Modular construction: Pros and Cons for lab building

By Greg Muth

A combination of factors—such as unprecedented construction cost escalation, demand for instant research space driven by shortened funding cycles, and challenges in finding qualified construction labor—are forcing design professionals and their clients to look for new ways of designing and constructing laboratories. Facilities professionals are considering alternatives to the traditional approach to construction projects, and this has led to a rise in the use of modular techniques for research laboratories.

Modular design, of course, is standard practice for most of today’s research building projects and for many other types of lab buildings as well. Modular design is characterized by regular repetition of structural elements and mechanical and utility infrastructure within the floorplate of a traditional “stick-built” facility: one constructed on site from the ground (or underground) up. Modular construction, however, means literally creating a building from discrete modules fabricated off-site.

During the past 10 years, the pharmaceutical industry has used modular construction to provide production facilities to meet tight manufacturing schedules and extremely rigorous FDA requirements. Today, that schedule and quality pressure is moving up the drug discovery timeline into the research sector. The time allocated to design, bid, and build some laboratory projects is now just too short to accommodate traditional methods. In addition, the quality of construction labor available in some locations is simply not appropriate for today’s complex laboratory environments. Project teams and clients must consider multiple factors when investigating modular lab construction. An owner must be well aware of these issues should be careful when approaching the “stick-built vs. modular” decision.

Modular construction: An overview Modular laboratories are constructed from compartments to form a cohesive building. A laboratory is manufactured in modules in a production facility, assembled for pre-testing, disassembled for shipping, then transported to the construction site and reassembled.

Modular science buildings have been used for more than 20 years, historically for pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities as well as the ubiquitous “trailers” found on most research campuses that provide temporary and swing space. With today’s demands, however, modular lab producers are teaming with design firms to develop full-blown laboratory facilities delivered in a shorter time and with attractive solutions that go beyond the standard “shipping container” aesthetic.

Working with the owner, a team of experienced architects, engineers, and other design professionals first develop a schematic design for a proposed laboratory that considers the opportunities and challenges of modular construction and compares it carefully to conventional construction. Only after the schematic design is fully developed does the owner enter into a contract agreement for a modular lab building. This agreement would be similar to a design/build arrangement; an owner would contract with a manufacturer to complete the design, then manufacture and construct the building.

Working with the owner and the design review team, the manufacturer takes responsibility for design, construction methods, and costs. The manufacturer then designs the facility, in many cases with the help of an architect specializing in laboratory design. The manufacturer then constructs the modules inside a factory in a controlled environment.

One big advantage of modular construction is that the construction schedule is not subject to the seasons and weather patterns. In addition, factory construction allows for parallel paths for different systems and simultaneous work on separate modules in different stages of completion. There is access to the work from all directions, and there is standardization of repeated activities. The manufacturer is able to reuse designs for standard building blocks so that there is less fundamental engineering. These factors result in a significantly compressed construction schedule. Owners have reported time savings of six to 12 months from a traditional fast-track project.

Modular construction: Pros and cons
Pros:• Can cut six to 12 months off the project schedule.• Reduces cost escalation compared with a traditional project by virtue of speed. • Allows for construction of complex, high-quality projects in areas where there is a shortage of skilled tradespeople.• Increases quality of final product due to factory-style quality control.• Minimizes site disruption due to reduced need for on-site staff, lay-down areas, and machinery. • Increases safety due to less on-site effort.

Cons:•Costs can be greater than stick-built, depending on transport costs. These costs may be mitigated by lower labor costs in some local markets.• Changes in the design after manufacturing begins can be difficult and expensive to accommodate.• Clients may worry that exterior systems may not deliver the desired image.• Height and area limitations exist due to construction type.• The code compliance and inspection process will likely be more complex than with a stick-built facility.• Future flexibility and adaptability may be reduced to a degree.• The potential exists for creating a labor dispute with local unions.

Greg Muth is an associate and laboratory planner with Flad & Associates in San Francisco. Flad & Associates (www.flad.com) is a national planning and design firm with 250 staff serving the science and technology, healthcare, and higher education markets from five offices throughout the U.S.