Design Adaptations for Nanolabs

Nanotechnology facilities depend on exceptionally quiet conditions. By controlling vibration and electromagnetic interference from the outset, both scientific performance and long-term operational flexibility can be safeguarded.

At Deerns, we see nanolabs and photonics facilities as mission critical environments where the building itself is not the product – the process is. The most advanced equipment is sensitive not only to obvious disturbances but also to those that are less visible: micro-vibrations travelling through slabs and structural frames and electromagnetic fields generated by transport systems, power distribution and even everyday campus activity.

Quiet is a measurable design input

Two performance parameters dominate early conversations: vibration criteria (VC) and electromagnetic interference (EMI). Both are governed by stringent standards but, in practice, the challenge is less about passing a test and more about ensuring repeatability. A process that works once is not enough; a nanolab must deliver the same outcomes on a Tuesday morning as it does during a weekend maintenance window.

Quiet zones are areas where the site conditions, structure, MEP systems and user behaviour all support the sensitivity level required by the tools.

Start with the site, not the building

Large research facilities are often developed within complex campus environments where key planning decisions are made early in the process. When the location of a nanolab is defined before all technical conditions are fully understood, external sources of vibration and electromagnetic interference (EMI) can become important design considerations. Light rail, busy roads, nearby construction and logistics routes can all influence the layout of laboratories and the placement of the most sensitive tools. In some situations, additional mitigation strategies may be required to ensure the performance levels that advanced nanotechnology research demands.

Projects such as DTU Nanolab highlight how campus infrastructure evolves over time. Large infrastructure developments, such as new tram lines, often have planning and construction timelines that extend well beyond those of individual buildings. Once in operation, their electromagnetic load and vibration profile become part of the long-term context that nanotechnology facilities must consider.

3 early site questions:

• What existing and planned transport corridors (such as rail, tram, bus, heavy vehicles) sit within the influence radius of the proposed cleanroom zones?
• What does the campus development plan look like over the next 10–15 years, and what construction methods will be permitted near sensitive areas?
• Where can an EMI-quiet and low-vibration zone be protected by policy, not only by engineering?

This is where early due diligence pays back. With the right measurements and scenario thinking, a client can avoid locking in a site that later requires disproportionate Capex, programme risk and operating constraints.

Internal sources that need early positioning

Once the site strategy is set, internal vibration and EMI sources become the next priority.

4 key factors that should be considered:

• Transformers, UPS systems and switchgear: high electrical load often correlates with stronger disturbance.
• Air handling units, fans and pumps: vibration can couple into slabs and frames if not isolated and routed properly.
• Lifts and vertical transport: large steel masses can disturb magnetic fields over surprisingly long distances.
• Process utilities (gases, chemicals, vacuum): routing choices can add both technical risk and cost.

When interference risks remain after sources have been eliminated or reduced, active cancellation can be used as the next step – applied selectively where it is justified.

3 scenarios where active systems can be justified:

• External sources cannot be moved, and the process sensitivity is non-negotiable.
• The quiet zone must remain stable even during predictable peak activity (such as traffic peaks and planned campus events).
• Space constraints prevent separation distances through layout alone.

Active vibration damping and EMI cancellation can be effective, but they are capital intensive, can consume energy and may interact with neighbouring systems. It might therefore be necessary to impose minimum spacing between protected rooms, which can impact the long-term flexibility of the facility.

Designing for real needs

Not every tool needs the tightest VC/EMI limits. Over-specification expands quiet zones, structure and shielding – raising cost and embodied carbon.

At Deerns, we work closely with our clients to understand their specific needs. On HTC 12 in Eindhoven, for example, we used process thinking to limit the most sensitive zone and reposition activities away from external disturbance, preserving performance while reducing the extent of heavy construction and complex mitigation.

Designing for change

A a are rarely static: tools move, loads change, adjacent sites develop. Engineering must be paired with operational rules that keep the quiet zones intact – such as scheduling freight lift use outside testing windows, managing delivery routes, and defining low vibration construction requirements for future campus works.

Deerns’ value is in integrating these layers: site intelligence, structural and MEP engineering, process planning and long-term governance. Because there is no standard cleanroom, we do not offer standard solutions. We tailor each design to the client’s processes, risk profile and growth roadmap so that quiet remains a reliable asset throughout the lifespan of the facility.