going under to stay on top -...

Underground Space . Vol. 1, pp. 71- 86. © Pergamon Press 1976. Printed in U.S.A.

Going Under to Stay on Top

CHARLES FAIRHURST

Professor and Head

Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering University of Minnesota

Some relaxation of environmental quality standards may be necessary in the race to meet short term energy demands, but it is important to recognize that energy sufficiency and environmental quality are not always conflicting aims. Increased use of underground space is one example where the two goals can be met simultaneously. This paper reviews some of the exciting possibilities.

"In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not

a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of

worms and an oozy smetZ: nor yet a dry, bare,

sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to

eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.

It had a perfectly round door like a porthole,

painted green, with a shiny yellow brass knob in the

exact middle. The door opened on to a tube-shaped

hall like a tunnel: a very comfortable tunnel with

out smoke, with panelled walls, and floors tiled and

carpeted , provided with polished chairs, and lots

and lots of pegs for hats and coats - the hobbit

was fond of visitors. The tunnel wound on and on,

going fairly but not quite straight into the side of

the hill - The Hill, as all the people for many miles

around called it - and many little round doors

opened out of it, first on one side and then on

another. No going upstairs for the hobbit: bed

rooms, bathrooms, cellars, pantries (lots of these),

wardrobes (he had whole rooms devoted to clothes),

kitchens , diningrooms, all were on the same floor,

and indeed on the same passage. The best rooms

were all on the lefthand side (going in), for these

were the only ones to have windows, deep-set round

windows looking over his garden, and meadows

beyond , sloping down to the river. "

1. R. R. Tolkien [1]

The Hobbit (1937)

INTRODUCTION

"BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE A MOLE!", is the

shocked response oft en given to any suggestion that

development of underground space could alleviate

the much-decried and increasing congestion of sur

face space.

This reaction may be , in part, the normal resis

tance to change of well established habits rein

forced , perhaps , by the 'once bitten, twice shy'

suspicion of technological 'solutions' to complex

social problems. Behind this , however, seems to lie

an inherited , deep, irrational fear, with visions of

dank-darkness , confinement, and gloom. Not limited

to any one group or segment of society , the fear

appears to militate against objective examination of

the merits of sub-surface development. But when

thought is given to the idea, it is soon realized that

the underground can provide an answer to major

problems that are causing public concern . Certainly

we should not allow the possibilities to be dismissed

out of hand on emotional grounds.

La Nier , [2] in an excellent survey of the history

and possibilities of sub-surface use , contends that

the potential is so great that it warrants the devel

opment of a new design discipline, for which he

suggests the title, GEOTECTURE. "Geotecture is to

the sub-surface , as architecture is to the surface."

One fear should be put to rest immediately -

development of underground space is far from being

synonymous with 'living underground'. In fact, a

principal advantage of such development is that it

will allow more room for living on the surface.

Where it is desirable, underground space can be

designed to include windows , natural lighting, and

even , as visitors to the hobbit's home will discover ,

views of attractive landscape!

Troglodytes were also aware of these possibilities.

As La Nier points out , they did not live in sub

human conditions "in the deep recesses of ancient

caves far removed from the daylight" ...

71

Charles Fairhurst 72

ECOLOGY HOUSE

MARSTONS MILLS, MASS. ARCHITECT: .JOt-IN BARNARO

• ENERGY SAVINGS OF 60 °1o BASEO

ON ACTUAL. RESUL.TS

• SUNLIGHT IN EVERY ROOM

• SOUNDPROOF

• 25 °1o LOWER CONSTRUCTION COST

• MAINTENANCE FREE

• PRIVACY

• CONSERVES NATURAL. L.ANCSCAPE

FIG. 1.

CENTRAL. COURT CAN BE COVEREO BY A CLEAR COME PROVICING EVEN GREATER ENERGY SAVINGS

"The center of home life of the early cave dwelling

family was maintained just inside the cave mouth, where

shelter was combined with daylight and a ready escape

for the smoke of the great fires that were so essential a

part of cave existence."

Upon examination, we may discover that , again, we

have been too quick to discredit the intelligence of

our ancestors .

The fundamental point to be recognized is that

'two-dimensional' thinking, wherein it is assumed

that a ll human activities and 'life-support systems'

must be accommodated on the surface, is a con

straint that is self -imposed, unnecess<uy, and dam

agingly restrictive. We can, if we wish, devel op and

use space on , above , and below, the surface. Limita

tions on extensions of space underground are, in

some respects, appredably J ess severe than those

imposed on above-ground construction. The multi

level approach literall y adds a new dimension to

land -use possibilities and introduces a powerful

means of p reserving the surface, enriching rather

than diminishing the quality of life .

