Theoretical Basis of a Structural Strategy for a Modular Research Building

Structure as a Framework for Change

In complex research facilities—especially those developed for a hybrid of public and private uses—adaptability, durability, and modularity are critical structural imperatives. The proposed medical research building adopts a dual-structure system, combining prefabricated modular assemblies with a mixed-material exoskeleton. This approach not only meets immediate spatial and service demands but enables long-term spatial evolution. The project aligns with broader theoretical frameworks in architecture and engineering that see structure not merely as a support system, but as a regulatory grid—a discipline that organises, enables and communicates architectural intent (Frampton, 1995; MacDonald, 2001).

Prefabricated Modular Assemblies: Structure as Unit and System

The primary building blocks are container-like prefabricated units, forming offices and laboratories. Modules of up to 12.0 m in length and 2.5 m in width are transported to site and inserted into a pre-built frame. This strategy offers several structural opportunities: Standardised module dimensions enable predictable loading conditions and precise coordination with the primary frame (Lawson, Ogden and Goodier, 2014). Factory-controlled conditions improve quality assurance of welds, joins and tolerances, enhancing performance and longevity. The repetition of module types reduces the complexity of structural design at the element level, shifting innovation to the connections, junctions and integration points between modules and the primary frame (Gibb, 1999). The modular approach prioritises spatial determinacy over flexibility. Unlike loose-fit, open-plan systems, these modules form a fixed pattern of workspaces, reinforcing the concept that structural design is tailored to spatial purpose rather than abstract functional generality.

Dual Structural System: Primary Exoskeleton and Secondary Steel Frame

The building’s structure is conceived as a hierarchical system:

A primary exoskeleton, formed from concrete and steel, defines the outer profile.

A secondary internal frame, predominantly steel, supports floors and modular units.

This separation of structural roles allows for:

Clear load path distinction, where gravity and lateral loads are largely resisted by the exoskeleton and central cores, while internal loads are addressed by the inner frame (Engel, 2007).

Greater freedom in facade articulation, where the exoskeleton becomes a visual and thermal mediator, allowing external shading, insulation, and cladding systems to operate independently of internal planning (Schueller, 1996).

The inclination of columns in circulation zones reflects both structural necessity—redirecting loads to internal gridlines—and formal expression, articulating dynamic movement and interaction.

This design aligns with the "open-ended" structural philosophy championed by Cedric Price and others, where structure facilitates future adaptation, not just present stability (Price, 1999).

Dense Column Grid: Accommodating Spatial Subdivision

The dense column grid—featuring double rows of columns spaced at 3.0 m centres across the depth and 6.0 m along the facade—emerges not from conventional office-based span efficiency but from the logic of modularity and reconfigurability.

Opportunities provided by this arrangement include:

Smaller structural members, leading to a lighter frame, reduced embodied energy, and easier integration of MEP services (Ching and Adams, 2020).

Spatial granularity, allowing aggregation of modules in both longitudinal and lateral directions, enabling either singular laboratory zones or grouped clusters.

Flexibility in retrofitting, as non-structural partitions can be modified without disturbing the structural grid, facilitating rearrangement or repurposing of lab zones over time.

This strategy draws from the Servant-Space/Served-Space typology (Kahn, 1961), with central cores and service spines enabling support infrastructure to remain stable while lab and office configurations adapt.

Structural and Service Integration

The building supports inclined service ducts on secondary steelwork attached to the perimeter columns. This strategy merges architectural expression with structural efficiency: It facilitates visual legibility of services—recalling High-Tech principles—while structurally isolating heavier elements like AHUs and filters from the lightweight secondary frame (Banham, 1980). Inclined ducts respond directly to the sectional composition of the building, echoing the building’s functional zoning and reinforcing the structural role of oblique forces within the frame. The placement of vertical and inclined columns, especially where they meet the external edge of cantilevered sections, requires detailed structural analysis, particularly at:

Connection nodes where inclined members resolve into vertical columns.

Transfer points from outer exoskeletal members to internal frame supports (Schueller, 1996).

Central Spine Core: Structural and Programmatic Anchor

The central service spine plays multiple structural roles:

It acts as a lateral load-resisting system, incorporating shear walls and braced frames within vertical circulation and MEP cores.

It defines a symmetrical division of laboratory zones, enabling cross-spine access and shared infrastructure.

It accommodates higher service loads, providing space for filters, exhaust ducts and air treatment zones.

Structurally, this aligns with modern laboratory design principles, which advocate for zoned service corridors, allowing updates to MEP infrastructure without interrupting research operations (Jenkins, 2009).

Reconfigurability and Non-Structural Walls

A notable strategic decision was to avoid making laboratory dividing walls structural. This creates:

A highly reconfigurable interior, enabling future-proofing for emerging research needs or hybrid public-private partnerships.

A framework that supports space as infrastructure, allowing spatial constellations to shift within a fixed grid—a critical requirement for research organisations facing rapid change (Kolarevic and Malkawi, 2005).

This structural openness is both literal and philosophical: it discourages architectural permanence in favour of evolutionary potential, reflecting the culture of research and innovation the building serves.

Overview

The proposed structural strategy demonstrates an integrated response to complex spatial, environmental, and operational demands in a temperate climate. Through the use of prefabricated modules, a dual-structure system, and an adaptive column grid, the design embraces both structural expressiveness and functional pragmatism. The building’s commitment to clarity, adaptability and expressiveness situates it within a lineage of technically innovative buildings that use structure to mediate between permanence and change, mass production and specificity, and function and identity.

References

Banham, R. (1980) The Architecture of the Well-Tempered Environment. 2nd ed. London: Architectural Press.

Ching, F.D.K. and Adams, C. (2020) Building Construction Illustrated. 6th ed. Hoboken: Wiley.

Engel, H. (2007) Structure Systems. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Hatje Cantz.

Frampton, K. (1995) Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gibb, A. (1999) Off-site Fabrication: Prefabrication, Pre-assembly and Modularisation. London: John Wiley & Sons.

Jenkins, P. (2009) Laboratory Design Guide. 3rd ed. Oxford: Architectural Press.

Kahn, L. (1961) ‘Between Silence and Light’, in What Will Be Has Always Been: The Words of Louis I. Kahn. Boston: Rizzoli.

Kolarevic, B. and Malkawi, A. (2005) Performative Architecture: Beyond Instrumentality. New York: Spon Press.

Lawson, M., Ogden, R. and Goodier, C. (2014) Design in Modular Construction. London: CRC Press.

MacDonald, A. J. (2001) Structure and Architecture. 2nd ed. Oxford: Architectural Press.

Price, C. (1999) Re:CP – Cedric Price: The Square Book. London: Wiley.

Schueller, W. (1996) The Design of Building Structures. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.