Design Question for an Underground Home

Religious survival cult?

We're setting up a large direct marketing farm operation and want to plan from the beginning to have the lowest operating costs possible. Looking at the direction of energy prices, the real inflation rate, the real unemployment rate and a host of other factors the decision was simple: go underground. It's all about controlling costs and eliminating weather worries. Farming can be risky: some years are good, some are so-so and some years are bad. The best way to control risk is to control costs.

I have an underground home in South Alabama, and even in 100+ degree heat, it's a comfortable 72-73 degrees with no air conditioning running (the summer kitchen where we do our canning is outside). While my neighbors have heating and cooling bills that routinely range from $400 to $600 per month, our electric bills average about $110 per month. The house has no exterior maintenance cost and when I switch over to high-intensity LED lighting I expect my electric bill to go even lower. My goal is a zero net-energy usage home, but it will take a large PV array and a micro-hydro unit to get there.

The net present value approach of of comparing large monthly cash flows (utility bills, maintenance bills, etc.) out of the family budget to the increased up-front cost of going underground tends to make a rather strong argument against building a conventional home. When one has a large family it makes even more sense. Underground homes also tend to have lower tax assessments. It's really all about cash flows and making farming pay.

While your "religious survival cult" comment is understandable in light of current US society's take on people with large families, it's way off the mark in this case.

An underground may be cost effective for a family's home or even for storage area, however I would not recommend it to be used as a barn or to house animals. Ventilation and air quality issues would be a main concern. Ammonia, hydrogen sulfate gas, humidity, etc would require enornmous amounts of air exhcange for even a small number of head. And then there is the issue of waste removal and feeding.

You wrote, "Any thoughts?"

Yes, hire a licensed architect!

You are wiling to build an expensive structure that could potentially fail and possibly catastrophically and take life. You want to take life critical advice from people you don't know on the internet?

However, you won't hire a professional. Does that make sense?

The question is do I go with a monolithic dome, build with shipping containers, or go another route? I was looking for a bit of help in the area of load bearing properties of concrete and steel. I didn't ask for specifics, I asked for general guidance so I could come up with cost figures.

Your assumption that I won't hire a professional is incorrect. There comes a point in planning when one has to make some basic cost assumptions and project those costs into the economic analysis for the project. Without reasonable cost assumptions, it's very difficult to justify beginning the project... and hiring the engineering talent to do the detailed calculations and planning is a project expense.

I will be required to have a licensed engineer do planning and design work before the excavations take place... but I'm not at that point yet. I'm simply trying to make some decisions about which direction this project will take.

I think you need to pull in the pros at the very beginning of the planning stage.

Think of it. When you start any engineering project you need to lay down the requirements.

That takes two forms; what to build, and how to build. You need to do that in that specific order.

You are wasting your time and making extra work by trying to determine how to build before you have nailed down what you are going to build.

What you build will determine exactly how you will build. The requirements are devolved in that order and having professionals at the very beginning is the shortcut to getting to the project completion in the most timely and least costly way.

I'm a structural engineer and it would piss me off no end to be hired just to run the numbers for a concept in which I had had no input.

Save money in the long run, pick your team now, they will be close enough to the program to avoid the dead ends where you will inevitably wander if you continue like to navigate without expert guidance.

Hiring your team now can save spondulics in the long run.

You wrote, "I also love the concept of marrying used steel shipping containers with concrete construction to obtain an Earth Shelter!"

We can't do that down here in Florida, so my plan would be to bury a surplus submarine. Ultimate hurricane shelter as long as guests do not try to fire a torpedo.

Yes, but for the vast portion of Florida, even elevated berms will wick water up into them.

That, and we get some rain here. A few years ago we got nearly 30" of rain over a two day period.

That may a bit excessive for our location, but you do not want to be below any water line when that happens!

Our house was high and dry thanks to the builders' forethought to build atop a good berm.

The other enemy here is mold!

