Bossone Level 5 Fit-Out Feasibility Study · 2014. 3. 3. · Bossone Level 5 Fit-Out Feasibility Study To better understand the potential occupancy of Level 5, Payette has explored

1

In October, 2013, Drexel University tasked architecture firm Payette Associates to undertake a feasibility study regarding a wet lab fit-out of various spaces in the existing Bossone building. The conclusion of the study was that the fit-out presented a quick and reasonably priced solution to provide state of the art facilities for Drexel’s researchers.

As a result of the positive results of the initial study, Drexel University became interested in increasing the scope of work to maximize the number of researchers who could be accommodated by the fit-out. Payette Associates has completed the subsequent study on the feasibility of fitting out Level 5, a new addition to the originally specified scope of work.

Bossone Level 5 Fit-OutFeasibility Study

To better understand the potential occupancy of Level 5, Payette has explored various iterations that prioritize lab space, support space, and desk space to different degrees. In addition to comparing square footages, additional metrics such as natural daylighting, security and ease of circulation were considered.

Payette has selected one of the iterations (2C) as the recommended layout for Level 5. This iteration was selected because it priorities lab bench space while maintaining visual access between desk rooms and the associated labs. It also provides natural light in all desk rooms. The layout was further developed by comparing it to the existing conditions and adjusting the design to accommodate the current location of power boxes. Existing light fixtures can be recycled with this scheme by moving them to align to the aisles between lab benches.

Lab space / Support spaceSupport space / Desk spaceResearch stations / Desks

LS:LAB:RD:

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x225' - 0"

11' - 4"

3' - 10"

4'- 6

"

5'- 3

3/16"

6'- 1

0 9/16

"

4'- 0

"

5'- 1

1 1/4"

5' - 1" 5' - 6"

10' -

0"

13' -

4"

18' -

9"

3' - 10"19' - 6"

19' - 6"

5'- 4

1/2"

5'- 4

1/2"

11' - 8 5/8"

13' - 11 7/16"

14' - 0"

4' - 1

1 1/2"

5 '- 6

"

5' - 0" 5' - 0"

4' - 3

23/32

"

LS

RDLAB

1A 1B 1C

2A 2B 2C

2D 2E 2C aligned to existing

LS

RDLAB

LS

RDLAB

LS

RDLAB

LS

RDLAB

LS

RDLAB

LS

RDLAB

LS

RDLAB

LS

RDLAB

2

LayoutLab

(Research Stations) Lab SupportDesk Rooms

(Desks) Total

1ANSF 7,076 1,542 1,270 9,888(Count) 125 -- 35

1BNSF 7,076 1,470 886 9,432(Count) 125 -- 34

1CNSF 7,076 1,146 1,210 9,432(Count) 125 -- 46

2ANSF 6,325 2,072 1,035 9,432(Count) 73 -- 46

2BNSF 6,361 1,725 1,346 9,432(Count) 90 -- 52

2CNSF 6,155 2,072 1,205 9,432(Count) 85 -- 49

2DNSF 5,949 2,072 1,411 9,432(Count) 80 -- 58

2ENSF 5,743 2,072 1,617 9,432(Count) 75 -- 67

2C LEVEL 3NSF 5,409 1,871 998 8,278(Count) 75 12 40

2C LEVEL 5NSF 6,155 2,072 1,205 9,432(Count) 85 14 49

2C LEVEL 6NSF 6,155 2,072 1,205 9,432(Count) 85 14 49

TOTALNSF 16,025 6,074 4,575 26,674(Count) 211 40 192

Bossone Level 5 Fit-OutFeasibility Study

Des

k ro

oms

in la

b su

ppor

t zon

eD

esk

room

s in

ope

n la

b

Recommended*

Recommended*

*Payette Associates recommends layout 2C because it maximizes lab space and it provides natural light to all the desk rooms. It also maintains visual access between the lab and corresponding desk rooms.

