Space Assessment and Feasibility Study, Study notes of Analytical Chemistry

Download Space Assessment and Feasibility Study and more Study notes Analytical Chemistry in PDF only on Docsity!

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISON

CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTIONAL ADDITION AND RENOVATION

August 02, 2012

SPACE ASSESSMENT AND FEASIBILITY STUDYVOLUME I

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISON

CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTIONAL ADDITION AND RENOVATION

SPACE ASSESSMENT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY - DSF PROJECT 10K1F |

AUGUST 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SPACE ASSESSMENT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY - DSF PROJECT 10K1F | AUGUST 2012

Lack of sufficient laboratory space for general chemistry students necessitated a curriculumchange (in 1996) limiting students in Chemistry 103 to one hands-on laboratory session everyother week rather than the norm of weekly laboratory sessions. Computer experiments arebeing used to

fill in the other weeks. The inability to hold weekly labs for general chemistry represents a serious degradation of instructional pedagogy. While computer labs can beadvantageous in some aspects of learning, they cannot replace the hands-on lab skills thatare important to teaching chemistry and currently severely limit the ability of faculty and staffto innovate.The lack of laboratory space for organic chemistry students has resulted in an even moreserious enrollment problem, resulting in a backlog that has grown steadily over the pastdecade. This increasing backlog has reached near-crisis proportions as seniors and juniorshave become the primary clientele of what is nominally a sophomore lab course. Moststudents are forced to delay taking the lab course by one or more semesters after completingthe lecture sequence, which signi

ficantly undermines the effectiveness of the curriculum. The unrelenting enrollment pressure necessitated a curriculum change (in 2009), in which thelaboratory period for students in Chemistry 344 (organic chemistry laboratory) was decreasedfrom 8 hours/week to 6 hours/week. SUPPORT FACILITIES Beyond the issue of inadequate laboratory space, per se, chemistry instructional facilitieslack adequate support facilities. The existing facilities lack appropriate areas for reading/writing, instrumentation, and discussion in immediate proximity to the laboratories. Studentsare forced to use the hallways outside the labs to do their calculations, record informationand discuss experimental data and results with other students. In effect, the public corridorshave become classrooms. The lack of separate instrument rooms means that instrumentsand computers must be located directly in the laboratory. This situation results in prematureinstrument failure and poorer data from instruments that have been exposed to corrosivefumes. SAFETY Safety deficiencies are particularly problematic in the instructional laboratories. Chemicalsafety and hygiene standards have changed dramatically in the 40 years since the current

undergraduate chemistry laboratories were built. No major renovations have taken placesince that time and the existing facilities are woefully inadequate by today’s standards.The inadequacies relate primarily to insuf

ficient ventilation and insuf

ficient total space.

Essentially all modern university chemistry laboratories, whether designed for researchor instructional purposes, provide each student with access to an ef

ficient fume hood

to perform all procedures that may emit potentially hazardous fumes. Even some of themost common and least toxic laboratory reagents represent an exposure hazard overtime when handled in a work area that is not properly ventilated.Additionally, modern chemistry laboratories provide nearby writing, instrumentation,computing and discussion areas that are physically separated for safety and hygienereasons from the area where the chemicals are handled. Current laboratories do notmeet the ventilation or hygiene standards considered essential for contemporaryinstructional laboratories. LECTURE ROOMS Despite substantial growth in the enrollments in chemistry courses, the primary lecturerooms used for undergraduate chemistry courses (Room 1351, capacity 350; Room1361, capacity 250) have not been refurbished since construction (1967). These lecturerooms suffer from poor sight lines, painfully inadequate spacing between rows, andinadequate space for multiple projection screens and chalkboards. The largest and mostheavily used of these lecture halls, Room 1351, has more seats per assignable square

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISON | CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTIONAL ADDITION AND RENOVATION^ foot area than any other lecture hall on the UW-Madison campus. Design guidelines ineffect for many years have not allowed such a crowded con 6

figuration for newer lecture

halls. Increasing student demand results in over-crowded lecture halls. Chemistry103 and Chemistry 104 are the highest-enrollment courses on campus during the falland spring semesters, respectively. In order to accommodate the largest number ofstudents, the courses are allowed to enroll more students than the lecture halls canaccommodate. This form of demand management relies on the facts that some studentswill ultimately drop their enrollment in the course, while other students will simplynot attend lectures. Innovative pedagogy has been successful in increasing studentattendance at lectures and decreasing the number of students who drop courses prior tocompletion. Both factors further increase facility utilization. FUTURE TRENDS AND PEDAGOGICAL ISSUES The 20 years of continually increasing enrollments in chemistry courses are fueled, inpart, by chemistry’s central role in the life sciences and biotechnology. Looking aheadanother 20 years, further enrollment pressures may be anticipated, by virtue of growthin UW-Madison’s undergraduate population and by virtue of chemistry’s central rolein emerging areas such as climate change/global warming, energy, environmentalsciences, and nanotechnology. Chemistry faculty and staff actively conduct research inthese areas and are eager to develop innovative new courses and teaching methods,but the lack of laboratory space (combined with staf

