DESIGN OF FACILITIES FOR RESEARCH PERRY COKE SMITH VOORHEES WALKER FOLEY
& S M I T H , 1 0 1 PARK AVENUE,
NEW YORK, N. Y .
in many combinations to indicate many different design solutions, so that each effect must be thoiight of separately in general discussion. Actual examples of various requirements united in different combinations are cited. The conception of the modern laboratory as an organized mechanism is explained and the modular system as a repeated volume for the minimum space unit is discussed. Various systems for serving the laboratory, or research module, with pipe and electric service, ventilation, illumination, and fume exhaust are described, together with some considerations of provisions for safety. The order of cost of different design solutions is explained as deduced rather than derived from precise records and estimates.
THE efrwt on design of \arious research occupancy requirements is discussed in general terms and illustrated with existing examples. Requirements cited are for pure and applied research, homogeneous or departmentalized organizations, differences in research group work habits, different work habits with regard to laboratory and pilot plant use, shop, glass-blowing, dishwashing, and other common facilities, pro\isions for change and growth, handling of visitors, and public relations. The effect on design of ,ariations in these requirements is outlined in terms of effect on size and number of buildings, relation of laboratories to pilot plants and common facilities, and office-laboratory arrangement. Research needs unite
T
HE architectural firm of which I a m a m e m h has for many years designed buildings for what we call special occupancyt h a t is, buildings for people with organized hahits of work and particular functions. L-ntil we designed our first research establishment we had only scratched the surface of t'lie special occupancy problem. I n this field the conditions of t h e highly trained technical n-orker, functioning in intellectual autonomy and requiring manifold services under hazardous physical conditions, combine t o make each project the subject of much study. Research laboratories cannot be stereotyped ; consequently it is impossible t o describe the ideal research establishment to suit all needs. No distinction will be made in this paper between the detailed requirements of different branches of science. The site is the primary physical facility for work. T h e determining factors in t h e selection of a site for construction involving the occupancy of human workers should be as compelling as those factors controlling the location of a dam or a hydroelectric station.
requirement will vary greatly from the pure research laboratory t o one for product development. The distinguished scientist who visits a pure research laboratory need not he considered as a problem for particular physical arrangements; he will find his n-ay. Our experience has ehoivn, however, t h a t a modern laboratory attracts many people who are interested in the facilities provided: architects, engineers, manufacturers of equipment, building management and maintenance men, and scientists who may be happily and critically looking forward t o a n improvement in their own quarters and tools. Owners of modern laboratories find it wise t o provide arrangements for handling these visitors as easily and with as little disturbance as possible. Easy and direct access for the outsider t o an adequate central reception arid waiting space, provided with office facilities for personnel trained in the handling of visitors, is t h e simple and obvious answer. I n a product development laboratory the visitor problem has too many variations for discussion here. I t s answer may run from the simpler facilities of the pure researrh establishment t o elaborate provisions for the reception of t h e ca.sua1public in order t o promote sales. There are tn-o other fundamental characteristics of occupancy which have prime effect on the plnn design of 3 research establishment. These are (a)t h e nature of the organization with respect t o over-all management and divipion of n-ork-that is, whcthrr the technical personnel operates under a pattern of single control, or whether there are groups operating xvith autonomy in varying degrees; and ( b ) the work habits of the technical personnel with respect t o the contact relation of technical administratore, research scientists, pilot plant engineers, and helpers. T h e design solution providing most suitably for these two combined characteristics sets the fundamental plan pattern. Design provisions for habits of work with respect t o the use of libraries, shops, dishwashing facilities, seminar and lecture gatherings, etc., have a relatively minor effect on the character of this pattern. .1more important additional effect may result from requirements of change and growth. I believe t h a t the discussion of fundamental plan pattern will serve its purpose best if confined to the varying organization requirements of relatively large establishments and considerations for change and growth.
