California Association of Chemistry Teachers
0. Ross Robertson
University of California 10s Angeles
I I
New Fundamental Designs for Academic Chemistry Buildings
I n the last two years a radical change in basic architectural design of college chemistry buildings has taken place, largely under pressure of buildmg economics. Specifically, this means a nationwide interest in the central-utility-channel or "core" plan. Unfortunately, the use of such a system is largely outside the experience of two important groups, namely (a) academic personnel, and (b) various authorities who make safety regulations. In view of decided controversial opinion in these two groups, it is important that faculty building committees now hoping for new laboratories should give critical attention to the problem of the core design and not wait for a newlyappointed architect to give them a surprise.' This presentation of the central-channel idea does not refer to the interior shaft plan, in which public services are brought up in a building through giant chimney-like passageways distributed a t intervals through or around a building block. The shaft plan, in the present writer's opinion, is an inferior half-solution of the problem, a t least outside the domain of skyscraper laboratories. It will therefore not be discussed here. The present article makes no attempt to portray a . whole building. Such a problem, with a multitude of options in location of entrances, stairways, elevators, windows, and other details, is the job of an architect experienced in laboratory design. Attention here is confined to the succession of spaces across a given building block or wing, depicted below in simplified sketches of representative portions of the structure. Classical Design
Up to recent date, the conventional plan of Figure 1 was customary, placing laboratories, offices, etc., on either side of a standard corridor, which in the past sixty years has been gradually narrowed from about 15 feet to the present almost irreducible 8 feet in width. Just outside the corridor walls, on each side, an easement for flues and public utilities was a t least vaguely designated; in 1950-55 this might have been about 18 'For the benefit of building planners, attention is called to the forthcoming comprehensive publication from the Committee on Design, Construction, and Equipment of Laboratories, Division of Chemistry and Chemical Technology, National Research Council. This new volume, edited by Harry F. Lewis, is entitled "Laboratory Planning for Chemistry and Chemical Engineen'ng," and should be available from Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, by the end of 1961.
474
/
Journal of Chemicol Education
inches wide, two years ago 24 inches, and today 30 inches. Widening of this easement comes from the continued demand for radically improved ventilation
Figure I . "Classical" arrangement.
and air conditioning. It is thus the flue and pipe problem that has exhausted the patience of the architectural engineer, and is now moving the architect whole-heartedly into the central-utility-channel plan. One of the toughest assignments of this type was that handed by the Regents of the University of California to Risley and Gould, architect^,^ culminating in the recently-dedicated Harald Sverdrup Hall on the campus of the University's Scripps Institution of Oceanography a t La Jolla, California. Nobody is quite sure just what will go on inside this laboratory during the next few years, required for development of the new School of Science and, Engineering, University of California, San Diego, which will include the Scripps division. Extreme flexibility in use for physical and l i e sciences was the keynote in planning. The designers have accordingly made a radically new contribution to technical architecture. Chemistry-building committeemen figuring out inspection itineraries may well put La Jolla on their lists. I n the same excursion, still another core job may be conveniently visited a t Corvallis, Oregon, in the new physics-chemistry structures of Oregon State University. Furthermore, the huge postwar population growth on the Pacific coast has produced several chemistry buildings of other patterns, thus offering opportunity for an excellent junket in the far west for the said committeemen. These projects include San Diego State College, UCLA (1952 building plus the large Chemistry Building Addition scheduled for construction in 1961-63), Occidental College, Gilbert Lewis Hall a t Berkeley, the extensive and decidedly
' 2502 West Third St., Los Angeles 57, Calif.
novel multistory Latimer Hall now under construction a t Berkeley, and the new structure just completed for Washington State University at Pullman. Central-Channel Plan
In place of the customary central corridor, a channel or noninflammable canyon passes lengthwise through the buildmg, from roof to hasement floor. Walls of this channel are normally of "two-hour" class, as referred to fire-control codes. Width of the channel, wall to wall, should be 12-16 feet, although some earlier plans, without close attention to air conditioning reauirements. have included channels as narrow as 7 or 8 Get. The proposal of 12 to 16 feet a t first glance seems to he unwarranted extravagance, but such an assumption is not justified. A "core" building, after all, is nothing but two buildings back to back, separated by the channel. An increase in spacing from 8 to 12 or 16 means only a negligible increase in cost due to extra outer end walls, roof and hasement floor-provided the requisite land is available. On the other hand, the wider space offers great convenience not only in contract installation, but also in opportunity for new mechanical installations required in the unforeseen research future. Fans, pumps, etc., are rapidly installed. In summary, the core scheme, with wide spacing, promises a t least 10% cut in the mechanical cost which might have been expected in a "classical" job. When the contractors get accustomed to bidding on the new designs, the discount of may expand to 15 or even 20%. Most of this saving is in the really costly element, labor. For example, the contractor does not have to worry about pipes or flues from one floor threatening to conflict with a door above or below. Instead of a conventional floor a t each level, a steel grating catwalk, 30-36 inches wide, similar to equipment well known in the engine rooms of large ships, runs lengthwise in the channel. This catwalk rests on small I-beams spanning the channel a t appropriate intervals. At La Jolla the catwalks are displaced to the side, as shown in Figures 2 and 3, allowing certain economies in grouping of pipe and flue risers, fans, etc., which occupy the core space. Room is still allowed between catwalk and wall for pipe runs. There is no reason, however, why a center position cannot he used if it suits the convenience of the architectural engineer and future maintenance staff. Figure 2 shows a cross section of one of the La Jolla building units in simplified sketch.
