“It is very informative to look at these projects in terms of reverse engineering. As new research technologies proliferate, more labs will demand these kinds of capabilities, and building them into the shell and core of a facility is a relatively low cost thing to do,” says Bill Wilson, AIA, principal with Wilson Architects.

The study analyzed six recent nanotech projects including the J.C. Davis Nanotechnology Lab at Cornell University; the Center for Research on Adaptive Nanostructures and Nanodevices (CRANN) at Trinity College Dublin; the Yazdani Low Vibration Lab at Princeton University; the Institute for Advanced Materials (IAM) at UNC Chapel Hill; Doyle’s Low Temperature Lab and the new Laboratory for Interface Science & Engineering (LISE), both at Harvard University.

Key Questions

In the process of developing the matrix, the team outlined 10 questions that every design team should ask before beginning a nanoscience project:

1. What is the resolution needed for the experiment?
2. What level of cleanliness is required?
3. What is the ambient vibration contour?
4. What is the ambient EMI contour?
5. Is the space tall enough?
6. What are the temperature and humidity control requirements?
7. What chemicals will be used?
8. What is the likely pathway for chemicals and equipment?
9. Are there any specials hazards?
10. Is the solution too complex?

“Question number one has to do with science being done in the facility. If the research does not involve atomic level resolution, you might not need all of the expensive features that cut vibration down to an absolute minimum,” says Mark Reed, AIA, principal with Wilson Architects and one of the instigators of the study.

Another major factor is the required level of cleanliness—the cleaner a facility, the more expensive. This should be determined early.

Questions three and four consider the existing site conditions, while questions five and six deal with spatial issues.

“How bad is the problem you are walking into? What are the existing vibration and EMI contours? Is the space tall enough for the instrumentation? Can you get air to it easily? The solutions to these questions really drive cost,” says Reed.

“Finally, consider how easy it will be to maintain. Complex solutions involving multiple elements inevitably add expense and should be avoided,” he advises.

Issues and Opportunities

The team also outlined 14 critical areas of consideration. Within these categories, the team identified design measures that are considered to be good investments and measures that may result in questionable or unnecessary expenditures.

1. Foundations

Foundation design is critical to minimizing vibration and has a direct impact on project costs depending on what design features are included.

The J.C. Davis Nanotechnology Lab at Cornell University, a 2,200-sf renovation inside an existing physics building, achieved the required vibration isolation by creating a series of four isolated experimental chambers. Each chamber consists of a concrete tub supported by a 20-ton kinetic isolation block—called a plinth—which floats on pneumatic springs. The vibration, acoustic, and EMI control requirements were achieved by creating multiple layers of isolation. All pumps, support equipment, and experiment controls are housed remotely and fed to the chambers via umbilical cords that disconnect in three locations.

“The trick was getting the concrete tub to float with the plinth. When you step onto the moving plinth you are totally isolated from the building system. The outer space can be sealed off from any outside activity. It’s the Russian doll approach,” says Wilson.

Many of Wilson Architect’s clients are creating the ability to install foundation springs in the future, but are waiting to purchase them until they see how their experiments perform.

“We are very confident about the capability of these heavy masses to cut down vibration, especially at low frequencies. We are recommending pits and floating plinths in any low vibration type of space,” says Reed.

2. SuperStructure

The Laboratory for Interface Science & Engineering (LISE) building, a new 135,000-sf interdisciplinary facility located on Harvard University’s north campus, involved superstructure construction between existing buildings. The facility includes underground cleanrooms and low-vibration labs, as well as a loading dock, chemical handling, and materials management. Development of this lab included extensive below-grade work. The existing structures around the site were retained using strongbacks—a system of specialized support beams that allow for excavation and construction alongside existing structures—and a unique 55-foot deep slurry wall.

Doyle’s Low Temperature Lab, also located at Harvard, incorporates high-bay space and below-grade pumping with renovated lab space in an existing facility. The research process calls for laser labs with strict temperature control to be adjacent to a high-bay lab with pumping and cryogenic pits.

In both Harvard facilities, use of mezzanines, catwalks, and isolation slabs with removable floors and overhead hooks proved to be good superstructure investments.

3. Enclosure

For exterior enclosures, the team recommends use of double and triple glazing on elevations facing traffic, operable windows on each floor, and fire-rated glass throughout.

“Fire codes require the use of fire-rated walls, and fire-rated glass is a great investment for increasing both safety and general building communication,” says Reed.

4. Vertical Circulation

In terms of moving materials between floors, over-sized elevators are discouraged in favor of vertical reciprocating lifts, which do not fall under elevator code. Hoists and cranes used in conjunction with catwalks and pits are also seen as strong investments that make the most economical use of available lab space.

“Vertical lifts are much easier to install. You don’t transport people on them so they don’t have to follow the more stringent elevator codes, but they are able to transport chemicals and equipment,” says Reed.

