Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
Expansion of the Engineering Building
Team 5: EnGrowth
Kendra Altena
Mitchell Feria
Bethany Goodrich
Joel Smit
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
1-1
Table of Contents
........................................................................................................................ 1-7
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................... 1-7
........................................................................................................................ 2-1
Background ................................................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1
History of Calvin College ............................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2
Calvin Engineering Program ....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3
Existing Engineering Building ..................................................................................................... 2-1
2.4
Project Description..................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.5
Team Member Biographies........................................................................................................ 2-2
2.5.1
Kendra Altena..................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.5.2
Mitchell Feria ..................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.5.3
Bethany Goodrich .............................................................................................................. 2-3
2.5.4
Joel Smit ............................................................................................................................. 2-3
........................................................................................................................ 3-1
Administration, Faculty, and Staff Survey Results ..................................................................................... 3-1
3.1
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2
Calvin College Results ................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2.1
Space Allocation Trends ..................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.2
Expansion Direction ........................................................................................................... 3-4
3.2.3
Engineering Department Growth ...................................................................................... 3-6
3.2.4
Office Space Preference ..................................................................................................... 3-6
3.3
Outside University Results ......................................................................................................... 3-6
3.4
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 3-6
........................................................................................................................ 4-1
Building Codes and Design Loads............................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2
Building Codes............................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2.1
General Building Heights and Areas................................................................................... 4-1
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
1-2
4.2.2
Mezzanines: ....................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.3
Types of Construction ........................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2.4
Means of Egress ................................................................................................................. 4-2
4.3
Design Loads .............................................................................................................................. 4-3
4.3.1
Overview ............................................................................................................................ 4-3
4.3.2
Dead Loads ......................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.3.3
Live Loads ........................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.3.4
Snow Loads ........................................................................................................................... 4
4.3.5
Wind Loads......................................................................................................................... 4-5
........................................................................................................................ 5-1
Building Usage Benchmarks ....................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1
Design Parameters ..................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2
Engineering Department Enrollment Projection ....................................................................... 5-1
5.3
Current Space Usage .................................................................................................................. 5-2
5.4
Design Space Parameters........................................................................................................... 5-4
5.4.1
Design Project Space .......................................................................................................... 5-4
5.4.2
Classroom Space ................................................................................................................ 5-5
5.4.3
Office Space ....................................................................................................................... 5-5
5.4.4
Storage Space ..................................................................................................................... 5-5
5.4.5
Research Space .................................................................................................................. 5-5
5.5
Summary .................................................................................................................................... 5-6
........................................................................................................................ 6-1
Design Alternatives .................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2
Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2.1
Usefulness .......................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2.2
Campus Integration............................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2.3
Ease of Construction .......................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2.4
Parking Mitigation .............................................................................................................. 6-1
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
1-3
6.2.5
6.3
Cost .................................................................................................................................... 6-2
Expansion Alternatives............................................................................................................... 6-2
6.3.1
Alternative 1: Expand Vertically ......................................................................................... 6-2
6.3.2
Alternative 2: Expand West ............................................................................................... 6-2
6.3.3
Alternative 3: Expand West with Knollcrest Circle Relocation .......................................... 6-4
6.3.4
Alternative 4: Expand East ................................................................................................. 6-4
6.4
Design Selection ......................................................................................................................... 6-7
........................................................................................................................ 7-1
Site Plan ..................................................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2
Traffic Flow and Parking............................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2.1
Traffic Study ....................................................................................................................... 7-2
7.2.2
Parking Study ...................................................................................................................... 7-8
7.2.3
Initial Cost Estimate .......................................................................................................... 7-11
7.3
Utilities ..................................................................................................................................... 7-12
7.3.1
Vertical Expansion ............................................................................................................ 7-12
7.3.2
West Expansion without Road Relocation ........................................................................ 7-12
