Trisha Jacobson Kyle Zempel Brian Wickboldt Harvey Hall Renovation The overall Harvey Hall project presented to our group has been a learning process in numerous ways. Broken down between us three, we were able to determine what would benefit each in corresponding majors. With the initial task of performing an Energy Audit of Harvey Hall, we were directed to Alan Symicek from the Campus Physical Plant. Alan sent us on to Breck Schwartz to assist us in getting needed information. After a tour of Harvey Hall with Breck and a few weeks of patiently waiting for numbers to input into the energy audit guide, we determined to move forth with a new direction. This new direction would consist of proposing an energy saving renovation of Harvey Hall. We determined without the use of existing numbers, there were obvious problems with the building that could plausibly be corrected. Before work could get started on tearing apart the existing building, we had to find out the historical significance and any restrictions to renovating Harvey Hall. Listed in the Menomonie Historic Preservation and associated with the National Register of Historic Places through the historic Downtown Menomonie, Harvey Hall has a lot of history behind it to be kept intact and preserved for future generations. Harvey Hall was built in 1916 and has undergone only one major renovation in 1975 to add another stairwell and a few other features. The building has had many minor changes over the years, and is now broken into inefficient spaces. With a few simple guidelines and Historic Preservation Committee approvals to follow, Harvey Hall is a perfect candidate for extensive renovations to be more energy efficient and ADA compliant for those future generations to enjoy. Through correspondence with Chuck Backus, executive director of the Dunn County Historical Society, we learned that the façade of the building must not be altered; any additions must be a replica to the existing or in the same look and time period. As defined in the Federal Historic Preservation Law, United States Code 470w‐5(d), Site Renovation: “The renovations shall, 1) be commenced immediately, 2) preserve, enhance, and restore the distinctive and historically authentic architectural character of the site consistent with the needs of a national museum of the building arts and other compatible use, and 3) retain the availability of the central court of the building, or portions thereof, for appropriate public activities.” With the restrictions of modifications understood, we broke the renovations into a few main categories to improve. The Campus Physical Development Plan states, “Harvey Hall is now 92 years old. No major renovation or remodel has ever been performed on this building. While it somewhat works as a classroom and office building, its system infrastructure and original design result in a very inefficient building in regards to configuration, HVAC, electrical, plumbing, telecommunications, ADA accessibility and life safety.” Overviews of those categories we wish to improve are: reconfiguration of the interior, restroom fixtures and layout, lighting and sensor options, and windows. Currently the interior of Harvey Hall is a maze of offices in back hallways shut off from students, lacking lounge space, and heavily dependent on the elevator for classrooms on the fourth and third floor. The restrooms do not comply with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), and are fitted with outdated fixtures using extensive amounts of water and paper towels compared to newer fixtures. Lighting in the classrooms and offices don’t use natural lighting to its full potential, as well as lights being left on when no one is present. The safety concerns in the building should also be updated. The building currently has no sprinkler system installed, except in the attic and theater. To further concern of fire hazard, the fire alarm systems are out of date. As of now, Harvey Hall only complies with 1986 ADA standards for restrooms and entrances. Mechanical ADA doors need to be replaced and brought up to code. There is concern about asbestos throughout the structure and the indoor air quality, as well as the lead based materials exist throughout the building. Security of the building is weak, and should have more card access incorporated in areas. Some entrance doors have two door vestibule capabilities but are always left open. Structurally the building is starting to display fatigue. The exterior brick is in need of repair. Windows have been partially covered by an inefficient material and metal edging allows for condensation to collect. The HVAC system is completely out of date. The main steam piping system was recently renovated in the summer of 2010 in which old piping was replaced with new pipes and insulation. Asbestos still covers many piping lines. However, the existing air handling system is still very old and is in need of constant maintenance. The handling unit is buried in a small room which makes it hard to access and service. The main venting system is oversized and not insulated. Ducts have very high energy losses and should be redesigned. Some manual diffusers are still in use and need to be replaced. Heating systems are controlled by pheomatics systems, which are very hard to control on a day to day basses and is hard to track systems over a short time. These need to be updated with electronic systems to allow for better control and record keeping ability. Now that the current conditions have been discussed in general, we will discuss in more detail about the conditions, solutions, and feasibility for specific areas