Concordia – “A livable, energy-efficient, easy-to-install system”
The Franco-Italian station is celebrating its twentieth year of operation, perched high above Antarctica. Project manager Patrice Godon tells us about the challenges involved in building the station, from the point of view of polar expertise.
Concordia is celebrating its 20th anniversary, but when was the idea first conceived?
It all began in the world of Antarctic scientific research. The idea of a continental station was born in the late 1970s within a circle of researchers already involved in studying the continent, including glaciologist Claude Lorius.
The idea took shape in the late 80s under the aegis of the French Southern Territories. Indeed, prior to the creation of today’s French Polar Institute – called the French Institute for Polar Research and Technology (IFRTP) when it was established in 1992 – the TAAF was in charge of managing and developing scientific research in Antarctica.
For my part, since 1985, I’ve been technical manager of the EPF (Expéditions Polaires Françaises), IFRTP’s parent organization, and, following a tacit agreement between the EPF and the TAAF, I’ve been lent to the project for a future continental station.
I’d already had ten years’ polar experience when I worked on drawing up the specifications for a competition to select both a project and a builder. Among the important points, of course, were resistance to very low temperatures and good thermal insulation to minimize heating requirements. At Dôme C, the thermometer has already dropped to -85°C.
Who was selected to work on this unusual project?
TechnicAtome, the branch of the CEA that works on nuclear boilers for ships, in association with engineer Gérard Chamayou, won the tender. TechnicAtome’s account managers and Gérard Chamayou needed information to understand the specifics of building on the polar cap. I received a lot of visits. The study was completed in 1991.
In January 1992, when the institute was officially created, all French Antarctic scientific activities, then administered by the TAAF, were transferred to the new institute, including the oceanographic activities of the Marion Dufresne and Concordia. As the Institute was then in charge of the project, I became responsible for its follow-up.
TechnicAtome and Gérard Chamayou’s project was built partly in wood, with a hemispherical section in the style of La Villette. After analysis, I found this technical solution unsatisfactory. The design of the half-hemispheres, which had to be completely assembled on site, was not ergonomic, and the half-hemispheres reduced the usable floor area.
I asked for a re-study of a cylindrical generation design with flat, prefabricated walls. As the proposed budget was too high, I suggested to the Institute’s management that we take the whole project in-house. The then President, Claude Lorius, fully endorsed this solution. Twenty years later, I still think that the plans of the first sketch could not have stuck.
The project then really took shape. Working in partnership with a structural steel design office experienced in large-scale construction, the definitive shape – an 18-sided polygon – was confirmed in 1993, along with the main technical lines: panelling, method of attachment to the structure and connection to the ground.
Inspired by the radar stations in Greenland, it has been confirmed – as proposed by TechnicAtome – that the buildings will rest on stilts to allow the wind to pass underneath, and will be adjustable to compensate for surface deformation or slippage.
Plans are one thing, but how did you envisage the operational side?
In addition, we had to take into account totally different construction and transport realities, such as the crane, which was designed specifically to match the structural elements. The same was true for transport as a whole: packages had to be adapted to the container format, both for commercial shipping lines and for convoys – raids.
Organizing the convoys was a new challenge in itself. Indeed, it’s one thing to have the project, it’s quite another to implement it. The ’80s saw the emergence of new traction machines, such as the first tracked tractors initially designed on the basis of bulldozers, and really powerful mountain grooming machines capable of working continuously on very compact snow.
The early 90’s also saw the popularization of GPS which, even in its degraded version (the filters were removed in 99), represented a major evolution compared to the theodolite-solar compass pair. All these technical advances made it possible to design a convoy system that was continuously developed and improved in parallel with the design and first purchases of the station’s equipment.
Have you considered the possibility of deconstruction?
To answer the question, some architects, with a penchant for rediscovering hot water, have expressed regret, 20 years after commissioning, that the profession was not involved in the project. This is partly untrue, as it was indeed an architect, in this case Italian, who oversaw the interior layout and design of the premises. For the rest, architects often think in terms of designing buildings that mark their era. But here, the notion of era was not a factor.
Concordia will be dismantled one day and, in accordance with the Antarctic Treaty, repatriated. It’s an ephemeral construction in principle, even if the ephemeral lasts 30-40 years. We had to work within a tight budget, and create an installation that was liveable, energy-efficient and easy to assemble. We considered that individual aesthetic achievement was not the priority. Concordia is a box perched on an Antarctic peak, and like a submarine, the only thing that counts is its ability to cope with the environment.
The technical constraints brought to light by the 1989 and 1991 project, the articulation of the convoys, their possible throughput, confirmed by the first on-site tests – initially 400 tonnes per year – to transport the 3,500 tonnes of the whole, made it clear that the project would take at least 10 years to install. This 10-year period, published in 1994, was more or less respected with the opening of the first wintering season in 2005.
What are some examples of the Italian implications of this joint project?
From a financial point of view, it soon became clear that there was a definite interest in cohabitation. Thus, as early as 1992, contacts were made with the Italian polar operator ENEA, leading to a marriage of convenience signed in 1993. At the time, ENEA had fully accepted the polygonal project of the second study, as presented.
Concordia thus became Franco-Italian and fully co-financed, with a sharing of technical skills – the framework and interior partitioning by IFRTP, the walls and summer camp by ENEA, the air services by ENEA, the convoys mixed but organized from Dumont d’Urville, and so on.
What was the main scientific objective when the station was first built?
Returning to glaciology, the European EPICA drilling project at the Dome C site – the same location as Concordia – launched by Claude Lorius and Jean Jouzel began to take shape at the same time.
The EPICA project, which went back in time 800,000 years, benefited from the facilities required for Concordia’s start-up, including convoy transport and a complete summer camp, i.e. power station, kitchen, sleeping quarters, etc., for both the future station’s technicians and drilling personnel.
Of course, there were difficulties at times. Developing convoys and designing reliable sledges/load carriers took time, and became a priority at the start of field operations. Another point: ENEA, with its technical culture stemming from the nuclear industry, swore by stainless steel and had to come to terms with black steel. Overall, however, the entire operation – organized from the institute on a tightrope to keep pace with budget allocations, the annual capacity of the liaison vessel, convoys and on-site work capacity – went off without a hitch or a hitch. The first wintering season began in 2005.
More on the subject
