This article was downloaded by: [Indian Institute of Technology Madras]

On: 11 September 2014, At: 21:19

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Architectural Heritage:

Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarc20

Role of Monitoring in Historical Building Restoration:

The Case of Leaning Tower of Pisa
a

Nunziante Squeglia & Giuseppe Bentivoglio

a

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

Technical Office, Opera della Primaziale Pisana, Pisa, Italy

Published online: 20 Aug 2014.

To cite this article: Nunziante Squeglia & Giuseppe Bentivoglio (2015) Role of Monitoring in Historical Building Restoration:
The Case of Leaning Tower of Pisa, International Journal of Architectural Heritage: Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration,
9:1, 38-47, DOI: 10.1080/15583058.2013.865813
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2013.865813

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 9: 3847, 2015

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1558-3058 print / 1558-3066 online
DOI: 10.1080/15583058.2013.865813

Role of Monitoring in Historical Building Restoration:

The Case of Leaning Tower of Pisa
Nunziante Squeglia1 and Giuseppe Bentivoglio2
1

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 21:19 11 September 2014

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

Technical Office, Opera della Primaziale Pisana, Pisa, Italy

stated that the inclination was an intentional characteristic of

tower versus those who stated that it was an accident of construction. No one seemed worried about the equilibrium of
monument, nor measurements of inclination were carried out
in a systematic way up to beginning of 20th century.
As will be explained, the reasons of tower inclination lie in
the nature of subsoil. The ground profile underlying the tower
is shown in Figure 2. It consists of three distinct groups of soil
layer, named horizons (Cestelli Guidi et al. 1971). Horizon A
is approximately 10 m thick and primarily consists of estuarine deposits, laid under tidal conditions; as a consequence,
rather variable sandy and clayey silts are found. At the bottom
of horizon A is a 2-m thick medium dense fine sand layer.
Horizon B consists primarily of marine clay that extends to
a depth of approximately 40 m. It is subdivided into four distinct layers. The upper layer is a soft, sensitive clay, locally
known as the pancone. It is underlain by an intermediate layer
of stiffer clay, which in turn overlies a sand layer (termed the
intermediate sand). The bottom layer of horizon B is a normally consolidated clay known as the lower clay. Horizon B
is very uniform laterally in the vicinity of the tower. Horizon
C is a dense sand (the lower sand) that extends to considerable
depth.
From the geological viewpoint (Trevisan 1971), the lower
sands are marine sediments deposited during the Flandrian
transgression. The horizon B is formed by Quaternary deposits
of marine origin, dominantly clayey, formed at the time of
rapid eustatic rise. During the past approximately 10,000 years,
the rate of eustatic rise decreased and the sediments became
increasingly estuarine in character. The more recent sediments
of horizon A mainly comprise sandy and clayey silt; typically
of estuarine deposits, there are significant variations over short
horizontal distances.
The piezometric level in horizon A, as shown in Figure 3
is between 1 m and 2 m below the ground surface. Pumping
from the lower sand has resulted in lowering of piezometric
level in that stratum, as a consequence a downward seepage from horizon A to horizon C has been induced resulting
in a pore pressure distribution with depth which is slightly
below hydrostatic. The many borings beneath and around

A short summary is presented of the studies and the actions

of Committees appointed in past 50 years for the Tower of Pisa.
The discussion first addresses the attempts carried out during the
whole history of the Tower to measure its movements and the
efforts made to understand the origin and causes of its inclination. A history of foundation rotation has been also deduced by
means of a precise architectural survey, which has led to a diagnosis for the inclination and its increase in time. As a consequence,
several hypotheses for its stabilization have been proposed. All the
measures for leaning tower stabilization need the application of
observational method for their implementation. The observational
method is strictly based on a comprehensive monitoring system,
both described in the second part of the paper. The aims are to
stress the importance of a well-conceived monitoring system and
to propose the extension of concept of monitoring to construction history details. The data and actions described are from the
work carried out by committees appointed by Italian Government
during the second half of 20th century, in particular by the committee chaired by Professor Jamiolkowski, appointed in 1991. The
authors have collaborated with this committee since 1993, and they
are still in charge of the monitoring and maintenance of the Tower
of Pisa.
Keywords leaning tower, observational method, soil extraction,
monitoring, leaning instability

