Sustainable Laboratories for Universities and Colleges
- Lessons from America and the Pharmaceutical Sector
Peter James, Mike Dockery and Lisa Hopkinson
Final Report, January 2007
Professor Peter James is Co-Director, and Lisa Hopkinson, is Research Officer on the
Higher Education Environmental Performance Improvement (HEEPI) project. This is based
at the University of Bradford, and mainly funded from the HEFCE Leadership, Governance
and Management (LGM) initiative. It aims to improve the environmental performance of
universities and colleges through identification and dissemination of best practice, events
and network building activities, and development of sector capacity. See www.heepi.org.uk
for more details, and contact information.
Mike Dockery is a laboratory designer of some years experience and holds a number of
associated professional positions, including chairmanship of the British Standards Institute’s
LBI/18 Laboratories Technical Committee.
Disclaimer: This paper has been prepared in good faith as an objective account of the
discussions at, and matters arising from, the Labs21 UK events. It does not constitute
technical guidance, and is not a substitute for appropriate professional advice on the subject
matter being discussed.
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 3
1.
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5
2.
The Growing Significance of Laboratory Energy Consumption .............................................. 6
2.1 Energy in Higher Education Laboratories ......................................................................................... 7
3. Reasons for Laboratory Energy Intensity ...................................................................................... 8
3.1 Factors Creating Unnecessary Energy Consumption ........................................................................ 9
4. The Labs21 Approach ................................................................................................................... 10
4.1 The Design and Implementation Process .......................................................................................... 10
Integrated design ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
Setting of energy and environmental goals ............................................................................................................. 11
Accurate profiling of operation ............................................................................................................................... 11
Incorporation of user and facility perspectives ....................................................................................................... 12
Commissioning as quality control ........................................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Laboratory Architecture .................................................................................................................... 13
Engineering driven .................................................................................................................................................. 14
Flexible utilities ....................................................................................................................................................... 14
Modular equipment ................................................................................................................................................. 14
Energy-based configurations ................................................................................................................................... 15
4.3 Laboratory Engineering ..................................................................................................................... 16
Determine likely size and variability of loads ......................................................................................................... 16
Minimise loads ........................................................................................................................................................ 17
Match variable loads and supply through an adjustable system .............................................................................. 17
‘Right size’ equipment so that supply capacity matches loads................................................................................ 18
5. Lessons for UK Higher Education ............................................................................................... 19
6. Key Solutions to Improve Laboratory Design & Management in the UK .................................. 21
Integrated and engineering-led design .................................................................................................................... 21
Set sustainability goals ............................................................................................................................................ 23
Involve users and facilities staff .............................................................................................................................. 23
Commissioning and evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 23
Value engineering to minimise whole-life costs, rather than first costs .................................................................. 24
Low pressure drop design ....................................................................................................................................... 24
Rethink fume cupboard ventilation systems, situation and operating parameters ................................................... 25
Evidence-based design parameters .......................................................................................................................... 26
Modular solutions.................................................................................................................................................... 27
Effective controls .................................................................................................................................................... 27
7. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix 1 – Labs21 US Benchmarks for Ventilation Systems with Low Pressure Drop, and
Impacts on Fan Power Requirements .............................................................................................. 29
Appendix 2: HEEPI Energy Benchmarks for Laboratories ........................................................... 29
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
2
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
Executive Summary
Laboratories have many environmental impacts. One of the most serious is their consumption of
large quantities of energy – up to ten times more than offices on a square metre basis – and water.
The main reason for this is a high ventilation load - 40-50% of their total electrical consumption is
typically consumed by fans. An additional 10-30% of energy consumption can be used to chill air
or water to cool spaces or equipment. This high utilities consumption is expensive, not only in
energy and water bills, but also through the associated capital, maintenance, and other expenditure
needed to supply the required cooling and ventilation. There is growing evidence that some of this
expenditure can be avoided through effective design, without compromising, and indeed enhancing,
safety. However, relatively few UK laboratories are achieving this, especially in higher education.
A new initiative, Labs21 UK, aims to reduce these and other environmental impacts, through the
sharing of best practice at events, benchmarking, and other means. The work builds on the Labs21
programme of the US, which has demonstrated that a new approach to design and operation can
result in significant environmental, financial and other benefits. This involves:
A design process which has greater integration of sub-systems, and more effective
implementation and quality control;
Architectural principles which place greater weight on engineering and energy
considerations, and adopt more flexible and modular configurations; and
Engineering principles which seek a greater understanding of energy loads, have more
adjustable means of matching supply with demand, and ‘right size’ equipment to closely
match actual needs.
Labs21 UK held three inaugural events, at Glasgow and Leeds Universities, and at Imperial
College, in September 2006. These identified some differences between Britain and the US, but
highlighted five key technical areas where the Labs21 approach is relevant to, and challenges,
current practice in the UK:
Low energy ventilation design, aimed at reducing the volume and velocity of air movements
(and consequent fan energy consumption), by methods such as low pressure drop air
handling systems and the use of variable air volume (VAV) fume cupboards;
Rethinking fume cupboard ventilation systems, positioning, and operating parameters in
order to reduce their volume flow rates, and to optimise the flexibility of laboratory space;
Evidence-based design, which uses modelling, real rather than ‘nameplate’ data on
equipment energy use, and other techniques, to reduce uncertainty so that overly
conservative rules of thumb and safety margins can be avoided;
More modular solutions (such as plug-in modular fume cupboards with integrated ductwork)
to provide greater flexibility and greatly reduce the cost, time requirements, and disruption
of refurbishments;
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
3
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
More attention to the design and commissioning of controls, which must work well if design
specifications – for both energy efficiency and safety – are to be achieved, but often don’t.
Labs21 US has also demonstrated that these technical changes cannot be achieved without a well
managed design process that has:
More integrated and engineering-led design, to overcome current problems of fragmented
decisions by specialists, and a lack of understanding amongst some professionals that
heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) decisions are crucial to laboratory energy
and safety performance, and need to be prominent from the earliest stages;
Clear sustainability goals, such as target air change rates or energy consumption per m2;
Greater involvement by a range of users and facilities staff in order to improve
communication within the project team, and to ensure that designs are practical and
effective;
More integrated and effective commissioning and evaluation so that independent quality
control of this aspect exists from the start of the design process;
Value engineering to minimise whole-life, rather than first, costs and ensure that removing
one element does not – because of the interconnectedness of laboratory systems - have
unexpected and costly knock-on effects elsewhere.
The evidence is that, whilst there is still much to be done in the US, its Labs21 programme has
created a situation where these process features are more common there than in the UK.
For these, and other reasons, it appears that many UK customers of new and refurbished
laboratories – and especially those in higher education – are not getting ‘value for money’. Their
utility and other operating costs could be significantly lower than at present without compromising
safety and performance. Indeed, the central message of Labs21 is that there are strong synergies
between sustainable laboratories, safe laboratories and productive laboratories.
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
4
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
1.