While I am a fan of earth berm homes, they would be a risky adventure here. However, they are popular way up north where winters are severe.

You forgot to include hand grenades, and.... Biological, Chemical and Thermonuclear weapons (NBC) to your list...

But the most important missing item: repelling a Zombie Attack! What a "pill box"!

Just kidding!

I gave you a GA for the Xypex suggestion.

I've specified it many times in the past for hydraulic concrete structures and all types of underground structures and it has yet to fail my expectations even once in 2 decades.

GREAT PRODUCT!!!!

Looks like you're right on track and know what you're doing. I presume you're a General Contractor?

I think bumping up the T-beam stem width to -inches may be necessary, just to be able to fit the main bars in as well as the stirrup bars...for concrete cover and minimum acceptable spacing between the main bars. Also, for cost crunching purposes I'd probably bump up the initial overall beam depth to 22 or 24 inches. That's a heck of a lot of load they're going to carry at 30-foot span. I'd probably aim for no less than a 5,000 psi concrete compressive strength (f'c) at 28-days age. You're going to need that extra bit of strength.

In regard to the overall concrete picture requirements, especially for providing water tightness (for nearly the entire structure), I'd go with a very rich concrete mix, possibly using up to 650# of Portland Cement per CY, but also use up to 17% Fly Ash (Type F) by weight as a substitution for an equal weight of cement. Also, keep the Water-to-Cement Ratio (W/C) down around 0.40 and a maximum slump of 3 inches...air entrainment use in the mixture per ACI is a must, even in Kentucky.

You can juice up the mixture with a mid-range plasticizer for workability issues, but don't add additional water during the production run or later during it's placement. All of this will give you a very dense and high-early strength concrete that will be very resistant to passing water. It may absorb the water, but it will have a hard time passing through the concrete elements. The key to all of this will be not to strip the forms for 10 to 14 days after concrete placement (to prevent the surface from drying too soon and prevent accelerated shrinkage crack rates) and having proper concrete curing....wet curing would be the best, with flooding the hardened (after setup) concrete the most preferable way to provide wet curing.....this will minimize shrinkage and micro cracks. Additionally, using poly fibers in the mixture will help with the micro-cracking problems. Also, by providing nearly double the required minimum Shrinkage & Temp steel ratio (per ACI 318) will help a lot towards minimizing shrinkage cracking. I've used this approach many times very successfully in water and wastewater treatment plants and other hydraulic structures.

Good luck with your project!

Apple's fortune was founded by guys playing "what if" on their spreadsheets. It is interesting to try to incorporate something big, cheap and strong like a container into a building. Done artistically, it can create a nice space.

At this point, what is needed is a brainstorming session on different ways to arrange things to minimize the material needed. A CAD program with FEA could be a handy assistant, or anyone who is adept at running one to get comparisons between different beams, etc.

Seeing as it is a community thing, try getting in touch with the Extreme Home Makeover guys. They might take an interest and give more help than you ever deamed of.

I see I got under at least one person's skin with my snarky OT comment. Just the imp in me.

In reality I have a lot of interest in and respect for Brian's objectives and his real world approach to the underground home. I'm an engineer myself and know from my own career experience how constrained the thinking of an engineer can be. I've also seen enormous success stories grow out of problems approached from a "what can we build" direction.

Large constructions that are full of new challenges and innovative ideas can present a Gordian knot of engineering problems that require solution. The winnowing out of these problems in the abstract can require enormously costly engineering effort to reach the point where the important problems are illuminated. NASA's manned space program is a good example.

There is much appeal in today's world of computer analysis and design for the idea of designing everything first. But I think any experienced engineer will tell you that his usefulness in early concept stages of a project derives primarily from his own past experience well tempered with the numerical refinement that comes with his profession. To that end I believe the professional engineer participating in Brian's project at this point should view this as an advisory "cost of sales" effort rather than "billable hours". Engineers have a different view point from the builders and this is important at the project feasibility stage. And the best engineers will have enough confidence in their own capabilities to allow themselves to bring the necessary creativity to this party.