7.3.3
West Expansion with Road Relocation .............................................................................. 7-13
7.3.4
East Expansion with Road Relocation................................................................................ 7-13
7.4
Storm water Analysis ................................................................................................................ 7-18
........................................................................................................................ 8-1
Architecture ............................................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2
Prairie Style Architecture ........................................................................................................... 8-1
8.3
Modernization of Existing Aesthetics and Façade ..................................................................... 8-1
8.4
Architectural Floor Plans ............................................................................................................ 8-2
8.4.1
First Floor Plan ................................................................................................................... 8-2
8.4.2
Second Floor Plan............................................................................................................... 8-4
8.5
Calvin Communal Park ............................................................................................................... 8-7
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
1-4
........................................................................................................................ 9-1
Sustainability/Environmental Concerns..................................................................................................... 9-1
9.1
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2
Sustainable Solutions ................................................................................................................. 9-1
9.3
Environmental Concerns ............................................................................................................ 9-2
.................................................................................................................... 10-1
Basis of Design ......................................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.1
Architectural Plans ................................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2
Design Benchmarks .................................................................................................................. 10-2
10.2.1
Structural Design Benchmarks ......................................................................................... 10-2
10.2.2
Internal Building Layout Benchmarks .............................................................................. 10-3
10.2.3
Site Design Benchmarks ................................................................................................... 10-3
10.3
Detailed Design ........................................................................................................................ 10-3
.................................................................................................................... 11-1
Appendices............................................................................................................................................... 11-1
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
1-5
Table of Figures
Figure 3.2.1 – Vermeer Engineering Project Center .................................................................................. 3-2
Figure 3.2.2 - Prince Engineering Design Center........................................................................................ 3-2
Figure 3.2.3 - Current Underclassmen Design Space ................................................................................. 3-3
Figure 3.2.4 - Engineering Building Expansion Alternatives ...................................................................... 3-5
Figure 5.2.1 - Engineering Department Enrollment................................................................................... 5-2
Figure 5.3.1 - Engineering Building Existing Space Allocation ................................................................... 5-3
Figure 6.3.1 - West Expansion Site Plan ..................................................................................................... 6-3
Figure 6.3.2 - West Expansion Floor Layouts ............................................................................................. 6-3
Figure 6.3.3 - East Expansion Site Plan ...................................................................................................... 6-5
Figure 6.3.4 - East Expansion Floor Layouts............................................................................................... 6-6
Figure 6.3.5 - East Expansion Rendering .................................................................................................... 6-7
Figure 7.2.1 - Initial Drawing of Road Relocation ...................................................................................... 7-1
Figure 7.2.2 - Volume Count Results.......................................................................................................... 7-3
Figure 7.2.4 - Graph Showing Volumes for Each Hour on Wednesday ..................................................... 7-4
Figure 7.2.5 Percentages of Vehicle Classes for the Week ........................................................................ 7-5
Figure 7.2.6 - Volume of Cars in Each Class per Day .................................................................................. 7-6
Figure 7.2.7 – Graph Showing the Number of Cars in Each Speed Range Over the Whole Week ............ 7-7
Figure 7.2.8 - Graph Showing the Numbers of Cars in Each Speed Range per Day ................................... 7-8
Figure 7.2.9 - Figure Showing Extend of the Expansion for West Alternative into Parking Lot................. 7-9
Figure 7.2.10 - Possible Parking Structure Location ................................................................................ 7-11
Figure 7.3.1 - Existing Location of the Gas Main...................................................................................... 7-12
Figure 7.3.2 – Utilities needed to be Relocated Due to West Expansion with Proposed Rerouting ....... 7-13
Figure 7.3.3 - Figure Showing the Extent of the East Alternative over the Exiting Road......................... 7-14
Figure 7.3.4 - Existing Utilities In Front of the Engineering Building along Knollcrest Circle Drive ......... 7-15
Figure 7.3.5 - Existing Location of the Communications / AT&T Utility Rerouting Proposal ................... 7-15
Figure 7.3.6 - Existing Electrical Rerouting Proposal................................................................................ 7-16
Figure 7.3.7 - Existing Sanitary Sewer Rerouting Proposal ...................................................................... 7-16
Figure 7.3.8 - Existing Storm Sewer Rerouting Proposal ......................................................................... 7-17
Figure 7.3.9 - Existing Watermain Rerouting Proposal ............................................................................ 7-18
Figure 8.4.1 - First Floor Plan ..................................................................................................................... 8-3
Figure 8.4.2 - Second Floor Plan ................................................................................................................ 8-4
Figure 8.4.3 - North Façade of the Expansion............................................................................................ 8-5
Figure 8.4.4 - New Senior Design Project Space ........................................................................................ 8-6
Figure 8.4.5 - Expanded Project Space from the Mezzanine Hallway ....................................................... 8-7
Figure 10.1.1 - First Floor Plan ................................................................................................................. 10-1
Figure 10.1.2 - Second Floor Plan ............................................................................................................ 10-2
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
1-6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Senior design Team 5 – EnGrowth – is composed of Kendra Altena, Mitchell Feria, Bethany Goodrich, and
Joel Smit. The team will design an expansion to the current Engineering Building at Calvin College. Calvin’s Engineering Department has experienced significant enrollment growth in the past few years, and this
growth is expected to continue. Team EnGrowth aims to provide a facility to sufficiently accommodate
this projected growth.