Multi-level Space

The aircraft carrier is a good example of multi

level design of a system in which surface space is

very restri cted. All of the available flight deck space

is needed as a l anding-strip, and the en tire com plex

Going Under to Stay on Top 73

FIG , 2. Interior view, looking out to the sunken courtyard, of the Ecology House designed by architect John

Barnard.

of support systems to maintain the floating airport;

- living quarters , hangars, shops, storerooms, ship's

engines, etc. are located in lower decks, with elevators

to move the planes to and from the flight deck. The

result is a much more compact and flexible arrange

ment than a comparable land-based airport.

Another, more familiar example is the basement,

now an essential part of most homes in northern parts

of the U.S.A. and Canada. Below ground but a far

cry from its predecessor, the cellar, the basement

area may include recreation space , bedroom or

study, and workshop, in addition to the main

household facilities for heating, ventilation, plumb

ing, electrical controls , and laundry ; and storgae

space for food, equipment , and supplies. By releas

ing the upper-floor space for other uses, the base

ment enhances the overall comfort and living con

venience of the home.

Many large buildings are now designed to include

a substantial fraction of their total space below

ground , and architects are beginning to focus atten

tion on the possibilities offered by 'basement space.'

[3] Extension of the multi-level idea to part or all

of a city is not unrealistic.* The imaginative devel

opment of the weatherproof 'undercover' complex

at Place Ville-Marie and Place Bonaventure in Mon

treal, is an excellent example of what is possible.

Starting in 1956 by construction in and over the

large open-cut containing the railway tracks to the

main Central Railway Station , a system of attractive

underground shops , offices , restaurants , cinemas and

pedestrian walkways has been developed . The sys

tem is fully integrated with above-ground facilities

and a modern underground transportation system

[4-6]. A visitor cannot fail to be impressed by the

obvious popularity of the complex and the asso

ciated vitality of the Montreal center-city area.

Unlike other North American cities subject to the

same climatic extremes, winter cold no longer drives

the community into suburban hibernation .

The possibilities for development along these lines

can be gauged from the fact that it would require

*Nor is it a new idea! Apparently , [Ponte 5]

Leonardo da Vinci outlined a multi-level city design in the sixteenth century.

Charles Fairhurst 74

FIG. 3. Schematic illustration of underground arterial network in Paris, centered around Les Hailes site. Multi-level system includ es Metro rail subway, car highways, parking, office, commercial and recreational

complexes.

excavation of roughly only 1/3 of the rock down to

a depth of 30 m (100 ft.) beneath a city to provide

underground space equal in volume to that of all of

the above-ground constructed space in the city .

Obviously, much can be accomplished without

immediate recourse to pro ects on such a grand

scale . Programs already underway , such as the re

development of the site of Les Halles and adjacent

areas in Paris, and others recen tly announced, such

as the plans for Moscow quoted below, indicate that

the 'city basement' notion is gaining mome ntum.

MOSCOW PLANS NEW SUB-CITY

"Soviet architects are working on a plan to make the

Moscow of the future a partially underground city.

Eighteen Moscow institutes have contributed to the plan

that would see restaurants, movie theaters, stores and

exhibition halls move underground amid a network of

tunnels and parking garages. The object is to create more

open spaces in the city for parks and recreational and

sports facilities, according to the Tass news agency. No

timetable has been set, but Tass said the project would be

coordinated closely with the city 's master plan for devel

opment over the next 15 to 20 years. It gave no price

tag. In addition to restaurants, theaters and stores, the

planners see swimming pools, markets, warehouses, repair

shops, hairdressing salons and other public services moving

underground. Tass said the architecrs envision their pro

posal saving an estimated 18,000 acres of surface area.

This would be comparable to getting a spacious · street 100

yards wide and 447 miles long, it said. The architects

suggest one-way tunnels, each 2to 3 miles long, be built

through the city center to ease downtown traffic con

gestion, Tass said. The Moscow subway, already the

busiest in the world with about 5 million passengers daily,

would be expanded from its present 90 miles to 198

miles." St. Paul (Minnesota) Sunday Pioneer

Press, March 25, 1973.


r

<'-

- / /' ,, -- -

?{_' -:::;:_ .-

. ---,:;;:;· . J

FIG. 3 (continued).

*

FIG. 4. Cross-section of underground redevelopment of sunken court area of Les Halles, Paris.

-

76 Charles Fairhurst

FEATURES OF UNDERGROUND SPACE

Provision of additional space in city-centers is one

of many uses for which underground development

appears well suited. All have the obvious merit of

increasing the total space available, but two general

features that are somewhat unique deserve detailed

comments. These are (i) preservation of the surface;

and (ii) isolation of a facility from the surface

environment.

Surface Preservation

As populations grow and demands on surface

space intensify , every proposed new use of the

surface is subject to detailed public scrutiny and

debate , and decisions can take many years. At

tempts to provide high-rise living or office accom

modation bring strenuous objections to the aestheti

cally displeasing effects of a structure intruding into

an attractive or familiar skyline. In some cases, the

objections would be largely eliminated if, for exam

ple, parts of a controversial section of a freeway or

several floors of a high-rise building could be lo

cated below ground . Provision of an underground

urban transportation system in association with

below-ground office or work space would further

reduce the congestion that results when high-rise

buildings simultaneously disgorge occupants onto a

single level.