Captmoosie has raised his hand to the extent he is able to participate; the burden of geography and state licensing among others being an obvious restriction. Perhaps there is some engineer closer to you who is ready to invest his time in working with you on what I believe to be a major future building trend for upscale detached home building.

Regardless of your beliefs on the subject of climate change recent experiences with weather extremes are telling us volumes about the risks and costs of present day home construction methods. The demand for new approaches can only grow in the near term. I feel this is a ground floor opportunity for smart building contractors and civil engineers.

Ed Weldon

I wonder if you have considered a cost effective concrete, floor, wall & roof solution

like "CorCon" (corrugated concrete) a fast, simple, re-usable formwork system -

http://www.corcon.com/

That would help you keep cost down & build an earth covered structure.

My thoughts exactly. except, maybe forget the concrete walls, and reduce the mass (as Capt Moosie suggests) of the roof. Possibly bridge the containers with steel, insulate with foam, waterproof, etc., then green it up. I believe fully loaded containers can be stacked at full load (50,000 lbs) to at least ten, possibly 12, high, with a safety factor of 1.5. Welded, they would have exceptional rigidity and load capacity far beyond the stacked rating. That is without opening the doors, of course.

The interior space could be quite dismal, I believe., but we all need lots of closets, pantries, utility rooms and bathrooms, don't we. Windows, doors, etc., will require some aggressive engineering creativity. It is very interesting, and I wish you good luck. Good builders explore technology in the field in ways that non-builders don't, and sometimes those ideas are novel and progressive, moving the bar along.

Good thread, once we got past the if you have to ask the question, you're not qualified to understand the answer phase of the program...

Here's a bit of unrelated shipping container porn

http://thechive.com/2011/07/26/unbelievable-home-built-out-of-two-shipping-containers-39-photos/

I believe you would be better off using precast concrete culvert sections.

Have some fun today,

PAPADOC

RMFR

I live in a Geodesic dome and at one time had thoughts of trying to go underground. I believe they would be well suited for this application.

In a 3 frequency dome there are only 3 different lengths of members to deal with. With a little color coding, even the kids can help put one together. You will not need a crane to assemble the structure.

Since the geodesic dome design exerts all the stress to the connecting hubs, if your structural engineer needs more strength then the only variables are the width of the struts and size of the connecting plates. That alone would make your spreadsheet guestimating scalable and a little easier.

There is less material needed to enclose the space than is needed to enclose a similar sf of a box.

The waterproofing will not contain right angle bends (except at the connection to the footing).

I am not sure what size your shipping containers are or how much work it would take to clean them up or strengthen them, but it would seem the cost per sf of floor space would be less with the dome option.

What you are planning on and technique will be non livable, Underground homes if built correctly are wonderful homes with many advantages. I know I built one to view go to www.domehome.ca lots of photos and discussion on what can go wrong. No need to have issues as I did due to contractor screwing up in many areas. My contractor was Terra Dome they are in Missouri and they have the forming system but you have to watch them for some reason they are prone to laxity to detail and outright foolishness. Underground homes never have any insulation on the inside unless you are best friends with mold and mildew. Closed cell insulation on the outside of the cell is 100% mandatory both in insulation and in moisture control. Good luck.

I have heard of worse projects and you are on the right track on many issues. May I suggest a back door option.

You might get away with installing drywall, but I would wait until the installation is completed to mud the walls unless you want to be fixing cracks at all the seams.

"I'm the contractor for this project, but worrying about "screwing up" isn't the real problem. That implies that I knew I was supposed to do something and didn't do it, or made a mistake in something I did do. The real problem is not knowing the right questions to ask or issues to consider, because if one doesn't know the questions to ask then there eventually comes that moment when you turn around and meet Mr. Murphy. His visits can be expensive."

