Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 187
7
Institutional, Educational, Research, and
Workforce Capacity
A
ddressing sustainability demands a certain level of societal commitment
and capacity to do the necessary work. This chapter examines issues
related to society’s capacity to use underground engineering as part of
the means to enhance urban sustainability. The committee’s task included explor-
ing advantages of underground development, identifying research to capitalize
on underground engineering opportunities, suggesting a research track direction
to enhance needed human capacity, and exploring the drivers for underground
development that enhance sustainability. In deliberating its charge, the commit-
tee came to realize that current models for education, research, and practice in
fields relevant to underground engineering are more likely to encourage ad hoc
and independent activity rather than the interdisciplinary efforts that promote
sustainability. Market forces in the United States often encourage needed work-
force capacity growth and urban and infrastructure development, but advances
are often driven by the need to solve a particular engineering challenge in a par-
ticular setting without necessarily considering the broader societal benefits and
impacts. Current institutional systems are not designed to develop the kinds of
capacity needed for sustainable development. A new framework is needed that
will enhance societal capacity and the types of research, education, training, and
practices needed for sustainable urban planning and infrastructure development.
Societal capacity is greater than workforce capacity and includes:
• Sufficient availability of appropriately trained and experienced engineers,
planners, architects, technicians, and other professionals to teach, research, plan,
design, construct, operate, and maintain effective and resilient underground
facilities;
187
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 187 2/13/2013 10:55:16 AM
OCR for page 188
188 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
• An adequate government, university, and industry commitment to develop
the research capacity needed to keep the United States at the forefront of sci-
ence and technology developments related to urban underground construction
and space use (including the mechanical and electrical systems that are part of
underground infrastructure);
• Sufficiently well-informed citizens and decision makers who appreciate
the long-term implications of underground space use on the quality of life in
urban areas; and
• Adequate institutional planning, policy, educational, and research struc-
tures that support cross-disciplinary and cross-sector initiatives to optimize sus-
tainability and resilience through the use of underground facilities.
The preceding chapters describe realized and potential contributions of
underground infrastructure and engineering to a sustainable urban society, and
many areas of research and action items are identified throughout. The commit-
tee was not asked to prioritize these items because to do so would require an
assessment of greater complexity than this committee could have achieved given
the scale of its assignment. Instead, the committee identifies common themes
related to changes in approaches to urban planning and underground engineering
education, research, and practice necessary to promote urban sustainability. In
this chapter, the committee presents a series of observations, conclusions, action
items, and research necessary to support the most productive use of underground
engineering for sustainable urban development. The conclusions are largely
focused on the institutional frameworks that would support societal capacity,
without which sustainability goals are less likely to be obtained.
COORDINATED FORMAL PLANNING
Observation: There is little strategic coordination of underground infrastructure
development in the United States.
Conclusion 1. Coordinated formal administrative support and manage-
ment of underground infrastructure as part of an integrated, multi-dimen-
sional, above- and belowground system of urban systems is vital to urban
sustainability.
Potential actions:
a. Recognize responsibilities related to formal support for underground
infrastructure as part of the total urban system through coordinated planning
and operations, fostered technological development, and local and regional rule
making.
b. Develop and encourage use of a system for consistent data collection,
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 188 2/6/2013 3:17:18 PM
OCR for page 189
INSTITUTIONAL, EDUCATIONAL, RESEARCH, AND WORKFORCE CAPACITY 189
archiving, and access to be used by all facility owners and operators to aid deci-
sion making.
Research:
a. Explore within the federal government the most appropriate technical and
administrative approaches to facilitate coordinated management of the under-
ground as part of a total urban system. Recognize and coordinate with ongoing
research in this area, for example, that conducted by the National Research
Council (NRC) Transportation Research Board related to road projects.
b. Conduct a technology scan of how countries and cities around the world
collect, manage, make available, and use three-dimensional geological and buried
structure information.
Urban infrastructure generally, and underground infrastructure more specifi-
cally, is owned, constructed, operated, and maintained by many different private-
and public-sector organizations to serve an even larger number of stakeholders.
These different groups may each have their own unique missions, be driven by
different goals, and have different financial vehicles, all of which may be diver-
gent. Contractors hired to construct or operate underground infrastructure may
not have long-term commitment to the infrastructure or the region. There may be
little opportunity for owners and operators to understand the interdependencies
between their respective infrastructure systems.
Consideration of the spatial and functional interdependencies of surface and
underground infrastructure during all phases of infrastructure life cycle is vital
to urban sustainability. However, cultural and political conventions in the United
States tend to recognize, systematically plan, and organize only the real estate
and air rights on or above the surface, effectively ignoring the valuable and non-
renewable real estate beneath our feet (with the exception of resource extraction).
Further, since the 1980s, the United States has lacked a coordinated multi-agency
federal thrust to keep U.S. research and technology at the forefront in under-
ground development. Infrastructure development, in general, and underground
infrastructure development, in particular, suffer in the United States from being
organized by sectors and without any mission agency or other organization within
the federal establishment dedicated to coordination across sectors. This coordina-
tion could lead to a better management of research investments and reduced risk
for federal investments (particularly of large infrastructure projects), and could
also be coordinated with investments by states and municipalities. Integrated,
holistic, and three-dimensional planning is necessary.
