The Walls of Eupalinos Aqueduct, Samos Island, Greece. Description, Pathology and Proposed Restoration Measures

G. Angistalis, G. Dounias, G. Tsokas, C. Zambas
{"title":"The Walls of Eupalinos Aqueduct, Samos Island, Greece. Description, Pathology and Proposed Restoration Measures","authors":"G. Angistalis, G. Dounias, G. Tsokas, C. Zambas","doi":"10.12681/BGSG.18710","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Aqueduct of Eupalinos was built in the mid-sixth century B.C, on the island of Samos that lies in the archipelago of the north Aegean Sea. Herodotus (481-425 B.C.) was the first historian to refer to the monument. He names Eupalinos, son of Naustrophus, born in the city of Megara as the engineer responsible for the design and construction of this ancient project. He also describes the method of construction that makes this monument unique: “…One is a tunnel, under a hill one hundred and fifty fathoms high, carried entirely through the base of the hill; its excavation started from two portals (αρξάμενον, αμφίστομον) …”. Egnatia Odos S.A2. in cooperation with the Prefecture of Samos and the Ministry of Culture initiated a multi-discipline design study to protect and restore the monument. The designs included surveying works, geological and geophysical investigations, as well as geotechnical, structural and architectural works. The main component of the aqueduct is the 1036 m long tunnel described by Herodotus. For a length of 165 m the tunnel is protected by dry masonry walls and vaults of remarkable quality, built in the Archaic era. For a length of 63 m it is protected by mortared masonry walls and vaults, built in the Roman-era. These walls at some locations have suffered significant deformation, due to ground pressures, and have partially failed. In order to restore the damaged sections of the wall, its structure was investigated with the use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) and Εlectrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT). These methods indicated the thickness of the wall and to some extent the width of the excavation behind it. The space between the dry masonry of the Archaic wall and the excavation perimeter is backfilled with well stacked partially hewn stones. GPR seems to accurately determine the thickness of the massive building stones (20 to 40 cm thick) that form the wall’s sides. ET seems to accurately determine the interface between the excavation perimeter and the backfill. The thickness of the backfill and the wall was found to range from 60 cm to 200 cm. This most likely suggests that at the protected sections the tunnel excavation suffered significant and systematic ground collapses. This is because the derived tunnel excavation dimensions at that point are much larger than the ones of the unprotected tunnel.  The latter combined with the high ground water inflows now present, in the area and the identified poor ground conditions, could justify the decision of Eupalinos to protect the tunnel’s excavation perimeter with the dry masonry walls. Other geophysical and geological investigations identified significant fault zones that cross the tunnel at the previously mentioned locations, where the assumed ground collapses were observed. A simplified deformation analysis that was carried out using finite element modelling shows that the deformation and the observed wall failures can be roughly explained by assuming poor ground conditions around the tunnel. The protection/restoration measures that were dimensioned for the Archaic type wall include: a) a staged, stone by stone, dismantling of the vaults and partially of the wall, b) supporting the ground behind them with stainless steel rock bolts, steel sets and a concrete mantle, and c) rebuilding the whole at its original “pre-deformed” position. These measures (steel sets, concrete mantle and rock bolts) aim in undertaking the full ground load so that the wall, when rebuilt, will be practically unloaded. Due to the different loading conditions and ground failure mode, the restoration measures designed for the Roman-era wall, aim to remove the rock (load) that fell on the roof arch, to prevent further rock falls and to strengthen the mortared masonry with neutral grouts.","PeriodicalId":9519,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece","volume":"433 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12681/BGSG.18710","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The Aqueduct of Eupalinos was built in the mid-sixth century B.C, on the island of Samos that lies in the archipelago of the north Aegean Sea. Herodotus (481-425 B.C.) was the first historian to refer to the monument. He names Eupalinos, son of Naustrophus, born in the city of Megara as the engineer responsible for the design and construction of this ancient project. He also describes the method of construction that makes this monument unique: “…One is a tunnel, under a hill one hundred and fifty fathoms high, carried entirely through the base of the hill; its excavation