In some cases it may be possible to preserve an

attractive scene or lanscape by building into a

hillside or entirely below ground, whilst retaining

access to natural light. The prize-winning designs

of the new library of the University of

lllinois, Urbana and the Admissions-Records and

Bookstore building of the University of Minnesota

beautifully illustrate this approach. Place Ville-Marie

incorporates daylight wells in the undercover com

plex. In other cases , natural lighting is eliminated

from above-ground structures. Buildings for depart

ment stores , libraries , museums, warehouses , indus

trial plants, etc. are designed without windows to

allow more effective use of the interior space,and to

reduce heating and maintenance costs. In many

cases such facilities could be located underground.

Attention previously given to exterior design could

then be devoted towards provision of a pleasing

internal environment.

In favorable cases construction costs may be

lower than for an equivalent above ground struc

ture. The University of Minnesota building, for

example, cost 3-5% less than an earlier design for

an equivalent above ground structure on the same

site. Even where initial costs may be somewhat

FIG. 5. Admissions - Re cords and Bookstore building under construction at University

of Minnesota has central well bringing daylight to all four subsurfa ce levels.

-


FIG. 6. View of central courtyard of the underground library at the University of Illinois.

higher, the reduced energy and maintenance costs

dramatically reduce the life-time costs.

Possibilities for creating usable space in exhausted

open-pit mines, quarries , sand and gravel pits etc.,

should not be overlooked. It may be desirable, for

example, to construct facilities within the quarry

before filling the remaining space around and above

it. La Nier goes further, suggesting that

"The use of extractive operations as a site preparation

stage preliminary to the construction of new towns on a

massive scale seems aptly suited to the magnitude of

contemporary requirements."

Bligh has proposed large-scale excavation methods

for construction of low-cost mass production earth

sheltered residential housing schemes.

The waste rock from underground excavation is

generally clean and inert and can have a variety of

uses: - as an industrial mineral , building material,

or for land reclamation. Serious proposals have been

made to modify landscapes , creating ski-hills, for

example, in relatvely flat regions near cities. The

waste could also be used to cover above-ground

structures for several purposes, e .g. temperature and

noise insulation, or general landscaping and aesthetic

improvement. Environmentally creative use of the

waste could be a challenging aspect of underground

development.

Anderson [7) argues that there are so und eco

nomic reasons why many of the ancillary operations

of mining undertakings, now located on the surface,

should be placed underground. This would reduce

some of the objections to mining in scenic areas.

Underground mine-space could become a reso urce

in its own right. Inclusion of the value of the space

as part of the return on mining investment could

favorably affect the economics of a potential ore

body, and would add to safety if supports were

designed to keep the mine workings open indefinite

ly. It may be feasible, in some situations, to use

extensive disused workings as the lower reservoir

portion of a pumped-storage* electrical power-

*A pumped storage system is essentially a modi fied form of hydro-electric power plant used to even out demands on electrical generating plants. Water is pumped from a lower reservoir to a higher reservoir during periods of low power demand and then allowed to flow ba ck to the lower reservoir through the turbine to generate power during per iods of peak demand . This permits the more eco nomical design of substantially constant-load gen erating plants. Several such installations have recent ly been constructed underground (although not in mines).


FIG. 7. Extensions to famous Oxford University library go underground too to preserve open space.

generating facility incorporating the mine shaft and

a surface lake. Of course, close attention would

need to be paid to the effect of water action on the

structural behaviour of the underground space.

Hydroelectric power stations are frequently lo·

cated underground . Some of the most impressive

large underground excavations throughout the world

have been for hydroelectric projects [8-12] .

Probably the most widely known use of the

underground is for sewer systems. Most of the

major systems in large towns and cities are 'com

bined ' sewers in which domestic sewage and indus

trial waste are conveyed, together with surface

water run-off, through a common underground sys

tem to a treatment plant before discharge into a river,

Jake , or sea. Overflows during periods of high surface

run-off, particularly during storms or spring snow·

melts, exceed the capacity of the treatment plant

and have in the past been allowed to flow

directly into the 1iver without treatment. Under the

stricter environmental regulations now being im·

posed, such practices will not be permitted. Storage

of the excess sewage during peak flows and sub

sequent treatment during low flow periods is a

much less costly option than that of providing

additional new treatment plants to handle the peak

loads. The cities of Chicago and Boston have opted

to use underground storage. The facilities now being

developed for the purpose by the Greater Chicago

Metropolitan Sanitary District [13] will have a

storage capacity of approximately 11,300 m 3

(4,000,000 cu. ft.) at a depth of around 215 m

(700 ft) below the surface. The system will also be

used in part as a pumped storage facility and will

include underground treatment. Comparable surface

facilities would cost at least four times as much as

the underground system [13] .