Kudos for taking responsibility for the project design. If you look at the comments, it appears to have a high difficulty factor, with a lot of potential for "screwing up"

Have you thought of using reefer containers? They are already insulated, and just need a solid floor to go over the pre-existing 'ridged' floor. It would certainly save on fit out costs.

Call Gadhafi he might give the specs.

Vince

Brian - If you're set on this construction technique I will not sway you, however, if you want something that is simple, stronger (w/o interior support), more energy efficient and quicker, go to my friend, David South's site, http://www.monolithic.com/ , to investigate a concept he has used underground before. Just a thought.

My suggestion is to forego the shipping containers and take a look at the pre-cast construction techniques commonly used for parking structures. Tip-up concrete walls and pre-cast roof spans should easily provide a 56'x72' open space that will withstand the backfill and live loads, and would not use any more concrete than the plans you described. You would then be free to frame in the rooms any way you want without being constrained by steel walls 7-8 ft apart. I would suggest avoiding the live loads by placing your vegetable garden over the house.

I must be missing something because I cannot see how you get the dimensions you provided. Exterior dimensions of hi-cube containers are 40'x8'x9.5'. Standard containers are 8.5' high. (2) rows of 8 ft wide containers with 24 ft in between= 40 ft. 6-40 ft containers in each row, doublestacked so each row is 2 containers high and 3 containers long is 120 ft long. Adding the containers across the front and back gives a clear space between the containers of 24'x120'

Trying it a different way, a 40 ft container across the front and back, and the side rows beyond them give 56 ft wide overall (40'+ (2x8')). Overal length with (2) 40 ft containers down each side would give an 80 ft overall length (depth). This arrangement gives a 40'x66' clear space between the cantainers. Adding another container to each side row increases the space to 40'x120'.

A diagram would be very helpful.

Brian (and Captmoosie) -- I have one other thought on this project and it relates to what seems to be the major stumbling block you guys are working on. (I'm a layperson here; a mechanical engineer cannot add much useful technical content to this discussion)

What exactly are you trying to accomplish with the "roof" of this structure? I'd suggest a written list of the objectives of the roof structure and a critical evaluation of the importance of each. Maybe assign a dollar value. Yes, I understand the emotional value of preserving some 4000 square feet of farmland and the sales publicity that can come from finding the right engineering design for the job. But realize a whole lot of painful development work and failures may precede that lofty goal.

In other words, is it truly critical that you climb to the peak of the mountain when you are still working on the hike to the basecamp? .......... Ed Weldon

As you suggest, if you build a replica of Hitler's Berlin bunker, the fascist police may regard you as a rival. However, aside from the political reasons, let me suggest a counter concept, if only for cost comparisons. Dig a hole or holes on your ridge, situated do that they can be drained by gravity. Use a minimum of retaining structure to support the walls of the hole, no insulation or waterproofing. Forego the cows on the roof. Put into the hole a simple structure with a roof, something like a pole barn or prefabricated steel utility building. The roof can be above grade, extended to cover the edges of the hole, but if water runs down the walls, let it drain into the gravel floor and out the pipe which runs downhill. Have at least a few transparent or translucent panels to let in sunlight. You now have a microclimate something like the coast of California, cool, moist, not likely to freeze or get too hot. You can grow ivy on the walls, plant trees and flowers and vegetables, all good for the soul. Then, on the well drained gravel floor, build a "California house"; a tent, a simple almost uninsulated wooden house, adobe, whatever. The roof of the house need support only itself, no snow or wind loads. Even in winter, one can look out a window or walk out the door and enjoy sunlight and greenery. The difference in temperature between the air in the hole and the desired indoor air is small, so heating or cooling costs are small. You may need shades on the skylights in summer, but passive solar heating is possible in winter if the transparent panels are properly oriented. Have several entrances/exits, in case of fire. If the paranoid police can peer through your roof and assure themselves the flowers are not hemp, that's one more thing not to worry about. True, you may not survive World War 3, but I'll bet the overall cost would be a lot less than the bombproof bunker, and it won't go dark when the power fails. By the way, I was recently in a port, St. Petersburg, Russia, if memory serves, which had several buildings, including a large-span passenger receiving and customs hall, which were built by stacking steel shipping containers about three high. Toilets, etc. were in the containers, but mainly they were load supporting walls for the large hall.