1. INTRODUCTION
The monuments of the Piazza dei Miracoli in Pisa were built
in the Middle Ages, during the period of maximum power of the
Republic of Pisa. The leaning tower (Figure 1) is one of bestknown monuments of the world. It consists in a hollow cylinder
surrounded by six balconies merging from the base cylinder
and capped by a bell chamber. At the end of 20th century the
inclination of tower axis was approximately 5.5 degrees.
At the beginning of 19th century a heated debate over the
inclination of tower took place. The debate arose between who
Received October 2, 2012; accepted November 11, 2013.
Address correspondence to Nunziante Squeglia, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Pisa, Largo Lucio Lazzarino,
156122, Pisa, Italy. E-mail: squeglia@ing.unipi.it

38

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 21:19 11 September 2014

ROLE OF MONITORING: TOWER OF PISA

FIG. 3.

39

Graph of the ground water elevation in horizons A, B, and C.

FIG. 2. Schematic illustration of the soil profile.

Tower construction started in 1173 (Figure 4) and progressed

to approximately one-third of the way up the fourth order by
1178, when the work was interrupted. At that time, the weight
of the tower was approximately 90 MN, with a unit load of
approximately 315 kPa on the foundation; under undrained conditions, the bearing capacity of the foundation was of the same
order (with an average undrained shear strength of 55 kPa, bearing capacity is 330 kPa). As a consequence, if construction had
been continued, the tower foundation would fail.
Construction restarted in 1272, after a pause of nearly
100 years. Circa 1278, construction had reached the seventh
cornice when work again stopped. Once again and for the same
reason, had the work continued, the tower would have fallen
over. Circa 1360, work on the bell chamber was commenced
and was completed circa 1370, two centuries after the start of
the work. It is known that the tower must have been tilting to
the south when work on the bell chamber began, as it is noticeably more vertical than the remainder of the tower. Indeed on
the north side are four steps from the seventh cornice up to
the floor of the bell chamber, while the south side has six steps
(Figure 5).
Another important detail of the history of the tower is that
in 1838 a walkway was excavated around the foundation, called
the catino. Its purpose was to expose the column plinths and
foundation steps for all to see as was originally intended. The
operation resulted in an inflow of water being the bottom of the
catino well below the ground water table. As a consequence,
since 1838 the catino has been kept dry by continuous pumping. The only two measurements carried out before 20th century
have been performed before and after this excavation. From
these measurement (Cresy and Taylor 1829; De Fleury 1859),
an increase of inclination of 0.5 degrees due to excavation of the
catino has been deduced.

the tower show that the surface of the pancone clay is

dished beneath the tower, from which it can be deduced
that the average settlement of the monument is not less
than 3 m.

2. FINDINGS OF MONITORING AND DEFINITION OF

SOLUTIONS
The history of the tower inclination during its construction
is frozen in the resulting shape of the axis of the Tower due

FIG. 1. Illustration of a Tower section across the maximum inclination axis

(approximately northsouth orientation).

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 21:19 11 September 2014

40

SQUEGLIA AND BENTIVOGLIO

FIG. 4.

Graph of the history of construction.

FIG. 5. Schematic illustration of a detail of the bell chamber.

to the adjustments made to the masonry layers during construction. Based on this shape and a hypothesis on the manner
in which the masons corrected for the progressive lean of the
tower, the history of inclination of the foundation of the tower
versus its weight reported in Figure 6 till 1990 may be deduced.
In Figure 7 the same data are reported versus time elapsed since
the beginning of construction.