All levels of government in many regions of the country are facing economic
difficulties that may be the economic norm for years to come. The intergovern-
mental financial assistance system that has made many underground systems
possible may not be able to invest in underground infrastructure as has been done
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 189 2/13/2013 1:30:15 PM
OCR for page 190
190 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
in the past. Development of an institutional framework that catalyzes sustain-
able growth patterns through strategic targeted investments becomes even more
important under such economic circumstances. Information management, infor-
mation technologies, and communication will be key in facilitating the complex
but efficient research and the design, construction, operation, and management
of underground infrastructure.
Observation: Market forces in the United States encourage workforce capacity
growth and urban and infrastructure development, but often in an ad hoc manner
that may not be consistent with urban sustainability.
Conclusion 2. Development of underground space as part of sustainable
urbanization requires expanded and coordinated communication with stake-
holders to better incorporate site-specific conditions, greater flexibility, and
long-term community needs into infrastructure system design and optimal
lifecycle management.
Potential actions:
a. Establish a federally led interdisciplinary network or organization of
organizations and institutions to guide sustainable patterns in underground infra-
structure development and encourage interdisciplinary research and communica-
tion of findings among all disciplines and stakeholders. Stakeholders include, for
example, designers, long-term planners, architects, safety specialists, and an array
of engineering, geologic, geophysical, environmental, and contracting specialists
from industry, government, and academia.
b. Develop mechanisms for integrated and holistic three-dimensional
research and planning that include information management and communication
technologies to facilitate complex research, design, construction, operation, and
management of underground infrastructure.
Research:
a. Explore models for designing sustainability into engineered systems of
urban systems that recognize interdependencies, vulnerabilities, complexity, and
adaptability. Coordinate ongoing research in the United States and elsewhere
on, for example, complex adaptive systems and human factors engineering (e.g.,
incorporating behavioral science, human performance and capacity, personnel
and training, and human biology and physiology into engineered systems).
b. Develop conceptual models of the complex interactions among multiple
systems (e.g., mechanical, human, and environmental) to improve understanding,
reduce risk, and effectively manage infrastructure amid changing technologies,
societal conditions, and expectations.
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 190 2/6/2013 3:17:18 PM
OCR for page 191
INSTITUTIONAL, EDUCATIONAL, RESEARCH, AND WORKFORCE CAPACITY 191
c. Research the behavior of those operating, maintaining, and using under-
ground infrastructure during normal and worst-case operation scenarios to
optimize the human-technical interfaces in a manner consistent with long-term
values.
An institutional framework that catalyzes sustainable development and ade-
quately revitalizes the U.S. educational and research capacity to address sustain-
able urban underground space is needed. Required technical human capital could
be developed within this framework by bringing federal, state, and local agen-
cies, the engineering and construction industries, and university educators and
researchers under the same umbrella. Underground space development could then
be addressed in a holistic manner through integrated educational and research
programs that extend beyond traditional undergraduate, graduate, and continuing
engineering education and training. This involves significant changes in the basic
structure of several professional degree programs in the United States including
planning, architecture, engineering, public administration, and social and eco-
nomic policy—a difficult undertaking. The nation needs planners that understand
underground space and economists that better understand how underground infra-
structure supports lifeline service provision and a robust economic urban envi-
ronment. The NRC Transportation Research Board and the National Earthquake
Hazard Reduction Program might be studied to determine what elements of those
organizational models might be incorporated into an institutional framework as
discussed here. It is particularly important that engineers understand social and
economic factors that contribute to urban sustainability, but it is just as important
that other stakeholders involved in urban planning and underground development
have realistic expectations of engineering.
Shared information on the relationships among individual systems and over-
all system performance is vital, and an ontology that is accepted across sectors
and institutional cultures is needed for coordination and collaboration (see Box
7.1). Data and models used to understand the direct, indirect, and social costs
of decisions related to individual infrastructure elements over the life cycle of
the system can be the basis for better decision making related to, for example,
performance versus needed investments for repair, rehabilitation, or replacement.
Observation: Complex ownership models for underground infrastructure confuse
responsibility for routine inspections, maintenance, repairs, guidelines, budgets,
and liability.
Conclusion 3. There is a need to understand the ownership and control
models of underground space and to develop guidelines for funding and per-
forming essential periodic inspections, maintenance, and repair of individual
infrastructure elements.
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 191 2/13/2013 1:30:39 PM
OCR for page 192
192 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Research:
a. Analyze multidisciplinary and holistic approaches to view the complex
web of ownership, control, and responsibilities associated with maintenance and
safety of underground infrastructure.
b. Examine multidisciplinary approaches to aid transition to more modern
systems management.
Understanding ownership, liability, and responsibility for underground space
becomes more important if infrastructure management is to support improved
sustainability across the full complexity of interlinked underground systems.
Safety related to failure of, for example, underground utilities also needs to be
addressed. With the increasing appreciation of Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) systems and their vulnerabilities, anticipatory strategies
need to be developed to investigate events and either direct threats to urban
society, or those that are the result of cascading failures. Past underinvestment in
infrastructure construction and rehabilitation increases current and future vulner-
ability as a result of inadequate inspections, unrepaired deterioration, inadequate
system capacity, and lack of adaptation to new demands and challenges.