in the renovation proposal. Currently, Harvey Hall houses numerous general education classrooms, over 115 faculty offices, the office of the College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, tutor laboratories, 5 conference rooms, and very limited lounge space for students. Our floor plan proposal would open up hidden corridors to the main corridor for a better interaction between students and faculty offices. Lounge spaces would be incorporated into various floors of Harvey Hall to encourage interaction between both students and even faculty members which in turn gives a positive outlook on the building itself. Restroom sizes would increase to be compliant with ADA. The layout of Harvey Hall is fairly insufficient in which the elevator is outdated and overused by students attending 30‐60 minutes classes on the fourth and third floor. The second and first floor are intertwined with faculty offices and corridors. The theater portion of Harvey Hall just finished up an extensive renovation, so our proposals will not include anything pertaining to it. The basement houses a few offices and classrooms, but is mainly used for maintenance and for operations to run the building. We will not be proposing a layout change for the basement because the lack of understanding how the functions of the building are ran and space needed to do so. The first floor of Harvey Hall will also remain the same. It would be ideal to have a lounge area for students passing through or waiting for classes, although it seems to function as is. The College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences office is located on the first floor and is an ideal, accessible location for visitors and students. There is a food cart also located on this floor. During the ten minute breaks between classes, the cart gets very busy and blocks the flow of traffic down the main corridor which could be avoided by locating the cart elsewhere in the building or not in the main corridor. The second floor is where many changes occur. Currently there are a mix of five classrooms and 36 offices. Doorways close off back hallways to faculty offices and start the maze affect. Having doors to the back hallways also give the sense of being blocked off for a reason, as if students aren’t allowed to these back restricted areas. When eliminated, students are encouraged to visit professors or at least become familiar with the building itself and the location of offices. A small lounge space was created at the end of the main corridor by dated uncomfortable furniture, which isn’t too inviting. The proposed second floor layout would incorporate eight classrooms, eight offices, an ADA compliant restroom, lounge areas, and a much more simplified floor plan. Having classrooms on the second floor would encourage students to use the stairs, and eliminate the campus’s proposal to install a second elevator. Students are flowing in and out of Harvey Hall for classes that last anywhere from 30 minutes to 90 minutes from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm in 30 minute increments. A vast majority of students take the elevator when they are capable of walking up and down stairs. Walking up one flight of stairs seems like a more plausible feat for students than the four tall flights of stairs. The main corridor will open up and eliminate the doorways dividing it with the exception of one. This one doorway can be closed off during theater productions to keep the theater goers in a more intimate setting and allow for seating in the lounge area during intermission. The lounge at the end of the corridor will also provide students a place to wait before or between classes. The third floor currently is a well balanced mix between classrooms and offices, with 9 classes and approximately 22 offices. However, to accommodate changes on the second and fourth floor, many offices will be moved to fourth floor and three more classrooms will be added to the third floor. The fourth floor will require the most change to the layout. Currently the most classrooms are held here, 12 in total, with 15 small offices filling in the gaps. As mentioned previously, students flood to the fourth floor from the elevator for a short class period and then flood out of the building again. Again, there is a small lounge at the end of the main corridor as an afterthought of design. Many students do use this lounge because of its closeness to the classrooms they attend. The restroom is very small and cramped, without ADA accessibility. There are very limited office services for the few offices that are there. Again, the offices are in back, closed off hallways that deter students from getting familiar with the building. The proposal for the fourth floor is to move a vast majority of the faculty offices up there, with open corridors running between the 7 “blocks.” There will be three office storage and copy rooms throughout for convenience, as well as a lounge centrally located down the main corridor for faculty members to hold quick casual meetings. Although the layout appears complex, it is much more straightforward and easy to navigate compared to the original layout of the offices. A large conference room, with the capabilities to be split into two, is centrally located between the two main corridors and near the main stairway and elevator. Offices moved to the fourth floor will limit the constant flow of student traffic going up and down the elevator. Instead, faculty can go up the four floors and then navigate their way down one or two floors to the classrooms and back up to their office. There will be a substantially less