_,... J!l!ll"'" fA,-S D I cf, 9 / lZ TR-72 December 1972 (SupersedesTR-72 dated Feb. 1972 which m • ay be used) a ease tot . (\es\g\\' ~~~$5 ··\\\\c,\eat .. a\\(\ . . . ot\\et~\se ' ,.· ,.,. DEFENSE CIVIL PREPAREDNESS . . AGENCY A':Casefor Protective Design Nuclear and Otherwise Environmental Hazards and Civil Defense Robert Berne, AlA Reprinted from: The Construction Specifier (Feb. 72) The Construction Specifications Institute Washington, D.C. Civil Defense at the Federal level has been criticized by some of its friends in the architectural profession for not being more responsive to protection needs against peacetime hazards to public safety. This constructive criticism has not gone unheeded; the image of Civil Defense is changing. Disaster preparedness, in the Federal Civil Defense program, is no longer thought of only in the narrow context of nuclear attack; concern about peacetime hazards does not downgrade the possibility of nuclear war. Riots, tornadoes, earthquakes, pollution-air, water, noise, and visualhurricanes, severe weather are with us now; they command our immediate attention and are most relevant to those at State and local levels of government responsible for disaster preparedness. These hazards are growing in saliency to us as individuals, because in our crowded, cpmplex environment, they touch our li9es more and more. John E. Davis, National Director of Civil Defense recently said, "All over America, peacetime dangers are increasing year after year, in both frequency and severity. And so is the demand by the American people for more protection against such perils as natural disasters, industrial and transportation accidents, fires, explosions, and highway crashes. "But in the past decade especially, two new dangers have been added to the list: civil disturbances and environmental pollution." The average American's sense of security has been shattered. While he may, not have been directly involved in any • of the environmental hazards, nevertheless, he has been placed in close contact with them through the news media; through the wonders of television, for example, a riot in California appears in the New Yorker's living room within hours. Whereas the average citizen once said, "It can't happen to me," he is now saying, "It can happen to me!" And he expects protection to be provided for him and his family, because he is helpless to cope with environmental hazards as an. individual. Fulfilling public safety needs is the responsibility not only of government but also of business, industry, institutions, organizations and professions. This article discusses the contributions of the architect and builder to public safety. The client and the architect must be in complete agreement on this precept if successful environmental-hazard protection is to be achieved within realistic parameters. What better, readymade places are there to find protection in time of disaster than in the Nation's buildings? And this is not necessarily limited to public structures. Let's give some thought to how buildings can best function in an expanded role as part of a community civil-defense system in the emergency-preparedness structure of the United States. The people need full-coverage protection, are entitled to it, and are calling for it. The architect must respond to this need with all the expertise at his command. To do less is to violate the public trust placed in him by the licensing authorities. To be allowed to serve the public as an architect is a privilege, but privilege carries with it responsibility. It is axiomatic that consideration for protection against one hazard in the de~ sign of a building generally reaps dividends by providing some degree of protection against one or more other hazards as well. For example, a building designed to reduce outside noise reaching its occupants will also be protected from vandals. Both hazards require the same treatment to combat their effects-minimizing of exterior openings at vulnerable locations and replacement with less vulnerable material. Being alert to techniques of design that reduce the effects if environmental hazards allows the imaginative architect to produce a bonus for his client by creating protection in addition to that required by the building program. The possibilities are endless, but we will touch only on a few. The machine age produced certain hazards as by-products of progress, and many people were maimed and killed before man learned to cope with them for his survival. But today we are in the nuclear age, and it produces different kinds of hazards. One of these is nuclear war. In a nuclear attack; deadly radioactive fallout could blanket three-quarters of the Nation. In peacetime, nuclear accident could produce the same hazard on a smaller scale. OCD does not advocate single-pur . pose shelter. Instead, over the past 8 years, the Office of Civil Defense has developed a number of radiation-protection design techniques so that architects can design buildings or parts of buildings to do double duty-that is, so that spaces intended for normal use can serve the dual purpose of providing fallout protection when needed. These techniques do not just provide shielding from radiation; they offer protection from other environmental hazards as well. Mass is the only thing which effectively attenuates gamma radiation and brings it down to levels which man can tolerate. The greater the mass, the more effective the shield. Building materials provide the least expensive barriers with the greatest · mass. The heavier the material, the better it shields no matter what its composition. A concrete slab or wall weighing 100 n:>s. per square foot of surface area is just as effective as wood of the same unit weight, regardJess of thickness. The type of material does not alter the shielding charactertics enough to be a factor to consider in design. Lead may be slightly better than others, but it is too expensive to warrant serious consideration. Geometric factors of distance and relationships of building parts to each other and to other buildings, etc. are also important considerations in determining the effectiveness of any building design in shielding its occupants. Techniques in building design that provide radiation protection also lend themselves naturally to protection from other environmental hazards. Let's explore some of these and see how double application can provide a bonus to the building owner and perhaps improve