STABILIZATION OF THE UNDERGROUND SOIL BELOW OF PISA TOWER

INTRODUCCTION

The importance to know the problems about the foundation on the towers, especially the Tower of
Pisa as well as the towers that were built in Italy led us to study about their problems like what about
their leaning , their settlements the structural problems associate with them.
The tower of Pisa is one of the most remarkable architectural structures from mediaval Europe. It is
located in the Italian town of Pisa, that is the most visited city in Italy.
The tower was built in three stages across almost 200 years. The work of construction began on
August 14 , 1173 during a period of military success and prosperity. The ground floor was built first
and also it is a blind arcade articulated by engaged columns with classical Corinthian capitals.
The tower began to sink after construction had progressed to the second floor in 1178.
this was due to a mere three metre
The tower began to sink after construction had progressed to the second floor in 1178. This was due
to a mere three-meter foundation, set in weak, unstable subsoil, a design that was flawed from the
beginning. Construction was subsequently halted for almost a century, because the Republic of Pisa
was almost continually engaged in battles with Genoa, Lucca, and Florence. This allowed time for the
underlying soil to settle.
In 1272 construction was assumed by Giovanni di Simone, architect of the Camposanto. In an effort
to compensate for the tilt, the engineers built upper floors with one side taller than the other. Because
of this, the tower became curved. Construction was halted again in 1284, when the Pisans were
defeated by the Genoas in the Battle of Meloria.
There were a lot of attempts to try to reduce the tilt of the tower or at least to try not increase the
leaning since 1935 to 1970's. The first attempt was grouting into the foundation body and the soil
surrounding the cantino mainly, to prevent the inflow of water. The second attempt was the pumping
of water from deep aquifers, inducing subsidence all over the Pisa plain. By means of this procedure
the wells in the vicinity of the tower stopped the rate of tilt.
In 1989 there was an spectacular tower collapse occurred in Italy: that was the Civic Tower of Pavia,
with five deaths. A cause of that the attention of security in the Tower of Pisa increase hugely . The
Government studied the problem and they decided to close the Tower of Pisa to the visitors following
the recommendations of the safety laws. In 1990 the Italian Government, concerned about the
progressive increase in the rate of inclination and the risk of sudden structural collapse due to the
fragility of the masonry, appointed a multidisciplinary International Committee for the safeguard and
the stabilization of the Leaning Tower of Pisa chaired by a geotechnical engineer and formed by art
historians, restorers, structural engineers and geotechnical engineers. An exhaustive description of
the Committee activities, including those focused on the structural stability and the consequent needs
for masonry strengthening.
DEVELOPMENT

As the one of the most important building and attraction of the architecture . The was always the
main concerned about its tilt and its settlement. Because of this from its construction they knew that
the problems of the tower the first attempt of correct its sink was to build upper floor thinking that by
means of the weight of the floors above the tower was going to get to their right position. Most
precise measurement was implement in 1911 when the inclination of the Tower has been increasing
in greater values across the year and thy doubled since 1930's . There was very much debate about
the reason of the progressive inclination of the Tower. The main reason was mainly attributed to
creep in the underlying soft marine clay and it was a reasonable reason to why the south side of the
tower was settling more than the north side.
A careful geotechnical and geodetic study was carried out since 1911 showed the motion of the
foundations which was radically different that previously ideas held.
The theodolite measurements showed that the first cornice had not moved horizontally apart from
two occasions in 1934 and the early 1970s when man had intervened.
Also, precision level measurements which commenced in 1928 showed that the centre of the
foundation plinth had not displaced vertically relative to the surrounding ground. Therefore, the rigid
body motion of the Tower could only be as shown in Fig. 5, with an instantaneous centre of rotation
at the level of the first cornice vertically above the centre of the foundation. "The direction of motion
of points FN and FS are shown by vectors and it is clear that the foundation has been moving
northwards with FN rising and FS sinking (Burland and Viggiani, 1994
1
)." The discovery that
the motion of the Tower was as shown in Fig.1 turned out to be crucial in four respects:
1. The form of motion is consistent with the phenomenon of leaning instability rather than an
imminent bearing capacity failure (Hambly, 1985). In simple terms,
2
leaning instability of a tall
structure occurs at acritical height when the overturning moment generated by a small
increase in inclination is equal to or larger than the resisting moment generated by the
foundations. No matter how carefully the structure is built, once it reaches the critical height the
smallest perturbation will induce leaning instability. As pointed out by Hambly: leaning instability
is not due to lack of strength of the ground but is due to insufficient stiffness.
2. 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 stabilizing measure by reducing the overturning moment
(Burland et al, 1993
3
).
3. The pattern of ground movements depicted in Fig. 1 led to the 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 the end of construction. The ageing