amount of traffic from the 62 offices than from 12 classrooms with 15 to 30 students per classroom throughout the day. If the proposals of these floors are put into action, there will not be a need to put in a second elevator in Harvey Hall. A simple updating to the current elevator will be sufficient enough to accommodate the needs of students and faculty use. With this proposal, the façade of the building will remain intact and no major changes will affect the historical standing if Harvey Hall. The main corridors and stairways will be the same, but a few walls will either open up or shift to create classrooms or offices. The use of the building will not change function, but it will be more efficient‐‐ there are equivalent numbers of offices to classrooms in the new proposal as there are in the current layout. Along with changing the layout of Harvey Hall requires a change in restrooms. Harvey Hall’s restrooms are out of date and, as mentioned, do not meet ADA requirements. Our group identified restrooms as one of the main targets for renovation. Harvey Hall currently has 31 restroom sinks, 31 toilets, and 9 urinals. A further breakdown can be seen in the chart below. The restrooms in the basement have already received a complete upgrade to nice faucets, motion sensor urinals, and fitted with low flow tanks. The remaining restrooms throughout the building have not been updated and are in serious need. The current urinals are very old and flush when the reservoir fills, which is very inefficient and unnecessary. The toilets are standard 3 gallon tank floor mounted units which have no water reduction systems in place. Restroom sinks are out dated and do not utilize any water flow reducing aerators nor have automatic shut off capabilities. The current restrooms are compliant with 1986 ADA standards. According to the Campus Physical Development Plan, the restrooms are in average condition and do not meet up‐to‐date ADA standards. The plumbing is obsolete and consists of galvanized and copper piping which is subject to random failures. Waterless urinals are similar to conventional urinals expect they use absolutely no water nor need to be flushed. The urine simply flows to the drain pipe using gravity which connects to the standard drain lines and require no water lines. Waterless urinals have already shown big results for current users and completely eliminate the use of water from the current 2‐3 gallon per flush. They use a special sealant liquid comprised of liquids that are lighter than water, commonly alcohol or oils as a vapor trap. This allows the urinal to pass thru the liquid down the drain while keeping the sewage pipe odors at bay. Manufacturers are currently using three types of traps which include: Replace cartridge : These cartridges must be replaced every 7,000‐10,000 uses and liquid sealant is added at the time of replacement. Sloan, ZeroFlush, and Zurn all use small variations of the replacement method. Built‐in trap: Maintenance for built‐in traps requires flushing with several gallons of water every 2‐4 weeks. The sealant is then replaced after the flush is complete. Kohler and Duravit are the manufacturers of the built‐in traps and their urinals have small differences but overall very similar. Kohler is considered to have the most environmentally friendly sealant. Long lasting with self‐sealing valve: This type does not require any liquid sealant because the self‐sealing valve is designed to roll up when liquid is not passing through it. When closed it prevents sewer gases from entering the restroom keeping the urinal order‐free. The cartridges with self‐sealing valves can be removed if needed but are designed to stay in place for numerous years. The manufacturer EcoTech provides a lifetime warranty on the cartridge against any defects or malfunctions. It is recommended that the cartridge be checked on a monthly basis for build‐up and if build‐up does occur apply a special cleaning solution offered by EcoTech. Some maintenance considerations for all waterless urinals is daily cleaning which includes a wipe down of the in and outside of the urinal with a surface cleaner and cloth. Each manufacturer has special instructions for their urinal but overall maintenance is very similar with minor differences in recommended cleaning liquid. It is crucial that the custodial staff working on these urinals have proper training on how to properly maintain them, which shouldn’t be a problem with an academic building. Waterless urinals will remain odor‐less as long as proper maintenance is upheld. For the liquid sealant urinals, ensuring the cartridge or sealant are replaced before the sealant is completely depleted is crucial in preventing odor issues. It will be important to properly estimate the urinal use so that the custodial staff knows when the maintenance needs to occur on the urinal, there will certainly be some trial and error in the beginning stages of use. Certain waterless urinals will be easier to tell than others when maintenance must occur. Currently, all Harvey hall urinals are floor mounted urinals, which would mean an entire remodeling of the bathroom wall. Waterless urinals require a lower drainpipe than normal flush urinals and have a certain requirement for the distance from lip to floor in order to meet ADA requirements. If a restroom renovation is already planned to take place, making the proper adjustments shouldn’t dramatically affect the cost. Drainpipe slope also comes into play with waterless urinals. The drainpipe must have a minimum slope of a ¼” per foot for the urinal to properly drain. The pipes cannot be made from copper