Construction of underground sewage plants in

Stockholm is now a regular practice [14].

"The main reason for building underground was lack of

surface land , a problem that vexes many U. S. environ·

mental engineers as well. Undergrounding also has the

advantage of eliminating surface odors, odors that irritate

the neighbors and decrease their property values. Land

prices in Stockholm prohibit the setting aside of large

recreational areas around sewage plants as buffer zones.

And aside from environmental impact, Stockholm resi

dents feel surface land can be put to better use than for

sewage plants. Today a surface plant in Stockholm is

unthinkable! Above the sewage plant are a number of

high-rise buildings."

Going Under to Stay on 1'op 79

In considering the relative merits of underground

and above-ground transportation systems, especially

in areas where the surface is well developed, it is

important to recognize the (additional) central role

of an underground transportation system as the

stimulus for development of a wide variety of other

uses of underground space. Underground tunnels for

a mass-transit system in the Minneapolis-St. Paul

area have been estimated to cost no more than a

compara ble surface system if surface right-of-way

costs ($5 million per mile) are included [15 ,16] .

The examples mentioned indicate that imaginative

use of underground space can do much to preserve

and enhance the attractiveness of the surface. Costs

are often very competetive with surface construc

tion costs, and become daily more and more attrac

tive as available surface land decreases. Multiple use

of subsurface space such as the 'utilidors' in which

transportation, electrical, and other utilities use the

same or inte rconnected corridors can improve the

economic position still further.

Isolation

Separation from the surface by as little as a few

feet of ground cover results in substantial benefits

that are impractical in surface construction. The

solid cover serves to isolate the underground from

surface phenomena and to protect the surface envi

ronment from detrimental effects of underground

facilities. Removal of noxious emissions from indus

trial plant exhausts and, in the case of urban

expressways, from cars, should be easier than for

above ground systems.

Relatively little cover is required to provide vir

tually complete insulation from climatic variations.

In Minnesota, temperatures in the summer may

reach 100°F. (38°C.), dropping in winter to - 30°F.

(-35°C.). Fifty feet (15.4 m .) below the surface the

temperature is constant at 50°F. (10°C.), cor

responding approximately to the average annual

temperature in Minnesota. Similarly, the natural

humidity of an underground opening that is not

ventilated by large circulation of surface air is

constant.

The advantages of underground location for facili

ties requiring climate control are obvious. Refrigera

tion facilities for cold storage require much less

energy to maintain a low temperature [17]. The

insulation provided by the cover and constant (low)

ground temperature are such that the temperature

rise is much slower than in above ground facilities

so that it is usually not necessaty to have full

auxiliary standby equipment, as is required with

surface installations, i.e. repairs can usually be com

pleted before the underground temperature rise

becomes critical. Power costs can be reduced by

running refrigeration equipment only during 'off

peak' periods, when rates are low.

Rock formations also tend to have excellent

damping charactetistics so that very little surface

noise or vibration is transmitted. Combined with the

constant climate and ease of dust control, this

makes underground locations well s uited for assem

bly of precision mechanical and electronic com

ponents. The Brunson Instrument Company, for

example [18], makers of precision surveying and

optical equipment , excavated 13,000 m2 (140,000

square feet) of factory area in limestone bluffs in

Kansas City. The project , completed in 1961, has

attracted the interest of industtialists from all over

the world. Other rehabilitated limestone mine work

ings in Kansas City [19] are extensively used also

for refrigeration and storage of books, archives,

company records, etc.

Heating requirements to bring the underground to

a comfortable working temperature are minimal.

Indeed, in situations where the facility is illumi

nated and occupied, the heat produced by lighting

and by body heat is such as to necessitate con

tinuous cooling, as in many 'well-lit' large office

complexes above ground. Development of more

efficient lighting units generating less hea t would

ease this problem and further reduce energy con

sumption.

The cost and energy advantages of underground

locations for storage and refrigeration , and for

manufacturing facilities are well illustrated by the

comparisons shown for actual installations in Tables

1 and 2 [20]. The comparison is based on 1972-73

experience prior to the recent rapid rise in energy

costs. As prices rise and guarantee of "uninterrupted

fuel supplies" becomes harder to sustain, the energy

saving features of underground or earth-sheltered

construction becomes correspondingly more advan

tageous.

Harrison [21] , citing the advantages of under

ground housing, analyzed the relative energy re

quirements for heating and air conditioning a hypo

thetical 140 m 2 (1500 square foot) house in

Denver, Colorado and concluded that the butied

house co nsumed only 28% as much energy as the

surface house. More recently, Jones [22] has noted

that practical examples, such as the Barnard home

and the two-story· underground headquarters of the

Region 1, Defense Civil Preparedness Agency in

Maynard, Mass., have borne out Harrison's calcula

tions.