1
Geotechics and Heritage Burland, J.B., Jamiolkowski, M.B. and Viggiani, C. (2013). page 215

2
Burland, J.B., Jamiolkowski, M.B. and Viggiani, C. (2013). The stabilisation of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Soils and
Foundations pp. 63-80
3
Burland, J.B., Jamiolkowski, M.B., Lancellotta, R. Leonards, G. and Viggiani, C. (1993). The Leaning
Tower of Pisa, what is going on? ISSMFE News, Vol. 20, No. 3.
resulted in an increased resistance to yield a conclusion that proved to be of great importance in
the successful computer modeling of the application of the temporary counterweight (Burland and
Potts, 1994).
4. In the light of the measured motion of the Tower foundation, and consistent with the seat of the
movement lying within Horizon A, it was concluded that, in addition to creep, the most likely cause of
the progressive seasonal rotation was a fluctuating ground-water level due to seasonal heavy
rainstorms that occur between September and December every year. Accordingly a number of stand-
pipes were installed in Horizon A around the Tower.
Measurements made over a number of years have confirmed this hypothesis. Commencement of
rotation each year coincides with very sharp rises in the ground water level in the Horizon A following
each heavy rainstorm Fig.2 shows the ground water level fluctuations for a selected period of time in
the piezometers located to the North and to the South in the vicinity of the Tower. The insert figures
to the right show the changes in inclination of the Tower in arc seconds as a result of two heavy
rainstorms that occurred in September and October of 1995. Each of these events caused a larger
rise in piezometric head on the North side than the South side of the Tower. This resulted in a
southward rotation of about one arc second in each case which was only partly reversible.
The leaning instability of the Tower has been investiagated by a number of different approaches,
including small scales physicla tests at natural gravity and in the centrifuge, and Finite Element
analyses based on different constitutive models of subsoil. The analyses led to the conclusion that
the gradual increase of the inclination would have ended in a collapse. Another very significant
conclusion was that a decrease of the inclination, even a relatively minor one, results in a substantian
increase in the safety against leaning instability.
Understanding the motion of the foundations of the Leaning Tower of Pisa is perhaps the single most
important finding in the development of the strategies for both the temporary and long-term
stabilization.
to begin the stabilization works it was made temporary interventions being aware that the
stabilizationn works took a long time measures was conceive. It was designed and implemented
permanent stabilization measures. The Committee took the decision to implement temporary and
reversible interventions to improve the safety against overturning and get or gain time to implement
the best permanent solution. A total of 6.9 MN of lead ingots were installed between the years of
1993-1994 in the north edge of the base of the Tower. The weights induced a change of inclination of
33'' by February 1994: by the end of July it had increased to 48'' and eventually to 53'' by February
1994 . The average settlement of the Tower of the surrounding ground was about 2.5 mm. The
settlement and rotation produced by the counterweight had been predicted by finite element model.
The agreement between prediction and observation was satisfactory, increasing the confidence of
the model.
4
FIG 3
Another measurement of temporary stabilization was made for various reasons, the activity was
interrupted for periods up to months and the fear that The Committee could dissolve as the preceding
have done and the concern that the ingots stay on the Tower by months even decades induced to
take a medium term temporary measurement was developed to replace the lead weights with ten
tensionated steel cables anchored in the lower sands at a depth of over 40 m FIG 3 .With the main
advantage to be invisible and additional benefits of this scheme was the increased lever arm that
would give a stabilizing moment larger than ingots. The major problem of the ten anchors solution
was that the anchors had to be connected to the Tower foundation through a ring beam to be