due to corrosion issues. Piping is something that will need to be looked into with Harvey due to its age, but if the plumbing is planned to be replaced, this project should not cause any problems. The change in fixtures will significantly change the amount of water used (or wasted) by Harvey Hall. An average flush urinal uses approximately 3 gallons per flush, thus the waterless urinal will be saving around 3 gallons per use, plus the additional water loss to leaking valves. Less energy will be used pumping the water from the city water system. As far as toilets are concerned, the current fixtures in Harvey Hall (excluding toilets in the basement) use approximately 3 gallons per use. Retrofitting the current toilets with a low‐flow reservoir can reduce water use to approximately 1.6 gallons per use, which give a 1.4 gallon per use savings. There are numerous options available for low flow toilets; brand and models should fall in with current supplier. If toilets are to be replaced, replacing them with dual‐flush toilets would lower gallons per flush to 1.25‐1.4. Dual‐flush toilets are especially effective in female restrooms due to the increased number of flushes compared to male restrooms. The dual‐flush toilet offers two flushing options, a low flow and a normal flow which use 1.1 gallons per flush and 1.6 gallons per flush, respectively. Sloan offers a manual flush handle that allows user to either push the handle up for low flow flush or down for a full flush. Low flow (handle up) is used for liquid waste and the full flush (handle down) is used for solid waste. Sloan also offers a sensor dual flush toilet which has the same functions as the manual flush handle but has the hands free convenience of a motion sensor. The toilet has a green button for low flow flush and a classic chrome button for full flush. The motion sensor activates low flow flush if the user stays in range for less than one minute and will activate to full flush if user is in range for longer than one minute, allowing for low flow flushes without contact with the actual fixture. The dual‐flush toilet can either be installed as a full unit (toilet and flush handle) or as a retrofit (flush handle only). In the case of Harvey Hall a full unit would need to be installed. Bathroom Fixture
Water Savings Annually
Dual Flush Toilet
LF Toilet
Waterless
High efficency
‐
200,000
400,000
600,000
Ultra Low Flow
Gallons of Water Saved
The sink faucets in Harvey Hall are out‐dated and likely use well over 3 gallons per minute. Replacing them with hygienic motion sensor low flow faucets can reduce water use to as little as a .5 gallon per minute, a significant decrease. A large decrease in water use can mean very large potential savings for Harvey Hall. Sloan offers a number of different options with the most popular Optima lavatory faucet already in use in restrooms around campus. Breck Schwartz has informed me that the restrooms in Harvey Hall will be fitted with motion sensor faucets similar to the others around campus. Hand dryers have come a long way in the past few years, becoming much more energy efficient and effective. Switching to a new energy efficient hand dryer and eliminating paper tissue has been showing significant savings in a commercial setting. The most cost and energy efficient hand dryer on the market is the Excel Xlerator. The Xlerator works by a patented system that delivers a high velocity of air that dries hands in 10‐15 seconds. Works just like conventional hand dryers. The Xlerator uses 80% less energy than conventional warm air hand dryers which usually take 20+ seconds to dry the user’s hands. Xlerator has a 95% cost saving versus using paper towels. The Xlerator is a onetime purchase that requires little to no maintenance saving money on labor and maintenance. Excel the manufacturer of Xlerator states that the average cost per hand dry costs 1/10th of a cent versus two cents per dry with hand towels. Excel offers a cost saving calculator to determine your potential savings, unfortunately we were unable to obtain paper usage information to calculate the potential savings for Harvey Hall. Excel’s LCA analysis shows that paper towel uses 743 kilojoules per use while Xlerator uses 76 kJ per use, a 667 kJ savings. Overall, updating or retrofitting the current and out of date fixtures in the bathrooms will create a great cost, energy, and water savings for the university. In addition, the bathrooms being up to ADA standards will receive a positive and inviting impact for students and faculty members. The final fix we concluded for Harvey Hall is the current inefficient and overuse of lighting. The current lighting systems have been retrofitted to meet the demand on the building. All classrooms currently have a 500 or greater LUX or 40 foot candles (lumens per square ft). The desire LUX for a classroom is usually 500 and above. The required amount of lumens per square foot is determined by the activity that is to be done in the space. Classrooms and laboratories typically require the most lumens per square foot because of the task needed to be performed. The amount of lumens needed is also determined by the age of the occupants. Typically as people get older they start to lose their vision. Higher lumen quantities help a person better focus on the task that needs to be done. In the existing lighting plan the amount of light in almost all spaces is sufficient for the assigned tasks. All of the spaces use florescent lighting, and all lighting fixtures have been changed over to the use of T8 and 32 watt lighting lamps. The ballasts have all been changed over to new Phillips