Even in buildings with cutting-edge imaging suites, there’s often tens or hundreds of square feet of laboratory and office space for every square foot of basement-level SEM/TEM Room space. That means that our job isn’t finished when we’ve made the electron microscopes and scanning probes happy; we still need to make everyone upstairs comfortable and productive, too.

Everything has a natural frequency: the structural floor, the lab bench, the vibration-isolated system. Even the microscope itself has internal resonances; these are the reason why the instrument is sensitive to vibrations in the first place. And when it comes to vibration isolation, allowing these resonances line up (in frequency) is usually not what we want.

Anyone who has designed animal laboratory spaces realizes that the animals have unique needs. One problem that comes up often with animal facilities is designing them for reasonable acoustics and noise control. Just like our human customers, we want our animal customers to have safe and comfortable places to live.

Part of what's vexing for machine isolation is the sheer number of options, and the fact that machine vibration impacts evolve over time. In contrast to the structural vibration design (for which there are only so many kinds of steel and concrete materials, concepts, and techniques), machine vibration isolation is heavily product-driven and sensitive to installation variability. And while that structure doesn't much change over the years, rotating machinery encounters wear-and-tear while isolators don't always stay in alignment.

When your vibration consultant tells you that he or she really thinks you should use springs instead of neoprene pads for something, there's probably a reason! Frequency matters, and it's actually possible for the wrong kind of "isolator" to make building vibrations worse instead of better.

Most of our projects depend on liberal application of vibration isolation systems on mechanical equipment. Especially in nanotech labs and other high-tech settings, you simply can't throw enough concrete and steel at the problem. It's far better -- and far cheaper -- to just minimize the vibrational forces that get applied to the structure in the first place. But it bears repeating: resilient-support isolation systems can't eliminate vibrations. At best, they can only only reduce vibrations. Critically: the effectiveness of vibration isolators depends on frequency.

Timescale is an important parameter in considering vibration impacts. And while there are technical reasons to consider timescale (is my apparatus even sensitive to milli-second-scale excursions? what are the chances that I'm even doing something sensitive at the moment when the transient occurs?) economic and practical considerations can be just as important. If your lab executes experiments that take huge budgets and months of planning to pull off, then even rare events might be a real threat, if only because the consequences of failure (however unlikely) are so dire.

Just a quick note regarding expressions of vibration and acoustical data. Every now and then we come upon a vexing problem related to full expressions of the units of a measurement (or criterion). I'm not talking about gross errors, like confusion of "inches-vs-centimeters" or "pounds-vs-newtons". Instead, I'm referring to some of the other, more subtle parts of the expression, like scaling and bandwidth.

Noise isolation in interior office partitions is one of the few places in life where the cheaper option sometimes gives better performance. Most people don't realize it, but if you use fewer studs (say, 24" on-center vs. 16" on-center) your wall will exhibit higher sound transmission class (STC). And if you use "floppier" studs, say 25-gauge instead of 16-gauge, then you get even more. That's right: the cheaper construction (fewer, lighter studs) performs better from the perspective of sound isolation.

Click through for excerpts from a Vibrasure talk given at an AALAS National Meeting on Vibration and Noise In and Near Animal Facilities.