TECHNOLOGICAL LEADERSHIP
Observation: The United States was a world leader in many areas of underground
science and technology when there was federal and industry investment in under-
ground engineering research and development.
Conclusion 4. Maintaining global competitiveness in underground engineer-
ing education, technology development, and practice supports urban sustain-
ability, resilience, and the standard of living of the United States.
Potential Action: Allocate resources for broader interdisciplinary education
and technology development in underground design and construction.
Research: Expand U.S. research that advances and revolutionizes, for exam-
ple, materials technologies, robotic construction technologies, laser guidance
systems, geographic information systems, and enhanced computer analysis and
visualization systems that improve the ability to model, design, plan, and reduce
risk associated with complex underground systems (see Chapter 6 for more
detail).
It can be argued that achieving and maintaining a technological leadership
position in underground engineering is not necessary for the United States to reap
all the benefits from effective urban underground facilities. The United States
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 192 2/6/2013 3:17:19 PM
OCR for page 193
INSTITUTIONAL, EDUCATIONAL, RESEARCH, AND WORKFORCE CAPACITY 193
BOX 7.1
Managing and Sharing Data
Poorly delineated interdependencies may represent emerging risks, par-
ticularly in relation to extreme events. For example, performance maintenance,
protection from attack, long- or short-term costs, quality of service, or equity of
access and supply need to be investigated in terms of space (area affected,
geographical linkage to secondary impacts, etc.) and time (temporal evolution
of impacts and recovery) in order to optimize design or operation. Different
modeling tools will necessarily serve different sets of stakeholders, but the
information developed by them will be most useful if their formats are compat-
ible and if they have common spatial and temporal registrations. System data
and models often need high security but the means need to be developed to
share the relevant and necessary information for studies of interdependency
with a targeted user community. Uncertainties about data pedigree often exist
in many infrastructure databases, and protocols that can provide information
on data quality, resolution, uncertainty, and trustworthiness for example are
important. Likewise, the management and curation of massive real-time data
flows from performance sensing arrays and smart systems will become more
important, as will tools for data mining, protocols for metadata generation, and
tools to support rapid data interpretation including visualization.
does benefit from technologies developed elsewhere, but it is not in the coun-
try’s best interest to rely as strongly on imported technologies and expertise as is
currently done. Many underground critical facilities are specifically designed to
provide enhanced security and resilience in the face of potential extreme events or
risks. Further, although outside the scope of this report, underground engineering
is an important contributor to national defense and energy capacity. Reduced U.S.
technological capacity in underground engineering can negatively contribute to
economic growth and the global competitiveness of U.S. firms.
The United States has been a world leader in many areas of science and
technology for underground construction (see Box 7.2) in the past. Partnerships
with researchers at academic institutions in the past 40 years contributed to a
continuous flow of ideas, enhanced understanding, and a high-quality graduating
workforce that provided leadership for U.S. industry. However, that leadership is
retiring, and few replacements have been trained. The majority of underground
construction innovation (e.g., slurry walls, tieback anchors, micropiles, deep
soil mixing, jet grouting, slurry and earth-pressure-balance tunneling machines,
cured-in-place pipe relining systems, and many more) now comes from outside
the United States.
Today in the United States, industry and research institutions continue to
collaborate some on technology development, and research institutions often
receive industry support for students and research. Much engineering, construc-
tion, and equipment manufacturing workforce knowledge, expertise, and training
necessary for underground development occur through mentoring, on-the-job and
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 193 2/13/2013 1:31:08 PM
OCR for page 194
194 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
BOX 7.2
Once a World Leader
The United States has been a world leader in underground technologies
in the past. For example, the first fully underground hydroelectric power plant
was constructed at Snoqualmie Falls, Washington, in 1898 (PSE, 2009). Major
developments in hard rock tunnel boring machines came about in the 1960s
as a result of the decision of Chicago planners and the Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago to build deep interceptor tunnels in the
competent dolomite rock to eliminate sewage and storm water overflow into
Lake Michigan (e.g., Hapgood, 2004). These projects engaged university re-
searchers and resulted in knowledge growth. In the 1970s, there was intensive
effort to improve underground construction technology as agencies recognized
the growing need for underground space use in urban areas, particularly in
conjunction with subway (with funding from the Urban Mass Transit Admin-
istration [UMTA]) and combined sewer and water projects (mandated by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]). These projects resulted in U.S.
leadership in ground support technologies (e.g., rock bolting and tunnel lining)
and tunnel boring machine design, invention, and manufacturing. With support
from federal agencies including the National Science Foundation’s Research
Applied to National Needs (RANN) program, UMTA, the Department of De-
fense, EPA, and the Department of Energy, the United States made significant
advances in underground construction technologies in the 1970s and 1980s.
Additionally, innovations in the pipeline construction and utility industries cre-
ated radical new possibilities for pipeline and utility installations through new
concepts in trenchless excavation and the adaptation of directional oil well
drilling technologies to cable and pipeline installations in the 1980s and 1990s.
project-specific problem solving, extensive use of overseas construction firms
on projects, and collaboration with international engineers on temporary assign-
ments. To remain competitive, firms such as Parsons Brinkerhoff have career
development programs to make up for the smaller number of colleges and univer-
sities that provide hands-on underground engineering knowledge. Industry groups
such as the North American Society for Trenchless Technology (see http://nastt.
org/training) also provide courses for professionals on targeted topics. However,
this training is not viewed—even by those with extensive industry experience
on the committee—as a broad education, and there is minimal contribution from
higher education institutions to these efforts.