Underground gaiages are particularly useful for

winter parking in cold regions. The car is protected

from snow and ice and extreme cold; heat from the

engine, together with the rock insulation , is suffi

cient to avoid costly and frustrating car-sta rting

problems. Parking under large office complexes,

university campuses, airports, etc. seems to be patti

cularly worthwhile. Obviously, similar protection is

given to underground transportation systems. Winter


Table 1. Cost Comparison of Above and Below Ground Storage and Refrigeration

(dollars per square foot)

Installation Costs* Operating Costs

Above Below Above Below

Dry storage

$10

$2.50

$0.03

$0.003

Refrigeration

30

8-10 0.12 0.010

*Excluding cost of land or underground space

Table 2

Cost and Energy Comparisons for a Precision Manufacturing Plant Above and Below Ground

(excluding cost of land or underground space)

Above Ground Underground

(Estimate) (Brunson)

Heating Units (BTU/hour)

'V2,000,000

750,000

Refrigeration (tons)

(for dehumidification) 'V500 to 700 57

Operating Costs ($/year)

'V50,000 to 70,000 3200*

Fire Insurance ($/$1,000) 2.85 0.10

*Sufficient to operate air conditioning plant only during nights when power rates low

driving conditions are much safer and maintenance

problems are much reduced.

The value of easily accessible underground space

in times of emergency (tornadoes, storms, etc.) is well

illustrated by the use of the Underground (Rail)

System for shelter against air raids in the London

Blitz during the Second World War. More recently,

Sweden has developed underground docks for des

troyers and submarines, hangars for fighter aircraft,

machine shops, underground storage chambers for

various imported commodities such as oil, gas, coal,

and wine , and numerous air-raid shelters that are

routinely used as garages [23]. The NORAD mili

tary defense command center in Colorado is an

entirely underground installation as is the Canadian

system .

The protection afforded by the solid barrier and

consequent relative invulnerability to outside varia

tions invites comparison with the location of vital

systems in the human body. The architect Doxiadis

is recorded as saying [24]

"We ought to learn from biology and go underground. In

biology, the circulation systems are always on the inside.

Eventually all urban transit will have to go underground , no

matter what the cost."

At somewhat greater depths, and where the geo

logical conditions are appropriate, the underground

can be used for gas and liquid storage, sometimes in

excavated chambers, and sometimes in unexcavated

permeable rock. (As much as 20% or more of the

total volume of some rock types, particularly sand

stone, consists of interconnected pore space). Stor

age in permeable rock usually involves injection of

gas or low density liquid beneath an anticlinal

impervious dome or cap, the gas being held under

pressure by the natural head of water in the area

[25].

Storage of highly radioactive waste produced by

nuclear reactors poses extremely difficult problems.

Some of the waste constituents will remain danger

ously radioactive for upwards of thousands of years,

where there is essentially no possibliity of the waste

material coming into contact with mankind and life

essentials ("the biosphere"), at least during the time

that the materials are toxic. No acceptable solution

has yet been found, but it appears that burial at


FIG. 8. Geneva's latest airport car park is entirely below ground in new Rotopark system, claimed to conserve on construction and running costs.


FIG. 9. Liquid fuel pumped from Gulf Coast petrochemical plants via pipeline to storage caverns at Monee ,

Ill., located some 150 m (500ft.) below the surface. Courtesy: "Compressed Air" Magazine.

depth underground is probably the most feasible

eventual solution [26-28] . Burial within salt forma

tions (salt domes [26] or salt layers [27], has been

proposed.* The need to find a solution to this as

part of the energy problem is very pressing.

Concern over the possibility -that radioactive

materials may be accidentally released into the

atmosphere has led to strenous demands by the

American public to severely curtail the construction

of nuclear power reactors until the potential hazards

are reduced. However, as with any engineering sys

tem, technological improvement is usually an evolu

tionary process based on observation of the short

comings of existing designs. The isolation provided

by underground construction offers a possible way

out of the dilemma, and at the same time would

allow nuclear power to play a more significant role

in meeting energy requirements, earlier than now

anticipated.

A study [29] by the Environmental Quality

Laboratory of the California Institute of Tech

nology has suggested that it is economically feasible

to construct nuclear reactor facilities at moderate

depths, around 150 m (500 ft.), bel ow the surface,

close to population centers . The isolation will sub

stantially reduce the possibilities of accidental re

lease of radioactivity into the atmosphere , and the

possibility of damage , either accidental (e.g . aircraft

*The mere existence of the highly soluble salt

indicates that it has not been in contact with water for the many thousands of years of its existence. Salt also flows more readily than most rocks and would tend to seal in the wast e.

impact, tornadoes, and severe storms) or intentional

(sabotage , warfare), and would permit the plants to

be situated closer to population centers. It is esti

mated that costs would be within 10% of the cost

of similar plants on the surface. The waste heat

generated by the plants possibly could be used for

home heating, etc. Underground nuclear power

plants have been proposed in Europe [30], based

on conclusions similar to those reached in the

Caltech Laboratory study.