5. Dry Labs

Planning for typical dry lab space costs approximately $150 per sf, according to the study. Open floor layouts with overhead service systems that provide water, electrical, gases, data, and exhausts are considered good investments, as are Mylar-faced acoustic tile ceilings and modular uni-strut racks for piping along walls and ceilings.

6. High Performance Labs

The build out cost of “high-performance” lab space is significantly higher (between $250 and $300 per sf) than conventional lab space, but there are ways to minimize expense in the shell and core.

Floating concrete blocks (plinths) provide vibration isolation at a reasonable cost; acoustic, mechanical, and EMI/RF isolation can be achieved by using embedded isolation chambers. Having separate facilities for air handling also significantly improves isolation.

“We recommend installing separate air systems because it’s significantly less expensive to achieve fine temperature and humidity control with a stand alone system than to try and design a whole building with that kind of capability,” says Reed.

7. High-Bay Labs

The cost of a typical high-bay lab (between $200 and $250 per sf) is well worth the investment, according to the Wilson team.

“We provided as much double-high space as we could at Harvard and it is already filling up with the new recruits. Everybody wants to use it,” says Reed.

With high-bay construction, separate air handling and pump rooms are recommended as good investments, as are use of pits and cranes combined with catwalks and ladders.

8. Plumbing and Fire Protection

Safety costs increase rapidly for facilities handling highly toxic and flammable materials. Things like cryogenic piping can increase cost premiums by up to $1,000 per linear foot.

“Specialized systems designed for handling catastrophic releases of gasses can escalate costs tremendously. When you get into the design of highly toxic and flammable systems, it’s necessary to bring in some industry consultants,” says Reed.

9. Mechanical Systems

The team strongly recommends separating clean and dirty mechanical elements.
 
“Segregating black, grey, and white power is just a good idea, and trying to find out how much is needed for the experiment in advance is a worthwhile investment,” says Reed.

The team cautions that there is a significant cost premium for high-volume, low-flow air design when used for temperature, humidity, and pressure control.

“Providing laminar air flow is not a simple way to achieve vibration isolation,” says Reed.

“At Cornell, instead of trying to create a perfectly stable environment in terms of temperature and humidity, they simply turned the HVAC off when they took their measurement. Simple solutions like that are great ways to save money,” he says.

This solution only works if the measurement time is of short duration and if the system isn’t susceptible to mis-calibration due to temperature.

10. Electrical and Data

Likewise, separating clean and dirty power is also recommended. The teams suggests providing dedicated grounds ($2,000), local isolators ($4,000), and transformer panel boards ($10,000) in nano specific spaces.

11. Acoustic Vibration

“Acoustic enclosures ($60,000-$80,000) work well for sound vibration isolation, especially if they are made out of metal which provides additional EMI attenuation,” says Wilson.

In some situations, instead of installing costly factory made rooms, sufficient sound control can be achieved by using isolation pads combined with conventional block walls, gasketed doors ($4,000-$5,000), and acoustical ceilings.

12. EMI and RF

In addition to maximizing strategic locations, the team recommends use of epoxy-coated rebar for reduction of EMI and RF waves.

“Non-ferrous rebar only makes sense if you have a powerful magnet that is floating and can actually cling to the building, which you want to avoid. In instances where the experiment is bolted down, ferrous material is not a significant concern,” says Reed.

13. Cleanrooms

Cleanrooms are in a completely different cost category, according to Wilson, and have a separate list of associated design criteria and issues.

“One of the most significant of these issues is choosing how to deliver and filter air because each system has an increasing level of reliability and cost,” says Wilson.

14. Site Mitigation

Dealing with site mitigation issues like moving buried utilities, plumbing systems, and contaminated soils can increase project times and costs.

“It is good to be aware of what is underground. In most existing buildings in urban environments there is a large cost associated with removing contaminated soil and existing utilities,” says Reed.

Important Lessons

One of the most significant lessons learned in the analysis was the importance of including scientists in the planning process.

“Much of the cost is tied up in the owner’s expectations. The users have to understand that the facility has inherent characteristics that can’t be changed. It’s important not to promise the owner a completely flexible building where they can do anything anywhere,” says Reed.

A major cost driver is balancing the operational criteria for the required instrumentation with the inherent challenges of the chosen site.

“We advocate using an approach called ‘zones of sophistication,’ where you line out what the inherent capacity for research is in the different spaces of the building. This helps the researchers put their research in the right spot,” says Reed.

The team also places a high value on extensive modeling throughout the process.

“It’s really important to model as you go. There are a lot of details that need to be worked out early because they will interfere with the construction process later,” says Wilson.

The team also strongly emphasizes the importance of not over-engineering solutions.

“This really follows the common sense that simplicity is a virtue. Complex solutions involving multiple elements always work against you,” says Wilson.

By Johnathon Allen

We welcome your Questions and Comments

Copyright 2008 Tradeline Inc.
All Rights Reserved
ISSN: 1096-4894