During the first stage of construction to just above the third

cornice (1173 to 1178), the tower inclined slightly northward.
The construction stopped for almost a century, and when it
recommenced in circa 1272 the tower began to move southward. Work again ceased when the construction reached the
seventh cornice in circa 1278, at which stage the deduced inclination was approximately 0.6 towards the south. During the
next 90 years the construction was again interrupted and the
inclination increased to approximately 1.6 . After the completion of the bell chamber in approximately 1370, the inclination
increased significantly but the information about the inclination
are scarce. Some rough information on its trend may be obtained
by pictures or documents, such as a fresco painted in 1385 by
Antonio Veneziano, just after the completion of bell chamber,
or measurement reported by Giorgio Vasari in 1550. In 1817,
when Cresy and Taylor (1829) made the first recorded measurement with a plumb line, the inclination of the tower was
approximately 4.9 degrees. In 1859, Rohault de Fleury carried
out another measurement, finding a value of the inclination significantly higher than that of Cresy and Taylor (1829). In fact,
between the two measurements the catino had been excavated
to uncover the base of the monument which had sunk into the
soil due to a settlement greater than 3 m. Digging the catino
seriously threatened the stability of the tower, and caused an
increase of inclination of approximately 0.5 degrees; furthermore, the rate of inclination increased and the motion probably
changed from retarded to accelerated.
From the beginning of 20th century, probably as a consequence of Venice bell tower collapse, the inclination of the
tower has been regularly monitored by different means. In a first
time only a geodetic survey was applied. In 1935 a 35-m long
pendulum was installed within the tower in order to increase
the precision and especially the frequency of measurement. The

100
~1272

1178

41

1990

1817 (Cresy & Taylor)

(Rohault de Fleury) 1859

weight of Tower [MN]

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 21:19 11 September 2014

150

~1360

~1278

ROLE OF MONITORING: TOWER OF PISA

FIG. 8. Graph of the tower inclination as measured by different procedures.

50

FIG. 6.

1
2
3
4
inclination of foundation []

Graph of the history of tilt of foundation.

FIG. 7. Graph of the deduced history of inclination of the Tower.

inclination measured on the tower shaft increases more than the

rotation of the foundation (Figure 8), implying a steady deformation of the tower body. The long-term steady trend is marked
by two major perturbations: one in 1935 and another one in the
early1970s. The first one has been caused by cement grouting
into the foundation body and the soil surrounding the catino,

FIG. 9. Graph of the tilt of foundation between 1938 and 1992.

carried out to prevent the inflow of water. The second perturbation (Croce et al. 1981) has been related to the pumping of water
from deep aquifers, inducing subsidence all over the Pisa plain.
The closure of a number of wells in the vicinity of the tower
stopped the increase of the rate of tilt.
In any case, even correcting for perturbation (Figure 9), it
appears that the rate of tilt was steadily increasing and had
nearly doubled from 1938 to 1993. In the early 1990s, the inclination was approximately 5.5 degrees. A careful study of the
tower movements led to the conclusion that it was affected
by a phenomenon of instability of the equilibrium, known as
leaning instability (Burland 1990, unpublished data [A study
of the motion of the Pisa Tower, internal report]). This phenomenon depends on the stiffness of soil-foundation system
rather than its strength (Desideri et al. 1994; 1997; Lancellotta
1993).
To demonstrate leaning instability, the simple conceptual
model of inverted pendulum may be used. It is a rigid vertical
pole (Figure 10) with a concentrated mass at the top and hinged
at the base to a constraint that reacts to a rotation with a stabilizing moment Ms proportional to the rotation. On the other
hand, the rotation induces an offset of the mass and hence an

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 21:19 11 September 2014

42

SQUEGLIA AND BENTIVOGLIO

FIG. 11. Illustration for the definition of and .

the rotation of the foundation (Figure 11), it may be shown in

Equation 1 and Equation 2 that:
   1


=  k

 
0 W

1  M

(1)

with:
k =

ED
;
i 2

k =

ED3

6 1 2


(2)

