How Engineers Straightened the Leaning Tower of Pisa
Summary
TLDRThe Leaning Tower of Pisa's stabilization project is a remarkable tale of engineering and historical preservation. Built in 1173 on uneven soil, the tower's tilt increased over centuries, leading to its closure in 1990 due to near-collapse. A committee of experts employed innovative methods, including counterweights and underexcavation, to reduce the tilt by half a degree, ensuring the tower's safety for future generations while maintaining its iconic lean.
Takeaways
- 🏗️ The Leaning Tower of Pisa was constructed in 1173 and began tilting due to uneven soil deposition and sedimentation from a nearby river.
- 📐 By 1990, the tower's tilt had reached 5.5 degrees, leading to its closure over fears of imminent collapse.
- 🔍 A committee of experts was appointed to investigate and stabilize the tower, using methods like drilling boreholes, soil testing, and building scale models.
- 📈 The tower's tilt wasn't uniform, allowing historians to track its lean's history and estimate foundation settling since 1817.
- 🏢 The committee initially used counterweights (lead ingots) to temporarily stabilize the tower, which successfully reduced the tilt slightly.
- 🔨 The anchoring solution involving deep anchors faced challenges, causing the tower to tilt in the wrong direction and necessitating additional counterweights.
- 💡 The committee explored several solutions, including groundwater pumping, electroosmosis, and underexcavation, to stabilize the tower.
- 🚧 Underexcavation, a method of carefully removing soil beneath the tower, proved to be the most effective solution after successful tests.
- 🛠️ The stabilization project reduced the tower's tilt by half a degree, bringing it back to the stability of the early 1800s, but not completely straightening it to preserve its historical character.
- 📚 The stabilization efforts represent an 850-year-old process of managing the tower's unique lean, which is central to its appeal and historical significance.
- 🎥 The story of the Leaning Tower of Pisa's stabilization is a fascinating example of the ingenuity and logistics behind large-scale engineering projects.
Q & A
How old is the Leaning Tower of Pisa?
-The Leaning Tower of Pisa was started in 1173, making it over 850 years old as of the time of the transcript.
What caused the Leaning Tower of Pisa to lean?
-The tower leans due to the uneven distribution of sand and clay deposited by a river and the sea in the area where Pisa is located, combined with the movement of sediment from tidal changes.
When was the Leaning Tower of Pisa closed to the public?
-The tower was closed to the public in 1990 due to concerns that it was near collapse.
What was the average tilt of the Leaning Tower of Pisa in 1990?
-The average tilt of the Leaning Tower of Pisa in 1990 was five-and-a-half degrees.
How did the construction of the Leaning Tower of Pisa progress?
-Construction began in 1173, was interrupted by battles in 1178, resumed nearly a century later, and the belfry was completed one century after that. The tower was already tilting when work resumed, and builders compensated by making one side taller than the other.
What were the initial measures taken to stabilize the Leaning Tower of Pisa?
-Initial measures included installing a modern monitoring system, building a concrete ring around the base of the tower, and placing lead ingots on the north side as counterweights.
What was the factor of safety estimated for the Leaning Tower of Pisa in 1993?
-In 1993, the factor of safety for the Leaning Tower of Pisa was estimated to be 1.07, indicating that the soil could only withstand a 7% increase in weight from the tower.
What was the temporary solution that initially worked but was later replaced?
-The temporary solution that initially worked was the use of lead counterweights. This was later replaced with the idea of deep anchors, which unfortunately did not work as planned and caused the tower to tilt in the wrong direction.
What technique was used to permanently stabilize the Leaning Tower of Pisa?
-The technique used to permanently stabilize the Leaning Tower of Pisa was underexcavation, which involved carefully removing soil from below the tower to gradually tilt it upright.
How much did the tilt of the Leaning Tower of Pisa decrease after the stabilization project?
-The tilt of the Leaning Tower of Pisa was reduced by about half a degree after the stabilization project, effectively reversing time to the early 1800s when its likelihood of toppling was much lower.
Why was the Leaning Tower of Pisa not completely straightened?
-The Leaning Tower of Pisa was not completely straightened because the tilt is integral to its historical character and a big part of why it is of interest and importance to people.
Outlines
🏗️ The Origins and Construction of the Leaning Tower of Pisa
This paragraph delves into the geological and historical context of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. It explains how sediment deposition from a river in Italy led to the uneven foundation on which the tower was built in 1173. The narrative highlights the tower's tilt, which increased over six centuries, prompting its closure in 1990 due to the risk of collapse. The Italian Government assembled a committee to address the structural issue, employing methods from recreational geology and heavy construction to stabilize the iconic structure.