Properly located and constructed underground

structures are Jess vulnerable to earthquake damage.

Duke and Leeds [31] , from a study of available

information on the effects of earthquakes on tun

nels, include the following comments in their con

clusions:

"Severe tunnel damage appears to be inevitable when the

tunnel is crossed by a fault or fault fissure which slips

during the earthquake. Tunnels outside the e picentral

region and well-constructed tunnels in this region but

away from fault breaks, can be ex pected to suffer little or

no damage in strong earthquakes. Within the usual range

of destructive earthquake periods, intensity of shaking

below ground is less severe than on the surface. "

Such features suggest that there is merit in carefully

sited underground location of vital emergency facili

ties, computer control centers, etc. in earthquake

prone regions.

The above examples are not exhaustive, but clear

ly indicate that underground construction offers

advantages ove r surface construction for many appli

cations. Of particular relevance during the current

energy 'crisis', several applications contribute di-


Table 3

Annual Economic Benefits Accruing from Transferring Civil Works Functions to Sub-Surface Space in Billions of Dollars

Cost Category

Shelter

Production

Systems and

Industrial

Structures

Resources

Waste

Water

Control

Solid Waste

Transpor-

tation

Communi-

cations

Energy

Distri-

bution

Total

Direct Costs

2. 8

3.5

1.0

1.0

2.0

2.3

0.5

1.2

14.3

Time 0 4.0 0 0 0 8.0 0 0 12.0

Land 0.3 0

0

0 0.1 0.1 2.5

Energy 3.8 3.8 0 0 0.1 0

0 0 7.7

Pollution

0 0 0 1.3 0.1 4

0

0 5.4

Safety

3

0

0

0

0 3.1

0 0.1 6.2

Reliability

0 0 0.1

0

0 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.4

Material

Resources

3

2.5

0.8

0

0.8

1.0

0.5

0.5

9.1

Total

13.6 14.1

1.9 2.3

3.0

19.6

1.2

2.9

58.6

rectly to energy conservation, whereas others may

assist in the development of new power sources.

FEASIBILITY OF INCREASED USE OF

UNDERGROUND SPACE

Coupling the economic and attractive environ

mental considerations it may seem surprising, 'mole

complex' notwithstanding, that more facilities have

not already been constructed underground. To some

extent this can be explained by the current over

whelming commitment to the surface, not only

physically in huge capital investments but also

mentally in the experience upon which the majority

of engineers, planners and government officials,

naturally tend to draw in contemplating new de

signs. The advertisement and prestige value of a

structure that is dominantly there 'for all to see' is

not a trivial consideration.

To change these attitudes and win enthusiastic

acceptance of the 'underground' will require vigorous

efforts. Carefully conceived regulations and controls

also need to be introduced as soon as possible, to

ensure wise and orderly development as the benefits

become recognized. Such efforts are underway and

increasing in intensity.

In 1968, a Committee of the U. S. National

Academy of Sciences [32] concluded that excava

tion technology could be markedly improved - a

300% increase in excavation rates and an associated

reduction of 30% in excavation costs were con-

sidered quite feasible over a 10 year period if funds

of the order of $20 million per year were expended

on research and development. Research has in

creased subsequently and improvements are follow

ing, as predicted [33] .

A 1972 study [34] by the Underground Con

struction Research Council of the American Society

of Civil Engineers and the American Institute of

Mining Engineers indicated the potential economic

benefits in the U.S.A. to be approximately $60

billion per year. Of this amount, almost $8 billion

per year resulted from energy saving (prior to the

recent energy cost increases). A summary of the

savings for various categories of underground use is

shown in Table 3. The technical and economical

feasibility is thus clearly established .

Experience suggests that social objections to use

of the underground are not likely to be serious

provided the public is correctly informed and aware

as to what is proposed and attitudes are allowed to

adapt and evolve. Much can be done without any

general public use of underground space. Also, as

mentioned, an increasing proportion of department

stores are constructed windowless, provoking no

special complaint from the occupants. The impor

tant point is that the interior space is exciting and

attractively designed.

In 1972, ten years after opening of the com

pletely underground Abo Elementary School (and

fallout shelter) in Artesia, New Mexico, medical

doctors in the area indicated [35], with regard to

the school children


FIG. 10. Extraction of stone by quarrying can leave a most useable space below ground level.

"not only is the school not detrimental to the physical

and mental health of their patients but it is actually a

benefit to some. ... Nine out of ten (of the local public)

recommended that other schools be built like Abo, if

such schools cost no more to build. "

The school playgrounds are on the surface overlying

the classrooms. Experience of employers with

underground industrial facilities has been that em

ployees [34]

"are extremely pleased with the working conditions ...