In this simple linear model there is no coupling between settlement and rotation, and the stability of the equilibrium is an
intrinsic property of the groundfoundation system. It may be
characterized by the ratio FS between the stabilizing and the
overturning moment, as shown in Equation 3:

FIG. 10. Simplified model for leaning instability.

overturning moment M. In the vertical position the system is in

equilibrium. Let us imagine that a rotation occurs. If the stabilizing moment is larger than the overturning one, the equilibrium
is stable; the system returns to the vertical configuration. If the
contrary occurs, the equilibrium is unstable; the system collapses. If the two moments are equal, the equilibrium is neutral;
the system stays in the displaced configuration. The stability of
the equilibrium may be characterized by the ratio FS = Ms /M
between the stabilizing and the overturning moment.
Modeling the tower as an inverted pendulum, the restraint at
the foundation may be evaluated by means of elastic solutions.
For example the foundation can be modeled by a circular plate
of diameter D resting on a linearly elastic half-space, defined by
elastic constants E and v. Calling W and M = We, the vertical
load and the overturning moment and , the settlement and

FS =

ED3
1
k
=
Wh sin
6(1 2 ) Wh

(3)

In the case of the tower of Pisa a rough evaluation of FS may

be obtained using this model by the knowledge of the settlement of the tower, 3 m. Being k = W/, one gets E/(1-2 )
2.85 MN/m2 . Accordingly, with h = 22.6 m (height of the
center of gravity of the tower) and W = 141.8 MN (weight
of the tower), FS 1.12. Even if the simplistic linearly elastic subsoil model is not appropriate for the situation, it allows
the important conclusion that the tower is very near to a state of
neutral equilibrium. The continuing movement, made possible
by the state of neutral equilibrium, is controlled by ratcheting
following cyclic actions as the fluctuations of water table in
Horizon A. Of course, creep has also some influence on the
process.
The relationship between the stabilizing moment Ms = k
and the rotation may be linearized over a short interval, but
it is certainly non linear and approaches asymptotically a limiting value of Ms . In a case as that of the leaning tower, that

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 21:19 11 September 2014

ROLE OF MONITORING: TOWER OF PISA

FIG. 12.

Graph of the centrifuge experiments by Cheney et al. (1991).

is on the verge of instability, consideration of non-linearity

appears mandatory. Further details on stability of tall structures
are reported elsewhere (Desideri et al. 1994; 1997; Lancellotta
1993). As a matter of fact, centrifuge experiments by Cheney
et al. (1991) show coupling between settlement and rotation,
non-linearity and strain hardening plasticity (Figure 12).
The leaning instability of the Tower has been investigated by
a number of different approaches, including small-scale physical tests at natural gravity and in the centrifuge, and finite
element analyses based on different constitutive models of the
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 substantial
increase in the safety against leaning instability.
It may be seen in Figure 12 that a decrease of the inclination, bringing on the unloading branch of the curve, strongly
increases the stiffness of the soil-foundation system, and hence
the stability. As a consequence of the described behavior, a
decrease of inclination could be used to stabilize the tower with
respect of leaning instability.

3. THE STABILIZATION OF THE TOWER

The stabilization of the tower was conceived as a two-stage
strategy. Since the tower was on the verge of toppling, a temporary and fully reversible intervention has been designed and
implemented in order to slightly improve the safety against
leaning instability. This operation was intended to gain the
time to properly devise, design and implement the long-term
solution.

43

The first intervention was the application of counterweights.

