Part 1: Drivers of module sizing
|
Fig. 1. Before 2000, most lab modules fell into the range of 10 ft to 10 ft, 8-in. wide. All illustrations: HOK.
|
One challenge for every research organization is how to manage the ongoing demands for space in their labs. An inflexible lab space will create problems—for example, if users can’t add a piece of equipment without ripping out casework or walls, or if they don’t have enough island depth to accommodate a larger piece of equipment. Perhaps the client can’t bring in a student for the summer or even add a cylinder without blocking an aisle.
Many lab space planning guides provide direction for the right amount of space to provide for each science type. Yet generic sizing guidelines are best left to Master Plan phase work. Once we enter the building programming and design phases, the goal is to work with users to define their specific space needs for each lab type.
Ira Fink, FAIA, who has written more than 40 books and articles on lab planning in higher education facilities, advises that “space projections should be based on detailed programmatic data for the specific...laboratories...required.”1 In other words, designers need to carefully size labs to accommodate the types of functions that likely will be located there. In today’s world, the desired width for a lab module is approaching 11 ft. But it hasn’t always been that way.
In addition to allocating the right size of lab modules from the beginning, lab planners can take advantage of several evolving trends to create extremely flexible labs while increasing energy efficiency.
Changes in lab module sizes
Organizations that have the opportunity to build new labs can achieve the most flexibility by not undersizing or oversizing the depth and length of lab modules. The Univ. of Wisconsin has built a variety of new research labs over the past two decades, as summarized in Table 1.
Univ. of Wisconsin lab module sizing
Table 1. At the Univ. of Wisconsin, an analysis of design data over time shows that 10 ft, 6 in. was the most popular size in the recent past, but the newest facility will use an 11 ft module. |
| Occupancy |
Project |
Science |
Module width |
Module depth |
| 1998 |
Biochemistry |
Biology |
10 ft-0 in. |
23 ft-9 in. |
| 2001 |
Pharmacy |
Pharmaceutical |
10 ft-4 in. |
29 ft-0 in. |
| 2002 |
Walsman Center Addition |
Molecular, genetics |
10 ft-8 in. |
24 ft-6 in. |
| 2004 |
Chemistry addition |
Chemistry |
10 ft-8 in. |
24 ft-6 in. |
| 2005 |
Biotech/Genetics |
Biology, genetics |
10 ft-6 in. |
80 ft-0 in. |
| 2007 |
Microbial |
Microbiology |
10 ft-6 in. |
30 ft-0 in. |
| 2008 |
WIMR |
Biology, chemistry |
10 ft-6 in. |
27 ft-8 in. |
| 2010 |
WID |
Biology, chemistry |
10 ft-6 in. |
30 ft-0 in. |
| 2012 |
WEI |
Microbiology, organic chemistry |
11 ft-0 in. |
55 ft-0 in. |
The narrowest lab module width was 10 ft in 1998, and the widest was an 11-ft module to be completed in 2012. Other than that, the typical lab module stayed approximately 10 ft, 6-in. during that period.
Peter Heaslett, a member of the UW-Madison Facilities Planning and Management group, explains that though the projects usually begin with a standard lab module requirement—typically 10 ft, 6-in. wide—the slight variations in the size of lab modules often are influenced by the fact that the exterior cladding of brick or block has a set dimension. According to Heaslett, however, the most recent trend to an 11-ft bay at UW is being driven by the fume hood depth of the high-efficiency hoods.
History shows a subtle shift in lab module size toward larger widths and lengths in new labs. A sample of research labs (Figs. 1 and 2), including 45 pharmaceutical, government and university labs designed by several different architectural firms, shows a wide variety of lab module sizes. Though the data indicates that 33% of the lab modules were 10 ft wide in the 1990s, since 2003 they have gotten wider. In the 1990s, the 11-ft module width was used in 42% of the new labs studied. In the 2000s, this number inched up to 46%.
