The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Use of Underground Facilities to Protect Critical Infrastructures: Summary of a Workshop
External site planning. Most buildings are located on sites about twice as large as the floor plan of the building itself. This extra area can provide standoff distance, room for defensive bollards, and reduced access to the site (the White House is a example of this approach).
Facade detailing. Generally the amount of glazing should be minimized to reduce cost.
Internal planning. Critical internal areas such as control centers and utility rooms can be blast-hardened. Such structural hardening requires the use of additional structural steel and reinforced concrete; internal walls also can be constructed of reinforced concrete to minimize the vulnerability of critical systems.
In a typical seven-story, 100,000-square-foot building constructed to the specifications of the General Services Administration (GSA), a reasonable level of blast protection would increase the cost of the building by 8 to 10 percent for these types of structural considerations. About 60 percent of the cost increase is for glass and glazing, either for films or higher-quality laminated or tempered glass.
Locating a building or a critical system underground can reduce the need for and cost of blast hardening. With the exception of physical site planning, all other protective measures are minimized or eliminated for a UGF. There are no glazing or facade issues, and the internal planning considerations will be the same. A less robust underground structure would be required to provide a similar level of protection as a hardened above-ground facility because of the energy attenuation offered by the soil cover and backfill material. Simple reinforced concrete burster slabs also can be used to protect underground structures.
Dr. Daddazio concluded by stating that the protection of infrastructures by UGFs has advantages and disadvantages:
No single issue, either financial or physical, should preclude the use of a UGF for infrastructure protection.
Every application must be considered individually from a risk and cost standpoint.
Locating critical infrastructures underground, especially a centralized system, should always be considered an option.
Questions and Answers
Dr. Baker began by asking the panelists to identify the benefits they thought UGFs offer against cyber-threats. Mr. Daddazio noted that the PCCIP report had described the most effective terrorist threat as a combination of cyber-terrorism and a physical threat. A cyber-threat coupled with a well-placed
Items in cart [1]