Introduction
This paper is an outcome of a new initiative, Labs21 UK, which aims to reduce the energy
consumption, and other environmental impacts, of British laboratories. The initiative is being
facilitated by HEEPI (Higher Education Environmental Performance Improvement), a not-for-profit
project which supports UK universities and colleges in becoming more sustainable through
benchmarking, sharing best practice, and other actions. These activities have revealed very high
energy consumption, and associated problems such as badly specified or badly performing controls
and equipment, in many of the hundreds of laboratories which are operated in UK higher education.
External contacts with other sectors also suggests that these problems occur in other sectors which
operate laboratories, albeit in slightly different ways, and with varying degrees of severity. Hence,
whilst currently centred in higher education, Labs21 UK is aimed at all laboratory-based users and
owners with the objective of stimulating improvements through the sharing of knowledge and
experience.
Labs21 UK is not a ‘starting from scratch’ initiative, but is based on, and collaborates closely with,
the pioneering Labs21 programme of the USA. The latter began as a collaboration of Federal
laboratories to improve energy efficiency and share best practice between them through better
networking and staff exchanges. It was founded by the US Environmental Protection Agency,
which has continued to provide 75% of its funding, with additional support from the US
Department of Energy and. Whilst this Government support remains important, the US Labs21
initiative has grown by:
Involving a wider range of organisations, with partners now including universities,
pharmaceutical companies and other commercial laboratory operators, and laboratory
equipment suppliers;
Undertaking a wide range of activities, including running training courses, holding an
annual conference (which attracted over 600 delegates in 2006), developing case studies and
guidance manuals, and developing a set of Environmental Performance Criteria for
laboratory design;
Making the case that, when designers use a combination of rational and innovative
approaches to address key energy issues, there are often important and associated benefits in
operational functionality, research efficiency, and reductions in cost benchmarks.
Labs21 UK was launched with three events featuring presentations from one of the founders of, and
leading lights in, the US Labs21 initiative, Geoffrey Bell.1 Geoffrey works for Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, which is managed by the University of California, and is an expert in energyefficient HVAC systems. The workshops focused on the energy consumption of laboratories, and
therefore this paper does also. However, other environmental impacts are also impact, and will be
discussed in subsequent publications.
This paper synthesises the presentation and discussions at the three Labs21 UK events with other
sources, including US Labs 21 publications and HEEPI’s experience of benchmarking university
laboratories, with the aims of:
1
The presentations can be viewed on www.heepi.org.uk, along with others from the events.
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
5
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
Analysing the reasons for high energy consumption in British laboratories
Identifying opportunities for improvement, and how barriers to them can be overcome
Highlighting best practice examples from the UK and USA
Identifying further opportunities for collaboration between the US Labs21 (and its
international partner, the International Institute for Sustainable Laboratories), and
organisations in the UK and Europe.
The contents are the responsibility of the authors, but they have benefited greatly from the advice
and review of Geoffrey Bell. Phil Wirdzek and other Labs21 experts.
2.
The Growing Significance of Laboratory Energy Consumption
Laboratories are an increasingly significant component of the ‘knowledge economy’. They are the
site for much R&D and analysis and testing activity, a great deal of scientific and technological
teaching, and small scale hi-tech production. They are also associated with the fastest growing
sectors of the economy – e.g. biomedical industries, information and communication technologies,
and higher education. Indeed, one American architect, Don Prowler, has observed that:
“Labs embody the spirit, culture, and economy of our age…what the cathedral was to the
14th century and the office building was to the 20th century, the laboratory is to the 21st
century.”2
Laboratories have the ‘normal’ environmental aspects of any building, such as the impacts arising
from construction materials, generation of construction and end-of-life-waste, transport movements
of materials and users, and environmental control (heating and cooling) for occupant comfort. They
also have more unusual impacts arising from the activities which are undertaken within them. These
include:
Use of many non-renewable source materials;
Use of highly contagious and/or hazardous materials, leading to community concern aboput
possible health impacts relating toexhaust gases;
Creation of contaminated wastes;
Very high water consumption, and creation of potentially hazardous effluents;
Very high energy consumption.
Indeed, as a result of the resource demands and use of the facility, laboratories are some of the most
energy intensive buildings in existence. It is not unknown for laboratories to have a ten times
2
Quoted by Geoffrey Bell.
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
6
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
greater energy consumption per square metre than offices. This results in very high utility operating
costs, especially in periods such as the present when energy prices are high, if fluctuating.
The high utility costs of laboratories are becoming increasingly important to their operators, who in
some cases may be forced to use less of the space than they would wish, or even employ fewer
staff. Hence, whilst there are many other issues involved in sustainable laboratory design, this paper
focuses on energy costs as the one of most immediate significance to owners, and the area where
both environmental and financial benefits are most easily obtained.
2.1 Energy in Higher Education Laboratories
The importance of laboratories is growing particularly quickly in higher education, which has
invested billions of pounds in new teaching and R&D facilities in the UK alone over the last
decade, and looks set to continue in the same way. Laboratories can account for 10% or more of
floor space, and 20-30% of total energy consumption, in research-based universities.
HEEPI’s laboratory benchmarking programme has found that recent HE laboratories usually have
higher consumption per square metre than those built a few years ago.3 This trend is associated
with, for instance, a movement to work being carried out only in contained conditions, such as
within fume cupboards, rather than on the open bench. There are also increasing levels of
automation in lab equipment (i.e., plug loading), and more complex information systems (most
notably at the work bench), all of this running 24-7 for a variety of reasons. For these and other
reasons, it is very common for laboratories to have much higher consumption than their design
specification – sometimes two or three times higher.
HEEPI has developed benchmarks for different types of laboratories according to energy
performance, based on “typical”, “good” and “best” practice that existed in 2003/04 (see Appendix
2 for all laboratory benchmarks).4 (Note that even “best” practice within the sector may not reflect
leading edge energy efficiency design, or even what is standard practice within the commercial
sector). Despite the high energy and water consumption and costs associated with laboratories, there
are still very few exemplary sustainable laboratory buildings being developed by universities and
colleges in the UK.
For a hypothetical 7,000 m2 laboratory building, the typical, good and best energy performance
within the sector translates into the following annual energy costs (see Table 1).
Table 1: Annual energy costs associated with a hypothetical 7,000 m2 laboratory building with
typical, good and best energy performance for the higher education sector5
Type of Laboratory
Best
Good
Typical
Medical/biosciences
£163,802
£234,671
£326,766
Physical/engineering
£58,229
£97,626
£140,729
Chemistry
£151,159
Insufficient data
£292,062
3
HEEPI, Results of the HEEPI HE Building Energy Benchmarking Initiative 2003-4, University of Bradford, 2006.
Available from www.heepi.org.uk.
4
New updated HEEPI benchmarks for laboratories and other buildings will be available during 2007.
5
Based on August 2006 Powergen prices of 3.14p/kWh for gas and 11.89p/kWh for electricity.