OCCUPANCY CHARACTERISTICS
T h e general character of the work to be done-fundnmental resewcli or applied research-has the first but not necessarily the most imliortant imp:ict on the de.Gign. Thi- lias n particular effect on site selection and architecturiil expression. The location and visual character of an applied research or,product de~ velopment laboratory m:ig he seriously conditioiied l ) comiderations of its rffect on the public. This kind of est:ihlishnieiit must often tiike on the conqcious function of institutional advertising and must express in architectural vocabulary t h e policies of management and sslw. T h e pure research 1ahor:itory is generally free of these considerations. There is, however, a public relations factor t h a t must he considered seriously in the design for both pure and applied research: arrangements and facilities must exist for handling general visitors, those people coming t o see the establishment and t o whom courtesy should be extended. At the Bell Laboratories over a thousand visitors representing over two hundred different organizations have been received and shown through the buildings since its opening in 1941. The degree t o which physical facilities should be provided t o meet this 444
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
April 1947
CONSOLIDATION O R SEPARATION
Of these occupancy requirements, t h e most diflicult t o analyze concerns whether the laboratories should be provided in a single building or sepnrated by groups or departments. It would seem t h a t a research eut~ablislimentcoiisisting of sei.ei.:il departnients doing differeut types of work and each possessing at leaat n rensonable degree of independence in manageme:it nnd control would function be,t in separate buildings. T h i j is iiot neceswrily true. I t is ensy, pliysically, t o provide IaborLitory facilities in any quantity uiider one roof. Safety against fire arid explosions can be :xhieved siinply, and there are a number of nisterinl :idvantages obtnined hy consolidation. Common nervice facilities can be pooled t o re,iilt in operating ecoaoniy n:id better service for distributiou of supplies and collection of Tvr-aste. For tlie same population fcxver stairs, elevators, and toilet fixtures need be installed and m:iiiitnined in n 'single building th:iii in several buildings. Less exterior wall, roof, arid foundation structure need be built. But these considerations are all purely material and may be fnr outn-eighed by the desirability of providing the best housing for the Tyorli habits and temperamental comfort of
445
the occupants. ri difficult and important determination to make in a large research project is whether the measurable material advantages of a single building are worth wtiiie if there is any question t h a t consolidation may be inimical to the temper of t h e personnel. This choice must be based on sensibilities rather than logic. There are other factors influencing this choice. A rough or irregular site may make small building units a necesuity. Again, architectural espression is not to be ignored. KO matter the dleged cold logic and open-pored sensibility t o the temperamental comfort of the occupant with which tlie designer may approach his problem, someone high in management \vi11 want to knon- what the design is going t o look like. The last factor, but not necessarily the least important, in considering consolidation or separation of 1:iboratory building units is tlie characteristics of the two xvith respect t o change and growth-in a word, flexibility. These characteristics are best explained by citing conditions which yield maximum, medium, and minimum flexibility, vliere ease and economy of building additional space is considered a factor of flesihility.
0 FFlC ES L A B O R A T O R I E S
I
L A B 0 R A T O R I E S
I
C
O
R
R
l
D
O
R
L A B O R A T O R I E S
O F F I C E S
IN A G R O U P BUILDING END
AT
A
L A B O R A T O R I E S
OFFICE
WING
OFFICES I N SHORT WINGS O F F A MAIN B A C K B O N E OF L A B O R A T O R I E S 0 F F I C E S
OFFICES
ACROSS CORRIDOR L A B 0 RAT0 R I ES
FROM
Figure 1. Possible officelaboratory constructions
446
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
Vol. 39, No. 4
T h e maximum facilit,y for change and growth exists where both solutions must he found. One solution already employed in our organization and building are consolidated. Here, additional experienca is a building n-ith shalloiy space on on! side of central construction can be added at a predetermined point with minicorridor and deep space on the other. The deep space is fixed mum interior rearrangement, and the land reserve for gron-th is as laboratory space, and the shallolv space, primarily dimensioned localized. Interior changes in a large building have a greater in depth for office use, may be used for laboratories. scope of choice than in smaller buildings. Another method for providing flexibility between office and Medium flezihility exists Jyhere t h e orgaiiization functions in laboratory space was devised as a necessary p a r t of u whole departments or groups and is housed in a single huilding. In scheme for housing the fundamental research of qeveral different this case it is necessary t o predetermine more than one point of exautonomous industrial departments in a single buildii~g,t o provide the maximum facility for growth. This is simply t h e pansion so t h a t any group may expand without violent iiiterior rearrangements, providing no correadaptation t o office w e of space spondent shrinkage has occurred in primarily dimensioned for 1:iboraL A B O R A T O R I E S tories, so t h a t , by partition and the space requirements of another contiguous group. Contiguity of groups equipment changes, either labora. . can be multiple, horizontal, and vertitories or offices may be had in I ’ I ’ 1,’ 1 1 1 - 1 1 . 1 I cal. I I ! : I any location. K e have called this I I ; ( I f l concept “Cniversal space” (Figure 2). Separate buildings, housing either I I)I I [ I I I! Since the necessary depth of a laboa homogeneous or departmentalized ! I I I; I I organization, offer t h e minimum ratory is greater than t h e usually I + I I I I I facility for change and growth. If I I I ; I ; 1 I desired depth of a single or double I I movement of occupancy between ~ - - ~ - - ~ - - ~ - - -I ~ - occupancy - - ~ - office, - ~ t h e interior secbuildings is t o lie avoided, growth tion of the office space must IF C O R R I D O R must niost likely he handled in utilized for secretaries, files, and small, separate construction operstorage; this requires t h a t thi? space ------. ations. In addition, land for grorvth be air-conditioned or a t lemt ventiI I !OUTER O ~ F .STOR.! must be reserved in multiplicity, with lated with a full supply and exhaust ‘ I I----- ~ - - - - - L ----______ I system. the possibility t h a t these reserves II ; I ? may injure the arrangement and I i ‘ ; Design for method< of n o r k liedistance relations of t h e initial I I :INNER ! OFFICES! tu-een laboratories and pilot plants group. L I I or special service areas is difficult, 1 I J I I I l l L I 11
!