3

1A

Lab (Research Stations)

Lab Support Desk Rooms (Desks) Total

1A

NSF 6,325 2,072 1,035 9,432

(Count) 73 -- 46

Pros Cons1. Maximizes lab bench space 1. Must go through desk rooms to access labs

2. No natural light in desk rooms along the main bar

3. Limited desk space

4. Limits lab support


LS:LAB:RD:

LS

RDLAB

4

1B



1B

NSF 7,076 1,470 886 9,432

(Count) 125 -- 34

Pros Cons1. Maximizes lab bench space 1. Limited desk space




LS:LAB:RD:

LS

RDLAB

5

1C



1C

NSF 7,076 1,146 1,210 9,432

(Count) 125 -- 46


LS:LAB:RD:

LS

RDLAB

Pros Cons1. Maximizes lab bench space 1. Must go through desk rooms to access labs



6

2A



2A

NSF 5,798 2,096 1,419 9,313

(Count) 73 -- 46

Pros Cons1. All desk rooms receive natural light 1. Reduced lab space

2. Desk rooms have a dual function as meeting rooms

3. Maximizes support space

4. Desk rooms are separated from labs, but have visual access


LS:LAB:RD:

LS

RDLAB

7

2B



2B

NSF 6,280 1,761 1,336 9,377

(Count) 90 -- 52

Pros Cons1. Of all options that have desk rooms along the perimeter of the main bar, this option has the highest number of research stations

1. Desk rooms adjacent to support space are not effi-ciently laid out due to existing conditions


2. No natural light in desk rooms adjacent to support space


LS:LAB:RD:

LS

RDLAB

8

2C(Recommended)



2C

NSF 6,155 2,072 1,205 9,432

(Count) 85 -- 49

Pros Cons1. All desk rooms receive natural light 1. Fewer desk locations

2. Maintains support space



LS:LAB:RD:

LS

RDLAB

9

2D



2D

NSF 5,949 2,072 1,411 9,432

(Count) 80 -- 58

Pros Cons1. All desk rooms receive natural light 1. Fewer research stations




LS:LAB:RD:

LS

RDLAB

10

2E



2E

NSF 5,743 2,072 1,617 9,432

(Count) 75 -- 67



3. Almost a 1:1 ratio between desks and research stations



LS:LAB:RD:

LS

RDLAB

11

Of the eight iterations studied, Payette Associates chose layout 2C as the recommended scheme. This design prioritizes lab space while maintaining visual access between desk rooms and the associated lab space. Naturally day-lit desk rooms are placed outside of the circulation path to the labs, which helps maintain a safe lab environment with regard to food and drink.

Having selected layout 2C as the best arrangement on Level 5, Payette Associates applied the scheme to Levels 3 and 6 to ensure a consistent design throughout the Bossone building. Fume hoods were also added to the arrangement to ensure that the lab support space is appropriately sized.

Bossone Level 5 Fit-OutRecommended Layout (2C)

Level 3 is approximately 1,000 square feet smaller than Level 5 due to the entrance on the west side of the building. Still, the basic design of 2C was maintained to provide an efficient and comfortable layout on Level 3. Level 6 is identical to Level 5, accordingly the 2C scheme was replicated on Level 6.


LS:LAB:RD:

Level 3 - 2C Level 5 - 2C Level 6 - 2C

LS

RDLAB

12

Layout 2CLEVEL 3



2C LEVEL 3

NSF 5,409 1,871 998 8,278

(Count) 75 12 40




4. Floor supports 12 hoods

13

Layout 2CLEVEL 5



2C LEVEL 5

NSF 6,155 2,072 1,205 9,432

(Count) 85 14 49





14

Layout 2CLEVEL 6



2C LEVEL 6

NSF 6,155 2,072 1,205 9,432

(Count) 85 14 49





15

Though 2C provides the optimal layout on Level 5 in terms of square footages and adjacencies between lab space, support space and desk rooms, when overlaid with existing conditions the layout prompts various issues. As illustrated in the floorplan below on the left: • lab benches do not align with the existing pendant light

fixtures• fume hoods obstruct lights in the support space• floor boxes are left exposed in the middle of the floor,

posing a potential tripping hazard • floor boxes cannot be incorporated into the benches

Bossone Level 5 Fit-OutExisting Conditions

Given the prohibitive cost of rewiring the floor boxes, Payette Associates chose to align the lab benches to the floor boxes. Benches were also elongated from 6’-3” to 6’-8” in order to incorporate as many floor boxes as possible. Remaining boxes will be covered to prevent tripping. The existing light fixtures will need to be moved as depicted in the floorplan to the right. While this requires labor, the fixtures can be recycled into the new design which will mitigate costs. It is our hope that the ceiling will not need to be removed.