the architect's image in the eyes of his client. Those involved in building maintenance, whether from the administrative or custodial point of view, know that substantial materials, although sometimes more expensive in installation cost than their lighter counterparts, frequently pay dividends in the long run. Studies have found this to be true a good part of the time. Substantial materials are much easier to maintain and require less of a custodial force. They need not be replaced as oftensometimes never-because they may last the life of the building. Substantial materials result in economies like lower insurance costs, a factor of great importance in inflationary times. The architect who brings such important factors to his client's attention is providing a most worthwhile service. Noise, Vandalism One of the best applications of this principle is found in the East Central High School, Tulsa, Oklahoma, designed by William Henry Ryan, AlA, architect. The school board wanted fallout protection, but the architect was asked to include it at no extra cost because of a tight budget. Protection from noise generated by jets at nearby Tulsa airport was also an important program requirement. The architect produced a compact structure with minimum exterior openings which not only filled these requirements but also has reduced the vulnerability to attacks by vandals and lessened potential damage from a riot. Compactness produced two additional bonuses: more economical heating and reduced air-conditioning costs. This school cost only $13.51 per square foot to build (several years ago) including air conditioning. The experiment was so successful that Tulsa is using similar designs in other new schools to reduce maintenance costs and increase protection. We've seen how designing against noise pollution may also constitute protective design against vandalism. Now, let's look at some of the ways in which radiation protection design may provide safeguards from other environmental hazards. The use of dense materials as a method of shielding against gamma radiation has been described. But when used in the vulnerable locations in a structure, they also counteract noise pollution and vandalism, because mass attenuates gamma rays and sound waves by absorption and forms a barrier to vandals. Another point that might be mentioned-the denser the material, the Jess need be used to achieve adequate results. Brick, block, and concrete are excellent. In summary, radiation-protection design can perform triple duty by reducing vulnerability to -gamma radiation, noise, and vandalism. This principle has become a reality in a number of existing structures throughout the country. Tornadoes Two schools whose administrators required tornado shelter as dual-use space are the Blackwell, Oklahoma, High School by Caudill, Rowlett, and Scott of Houston, Texas, and the Nathan Hale Intermediate School at Crestwood, Illinois, by the Perkins and Will Partnership of Chicago. In both schools, the dual-use space has a third function by serving as fallout shelter in a nuclear disaster. This latter protection was maximized at no added cost by careful attention to radiation-protection factors at the same time tornado protection was being considered. Solutions differ at the two schools, however. Blackwell used a theater and choral-and band-practice space below the ground-floor library and study center for its shelter. The extra-heavy overhead slab performs a fourth environmental-protection function by confining unwanted noise to its belowgrade source and maintaining the quiet study environment above. At Nathan Hale, it was not economically possible to go below ground because of a high water table. The architects simply designed a gymnasium wing with the required protection, while the academic and administrative areas are of light steel-frame construction with glass and steel panels. In event of emergency, the school population will seek shelter in the gymnasium wing. Glass Breakage Glass replacement has become a major item in school-operating costs. Over the past few years, glass breakage has become an alarmingly high economic factor in many public-school districts, particularly the larger ones, and in many private and public institutions of higher education. In 1969, New York City spent $1,373,000 for glassreplacement; Chicago-over $2 million; Baltimore-$314,000; Washington, D.C.-$477,000; and San Diego-$92, 780. The $477,000 figure for the District of Columbia was just $40,000 ten years ago. In addition, in 1969, D.C. budgeted $2.5 million for the purchase and installation of special plastic to replace the broken glass. Even this expenditure was not considered adequate. Parents, teachers, and students staged a demonstration at school-board headquarters, because broken glass wasn't replaced ·fast enough to suit them. And, in fact, plastic in vulnerable areas may not be the answer either. While plastic can withstand rocks, it can't withstand cigarette lighters, torches, and abrasives, and, thus, its cost may be considered high compared to results achieved. A concrete-slab roof provides radiation shielding for a building's occupants from the fallout that can accumulate on the roof surface. A concrete slab can also protect building and contents from Molotov cocktails or other objects thrown by vandals and rioters, and severe winds are less apt to disrupt or remove a concrete roof than one of light construction. Many schools designed today, particularly one story, ignore this all-important fact. Too often they employ almostwindowless masonry in vulnerable places, which is fine protection from fallout on the ground and from vandals and rioters. But it completely ignores vulnerability from above by using lightweight roof construction which provides almost no shield from gamma radiation produced by fallout on the roof or from the previously mentioned weather and riot hazards. Examples of excellent schools, from the educational and design points of view, which minimize window openings but have lightweight roof construction, can be seen in the new town of Columbia, Maryland. Even though disaster may never strike, the increased insurance premium dictated by the lightweight IIIII~~H~i~~IU1lii~i00111~1ili~11111 6 3 9072 02204731 4 -. roof design will probably be an endless financial burden to school board after school board and might one day exceed the slightly extra initial cost of a concrete roof. The Dr. Charles R. Drew Junior