We have found efficiency to be better than that of offices

above ground ... "

The popularity of 'undercover' shop complexes in

numerous European and North American cities fur

ther attests to the lack of any general inherent

opposition to well lighted , attractive areas below

ground.

Perhaps the greatest cause for concern is the real

possibility that the development of the underground

will be allowed to take place haphazardly, without

regulation. Contamination of aquifers, interference

with existing installations, surface subsidence and

*Further information on these events are reported in the news section of this issue.

other, equally serious, damage could result. In this

context, the invisibility of the underground becomes

a disadvantage, allowing lack of planning to go

further before it is recognized. The need to establish a

national policy for the governance of underground

space use has been emphasized in a recent study

[36] by the National Academy of Sciences. Without

such a policy, this natural asset of enormous poten

tial benefit could become yet another environmental

liability.

Evidence of the growing awareness of the merits

of underground or "earth-sheltered" construction is

provided by several recent conferences held in this

country , including a Symposium on the Develop

ment and Utilization of Underground Space, held at

Kansas City, Missouri in March, 1975 [37]; a

Conference on Alternatives in Energy Conservation:

The Use of Earth Covered Buildings, held at Ft.

Worth Texas in July , 1975 [38] ; and a short course

for architects on Building Underground presented at

the Harvard University Graduate School of Design

in June, 1976.* The forthcoming Swedish mission

to the United States on Underground Construction*

is still another indication of this interest.


Acknowledgements - This paper is a slightly revised version of a paper that originally appeared in the British journal "Underground Services" Volume 2 , No. 3, 1974, pp. 20-27, and appears in response to several requests that it be reprinted .

Several of the thoughts expressed in the paper have evolved from discussions with various professional colleagues , particularly in the Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering at the University of Minnesota. The paper represents an expansion of comments made at a luncheon meeting at the headquarters of Fosroc International Ltd. in London , before an invited group drawn from various branches of government , industry, and universities.

Grateful thanks for permission to reprint the article and produce various illustra tions are expressed to the following:

Mr. R. Tilden-Smith , Editor, Underground Services , and Foundation Publications, Ltd . for permission to reprint the article;

The publishers G. Allen and Unwin Ltd. (London) for the quotation from The Hobbitt ;

The publishers of PARIS PROJECT for the sketches of the proposed redevelopment of Les Hailes ;

Mr. Ambrose Richardson, Head of the Department of Architecture , University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana, for the photograph of the undergraduate library at the University of Illinois. This design was awarded the American Institute of Architects Gold Medal in 1966 for Educational Building Design;

Mr. John E. Barnard , Jr., Architect of Wellesley, Massachusetts for permission to use the photograph of his below-ground house;

Drs. Thomas P. Bligh and Charles R. Nelson for the data in Tables 1 and 2 and other technical items;

The American Society of Civil Engineers for Table 3; The British based Cement and Concrete Association for their assistance in obtaining

illus trative material ; Compressed Air magazine-Ingersoll-Rand Co.

REFERENCES

1. Tolkien, J. R . R . The Hob bitt . J. Allen & Unwin , London, 1937. 2. La Nier , R. Geotecture (Subterranean Accommodation and the Architectural

Potential of Earthworks). M. S. Thesis, Notre Dame University, 1970, 72 pp. 3. Liberating land. Progressive Architecture, No. 3, 1973, pp. 74-79. 4. Ponte, V. Montreal's multi-level city center. Traffic Engineering, Vol. 41 , No.

12, Sep. ,1971, pp. 20 -25, p. 78. (see also The Montreal subway system - le metro, pp. 56 -57, 76 -77 .)

5. Ponte, V. The multi-level city center , pp. 49-66 in The City as a System. Proceedings of workshop series on environmental design for decision makers in government, 1967 -68. Boston Architecture Center, Mass.

6. Blake, P. Vincent Ponte - A new kind of urban designer. Art in America Vol.

57 , No. 5 , Sep. -Oct. 1969, pp. 62-67 . 7. Anderson, R. J. Futme alternatives for the mining industry. Mining Congress

Journal, Vol. 59, No. 5, May 1973 , pp. 30-35 . 8. Libby , J. W. Planning and construction of underground facilities for Kemano

Kitimat project. pp , 651-687 (see 11) 9. Lowe, J. 3rd. Underground features of the Hanabanilla and Binga projects, pp.

651 -657 (see 11) 10. Lang, T. A. Underground experience in the snowy mountains - Australia, pp.

688-783 (see 11) 11 . Cooke, J. B. Major underground ex cavations of the Pacific Gas and Electric

Company. pp. 784-809 (This article indicates that there were at least 300 underground power stations throughout the world in 1959 .) References 8-11 all appear in "Protective Construction in a Nuclear Age," Macmillan, New York, 1961, 885 pp .

12 . Brekke, T. L. and Jorstad , F. A. Large permanent underground openings. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo , 1971, 372 pp.