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
7
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
As the table shows, the difference in annual energy costs between the “best” and a “typical”
laboratory is around £163,000 for a medical/biosciences lab, £83,000 for a physical/engineering lab
and £141,000 for a chemistry lab. Over a 7 year ‘lifetime’ – the normal one planned for in higher
education - the difference between the total energy bills of the best and typical laboratories would
be almost £1 million.
3. Reasons for Laboratory Energy Intensity
Laboratories will always be very energy intensive, for four main reasons:
The need for very high levels of ventilation to reduce any risk that users will be exposed to
hazardous conditions or substances – to the point where some designers describe them as
‘wind tunnels’;6
The sensitivity of much equipment, and many procedures, used, so that temperatures and
relative humidity often have to be controlled within tight bands, requiring considerable use
of cooling;
High heat outputs from equipment, lighting and other activities, which creates an additional
need for cooling of some kind;
Extended occupancy, with some users often working late at night, or at weekends.
Laboratories which contain animals and other living creatures also have exacting requirements for
ventilation and temperature control (defined by the Home Office), together with other factors which
are needed to support the research mission.7
These distinctive features of laboratories mean that the pattern of energy consumption – and energy
wastage – is very different to conventional buildings such as offices, since it is related mostly to the
ventilation demand rather than the ‘fabric losses’. In particular:
Up to 40-50% of electrical energy consumption in a typical laboratory is consumed by
motors in the fans which pull air into the ventilation system, distribute it within the lab
building, and expel it to the outside;
An additional 10-30% of total energy consumption can come from chilling air or water in
order to cool spaces or equipment.
6
Typically laboratories have “once-through” ventilation, i.e., 100% of air entering is exhausted, using a mechanical
system. This consists of air handling units (fans, filters, heating and/or cooling coils, etc.), supply ductwork, terminal
devices for controlling temperature or pressure in the zones, exhaust and return-air ductwork, exhaust fans and exhaust
stacks.
7
Labs21 in the US is establishing Centers of Excellence - for example, a marine center at the University of Hawaii, a
K-12 center at Virginia Tech, and a likely center for medical at Carnegie Mellon University/Harvard School of Public
Health, to address the design and engineering issues associated with different kinds of creatures, e,g, mice, cows and
aquatic mammals.
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
8
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
3.1 Factors Creating Unnecessary Energy Consumption
The experience ofLabs21 in the USA suggests that current levels of energy consumption are higher
than necessary, and that measures can be taken – especially in the design of new or refurbished
facilities, but also in operation - to reduce them.
The reasons for excessively high energy consumption fall into two broad categories:
Those which apply to all buildings, but have more extreme results in the complex world of
laboratories, and
Those which are intrinsic to laboratories.
Generic factors include:
Difficulties in co-ordinating different building services, and optimising their overall
performance, because of the large number of different facility design specialists involved
(with an additional element of specialised laboratory designers being added to the ‘usual
suspects’ of architects and specialist mechanical and electrical (M&E) consultancies);8
Barriers to investment in energy efficient solutions because of a greater weighting on ‘first
costs’ rather than ‘whole-life’ or ‘lifecycle’ costs’ (due to capital expenditure limits and lack
of confidence in the reliability of long-term savings);
Lack of involvement of facilities staff and building users in design decisions, with the result
that design often proceeds with an incomplete view of user needs, and without taking
important operating issues such as maintenance into account.
Specific factors in laboratories include:
Lack of understanding of key issues in laboratory energy efficiency amongst project teams
(project managers, architects, engineers, and quantity surveyors), and equipment
manufacturers and suppliers;
Multiplication of safety margins through the design hierarchy as each player adds a
contingency to ensure that their work does not create any problems or liabilities – a
philosophy that is summed up as “if some is good, and more is better, then too much should
be just enough”;
Acceptance, rather than examination, of environmental temperature requirements and other
specifications for equipment from manufacturers, users and others, with the result that wider
operating bands are not really considered as an option;
Confusion between regulatory requirements, guidance by technical organisations such as
CIBSE, and ‘rules of thumb’, so that the latter – which often reflect the conservatism or lack
8
The US term equivalent to the UK term M&E is mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) consultancies.
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
9
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
of knowledge of a previous era - appear to be mandatory rather than, as is often the case,
optional, and therefore potentially subject to examination and reappraisal.
4. The Labs21 Approach
Since its foundation, Labs21 has developed an organised and systemic approach to the development
of laboratory architecture and engineering, which is now having a considerable influence on new
and refurbished laboratories in the US and elsewhere. Labs21 associates argue that using this
approach has the following benefits:
Reduces energy consumption and therefore saves money
Improves research environment
Increases safety
Facilitates capital cost savings
Enhances comfort and environmental quality for researchers, thus enhancing productivity
Frees up capacity
Strengthens maintenance and reliability of the systems
Improves ‘buildability’ and ‘maintainability’
Increases life expectancy and flexibility.
The Labs21 approach has three main aspects:
Design and implementation process
Architectural principles, and
Engineering principles.
4.1 The Design and Implementation Process
Labs21 stresses the need for five key process features to achieve sustainable laboratories:
Integrated design
Setting of energy and environmental goals
Accurate profiling of operation
Incorporation of user perspectives
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
10
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
Commissioning as quality control.
Integrated design
As previously noted, a key reason for unsustainable laboratories is a fragmented design process in
which there is too early fixing of configurations and layouts, often being based on ‘cookie-cutter’
repetition of previous designs, or the tradition of ‘design by rote’. The concepts and other basic
parameters are then cascaded down to specialist suppliers who design individual elements in
isolation, with little opportunity to challenge many of the specifications they have been given. Some
common problems which result from this are:
Inadequate space for energy efficiency features such as low face velocity coils, low
resistance ducts, and heat recovery equipment;
Equipment with larger than necessary capacity because cooling and other loads have not
been optimised;
Difficulties in achieving naturally cascading airflows because of varying pressure gradients
between different areas.
According to Labs21, avoiding these problems requires that:
“The implications of design decisions on the performance of the whole building need to be
understood and evaluated at each step of the process by the entire design team. Design
should be an iterative, cross-disciplinary effort in which each phase of the process influences
and informs the others.”9
Achieving this integration requires more coherent and cooperative team-working from the designers
and project group, which can require additional time inputs from staff and consultants, and a greater
elapsed time allowance during early design to allow greater iteration between different specialists.
Setting of energy and environmental goals
Designers need clear guidelines as to the energy efficiency results which are expected. Some goals
which have been used in laboratories adopting the Labs21 approach have been:
30% better energy efficiency than required by more exacting state codes
Achieving a high standard in the US LEED scheme (the equivalent of BREEAM in the UK)
100% natural daylighting between 10.00 a.m. and 14.00 p.m. every day
Reaching a specified energy consumption (per square metre of floor space, or per unit of
airflow).