There are advantages but also important limitations associated with industry-
based training. Economic competiveness within industry means that knowledge
gained by a specific firm tends to remain with that firm and may even leave the
United States if the firm returns overseas at project completion. Commercial
constraints may prevent industry from embracing the challenges associated with
an integrated and holistic approach to urban development, as well as those asso-
ciated with infrastructure sustainability and long-term performance. In contrast,
advancements made at multidisciplinary research institutes are more likely to
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 194 2/6/2013 3:17:20 PM
OCR for page 195
INSTITUTIONAL, EDUCATIONAL, RESEARCH, AND WORKFORCE CAPACITY 195
BOX 7.3
Multidisciplinary Research Aiding Domestic
Competitiveness
From 1977 to 1995, at a time when the United States was a world leader
in underground engineering technologies and innovation, the research orga-
nization with perhaps the broadest mission related to underground construc-
tion was the state-funded Underground Space Center at the University of
Minnesota. The center assembled a multi-disciplinary team to look broadly at
issues affecting underground space use, including public policy, planning, ar-
chitectural design, geotechnical engineering, and underground heat transfer,
and it became a model for several other centers around the world that guide
underground space use in their respective countries. These include centers
at the University of Delft in the Netherlands, Tongji University, Chongqing
University and Nanjing Engineering Institute and other universities in China,
and the Urban Underground Space Center of Japan. While University of
Minnesota center was successful in terms of research activity and maintain-
ing its broad mandate, the lack of a stable base funding for its mission left
it vulnerable to a university- and state-funding recession that resulted in its
closure in 1995.
be of greater societal benefit while also resulting in a more educated domestic
workforce (see Box 7.3). This is even more important as the country prepares to
address projected urban, demographic, and climate-related challenges.
AN EDUCATIONAL FRAMEWORK
Observation: Lack of funding continuity that allows meaningful investment in
equipment and faculty has resulted in a substantial reduction in the number
of U.S. university programs dedicated to integrated underground engineering
research and education.
Conclusion 5. There is a critical shortage in educational, training, and
research opportunities for engineers who wish to learn and practice under-
ground engineering in the United States.
Potential actions:
a. Develop national multidisciplinary, multi-institutional, cross-sector
research centers that focus on different areas in underground engineering and
sustainable urban infrastructure to produce the next generation of leaders in
underground engineering.
b. Integrate graduate underground engineering studies with research pro-
grams or a critical mass of coordinated faculty activity to anchor research to
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 195 2/13/2013 1:31:28 PM
OCR for page 196
196 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
existing programs. Create opportunities to specialize in particular aspects of
underground engineering, but with a multidisciplinary approach.
c. Develop university consortia to aggregate faculty expertise; strengthen
industry-university faculty relationships.
d. Teach better facility planning and management with a multidisciplinary
approach through traditional, distance, or hybrid-style education formats. Train-
eeships (e.g., NSF’s Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeships)
could help to fund programs.
e. Expose undergraduates to multiple disciplines, issues, challenges, and
opportunities associated with sustainable underground space use and engineering.
f. Develop continuing education opportunities for professionals.
g. Develop appropriate credentialing for inspectors, technicians, and opera-
tors of complex underground facilities.
Good engineering depends on strong analytical skills, creativity, ingenu-
ity, professionalism, and leadership (NAE, 2004) as well as on accumulated
knowledge based on old and new successes in underground works. Undergradu-
ate programs that contribute to the kinds of knowledge discussed in this report
include but are not limited to mechanical, electrical, civil, structural, geotechni-
cal and geological engineering, planning, architecture, public policy, fire safety,
and information technology. However, traditional programs in these areas do
not prepare students for an integrated approach to practice. Some interdisciplin-
ary programs in underground engineering at the graduate level conform to the
American Society of Civil Engineer’s Policy 465 to support a Master of Science
(MS) degree (or equivalent) as prerequisite for professional practice (ASCE,
2007). Some examples of programs include the MS in infrastructure engineering
at the University of California at Berkeley, the MS in sustainable and resilient
infrastructure systems at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and the
infrastructure focus of the civil engineering program for the MS in Engineering
at Louisiana Tech University (Brierley and Hawks, 2010). Graduate education at
some schools includes specifically identified foci (e.g., the certificate in tunneling
at the University of Texas at Austin) or specialization within a more generally
named graduate degree program. Cooperative education and internships for all
forms of education are especially important in underground engineering, which
is less codified than, for example, engineering for structural building design.
Education and training has been integrated in some underground engineer-
ing programs including, for example, the tunneling and underground engineering
group at the University of Illinois (1970s and 1980s), the Underground Space
Center at the University of Minnesota (1977-1995), and the Trenchless Tech-
nology Center at Louisiana Tech University. Such research groups significantly
influenced general practice and specific applications, but the size of the programs
paled in comparison with the scale warranted by the level of national investments
in underground space use and infrastructure.
