east side of the excavation. The horizontal pressures were estimated. 43). System of Ø 600 mm concrete bored piles. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. The fill reached the top of the hollow concrete drums. 3. In order to construct the piles. the antiquities were temporarily buried. The detailed FEM analyses showed that the initial estimations were conservative and that the use of the geogrid could considerably decrease the horizontal pressures.50 m to 20. the main design criterion was the minimum horizontal – mainly – deformations due to the immediate presence of the antiquities. May 26. of different degree of weathering and alteration from place to place. Finally. coarse gravels) were applied. with 40 kN/m axial strength geogrid in-between.
Monday. Results of PLAXIS FEM analysis of the 2nd support system. Národní tř. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. Praha 1 40 / 53 . 44. Fig. 3. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. May 26.Fig. 43. Results of PLAXIS FEM analysis of the 1st support system.
45). 3. the owner.52 m. is running parallel to the north side of the property (see Fig. Monday. there was a strong opposition to this proposal by the archaeologists because of the following reason. May 26. for the superstructure was to have columns along the two sides of the property. This proposal was based on the assumption that there were no antiquities along the south side of the property and that the piles along the north side would be drilled through the filling material of the wall down to the bedrock.7.60 m. The fortification wall of the ancient Greek cities consisted of two parallel stone masonry walls at a distance of 3 ÷ 4 m. Národní tř. with internal dimensions 4.0 m thick walls. It was decided to construct the building with the antiquities visit able at the basement – ground floor of the building. However. including ruins from previous ages dwellings. The Divani Acropolis Building at 18 Erechtheiou Str. A rectangular tower was added at the east side of the front rampart in the Hellenistic era. in Athens During the preparatory works for constructing a multi-storey building at the 18 Erechtheiou Str. founded on piles bored into the Athenian Schist bedrock. The geotechnical parameters used (φ’. the initial proposal. measuring 7. asked the archaeological service to conduct investigations at the site. It has been found that sometimes the filling material of the fortification walls is much more precious than the walls themselves (including pots.00 m x 4.. Since the ancient wall. The investigation revealed an impressive part of the Athens fortification walls: a 19 m long part of the front rampart (proteichisma) of the 4th century B. 4. DIVANI ACROPOLIS S. even fragments of sculpture and of architectural members). property. and 12. measuring 6.C. c’) were estimated through the Hoek – Brown procedure. to which the front rampart was changed. by the engineers. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. of the same period as the front rampart. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. The retaining wall has a length of 7 m and consists of 14 courses of masonry. while the gap between the two walls was filled with any kind of soily and rocky material found near the construction site.00 m and 1. the moat (tafros) and its retaining wall..A. Praha 1 41 / 53 .50 m long beams bridging the span between the columns. which was changed at the end of the Hellenistic era to a wall of 4 m width. clay shells.The design of the support systems was based on analysis using the PLAXIS computer code. consisting of 16 courses of masonry.
3. Praha 1 42 / 53 . 46). May 26. Národní tř. The foundation and the columns of the basement of the 18 Erechtheiou Str. Fig. building ( antiquities). 45. 46. building XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. Fig. Foundation of the 18 Erechtheiou Str. The foundation was of the semi-raft type. Monday. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. the one row of columns was moved from the side of the property and the beams were designed as cantilever beams over the antiquities (see Fig.So.
The tower is founded on weak. Monday. Cross section of the Leaning Tower of Pisa Any disturbance to the ground beneath the south side of the foundation was very dangerous. Praha 1 43 / 53 .5 degrees to the vertical . May 26. permanent stabilisation schemes involving propping or visible support were unacceptable and in any case could have triggered the collapse of the fragile masonry.. 2003). the International Committee for the Safeguard and Stabilisation of the Tower of Pisa. highly compressible soils and its inclination has been increasing inexorably over the years to the point at which it was about to reach leaning instability (about 5. grouting etc. involved unacceptable risk.5. 47. 3. such as underpinning. therefore the use of conventional geotechnical approaches at the south side. appointed by the Italian Government. After a careful consideration of a number of possible approaches. RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION OF MONUMENTS AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS The most famous example of the contribution of geotechnical engineering in the restoration of a monument is that of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. CASE STUDIES – PRESERVATION. Fig.. Národní tř. 47 from Burland et al. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. where the soil extraction method has been applied. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture.see Fig. Since the internationally accepted conventions for the conservation and preservation of monuments and historic sites provided that any intrusive intervention on the Tower had to be kept to an absolute minimum.
