Designing labs, research buildings: Codes and standards

Labs and research facilities house sensitive equipment and must maintain very rigid standards. Codes and standards must be adhered to, with special attention to codes unique to these buildings.

05/28/2013


Nedzib Biberic, PE, LEED BD+C, Mechanical Engineer, PAE Consulting Engineers, Portland, Ore. Courtesy: PAE Consulting EngineersMichael Chow, PE, CxA, LEED AP BD+C, Member/Owner, Metro CD Engineering LLC, Powell, Ohio. Courtesy: Metro CD EngineeringDavid S. Crutchfield, PE, LEED AP, Division Manager, RMF Engineering, Baltimore. Courtesy: RMF EngineeringDave Linamen, PE, LEED AP, CEM, Vice President, Stantec, Edmonton, Alberta. Courtesy: StantecJay Ramirez, Senior Vice President, ESD Global, Chicago. Courtesy: ESD Global

Participants:

Nedzib Biberic, PE, LEED BD+C, Mechanical Engineer, PAE Consulting Engineers, Portland, Ore. 

Michael Chow, PE, CxA, LEED AP BD+C, Member/Owner, Metro CD Engineering LLC, Powell, Ohio 

David S. Crutchfield, PE, LEED AP, Division Manager, RMF Engineering, Baltimore

Dave Linamen, PE, LEED AP, CEM, Vice President, Stantec, Edmonton, Alberta

Jay Ramirez, Senior Vice President, ESD Global, Chicago 


CSE: What challenges do you have when implementing NFPA 45: Standard on Fire Protection for Laboratories Using Chemicals?

Crutchfield: The biggest challenge we face is how to ensure differential pressures are appropriately maintained per NFPA 45 8.2.5 and 8.4.7 when the air handling and exhaust systems go into emergency modes. We’ve seen that when the lab supply fans trip in response to an alarm event, and the exhaust fans remain operational to ensure hood containment, the resulting pressurization differentials can be beyond ADA Door Opening Force Regulations (Title III Section 4.13.11) of 5 lbf. The obvious way to decrease the pressure differential is to provide for a relief pathway, but often that pathway would compromise the fire/smoke barriers surrounding the labs. Opening big holes in your architects’ carefully created fire/smoke barriers is not a good idea when there is a fire in the building. To overcome this, we’ve used transfer systems that actually open in response to an alarm event, which decreases the pressure differential between the lab and the adjacent spaces. To maintain occupant safety in this event, these openings also have local sensing elements that close the opening if products of combustion are detected. An alternative is to provide this pressure relief system such that it directly communicates with the outdoors. However, we have found that when using a direct connection to the outside in areas with coastal air (salt/wet), the dampers and sensors in the transfer system need excessive maintenance to ensure proper operation. Often during testing of these exterior coupled systems, they fail to open due to corrosion, insect nests, etc. This leads to the desire to keep the transfer equipment in a conditioned space. On this issue, we generally confer with the local authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) so that our design meets its criteria for life safety, compliance with NFPA, and compliance with ADA.

Linamen: NFPA 45 has paragraphs that require lab supply and exhaust air systems to be designed in such a way that they prevent pressures that would inhibit egress in the event either the supply or exhaust systems fail. This requires that the operation of both systems be monitored closely, and that the proper control functions be provided to adjust one system appropriately if the other fails so that excessive pressures in occupied spaces do not result. On one of our projects, the building officials actually placed both the supply and exhaust air systems in failure mode separately, and then measured the force required to open doors throughout the building, testing the controls we had provided to prevent excessive pressures in the event of an air system failure. NFPA 45 also prohibits fire dampers in fume hood exhaust systems. We usually address this on a case-by-case basis with the AHJ. Some officials require that the main exhaust duct from each floor extend all the way to the penthouse or roof in a separate fire-rated shaft, since a fire damper cannot be provided at the shaft penetration. Some will accept the sub-duct arrangement from NFPA 90A, where the horizontal main exhaust duct from each floor elbows vertically for 22-in. before connecting with the exhaust riser.