Advanced Instant Start Ballast. This lighting combination is very up to date, the problem with the lighting system is that the new lighting system that replaced the old has a higher performance per lamp than the T12 so existing systems put out more lumens per square foot than needed. By reducing the number of lights used, the number of fixtures or the watts used by each lamp the system could see major cost savings. Right now classrooms in Harvey Hall have average LUX outputs of between 500 LUX and 1000 LUX. Many classrooms have an average LUX of over 850 which is unnecessary in most cases for normal classroom activities. The only places where this would be desirable would be in writing tutoring rooms or math tutor rooms where students would need to concentrate on focused tasks for long periods of time. This access in lighting could be attributed to retrofitting the lights originally to save money. T8 lights replaced T12 lighting to save money and for better performance. So existing fixtures were designed with less powerful lamps to meet LUX needs in rooms, The T8’s replaced the T12’s and brought savings as well as higher performance. In the analysis, we calculated the current performance of the lighting systems and attempted to find further savings by reducing the number of lamps, fixtures, or lamp wattage, while still keeping the lighting systems above the need LUX requirements. In the research we examined how lower wattage bulbs, or using different ballast types in the existing settings would influence performance. For classrooms I first counted all of the existing fixtures in each room and the number of lamps in each room. I then calculated based on the based on the lights average lumen output the average amount of lumens per square foot in each room. I used the average lumen output because fluorescent lights lose some performance over their lifetime and the average tells what to expect after 40%of a lamps’ life. I also used the coefficient of utilization and light loss factors to better analyze the lighting plan. The CU coefficient of utilization helps qualify the amount of light produced versus the light that is actually hitting the work plane. For the CU I used average performance numbers based on the lighting lamp type. The LLF or light loss factor helps better represent lamp performance by taking into account such variables as lamp lumen depreciation, ballast factor, luminary, dirt depreciation, and room surface dirt depreciation. For this value I took typical LLF for the lighting that was assessed. After adding the CU and LLF to the equation I found a representation of how many average lumens per square foot are present in each classroom. Following that I set perimeters for performance. I concluded that no classroom should have a lux lower than 500 lux to keep student focus high and that no classroom should have a lux greater then 850, because it would be a waste of electricity. I said that the target lux would be 650 and that it would be considered good performance + 100 lux from 650. I said that anything below 500 or above 850 would be considered bad performance. I also concluded that for classroom usage a higher lux value is more desirable. For classroom use I found that the average lux was around 730 and that 7 classrooms exceeded the 850 lux mark. I then used the same table method to examine if different ballast types and lamps could be used to get the desired performance while reducing energy costs. I test HBF (high ballast factor) ballast, LBF (low ballast factor), 30 WATT, 28 WATT, and 25 WATT lamps, all fell within the preferred perimeters, although the 25 WATT builds performance was lower is some rooms then what would be wanted. I also found that I could reduce the number of lamps in each fixture to two with a HBF instant start ballast and still achieve the desired performance. After finding which combinations met the lux perimeters I used a lighting calculator to predict annual KWH usage for each lighting type. The calculator does this by first finding the WATTS needed for the entire system. The calculator inputs lumens per square foot, rated lamp lumens (of each fixture based on the number of lamps in each fixture and ballast type.) Square footage of lighted area, watts per fixture, and number hours on each day. To find the lumens per square foot I took the average lumens per square foot of all the classrooms for each type of light which fell between the desired perimeters. I found the rated lamp lumens and watts per lamp from a chart online, which gives numbers base different ballast types and lamps used. I added all the classrooms together to get a total square footage and finally used information posted outside classrooms to determine the usage each day of around 4 hours daily, Monday through Friday. After inputting these numbers in the calculator, it gives the number of watts required for the system. I then inputted the amount of total fixtures in all the classrooms. The calculator then takes the total watts required along with the number of fixtures to formulate an estimated amount of energy used annually. I divided that number by 12 to come up with a monthly estimate and multiplied it by 8. I did this because it is the approximate amount of time the building is in full use, during the spring and fall semesters. I then multiplied the calculated KWH used by each lighting plan type of use by the average/cost of electricity for this to predict a cost of use during the fall and spring. I found that the 30 watt lamps would actually increase costs, and that the 28 watts would only save $284 during the year. 25 watt lamps would save $1,408 