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

6' - 3"

18' - 9"

3' - 10"4'- 0

"

25' - 0"

11' - 4"

5'- 7

"

5'- 4

1/2"

5'- 4

1/2"

4'- 0

"

6'- 1

7/16"

5'- 0

"

19' - 2"

7' - 1 1/2"

6' - 2 1/2"

5'- 6

"

5' - 0" 5' - 0"

4' - 3

23/32

"

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x225' - 0"

11' - 4"

3' - 10"

4'- 6

"

5'- 3

3/16"

6'- 1

0 9/16

"

4'- 0

"

5'- 1

1 1/4"

5' - 1" 5' - 6"

10' -

0"

13' -

4"

18' -

9"

3' - 10"19' - 6"

19' - 6"

5'- 4

1/2"

5'- 4

1/2"

11' - 8 5/8"

13' - 11 7/16"

14' - 0"

4' - 1

1 1/2"

5 '- 6

"

5' - 0" 5' - 0"

4' - 3

23/32

"

Level 5 - 2C overlaid with existing Level 5 - 2C aligned to existing

16

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

6' - 3"

18' - 9"

3' - 10"4'- 0

"

25' - 0"

11' - 4"

5'- 7

"

5'- 4

1/2"

5'- 4

1/2"

4'- 0

"

6'- 1

7/16"

5'- 0

"

19' - 2"

7' - 1 1/2"

6' - 2 1/2"

5'- 6

"

5' - 0" 5' - 0"

4' - 3

23/32

"



2C LEVEL 5

NSF 6,155 2,072 1,205 9,432

(Count) 85 14 49

Pros Cons1. All desk rooms receive natural light 1. Alignment conflicts between lab bench and existing

lights and floor boxes

2. Maintains support space 2. Alignment conflicts between fume hoods and existing light fixtures in support rooms


Layout 2C LEVEL 5Overlaid with existing conditions

17

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x225' - 0"

11' - 4"

3' - 10"

4'- 6

"

5'- 3

3/16"

6'- 1

0 9/16

"

4'- 0

"

5'- 1

1 1/4"

5' - 1" 5' - 6"

10' -

0"

13' -

4"

18' -

9"

3' - 10"19' - 6"

19' - 6"

5'- 4

1/2"

5'- 4

1/2"

11' - 8 5/8"

13' - 11 7/16"

14' - 0"

4' - 1

1 1/2"

5 '- 6

"

5' - 0" 5' - 0"

4' - 3

23/32

"

Layout 2C LEVEL 5Aligned to existing conditions



2C LEVEL 5

NSF 6,155 2,072 1,205 9,432

(Count) 82 14 49

Pros Cons1. Maintain existing location of floor boxes 1. Varying aisle width between benches

2. Recycle lights (though moving them)


4. Maintain existing ACT ceilings

18

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

7' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

4' - 3

23/32

"

25' - 0"

11' - 4"

4'- 0

"

5'- 4

17/32

"

6'- 4

1/4"

5'- 7

"

3' - 10"

19' - 6"

5'- 6

"

4'- 0

"

5'- 0

"

6' - 8"

20' - 0"

5' - 10 1/2"

12' - 1 11/16"

13' - 11 7/16"

5' - 1"

13' -

4"4'

- 11 1

/2"

18' -

9"

5' - 0" 5' - 0"

5'- 6

"

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x225' - 0"

11' - 4"

3' - 10"

4'- 6

"

5'- 3

3/16"

6'- 1

0 9/16

"

4'- 0

"

5'- 1

1 1/4"

5' - 1" 5' - 6"

10' -

0"

13' -

4"

18' -

9"

3' - 10"19' - 6"

19' - 6"

5'- 4

1/2"

5'- 4

1/2"

11' - 8 5/8"

13' - 11 7/16"

14' - 0"

4' - 1

1 1/2"

5 '- 6

"

5' - 0" 5' - 0"

4' - 3

23/32

"

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x225' - 0"

11' - 4"

3' - 10"

4'- 6

"

5'- 3

3/16"