Brian - You need make no oral or other defense of your strategy or the rationale behind it. It is the nature of human beings to concern themselves with the future of their offspring. We are living in a era when all the social and cultural unknowns are supplemented by unknowns and even learned predictions of catastrophic changes in our environment. It is hard to argue with the wisdom of your strategy in light of all the unknowns we face.

But, into the details. I play the role of the engineer who focuses on the major technical obstacles. THE ROOF. Why the fixation on a roof that must be able to support agricultural activities? This looks like a big strain on the budget.

You do not state a need for concealment (for security reasons) which could otherwise be a reason to have the roof look exactly like the surrounding farmland and therefore be able to sustain loads typical of agricultural activities. If that is a real issue then it could support the direction you are going in. But absent that need a different roof could make more sense. Does the building need to be absolutely "underground". If that is part of a business plan, then OK. Is that the case? Perhaps some above ground signature is OK.

Humans have been building mounds for many millennia. They are still there right there in your neighborhood, remnants of the Mississippian culture of native Americans. The mound would be obviously unsuitable for tractors. The raised area between some reinforced concrete retaining walls with drains at ground level would be obviously unsuitable for tractors. Fill it with lightweight porous volcanic rock to hold weight down, facilitate drainage and provide insulation. Backfill outside the walls at an angle steep enough to discourage vehicles. Of course my suggestion here is just a swag. But it suggests many other alternatives.

This is an example of what I mean when I suggest getting to the root of the problem and clarify your objectives.

Ed Weldon

Great first post!

I would imagine that the major issue with insulation is not the temperature gradient, but the ability for the colder ground to sink heat away versus open cold air.

It is much like when you submerse yourself in water that is 80° you will get cold after a period of time compared to standing in 80° ambient air, which will feel warm.

as a concrete expert what do you think about using pre cast culvert sections as underground housing?

Here's an old school underground solution [it's more than a house]

http://www.undergroundgardens.com/

First, I'm not a concrete expert by any means, but precast culvert is expensive and limited in its capacity. Ever try living in a home with rooms no wider than 8 feet? It gets claustrophobic. Second, with respect to your link, he dug those tunnels before any serious regulatory overhead came into play. Try it today and watch how fast you get a "cease and desist" order nailed to your door. The age of Hobbits is over. The age of bureaucracy has come.

I don't mean to be rude, but only a suicidal fool walks into the pasture and pokes the Jersey bull with a sharp stick. Especially if he can't run, can't hide and doesn't have a large (loaded) rifle.

Too expensive

great answer

I didn't know the span was limited to 8 feet

the link to Forstiere Underground Gardens I think provides conceptual support for your thesis. The methodology doesn't apply

From what you have written, you are planning a community. A more comprehensive approach will provide many benefits beyond the increased efficiency of the plant [infrastructure]

I am in no way offended by anything you have written

Thanks for sharing

I've seen pre-cast concrete culvert sections up to 12 feet. I don't know the maximum size of the pre-cast units, but, I'm sure it's over 12 ft. The concrete in these sections is quality controlled and, of course, can withstand vehicular traffic and earth load. There would be no concern about driving a tractor or even an 18-wheeler over the structure. With air entrainment added, it may not need to be insulated.

Check with your local Department of Transportation to find some local suppliers. They could probably direct you to where some are being installed. And, openings can be provided when cast or they can be cut in the field. I believe it would really be worth your time to check out the cost comparison of pre-cast concrete culvert sections. It would certainly simplify the construction. A lot of times, simpler is cheaper.