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 196 2/6/2013 3:17:21 PM
OCR for page 197
INSTITUTIONAL, EDUCATIONAL, RESEARCH, AND WORKFORCE CAPACITY 197
Today, there is little expectation of the funding continuity that allows mean-
ingful investment in equipment and faculty needed to support enduring and inte-
grated research programs and the type of integrated graduate studies suggested
here. This relates to the lack of continuous government focus on infrastructure
issues in general, and underground infrastructure in particular. Relatively few
university faculty in the United States engage in tunneling research, and many of
those focus on tunnel performance in seismic and other extreme situations rather
than on improving tunnel design and construction performance. The number of
U.S. university programs dedicated to mining engineering has also reduced sub-
stantially since the 1960s: fewer than 20 exist today.
The decline of research in underground construction and tunneling in uni-
versities in the United States mirrors the fragmentation of U.S. government-
sponsored activities in underground development research. An underground
engineering workforce that supports sustainability cannot be created by simply
merging educational programs of similar skill sets. This is true for several disci-
plines that are at the core of underground engineering such as geotechnical and
mining engineering. Geotechnical engineering, for example, is often treated as
a subdiscipline within civil engineering and hence competes for resources with
structural, transportation, environmental, and other engineering disciplines. The
number of geotechnical engineering faculty at a university may be only 1 or 2,
and seldom more than 5 or 6 in even large civil engineering faculties of 30-40
professors.
Mining engineering education and training has suffered in part as a result of
a reduction in U.S. mining activity in favor of overseas mine development. The
loss of mining engineering programs, faculty, and students, given their similar
core knowledge as their civil engineering colleagues, compounds the human
capacity issues for underground engineering. Specialized knowledge areas such
as tunneling have been put under pressure by state-mandated reductions in credit
hour requirements for undergraduate degrees, the lack of interest by U.S. students
in pursuing advanced degrees, and the limited or sporadic nature of funding
opportunities for research in these fields.
IMPROVING PERFORMANCE
Observation: The complexity of urban infrastructure systems and uncertainties
associated with system design and performance increase with greater and more
varied demands on both above- and belowground infrastructure.
Conclusion 6. Engineers and urban planners could better improve whole
lifecycle facility performance and overall urban sustainability with docu-
mented and validated risk-informed approaches to project planning and
design that balance lifecycle project needs in terms of service delivery, ini-
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 197 2/13/2013 1:31:46 PM
OCR for page 198
198 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
tial costs, resilience against extreme events, and effective maintenance and
operations.
Research:
a. Advance existing and develop new technologies for modeling uncertainty
during all phases of infrastructure life cycle. These include invasive and nonin-
vasive technologies for geologic site characterization (including existing and
legacy infrastructure and materials); analytical and computational design meth-
ods; excavation, ground support, and monitoring technologies; and technologies
for asset management including related to the management of data and security
(see Chapters 6 and 7 for more details).
b. Develop strategies to investigate potential hazards, impending problems,
and cascading evolution of problems, especially given current underinvestment
in infrastructure system rehabilitation.
c. Engineers and planners could use extreme events to understand complex
systems behaviors and interdependencies and to validate computational models
of system performance.
Sustainability and resilience have only been considered in broad terms for
a decade or two, and there are more questions than answers regarding what
sustainability and resilience strategies are most effective. However limited our
current knowledge is, however, it is necessary to act on the best knowledge we
have while rapidly improving our grasp of the complex system interactions,
and while developing metrics to assess progress. In this regard, the educational
framework discussed above can create a new generation of professionals able to
integrate technical disciplines with the emerging understanding of sustainability
and resilience and integrate risk-informed approaches to design, construction,
and management.
Large and complex underground facilities and networks represent major
financial investments, provide critical functions and services for urban living, and
must not degrade health and safety. For most cities, however, major underground
projects are not a normal undertaking and hence present major challenges to
policy makers and the professionals from the planning, architecture, engineer-
ing, financial, insurance, building code, and health and safety sectors that will
be involved with such projects. Trusted information about alternatives, costs,
benefits, and risks that can be used by all from those contributing disciplines is
needed as are the means to improve that information as additional knowledge
and experience is gained. Interdisciplinary research, education, and training that
allow development of practical methods to determine, for example, the remaining
useful life of utilities and services are needed. Consideration of topics such as
how best to reuse or reconfigure underground space as technologies change are
also part of performance and total lifecycle planning.
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 198 2/6/2013 3:17:21 PM
OCR for page 199
INSTITUTIONAL, EDUCATIONAL, RESEARCH, AND WORKFORCE CAPACITY 199
ADVANCING TECHNOLOGY FOR SUSTAINABILITY
Observation: Aging underground infrastructure may be susceptible to deteriora-
tion and issues associated with changing technologies, changing climate, and
societal needs.
Conclusion 7. Underground space development requires a long-term com-
mitment to technological advancements in an environment that is friendly
to improved planning, innovation, and implementation.
Potential actions:
a. Design infrastructure that allows ease of access for inspections, main-
tenance, repairs, upgrades, and reconfigurations in response to new needs or
technologies that allow such work to be completed at lower costs.
b. Consider resource needs, availabilities, and access when making admin-
istrative and technical decisions concerning development. These include energy
resources (e.g., oil, gas, and other energy resources), industrial minerals, high-
value or critical strategic minerals (e.g., gold, uranium, rare earth elements), and
construction materials (e.g., gravel, sand, building stone).
c. Use appropriate models that demonstrate multiple potential scenarios and
allow better infrastructural system planning based on local conditions.