Between 1991 and 1993, a comprehensive analysis of intervention has been done and it was established that an inappropriate
application of counterweight could increase the inclination.
The long term solution has been selected by Committee
between three possible means to achieve the desired reduction of inclination: a) the construction of a ground pressing
slab to the north of the tower; b) the consolidation of the pancone clay north of the Tower by electro-osmosis, and c) the
controlled removal of small volumes of soil beneath the north
side of the foundation (underexcavation). All three approaches
have been the subject of intense investigation, and eventually
underexcavation was selected.
Both temporary and definitive solutions have been carried
out applying the observational method which is a systematic
procedure developed by Karl Terzaghi (Peck 1969). Today the
observational method is an accepted procedure in geotechnical
design so that the recent Italian Code, applied in 2009, considered the method as a design method. As stated by Peck (1969)
in his Rankine Lecture, the following ingredients are necessary
for the application of the method:
Exploration sufficient to establish at least the general
nature, pattern and properties of the deposits, but not
necessarily in detail;
Assessment of the most probable conditions and the
most unfavorable conceivable deviations from these
conditions, In this assessment, geology often plays a
major role;
Establishment of the design based on a working
hypothesis of behavior anticipated under the most
probable conditions;
Selection of quantities to be observed as construction
proceeds and calculation of their anticipated values on
the basis of the working hypothesis;
Calculation of values of the same quantities under
the most unfavorable conditions compatible with the
available data concerning the subsurface conditions;
Selection in advance of a course of action or modification of design for every foreseeable significant
deviation of the observational findings from those
predicted on the basis of the working hypothesis;
Measurement of quantities to be observed and evaluation of actual conditions; and
Modification of design to suit actual conditions.
All these steps have different weights in dependence of
nature and complexity of the work. In any case, the major
issues are the definition of quantities to measure and the design
of an adequate monitoring system. In 1992 a comprehensive monitoring system has been installed on the tower and
it is still operative for monitoring of monument in a reduced
configuration.

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 21:19 11 September 2014

44

SQUEGLIA AND BENTIVOGLIO

Details about the monitoring system can be found elsewhere

(Macchi 2005; Macchi and Ghelfi 2005). During the implementation of stabilizing measures some additional instruments have
been installed in order to measure the appropriate quantities.
The temporary stabilization has been attained by applying to
the north side of the tower a vertical force, obtained by a stack
of lead ingots resting on a post-tensioned ring beam cast around
the base of the tower (Figure 13). In addition to the general
monitoring system, 9 strain gauges piezometric cells have been
installed beneath the north side of the foundation in order to
control the excess pore pressure just beneath the tower foundation (Figure 14). No excess pore pressures have been registered
during the loading by lead ingots, since the loading had a rate
sufficiently low to be fully drained.
The loading has been carried out in five steps, between May
1993 and January 1994, with alternating rest periods. During
the loading stages a maximum of two ingots per day have
been installed and the weight of each ingot was approximately
90 kN. The rotation of tower foundation during the installation
of the lead ingots is shown in Figure 15. It can be seen that the
amount of creep between the stages of load is small. However,
subsequent to completion of loading, time dependent northward inclination has continued. On February 20, 1994, 1 month
after completion of loading, the northward inclination was 33.
By the end of July 1994 it had increased to 48, giving a total
of 52 including the effect of the concrete ring.
On the whole, the intervention has been rather successful.
The overturning moment has been reduced by 14%; the tower
experienced a northwards rotation of 52.6 arc seconds and a
small average settlement equal to 3.3 mm. An event of the
utmost importance is that the progressive southward inclination
of the tower has come to a standstill.
Since the Committee was well aware that studies and experiments carried out about soil extraction might not be completely
representative of the possible response of a tower affected by
leaning instability, it was decided to implement preliminary soil
extraction beneath the tower itself, with the objective of observing its response to a limited and localized intervention. This
preliminary intervention consisted in 12 holes (Figure 16) to

FIG. 14. Schematic illustration of the position of piezometers during lead

ingots installation.

FIG. 15. Graph of the foundation tilt during lead ingot installation.