Have some fun today

PAPADOC

RMFR

I'm not following this fixation on culverts. The usable space in even a 12 foot culvert is minimal, and cavelike, not at all what the OP looking for.

I had asked OP about using culverts back in #42

If the end use required heavy equipment above there could be some advantages to using such sections

the marketing to the community will make or break the long range success of the project.

look like a cult, get treated like a cult, especially in a post "Patriot Act" world

Overtly setting yourself apart from the community will tend to make it more difficult to do something different especially in the construction trades

The cost of construction & lower climate control expenditures are good

security & safety are probably a mixed bag, the site factoring in heavily

This man is 100% correct on the insulation factor.. There is a right way and a wrong way and the mold will destroy your health and home..Of course you could gas it with chlorine dioxide on a routine basis. Even our contractor who claimed to have poured 500 homes in 15 years gave damn poor performance. All that work had to be redone on my home..www.domehome.ca

Hummmm ..........

After a bit of looking -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3EAJex1RVo&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMpGRN1fVmE&feature=fvwrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsVMIBZ2JCI&feature=fvwrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO9mZ_j71eA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgmubPdH_vA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GV6U5HoUsg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUMqYSOlpNg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohQrI7bM0dY&feature=related

A while latter, I think the idea of "Above ground" and part covering (after

wall strengthening ), some of the structure, is a better way to build.

All the mould & water issues are more controllable ............. Happy viewing !

I still think something flaky is going on - too much worry about security and family size.

Who has to worry about the cops breaking in all the time?

You wrote, "Who has to worry about the cops breaking in all the time?"

You are right. There are something like 8,000 crimes (robberies, home invasions, burglaries) on US homes every day (according to the FBI).

The number of police warrant break ins is far, far less than that. Almost all of those are based on solid evidence of a crime.

I am far more concerned about a criminal breaking in than the police making a mistake.

Totally agreed about the possibilities - however living underground stops thieves?

It may restrict their access but stop them - don't think so.

It is a two edge sword.

On one hand it may improve security by reducing entry points. There have been homes and businesses burglarized by sawing through the roof and walls.

The flip side is that you may be trapped in your home if caught in a home invasion, fire, or flood. With an above ground home you at the least have options to escape through the windows.

The same goes for rescue. We have stickers that can be placed on windows called Tot Finders that indicate to fire and paramedic rescue personnel where children might be found.

Even elderly people are sometimes unable to respond to well-being checks and require entry by police or emergency personnel. I hear these stories in our own town. Family that live out of state can not reach their elder parents or grandparents for days or weeks. The police are asked to check on these people.

One growing trend is to provide entry methods for police and rescue forces by either leaving keys in special locked boxes or at neighbors so that first responders can save lives.

Florida has a lot of retired people that require special services for their life. You want to keep the bad people out, but not trap yourself in your own fortress where you perish in an emergency.

We have the same problem with window bars. They can keep people out or keep you in, trapped with a raging fire.

Cuts both ways.

seems like OP left the building

one of the less than glowing critiques probably hit truth a nerve...

Sensitive? No.

I wasn't that interested in following the linguistics discussion,

As far as the critiques, the only one that made sense was Ed Weldon, who kept asking me to quantify issues related to the roof. That had me go back and re-evaluate a number of issues (most important was whether I'd fallen in love with an idea past the point of efficiency).

The end result was that I'm comfortable that the overall parameters provide a very cost-efficient and liveable structure, and the ability to do a lot of the construction in a shop environment adds to the labor and material efficiencies.

Having said that, a couple of questions arose concerning the wall construction. What I plan to do is use corrugated sheeting (removed from the containers- the roof, for example) as form material for the perimeter wall. The cross-section below gives the overhead view of what I'm talking about. I'd begin by bracing the outer form sheet against the container wall and drilling through both pieces, using eight-foot long, one-inch by 1/8th inch strapping material that had already had appropriate holes punched in them as a drilling guide.