Research:
a. Academia and system stakeholders could collaboratively develop long-
term performance simulation models for complex systems and validate the results
over time to understand dynamic responses and emerging system behaviors.
b. Explore how technologies and innovations from other industries (e.g.,
exploration tools, in situ analytical techniques, measurement-while-drilling sys-
tems, laser scanning, fusion of multi-sensor data) and civilian application of
military research could be applied to underground engineering.
c. Conduct long-term research on the effects of the underground infrastruc-
ture on the natural and built environments to increase the capacity of decision
making for society’s best long-term interests.
d. Research comprehensively and on a common risk-cost-reward basis the
long-term effects on sustainability of underground storage or disposal of urban
wastes (e.g., municipal, sewage, or energy-related products).
Improved technologies can enhance the ability to select the most sustainable
approach to underground space use by making such use cheaper or better. For
example, the development of better planning, design, and construction technolo-
gies can reduce construction costs, minimize deterioration, increase resilience,
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 199 2/13/2013 1:32:05 PM
OCR for page 200
200 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
and address geologic, hydrologic, environmental, thermal, and social issues that
exist or may arise over time. Technologies have improved in the past decades,
but, interestingly, many of the general areas in which improvements are regularly
cited as being needed have not changed. For example, in 1989, the National
Research Council identified the ways in which geotechnology impacts the U.S.
economy, the environment, and national security (NRC, 1989). Multiple research
themes deserving special attention were identified that could contribute to infra-
structure development and rehabilitation including:
• influences of construction on nearby structures;
• trenchless construction technologies for installing and rehabilitating util-
ity pipe networks (see Box 7.4);
• development and use of new materials such as plastic pipe, polymers, and
geosynthetic materials to address infrastructure system needs;
• maintenance and renewal of aging infrastructure systems, including
remote sensing systems to locate and assess infrastructure system quality; and
• an interdisciplinary approach to solving the diverse needs of complex
infrastructure systems.
Research in many of these areas has improved U.S. capacity to develop under-
ground systems, but research in these same areas is still warranted today, espe-
cially given national interest in sustainability and resilience. Chapter 6 provides
a detailed discussion on needed technology innovations associated with site
characterization, and underground infrastructure design, construction, operation,
monitoring, and maintenance that could contribute to sustainable development.
Some specific technology development challenges and opportunities for
research that would aid a more holistic approach to integrated urban system
design and operation are highlighted in previous chapters and in Boxes 7.4 and
7.5.
LIFECYCLE APPROACHES
Observation: Few data exist regarding the environmental and social impacts and
lifecycle sustainability of urban development that can inform technology and
administrative decisions related to long-term (decades to centuries) infrastruc-
ture operation, maintenance, and reduced costs.
Conclusion 8. Comprehensive and scientific retrospective studies of the
direct and indirect costs and impacts of various types of underground proj-
ects are needed to evaluate usefulness and economic, environmental, and
social impacts so that future planning can maximize sustainability.
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 200 2/6/2013 3:17:22 PM
OCR for page 201
INSTITUTIONAL, EDUCATIONAL, RESEARCH, AND WORKFORCE CAPACITY 201
BOX 7.4
Specific Challenges for Pipe and Cable Systems
• Piping systems in the United States have expected service lives of 50
to 100 years, and cables have expected service lives of 10 to 15 years (EPA,
2008). Many systems in the United States have exceeded their expected
service lives and may fail in coming years if not renovated or replaced.
• The development of new pipe and cable materials that perform better
over longer life cycles, as well as of new smart underground infrastructure
networks that monitor their own performance and condition are needed.
Smart systems could allow improved prediction of needed repairs before
costly failures occur. The result could be more intelligent infrastructure main-
tenance planning and integrated decision making. For example, needed
repairs in an area could be coordinated, minimizing combined repair costs
and closure of public rights of way.
• Three-dimensional position and performance information is important,
especially given the premium now placed on new techniques to rehabilitate
conduits and increase capacity of existing pipe in situ rather than creating
new alignments.
• Utilidors that combine utility systems into compact and maintainable
configurations may be effectively justified through development of workable
scenarios for secure multi-utility facilities, lifecycle cost-benefit analyses, and
effective transitioning strategies combined with demonstration projects.
• Future design standards need to include consideration of the role of
individual system elements in the larger urban system over their life cycles.
Standards also need to anticipate, for example, the effects of climate change
in a region (e.g., drainage systems may require greater capacity to accom-
modate increased intensity, duration, and frequency of storms).
• Planning and design will need to accommodate multi-hazard ap-
proaches to risk-based management over the life cycle of systems and will
need to consider long-term robustness, resilience, and sustainability during
design and operation. For example, the impacts on groundwater resources
and structural adequacy, buoyancy, water tightness, and corrosion will require
increased attention in areas affected by changing groundwater levels (espe-
cially if coupled with saltwater intrusion).