Accurate profiling of operation
9
Labs21, Introduction to Low Energy Design. Available at http://www.labs21century.gov/pdf/lowenergy_508.pdf
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
11
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
In the relatively recent past there has been an increased, understandable, and desirable, focus on all
issues of safety in laboratories. The consequent design responses to this movement have, however,
all too often been on a basis of ‘more of the same’, rather than taking the opportunity to rationally
readdress and reassess the underlying principles. Typically this has involved ad hoc approaches
such as increasing air flows on the assumption that this will lead to faster and more effective
dilution and dispersal of contaminants. According to Geoffrey Bell:
“In practice, this does not necessarily lead to better safety because faster airflows can create
turbulence and other unexpected effects such as ‘dead spots’ within laboratory spaces. This
can result in spills from fume cupboards, or inadequate ventilation of certain areas.”
The Labs21 approach is based on the assumption that the risk of these problems can only be
eliminated by a better understanding of how the laboratory will work in practice. This involves
understanding their:
Physical functions using methods such as computation fluid dynamics (CFD) to map air
flows in detail, and to optimise the positioning of diffusers and other supply devices;
Human functions such as occupancy and working practices so that, as far as is probable, all
operating variables are taken into account.
The better characterisation of laboratory operation which is obtained through this means that
ventilation rates can correctly reflect operational needs and design ‘safety margins’ can be
realistically calculated (rather than existing to be a safety net for a lack of knowledge within the
design team). This process usually results in reduced energy consumption.
Involvement by Users
A leading pharmaceutical company constructed a plywood and Perspex ‘mock-up’ of a lab module
for a new facility which was expected to have 300 fume cupboards. It then asked researchers to
demonstrate how they would use the facilities, including setting up equipment. The exercise
revealed that 95% of users could be accommodated by a fume cupboard 83mm less than originally
envisaged. When multiplied by 300 fume cupboards of 1.8 metre width this resulted in big savings
in purchase and running costs, even when the costs of meeting the needs of the other 5% of users
were taken into account.
Incorporation of user and facility perspectives
This is vital to energy efficiency because it enables:
HVAC equipment to be right sized for needs
Potential barriers, e.g. user difficulties in understanding and operating complex control
systems, to be identified in advance and ‘designed away’
Designs to be optimized for lower cost and easier maintenance and operation
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
12
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
Accurate ‘diversity factors’ to be identified (see below)
Alternative approaches to design problems to be identified (e.g. reducing occupancy levels
during periods of peak summer temperatures rather than assuming unchanged occupancy
and upsizing equipment considerably to compensate).
Commissioning as quality control
Traditionally, commissioning has been the process of testing equipment and control devices at the
end of construction in order to prove that they are meeting the design intent. Commissioning is vital
in achieving environmental benefits because, to be realised, these often rely on correct installation
and operation of building features, or optimisation of controls to reflect actual rather than assumed
occupancy and use. For this reason, the US LEED environmental assessment scheme gives credits
for independent commissioning, and BREEAM gives credit for seasonal commissioning – i.e. recommissioning / tweaking systems every three months during first year of occupation.
Currently, Labs21 has a broader view of commissioning, seeing the final commissioning as being
just part of a building quality assurance process, which verifies that the work done, and the plant
installed, conforms to the design intent (including any environmental performance criteria), and
detailed design specifications. It is therefore of relevance to all stages of construction. Labs21
identifies some basic principles of commissioning as:
Establishing an independent reviewing authority (which can be internal staff);
Developing a commissioning plan, including methods for issue resolution;
Forming a commissioning team during the early stages of the project, with continuing
meetings as it progresses;
Setting up a commissioning “authority” (typically an independent commissioning
consultancy, but possibly other internal or external players) with “final say” on quality
issues;
Effective handover to the facilities staff, with high quality, user-friendly, and, increasingly,
electronically searchable, documentation of what has been built, and how equipment and
systems operate;
Training of operation and maintenance personnel and occupants, supported by written
material to allow for future job changes.
4.2 Laboratory Architecture
Labs21 stresses four main principles of architectural design for energy savings:
Engineering driven
Flexible utilities
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
13
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
Modular equipment
Energy-based configurations.
Engineering driven
Generally, laboratories are designed in the same way as other buildings, i.e. the architect designs the
plan form, and then tells the engineers how much space they have. The energy problems with this
can include:
Inadequate space for energy-efficiency measures such as low pressure loss air handling units
(AHUs) or ductwork
Layouts which do not support energy efficiency, e.g. location of equipment or spaces
requiring high cooling in different parts of the building
Unnecessarily complicated ducted layouts which increase pressure drops, and therefore,
energy consumption.
Issues such as these therefore need to be taken into account at a very early stage in the design. This
can most effectively be achieved by using M&E engineers with knowledge of sustainable
laboratory design, and the sensible incorporation of their advice and requirements into the design
from project inception.
Flexible utilities
Conventional design involves distributing utilities through ceiling voids and vertical riser shafts.
Although this can be space efficient, it reduces the flexibility to change internal lab configurations,
and supply and distribution options. It also means that any work on services disrupts research and
teaching and may not provide effective and efficient conditions for maintenance staff.
Placing utilities in a dedicated, ergonomic, maintenance space can overcome these disadvantages
and provide a highly flexible approach. Means of doing this include a backbone service corridor or
a flexible interstitial space (small ceiling height space dedicated for utilities). This has the
advantages of:
Better safety (e.g. gas cylinders are not in main circulation areas)
Less intrusive servicing and so reduced disruption of researchers
Reduced construction time (up to 20%), as utilities can be installed in parallel with other
building work
Better use of space for low pressure drop ductwork system design (see below).
Modular equipment
The traditional approach to laboratory design has been to use built-in, immovable, components and
to have fixed servicing of them. However, a more modular approach is possible. For instance, for
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
14
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
chemistry labs this can involve relocatable lab furniture and fume cupboards which match the
already established ‘plug-in’ adaptability of Microbiological Safety Cabinets in biology labs.
Achieving this requires provision of services to all areas of research spaces so that fume cupboards
and other equipment can be moved fairly easily. This is expensive in first costs but decouples
strategic issues of service provision from tactical decisions about what goes where on the laboratory
floor.
It is also possible to make use of small (e.g. 10 x 4 metres), self-contained, modules containing
fume cupboards, services and working space. The spaces in which they are housed contain a
multiplicity of service connection points so that modules can easily be moved, added or removed.
Although this results in higher infrastructure costs, these can be more than offset by the benefits of
being able to respond flexibly to changing work requirements, and the cost savings from
prefabrication and reduced engineering time for installation.
This modular system does create challenges in ensuring full containment and dispersal of hazardous
substances, but experience demonstrates that these can be overcome. The prize from doing so is
energy efficiency benefits from reducing the amount of space that has to be ventilated and airconditioned at high rates. If it extends the useful life of, or allows more effective utilisation of
existing space, it also reduces the need for new construction, and the energy consumption and other
environmental impacts associated with this.
Energy-based configurations
Very often, discrete activities, which require high levels of cooling, ventilation or other services,
have been co-located with others that are less demanding. The result is that the whole space must be
intensively serviced.
A key objective of sustainable laboratory design is therefore to group or isolate intensively serviced
activities so that the minimum possible space is intensively serviced.