fing issues) have thus far hindered

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYANALYSIS OF NEED - CONTINUED the ability to do so. In order to be successful, efforts to improve undergraduateeducation (such as the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates) require additionalspace to accommodate more students, and also require a different mix of space tofacilitate modern teaching methods such as small-group discussions. Restoring weeklylaboratory sessions to general chemistry (103) is an important pedagogical goal ofthe department. For many non-science majors, this course may be the only laboratorycourse these students will ever take, and it is incumbent upon this institution to providea high-quality laboratory experience. Organic chemistry is a crucial component of theeducation of most life science majors, pre-medical students, pre-pharmacy students,and many others. Re-establishing an integrated curriculum, in which the organicchemistry laboratory course is taken in conjunction with the lecture course (not 2-4semesters later) is another important objective.

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Although renovations accomplished through the WISTAR program (2000-2003) and anenergy conservation project (2009-2010) have afforded acceptable programmatic space inthe Mathews and Daniels buildings, the ongoing viability of the space is put in jeopardy bythe dilapidated condition of the mechanical systems. The HVAC equipment has reached theend of its useful life, is failure-prone, has very poor energy ef

ficiency, and cannot be properly

serviced. Failure of one or more major components would have a catastrophic impact on bothteaching AND research in the chemistry department. The heat recovery system serving nearly all of Mathews and Daniels buildings is non-functional and non-serviceable. The plugged and leaking coils have been shut off and largesections removed just to get air

flow back to the exhaust stream. Ventilation demands are large for any research lab, especially chemistry labs, and rejecting all the conditioned airthrough the exhaust system without recovering any energy is extremely wasteful. Despitethe recognition of this critical situation by the Division of State Facilities and UW-PhysicalPlant, it has been impossible to devise a plan to implement a massive renovation withoutshutting down the buildings for a period of at least one year. Coupling the construction of a

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISON | CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTIONAL ADDITION AND RENOVATION^ DESIGN REPORT SUMMARYINTRODUCTION 8

PROGRAM AND FACILITY BENCHMARKING

The University of Wisconsin-Madison Chemistry Department has built one of thenation’s premier chemistry programs over the past century. Housed in Science Hall,Chamberlin Hall, and then building incrementally on the current site since 1962, thisdepartment continues as a top 10 chemistry program despite teaching facilities thatare approaching 50 years old. Ten years ago, these sub standard facilities were notedas part of a planning process that resulted in the construction of the Shain Tower forresearch. Its completion in 2000 allowed UW Chemistry to prosper and maintain itsleading edge in research and recruitment of new faculty. Now in 2011, the time hascome to address the other half of a successful science enterprise: the instructionalprograms.PROJECT GOALS•^ Size undergraduate teaching space to support continuing growth of UW Chemistryenrollment•^ Develop modern instructional space to effectively utilize chemistry faculty and staff•^ Integrate new emerging technologies into existing mechanical systems to promoteenergy ef

ficiency and sustainability for teaching and research spaces

-^ Develop a master plan strategy for optimization of the existing site and facilities forfuture development.

We looked at the landscape of chemistry teaching with particular focus on other premierteaching and research programs nationally. Six were identi

fied as peers: University of

California Berkeley, Northwestern, Michigan, Cornell, University of North Carolina and Illinois.The thrust of the comparison involved interviewing the chemistry leaders at each schooland analyzing their facilities for important lessons and comparisons. In every case, theseinstitutions built signi

ficant research and teaching buildings in the past 20 years. Below is a summary of recent chemistry projects for comparison.