🔩 Challenges and Temporary Solutions in Stabilizing the Tower
The second paragraph discusses the challenges faced by the committee tasked with stabilizing the Leaning Tower of Pisa. It outlines the initial investigations, including soil testing and construction of scale models, which confirmed the tower's precarious state. The committee's first solution involved installing a modern monitoring system and using lead counterweights to temporarily stabilize the tower. However, subsequent attempts to fix the tilt with deep anchors led to new complications, requiring additional measures to prevent further tilting and eventual collapse.
🛠️ The Successful Underexcavation Technique to Save the Tower
This paragraph describes the final and successful method used to stabilize the Leaning Tower of Pisa. After testing various solutions, including electroosmosis, the committee settled on underexcavation, a technique that involved removing soil from beneath the tower to correct its tilt. The process was meticulously executed with a safeguard system in place, and it successfully reduced the tower's tilt by half a degree. The tower's stabilization was a continuation of its 850-year-old history, preserving its distinctive lean while ensuring its safety for future generations.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Leaning Tower of Pisa
💡Tilt
💡Underexcavation
💡Counterweights
💡Electroosmosis
💡Stabilization
💡Foundation
💡Incline
💡Groundwater
💡Catino
💡Engineering
Highlights
The Leaning Tower of Pisa was constructed in 1173 on a site with a unique soil composition of more sand to the north and more clay to the south.
The tower's tilt was a result of the unstable soil and construction was interrupted multiple times due to battles, leading to adjustments in the structure to correct the lean.
By 1990, the tower's tilt had increased to 5.5 degrees, leading to its closure over fears of collapse.
A committee was appointed to find a solution to stabilize the tower, using methods from recreational geology and heavy construction.
The tower's tilt was not uniform, allowing historians to track its leaning history and estimate foundation settling.
The committee's initial investigations included drilling boreholes, soil testing, and building scale models to test the tower's stability.
The factor of safety for the tower was estimated to be 1.07 in 1993, indicating it was very near collapse.
Temporary measures included installing a modern monitoring system and placing lead ingots as counterweights on the north side of the tower.
The tower was temporarily stabilized by adding counterweights, but a more permanent solution was needed.
Three main ideas were proposed for a permanent fix: groundwater pumping, electroosmosis, and underexcavation.
Electroosmosis was attempted but failed due to the soil's high conductivity, rendering the process ineffective.
Underexcavation was the final solution, involving the careful removal of soil beneath the tower to correct its tilt.
The underexcavation process was tested and refined, ultimately successfully reducing the tower's tilt by about half a degree.
The stabilization project respected the tower's historical character, ensuring the iconic lean was preserved.
The Leaning Tower of Pisa's stabilization is an example of ingenious engineering and a testament to the value of independent educational content.
The logistics and precision involved in the tower's stabilization make it a fascinating case study in engineering.
The stabilization project was a continuation of the tower's 850-year-old process of leaning, now secured for future centuries.
The story of the Leaning Tower of Pisa's stabilization highlights the importance of independent creators in providing deep, educational content.
Transcripts
Long ago, maybe upwards of 1-2 million years ago, a river in the central part of what’s now Italy,
emptied into what’s now the Ligurian Sea. It still does, by the way, but it did back then
too. As the sea rose and fell from the tides and the river moved sediment downstream, silt
and soil were deposited across the landscape. In one little spot, in what is now the city of Pisa,
that sea and that river deposited a little bit more sand to the north and a little bit more clay
to the south. And no one knew or cared until around the year 1173, when construction of a
bell tower, or campanile (camp-uh-NEE-lee) for the nearby cathedral began. You know the rest
of this story. For whatever reason, we humans love stuff like the Leaning Tower. There’s just
something special about a massive structure that looks like it’s about to fall over. But you might
not know that it almost did. Over the roughly six centuries from when it was built to modern times,
that iconic tilt continued to increase to a point in 1990 when the tower was closed to the public
for fear that it was near collapse. The Italian Government appointed a committee of engineers,
architects, and experts in historical restoration to decide how to fix the structure once and for
all (or at least for the next several centuries, we hope). And the way they did it is really pretty
cool, if you’re into recreational geology and heavy construction. And, who isn’t!? I’m Grady,
and this is Practical Engineering. Today we’re talking about the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
Five-and-a-half degrees. That was the average tilt of the tower in 1990 when all this got started.
