Sorry, www.ridge.co.uk is not supported by Internet Explorer.
Sorry, www.ridge.co.uk is not supported by Internet Explorer.
Laboratories have long been associated with high capital costs, often far more than commercial office space. This differential is the cumulative result of design conventions, technical assumptions, and performance requirements that have become codified over time. The question we must ask, as designers (and clients), is whether these specifications remain proportionate to need, or whether we are engineering buildings to satisfy the operational demands of the 5%, rather than optimising for the 95%.
The Myth of the Flexible Floorplate
The pursuit of “ultimate flexibility” has become a mantra of contemporary speculative laboratory design. The aspiration that any part of the building might one day accommodate any use, whether laboratory or office, appears, on the surface, to be a prudent investment in future adaptability. Yet this ambition comes at a significant structural and spatial cost.
Designing for universal flexibility requires the entire floorplate to be engineered for laboratory loading and vibration, regardless of whether those areas will ever host lab functions. The inclusion of raised floors or extensive floor voids to allow wet and dry areas to be located interchangeably necessitates increased floor-to-floor heights, thicker slabs, and additional materials such as screed. These interventions contribute to both cost and embodied carbon, often for marginal future benefit.
A more pragmatic approach recognises that laboratory and support functions have inherent spatial relationships that can be strategically harnessed rather than universally accommodated. Placing office and write-up zones closer to entrances and circulation cores, while locating laboratory suites adjacent to goods lifts and service risers, creates a more efficient, “lean” configuration. This approach preserves long-term adaptability through modular planning and rational servicing, without the heavy penalty of over-engineering.
This allows for a design where the high loading and vibration requirements associated with laboratories are restricted to suitable zones, while the areas designated for office and write-up uses can adopt lighter, more responsive systems ultimately saving capital cost and reducing embodied carbon. Alongside this, we can ‘step the slab,’ removing the floor void in laboratory areas. This gives us additional clear height and removes the need for screeds, reducing cost and improving material efficiency.
Rethinking the 60:40 Rule
One of the most persistent assumptions in laboratory design is the 60:40 ratio between laboratory and office/write-up space. This ratio dominates briefing documents and masterplans, yet its foundations are rarely interrogated. In practice, this metric is often interpreted in mechanical and environmental terms, namely, that 60% of the floor area requires six air changes per hour, compared with two for general office use.
However, the application of this rule tends to obscure an important reality. When we examine laboratory layouts in detail, a significant proportion of the so-called “lab area” comprises ancillary spaces, corridors, storage rooms, changing areas, and preparation zones, that do not, in fact, need such intensive environmental servicing. Once these functions are accounted for, the proportion of truly high-serviced laboratory space across a typical floorplate often decreases to around 50%.
This reduction has considerable implications for both capital cost and carbon impact. It suggests that the conventional 60:40 split, far from being a neutral rule of thumb, may in fact embed inefficiency at the heart of laboratory briefing and design. A more nuanced, evidence-based approach could yield meaningful savings without sacrificing functionality or flexibility.
Whilst keeping to a 60:40 split ability, reducing the servicing capacity requirement from 60:40 to a more pragmatic 50:50 split could offer a saving of up to 9%.
Energy & CO² Savings
Optimising the 60% proportion of laboratory space has a direct and measurable impact on the operational performance of the building services systems. By applying a more accurate interpretation of the 60:40 brief, recognising that a proportion of the laboratory area will form of supporting circulation, storage and preparation space we can focus our approach on the ventilation and cooling strategies far more intelligently.
In doing so the laboratory work zones continue to operate at six air changes per hour to maintain safety and compliance, while the surrounding ancillary spaces can be ventilated at significantly lower rates. This refinement alone reduces the volume of primary air that must be moved, conditioned, and distributed through the building. In the example modelled for this study, these reductions translate to an 8% annual saving in kWh consumption, with a similar reduction in operational CO₂ emissions.
These savings extend beyond airhandling. A more accurate understanding and classification of areas also enables modest but worthwhile reductions in lighting and smallpower loads, particularly where circulation and peripheral laboratory support zones are concerned. While individually marginal, these incremental efficiencies compound across a floorplate and are amplified on larger schemes together contributing to lower running costs and more favourable Part L and EPC outcomes.