6'- 1

0 9/16

"

4'- 0

"

5'- 1

1 1/4"

5' - 1" 5' - 6"

10' -

0"

13' -

4"

18' -

9"

3' - 10"19' - 6"

19' - 6"

5'- 4

1/2"

5'- 4

1/2"

11' - 8 5/8"

13' - 11 7/16"

14' - 0"

4' - 1

1 1/2"

5 '- 6

"

5' - 0" 5' - 0"

4' - 3

23/32

"

Having adjusted the 2C layout to accommodate existing conditions as much as possible, the next step was to assign labs and associated support and rooms to researchers. Payette Associates met with researchers on January 15 and 16, and came up with the following assignments.

Bossone Level 5 Fit-OutResearcher Lab Assignments

Level 5Level 3 Level 6

19

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

7' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

4' - 3

23/32

"

25' - 0"

11' - 4"

4'- 0

"

5'- 4

17/32

"

6'- 4

1/4"

5'- 7

"

3' - 10"

19' - 6"

5'- 6

"

4'- 0

"

5'- 0

"

6' - 8"

20' - 0"

5' - 10 1/2"

12' - 1 11/16"

13' - 11 7/16"

5' - 1"

13' -

4"4'

- 11 1

/2"

18' -

9"

5' - 0" 5' - 0"

5'- 6

"

Layout 2C LEVEL 3Researcher Lab Assignments

L. Han, G. Friedman

A. Clyne, A. Throckmorton, K. Spiller

Calhoun Chair

Unassigned(Spanier ?)

EXISTING REQUESTED PROPOSED

LEVEL 3Graduate Students

Existing Hoods

Requested Hoods

Research Stations Fume Hoods

Desks

Calhoun Chair 10 0 2 16 2 9

Alisa Morss Clyne 7 2 1 22 4 9

Amy Throckmorton 4 0 0 --------Share with A. Clyne & K. Spiller--------

Lin Han 5 2 1 20 4 9

Ming Xiao ? ? ? ? ? ?

Gary Friedman 3 2 2 -----------------Share with L. Han-----------------

Kara Spiller 6 1 1 --Share with A. Clyne & A. Throckmorton --

Sri Balasubramanian (6) (0) (0) Stays in basement (excluded from subtotal)

Unassigned -- -- 0 14 2 13

Level 6 Subtotal 35 7 7 72 12 40

20

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

9' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

9' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

7' - 0"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHGWB

10' - 4"CHACT 2x2

10' - 4"CHACT 2x225' - 0"

11' - 4"

3' - 10"

4'- 6

"

5'- 3

3/16"

6'- 1

0 9/16

"

4'- 0

"

5'- 1

1 1/4"

5' - 1" 5' - 6"

10' -

0"

13' -

4"

18' -

9"

3' - 10"19' - 6"

19' - 6"

5'- 4

1/2"

5'- 4

1/2"

11' - 8 5/8"

13' - 11 7/16"

14' - 0"

4' - 1

1 1/2"

5 '- 6

"

5' - 0" 5' - 0"

4' - 3

23/32

"

Layout 2C LEVEL 5Researcher Lab Assignments

M. Taheri & S. May

Y. Gogotsi

E. Pomerantseva

G. Karapetrov

W.H. Shih & W. Shih

EXISTING REQUESTED PROPOSED

LEVEL 5Graduate Students

Existing Hoods

Requested Hoods

Research Stations Fume Hoods

Desks

Mitra Taheri 33 2 4 21 4 9

Steve May -----------------------------------------------------Share w/ M. Taheri-----------------------------------------------------

Jon Spanier ? ? ? ? ? ?

Goran Karapetrov 3 1 2 15 2 9

Yury Gogotsi 24 2 4 22 4 9

Ekaterina Pomerantseva 3 0 2 10 2 9

Wei-Heng Shih 11 2 2 14 2 13

Wan Shih ----------------------------------------------------Share w/ W.H. Shih-----------------------------------------------------

Level 5 Subtotal 74 7 14 82 14 49

Documents

Bossone Level 5 Fit-Out Feasibility Study · 2014. 3. 3. · Bossone Level 5 Fit-Out Feasibility Study To better understand the potential occupancy of Level 5, Payette has explored