Chamberlin Hall (1905)

Mathews (1962) & Daniels (1967) Buildings

SPACE AND COST BENCHMARKING: PEER INSTITUTIONSUNIVERSITY *2011 Pricing, adjusted for Madison, Wisconsin

GROSS ASSIGNABLE

EFFICIENCY

COST COST/SF(2011)

FUNCTIONAL MIX(Teaching/Research)

COMPLETIONDATE

University of Illinois

Chemistry, New

227,600118,^

52%^

$82M$360/SF^

Teaching / Research

1997

UC Berkely * Chemistry, New

110,00069,^

57%^

$40.6M$369/SF^

Teaching / Research /Commons

1997

University of Michigan

Chemistry & Research, New

260,000146,^

56%^

$92MTeaching / Research /$354/SF^

Commons^

1990

Johns Hopkins University Science Teaching

105,00070,^

66%^

$45.4M$438/SF^

Teaching / Commons

2013

Cornell University

Physical Sciences

204,000112,^

53%^

$103M$504/SF^ Teaching / Research /Commons

2010

Princeton University Chemistry

268,200145,^

54.2%^

$133.2M$497/SF^

Teaching / Research /Commons

2010

Indiana University Chemistry

261,100150,^

57.5%^

$93.9M$360/SF^

Teaching / Research /Commons

1993

Harvard University

Chemistry

60,40034,^

58%^

$21.1M$349/SF^

Research / Commons

2001

Vanderbilt University Chemistry

104,00052,^

50%^

$38.9M$374/SF^

Teaching / Research

1996

Iowa State University Chemistry

131,70081,^

62%^

$53.5M$409/SF^

Teaching / Research

2010

AVERAGES^

172,00098,^

57%^ $375 / S.F.

Teaching / Research

8 Years Old

SPACE ASSESSMENT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY - DSF PROJECT 10K1F | AUGUST 2012

PROGRAM DRIVERS

SITE STRATEGIES ON AND OFF THE CURRENT SITE

The program for chemistry teaching has continued to grow despite limited growth on the UWMadison campus overall.•^ Over 10,000 students currently take chemistry every year.•^ The facilities for teaching chemistry are obsolete in every way: safety, systems, spaceper student and simply age (45-50 years old).•^ Given the high volume of students, particularly in core courses for general and organicchemistry, we studied a number of different utilization models aiming at high utilization(60% is the gold standard), effective space per student, and highly ef

ficient mechanical,

plumbing and electrical systems.• The resulting program of 125,300 ASF (assignable square feet) would expand thecurrent space (70,000 ASF) by 79%.• A number of features of the program are aimed at best practices growing out of thecomparative benchmarking of peers.• Lecture halls using continuous table tops with moveable chairs for visibility andcollaboration• Classrooms based on

flexible tabletop layouts for write-up and portable computers

-^ Teaching labs vary by function and density of fume hoods. Organic labs utilize onehood for two students, e.g.; general chemistry labs utilize downdraft station, one stationfor two students, etc.•^ Write-up rooms and shared instrument rooms allow the most effective use of theteaching lab itself•^ Safety and best chemistry practices govern the layouts. For example, two teachingassistants share the lab to allow visibility of experiments and backup, if necessary.

With the program demand at 125,300 ASF, we examined multiple on site and off site optionsto^ find the best location. Out of four choices considered, we determined that demolishing theobsolete lecture halls at the north end of the current complex (Daniels North End) was themost effective way to provide the needed space while maintaining the bulk of the complexintact. The details of these strategies are described in the Design Section of this report. Thethree basic possibilities were: •^ Do Nothing:

Given obsolescence and performance shortcomings, an untenable prospect. Programs would require relocation to repair and replace systems. • Expand into Existing Medical Sciences Center Complex:

Another infeasible

prospect; cost would be 80-90% of proposed with con

figurations that don’t

fit 40’ wide

wings and 12’

floor to^ floor heights.

-^ Expand on The Existing Chemistry Block:

The east-west scheme offers the most

efficient footprint, a means of continued growth into the future, and maximizes sitecapacity.

Chemistry Block - Optional Massing Strategies

Undergraduate Chemistry Enrollment: 1989- No of Chemistry Students

East West^

North South D M Under-Utilized S 224’21,400 SF/FLR96’Site Area

D M 77’ 187’14,400SF/FLR S

“L” Shape^

“Z” Shape D M 224’ 91’77’ S 96’ 28,500 SF/FLR

D M 224’ 91’77’ S 96’ 33,700 SF/FLR

University Avenue Johnson Street

Mills Street Charter Street

University Avenue Johnson Street

Mills Street Charter Street University Avenue Johnson Street

Mills Street Charter Street

University Avenue Johnson Street

Mills Street Charter Street

North^

North North

North

50% Growth

SPACE ASSESSMENT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY - DSF PROJECT 10K1F | AUGUST 2012

This summary points to the future and what is possible for the effective reuse of mostof the existing complex of 410,000 SF. In addition, we looked well beyond the scope ofthis study to explore how Chemistry would thrive for the foreseeable future on this block(see master plan below). The basic premise was to look to integrating the best of theexisting (Shain Tower) with the new instructional tower over time. Floor to

floor heights

are matched at 16’. Through careful sequencing, it is feasible to master plan a seriesof building initiatives that will continue to transform the Chemistry Program. Illustratedbelow is a four-step evolution of this premier teaching and research enterprise 25-50years ahead.