FIG. 13. Photograph of the lead ingots and concrete beam.

extract soil from Horizon A to the north of the tower foundation, penetrating southwards under the foundation not more than
1 m. The goal was to decrease the inclination of the Tower by
an amount sufficient to check the feasibility of underexcavation
as a means to stabilize the tower permanently, and to adjust the
extraction and measurement techniques.
The underexcavation experiment was carried out between
February and June 1999. The total volume of soil removed was
approximately 7 m3 , 70% of which was from north of the Tower
and the remaining 30 % from beneath the foundation. Since the

45

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 21:19 11 September 2014

ROLE OF MONITORING: TOWER OF PISA

FIG. 16. Photograph of the boreholes for soil extraction as viewed from tower.

observation of foundation vertical movement was mandatory,

the monitoring system was integrated with an optical levelling
circuit for quick surveying. Levelling of foundation was carried out twice a day in order to strictly control the settlement of
foundation, especially of southern edge. Movements of edges
of foundation have been deduced by measurement by considering the foundation mass as a rigid body. The results obtained
are plotted in Figure 17. During the underexcavation period, the
Tower rotated northwards at an increasing rate, as the extraction holes were drilled gradually ahead near the north boundary
of the foundation and below it. At the beginning of June 1999,
when the operation ceased, the northwards rotation of the tower
was 90 seconds of arc; by mid-September it had increased to
130. At that time three of the 97 lead ingots acting on the
north side of the tower were removed; the Tower then exhibited negligible further movements, until the beginning of the
full underexcavation.
The rotation in the eastwest plane was much smaller, reaching a final value of approximately 10 westwards, as intended.
The north side of the Tower foundation underwent an overall
settlement equal to 11 mm; in the mean time the south side
first heaved by 1.8 mm and then gradually settled by the same
amount, showing that the axis of rotation was located between
the two points, but near the south side. The behavior of the
catino was monitored by precision levelling on a number of
measuring points (Figure 18). The old catino underwent significant distortions, since the connection with the foundation
exhibited the same displacement as the foundation itself, while
the outer perimeter connected to the cylindrical wall had very
small displacements; in spite of these distortions, no damage
occurred.
After the very encouraging results of the preliminary underexcavation experiment, the Committee went on to the full underexcavation. This time 41 holes were drilled; the layout in plan is
shown in Figure 19. Some lateral holes were prepared to extract
soil just below the bottom of the catino, to make it follow the

FIG. 17. Graph of the effects of preliminary soil extraction.

FIG. 18.

Layout of benchmarks for Catino leveling.

movements of the Tower without cracking. As it turned out they

were not used. Between February 21, 2000 and June 6, 2001,
when the underexcavation operations ceased, extractions were
carried out, removing a total volume of approximately 38 m3
of soil. Approximately 60 % of this volume was removed from

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 21:19 11 September 2014

46

SQUEGLIA AND BENTIVOGLIO

FIG. 19.

Layout of boreholes for full underexcavation.

below the catino, which is outside the perimeter of the foundation. During the final period of soil extraction, the lead ingots
and the concrete beam on which they rested were progressively
removed. The results obtained by the full underexcavation are
plotted in Figure 20. It may be seen that the goal of decreasing
the inclination of the tower by half a degree has been achieved.
The settlement of the north side of the foundation was over
160 mm, while the south side experienced a heave of 11 mm.
Due to the large displacements of the foundation of the tower,
the catino underwent distortions very similar to those experienced during the preliminary underexcavation, but much more
intense. In spite of a relative rotation as high as 3 %, no cracking
occurred.
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The stabilization of leaning tower of Pisa has been an
interesting challenge for geotechnical engineers for many and
perhaps it became its symbol. During last decade of 20th century the attempts made for stabilization of the monument have
been successful, but there is the consciousness that the multidisciplinary approach (Burland et al. 2009) applied to the
problem was the base of the success. Geotechnical engineering
supported this multidisciplinary approach in two aspects: application of observational method and modeling existing structure.
Whereas the first point has been discussed above and it is quite
clear to define the contribution, for the second point some additional explanation are necessary. The general method applied in

FIG. 20.