Research:
a. Conduct comprehensive and scientific investigations to retrospectively
identify the lifecycle performance of various types of underground infrastructure
and to identify the aspects of project planning, design, construction, and opera-
tion that contribute most to project costs and performance. For example, track
financial (both direct and indirect), environmental (e.g., air and water quality),
and social impacts over an extended period (e.g., decades) following a project
such as Boston’s Central Artery alignment.
b. Develop common metrics for assessing sustainable development more
generally, and for assessing specific economic, environmental, and social impacts.
c. Develop quantitative methods to compare the value of underground space
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 201 2/13/2013 1:32:27 PM
OCR for page 202
202 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
BOX 7.5
Mapping and Data Capture and Assessment Technologies
Urban underground space can be better managed with less labor-in-
tensive means to map accurate positions of all underground utilities, perform
essential lifeline service inspections, and manage the resulting massive da-
tabases. Reliable documentation of all things underground in an accessible
and searchable database system would improve the ability of planners to
maximize underground space use while minimizing construction and main-
tenance costs. The technologies also could lead to better long-term sys-
tems approaches to planning, construction, operations, and maintenance.
The means also could be developed to dynamically link ground information
models with feedback from construction or monitoring equipment to enable
real-time characterization, response prediction, and decision making related
to processes throughout infrastructure life cycles. However, underground data
collection and transmission related to wired system robustness and wireless
system transmission capabilities and energy requirements still present chal-
lenges. Sensors and network systems are needed that can be placed under-
ground in widely distributed and self-organizing networks, that allow long-term
operation (including calibration and location registration and configuration),
and that can be operated remotely. Coordinated technology developments
could be considered in areas such as low-power sensing and systems, power
scavenging and harvesting, or the development of wireless signal transmis-
sion systems in the underground.
on a par with other urban resources (e.g., linked to market value of surface
property) and in consideration of the impacts on future underground use (e.g.,
infrastructure may need to be placed in increasingly difficult ground conditions).
d. Compile data about sustainability aspects of various construction methods
and materials (e.g., the availability of materials and energy embodied in produc-
tion of materials).
Lifecycle analysis is a strategic tool that can inform decisions related to
operations, maintenance, costs, and environmental impacts that affect sustain-
ability. Understanding whether, for example, urban underground development
precludes good stewardship of underground water resources in a region may
require quantifying the amount of evapotranspiration, groundwater recharge,
flow patterns, and pollution, among other factors, enabled because of different
construction techniques or the preservation of natural landscapes. Retrospective
analyses inform strategic prospective lifecycle cost analyses that, ideally, become
part of local and regional planning processes. Decision makers that understand
the true costs of infrastructure options over time are likely better poised to make
decisions that support sustainability. Design decisions that affect sustainabil-
ity include, for example, those that integrate initial (during construction) and
permanent ground support systems that require less construction materials, use
materials with improved performance, or incorporate more waste or by-product
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 202 2/6/2013 3:17:23 PM
OCR for page 203
INSTITUTIONAL, EDUCATIONAL, RESEARCH, AND WORKFORCE CAPACITY 203
materials from other applications (e.g., concrete made from coal fly ash-based
geopolymers).
Capturing all costs, such as diminished air quality or those associated with
disruption and business losses during street closures, in a comparison of proj-
ect alternatives remains a challenge and a topic for future research. Although
costs may differ significantly among similar projects, discrepancies observed
in the cost of a lane-kilometer of roadway in various countries, for example,
suggest that investigating the detailed reasons for lower costs in some countries
as compared to others would be worthwhile. Understanding such relationships
would assist development of a realistic management framework that objectively
distributes total costs over infrastructure life cycle. An entire infrastructure man-
agement framework could be informed that includes planning, documenting
existing conditions, establishing land use requirements (both above and below
ground), and issuance of permits for approved underground use (as directed by
informed policy).
USER SAFETY AND COMFORT
Observation: Underground infrastructure can safely enhance the lives of mil-
lions, but few federal-level safety regulations exist to guide operational safety at
a time when underground system complexity is increasing.
Conclusion 9. Greater user acceptance and occupancy of underground
infrastructure and facilities are likely if underground spaces are planned
with more consideration of utility, ease of access, wayfinding, safety, and
aesthetics.
Potential actions:
a. Develop and adopt performance-based safety mechanisms and codes that
not only account for today’s underground occupancies (e.g., mixed use, multi
level) and risks, but also allow for expansion and change of use. The International
Code Council technical requirements, applicable National Fire Protection Asso-
ciation standards, and other related standards and guidelines could be expanded
and made applicable to underground facilities.
b. Incorporate human factor and complex systems engineering concepts
to guide threat recognition and technical and operational decision making for
normal operations and for operations during times of stress (e.g., in response to
extreme events).
c. Incorporate behavioral science, training, biology and physiology, human
performance and capacity into safety codes and design.
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 203 2/13/2013 1:32:46 PM
OCR for page 204
204 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Research:
a. Research the state of practice and best practices related to safety sys-
tems (e.g., hazard detection, notification, ventilation, fire suppression, emergency
egress, and system integration). Develop appropriate minimum safety system
requirements to incorporate into national-level guidelines and standards.
b. Compare international underground safety codes and guidelines with
those applicable in the United States to identify inadequacies and guide future
practice, recognizing existing efforts in this area (e.g., by the Federal Highway
Administration).