In order to gauge the desired qualities and capacities of this facility, interviews were conducted with all
members of the Engineering Department faculty and staff. It was concluded that space must be added for
the following areas: senior design projects, faculty research, classrooms, underclassmen design projects,
and storage. Additionally, these interviews emphasized the need to use space efficiently and to address a
perceived “division” between the Engineering Department and the rest of campus. These ideas were key factors in providing an appropriate design.
In addition to the structural design of the building expansion, this project includes a significant amount of
architectural design and site development work as well. Architecturally, Team EnGrowth has partnered
with Martin Cervantes, an architecture student at Calvin. He has assisted the team in developing the
proposed facility layout as well as its aesthetics. In regards to site development, the design will likely
require the re-routing of several existing utilities, including Knollcrest Circle Drive.
After developing four feasible design alternatives, Team EnGrowth has decided to pursue an expansion to
the north and east of the current Engineering Building, as this option best aligns with the expressed needs
and desires of the department. This estimated cost of this addition is $2,800,000.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
1-7
BACKGROUND
2.1 HISTORY OF CALVIN COLLEGE
Calvin College is a liberal arts college in Grand Rapids, Michigan. It was founded in 1876 by the Christian
Reformed Church (CRC) and continues to be owned by the denomination. Calvin’s reformed tradition is at the center of all that it does. The school aims to transform students into agents of renewal; cocontributors in the redemptive work of Christ.
Today, Calvin enrolls approximately 4300 undergraduate students participating in over 100 different
major and minor programs. The U.S. News & World Report lists Calvin among the very best liberal arts
colleges in the nation.1
2.2 CALVIN ENGINEERING PROGRAM
Calvin first began offering a fully Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) accredited
engineering program in 1986 (retroactive to 1985). The program today consists of 19 full-time faculty and
staff and over 400 students. According to Calvin Engineering’s website, its mission is “to equip students to glorify God by meeting the needs of the world with responsible and caring engineering.”2 The
department works hard to ensure that the values of the CRC and the emphasis on the liberal arts remain
at the forefront, even in a very technical environment. Students who complete the four-year program
receive a Bachelor of Science in Engineering Degree (B.S.E) with a concentration in one of four available
engineering disciplines: Chemical Engineering, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Electrical & Computer
Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering.
2.3 EXISTING ENGINEERING BUILDING
The current Engineering Building was built in 1998 with two wings: the Prince Engineering Design Center
and the Vermeer Engineering Projects Center. The facility was “specifically arranged to facilitate students engaged in design activities related to various engineering projects, especially the capstone Senior Design
course. This building provides space and equipment for all Calvin student-engineers to do research, design
1"National
Liberal Arts College Rankings." US News & World Report. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2013.
2"Engineering
- Mission Statement." Calvin College. Calvin College, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2013.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
2-1
models, and build and test prototypes.”3 The Prince Engineering Design Center was designed for
engineering offices and dedicated faculty-student research. The Vermeer Engineering Projects Center was
designed with a large work area for approximately 40 to 50 senior design students and is equipped with
a metal and wood workshop in close proximity to the design space.