Figure 2.
Crorr section of o rhonnel building.
Some architectural engineers prefer two catwalks, one on each side, with ventilation flues down the middle
of the channel, which would require a relatively wide channel. Grouping of Offices and Laboratories
Figure 3 shows a representative portion of one of the earlier proposals for a core laboratory building. In this structure it is assumed that the building is so long (east to west in the &we) that staff workers would object to the necessity of a long detour around the end of the building when they wish to go to the laboratory
/m/ CORRID(W
Figure 3.
Channel building with cross-connecting submrridor.
just across the channel. Accordingly, a cross subcorridor, virtually a rectangular fireproof tunnel ahout 7l/%feet high and 5 feet wide, is occasionally inserted. Such a subcorridor is shown a t the right of Figure 3, connecting north and south main corridors. This tunnel is of ample height for pedestrian service, hut still leaves room in the channel for a few horizontal pipe lines, east to west, if needed. There is no necessity for expanding it to permit transportation of large pieces of furniture, as one expects in a main corridor. Dimensions of the subcorridor should be cleared with code authorities a t an early date. One of the most conspicuous advantages of the core plan is seen in the location of hoods just outside the channel. Not only do such hoods have simple, relatively frictionless flue runs, but as centers of fire hazard they are happily located as far as possible from escape doors. Figure 4, a composite of ideas from California, Illinois, and Oregon plans, shows the treatment of certain objections to Figure 3. Item A, for example, meets the criticism that the Figure 3 plan provides too many offices and minor rooms without mechanical equipment, and not enough laboratories. Since offices with south exposure are deplored, the lower row is deleted, leaving a porch or balcony in a mild climate, or a glassed-in corridor in a cold climate. Item B implies that the "OFCS-LABS" areas are designed for movable partitions, and can he cut up to accommodate a variable proportion of office-laboratory schemes. Two balconies or exterior corridors are then Volume 38, Number 9, September 1961
/
475
provided, and the special rows of offices (Fig. 3) omitted. Item C solves the office-laboratory problem by direct replacement of the southerly bank of offices (Fig. 3) by a third row of laboratories. This scheme poses the problem of bringing public-utility services, flues, etc., to the new south row of laboratories. This is achieved by running cross tunnels, about 2 X 3 feet in cross section, under the ceiling of the middl*row of laboratories; or some of the services may be introduced from below in the classical method of Figure 1. The plan is then virtually a hybrid of the classical and core systems; but the argument for the whole layout is somewhat weak. Item D, apparently bordering on the ridiculous, may be significant on very costly urban terrain. It might be considered where it is critically important to house a large laboratory plant on a single city block. In summary, it is obvious that the architect can fill up a rectangular area of almost any large size and of any proportion by some special sequence of corridors, laboratories, and channels. Nor does the whole assembly have to be a complete rectangle. In these assemblies, Figures 2 to 4, with interior corridors as narrow as 6 to 61/2feet, it does now look as if the architects have reached the absolute minimum. Although two corridors or balconies may be required per floor, the yield of net assignable ("net useful") area in a chemistry building in ratio to gross area, in comparison with the classical arrangement, is fully up to an economical standard, provided the channel itself is appraised on a cost basis, and not on mere square or cubic footage.
day or night, snmmer or winter. But that is not a complete answer to the complainants. It is not fair to brush aside the protest against windowless laboratories merely by provision of ample fluorescent illumination with attention only to foot candles. One must remember that the virtue of daylight (shaded) is not solely a matter of opportunity to see the birds and flowers. The illumination engineer should consider glare control-which means no direct rays from bare fluorescent t u b e s a n d along with such a precaution make the proper prescription of tints of fluorescent light, plus an item often ignored, the best tintsfor laboratory walls. Only by proper treatment of all of these factors can one replace daylight with really satisfactory results. In the face of reluctance of administrative authority in some institutions to provide adequate ventilation and air conditioning, the proponent of the core plan has a "left-handed" argument. Snch forced ventilation is absolutely mandatory in a core structure, since one cannot ignore the problem with mere advice to "open the window!" A minor objection-perhaps more than "minor" to the researcher whose officeand laboratory work are very closely inter-related-is voiced against the Figure 3 or 4A plan, where one must cross a public corridor to go from office to laboratory. Figure 4B, with windowless laboratory and offices located so that they enjoy both daylight and artificial light, is then the most promising option. Removable partitions in such situation are favored, particularly in view of changes in demand for secretarial service in the future. Fire Department Objections
...... ........................