A hole for full ground extraction (Burland et al.e. Pisa Tower. 48. Monday. Fig. Národní tř. Different physical and numerical models have been employed to predict the effects of soil removal on the stability. Pisa Tower. only undertaken once the Commission was satisfied by comprehensive numerical and physical modelling together with a large scale trial. 2003). Johnston & Burland (2004) reported the application of the method as early as 1832 by James Trubshaw for the stabilization of the 15th century tower of St Chad’s church in Wybunbury. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. 3. This technique provided an ultra soft method of increasing the stability of the tower. i. Praha 1 44 / 53 . Barends (2002) gives a XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. The preliminary underexcavation intervention. which is completely consistent with the requirement of architectural conservation. 2003). Fig. The final underexcavation has attained the target of reducing the tilt of the tower by half a degree. The technique of soil extraction has been used for rehabilitation of buildings longer before proposed by Terracina (1962) for Pisa. Holes for full ground extraction (Burland et al. 49. May 26. South Cheshire.adopted a controlled removal of small volumes of soil from beneath the north side of the tower foundation (underexcavation – see Figs 48 and 49). to bring the tower “back to future” to the time just before the excavation of the catino in 1838. has demonstrated that the tower responds very positively to soil extraction.
Fig.. it can be performed outside the building footprint) and can be controlled and adjusted via an observational approach. A similar to the soil extraction approach was proposed by Poulos et al. (2003) for the rehabilitation of buildings on piles which have undergone uneven settlements due to uneven ground conditions. 2004). Monday. Brandl (1989) has described the use of soil extraction to correct uneven settlement of piles supporting bridge piers. so that restoring vertical movements will be developed within the area of the building foundation (see Fig. The method of soil extraction was also used to straighten a 100 m high chimney at the Bochum Cast Steel Works in Germany. involves the drilling of a number of boreholes on the “high side” of the building. The report on the work was discovered in the journal the ‘Zeitschif Bauwesen’ published in 1867 and written by Haarman – the engineer who executed the work (see Fig. or/and interaction among closely-spaced buildings. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. Praha 1 45 / 53 . which has been termed the “RSS” (Removal of Soil Support) method. before its application to the Pisa Tower (Tamez et al. The approach. Vertical section at base of Bochum chimney showing the process of soil extraction (Johnston & Burland. Johnston & Burland. Národní tř.e. 1997). 2004). while the use of soil extraction has been widely used in Mexico City to reduce the differential settlement of a number of buildings due to regional subsidence and earthquake effects. 3. 50. 51). May 26. or/and faults in the foundation piling. 50.full contemporary account of the stabilization of a leaning church tower at Nijland by means of soil extraction in 1866. A major advantage of the method is that it is not intrusive (i. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic.
The renewal. Praha 1 46 / 53 . 52). A very interesting example of underpinning for strengthening the foundation of a historic building was presented by Sata (2003). 52. Principle of the RSS method: (a) Tilting of pile – supported structure (b) Progressive drilling of boreholes on the “high” side of the foundation (c) Restoration of structure tilt (d) Grouting of boreholes. requiring the deepening of the foundation level. May 26. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. The AEB Bank chose a two-storied historic building for its headquarters in Budapest (see Fig. Fig.(a) (b) (c) (d) Fig. Monday. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. re-utilisation and enlargement of the building should follow the original architecture. An underground garage had also to be constructed. 51. Architectural section of the renewed AEB Bank in Budapest. 3. Národní tř.
In order to avoid any horizontal movements or / and vertical displacements of the very fragile brick-walls. Reinforcement of the external walls. and into them common steel tubes were placed. Fig. Excavation and construction of the basement slab. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. After this treatment. 3. The AEB Bank building “in the air” The connection between these so-called micro-pile heads and the wall is shown in Fig. the reinforced wall behaved as a disk. Creation of temporary supports for the main brick walls. creating a deeper definitive foundation level – by using the jet-grouting technology and CFA piling. These simple steel structures made possible the transfer of the linear loads to the micro-piles and hence to the geotechnical substratum. iii. by using the already mentioned jet grouting technology. 53). Construction of the foundation of the final supports of the brick walls. Praha 1 47 / 53 . ii.micro piles (Fig. 53. jet piles were made on the two sides of the wall. temporarily. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic.Jet-grouting was used. The loads of the internal walls were between 100 and 300 kN per meter and were transferred to the ground. and the whole intervention was executed as follows: i. Monday. construction of the final structure and removal of the temporary supports. 54. Národní tř. May 26. through these steel tubes . iv.
54). The initial settlement estimations. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. i. Praha 1 48 / 53 . which acted against the gravitational force of the wall. using both considerations.Fig. Národní tř. which were greater than the admissible. 3. 55.6 mm to 16. Due to the pre-stressing the resulted . as real piles or as “deepened” shallow foundations and secondly how to minimize the settlements to acceptable for the historic structure levels.October 2002) at the AEB Bank Building. Measured settlements (September . 55).measured displacements did not exceed 6 mm and in some cases the result was even an uplift of the structure (see Fig.e. The connection between the micro-pile heads and the wall for the AEB Bank building. The main concerns of the designer were firstly how to consider and solve the foundation of the walls over the jet-grouting piles. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. May 26. points 1-2-3 points 16-17 points 4-9 points 5-8 points 10-13 6 4 Settlements (mm) 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25 11/1 11/8 Date Fig. Monday. 54. To solve this problem a pre-stressing force between the wall and the piles was induced (see Fig. predicted values ranging from 1.66 mm.
