only occur where it’s required by the research;
however the piped services are located within
proximity of the lab bench to minimize impact
on an operational research lab. The natural gas,
compressed air and vacuum pathways were provided, but final connections were provided only
where needed, saving significant first-cost.
The approach to lighting aimed to take advan-
tage of the borrowed natural light across both
the write-up and lab support zones. Lighting was
provided in the open labs at 35 footcandles (375
lux) for the ambient condition, with LED task
lighting at the benchtop to bring levels up to 70
footcandles when needed. Occupancy sensors at
each lab bench bay further reduces the energy
consumption from lighting.
Looking at trends in increasing utilization of
lab support functions, in particular cell and tissue
culture rooms, the BSB located these highly utilized spaces where they can have access to natural
light and views. This simple move dramatically
improves the working environment in these spaces, as well as reduces the lighting load through
functional offset. Additionally, by bringing the
light into these spaces through vision panels in the
doors, it allows these spaces to be reconfigured for
access from the corridor if core-facility needs are
identified at a future date. This dual-ended access
approach breathes another level of flexibility into
the planning, while at the same time satisfying a
The next-generation lab
continued from page 43
high-energy use zones, we began to “tune” each
of the areas appropriate to their needs, optimizing the energy profile for the building. This
approach was supported by placing the non-lab
spaces, such as offices and interaction spaces, at
the north and south “ends” of the building, consolidating the lab zones into the most compact
footprint available to support the program and
minimizing the distribution area for the intense
lab utilities (Figure 3).
Starting from the outside of the building working inward, spaces such as write-up desks, offices
and access corridors were considered low-inten-sity, as they had the least internal heat gains and
the most tolerance for temperature modulation.
These were strategically thought of as a “thermal
sweater” at the perimeter of the building, insulating the more critical research functions on the
inner portions of the typical floorplate. The physical manifestation of this approach was a glazed
wall that separates the write-up zone from the
open lab on one side and an access corridor on
the other. By using both of these spaces to create
an “environmental buffer” for the more intense
zones on the inner floorplate, they were considered non-lab spaces, which allowed these areas to
be 100% naturally ventilated without the need for
air conditioning. This approach reduced the total
energy use by approximately 70%. This is particularly significant considering that 85% of the
program space is considered “lab use,” and 15% of
program space is considered “non-lab use”, such
as faculty offices and conference rooms (Figure 4).
The open lab approach was planned to be as
flexible as possible, as the end-user groups were
undefined at the time of design. The average
group size identified as PI+ 6. This approach
included assignable bench positions along the
implied corridor (at the open lab and lab support boundary) and the other along the glazed
wall separating the open lab and the write-up
zone. The center bench allows for “swing-space”
between the two benches. At the time of occupancy, the research groups were populated at a
density of PI+ 9 with a research position at the
center bench, densifying the lab by 50%. This
was possible because a large percentage of lab
technicians were spending their day in specialty
areas, which allows them to double-up or share
some of the writing carrels.
The casework was designed as a plug-and-play
movable table-based system in which no fixed
elements to infrastructure were provided, all
connections were made to service points in the
lab ceiling, allowing a high degree of flexibility.
Hard piped lab services were provided as “
headers” in the lab zone so that connection would
Figure 3: High-energy/low-energy plan organization. The BSB at NUIG wraps the perimeter of the building in a
low-energy “thermal sweater,” which is 100% naturally ventilated for cooling. High-energy open labs and lab support (writing desks, offices, public spaces) are insulated by the thermal sweater and are cooled/heated mechanically.
Figure 4: A next-generation lab layout at the NUIG BSB. The photo above depicts the high-energy/low-energy
zoning of the next-generation lab. Offices, writing stations and public spaces are separated from the lab environment by a transparent tempered glass membrane.