C Figure 4.
D
Mircellaneour ofRce-loborotory-channeI.baIcooy groupings.
Objections to the Channel Design
Sharp criticism of the core plan comes from many academic workers who object to windowless laboratories, and particularly to windowless offices. Choice of the Figure 4A plan, permitting desirable north windows, solves the office problem. The argument against windowless laboratories, however, is weakened by the almost universal practice of workers, even in sunny southern California, of using flnorescent lights 476
/
Journal of Chemical Education
Still more critical objections come from conservative writers of the codes for municipal and state fire and safety bureaus. For example, one major city authority in California will not approve a core building unless there is a complete, sealed-off, reinforced-concrete floor a t each story level in the channel. Snch drastic requirement completely invalidates the whole scheme. Safety authorities insisting on these floor partitions in the channel argue first from their long-time requirement that multistory buildings must not have long vertical passageways which could behave as huge chimneys in a fire emergency. Such unimpeded passageways have long been outlawed in hotels and office buildings. The same authorities are also fearful that a gas-air mixture, caused by leakage in a room not normally occupied by possible observers with sensitive noses, might explode. Snch explosion in an undivided canyon might be disastrous. The objections are countered in the following manner: (1) Exclude fuel gas service from the channel, placing,the gas risers near corridors in the "classical" manner. Gas is of declining interest in modern laboratories anyway, and the added cost of pipe exclusion would be slight. ( 2 ) Exclude all woodwork or other inRammable matter from the channel. All combustible insulation on wires, including tarred cloth, rubber, and plastic, would be covered in conduits, as already required in many city codes. (3) Arrange the ventilation system so that air is
changed in the channel regularly, a t least three times per hour. Such air need not be (costly) fresh air, but may be an offtake from habitable rooms near the channel, such as offices or classrooms. (4) See that atmospheric pressure in flue lines (in the channel) is negative, thus forestalling leakage of an inflammable vapor into the channel from a hood. This specification would probably follow the normal eugineering design of the hood system anyway. Even though there are appropriate remedies for the fire hazards, the fact remains that certain "codes" are hostile to the channel plan, and there should be a very definite understanding, not requiring concrete-floor regulations, before any college administration encourages its architect to attempt a core building. If one wishes to be really pessimistic, and still retain a practical channel structure, he may design roof hatches and louvered end wall sections which would yield to a gas explosion without great damage. A methane-air explosion after all is propulsive, not brisant, and the hazard is limited thereby.
might serve in a channel of ample width, but as of present date the sealing materials joining ceramic segments are too porous and absorptive to be acceptable to the growing number of researchers using radioactive materials. One rather practical and realistic suggestion, adopted in the Risley-Gould job a t La Jolla, is to use cheap black sheet iron, epoxy coated, and fabricated in standard units which are readily and cheaply replaceable. Elegance of appearance is obviously of no concern. Such sheet metal may cost only one fifth as much as stainless steel. Although replacement will be slightly more frequent than with stainless steel, the operations of renewal will be conducted in the channel where researchers will not be disturbed. Penetration of the channel wall a t various future dates could be a nuisance to researchers especially in walls of brick or concrete. A much better plan employs the approved "two-hour" design, under which the wall consists of light steel studdings, steel lath, and one inch of plaster. Little disturbance is foreseen in the future installation of a new piped service.
Special Problems
Acknowledgment
The provision of ample space for flues in the central channel permits an unusual solution for the flue lining problem. First one may as well concede that there is no perfect flue-lining material. Even stainless steel, a costly material, has been proved in the University of California installations to have only a short lie. A ceramic standpipe, too bulky for the classical building,
Acknowledgment is made of valuable technical assistance in the La Jolla design project by Mr. J. W. Tippetts, in charge of the La Jolla office of Architects and Engineers, University of California, and Admiral C. D. Wheelock, U.S.N. retd., naval designer and member of the Scripps Institution staff, who collaborated with Mr. Stanley R. Gould, executive architect.
Volume 38, Number 9, September 1961
/
477