Graph of the effects of full underexcavation.

geotechnical engineering consists in a first stage of investigation about subsoil and eventually existing structures followed
by a second stage of modeling. The stage of modeling is usually created ad hoc for any single case, taking into account
the peculiarities of involved materials both natural and artificial. This logical sequence seems particularly appropriate to
solve problems connected to architectural heritage. In fact, an
appropriate solution can be defined only by means of a deep
understanding of the situation in order to properly model the
physical system. A deep understanding of the general situation
can be reached by means of appropriate investigation, extended
both to monitoring of building (investigation about behavior
to environment factors) and understanding of construction history (investigation about behavior during construction). The
experience of Leaning Tower of Pisa put in evidence that an
appropriate monitoring, intended as knowledge of behavior of
tower since the beginning of its construction, lead to appropriate
solutions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Authors would like to acknowledge the International
Committee for the Safeguard of the Leaning Tower, who

ROLE OF MONITORING: TOWER OF PISA

gave permission to use information regarding the interventions. Further detailed information about the stabilization of the
Leaning Tower can be found in MIBAC (2005) and Burland
et al. (2013).

Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Madras] at 21:19 11 September 2014

REFERENCES
Burland J. B., M. B. Jamiolkowski, N. Squeglia, and C. Viggiani. 2013. The
Leaning Tower of Pisa. In Geotechnics and Heritage, eds., E. Bilotta, A.
Flora, S. Lirer, and C. Viggiani, Philadelphia, PA: CRC Press, 207227.
Burland J. B., M. B. Jamiolkowski, and C. Viggiani. 2009. Leaning Tower
of Pisa: Behaviour after stabilisation operations. International Journal of
Geoengineering Case Histories 1(3):156169
Cestelli Guidi, C., A. Croce, A. W. Skempton, E. Schultze, G. Calabresi, and
C. Viggiani. 1971. Caratteristiche geotecniche del sottosuolo della Torre. In
Ricerche e studi sulla Torre pendente di Pisa ed i fenomeni connessi alle
condizioni dambiente, vol. I. Firenze, Italy: IGM, 179200.
Cheney, J. A., A. Abghari, and B. L. Kutter. 1991, Leaning instability of tall structures, in Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE
CXVII(2):297318.
Cresy, E., and G. L. Taylor. 1829. Architecture of the Middle Ages in Italy:
Illustrated by views, plans, elevations, sections and details of the cathedral, baptistry, leaning Tower of campanile and campo santo at Pisa from
drawings and measurements taken in the year 1817. London.

47

Croce, A., A. Burghignoli, G. Calabresi, A. Evangelista, and C. Viggiani.

1981.The Tower of Pisa and the surrounding square: Recent observations.
In Proceedings of the X International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering. Stockholm, Sweden, vol. III, 6170.
Desideri, A., G. Russo, and C. Viggiani. 1997. Stability of towers on compressible ground. Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica, XXXI(1): 529.
Desideri, A., and C. Viggiani. 1994. Some remarks on the stability of towers. In
Symposium on Development in Geotechnical Engineering, from Harvard to
New Delhi 19361994. Bangkok, Thailand, 257269.
Lancellotta, R. 1993. Stability of a rigid column with nonlinear restraint.
Geotechnique XLI(2):331332.
Macchi, G. 2005. Stabilization of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. In Structures
Congress 2005: Metropolis and Beyond. American Society of Civil
Engineers, 111.
Macchi G., and S. Ghelfi. 2005. Problemi di consolidamento strutturale. In La
Torre restituita, ed. A. Settis. Rome, Italy: Poligrafico dello Stato.
MIBAC. 2005. La Torre restituita, ed., A Settis. Rome, Italy: Poligrafico dello
Stato [in Italian with English abstracts].
Peck, R. B. 1969. Advantages and limitations of the observational method in
applied soil mechanics. Geotechnique XIX(2):171187.
Rohault de Fleury, G. 1859. Le Campanile de Pise. In Encyclopedie de
lArchitecture. Bance: Paris, France.
Trevisan, L. 1971. Caratteri geologici, chimici e mineralogici del sottosuolo
della Torre e nei pressi di essa. In Ricerche e studi sulla Torre pendente di
Pisa ed i fenomeni connessi alle condizioni dambiente, vol. I. Firenze, Italy:
IGM, 151164.