j
/
I
i
?---T---q 4-1- _ _ _ _c;_ _ i
i
t o discuss in generalities. Construction hazards, fume control. and faciliI N T E R I O R PLAN L A B . ties for radical change in the pilot plant T h e first consideration for deFigure 2. Universal space areas sometimes take control of the design from considerationi of termining a fundamental plan (consolipersonnel convenience. The separate dation or separation of t h e labopilot plant reasonably accessible t o the laboratory is familiar. ratories) is followed directly by the second-that is, hatiit. It might be useful t o cite .some samples of consolidation where or methods of work of the technical personnel with respect physical handicaps x e r e overlooked for the sake of functional t o the contact betneen administrators, research scientists, pilot contiguity. plant engineers, and helpers. I n the laboratories we have designed, we have found no great I n one new laboratory lyhich we noTv have in design, there are variation in the basic functional requirement relating to group 90,000 square feet in a special service shop occupying two floors leaders and bench research workers. The closest practicable 16 feet high, each extending from t h e base of t h e laboratory block physical relation is required. KO particular discussion is needed and arranged with the most direct access by stairs and elevators in connection with requirements for offices for top administrafrom t h e laboratories above. Another laboratory building in a large project on our board-: tive personnel; these are too particular t o be of use here. The has a special equipment area two and a half stories high n-ith number of laboratory units under a group leader is the factor balconies, enclosed on t F o of its sides by two tiers of lahorataries t h a t determines the office and laboratory plan relation. The and on a third, with service areas. extremes of our experience are represented by a lahorntory n-hose methods require a group leader for two 2-men lahorntory units Thr-e :!re unu,.rial examples of consolidation of 1abor:itcirirs and and a laboratory in n-hich a group leader handles five 2-mrri zpecinl ..ervice areas. K e have experienced >impler pro1)kms in laboratories. I n the first case i t was the owner’s desire, incorwhich t h r special service area or pilot plant i- incorporated as :t porated in his o v n study plans, t o have the group leader’s office wing of the lahoratory huilding, preqenting no special prohlems between, and opening into, the tvio laboratories. In the second \\.it11 re-pect t o facilities for growth and change or snft,ty. case group leaders’ offices, paired with offices for tn-o stenographers each and used in common by his group, are provided in a MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT central group on each floor having twenty lnboratories. I n spite of the differing characteristics of office and Ialiorntory The rnodern 1ubor:itory hiiildiiig i. rapidly hecomi~lg:I Iiighly space as to necessary ceiling height, unit size, floor load, mechaniorganized mechanism. This was not a l w n p w. Tlie re.earcli cal equipment, and ventilating requirements, there are three scientkt h y nature is a re.ourcefu1 citizen and :in oliportunist, general solutions (Figure 1) which lend themselves to practical and he has gotten along pretty well Jvith little more than a roof construction: (a)offices in short n-ings off a main bncklione of t o cover him. The organizntion of laboratory .pace :ind its laboratories, ( b ) offices across corridor from laboratories, and (c) mechanical ien-ices into a smoothly functioning arid ensil). m:!inoffices in a group about a core point or a t a building end. tained whole ha.: been sold t o , rather than tiemaided h>-,the research scientist. All of these solutions are predicated on a fixed relation, both The proper Organization of space and services in lahoratoriea functionally and spacewise, between offices and laboratories. starts from t h e concept of the module (Figure 3). The module is Where provision for change in this respect is important, other
April 1947
I N D U S T R I A L AND E N G I N E E R I N G CHEMISTRY