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In recent years, enrollment in Calvin’s Engineering Program has grown substantially. Enrollment in the
program has increased by 20% since 2000 according to Calvin Enrollment (Day 10) Reports. There is
concern that the current facilities utilized by the department will not sufficiently accommodate this rate
of growth in the near future. In anticipation of a space shortage, Team EnGrowth has designed a phased
approach to increase the available space in the Engineering Building (EB) and allow for continued growth.
Phase 1 consists of an implementation plan to optimize the use of the existing space within the
Engineering Building. Many faculty members expressed the opinion that current space could be more
thoughtfully utilized; Team EnGrowth sought to strategically plan space use to maximize functionality of
the building. Another major component of this phase is a remodel of the existing Prince Engineering
Design Center (South Bay). This will include converting the South Bay mezzanine into an enclosed second
floor, thus providing additional faculty research space and creating a dedicated space for underclassmen
design projects.
Phase 2 represents the primary component of this project. It consists of the full site development and
structural design for an addition to the existing EB. Team EnGrowth will examine two to four feasible
design alternatives for this expansion, weighing the advantages and disadvantages of expanding the
building in different directions (i.e. East vs. West). One major consideration of this phase is the existing
ring road around Calvin’s campus, because expanding the EB to the east will require this road to be rerouted. Additionally, parking lot space will be impacted by the expansion, and options for re-locating these
spaces must be explored.
2.5 TEAM MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES
2.5.1
Kendra Altena
Kendra Altena is a senior at Calvin College in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Concentration. She
was born and raised in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and graduated from Grand Rapids Christian High School.
The most interesting part of this project for Kendra is the site plan and development aspect. She is very
interested in the areas of hydraulic engineering and water management and also has interest in the area
3
"About Us - Facilities." Calvin College. Calvin College, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2013.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
2-2
of traffic engineering. Kendra has participated in several abroad experiences in her time at Calvin. She
spent a semester in the Netherlands, went on a 3-week interim trip to China, and will be going on another
3-week interim trip to Kenya in January 2014. These abroad experiences have really increased her desire
and life goal to work in the area of missions. After graduation Kendra would like to work professionally in
the hydraulic engineering, storm water management, or site development sectors. In addition to working
professionally she would like to get involved with missions and use her engineering degree to help people
living in developing countries.
2.5.2
Mitchell Feria
Mitchell Feria is a senior engineering student at Calvin College, focusing in the Civil and Environmental
concentration. He is from Aurora, Colorado, and hopes to return to the area for work after graduation.
Mitchell is intrigued to work on a project that is so intertwined with the non-technical aspects of the
engineering industry; he is very excited to see how the social, political, and even legal facets of a project
impact its design. In addition, Mitchell is pleased to take part in a project that has such potential to give
back to the Calvin Engineering Program, as he is very grateful for the opportunities that his education has
provided him. Mitchell also has a passion for helping people in need and hopes to apply his engineering
knowledge in a mission work capacity.
2.5.3
Bethany Goodrich
Bethany Goodrich is a senior Civil and Environmental Engineering student at Calvin College. She is from
Albany, New York, and transferred to Calvin the Fall 2011 semester after completing two years of a Civil
Engineering Technology program at a local community college. Study-abroad trips to Thailand/Cambodia
and Kenya as well as upper-level engineering classes have confirmed her passion to develop innovative
solutions for people in need. The Engineering Building Expansion design project is purposed to provide
the Engineering Department with design solutions that meet the department’s needs and wants. The primary need is improved efficiency of space use and increased space for projected department
enrollment growth. This is an exciting challenge because it gives the design team an inside look to the
Engineering Department. It is a way to give back to the department by using the technical expertise
developed through the Calvin engineering program. The project also requires diverse structural analysis
and design components which is what Bethany plans to specialize in in graduate school. Post Calvin,
Bethany intends to study structural engineering and specialize in either masonry or bridge design in a
United States university. She intends to use engineering both domestically and internationally to help
those in need.