started from two portals (αρξάμενον, αμφίστομον) …”. Egnatia Odos S.A2. in cooperation with the Prefecture of Samos and the Ministry of Culture initiated a multi-discipline design study to protect and restore the monument. The designs included surveying works, geological and geophysical investigations, as well as geotechnical, structural and architectural works. The main component of the aqueduct is the 1036 m long tunnel described by Herodotus. For a length of 165 m the tunnel is protected by dry masonry walls and vaults of remarkable quality, built in the Archaic era. For a length of 63 m it is protected by mortared masonry walls and vaults, built in the Roman-era. These walls at some locations have suffered significant deformation, due to ground pressures, and have partially failed. In order to restore the damaged sections of the wall, its structure was investigated with the use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) and Εlectrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT). These methods indicated the thickness of the wall and to some extent the width of the excavation behind it. The space between the dry masonry of the Archaic wall and the excavation perimeter is backfilled with well stacked partially hewn stones. GPR seems to accurately determine the thickness of the massive building stones (20 to 40 cm thick) that form the wall’s sides. ET seems to accurately determine the interface between the excavation perimeter and the backfill. The thickness of the backfill and the wall was found to range from 60 cm to 200 cm. This most likely suggests that at the protected sections the tunnel excavation suffered significant and systematic ground collapses. This is because the derived tunnel excavation dimensions at that point are much larger than the ones of the unprotected tunnel.  The latter combined with the high ground water inflows now present, in the area and the identified poor ground conditions, could justify the decision of Eupalinos to protect the tunnel’s excavation perimeter with the dry masonry walls. Other geophysical and geological investigations identified significant fault zones that cross the tunnel at the previously mentioned locations, where the assumed ground collapses were observed. A simplified deformation analysis that was carried out using finite element modelling shows that the deformation and the observed wall failures can be roughly explained by assuming poor ground conditions around the tunnel. The protection/restoration measures that were dimensioned for the Archaic type wall include: a) a staged, stone by stone, dismantling of the vaults and partially of the wall, b) supporting the ground behind them with stainless steel rock bolts, steel sets and a concrete mantle, and c) rebuilding the whole at its original “pre-deformed” position. These measures (steel sets, concrete mantle and rock bolts) aim in undertaking the full ground load so that the wall, when rebuilt, will be practically unloaded. Due to the different loading conditions and ground failure mode, the restoration measures designed for the Roman-era wall, aim to remove the rock (load) that fell on the roof arch, to prevent further rock falls and to strengthen the mortared masonry with neutral grouts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
希腊萨摩斯岛的尤帕利诺斯渡槽墙。描述、病理和建议的修复措施
尤帕利诺斯渡槽建于公元前6世纪中期,位于爱琴海北部群岛的萨摩斯岛上。希罗多德(公元前481-425)是第一位提到这座纪念碑的历史学家。他任命诺斯特罗福斯的儿子尤帕利诺斯(Eupalinos)为工程师,他出生在Megara市,负责设计和建造这个古老的项目。他还描述了使这座纪念碑独一无二的建造方法:“……一个是在一百五十英尺高的山下的隧道,完全穿过山脚;其开挖开始从两个门户(αρξάμενον,αμφίστομον)……”。Egnatia Odos S.A2。与萨摩斯县和文化部合作,发起了一项多学科设计研究,以保护和恢复纪念碑。这些设计包括测量工程、地质和地球物理调查,以及岩土、结构和建筑工程。渡槽的主要组成部分是希罗多德描述的1036米长的隧道。隧道全长165米,由干砌体墙和建于古代的高质量拱顶保护。它长63米,由灰泥砖墙和拱顶保护,建于罗马时代。由于地面压力,这些墙在一些地方遭受了严重的变形,部分已经失效。为了修复受损墙体,利用探地雷达(GPR)和Εlectrical电阻率层析成像(ERT)对其结构进行了研究。这些方法表明了墙的厚度,并在一定程度上表明了墙后开挖的宽度。古代墙体的干砌体和挖掘周界之间的空间用部分凿成的石头进行回填。探地雷达似乎可以准确地确定形成城墙两侧的大块建筑石头(20至40厘米厚)的厚度。ET似乎可以准确地确定开挖周长与回填体之间的界面。回填体和墙体的厚度在60 ~ 200厘米之间。这很可能表明,在受保护的部分,隧道开挖遭受了严重和系统的地面塌陷。这是因为导出的隧道开挖尺寸在该点比无保护隧道大得多。后者与该地区目前存在的高地下水流入和已确定的恶劣地面条件相结合,可以证明Eupalinos决定用干砌体墙保护隧道挖掘周边的决定是合理的。其他地球物理和地质调查发现,在前面提到的地方,有重要的断层带穿过隧道,在那里观察到假定的地面塌陷。利用有限元模型进行的简化变形分析表明,假设隧道周围的地面条件较差,可以大致解释变形和观察到的壁面破坏。古城墙的保护/修复措施包括:a)分阶段,一块石头一块石头地拆除拱顶和部分墙壁,b)用不锈钢岩石螺栓、钢套和混凝土护套支撑其背后的地面,c)在其原始“预变形”位置重建整体。这些措施(钢套、混凝土套和锚杆)的目的是承担全部地面荷载,以便在重建时将墙实际上卸载。由于不同的荷载条件和地面破坏模式,对罗马时代墙体的修复措施旨在移除落在屋顶拱门上的岩石(荷载),防止岩石进一步下落,并用中性浆液加固砂浆砌体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Critical and Strategic Metal Resources of Greece Tsunamis versus extreme meteorological waves: Evidence from the 2004 Aegean Sea cyclone in Samos Island Morphometric Analyses of Greek Caves: How Morphology Predicts Cave Origin First occurrence of Pliorhinus cf. megarhinus (Perrissodactyla, Rhinocerotidae) in Greece Investigating the capability of Sentinel-2 and Worldview-3 VNIR satellite data to detect mineralized zones at an igneous intrusion in the Koutala islet (Lavreotiki, Greece) using laboratory mineralogical analysis, reflectance spectroscopy and spectral indices
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1