Energy-based Configuration
Careful assessment of user needs and equipment requirements during the design of Stanford
University’s Global Ecology Center resulted in equipment with very tight temperature control
requirements being grouped in a separate room, so that only a small area required intensive cooling.
As a result, predicted energy consumption fell by 17%.
One UK university has adopted the same approach for laboratory animals, with each now living in
individually ventilated, heated and cooled cages (rather than the more normal open cage racks).
This has greatly reduced the need for intensive cooling and ventilation of the room space as a
whole, cutting air change rates by more than 50%. The caged area is also served by a dedicated
supply system, thereby reducing the need to ‘over-size’ the main laboratory air handling unit.
Capital costs and maintenance requirements are also lower for this approach.
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
15
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
4.3 Laboratory Engineering
Labs21’s engineering design approach has four key principles:
Determine likely size and variability of loads
Minimise loads
Match variable loads and supply through an adjustable system
‘Right size’ equipment so that supply capacity matches loads.
Reducing Energy Consumption for Chilling
Labs21 recommends the following measures:
Evaluate chilled water supply at a temperature as warm as possible; include fan, pump, and tower
energy consumption in your evaluations;
Investigate raising maximum space humidity limit - it often drives water supply temperature;
Consider adding a medium temperature chiller for sensible and process loads when low temperature
chilled water is required;
Use a process cooling water system to remove loads from the space;
“Oversize” evaporators, condensers, and cooling towers;
Lower condenser water temperature.
Determine likely size and variability of loads
Overly “tight” temperature and humidity requests constrain energy efficiency options. Hence, it is
essential to:
Determine the necessary comfort envelope
“Qualify” loads by understanding the reasoning dictating temperature and humidity ranges
“Quantify” loads by differentiating between – and carefully examining – regulatory
requirements, standards, real user needs, and equipment manufacturer’s suggestions.
One area where over-estimation is common is the ‘plug load’ (electrical demand of equipment).
Engineers know that the operation of lab equipment is the primary source of internal heat gain, but
often exaggerate the extent at peak. This can result from assuming worst case conditions, and using
nameplate power consumption date, which rarely reflects operating reality.
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
16
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
Loads are typically very variable, due to changes in fume cupboard use, process heat gain, climate,
occupancy, and other factors. These factors influence the lab’s ventilation rate and, thus, HVAC
requirements. The aim of a sustainable design strategy is to achieve an optimized mechanical
system which responds dynamically to this variability to ensure that equipment, e.g. fan motors, are
working as efficiently as possible, and that there is not over-supply of air, heat or cooling.
Minimise loads
The high consumption of fan energy in laboratories makes the minimisation of air flow volumes
and speeds the number one target for minimising loads. Some means of achieving this include:
‘Low pressure drop design’ (see section 6);
Configuring space so that areas with requirements for high levels of ventilation are grouped
together or isolated;
Selecting high-efficiency fans (well above 35%) for all air handling equipment;
Installing variable speed drives on motors (which can reduce fan energy by 5-10%).
As one fume cupboard can consume as much energy as three domestic houses, reducing their
energy consumption is a particularly key target (see section 6).
Match variable loads and supply through an adjustable system
An adjustable air supply and exhaust system operates at both the component level, especially fume
cupboards, and the HVAC system as a whole. Traditional laboratory design has been based on a
constant air volume (CAV) approach. This involves the same amount of air being applied to the
ventilated spaces, and the same rate of exhaust fan power inside the fume cupboards. This approach
has the advantage of having a relatively low first cost, and being relatively simple to operate and
maintain. However, it has been associated with high rates of air change and consequently high
energy consumption.
There are two alternatives to this:
Variable Air Volume (VAV) systems in which air flows through the system – and in
particular through fume cupboards – change in response to load;
Low volume CAV systems, in which fume cupboards have reduced volume flow rates (often
expressed in terms of face velocity) of only 50 to 60% of conventional designs.
The latter may become more prevalent in future, and indeed may be used in combination with
VAV, but for the moment the main alternative to conventional approaches is VAV alone. Their key
component is VAV fume cupboard exhausts that respond to the amount the sash is open to maintain
a constant air velocity at the cupboard face.
See section 6 for further discussion of VAV fume cupboards.
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
17
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
Energy-Efficient Central Plant Design
In the US, Labs21 recommends that laboratory designers consider the following options:
“Right-size” chillers and boilers;
Evaluate the plant’s part-load efficiency;
Pursue modular plant design; consider units of unequal size;
Consider all-variable speed cooling systems including chillers, condenser pumps, and tower fans;
Apply variable speed devices in water supply systems for heating and cooling, use 2 way valves;
Evaluate raising chilled water temperature as high as possible; converse for heating;
Employ a “tower side” economizer for “free” cooling;
Consider a Combined Heating and Power (CHP) system.
‘Right size’ equipment so that supply capacity matches loads.
According to Geoffrey Bell:
“In the past, mechanical plants have been sized for 100% of peak load at 99% climatic
tolerance with an additional 20-50% "start-up factor" and another 20-30% "safety factor”.
Those days are over! Getting a better fit between capacity and demand can reduce first costs,
operational costs, and energy consumption by very significant amounts."
In practice, peak load is often over-estimated. One crucial assumption is the “diversity factor” for
fume cupboards, i.e. the percentage which are in operation at any point in time. In large laboratories
good sash management practices can mean that only 30-60% are open at once. In such
circumstances the exhaust can therefore be sized for a lower load than conventional assumptions
might suggest. In addition to cost and energy benefits, this has further advantages such as:
Giving better system control
Increasing system stability, and
Reducing mechanical space requirements.
However, diversity factors also have to be approached with caution, and are unsuitable for small,
single room, laboratories.
As noted above, careful analysis of plug loads – which Labs21 benchmarking suggests are often
over-estimated by two times or more – can also result in smaller sized cooling equipment.
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
18
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
Whatever the actual peak load, the usual pattern in most laboratories is that it occurs 10-20% of the
time, so that plant is operating at part load for 80-90% of the time. Often this part load operation
will be less energy efficient than at peak load.
In these circumstances, having several smaller boilers, chillers and other supply equipment – rather
than a single large one - can have considerable energy benefits. When load is low, it can be
provided by smaller units operating at much higher efficiencies than with a single large one. This
also increases reliability and safety, because there is back-up capacity in the system if one of the
units goes out of service. The benefits can be especially great when the units are of unequal size.
5. Lessons for UK Higher Education
In some areas the UK is already implementing the Labs21 recommendations, and is perhaps ahead
of the US. Examples in new and refurbished laboratories include:
Considerable emphasis on non-lab specific energy efficiency measures, e.g. high insulation
values in the building fabric and windows, maximum use of natural daylighting and
ventilation, use of sophisticated Building Management Systems (BMS), and reasonable
levels of sub-metering;
Lower volume flow rates in fume cupboards, and hence lower face velocities, at levels
which are only recently becoming acceptable in the US;
Generally lower noise levels , sometimes being related to the use of a ‘velocity network’ for
the ventilation ductwork with the use of higher velocities, driven by space limitations, being
selective and controlled.