2.5.4
Joel Smit
Joel Smit is a senior in the engineering program at Calvin College focusing in Civil and Environmental
engineering. He is from Grand Rapids, Michigan, where he has lived all his life. The structural and
architectural aspect of this expansion project is most interesting to Joel, because he is very passionate
about aesthetically pleasing buildings that fulfill a specific need. He has always been fascinated with both
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
2-3
the basic structures of buildings and the way engineering design can be used as an aesthetic architectural
element. Joel is currently minoring in Architecture but plans to pursue a master’s degree in structural engineering. Eventually he would like to use this degree along with a future professional license to work
on high-rise building projects in large cities.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
2-4
ADMINISTRATION, FACULTY, AND STAFF SURVEY RESULTS
3.1 OVERVIEW
To define the project scope for the Engineering Building (EB) expansion project, members of Team
EnGrowth interviewed current administration, faculty, and staff members of Calvin College’s Engineering Department, Science Division, and Physical Plant. The primary criteria used to select reliable interview
candidates was the amount of interest shown for the project and the amount of impact the project would
have on the individual.
All candidates interviewed had the opportunity to review the question sheet located in Appendix A prior
to the project discussion. In general, candidates commented on space allocation, future expansion
direction, anticipated Engineering Department growth, and office location preference.
In addition to Calvin College personnel, an email survey was sent to other colleges and universities with
similar engineering programs to Calvin’s to consider what other schools identified as needs for their respective Engineering Departments.
3.2 CALVIN COLLEGE RESULTS
3.2.1
Space Allocation Trends
Common space needs desired by engineering faculty were: increased senior design project space,
dedicated underclassmen (freshmen, sophomores, and juniors) design space, educational lab space,
flexible research and storage space, upper level classrooms, and additional offices for faculty and
professional societies.
According to several engineering faculty, one of the primary purposes of the EB was space for senior
design projects. Professors said the project space in the Vermeer Engineering Projects Center, seen in
Figure 3.2.1, was designed for approximately 45 to 50 senior design students with a freshmen class of 100
students. Since construction, enrollment in the engineering program has increased to see as many as 71
senior design students in and a freshmen class of 155 students. To accommodate the growth, space
originally intended solely for research in the Prince Engineering Design Center, seen in Figure 3.2.2, is now
shared with senior design project benches. The space in the existing and proposed building must be used
more efficiently and is recommended to accommodate a senior class with 100 to 120 students.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
3-1
Figure 3.2.1 – Vermeer Engineering Project Center
Figure 3.2.2 - Prince Engineering Design Center
The EB currently has the reputation around campus as the “senior design building”. Engineering faculty
and administration would like to see more floor space specifically designated for underclassmen design
projects. Current space used for underclassmen design projects is shown in Figure 3.2.3.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
3-2
Figure 3.2.3 - Current Underclassmen Design Space
Most Engineering Department faculty and staff recommend improving the efficiency of current space use.
This concern stems from a lack of sufficient storage. For example, bulky lab equipment is used one week
out of the entire academic year and is stored on an open section of the EB floor that could be used for
research or design projects. Remote storage or more creative on-site storage facilities are the
department’s recommended solutions to ensure valuable EB square footage will be efficiently used
throughout the year.
Educational lab and research space are other needs indicated by Engineering Department faculty. Some
research space should be enclosed, secured, and equipped with high ceilings. The requirements of faculty
research varies on a yearly basis; therefore, flexible, enclosed research rooms with approximately 10 to
15 ft high ceilings should be included in the expansion project to ensure lab equipment security and
provide adequate height for any desired research.
Faculty also expressed need for upper level classrooms able to accommodate 20 to 30 students. This
would be a great asset to the EB, because professors with offices in the Science Building (SB) will come to
the EB more often for teaching purposes. This would encourage the building to be used more for
instructional purposes and will encourage integration within the department.
With an enrollment increase within the Engineering Department, the program will need additional faculty.
Faculty expressed a desire for additional office spaces for future full-time and adjunct faculty members to
be considered when designing an expansion to the EB.
Engineering Department and Science Division administration recommend adding a Biomedical and
Chemical Engineering lab in the expansion. Faculty indicated the lab could be used for Chemistry 103 labs
sections and later be equipped with biomedical equipment. Calvin College Engineering Department
faculty indicated Biomedical Engineering may be added as a fifth engineering concentration in the future.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
3-3
Table 3.2.1 summarizes the space allocation trends expressed by the Engineering Department faculty
during interviews. The count column shows the number of interviewees that expressed a desire for
improvement in each of the areas.