Proc. the time for the implementation of the project some times is quite long. we should not forget that it is difficult and very expensive to build in ancient cities. Thessaloniki. The solution of the many problems that arise poses great challenges to the geotechnical engineer. 425-429 (in Greek). Monday. the author believes that it is a privilege having the new Athens built over the ruins of the old city. where it is deemed necessary and could be applied with the required safety factor. T. since it is good for the geotechnical profession! Building in ancient cities like Athens demands geotechnical engineering expertise. Praha 1 49 / 53 . The main problems are those associated with the deformations of the existing monuments and historic buildings during the construction of the new structures. Also. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. May 26. Greece.6. and Hourmouziadi. the co-operation of the geotechnical engineers with the archaeologists and architects is always necessary when dealing with monuments and historic buildings. the authenticity principle should be applied also for the foundations of the monuments. REFERENCES Almatzi. 3. Anagnostou. However. 4-7 September. Giagoulis. Also in the case of the restoration of monuments the differentiation of the mode of the foundation of different parts of the building should be avoided. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author thanks Mr. A. Christos Valanides for providing the photographs from the construction period of the National Bank of Greece Administration Building. A. Spyros Gounaropoulos and Mr. Národní tř. 1st International Conference on Ancient Greek Technology.. In the case of the restoration of monuments.. I. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. (1997) “First information for the technology of the lake settlements of prehistory”. Finally. thus our services by the geotechnical engineers! However. CONCLUDING REMARKS The Major of the City of Sparta confessed that he is not in a position to say if it is a “privilege” of having the new Sparta built over the ruins of the old city. pp.
37. H. 18 – 20 February. May 26. December. J. Sparta. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic.B. 6. (2002) “The application of the method of forepoles”. pp. (2002) “A Dutch leaning tower saved in 1866 by the same method used for the Pisa tower”. & Viggiani. Athens. Vol. (1985) “Anastylosis and anasteloseis”. (2004) Protection Works for the Ancient Ruins at the New Iraklion Museum Construction Site (in Greek). C. 63-80. pp. KTIRIO. pp. pp. The World of Buildings. S. K. Proceedings 12th International Conference on Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering. P. 3. ICOMOS Information. Národní tř. Cavvadias. Burland. No. C. p. Soils and Foundations. 43. 43. Summer. 147. E. Report submitted to the Europa Nostra Awards 2004 Competition. 4. Dimacopoulos. J. January / March. Vol. no. 52.B. Jamiolkowsky. Calligas. C. European Foundations (2004) Piling . to a Museum of Islamic Art in Kerameikos. S. 5. D’ Agostino.Andrikopoulou. 141−142.J. Vol. Brandl. Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage. pp.S. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. No. (2004) Restoration and Adaptation of the Benaki Museum’s Neoclassical Building Complex. Geotechnique. 17. Boubiotis. Piraeus”. pp. Pascualin.1. F. 16–25. (2006) “Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus”. P. p.. M. E and Diederichs. Also as “Harmonic coexistence: The Filon Warehouse (340 BC) and a contemporary office building”. Proceedings of the Scientific Conference “New Cities over Old Ones – The Example of Sparta”. (1994) “The Filon’s Warehouse and an eleven storey office building. Monday. Vol. M. Praha 1 50 / 53 . International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. (2005) TC-19 Preservation of Historic Sites / Guidelines – Part I. 2. 109 – 111 (in Greek).Jack Plug. Special Lecture D. Barends. No. International Scientific Committee for Analysis and Restoration of Structures of Architectural Heritage (ISCARSAH) / International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) (2001) Recommendations for the Analysis. Hoek. Vol. & Floros. Co-inhabitants with two and a half millenniums age difference at the Zea. (1989) “Underpinning”. 2227-2258. Vol. 203–215. and Loucas. No. General Principles of the Interventions (draft). No 2. (2003) “The Stabilisation of the Leaning Tower of Pisa”. 23. 13 (in Greek).