Sustainability and the evolution of the LEED Criteria have captivated thinking about thelong term use of buildings and their performance. Nowhere is this more important than inchemistry buildings: the highest BTU/SF/Year consumers of energy on campus. Coupledwith high volumes of chemical and water use, chemistry is the perfect opportunity to makesignificant progress toward conservation. Using a sustainability charette, we assembledthe best minds on campus and within DSF, with the consultant team to look for ideas thatwould transform this usage pro

file. A key early

finding was to reuse much of the existing

SUSTAINABILITY Daniels / Mathews complex by transferring the more intensive labs (organic, analytical andphysical chemistry) out of the existing into the new addition. A second discovery was thatby building adjacent to the Daniels Building, we could replace the obsolete air handling,exhaust and heat recovery in Daniels with new systems in the penthouse of the new addition.Thus, for starters, we achieve a long term reuse of Daniels and Mathews buildings – a coresustainability principle, and harvest a large amount of energy currently being wasted in thewarm exhaust of Mathews and Daniels.A second big move grew out of the charette itself. We targeted a range of possibilities allaimed at energy and other utility reductions of 40%. Illustrated below is a comparison ofmodern lab energy consumption versus and older building of the same type.

LONG TERM VISION OF THE SITE

Annual Energy Consumption: BTU / SF350K 300K 250K 200K 150K 100K 50K^0

New TeachingLaboratory Building -High Performing New TeachingLaboratory Building -Energy Efficient Labs 21: AverageLaboratory Building(Climate Zone 4a) JHU ScienceBuildings Average

University Ave

Charter Street Mills Street

University Ave

Charter Street University Ave Mills Street

Charter Street Mills Street

University Ave

Charter Street Mills Street

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISON | CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTIONAL ADDITION AND RENOVATION 12

John Moore^

Professor

Sharon Mulvey

Librarian - Chemistry Library

Gil Nathanson

Professor Physical Chemistry

Hans Reich^

Professor - Organic Chemistry

Ieva Reich^

Senior Lecturer

Jennifer Schomaker

Professor - Organic Chemistry

Ned Sibert^

Professor - Physical Chemistry

Mark Wendt

Lab Director - Physical Chemistry

Chad Wilkinson

Lab Director - General Chemistry

Emily Wixson

Librarian - Chemistry Library

John Wright

Professor - Analytical Chemistry

BALLINGER | ArchitectureBill Gustafson, FAIA

Principal - Team Leader

Craig Spangler, AIA

Principal - Design Leader

Jeffrey S. French, FAIA

Principal - Program Development

Marc Ferrer, RA

Architect - Lab Planner

ARO EBERLE | ArchitectureMichael Eberle, AIA

Principal - Project Manager

Matthew Aro, AIA

Principal - Design

Doug Pahl^

Architect - Design

AEI | MEP EngineeringMichael Broge, PE

Principal - MEP Team Leader

Tim Lavin^

Chief Estimator

Jeff Kaehny, PE, LEED AP

Mechanical Engineer Bob Braucher, PE

Electrical Engineer

Paul Raymond, PE

Plumbing Engineer

JC Carver^

Fire Protection Engineer

MORTENSON | Cost EstimatingAngela Brzowksi

Pre-Construction Manager

HENNEMAN | Structural EngineeringMike Schmidt, PE

Structural Engineer

BENCHMARKINGProfessor John Arnold

University of California - Berkeley

Professor James Burlitch

Cornell University Professor John Ekerdt

University of Texas

Professor Anna Mapp

University of Michigan

Professor Jeffrey Moore

University of Illinois - urbana Champaign

Professor Royce Murray

University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

Dr. Owen Priest

Northwestern University

Professor John Toscano

Johns Hopkins University

Mark Wilson, AIA

Princeton University

DEPARTMENT OF STATE FACILITIESRuss Van Gilder

Project Manager Doug Schorr, PE

A/E Supervisor Jim Schey, PE

A/E Manager Rick Cibulka, PE

A/E Supervisor

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN | System AdministrationKate Sullivan

Capital Planning and Budget - Director of Facilities Planning Jeff Kosloske

Capital Planning and Budget - Senior Facilities Architect

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISON | Facilities Planning & ManagementAlan Fish^

Associate Vice Chancellor Pete Heaslett

Capital Planning and Development - Project Manager Dan Okoli^

Capital Planning and Development - Director/University Architect Pat Richards

Capital Planning and Development - Program Of

fice Assistant

Teresa Adams

Capital Planning and Development - Capital Budget Kim Todd^

Space Management Of

fice - Sr Administrative Program Specialist

Doug Rose^

Space Management Of

fice - Director

Angela Pakes Ahlman

Capital Planning and Development - Architect/Engineer Manager Dan Motl, PE

UW Physical Plant - Architect Engineer Manager Gary Brown^

Campus Planning and Landscape Architecture - Director

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISON | Department of ChemistryRobert McMahon

Professor - Project Leader F. Fleming Crim Jr.