I have to say average because the tilt isn’t the same all the way up. And actually, that fact makes
it possible to track the history of the lean back before it was being monitored. The tower started
construction in 1173 and reached about a third of its total height by 1178 when work was interrupted
by medieval battles with neighboring states. When work started back up nearly a century later,
the tower was already tilting. But the masons didn’t tear it down and start over;
they just made one side taller than the other to bring the structure back into plumb. By 1278,
the tower had reached the seventh cornice, the top of the main structure minus the belfry,
when work was interrupted again. One short century later, the belfry was finally built,
and again with a relative tilt to the rest of the structure to correct for the continued
lean. On the south side of the belfry, there are 6 stairs down to the main tower; on the north side,
only four. The result of all this compensation by the builders is that the Leaning Tower of
Pisa is actually curved. Knowing the timeline of construction and how the tilt varies over
the height of the structure allowed historians to estimate how much sinking and settling the
foundation underwent over time. By 1817, when the first recorded measurement was taken,
the inclination of the tower was about 4.9 degrees, and it just kept going.
The new committee charged with investigating the issue first spent a lot of their time simply
characterizing the situation. They drilled boreholes and tested the soil. They estimated
stability using simple hand calculations. They built a scale model of the tower and
tested how far it could lean before it toppled. They developed computer models of the tower and
its foundation to see how different soil characteristics would affect its stability.
All of the analysis and various engineering investigations all pointed toward the same result:
the tower was very near to collapse.
In 1993, one researcher estimated the factor of safety to be
1.07, meaning (generally) that the underlying soil could withstand a mere 7 percent more weight than
the tower was imposing on it. There was basically no margin left to let the tower continue its lean.
A similar tower in Pavia had collapsed in 1989, and the committee knew they needed to act quickly.
To start, they installed a modern monitoring system that could better track any movement
over time, including surveying benchmarks and inclinometers. I have a video all about this
type of instrumentation if you want to learn more after this. The committee also opted to
take immediate temporary measures to stabilize the tower with something that could eventually
be removed before developing a permanent fix. They built a concrete ring around the base of
the tower and gradually placed lead ingots, about 600 tons in total, on the north side to act as a
counterweight to the overhanging structure. As they added each layer of counterweights,
they monitored the tilt of the tower. It was ugly, but it worked.
For the first time in history,
the tower was moving in the right direction. A few months after they finished the project, the tower
settled into a tilt that was about 48 arcseconds or a hundredth of a degree less than before.
In fact, it worked so well, the committee decided to take it one step further. To reduce the visual
impact of all those lead weights, they proposed to replace them with ten deep anchors that would pull
the northern side of the tower downward to the ground like huge rubber bands. This fix didn’t
go quite so smoothly.
The engineers had assumed that the walkway around the base of the tower,
called the Catino, was structurally separate from the tower. But what they found during
construction of the anchor solution was that some of the tower was resting on the Catino.
The project required removal of part of the catino to make room for a concrete block,
and when they did, the tower started tilting again, this time in the wrong direction,
and fast (about 4 arc seconds per day, enough for serious concern that
the tower might collapse). They quickly abandoned the anchoring plan and added
350 more tonnes of lead weights to stop the movement and focus on a permanent solution.
Engineering ANY solution to a structure of this scale with such a severe tilt is
a challenge in the best circumstances. But adding on the fact that the solution had
to maintain the historical appearance of the building (including leaving the right amount
of lean!) made it even tougher. And after the near disaster of the temporary fix,
the committee knew they would have to be extremely diligent. They ultimately came
up with three ideas to save the tower. The first one was to pump out groundwater from
the sand below the north side of the tower, but they didn’t feel confident that they could
predict how the structure would respond over the long term. Another idea was electroosmosis.
If you’ve seen some of my other videos about settlement, you know that it’s hard to get water
out of clay, and there are quite a few clever ways engineers use to make it happen faster. One
of those ways involves inserting electrodes into the soil and passing electric current through it.
Clay particles have a negative surface charge, so the majority of the ions in the water between the
particles are positively charged. Electro-osmotic consolidation takes advantage of this by applying
a voltage across the soil, causing the water to migrate toward the cathode where it can be pumped
to the surface. The idea seemed promising because, by carefully choosing the location of electrodes,
engineers hoped they could selectively consolidate the clay below the north side of the tower,
reducing its overall tilt. They even performed a large-scale field test near the tower to shake
out some of the kinks and gather data on the effectiveness of the technique. But,
it didn’t work at all. Turns out the soil was too conductive, so things like electrolysis,
corrosion, heat, and all the other effects of mixing electricity and
saturated soil made the process pretty much useless for this particular case.