NFPA 45 also restricts the use of ductless fume hoods with absorptive filters that recirculate air to the occupied space to nuisance vapors that do not present flammable of toxicity issues. The ductless fume hood is an attractive lower overall cost alternative for many renovation applications, and this limitation helps prevent users from using the hoods in applications for which they are not intended. Finally, NFPA 45A is used to specify a given minimum flow rate of 25 cfm/sq ft of fume hood internal footprint. The latest 2011 version refers to the ANSI/AHIA Z9.5 Laboratory Ventilation standard, which limits the minimum fume hood flow rate to 150 hood ACH. This translates to a lower minimum airflow in general through hoods, and could cause issues with concentration of flammable or explosive vapors in hood exhaust if a chemical spill should occur in a hood at minimum airflow.

CSE: Which aspect of codes and standards has in your experience provided the biggest challenges or obstacles?

Linamen: NFPA 45, which prohibits fire dampers in fume hood exhaust systems and references ANSI/AIHA Z9.5 for minimum hood airflow, as well as NFPA 90A, which requires duct risers conveying environmental (supply) air from being located in the same shafts as duct risers conveying non-flammable corrosive fumes and vapors. Frequently, it is difficult to provide separate shafts for supply and exhaust air risers.

Crutchfield: NFPA 45 8.10.3.1 provides a challenge in multistory buildings. The separate exhaust shafts required for each laboratory unit, and the need to maintain the fire rating of the building, often mean that multiple sub-shafts are required in the main building shafts. This ensures that the exhaust ducts are compliant with code and also maintain the required fire separation integrity of the building. The challenge is how to build these sub-shaft assemblies in existing buildings. 



No comments
The Top Plant program honors outstanding manufacturing facilities in North America. View the 2013 Top Plant.
The Product of the Year program recognizes products newly released in the manufacturing industries.
The Leaders Under 40 program features outstanding young people who are making a difference in manufacturing. View the 2013 Leaders here.
The new control room: It's got all the bells and whistles - and alarms, too; Remote maintenance; Specifying VFDs
2014 forecast issue: To serve and to manufacture - Veterans will bring skill and discipline to the plant floor if we can find a way to get them there.
2013 Top Plant: Lincoln Electric Company, Cleveland, Ohio
Case Study Database

Case Study Database

Get more exposure for your case study by uploading it to the Plant Engineering case study database, where end-users can identify relevant solutions and explore what the experts are doing to effectively implement a variety of technology and productivity related projects.

These case studies provide examples of how knowledgeable solution providers have used technology, processes and people to create effective and successful implementations in real-world situations. Case studies can be completed by filling out a simple online form where you can outline the project title, abstract, and full story in 1500 words or less; upload photos, videos and a logo.

Click here to visit the Case Study Database and upload your case study.

Bring focus to PLC programming: 5 things to avoid in putting your system together; Managing the DCS upgrade; PLM upgrade: a step-by-step approach
Balancing the bagging triangle; PID tuning improves process efficiency; Standardizing control room HMIs
Commissioning electrical systems in mission critical facilities; Anticipating the Smart Grid; Mitigating arc flash hazards in medium-voltage switchgear; Comparing generator sizing software

Annual Salary Survey

Participate in the 2013 Salary Survey

In a year when manufacturing continued to lead the economic rebound, it makes sense that plant manager bonuses rebounded. Plant Engineering’s annual Salary Survey shows both wages and bonuses rose in 2012 after a retreat the year before.

Average salary across all job titles for plant floor management rose 3.5% to $95,446, and bonus compensation jumped to $15,162, a 4.2% increase from the 2010 level and double the 2011 total, which showed a sharp drop in bonus.

2012 Salary Survey Analysis

2012 Salary Survey Results

Maintenance and reliability tips and best practices from the maintenance and reliability coaches at Allied Reliability Group.
The One Voice for Manufacturing blog reports on federal public policy issues impacting the manufacturing sector. One Voice is a joint effort by the National Tooling and Machining...
The Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals an organization devoted...
Join this ongoing discussion of machine guarding topics, including solutions assessments, regulatory compliance, gap analysis...
IMS Research, recently acquired by IHS Inc., is a leading independent supplier of market research and consultancy to the global electronics industry.
Maintenance is not optional in manufacturing. It’s a profit center, driving productivity and uptime while reducing overall repair costs.
The Lachance on CMMS blog is about current maintenance topics. Blogger Paul Lachance is president and chief technology officer for Smartware Group.