With the holes drilled through the two sheets, I'd then pull the outer sheet away from the container the appropriate distance (thickness of the wall) and run pre-cut lengths of rebar through the holes and weld them (inside and out) to the 1" x 1/8" strapping. Since the walls and roof of a container are made of 2mm thick steel, the strapping material provides support and external bracing, minimizing the amount of shoring required when the form is filled with concrete (with a few gussets to ensure stability, the form is now part of the container).

Thus, the end result is something like a nelson shear stud that also holds the outer form attached to the container. That means the WWR must be placed and tied in at the appropriate distance from form walls prior to the outer form wall being attached. After the outer form is attached, it can be mostly covered with the appropriate amount of foam insulation, leaving a clear space at the top and ends which can be filled after the containers are in place and welded together.

That leaves only the vertical rebar which needs to be tied to the rebar in the foundation. My plan at the moment is to place the container in the correct position, but on blocks about 3 feet off the ground. Insert the vertical rebar down through the form from the top and when it's tied in to the foundation rebar, remove the blocks and lower the container into place.

Question #1: In Europe, it is common to weld rebar splices together, yet in the US it isn't. What would be the effect of welding the vertical rebar together, since it's purpose is primarily compressive in nature in this application? Wouldn't that benefit the compression strength by ensuring a better connection?

Question # 2: In the graphic above, I have the corrugation of the outer sheet opposed to the sheet that forms the wall of the container. I could just as easily have the corrugation match. Which would be better from a compressive strength standpoint- matching or opposed? Which would be better for resisting lateral pressure?

Question #3: CapMoosie suggested that the perimeter wall should be thought of in terms of being a retaining support wall. What is the effect of the corrugated steel encasement on the soil pressure resistance? Surely it must add to the integrity of the structure, but to what extent? How much additional compressive strength would this add as opposed to a "normal" concrete support wall?

Finally, sure to be near and dear to the hearts of all, I bring up the subject of finding a "good" engineer. Since, by definition, a licensed professional engineer is just as qualified as any other licensed professional engineer; and since by definition engineers engage in a mathematical-technical voodoo requiring years of study to master and said voodoo is for the most part incomprehensible to laypersons... at some point only another engineer in the same discipline would be able to evaluate the true competence of any given engineer. However, this is not allowed by the canons of professional ethics... because the licensing board says that anyone in possession of the license within that discipline is qualified.

Given that underground homes aren't common and the vast majority of underground structures like I want to build are military or government (I doubt I have the necessary security clearance to talk to the engineers with KBR or Halliburton), how does one find an engineer with some experience building underground structures? Do engineers consult? If I found a structural engineer with experience in underground structures, could I have a local engineer work with that person, knowing that the local guy is only being paid to put his stamp on the plans?

Really, this is a simple project. The structure has a load-bearing perimeter wall and two interior load-bearing walls. I want to support the roof and a 2-3 foot load of dirt on top of that. How hard can the calculations for foundation, walls and roof really be?

Gosh, they build a lot of earth berm homes up north. Seems that you should be able to find someone that knows someone that designs them.

The preverbal "Yellow Pages" on the internet would be a good place to start. Call and ask questions and get referrals from these people if they don't have all the answers.

In the end you will have to deal with local codes and ordinances, so you will need someone licensed in your area who is willing to take on the job.

As a last resort you can take on that task yourself (for residential work), but will have to submit all your plans to a planning board and be prepared to back up all of your work with the right math and address all the codes. Essentially, you will need to become an expert. It is analogous to acting as your own attorney and it is a lot of work.

Personally, I would do the first pass of that work, then throw it into the lap of a licensed pro and let them finish the paperwork, which includes filling and getting all the building permits. These guys know all the people on the inside and how to make things happen. It is their job.

This is how I have done small projects in the past and I have a somewhat larger one in the works followed by a complete home some day in the future.

This way the licensed architect takes the risks and that is what I pay them for.