So, the committee was down to one last idea: underexcavation. If they couldn’t get the soil
below the tower to consolidate, they could just take some out. And again, they would need to test
it out first. So, in 1995, they built a large concrete footing on the Piazza grounds not far
from the Tower. Then, they used inclined drills to bore underneath the footing and gradually remove
some of the underlying soil. Guide tubes kept the boring in the right direction,
and a hollow stem auger inside two casings was advanced below the footing. The outer
casing stayed in place while the inner casing moved with the auger. The auger and the inner
casing were advanced past the outer casing to create a void, and when they were retracted,
the cavity would gently close. At first, it wasn’t looking good. After an initial tilt in the right
direction, the test footing started leaning the wrong way. But the crew continued refining
the process and eventually got it to work, even finding it was possible to steer the movements
by changing the sequence of underexcavation. It was finally time to try it on the real thing.
Knowing the risks and uncertainties involved, the engineers first designed a safeguard system
for the tower if things started to go awry. Cable stays were attached
between the tower and anchoring frames.
The cables could each be tightened individually,
giving the engineers opportunity to stop movement in any undesirable direction if
the drilling didn’t go as planned. In 1999, they started a preliminary trial with 12 holes. And
the plan went perfectly.
Over the course of 5 months, the underexcavation brought
the tilt up by 90 arcseconds, and after a few more months, it settled in at 130 arcseconds,
about four hundredths of a degree. This gave the committee confidence to move on to the final plan.
Starting in 2000, 41 holes were drilled to slowly tilt the tower upright. Over
the course of a year, 38 cubic meters of soil were removed from below the tower,
roughly 70 tonnes. The lead counterweights were removed. A drainage system was installed
to control the fluctuating groundwater levels that exacerbated the tilt. And, the tower was
structurally attached to the Catino, increasing the effective area of the foundation. In the end,
the project had reduced the tilt of the tower by about half a degree, in effect reversing
time to the early 1800s when its likelihood of toppling was much lower. Of course, they
didn’t straighten it all the way. The lean isn’t just a fascinating oddity; it is integral to the
historical character of the tower. It’s a big part of why we care. Tilting is in the Campanile’s DNA,
and in that way, the stabilization project was just a continuation of an 850-year-old process.
Unlike the millions of photos with tourists pretending to hold the tower up, the contractors,
restoration experts, and engineers actually did it (for the next few centuries, at least).
The logistics of the operation to fix the Leaning Tower are really the most fascinating
part of the whole project. This idea of inclined drilling to carefully remove soil with so much
precision is an insider story at its core. On the surface, it’s not really that interesting,
but if you dig deeper, you see how ingenious it really was. I love those kinds of stories,
and I figured you probably do too, so I have a recommendation for you: The Logistics of X.
These videos are put together by the same team as the Wendover Productions YouTube channel,
and they’re so good. Just deep dives into various industries that would otherwise
seem uninteresting if you didn’t get to peek behind the curtain and see how they really
work. I had no idea that so much of the US coal supply comes from a single county.
Maybe you’ve noticed what I have over the past few years,
which is that all my favorite TV networks are just running reality shows, and even high-budget
documentaries that stream online just don’t go deep enough for my tastes. Almost everything
I watch now is being made by independent creators like Brian from Real Engineering,
Sam from Wendover, Scotty from Strange Parts, and Integza. Sam’s series,
the Logists of X (along with a lot more excellent content) is only available on
Nebula, the streaming platform built by and for independent educational creators, including me.
Nebula is basically the answer to the question of what could happen if the best channels on
YouTube didn’t have to cater to an algorithm. It’s just a different model that changes the
incentives and the rewards, and it’s come so far. It’s totally ad-free, with tons of excellent
educational channels and lots of original series and specials that just wouldn’t see the light of
day if they were produced for YouTube where you have to optimize for clickability. It’s a great
last-minute holiday gift; an annual plan is only thirty dollars. And for a limited time,
Nebula is selling lifetime memberships for $300. No tricks or gimmicks, just skip the monthly or
annual subscription, pay once, and you have access forever. My videos go live on Nebula
before they come out on YouTube. If you’re with me that independent creators are the future of great
video, I hope you’ll consider subscribing. Thank you for watching, and let me know what you think!
関連動画をさらに表示
Sejarah Menara Miring Pisa - National Geographic Indonesia
Landmark Ini Mungkin Akan Hilang Dalam Hidupmu
Ch01 Lecture part2 video
My New LAVA SKYSCRAPER On Squid Island… (Minecraft Survival)
Why Is The Netherlands So Insanely Rich
Food Preservation | 5 Food Preservation Methods You Should Know | Techno Food
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)