Professor - Project Leader Matthew Sanders

Executive Director James Weisshaar

Professor - Department Chair Kyle Roux^

Building Manager Cheri Barta^

Undergraduate Chemistry Coordinator Jeanine Batterton

Undergraduate Chemistry Coordinator Matt Bowman

Assistant Lab Director - Organic Steve Burke

Professor - Organic Chemistry Judith Burstyn

Professor - Inorganic Chemistry Allen Clauss

Lecturer / Faculty Associate Pam Doolittle

Lab Director - Analytical Mark Ediger

Professor - Physical Chemistry Daniel Fredrickson

Professor - Inorganic Chemistry Sam Gellman

Professor - Organic Chemistry Jeanne Hamers

Faculty Associate Nicholas Hill

Lab Director - Organic Chemistry Song Jin^

Professor - Analytical Chemistry Tony Jacob^

Director - Chemistry Learning Center Clark Landis

Professor - Organic / Inorganic Chemistry Rob McClain

Lab Director - Analytical Cathy Middlecamp

Director - Chemistry Learning Center ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

• UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISON | CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTIONAL ADDITION AND RENOVATION
• UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISON | CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTIONAL ADDITION AND RENOVATION

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISON

CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTIONAL ADDITION AND RENOVATION

SPACE ASSESSMENT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY - DSF PROJECT 10K1F |

AUGUST 2012

EXISTING CONDITIONS

SPACE ASSESSMENT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY - DSF PROJECT 10K1F | AUGUST 2012

EXISTING SPACE PROGRAM: UNDERGRADUATE INSTRUCTIONThe outdated and deteriorated state of UW-Madison’s chemistry instructional facilities,including both lecture rooms and laboratories, has become a serious limitation toeffective instruction in nearly all undergraduate chemistry courses, especially thelargest courses in general and organic chemistry. The need for new labs is drivenboth by safety considerations that cannot be met by remodeling of the current labs,and by substantially increased enrollments that have forced subpar modi

fications of

the content of the core curriculum solely to accommodate the increased enrollment.Demand for chemistry classes has continuously increased over the last 20 years. Theexisting facilities do not support contemporary instructional methods and are unable toaccommodate the growing number of students required to use them. The laboratoriesfail to conform to modern safety and hygiene standards.Fifty-five percent of entering freshmen take a chemistry course during their under-graduate career. Forty percent of entering freshmen take a chemistry course duringtheir^ first semester on campus. Because virtually all students majoring in science,engineering, and allied health

fields require chemistry courses as prerequisites to courses in the major, the Department’s ability to accommodate large general chemistry(freshman) and organic chemistry (sophomore) enrollments is a crucial factor ininfluencing the time-to-degree for a substantial fraction of all undergraduate majors oncampus.Funds from the Madison Initiative for Undergraduate are targeted to addressimprovements in undergraduate education, particularly “bottleneck” courses. Chemistry343 (lecture) and 344 (lab) are routinely hailed as examples of large courses whoselimited throughput is an impediment to timely graduation of undergraduates acrosscampus. While increased funding for additional faculty and staff will alleviate someof the pressure, it is the physical infrastructure of the building that currently limitsthroughput in the laboratory courses.The campus has grappled with this problem for a number of years, has investigateda series of unattractive options to address facility needs off-site and has implementedvarious undesirable changes to pedagogy. The recent acquisition of a parcel of landimmediately to the west of the existing Daniels Building has

finally provided a site for the

addition required to improve the quality and quantity of chemistry instructional space.

EXISTING PROGRAM SUMMARY 70,061 ASF

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISON | CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTIONAL ADDITION AND RENOVATION 18

Lecture HallSee First Floor^ Lecture HallSee First Floor

Mechanical SHAIN^

MATHEWS

DANIELS

EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN

Teaching LabOrganic Chemistry2149 sf(36p) Teaching LabOrganic Chemistry2040 sf(36p) Teaching LabOrganic Chemistry2040 sf(36p)