The discussions also revealed that several Labs21 recommendations are hard to implement for most
UK laboratories, especially:
Using interstitial floors, or even ceiling spaces, when building heights are a major issue for
planners and communities;
Over-sizing of ductwork and, to a lesser degree, AHUs because of severe space constraints
in both refurbished buildings, and new ones which have to built within very restricted
footprints.
Reducing airflows into fume cupboard areas can also be difficult because of resistance by insurance
companies, although the evidence suggests that this can be overcome.
On balance, however, the events demonstrated that many of the Labs21 recommendations are
relevant to the UK. On the technical side, five appear to be of especial relevance to the design of
most UK new or refurbished laboratories:
Low pressure drop design, where the Labs21 ‘best practice’, and even ‘typical’, benchmarks
for system pressure drops are well below those of the UK;
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
19
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
Rethinking fume cupboard ventilation systems, positioning, and operating parameters, in
order to reduce unnecessary air flows through them, and to maximise the flexibility of
laboratory space;
Evidence-based design, rather than simply replicating obsolete rules of thumb;
More modular solutions;
More attention to the design and commissioning of controls, which must work well if design
specifications – for both energy efficiency and safety – are to be achieved, but often don’t.
However, important as these are, they cannot be achieved without paying attention to what is
perhaps the most compelling ‘message’ of Labs21. This is that creating more energy efficient and
safe laboratories requires a well managed design process that has:
More integrated and engineering-led design than at present;
Clear sustainability goals;
Greater involvement by a range of users and facilities staff;
More effective commissioning and evaluation;
Value engineering to minimise whole-life, rather than first, costs.
The evidence seems to be that Labs21 has created a situation where these process features are more
frequent in the US than it is in the UK.
However, the discussions at the threeLabs21 UK events revealed that some British laboratories are
at least a partial exception to many of the previous statements. Prominent amongst them are the
large pharmaceutical companies who, as the boxes indicate, are already applying many of the
Labs21 precepts in the UK. Most of these have large US subsidiaries, and work with many
multinational suppliers, and have therefore benefited from knowledge transfer between North
America and Europe (and vice versa in some cases).
The view that UK higher education is not getting value for money in its current laboratory design because energy and other operating costs could be significantly lower without compromising safety
– is therefore based not only on comparisons with US laboratories, but on British ones also. Of
course, as the examples in this paper indicate, some universities and colleges and their suppliers are
implementing Labs21-type approaches. However, the events suggest that most are not, and that they
should – and could – do more to increase the environmental and financial sustainability of their
laboratory spaces. The next section provides more information on what this involves, based on the
priorities which emerged from the British Labs21 events and discussions.
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
20
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
Ten Key Issues for Sustainable Laboratory Design in the UK
The Labs21 discussions suggested that there are five process, and five architectural/engineering,
issues which need to be given greater weight by laboratory designers in Britain.
Process Issues
More integrated and engineering-led design than at present
Clear sustainability goals
Greater involvement by a range of users and facilities staff
More effective commissioning and evaluation
Value engineering to minimise whole-life, rather than first, costs.
Technical Issues
Low pressure drop design
Rethinking fume cupboard ventilation systems, positioning and operating parameters
Evidence based design parameters
Modular solutions
Effective controls.
6. Key Solutions to Improve Laboratory Design & Management in the UK
As discussed, the technical solutions suggested by Labs21 are only likely to work if there is an
effective design process, involving:
Integrated and engineering-led design
A key difference between US and UK practice seems to be the greater degree of consultation and
integration at the very start of the design process. Two key practices that would be sensible for UK
universities and colleges are:
An initial meeting/workshop pulling together key internal stakeholders – and taking place
before the main contracts have been let - to ascertain the broad requirements of the client so
that these can be incorporated into requests for tender as goals and specifications;
A subsequent design charrette (a workshop, often independently facilitated, which brings
together the design team, key suppliers, and internal stakeholders) once the main contractors
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
21
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
have been appointed, but detailed designs are fairly fluid. This has the dual aims of having a
dialogue between suppliers, client and users, and also building a shared approach within the
design team itself.
One key goal is that these activities produce a clear design intent, which is signed off by all parties,
and then forms the basis of subsequent quality control.
As Geoffrey Bell observed:
“It’s vital that this happens early because late design reviews don’t work. Important design
decisions have already been made and budgets agreed. It is very expensive and timeconsuming then to make alterations.”
As noted above, a key reason for seeking a more integrated design process is to encourage
architects to pay greater attention to engineering issues before layouts are fixed. It is important to
make space for low face velocity AHU design, and to ensure that service spaces have adequate
space for low pressure drop duct sizes.
A more integrated design approach could also help to overcome the common problem in the higher
education sector of tight schedules for design and construction of new buildings and refurbishments.
More thorough planning, consultation, and production of a good design brief, would probably save
much time and money during the design and construction process, and should result in a better
building.
Using 3D CAD
An important feature of engineering-led architectural design is greater use of 3D CAD. This can be
used for purposes such as:
Enabling users and the design team to get a better picture of internal layouts – and the effects of
changes – at an early stage of the design process (e.g. in design charrettes);
Exchanging detailed information about layouts between architects and engineers during design, and
between them and contractors during construction;
Prefabrication of integrated service modules in factories, thus greatly simplifying installation and
reducing the possibility of mistakes;
Providing detailed visual information to installers on the location of ducting and other installations.
This reduces construction costs, reduces the risk of additional expenses to rectify mistakes, and,
even more importantly, greatly reduces the risks of energy inefficient ducting layouts because of
errors and misunderstandings by contractors on site.
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
22
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
Set sustainability goals
The most obvious way of establishing a performance targets for a UK laboratory is to require the
achievement of a BREEAM Excellent rating. However, this is unlikely to be sufficient by itself,
both because it only assesses the performance of the design as constructed rather than actual
operating performance (which experience suggests can sometimes be several times higher). The
HEEPI benchmarks (see Appendix 2) do provide information on operating performance, but even
the best practice figures generated in the exercise are less than is desirable in a sustainable
laboratory.
A more specific approach for the UK which was suggested at the Labs21 events is to have a goal of
achieving an air change rate of 60% of that suggested by the ‘accepted norms’. This challenge
would then be applied to device types, face velocities, volume flow rates, sash configurations, and
control strategies in order to meet the new goal. Meeting this goal should reduce the costs of
boilers, chillers and other central plant by 30-35%, and of ductwork by around 25%. There would
also be some space savings as a result of smaller plant rooms and service risers.
Involve users and facilities staff
In addition to the general arguments made above for involving users and facilities staff, HE has
another distinctive reason, which is providing a counter-balance to senior researchers. Often new or
refurbished laboratories are incentives for existing, or newly recruited, senior staff, who naturally
try to obtain the best facilities for their research. However, they seldom have responsibility for
energy and maintenance budgets, and therefore usually place less emphasis on these considerations.