Importantly, these gains do not have to compromise the operational integrity or future flexibility of the laboratory areas. Instead, they remove unnecessary allowances from spaces that do not benefit from the laboratory grade provision. In doing so, they reduce plant size, ductwork distribution, and system energy demand, while also unlocking CapEx efficiencies through more proportionate equipment selection and reduced infrastructure requirements.
Collectively, this demonstrates how a leaner and more evidencebased servicing strategy can meaningfully reduce both operational carbon and wholelife cost, without altering the core 60:40 functional brief or diminishing the performance of the laboratory environment.
How High
Laboratory spaces are well known for requiring additional height to accommodate the greater level of servicing required for higher air volumes. Traditionally this means Floor to Floor heights of 4.5m as opposed to the lower heights of 4m usually required for office design. However, this additional height brings its own associated costs. By adding 500mm to every floor we are also adding an associated amount to the façade and internal finishes, an increase of over 9% for every floor!
By rethinking the building design principles, we can make dramatic improvements the associated capital costs. Swapping to a concrete flat slab construction means we can remove all down-stand beams, giving us far more opportunity for the routing of services and the avoidance of crossovers. Alongside this we can consider the height within the laboratory spaces; by installing ceilings at 2700mm we reduce the air volume, and thus the associated plant equipment and ducting.
The omission of the floor void discussed earlier ensures the floor-to-floor height can now be rationalised as:
25mm finish + 325 mm slab + 100 mm lighting zone + 900 mm service zone + 2700 mm clear height + 50 mm tolerance = 4.1 m.
Understanding Variation in Vibration
Vibration performance of a slab is not a uniform property but rather varies significantly across the floor plate. Broadly speaking; vibration is a function of a slab’s stiffness, and a slab is stiffer near its column/wall supports and more flexible at its midspan.
When a lab’s performance is specified to meet certain vibration criteria (typically referred to in either Response Factor or Vibration Control terms); designing the whole slab to meet this can be excessive. The reality is that a reasonable portion of the slab will significantly outperform others and be suitable for more vibration sensitive equipment and processes. Layering on top of this the damping effects of floor finishes, partitions and furnishings, and the result is an intricate heat map showing the varying vibration performance of the slab across the floor plate.
Understanding this can help to recalibrate the vibration performance specification. Early optioneering studies on slab sizing for different minimum vibration requirements can be carried out to produce high-level performance heat-maps, which allow a more wholistic consideration of vibration design. The vibration performance then shows that certain portions of the slab achieve a specified performance, allowing a leaner slab design whilst still providing zoning for vibration-sensitive equipment. These heat maps can be used in space-planning with prospective tenants to illustrate this varying property and determine suitable areas for such equipment.
A study based on footfall-induced vibration for the illustrative lab layout shown above, with a target slab performance of Response Factor 1 for lab activities showed the following:
| Cases considered | Base case | Split office and lab | Lean lab | ||
| Whole floor plate | Split floor plate | Split floor plate | |||
| Office | Lab | Office | Lab | ||
| Vibration performance RF | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
| Percentage of floor plate achieving RF | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 70% |
| Slab thickness | 375mm | 275mm | 325mm | 275mm | 300mm |
Assuming a typical 60:40 split, this yields an approximate saving of 23% slab thickness from the base case to the lean lab. This reduced slab weight is compounded by savings on supporting columns and foundations.
Summary
Laboratory design has long been shaped by assumptions that often inflate cost and carbon impact without proportionate benefit. By challenging conventions such as the 60:40 rule, universal flexibility, and excessive floor-to-floor heights, we uncover opportunities for leaner, smarter solutions. Evidence-based design, grounded in actual operational needs rather than theoretical extremes that can deliver laboratories that are both high-performing and economically sustainable. The future lies not in over-engineering for the rarest scenarios, but in optimising for the realities of the majority to create a lean lab.
Applying these principles to a typical 100,000sqft 4 storey laboratory we can see savings of over£3,000,000 with little to no impact of flexibility and performance!
If you wish to discuss this topic get in contact with Ed Hayden, Richard Knight , James Vale or Billy Squire
Thank you for signing up. We look forward to sharing updates with you