Table 3.2.1 - Space Allocation Trends
Space Allocation
Underclassmen Design Space
Senior Design Project Space
Efficiency Improvement
Offices
Biomedical \ Chemical ENGR Lab
Upper Level Classrooms
Flexible Research Space
3.2.2
Professor Count
6
6
6
6
4
4
3
Expansion Direction
Two possible expansion directions were presented to the faculty interviewed. The first option was
expansion to the west, shown in Figure 3.2.4, towards the parking lot, is anticipated to be a less expensive
alternative because it does not include re-routing Knollcrest Circle Drive. The second option was
expansion to the east, shown in Figure 3.2.4, and it involves re-routing Knollcrest Circle Drive to the west
side of the EB which would make it more expensive than expansion to the west.
The majority of the interviewed faculty members indicated that expansion to the east was the best
expansion alternative because it better incorporates the Engineering Building with surrounding academic
buildings. Most faculty also wanted to see the road relocated. Faculty also recommended considering
vertical expansion, mezzanine expansion, and an addition of a covered walkway between the SB and EB.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
3-4
Figure 3.2.4 - Engineering Building Expansion Alternatives
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
3-5
3.2.3
Engineering Department Growth
The majority of department faculty foresee growth to the Engineering Department. The program
continues to see an increasing number of freshmen starting out in Engineering. To accommodate growth,
professors recommended designing senior design project space for approximately 100 students or 25
design teams. To understand department growth trends, Day 10 Enrollment data was analyzed to confirm
the professors’ growth trend anticipation. Those results are discussed in the Technical Memorandum 5:
Building Usage Benchmarks.
3.2.4
Office Space Preference
Professors were asked where they would like their offices to be located once expansion is complete.
Current professors located in the EB or the SB wanted to stay where they were even after expansion. Most
current professors recommended including additional office spaces for future faculty members.
3.3 OUTSIDE UNIVERSITY RESULTS
The following colleges were sent personal emails asking professors to comment on the questions located
in Appendix B: Hope College, Trine University, Cedarville University, Trinity University, Harvey Mudd,
Swarthmore College, LeTourneau University, and Grand Valley State University. Trine University,
Cedarville University, and Trinity University responded to the email. Faculty noted that equipment and
demand were the primary criteria used to determine space facility size. In other words, if a lab will have
bigger equipment, then more space is needed. Of the universities that responded, none expressed a
dislike for their current facility and all indicated the design studios met the current engineering students
design needs. If given a million dollars, faculty would expand the student project labs for society
competitions, enhance professional development, and hire more staff.
3.4 CONCLUSION
The proposed design of the Engineering Building expansion will include space for senior and
underclassmen design projects, upper level engineering classrooms, offices, research, educational labs,
and storage. A summary of professor input results can be seen in Appendix C. The Technical Memorandum
5: Building Usage Benchmarks provides the feasible design square-footages for the additional spaces
requested by the department. Technical Memorandum 6: Design Alternatives indicates the feasibility of
the different expansion alternatives.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
3-6
BUILDING CODES AND DESIGN LOADS
4.1 OVERVIEW
The expansion for the Engineering Building is designed with careful consideration to relevant building
codes. The building codes that constrain the design for this expansion come from the International
Building Code.4 The relevant codes that were adhered to during the design process are stated below.
4.2 BUILDING CODES
4.2.1
General Building Heights and Areas
4.2.2
Mezzanines:
A mezzanine or mezzanines in compliance with Section 505 shall be considered a portion of the story
below. Such mezzanines shall not contribute to either the building area or number of stories. The clear
height above and below the mezzanine floor construction shall not be less than 7 feet.
4.2.2.1
Area Limitation:
The aggregate area of a mezzanine within a room shall not exceed one-third of the floor area of that room
or space in which they are located. The enclosed portion of a room shall not be included in determination
of the floor area of the room in which the mezzanine is located.
Exceptions: The aggregate area of mezzanines in building and structures of Type I or II construction
shall not exceed one-half of the floor area of the room in buildings and structures equipped
throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 9033.1.1 and
an approved emergency voice / alarm communication system in accordance with Section
908.2.12.2.