John Cannon, an HOK lab planner who supported Pfizer’s design needs over much of this period, noted that his client always used a lab module width of 10 ft, 6-in. to 11 ft. “That seems to be the tried-and-true benchmark that says ‘if it’s any smaller, it’s too tight; if it’s any bigger, people start putting equipment in the aisles.’”
Influences driving these sizing changes
One factor in this shift away from 10-ft module widths could be the change from single-purpose labs (such as a biology or chemistry lab) to multidisciplinary science labs. A 10-foot lab module width cannot accommodate a lab featuring chemistry as part of its interdisciplinary activities, while an 11-foot lab module can easily incorporate biology lab functions with its interdisciplinary activities.
|
Fig. 2. After 2000, many lab modules began to migrate to wider sizes, often up to 11 ft.
|
One of the most recent influences in lab module width increases is the increased use of high-efficiency fume hoods. According to Labs212, “labs consume five to 10 times more energy per square foot than do office buildings.” Increasing energy costs and an emphasis on higher efficiency and “right-sized” mechanical equipment for labs is driving lab planners to reduce energy consumption. We're seeing an emphasis on reducing the number of fume hoods and achieving higher efficiency with lower velocity and increased effectiveness.
Because fume hoods are huge energy consumers, it makes sense to consider using high-efficiency models. Several studies have been undertaken to verify the effectiveness of such hoods. Some note that the main challenge is to achieve the proper airflow pattern, acknowledging that calculating the correct exhaust volumes and patterns is more effective than the traditional, “more exhaust volume is better” approach.
Manufacturers are responding to the drive to conserve energy by designing an array of hoods that reduce the total flow while still retaining effectiveness. Some of these designs create a deeper fume hood configuration that decreases the airflow by generating a more effective vortex to pull air out of a room. It is not unusual for the depth of newer low-velocity fume hoods to range from 34 to 40 in. Other configurations achieve reduced air flow by reducing the overall opening size of the fume hood and then compensating with glass screens that enable researchers to see into the hood.
The increased fume hood depth is playing a bigger part in lab module sizing. When labs feature many hoods integrated into the layout, as in a chemistry lab, the module depth must take this into account. Another consideration for high-efficiency hoods is that with the lower velocity, the placement and airflow are more critical in containment.
Another significant factor influencing lab flexibility is the potential for deeper equipment or accumulation of equipment that may extend through the full depth and width of the islands. The open island configuration allows users to locate pieces up to 6 ft deep, or comfortably double the bench depth. Knowing whether there is potential for larger equipment that may range from 3 to 6 ft deep is an important question in determining how wide a module needs to be. Robotics tables, laser tables, gloveboxes, vented enclosures and some chromatography carts are examples of equipment that dictate the need for deeper modules, either due to the equipment depth, to a combination of the unit plus utilities, or to connecting assemblies or equipment that require collocation.
Likewise, biosafety cabinets are large consumers of energy in labs. Biosafety cabinet manufacturers such as Baker have designed models that are focused on the energy-efficiency market. The Baker SterilGARD e3 units are less than 31 in. deep while still achieving reduced flow into the unit.
We can see that lab module sizes are trending upward to provide the flexibility to accommodate more energy-efficient equipment as well as larger, interconnected equipment. Making a small upfront investment in more dedicated space can enable organizations to better meet the challenges of labs in the future. Part two of this article will examine further design strategies involving module sizing.
Kathryn Tyson, AIA, LEED AP, is VP/senior lab planner for HOK Science + Technology Group (www.hok.com). The author extends thanks to Joseph Ostafi and Paul Wilhelms for editing and illustration support.
References
1. “Research Space: Who Needs It, Who Gets It, Who Pays for It?” Ira Fink, 2004.
2. “Laboratories for the 21st Century: An Introduction to Low-Energy Design,” Labs21, US EPA, August 2000. (DOE/GO-102000-1112).
Published in Laboratory Design newsletter: Vol. 15, No. 10, October, 2010