Whilst their views will always be powerful, greater involvement at least provides opportunities to
discuss the issues, and perhaps to achieve compromises in key areas.
Consulting Users in UK University Laboratories
The University of Newcastle have used an initial design charette approach to address a range of
issues, including sustainability as a key theme, in the design of their refurbished chemistry
laboratory. This involved two external experts interviewing, and facilitating a meeting of, internal
engineers, scientists, facility managers and others, in order to develop specifications which could
then form the basis of a request for proposals.
The University of Cambridge also have User Liaison Groups which bring together representatives
of the project team, and laboratory users, on a frequent – and sometimes weekly – basis throughout
construction.
Commissioning and evaluation
It is vital to ensure that there are adequate funds for proper commissioning of the building –
preferably by an independent commissioning agent rather than the contractor – and post occupancy
evaluation to ensure that it performs as well as possible, and that experience is fed back into future
designs.
The complexity of laboratories also makes it vital not only to have independent commissioning at
the end of the process, but also to have a clear quality control responsibility from the start of the
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
23
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
process. The Labs21 suggestion is to give this responsibility to the commissioning consultants, and
to bring them into the design team at the start of the process.
Value engineering to minimise whole-life costs, rather than first costs
Value engineering is obviously essential to ensure that clients get value for money, and to help
make the difficult choices that are required when, as it always the case, budgets are insufficient to
achieve all the desired outcomes. However, in practice, value engineering is often dysfunctional,
because of a narrow and obsessive focus on first - rather than whole-life – costs.
A broader, whole-life cost, approach is especially vital in laboratories. The most obvious reason is
that energy costs are extremely high. But another very important factor is the inter-connectedness of
laboratory systems. Removing one element without thought can often result in unexpected knockon effects elsewhere, e.g. larger – and therefore more costly than anticipated – components and
more expensive maintenance when installed.
One means of protecting against short-sighted value engineering decisions is to prepare a well
argued business case in advance of need. It is also important to raise awareness of possible future
energy prices, and the effect these would have on the decisions being made.
Low pressure drop design
The system pressure drop is the sum of pressure drops in its component parts (i.e. Air Handling
Unit, ductwork, fume cupboard system, and exhaust stack, etc.). The greater the overall pressure
drop, the greater the fan energy required to drive the air movement. Relatively small reductions in
system pressure drop can have large energy savings and are therefore a key aim of sustainable
laboratory design.
US Labs21 identifies a number of means of reducing pressure drops, including:
Increasing the size of air handling units and ductwork in order to run at lower pressure drops
and speeds;
Using low face-velocity and low pressure-drop coils and filters;
Providing efficient duct routing to minimise fittings and resistance to flow;
Avoiding silencers;
Manifolding groups of fume cupboards into a common exhaust, rather than each having
individual exhausts;
Using multiple units, especially for exhaust outlets, so that the number operating can be
adapted to the load.
UK laboratory designs have generally been driven by the constraints of working in older buildings
in urban areas, in which space is limited and ductwork configurations less than ideal. A lowpressure-drop design-approach in the UK is therefore likely to focus on reducing overall air flows
(by such means as changing traditional fume cupboard design specifications, as described below)
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
24
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
and on installing AHUs with lower component face velocities, although this will require more space
than architects generally allot at present.
Rethink fume cupboard ventilation systems, situation and operating parameters
Laboratory designers have two options – either minimising energy consumption in CAV fume
cupboards, or using VAV cupboards instead.
The exhaust volume of CAV fume cupboards is directly proportional to their face velocity, and the
size of their opening. Hence, three measures which can greatly reduce their energy consumption
are:
Lower sash heights during cupboard commissioning and set up. Many Swedish laboratories
have set the default sash opening at 0.4 metre high rather than the 0.5 metre height during
setup of airflow volume for establishing the cupboard’s face velocity. This practice is
mainly due to ergonomic and safety arguments, e.g., fewer users will have their line of sight
interrupted by the sash handle than at the higher level, but also has energy benefits;
Reducing face velocities by the use of more ‘aerodynamic’ fume cupboards. The design
‘rule of thumb’ for these is a flow of 0.5 m/s, but experience and testing suggests that robust
containment can be achieved with velocities of 0.3 m/s – and indeed that this may even be
safer because there is less risk of turbulent air flows Caution is, however, advised when
applying this approach due to the many variables in each laboratory space that will influence
the fume cupboard’s containment performance. The selection and installation must be on the
basis of coherent, integrated, systemic design which considers carefully, and preferably
models, the lab HVAC installations;
Reducing sash openings by the use of combination arrangements;
As an example, making the following changes to fume cupboard practice:
Using 2 x 1 metre wide panes rather than a single metre wide pane
Reducing face velocity from 0.5m/s to 0.3m/s
Repositioning the sash opening from 0.5m to 0.4m high
This produces a reduction of extract volume from 0.5m3/s to 0.12m3/s, which in turn results in a 2-3
times reduction in energy consumption for this single fume cupboard.
VAV fume cupboards provide a constant face velocity while adjusting volume flow in accordance
with the sash’s position. Energy reductions are realized with good sash management practice that
keep the sash opening at a minimum for safety, thus minimizing airflow volume and energy
consumption. In some cases a VAV approach may have higher first costs, partly because of the
more complex control systems, but these are often more than offset by reductions in the sizes of air
handling and air conditioning installations. A VAV approach has the benefits of:
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
25
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
Reduced energy consumption because there is less airflow volume when cupboard sashes
are maintained at a minimum, safe, opening;
Increased safety because there is much less risk of the turbulent air flows and consequent
spillage arising from sudden changes in fume cupboard face velocities that can arise in high
velocity CAV systems;
Much more detailed monitoring, and finer control of, pressurisation in laboratories so that
any problems can be quickly identified and dealt with.
Realising these benefits requires effective ‘sash management’ and, for this and other reasons,
changes in behaviour amongst both laboratory users and facilities staff. The small number of UK
universities – for example, Manchester and Newcastle - who have installed VAV systems report
that it has been a steep learning curve, but they nonetheless feel it to be worthwhile and will apply it
in future laboratory designs.
The Labs21 discussions also suggested that there is value in rethinking cupboard locations. It can be
more efficient (and space-saving) to put the fume cupboard directly up against the wall, rather than
leaving the 300mm gap which is the common design practice (which was originally described and
advised in BS7258, but subsequently brought into question as containment testing data has
accumulated).
Evidence-based design parameters
As in the US, HVAC design in UK laboratories often involves the sequential addition of ‘safety
margins’, to the point where air flows might be 50-80% greater than is actually needed. A typical,
hypothetical, process might be:
Engineers responsible for ductwork add an additional 10-15% to the levels recommended by
CIBSE (which themselves contain a safety margin);
The ductwork specifications are passed on the design engineers responsible for the air
handling unit (AHU), who add another 10-15% safety margin in drawing up their own
specifications to AHU suppliers;
The AHU suppliers add a further, sometimes considerable, safety margin in their
specification to fan manufacturers.