13. Bacon , V. W. and Painter, W. T. Rock tunnels to control pollution and flooding. pp. 115 -146 in Und erground Rock Chambers , ASCE , New York, 1971 , 600 pp.

14. Eklund , S. and Sandstrom, G. E. Stockholm puts se wage plant underground . Civil Engineering (ASCE ), Vol 43, No. 9, Sep. 1973, pp. 78-83.

15 . Regional transit for Minneapolis, Interim Report, Office of City Co-ordinator, Minneapolis, Minn., July 1972, 76 pp.

16. Nelson, C. R. and Yardley , D. H. Low cost tunneling. Report MTC-73-01. Metropolitan Transit Comm ission, 330 Metro Square, St. Paul, Minn. 5 5101, Dec. 1973, 53 pp.

86 Charles Fairhwsr

J7. Woolw ich , W. R. and Hallowell, E. R. Underground freezer storage facil ities

require attention to 'minor' details. Quick Frozen Foods, March 1972, pp. 85- 86, p. 103.

18. The man and his company. The Harbinger, Vol II, No.9, May 1970, Missouri Divn. of Commerce, St. Louis, Mo.• pp. 4-9.

1 9. Stauffer, T., Sr. Guidebook to the occupance and use of underground space in the greater Kansas City area. Geographic publication No. 1, Dept. of Geology Geography, Univ. of Missouri, Kansas City, Missouri, April 1972. SO pp.

20. Bligh, T. P. and Hamburger, R. Conservation of energy by use of underground space. Proceedings of Workshop on Legal, Economic, and Energy Considerations in the Use of Underground Space, held at Berwick, Maine on June 28, 1973, Nationa l Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1974 pp. 103-1 18.

.21. Harrison, L., Jr. ls it time to go underground? The Navy Civil Engineer, Vol. XJ V, No.3, Fa!J 1973. pp. 28, 29.

22. Jones, L. S. Thinking down through earth. The Navy Civil Engineer, Vol. XVII, No. l, Spring 1976, pp. 4-6,37-39.

23. de Jonge, L Sweden underground. pp. 810- 814 in-Protective Construction in a Nuclear Age, Vol. 2 (see 11 ). (See also 16 mm sound movie - "Sweden goes U nderground" - Atlas Copco AB. Stockholm)

24. Dox.iadis, C. A. Quotation in Reader's Digest, Jan. 1974, p. 30. 25. Katz, D. L. and Coats, K. H. Underground Storage of Fluids. Ulrichs Books,

Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1968, 575 pp. 26. Disposal of radioactive wastes on land. Publication No. 5 19. National Academy

of Sciences/National Research Council, Washington, D.C.. April 1957, 142 pp.

27. Bradshaw, R. L. and McClain, W. C. Project saiL vault. A demonstration of the disposal of high-activity solidified wastes in u n dergrollnd salt mines. ORNL Rept. No. 4555, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tenn.. April 1971,360 pp.

28. An evaluation of the concept of storing radioactive wastes in bedrock below the Savannah River plant site. National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Washington, D.C., !972, 86 pp.

29. Watson, M. B., Kammer, W. A. et al. Underground nuclear power plant siting. E. Q. L. Report No. 6, Environmental Quality Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif. 91109, Sep. 1972, 150 pp.

30. Bemell, L. and Lindbo, T. Tests of air leakage in rock for underground reactor containment. Nuclear Safety, Vol. 6, No.3, Spring 1965, p. 267.

31. Duke, C. M. and Leeds, D. J. Effects of earthquakes on tunnels. pp. 303-328 in ''Protective Construction in a Nuclear Age". (see 1 1).

32. Rapid excavation. Publication No. 1690, National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Washington. D.C., 1968, 48 pp.

33. Digging the urban basement. Mosaic, Vol. 4, No.4. Fall 1973, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. ::!0550, pp. 10-16.

34. Baker, R. F. et aJ. The use of underground space to achieve national goals. Underground Construction Research council of ASCE, 345 47th St., New York, N.Y. 10017, 355 pp.

35. Lutz, F. W., Lynch, P. D. and Lutz, S. B. ABO Revisited. Defense Civil Preparedness Agency. Washington, D. C., June 1972, p. 14.

36. Report on the feasibility of a more coherent national policy for the governance of underground. space. Division of Engineering, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1973,16 pp.

37. Stauffer, T., Sr. and Vineyard, J. D., Eds. The development and use of undergrou.nd space. Proceedings of a symposium held by the Department of

Geosciences, University of Missouri, Kansas City, Mo., March S-7, 1975, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1975, 196 pp.

38. Moreland, F. L., Ed. Alternatives in energy conservation: The use of earth covered buildings. Proceedings of a conference held by the Center for Energy Policy Stud ies, U11iversHy of Texas at Arlington, J uly 9 - 12, 1975, National Science Foundation, NSF/RA-76006, 1975, 353 pp.

going under to stay on top -...

Documents