4
Geotechics and Heritage ;Burland, J.B., Jamiolkowski, M.B. and Viggiani, C. (2013). page 221

constructed below the floor of the cantino, and this involved an excavation around the Tower below
ground water level and operation pretty delicacy. After many careful comparisons of differents
possibilities it was decided to use local ground freezing immediately below the cantino floor but the
well above the Tower foundations level. According investigations it was drilled cores and it was
discovered that below the cantino floor there was a concrete bed of 1 m of thickness, set there
around in 1837 and partly in 1935. The cracks at the interface between the concrete and the Tower
foundation, led the conclusion that the two bodies were nor connected, as a consequence the volume
of variations of the frozen soil during freezing and thawing were expected not to influence the tower.
The freezing was commenced on the North side and the northern sections of the ring beam were
successfully installed. They were connected to the foundation by means of of stainless steel rods,
cemented in the foundation masonry FIG 4
During these operations, the water tightness of the cantino was partly destroyed and two pumps had
to be installed to prevent flooding, since a sand layer was provided below the ring beam sections the
system worked as a ground water level control.
In September 1995 freezing was commenced on the south-west and south-east sides, and the Tower
began to rotate to southward; the movement was also affected by an attempt of installing some micro
piles at the south boundary of the cantino. After some attempts of controlling the rotation by the
application of further lead weights at north, the operation was abandoned.
The final intervention was made take in count a deep insight into the behaviour of the tower, through
the interpretation of its history, the scrutiny of the measurements taken in the last century and the
analysis of the phenomenon of leaning instability. It was concluded that a decrease of the inclination
of the Tower by a half a degree its around to 1800 arc seconds or about the 10% of the inclination tha
the tower had 1990 would be sufficient to stop the progressive increase of inclination and to
substantially improve the stability conditions. At the same time, such a reduction was considered
small enough not to be perceived at a first glance. The decrease had to be obtained by inducinf a
differential settlement of the tower opposite to existing one by acting on the foundation soil and not on
the tower. Among other advantages, such a solution is perfectly respectful of the formal, historic and
material integrity of the monument.
The Committee studied three possible means to achieve the decrease of the inclination
1. to construct a ground pressing slab to the north of the tower
2. to induce the consolidation of the Pancone clay north of the Tower by electro-osmosis;
3. to remove a small controlled volumes of the soil beneath the north side of the foundation
UNDEREXCAVATION.

the three preceding procedures was subjected of extensive numerical modelling.
The electro-osmosis showed that cannot be completely controlled and could cause a dangerous
phenomena such as pore pressure increase may occur. For this reason this option was ruled out.
Small scale model test of a favourable response, encouraging the Committee to undertake a large
scale experiment. To explore the operational procedures and developed the field of equipment.
The main purpose of the large-scale trials was to develop the drilling technology for soil extraction. A
drill was developed which consisted of a hollow-stemmed continuous flight auger housed inside a
contra-rotating 168mm diameter casing (Fig8). The arrangement permits the drill to be advanced with
minimum disturbance to the surrounding ground.When a chosen location is reached the drill is
stopped and withdrawn by about a meter leaving a cylindrical cavity. The trials showed that the
cavities formed in the silty soil of Horizon 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 making and implementation was
developed. This system consisted of a daily report from the site to the responsible engineer of the
response of the foundation to the previous days soil extractions. The responsible engineer then
issued a signed document in which the previous days response was summarized and analysed, the
objectives of the coming days soil extraction were set out and instructions given for the locations and
volumes of the next soil extractions.
its response. This preliminary underexcavation was to be carried out over a limited width of 6m north
of the Tower using twelve bore holes lined with 219mm diameter casings (Fig. 9). On 9th February
1999, in an atmosphere of great tension, the first soil extraction took place. The Tower slowly began
to rotate northwards. When the northward rotation had reached about 80 arc seconds by early June
1999 the preliminary soil extraction was stopped. Northward rotation continued at a decreasing rate
until October 1999.
The success of the preliminary underexcavation persuaded the Committee that it was safe to
undertake soil extraction over the full width of the foundationFIG5. Accordingly, between December
1999 and January 2000, 41 extraction holes were installed north of the Tower at 0.5m spacing with a
dedicated auger and casing in each hole . Full underexcavation commenced on 21st February 2000
and the Tower was steered northwards in a remarkably straight path. Towards the end of May 2000
progressive removal of the lead ingots was commenced. Although this resulted in an increase of
overturning moment the soil extraction continued to be effective.
To prevent any unexpected adverse movement of the monument, a safeguard structure was
necessary FIG6.
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 2001 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. The final extraction and auger removal
took place on 6th June 2001 at which time the Tower had been rotated northwards by about 1800 arc
seconds the response of the Tower are given by Burland et al, (2003).
5



