Case Study:
Molecular Foundry U.S. Department of Energy

Doing small things in a big way: A national cutting-edge laboratory for nanotechnology research.

By Alex Wilson

A new, leading-edge national research laboratory at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) took its inspiration from the foundries that ushered in the industrial revolution of the 19th century. Unlike these earlier foundries, however, the Molecular Foundry houses researchers who operate at a scale of nanometers (billionths of a meter), developing what some believe could be just as significant a revolution in technology and materials science.

Nanotechnology can involve such disparate fields as chemistry, physics, biology, computational science, materials science, and electrical engineering to develop everything from coatings and photovoltaic cells to ultra-fast computers and medical devices. LBNL’s Molecular Foundry is one of five U.S. Department of Energy centers of nanoscale science research either completed or under construction and the only one on the West Coast.

Seeing the Foundry, one is immediately struck both by the beauty of the location—on a steep hillside within the sprawling 200-acre LBNL research campus overlooking the city of Berkeley and San Francisco Bay beyond—and the success with which the designers integrated this dramatic building into the challenging site. The six-story building is on a 35-percent grade (dropping 70 feet vertically in 200 linear feet) and includes ground-level entrances on three floors. “The significant slope of the hillside site was one challenge,” says project manager Suzanne Napier, AIA, of SmithGroup.

Structural Engineer C. Mark Saunders, president of Rutherford & Chekene Consulting Engineers, notes the site’s high seismic force level, due to its proximity to the Hayward Fault, also complicated the design, as did the architect’s decision to cantilever the top four floors 45 feet out over the hillside. “For reasons of seismic performance, we did not want to tie the building superstructure into the hillside,” says Saunders. The site excavation was shored using soldier piles and 70-foot-long drilled tie-backs, and the shored wall was faced with shotcrete. To keep it from sliding down the hill in an earthquake, the building is anchored at its base with three-foot-diameter, cast-in-place concrete piers extending about 50 feet into the ground below the first floor.

A 12-foot-deep truss anchors the cantilevered floors from above, according to Saunders. “The truss served the dual purpose of supporting the floors below and supporting the screen for mechanical equipment located on the roof,” he says.

The program for the building also posed significant challenges, according to Napier. Extremely low vibration, acoustic isolation, low electromagnetic interference, and super-clean laboratory environments (Class 1000 and Class 100 clean rooms) were among design requirements. “Vibration was the biggest issue,” says Nick Mironov, principal of Gayner Engineers, which handled the mechanical engineering. Mironov kept most of the rotating equipment out of the building altogether, placing it in a utility building that was built simultaneously. Only ventilation air-handling equipment was kept in the Foundry building. Burying portions of the lower two floors into the steep slope also helped to satisfy the need for vibration control and sound isolation.

Steve Greenberg, who was one of the LBNL researchers active on the design team, points to challenges created by the highly varied laboratory functions required of the building. “With 20 design firms and consultants participating in the process, in addition to LBNL facilities users representatives, the group required significant coordination,” he says. Relative to greening, “keeping the goals in line with costs was an ongoing challenge,” says Napier. Greenberg notes the sustainability elements and LEED certification were not in the original budget; it was necessary to get buy-in from the building users that these aspects to the project were important.

Once buy-in was achieved, an integrated team effectively addressed green features. Gayner Engineers, for example, was involved right from the programming stage. In part due to this integrated design, the project has become a leading model for green, energy-efficient laboratory buildings. It is a featured case study in the pilot Laboratories for the 21st Century (Labs21) program of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, and it is expected to earn at least a LEED Silver rating—possibly even Gold, according to Napier.

Dealing with construction-related indoor air quality requirements was especially challenging, according to Albert Lee, the construction manager for general contractor Rudolph & Sletten. For example, blowing out the ductwork was a challenge because the air handlers for the building divide the space vertically, serving all floors, while the building was constructed floor-by-floor.

Air flow is typically the number one energy consumer in a laboratory building. The fume hoods are variable-volume and use combination horizontal and vertical sashes, according to Greenberg, to ensure safety to researchers while minimizing the amount of ventilation air that needs to be heated or cooled. Common air-handling units for the office and lab areas provide nearly 100-percent outside air to offices, with the office air cascaded into the labs. Nearly all fans and pumps in the facility use variable-frequency drives and are controlled with reset schedules to minimize energy use for air and water flows. Energy was also saved, according to Mironov, by specifying electrostatic filtration instead of conventional bag filtration, thereby reducing static pressure drop and blower energy consumption.

The “right-sizing” of mechanical and electrical systems resulted in 30 to 40 percent reductions in equipment sizes for air handling, water heating, cooling, and electrical supply, generating first-cost savings of about $4 million, according to Greenberg, which “more than paid for the extra cost of the other greening features and the LEED process.” The building is predicted to perform 28 percent better than California Title 24 requirements, which is good for half of the LEED energy credits, says Greenberg.

Other green features of the Foundry include extensive access to daylighting; bamboo flooring and cabinetry in interaction spaces; FSC-certified wood throughout; low-emitting carpet, paint, sealant, and adhesives; 0.5-gallon-per-minute lavatory faucets; waterless urinals; electromagnetic water treatment for the cooling towers to reduce water consumption and the use of harmful chemicals; the recycling of over 80 percent of construction waste; availability of bicycle racks; and landscaping with native plants.

The designers considered various flooring and countertop options, including natural linoleum. “The material that best stood up to their intensive chemical use, including nitrogen, was sheet vinyl—not a very green product,” says Napier. One factor with flooring was the H-8 laboratory occupancy standard (specific to California) that requires spill containment with a floor covering that lines the walls. Polished concrete flooring was used in some public spaces, including the primary entry, but porosity and risk of biocontamination precluded the use of concrete floors in laboratory areas. For countertops, they used phenolic resin material instead of epoxy everywhere except in fume hoods where the harshest chemicals will be used.

At press time, the building was only about 30 percent occupied. Starting in early 2007, LBNL will begin measuring energy performance—not only to help gauge the performance of this building, but also to help in setting goals for planning its next building.