dollars during the spring and fall semesters, but would have a much lower performance. The greatest savings came from reducing the number of lamps in each fixture, while using HBF to increase the performance of the BC watt lamps. If this was done it would reduce the usage costs by $4,430. I repeated this process to find the best combinations for Offices, offices, services areas, restrooms, corridors, and stair ways. These numbers can be found on the attached excel file. After examining possible lighting combinations I concluded that Classrooms and offices should switch to a HBF high lumen output lamps. This would reduce the number of lamps needed per room thus reducing operating costs. I would do this after failure. The existing system is already working at a relatively low cost and we think it would be a waste to replace current systems and throw away perfectly good hardware. For all other areas I would switch the lamps to 25 Watt lamps from the 32 watt lamps. This can be done because these areas have a lower required lux, and the 25 watt lamp would save the amount of energy used in each system. I would also replace these lights after failure. The only changes we would implement are to reduce the amount of lamps per unit where possible. In this project we also looked at the possibility of inputting T5 light lamps or LED lamps. These technologies both provide for greater performance per lamp and provide for lower operating costs. The negative to these technologies is that both have a very high cost per lamp because they are new technologies. Both technologies require more research and more streamlined production to justify their costs before they can be considered. The T5 lights would also have an initial cost to retrofit the existing fixtures to hold them in. The LEDs bring the possibility of using a non‐mercury lamp. In the end these technologies should continue to be investigated for possible savings in the future. Next we looked at the possibility of inputting occupancy sensors. We found that they serve the most benefits in areas in which there is unpredictable use. We found that the majority of the building had a uniform use which could be better enforced through the education of its occupants (teachers, custodians, and maintenance personal). The only areas where we found that the sensors may be usable were within bathrooms and the end of corridor study areas. These areas showed a potential for savings if it could cut the number of hours the lamps were on in half or more. The sensors would require a different type of ballast, which reduces a lamps life when it constantly turns the lights on and off. So the only area we purpose these would be installed is in bathrooms. The next area we looked at for potential savings was utilizing more natural light. We set to do this by replacing existing window panels and replacing existing window shades. The existing window panels were inputted to improve the performance of the wall system to not allow for as much heat loss through the giant windows. The problem with the panels is they have a there low resistance performance of only around R‐ 5 to 15. They also block the sun form lighting the area within, which was once lit by all natural lighting. The shades over the windows completely block the suns light and are routinely shut because of direct sun light of south facing windows. We purpose that the existing panels get replaced by a translucent wall panels by kalwall. These panels allow for 20% transmission of natural lighting and allow for some passive solar heat gain, while still providing + R‐20 performance, increased structural, and impact resistance. For the shading we purpose that all existing shade be replaced by translucent shades which will allow blockage of direct sun light while still allowing it to help light the space. To further electrical use savings we purpose that current lighting systems in classrooms allow for the switching off of a certain number of lights when there is increased lux from natural light. Things that would need to be considered if implemented would be possible shading needs for overhead projector use, and the possible changes to the look of the existing building. The historical society would have to approve the changes. One possible selling point would be that the changes could restore the building back closer to the original form of using natural light. In conclusion, the Harvey Hall Renovation project could be a huge success with minor changes. Updating restroom fixtures to modern energy saving models, switching to T5 lamps, replacing portions of window coverings to Kalwall, and reconfiguring the layout are the important keys to having a successful, efficient Harvey Hall the campus will be proud of. References 
http://www.lightingtaxdeduction.org/technologies/ex‐t8.html 
http://www.advance.philips.com/documents/uploads/literature/CO‐7600‐B_F.pdf 
http://mapes.com/panels/files/pdf/brochure/panels‐brochure.pdf 
http://www.kalwall.com/windows.htm 
http://www.advance.philips.com/documents/uploads/literature/CO‐7600‐B_F.pdf 
http://www.daybritelighting.com/lightcalc/LLFMatrix.htm 
http://www.scprimesite.com/portal/page/portal/santeecooper/mybusiness/energymanagemen
ttips/notyouraveraget8.pdf 
http://www.advance.philips.com/documents/uploads/literature/EL‐2030‐R07a.pdf 
http://www.uwstout.edu/physplant/upload/plan11.pdf 
http://www.exceldryer.com/ 
https://energycenter.org 
http://www.mass.gov/Eoeea/docs/eea/lbe/lbe_waterless‐urinals‐rpt.pdf 
http://www.screamtobegreen.com/2007/11/why‐flush‐when‐you‐can‐dual‐flush/ 
http://www.sustainablecampus.cornell.edu/getinvolved/Docs/WaterConsPape