4.2.3
4.2.3.1
Types of Construction
Types I and II:
Types I and II construction is that which the building elements listed in Table 601 are of non-combustible
materials.
4
International Building Code 2006. Falls Church, VI: International Code Council, 2006. Print.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
4-1
4.2.3.2
Type III:
Type III construction is that which the exterior walls are of non-combustible materials and the interior
building elements are of any material permitted by this code.
4.2.3.3
Type IV:
Type IV construction is that which the exterior walls are of non-combustible materials and the interior
building elements are of solid or laminated wood without concealed spaces.
4.2.4
Means of Egress
The means of egress shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7’6”.
Where changes in elevation of less than 12” exist in the means of egress, sloped surfaces shall be used.
4.2.4.1
Occupant Load
4.2.4.1.1 Headroom for Stairways
Stairways shall have a minimum headroom clearance of 80 inches measured vertically from a line
connecting the edge of the nossings.
4.2.4.1.2 Stair Treads and Risers
Stair riser heights shall be 7 inches maximum and 4 inches minimum. Stair tread depths shall be 11
inches minimum.
4.2.4.1.3 Enclosures under Stairways
The walls and soffits within enclosed usable spaces under enclosed and unenclosed stairways shall
be protected by 1-hr fire-resistance-rated construction or the fire-resistance-rating of the stairway
enclosure, whichever is greater.
4.2.4.1.4 Vertical Rise
A flight of stairs shall not have a vertical rise greater than 12 feet between floor levels and landings.
4.2.4.2
Exit Access
4.2.4.2.1 Egress through Intervening Spaces
1. Egress from a room or space shall not pass though adjoining or intervening rooms or areas,
except where such adjoining rooms or areas are accessory to the area served, are not a highhazard occupancy and provide a discernible path of egress travel to an exit.
2. Egress shall not pass through kitchens, storage rooms, closets, or spaces used for the same
purposes.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
4-2
4.2.4.2.2 Common Path of Egress Travel
The length of a common path of egress travel in Group B, S, and F occupancies shall not be more
than 100 feet, provided that the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system
installed with accordance with section 903.3.1.1.
4.2.4.2.3 Aisles
The required width of aisles shall be unobstructed.
Exception:
Doors, when fully opened, and handrails shall not reduce the required width by more than
7 inches. Doors in any position shall not reduce the required width by more than one-half.
4.2.4.2.4 Aisles in Groups B and M
The minimum clear aisle width shall be determined by section 1005.1 for the occupant load served,
but shall not be less than 36 inches.
4.2.4.2.5 Exit Access Travel Distance
Travel distance limitations: Exits shall be so located on each story such that the maximum length of
exit access travel, measured from the most remote point within a story to the entrance to an exit
along the natural and unobstructed path of egress travel, shall not exceed the distances given in
Table 1016.1.
Group B: With sprinkler system – 300 feet.
4.3 DESIGN LOADS
4.3.1
Overview
The design loads are based off of the constraints listed in ASCE 7-10.5 These loads are scaled using the
Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method. All modeling and design will take place using LRFD. The
LRFD load combinations used for design are shown below.
5
1. 1.4DL
DL = Dead load
2. 1.2DL + 1.6LL + 0.5(Lr or SL or R)
LL = Live load
3. 1.2DL + 1.6(Lr or SL or R) + (L or 0.5WL)
Lr = Roof live load
4. 1.2DL + 1.0WL + LL + 0.5(Lr or SL or R)
SL = Snow load
5. 1.2DL + 1.0EQ + LL + 0.2SL
WL = Wind load
6. 0.9DL + 1.0WL
R = Rain load
7. 0.9DL + 1.0EQ
EQ = Earthquake load
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010. Print.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
4-3
4.3.2
Dead Loads
The dead loads modeled in and on the expansion are determined from the use of the spaces and the
mechanical equipment. The dead loads used for design and modeling are displayed below.
Material
4.3.3
Uniform Load
20 Gage Metal Decking:
2.5 psf
18 Gage Metal Decking:
3 psf
Mechanical Duct:
4 psf
Concrete:
144 lb/ft3
Steel:
492 lb/ft3
Brick Masonry:
115 lb/ft3
Aluminum:
170 lb/ft3
Live Loads
The live loads distributed throughout the expansion are determined by the use of the spaces. They are
variable loads. Unlike dead loads, live loads can be moved throughout the building to find the maximum
load on the beams and columns. The live loads used based on the room usage are displayed below.