(2005) “Pile Behavior – Consequences of Geological and Construction Imperfections”. Proceedings of the Scientific Conference “New Cities over Old Ones – The Example of Sparta”. Vol. Vol. Pub. Loucas. (2005) TC-19 Preservation of Historic Sites / Guidelines – Part II. Jardine. 4. Národní tř. Papadopoulos. H.M. H. Japan. V. XVI ICSMGE. Romania. 199. F. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. 3.G. F.Iwasaki. ed.G. (2005) “Technical Session 4c: Preservation of Historic Sites. and Tsatsanifos. May 26.B. E. Terracina. Matalas.. Monday. (1994) “Preface of Demosthenes A. 4. Sparta. J. pp. London. (1997) Geotechnical Investigation for the Restoration and Reform of the Building on Dipylou Str. (2000) “The support of the section of the ancient Acharnian Road”. Y. Advances in geotechnical engineering. 10681079. ASCE. E. E. Proceedings 2nd International Young Geotechnical Engineers Conference. D. Vol. Matalas. No.E. Malandraki.. 131. of the Benaki Museum (in Greek). pp. pp. 56. Proceedings 14th International Conference on Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering. p.34–39. Ovando – Shelley. The Skempton Conference. (2003) “Foundation strengthening of a historic building”. L. 336-339. 12 – 16 September. Poulos. V. Vol. Mamaia. C. Mayor of Sparta”. General Report”. G. (2003) “A Theoretical Study of Constructive Application of Excavation for Foundation Correction”. Poulos.. (2008) Geotechnical Problems Related with the New Acropolis Museum. Sata. 18 – 20 February. and Cavvadias. P. Journal Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. E. E. London. pp. 469-484.. No. Osaka. Praha 1 51 / 53 . & Burland. 538-563 (Terzaghi Lecture). pp. Tamez. Badelow. and 22 Asomaton Str. Ovando-Shelley. CIRIA Spec. 13 (in Greek). Proceedings International Conference on Response of Buildings to Excavation – Induced Ground Movements. & Santoyo. Specific Problems : Foundations (draft). (1962) “Foundation of the leaning tower of Pisa”. pp. 2. ERGOTAXIAKA THEMATA. & Powell. C. Proc. G. (1997) “Underexcavation of Mexico City’s Metropolitan Cathedral and Sagrario Church”. Personal Communication. F. 12. 5. Johnston. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. 2105−2126. Géotechnique. Vol. (2004) “Some Historic Examples of Underexcavation”. Pascualin.
Proc. Main Session 4: Rehabilitation of Buildings and Infrastructures. Specific Problems : Urban Areas (draft). tombs. Osaka. (2007) Reconstruction of building according to NG 626 / D / 05 at 1 Cherefontos Str. Praha 1 52 / 53 .. and Tsatsanifou. Proc. (2003) “Geotechnical engineering in urban areas – Unexpected situations (old bombs.Tsatsanifos. (2005) “The General Principle of the Authenticity and the Foundations of Monuments”. 5. Technical Session 4c: Preservation of Historic Sites. Tsatsanifos. Prague. Japan. XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. wells. 3. pp. 523-531. Plaka – Proposal for Antiquities Burial (in Greek).)”. General Report. C. Monday. XIIIth European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. Proc. F. 25 – 28 August 2003. XIVth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. underground spaces. drainage. 24 – 27 September. C. V. (2005) TC-19 Preservation of Historic Sites / Guidelines – Part II. (2007) “Contribution of geotechnical engineering in the rehabilitation of buildings and infrastructures”. Národní tř. Tsatsanifos. Panellist Paper. Spain. 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. C. May 26. C. Tsatsanifos. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic. etc. Czech Republic. 12 – 16 September. Vol. M. Madrid. Ulitsky.
XVI Prague Geotechnical Lecture. metro’s tunnels and stations. Národní tř. course at Imperial College and he got the M. Christos Tsatsanifos is a consultant in Geotechnical Engineering. member of the Greek section of ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) and member of the ICOMOS Technical Committee ISCARSAH (International Scientific Committee for Analysis and Restoration of Structures of Architectural Heritage). May 26. he taught Geotechnical Engineering at the Department of Civil Engineering of the Air Forces Academy of Greece for 15 years (1984-1999) and he is still tutoring students of the National Technical University of Athens on their Diploma Theses. he followed the Soil Mechanics M. He graduated from the National Technical University of Athens / Department of Civil Engineering on 1974. tunnels. Parallel to his consulting activities. 2008 Building of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic.D in 1982. and DIC degrees in September 1976. After further two years work in a construction site in Greece. Praha 1 53 / 53 . After a year of work in a soil mechanics laboratory in Athens.Dr. a company involved in the design and construction supervision of many big infrastructure projects including dams. He is very much involved in the field of preservation of monuments and historic sites and he was co-chairman of the ISSMGE Technical Committee TC 19 Preservation of Monuments and Historic Sites from 2003 to 2008 and its chairman since this year.Sc. bridges and in most aspects of geotechnical engineering and earth structures.Sc. He is the newly elected President of the Greek – Hellenic Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 3. he returned back to Imperial College for research on Soil Dynamics and Engineering Seismology and he was awarded his Ph. Monday. Managing Director of PANGAEA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD Athens.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.