Each of these parties is acting rationally within their own responsibilities, but lack of integration
means that the aggregate system margin is much higher than needed in practice.
Another common problem is design for very tight temperature or humidity ranges due to
assumptions about the sensitivity of certain laboratory equipment. However, often these tight ranges
are not necessary and most equipment can tolerate much larger ranges. Close checking with the
equipment manufacturer or supplier, can indicate actual tolerances. If certain equipment is sensitive,
this can be housed in its own enclosure to avoid designing the whole system to overly tight
specifications. Owners and occupants need to clearly understand the impacts that design tolerances
have on facility energy performance.
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
26
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
A final example of problematic ‘rules of thumb’ is the norm of engineers allowing for lighting heat
gain when sizing chillers, but ignoring it when specifying boilers.
One solution is for the main M&E contractors on the design team to take greater responsibility for
integration but this is difficult if they do not have complete confidence in the sub-contractors. An
increasingly common alternative in the US – but an approach little used in the UK – is to
commission a design review by external engineers. The reasoning is that an independent
examination is more objective, and that the costs involved in hiring an external reviewer are much
less than can be saved by eliminating excessive safety margins and other benefits.
It is important to challenge these and other examples of ‘design by rote’, i.e. the mechanistic
application of (historically) empirical ventilation rates. In particular, diversity in main
heating/cooling plant should be more regularly considered. However, the corollary of challenging
rules-of-thumb in this way is rigorous testing to verify that working conditions are indeed safe in
practice.
Modular solutions
As some HE labs are being built for a 7-year design life, the benefits of modularity (as discussed in
section 4.2) could be very significant. A UK example of this is GlaxoSmithKline’s ‘Flexilab’, but
approaches such as this are not currently widespread in universities and colleges.
A ‘Flexilab’ Approach at GSK Stevenage
The pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline has developed a system involving:
Plug-in, modular, relocatable fume cupboards and robotics enclosures with integral VAV
controllers;
Moveable boundaries between lab and office (which can be comparatively easily rearranged
without major disruption);
Ductwork built into framed sub-assemblies;
Services modules pre-assembled in an off-site fabrication shop.
The result is being able to fit more people into a given area – with an increase from 12 to 20 in
many cases – construction cost savings of 10-15% and internal fit-out costs less than half those of a
traditional laboratory.
Effective controls
Labs21 stresses, in the words of one of its founders, Phil Wirdzek of the International Institute for
Sustainable Laboratories, that:
“Building automation and control must achieve a level to provide continuous
commissioning throughout the building's life and be inclusive of, for example, all forms of
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
27
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
energy, water (potable, high grade and waste), air flows (both in and out), and may be
extended to include access (security), safety, chemical management, waste management and
much more. Unfortunately, often times the level of automation is insufficient, or systems do
not achieve the performance expected. This has three components, 1) lack of a robust
capability by the controls manufacturer, 2) inability for various HVAC, let alone other
building components, to communicate with one another, 3) proprietary software in controls
and automation, and limited sensing capabilities. Often too, even with the hardware and
software available, VE will reduce sensing and control capability in the final product.”
Effective controls are ones that are user-friendly, and easily understood and set by facilities staff.
However, both of these are hard to achieve in practice.
One essential feature is training of maintenance/facilities staff, particularly for complex Building
Management Systems (BMS) or VAV systems. It is also important that there is sufficient, and
ongoing, training of students and users of the laboratory, particularly in fume cupboard
management.
If controls can be got right, the benefits are very great. An effective lighting control system, for
example, may cost £95,000 versus £40,000 for a conventional system but could pay back within a
year or less.
7. Conclusions
There is growing evidence that the high utilities consumption – and its associated operating costs
(which are not just energy bills, but also the capital, maintenance, and other expenditure on supply
and distribution capacity) – which are associated with modern laboratories can be avoided.
Moreover, the Labs21 programme has demonstrated that energy issues need greater attention in
laboratory design, not only to reduce costs and carbon emissions, but also because the measures
required can enhance safety and performance as well.
The Labs21 events demonstrated that there is much good practice in the UK, and that some of the
innovations – especially in the pharmaceutical sector – have potential to be ‘exported’ to the USA.
In general, however, the early stages of Labs21 UK suggest that there is much scope for
improvement, especially in higher education. Whilst some of this improvement can be achieved
through different technical approaches, the most fundamental message of Labs21 is that the design
process needs to be done differently. This requires changes on the part of suppliers – especially
architectural practices and M&E consultancies - but also on the part of clients, to become more
informed about the issues, and more demanding in their requirements. Labs21 UK plans further
activities to disseminate these messages, to provide a network to enable greater dialogue about them
between the many parties who need to work together if they are to happen in practice, and to deepen
co-operation with Labs21 US and the International Institute for Sustainable Laboratories.
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
28
HEEPI Briefing Paper – Sustainable Laboratories for Universities & Colleges
Appendix 1 – Labs21 US Benchmarks for Ventilation Systems with Low
Pressure Drop, and Impacts on Fan Power Requirements10
Component
Air Handler Face Velocity
AHU pressure drop (Pa)
Energy recovery device pressure drop
(Pa)
VAV control devices pressure drop
(pa)
Zone temperature control coils
pressure drop (Pa)
Total supply and exhaust ductwork
pressure drop (Pa)
Exhaust stack pressure drop (Pa)
Standard
2.5 m/s
672
249
Good
2 m/s
423
150
Better
1.5 m/s
249
87
Constant
Volume, N/A
105
150-75
25
50
0
1121
561
274
174 full
design flow
through entire
exhaust
system, CV
Silencers (Pa)
Total (Pa)
Approximate fan power requirement
(W/cfm)
249
2571
2
174 full
design flow
through fan
and stack
only, VAV
system with
bypass
62
1532
1.1
187
averaging
half the
design flow,
VAV system
with multiple
stacks
0
822
0.6
Appendix 2: HEEPI Energy Benchmarks for Laboratories11
Laboratory Type
Typical Practice
Energy
Performance
(kWh/m2)
Fossil Electricity
Fuel
Medical/bioscience
256
325
Chemical Science
175
264
Physical/engineering 148
130
ID: Insufficient Data
Good
Practice
Energy
Performance
(kWh/m2)
Fossil Electricity
Fuel
121
250
ID
ID
ID
ID
Best
Practice
Energy
Performance
(kWh/m2)
Fossil Electricity
Fuel
75
177
97
156
15
66
10
Labs21. Low-pressure-drop HVAC Design for Laboratories.
http://www.epa.gov/lab21gov/pdf/bp_lowpressure_508.pdf#search=%22HVAC%20air%20pressure%20drops%22.
Included to illustrate differences between US and UK approaches, rather than necessarily endorsing their adoption in
the UK.
11
Based on 2001-02 data obtained from previous HEEPI benchmark workshops. See Results of the HEEPI HE Building
Energy Benchmarking Initiative 2003-04, August 2006 www.heepi.org.uk
Final Report – January 2007
www.heepi.org.uk
29