Public acceptance and use of underground space will increase if underground
infrastructure is more convenient and comfortable to use. One design challenge
is long-range planning that incorporates strong connectivity within underground
systems and with surface systems. This means creating usable reasonably con-
nected underground systems that limit pedestrian travel time and lengthy vertical
movement by stairs, escalators, or elevators. However, existing building codes
may not be flexible enough to accommodate the types of design that increase
convenience.
Building codes exist to protect the health and safety of those constructing,
operating, or using infrastructure, but their slowly evolving nature leaves little
room to benefit from evolving technologies. Further, existing safety codes, regu-
lations, and standards designed to address known risks above ground are often
inadequate for large-scale, sustainable development of the underground. Large-
scale public use will require development of new and updated safety regulations
that specifically address risk of the underground and activities (occupancies)
therein.
Allowing variation in design based on better understanding of how to create
safe but interesting and enjoyable underground space without greatly increasing
costs and space requirements remains a challenge. Incorporating more human
factors engineering into underground and urban system design and operation may
improve the underground for safety, productivity, and aesthetics. Research into
new materials and their behaviors, combined with risk assessments and manage-
ment activities that incorporate, for example, provisions for emergency evacua-
tions, rescue, and recovery would benefit the underground environment during
normal operations, as well as during and following stressful events. Identifying
and countering negative perceptions can be as important as safety and technical
challenges and require their own research focus.
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 204 2/6/2013 3:17:23 PM
OCR for page 205
INSTITUTIONAL, EDUCATIONAL, RESEARCH, AND WORKFORCE CAPACITY 205
FINAL THOUGHTS
Observation: Underground space is a valuable but decidedly nonrenewable
resource.
Conclusion 10. Underground space can enhance urban sustainability only if
the underground is thoroughly understood and if underground use and reuse
and the protection of the natural and built environments are incorporated
into long-term total urban infrastructure system planning.
Potential actions:
a. Institute planning of all underground space as part of an evolving urban
system to be carefully engineered or preserved for optimal long-term use and
regional sustainability.
b. Establish reasonably intensive groundwater, soil, and infrastructure moni-
toring practices to track the health of the underground urban environment accord-
ing to the general geologic conditions and use. Use data generated from a range
of environments and situations to inform urban planning in other areas.
It is easy to look at a photograph of a city and envision a three-dimensional
model of its surface structures, skyscrapers, and raised highways. This report
challenges many urban planners, designers, engineers, researchers, contractors,
and infrastructure operators to include the subsurface in this three-dimensional
model, and to coherently link infrastructure between the surface and subsurface.
Just as there is only so much surface area in a given city, there is only so much
usable underground volume beneath the surface. However, unlike infrastructure
on the surface, underground infrastructure cannot be easily removed or rebuilt
when its useful life ends. Once subsurface geologic materials are removed and
infrastructure elements or waste are put in their place, the subsurface cannot be
restored to its original state and possibly may not be used for other purposes. For
this reason, urban sustainability is dependent on thorough understanding of the
underground and how best to plan for the use, reuse, and protection of under-
ground resources—whether referring to natural energy or material resources, or
to the underground space itself.
People have exploited underground space and resources for thousands of
years to advance and protect survival, economic prospects, mythological culture,
and spiritual growth. These endeavors involved high risks offset by the belief that
the benefits of the underground exceeded the dangers—long before there was
detailed understanding of the underground environment or sophisticated tools
with which to explore it. However, early successes and failures in the under-
ground helped build the substantial knowledge base that exists today throughout
the world. The challenge now is to create a comparable legacy to sustain the
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 205 2/13/2013 1:33:03 PM
OCR for page 206
206 UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
nation’s natural resources, economic efficiency, and social solidarity for the long
term. This means expanding our knowledge base in ways that align our technical
tools, collective perceptions, public policies, regulations, and procedures so that
we can reduce risks to negligible levels, create needed services and spaces that
function reliably and lift our spirits, and ultimately provide an integral and bal-
anced support system for livable and sustainable urban areas.
REFERENCES
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 2007. Policy Statement 465 - Academic Prerequi-
sites for Licensure and Professional Practice [online]. Available: http://www.asce.org/Content.
aspx?id=26194 (accessed January 5, 2011).
Brierley, G., and A. Hawks. 2010. Tunnel education in the United States. Mining Engineering.
62(6):150.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Wire and Cable Insulation and Jacketing: Life-
Cycle Assessments for Selected Applications. EPA 744-R-08-001. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, June [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/wire-cable/lfs-lca-chap1.
pdf (accessed October 2, 2012).
Hapgood, F. 2004. The Underground Cutting Edge: The innovators who made digging tunnels high-
tech. Invention and Technology 20(2) [online]. Available: http://www.mindfully.org/Technol-
ogy/2004/Underground-Boring-Machines1sep04.htm (accessed October 2, 2012).
NAE (National Academy of Engineering). 2004. The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the
New Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC (National Research Council). 1989. Geotechnology: Its Impact on Economic Growth, the Envi-
ronment, and National Security. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
PSE (Puget Sound Energy). 2012. Snoqualmie Falls Hydroelectric Project [online]. Available: http://
pse.com/inyourcommunity/king/Pages/Snoqualmie-Falls.aspx (accesses July 31, 2012).
Underground Engineering Camera-Ready.indd 206 2/6/2013 3:17:24 PM
