Leaning Tower of Pisa: Behaviour after Stabilization Operations

More documents

Recommendations

Info

STABILIZATION WORKSThe form of motion of the foundations of the Tower during the 20th CenturyPrecise measurements begun in 1911 and show that during the twentieth century the inclination of the Tower has beenincreasing inexorably each year and the rate of tilt has doubled since the 1930's. In 1990 the increase of tilt was about 6 arcseconds per year which is equivalent to a horizontal movement at the top of about 1.5mm per year (Jamiolkowski, 2001).There has been much debate about the cause of this progressive increase in inclination. It has usually been attributed tocreep in the underlying soft marine clay, the assumption being made that the south side was settling more than the northside. A careful study of the geodetic survey measurements going back to 1911 revealed a most surprising form of motionof the foundations which was radically different to previously held ideas. The theodolite measurements showed that the firstcornice 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 notdisplaced vertically relative to the surrounding ground. Therefore, the rigid body motion of the Tower could only be asshown in Fig. 5, with an instantaneous centre of rotation at the level of the first cornice vertically above the centre of thefoundation. The direction of motion of points FN and FS are shown by vectors and it is clear that the foundation has beenmoving northwards with FN rising and FS sinking (Burland and Viggiani, 1994).The discovery that the motion of the Tower was as shown in Fig. 5 turned out to be crucial in four respects:1. The form of motion is consistent with the phenomenon of ‘leaning instability’ rather than an iminent bearingcapacity failure (Hambly, 1985). In simple terms, ‘leaning instability’ of a tall structure occurs at a critical heightwhen the overturning moment generated by a small increase in inclination is equal to or larger than the resistingmoment generated by the foundations. No matter how carefully the structure is built, once it reaches the criticalheight the smallest perturbation will induce leaning instability. As pointed out by Hambly: “…leaning instability isnot 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 alead counterweight to the foundation masonry on the north side could be beneficial as a temporary stabilizingmeasure by reducing the overturning moment (Burland et al, 1993).3. The pattern of ground movements depicted in Fig. 5 led to the important conclusion that the seat of the continuinglong-term rotation of the Tower lies in Horizon A and not within the underlying marine clay as had been widelyassumed in the past. It can therefore be concluded that the latter stratum must have undergone a considerable periodof ageing since the end of construction. The ageing resulted in an increased resistance to yield – a conclusion thatproved to be of great importance in the successful computer modeling of the application of the temporarycounterweight (Burland and Potts, 1994).4. In the light of the measured motion of the Tower foundation, and consistent with the seat of the movement lyingwithin Horizon A, it was concluded that, in addition to creep, the most likely cause of the progressive seasonalrotation was a fluctuating ground-water level due to seasonal heavy rainstorms that occur between September andDecember 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 yearcoincides with very sharp rises in the ground water level in the Horizon A following each heavy rainstorm (Burlandet al, 2003). Fig.6 shows the ground water level fluctuations for a selected period of time in the piezometers locatedto the North and to the South in the vicinity of the Tower. The insert figures to the right show the changes ininclination of the Tower in arc seconds as a result of two heavy rainstorms that occurred in September and Octoberof 1995. Each of these events caused a larger rise in piezometric head on the North side than the South side of theTower. This resulted in a southward rotation of about one arc second in each case which was only partly reversible.Understanding the motion of the foundations of the Leaning Tower of Pisa is perhaps the single most important finding inthe development of the strategies for both the temporary and long-term stabilisation.International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories ©, Vol. 1, Issue 3, p. 159http://casehistories.geoengineer.org
Figure 5. Motion of Tower foundation during steady creep (gradually accelerates) - Burland, Viggiani (1994).Figure 6. Ground water level fluctuation in horizon A.International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories ©, Vol. 1, Issue 3, p. 160http://casehistories.geoengineer.org
Page 3: Figure 3. Cross-section in the plan
Page 7 and 8: first by means of physical models,
Page 9 and 10: Additional foundation stabilization
Page 11 and 12: Figure 15. Rotation of Tower plinth
Page 13: The above scenarios assume that the

Leaning Tower of Pisa: Behaviour after Stabilization Operations

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?