High School in Detroit, Michigan, by Linn Smith, Demiene, Adams, Inc., architects,· called for maximum vandalism protection in civil disturbances. Entrances were limited to maximize control and security, and exterior glass was appreciably reduced. Shortly after the school was opened, a disturba'nce did occur, and the limited damage sustained is attr'ibuted by school authorities to the design features. Other Protection Raising the building 3 feet or more above the surrounding grade while sloping the ground away from the walls at ground level by use of earth berms is an effective means of reducing and sometimes almost eliminating radiation from fallout on the ground. It is even more effective to raise the grade at the building to a point 3 feet or more above the ground level which, in many cases, might bring the finished grade to window-sill height. All ground-direct radiation is eliminated by this procedure and skyshine, which accounts for about 10 percent of the contribution, is the only radiation entering through windows or walls. It should be noted that these design techniques place earth between the radioactive source and the people in the shelter. Earth is perhaps the least expensive and most readily available material to use for shielding. In areas where flash floods strike, where rivers overflow their banks periodically or without warning, or hurricanes drive water inland, the earth berm does double duty by protecting the interior of the building from flooding. This protection is inexpensive to achieve if considered by the architect early in the preliminarydesign stage. Two excellent examples of buildings that use earth effectively to increase shielding are close to each other and near the Nation's Capital. The Structural Clay Products Institute's new national headquarters, designed by Charles Goodman, FAIA, and Associates of Washington, D.C., located in the Westgate industrial park of suburban Mclean, Va., places the building on an earth berm above the level of the surrounding ground. The Westgate Elementary School, by Beery and Rio, AlA, of Annandale, Va. for the Fairfax County School Board, raises the earth to window-sill level so as to eliminate ground direct radiation. Here, the ground floor of the two-story structure was dropped about 18 inches below natural grade. The excavated material was used to raise the surrounding grade at the building to sill height, and no dirt was hauled from the site. Lowering the ground floor below existing grade also resulted in cost reduction by eliminating foundation walls, some face brick, and reducing heat loss. Placement of baffles in front of entranceways-particularly on school buildings-is necessary to prevent fallout gamma radiation from streaming into corridors and rendering otherwise good shelter space useless. Baffles also protect the entrance from direct attack by vandals and wind and even constitute a small shield against unwanted noises. Conclusions Today's building owners are security minded. Some of IJ;le hazards against which we seek protection can be combated effectively with relatively simple methods. The imaginative architect who considers security in the early design stages of a building, can incorporate it at minimum expense. In fact, the prospective building owner has a right to ask his architect to consider such things and to expect that he will apply design principles that reflect the latest state of the art. About 20,000 architects and engineers throughout the United States have now completed courses conduct" ed by the Office of Civil Defense. These graduate-level courses cover effects of nuclear weapons and protective design from the gamma radiation emitted by fallout. In selecting an architect, the building owner who wants his tenants to have completely up-to-date protection should determine whether his architect has someone on his staff or among his consulting engineers qualified in protective design by the Federal Office of Civil Defense. The Office of Civil Defense also provides advisory services on protective design available to architects at no cost to them or their clients. This service has proved quite popular. Services can be requested by contacting a State or local Civil Defense director. The centers providing these services are located principally at universities or in a State's capital city so that one should be reasonably close to every architect's office. Whim service is requested, a qualified professional will call on the architect and meet with him or his staff to offer suggestions for improving protection on a given project. The service is most productive when requested during early preliminary design stages. Protection, in fact, to be most effective and least expensive, must be programmed into a project and considered in the early-design stage. Environmental hazards can rarely be considered individually, each on its own merits; each must be attacked as part of a total-design concept to take full advantage of all protection design techniques to combine and coordinate protective features where possible. This procedure, effectively applied, can reduce costs. The architect today can play an important role in the effort to save and imptove our environment with good, thoughtful solutions to the challenges it offers in protective design. The public is demanding it on an increasing scale, and clients with responsibility for private, corporate, or governmental funds have a right to expect and get these solutions. Robert Berne, AlA, Is the Chief Architect, Office of Civil Defense. Department of Defense, Washington, D.C. Mr. Berne Is a graduate of Columbia College and the Columbia University School of Architecture. He has been in private practice In Nebraska, Colo rado and Pennsylvania. He was previously head of the Architectural-Building Information Services Department, American Institute of Architects, Washington, D.C. Mr. Berne holds architectural registrations in the District of Columbia, Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Tennessee, and NCARB. He is a member of the Washington-Metropolitan Chapter, AlA; and past president, Colorado Chapter, AlA. DISTRIBUTION: OCD Regions, Staff College State CD Directors Defense Coordinators of Federal Agencies Architects and Engineers Qualified in Fallout Shelter Analysis Professionals Interested In Shelter Construction CE-NAVFAC Field Offices (District Engineers and Public Works Offices) Chief State School Officers Deans of Architecture