Re: [Phys-L] new physics lab construction

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 09/11/2014 07:19 PM, Larry Smith wrote:

> We are in the process of “programming” for a new science building

Here's an all-too-common story, forwarded from the 
chemistry list:

On 09/28/2014 11:48 AM, ssmaglik wrote:

>> The architects of our brand new science building didn't account for the 
>> ventilation of or flammables.  We have put all of our liquid organics in a 
>> flammables cabinet but when we open the door, we are overwhelmed with 
>> noxious odors.  Anything we suggest to vent the cabinet will compromised 
>> the flammability suppression of the cabinet.  Anyone have any suggestions 
>> to vent this cabinet and/or protect its contents, while allowing us to 
>> breathe easy?  Oh, and without a total remodel of the room?

Some thoughts:

  0) Do not underestimate the potential for screw-ups.

  1) It's worth your while to get a really good architect.  The
   cost of the architect is small compared to the cost of construction.
   It pays for itself if it prevents even one screw-up.

   The situation is similar to car-repair shops:  Some of them are
   really good, but the other 90% of them aren't.  There ought to
   be a way to tell the difference before it's too late, but that's
   not easy.  Talking to a few previous customers helps.

  2) You might want to get a second opinion, i.e. to have an independent 
   professional double-check the plans.  There are firms that specialize
   in this:
     https://www.google.com/search?q=architect+%22second+opinion%22+review

  3) It also pays to set up a user committee drawn from the folks 
   who will actually be using the building.  There are books that 
   they can read so they can get up to speed on what features are
   possible, and on what mistakes should be avoided.

   Keep the committee small.  One diligent review is far more valuable 
   than a huge number of superficial glances.

  4) At a more detailed level:  Anything that is lab space, or might ever
   become lab space, should back up against a /service corridor/ aka
   /utility core/ so that things like additional fume ventilation, gas,
   water, sewer, wiring, etc. can be added without having to reconstruct
   the entire building.

   This has been standard practice in lab construction for 50 years that
   I know of, maybe more, so it's embarrassing to even mention it.  Leaving
   out the utility core would count as a monumental screw-up, but such
   things can happen if you're not vigilant.

  5) Think about the /real/ safety issues.  Nowadays some people think
   that means minimizing the number of doors, so that you can protect
   the place against a crazed gunman.  In fact, the typical school can
   expect to have a gunman problem once every several thousand years.
   The chance of a fire or toxic chemical spill is far greater, which
   is why you want safety showers, eye-wash stations, shutoff switches,
   and /more/ doors, not fewer.  Emergency exits can be locked and 
   alarmed, you know.

   Showers and eyewash stations should always be alarmed.  Rationale:
   you don't want to choose between washing and going for help.

  6) Speaking of alarms:  Make sure you have a "general evacuation alarm"
   not just a fire alarm.  Rationale:  Suppose there is a toxic chemical
   spill.  You want to get everybody out.  It is next to impossible to
   get the typical person to pull the "fire" alarm if there is not an
   actual blazing fire.  Also, you want emergency responders to know 
   they're dealing with a problem other than a fire.  Plan for this.
   Explain this to denizens ... and visitors.  Drill for this.

   At the door to each lab room, there should be a shutoff switch aka
   panic button that shuts off the natural gas supply to the room and
   all of the electricity except for special circuits for emergency
   lighting, fume hood ventilation et cetera.  This is one of those
   things that is cheap to design in at an early stage and expensive
   (albeit not impossible) to retrofit.

   Amazingly enough, you can still find places that don't have any such 
   feature.

  7) As previously mentioned:  Design for flexibility!

   This includes designing relatively large areas that can be broken
   up with NON-load-bearing walls.  That way you can rearrange walls
   as needs change during the life of the building ... e.g. turning 
   one large room into N smaller rooms, or vice versa.

   This costs practically nothing if designed in from the start, but
   is impossible to retrofit.

  8) Design green.

   Example:  Design some sort of brise-soleil for the south-facing windows.

   Example:  The brise-soleil could double as a photovoltaic collector.

   Example:  In any arid or semi-arid clime, do something useful with 
    the rainwater that comes off the roof.  This is yet another feature 
    that costs practically nothing if designed in, but is often near-
    impossible to retrofit.

   Et cetera...............

  *) This is not meant to be a complete list.  This is meant to be
   motivation to read books, consult experts, construct your own
   checklists, and double-check everything.  There is tremendous 
   upside if you do things right, and tremendous downside if something 
   goes wrong.

   Possibly constructive suggestion:
     https://www.google.com/search?q=%22laboratory+design%22+architect+checklist

   I haven't been able to find anything good online.  There is stuff
   like this:
     
http://www.ase.org.uk/documents/lab-design-designing-and-planning-laboratories/designing-and-planning-laboratories.pdf
   which is better than nothing, but not nearly as detailed as it 
   should be IMHO.  For example, it is wishy-washy about eyewash
   stations, and doesn't mention that they should be alarmed.  It's
   only 60 pages.

   You can get hardcopy books with tenfold more detail, including
   checklists, which is closer to what's needed.