not a selected dimension. I t is the smallest unit of space volume t h a t is usable for research and which contains all facilities for occupancy. T o be specific and complete, this means a volume which does not depend on any adjacent volume for illumination, heat, ventilation, pipe supply, electric supply, drainage, fume exhaust. access from a common corridor, and egress t o a contiguous separated space for safety. K h e n t h e desired characteristics of this volume are determined-its dimensions, its capacities as t o pipe and electric supply, illumination, fume hood capacity, etc., then a repetitive mechanical system can be designed t o service each space division. This does not mean t h a t each module constitutes R laboratory, but it does mean t h a t each module can be a laborntory. I n the fundnmental planning of groups of laboratories, two principles for personnel safety should be considered a t the outset. One of these is provision for escape from a laboratory space, or R space n-hich may become a laboratory, a t the end opposite the corridor door. \Ye have found t h a t a door is the best answer, a n d a door requires space, affecting the area requirements. Lluch time has been lost in attempts t o devise means for provid-. ing both escape and laboratory equipment in the same section of wall. T h e other plan consideration for safety is t o provide in all cases a st'airway a t the termination of a corridor serving laboratories. The location of stairs is more important than their size and number. Each laboratory problem is met with a different module as t o dimensions and the manner in which t h e module is mechanically served. T h e dimensions are determined by t h e type of work
Figure 3.
447
RELATIVE COST
The following comments on costs are in t h e nature of opinions based on judgment and not on directly cornparatire records, which can scarcely exist a t t,hiz time. .is t o the consolidation or separation of laboratory buildings, it i? the author's opinion t h a t n single building instead of four, for example, would yield R cost difference in favor of the single building in the carder of 10 t o 15%. T h e order of cost of the diff'erent office-lahorntory arrangements is as follow, the first being t h e highest: 1.
2. 3.
4.
1:niversal sDacP Cont&uous'offi-ce-laboratory group Offices across corridor from laboratory Office wing or office group
Space which is deep from the exterior all costs less to construct than space which is shallow. In other Tvords, the area of exterior Tvalls, roof, and foundations bears a lesser ratio to the area of the floors. It is interesting t h a t a n increase or decrease of floor area alone within reasonable limits costs 331 cost from xhich the variation is made. T o illustrate: If a laboratory design costs $15 per square foot t o construct,, a n increase in the area alone, without additional latjorntory equipment services, n-ill cost $5 per square foot. I t is not possible now t o espress an opinion on the order of cost of the various systems of providing 1abor;itorypipe, electric, and ventilating services. I t is the opinion of the aiithor, however, t h a t for the same services installed, a well organized and carefully designed system will cost less than a haphazard installation devised by opportunism in the field.
Modular concept to meet all requirements
performed. The servicing system devised is determined by many varying conditions, and only one common criterion exists: t h e service system must, permit additions and changes x i t h o u t interruption of v o r k in any laboratory except t h a t requiring the change. K e have used three different basic service systems: vertical pipe and electric feed and drainage a t the exterior wall, vertical pipe and electric feed and drainage a t the corridor wall, and laboratories back t o bnck with a vertical common pipe and electric feed drainage. All three of these general systems are augmented b y spur floor trenches t o serve island benches and equipment. A fourth basic system is by a loop-trunk floor trench a t each floor for pipe supply t o both wall and island equipment. I n all cases hood exhaust is provided vertically a t the corridor walls.
I n our laboratory work we have made many cost studies and comparisons. These have had t o do with size variations, structure, pipe service systems, and interior finish. We have discovered t h a t such design variations influence t h e total cost in laboratory n-ork far less on a percentage basis than in other building construction within the range of our experience. This is because the basic construction items required for a research laboratory, such as complex and diverse pipe services, varied and heavy electric distribution, and unusual ventilating equipment, represent t h e major part of the total construction cost. These comments on costs have been made primarily t o emphasize the closing'statement: The sound choice is for the more suitable design, and cost variations are rarely sufficient t o justify a sacrifice of function.