The goal of reducing the inclination of the tower by half a degree has been reached.
The intervention brought the Tower back to the position it had at the begining of the XIX century ,
just after the excavation of the cantino. It can be seen as a reparation to the incautious undertaking of
the architect Gherardesca, with another well- concieved and carefully conducted excavation.
It is important to add that the study of the movements of the Tower revealed that the oscillations of
the ground water table consequent to heavy rainfalls exerted a small negative influence on the
monument. As a matter of fact, the ground water table at the south of the foundation is around 0.4 m
higher than that at north, so that the net result of the underpressure on the Tower is a small
stabilizing moment.
During intense rainfalls events the two levels tend to equalize, thus producing a small overturning
moment on the monument; it is believe that the cumulative effects by ratchettig of these repeated
impulses has been one of the factors producing the steady increase of the inclination in the long
term.


5
Burland, J.B., Jamiolkowski, M.B. and Viggiani, C. (2000). Underexcavating the Tower of Pisa: Back to the future.
GEOTECH-YEAR 2000, Developments in Geotechnical Engineering,

As a final intervention, a drainage system was installed in April 2001 at north side of the Tower ,
essentially aimed at stabilizing the groundwater level in the vicinity of the Tower. It produced a further
reduction of the inclination of around 60 seconds of arc that can be clearly seen in the FIG. 7.
As a result of the full under excavation and of the implementation of the ground water control in
Horizon A, the Tower undulation mid 2002 had reduced its tilt by 1880 arc seconds - about 10% of
the maximum value reached in 1993. In the succeeding six years the Tower has continued rotating
northwards at a reducing rate, so that by September 2008 the accumulated reduction of the
foundation tilt reached 1948 arc seconds, see Fig.16. In the two years from September 2006 o
September 2008 the residual rate of rotation northwards has reduced to less than 0.2 arc second per
year.

The settlements of the south edge, centre and north edge of the foundation generated by the
stabilization operations, and mainly by full under excavation are shown in the FIG8.
In September 2008 the center of the foundation had settled around 90 mm and is continuing to settle
at a that rate, over the last two years is less than 1.0 mm per year.
to predict a future scenario and predict the behaviour is not simple because is a complex phenomena
. It can be present two possible scenarios the optimist that we can hope that the progressive increase
of the inclination has been definitely stopped and the monument keeps withour any motion, apart
from the cyclic movements connected to the environmental action such as the seasonal groundwater
table fluctuation, The drainage system is kind of effective if it have a proper maintenance.
The pesimist scenario sees the towe staying motionless for a period to decades followed by a
resumption of the southward rotation with steadily increasing rate and approaching againt the value
had before.
The geotechnical stabilization has been finally attained, the behaviour of the monument across the
years will confirm it.















































FIGURES:

FIG Tower of Pisa Source:Wikipedia
FIG 1
6
CROSS SECTION









6

FIG 3 SOIL PROFILE












FIG 4 MOTION OF THE TOWER FOUDATION



FIG 5
LEAD COUNTER WEIGHT IN THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TOWER









FIG 6 THE UNDEREXCAVATION












FIG 7 SCHEME OF THE SAVEGUARD STRUCTURE WITH STEEL STAYS










FIG 8 THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM














FIG 8 SETTLEMENT OF THE TOWER FOUNDATION AS A RESULT OF STABILIZATION
WORKS






REFERENCES
BURLAND, J.B., JAMIOLKOWSKI, M.B. AND VIGGIANI, C. (2003). THE STABILISATION
OF THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA. SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOENGINEERING CASE HISTORIES , VOL. 1, ISSUE
3, P. HTTP://CASEHISTORIES.GEOENGINEER.ORG

HAMBLY, E.C. (1985). SOIL BUCKLING AND THE LEANING INSTABILITY OF TALL
STRUCTURES. THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER,

GEOTECHICS AND HERITAGE ;BURLAND, J.B., JAMIOLKOWSKI, M.B. AND VIGGIANI,

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING FOR THE PRESERVATION OF MONUMENT
ANDHISTORIC SITE
HTTP://CASEHISTORIES.GEOENGINEER.ORG/VOLUME/VOLUME1/ISSUE3/IJGCH_1_3
_2.PDF