Garth: We have to remove the roof sheeting on all the first floor containers to facilitate welding the container together from the inside and to access the floor supports above. That will get covered with drywall in due time. For the containers that are side by side, the two adjoining walls will be removed to create a space that is 16 feet wide, so many of the containers will have both a roof and one side removed. I'm not going to let that go to waste and it seems ideal material to use for the concrete forms.

The intended use of the overhead space is to grow grass, shrubs, grapevines, whatever. The purpose of the earth on the roof is to provide a protective and thermal blanket. Yes, we could build a conventional roof and superinsulate, but part of the design criteria were that the homes withstand tornado's, wildfire, etc., be environmentally friendly and not have maintenance costs. In addition, the concrete in the roof would be part of the thermal mass. A small woodburning stove could easily heat this house if extra heat was necessary.

Anyway, what the group's ladies have been lobbying for in the past week is smaller house designs... which resulted in me saying "OK, put it on paper and circulate some drawings. Run it up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes it." The current favorite comes in at about 5000 square feet with only a 20 foot span across the room at the center of the house.

It uses a layout of containers like this... which might appear to be 20 foot containers, but are actually 40 foot containers cut in half:

Using that layout, the first floor would look like this:

That long center gallery allows the windows across the front to let the light into the home and make the underground space seem larger and less claustrophobic. All that metal that's getting removed needs to go somewhere...

Anonymous Hero: Actually, the building code isn't an issue:

"The Kentucky Building Code 2007 is a uniform statewide mandatory building code and applies to all buildings to be constructed, altered or remodeled with the exception of farm dwellings or farm buildings and manufactured houses."

For a farm dwelling, you pay the fee and they give you the building permit. That's it. There is, however, more to the house than just the building permit. Your comment on getting the pros to handle the permitting process is well-taken. Been there, done that. The problem is that what I want to do is sufficiently out in left field that it creates problems for bureaucrats who usually say "NO" at any point of confusion. However, where the bureaucracy tends to be inflexible, there are loopholes.

For example: in order to connect to the power grid a new home has to have passed the inspections for compliance with the electrical code... but because this method of building meets the "manufactured housing" criteria... and the electrical system in manufactured housing is certified by the manufacturer... all the inspector does is inspect the hookup and meter base for compliance. Even that can be avoided, although it's technically not legal: If the electrical hookup was to a portable light industrial building used for a workshop (just guessing... but it would probably look a lot like a shipping container...) they wouldn't ever come back to check on it. If they did they'd just notice that the building had been moved into the side of the hill....

If we built off the grid (not part of the plan) and develop our own water supply (later), as near as I can tell, the only permit requiring an inspection would be for the septic system.

looks like the Captain has most of the issues well in hand, including how to pick a SE, you are nearly looking for a partner

as tempting as it is to slide through the loopholes, be careful

mostly what bureaucrats object to is having to work hard, forcing them to do their jobs is not very popular. You need to figure out how to lead them by the hand & praise them publicly for the fine job they did. This is not much different than dealing with a typical manager, if you want to keep them happy figure out how to keep them at their desk you can't take them too far too fast too much new info will break their little brains, 2 minutes of truly new is about the maximum

This has been a VERY interesting read, thankyou 'nobody special'. When you work out the finer details (including the roof span), let me know, and I will keen buy a set of plans off you. Or better yet, you can come down under and build me one. This design sounds brilliant. Even if its scares the mainstream, I highly commend you on the direction you are heading with the whole interdependent 'gated' farming community idea. It seems like a far better option having humans habitat the earth in this manner (rather than a high density consumer driven model we tend to lean toward at the present time), and still having mother nature available right above you to continue sustaining resources such as crops, and animal and plant life (oxygen) etc etc. Bravo, and best of luck to you with your future endevour!

the wall reminds me of sheet pilings, which would save the large amount of work required to peel the skin off of the containers

what projects are built underground?

back the bridges, culverts, storage tanks

what is the intended use of the area overhead?