Type of Use
Office Use:
50 psf
Computer Room:
100 psf
Stairs:
100 psf
Hallways:
80 psf
Classrooms:
40 psf
Storage:
20 psf
Laboratories:
4.3.4
Uniform Load
150 psf
Snow Loads
The snow loads acting on a sloping surface shall be assumed to act on the horizontal projection of that
surface.
The snow load is computed as follows:
𝐶𝑒 = 0.9 (𝑃𝑎𝑔𝑒 31)
𝑃 =𝐶𝑃
𝐶𝑡 = 1.0
Where:
𝑃𝑔 = 35 𝑝𝑠𝑓 (𝑃𝑎𝑔𝑒 34 − 35)
𝑃 = 0.7𝐶 𝐶 𝐼 𝑃
Is = 1.0
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
4-4
Pf = 22.05 psf
Cs = 0.6
Ps = 13.23 lb/ft
4.3.5
Wind Loads
The wind loads on the Engineering Building expansion are the force of the wind acting on a side of the
building. More in-depth analysis will be done to determine these exact values.
The maximum speed velocity for design in a Risk II area is 115 mph.
The wind load value for this expansion is 100 psf.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
4-5
BUILDING USAGE BENCHMARKS
5.1 DESIGN PARAMETERS
Team EnGrowth developed facility needs through interviews with Calvin College administration, faculty,
and staff members of the Engineering Department, Science Division, and Physical Plant. The primary areas
to include additional space are as follows: senior and underclassmen design project, classroom, office,
research, and storage space. To determine how much space should be allocated for these foreseen spatial
needs, the design team analyzed current facility spatial usage benchmarks and Engineering Department
enrollment projections. These values were used to predict approximate expansion facility square-footage
benchmarks.
5.2 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTION
The primary design parameter required to determine the size of additional space was the projected
number of senior and freshmen engineering students that would use the EB in the coming years. The
design life for the proposed facility is 20 years. Department enrollment projections over the next 20 years
were made based on previous Institutional & Enrollment Research Fall Day 10 data and internal
Engineering Department enrollment numbers. It was determined that the Engineering Program has a 51%
retention rate and the building should be designed to accommodate 100 senior design students.
Retention rate is based on the number of students that graduate in four years and receive an engineering
degree. Figure 5.2.1 shows projected enrollment numbers for the Engineering Department. Additional
tables calculating enrollment projection are located in Appendix D.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
5-1
Engineering Department Enrollment
ENGR 339 Students
ENGR 101 Students
Linear (Projected Senior Class Based on 51% Retention Rate)
Linear (ENGR 101 Students)
200
180
Number of Students
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
Year
Figure 5.2.1 - Engineering Department Enrollment
5.3 CURRENT SPACE USAGE
Table 5.3.1 shows the current square-footage allotted to the Engineering Department between the
Science Building, North Hall, and Engineering Building. This does not include classroom and lab space
shared with other departments. This data is used to determine approximate design space parameters
necessary for projects, classrooms, offices, storage, and research. Miscellaneous space includes student
lounges, department office testing room, and the wood and metal shops.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
5-2
Table 5.3.1 - Current Engineering Department Square-Footage
Sum of Sq-Ft
Row Labels
Classroom
Lab
Misc
Office
Research
Storage
Computer Lab
Project (Underclassmen)
Research (Lab)
Research (Open)
Project (Senior)
Misc (Lab)
Grand Total
Column Labels
EB
2340
900
393
1147
1813
436
541
2447
4518
815
15349
SB
4257
6244
713
2007
2230
213
15664
NH
550
-
-
-
550
Grand Total
4807
6244
3052
2908
393
1147
4043
436
754
2447
4518
815
31563
Figure 5.3.1 displays how the current square-footage for a few of the categories listed in Table 5.3.1 were
determined for the Engineering Building.
Figure 5.3.1 - Engineering Building Existing Space Allocation
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
5-3
Team EnGrowth first assessed how 100 senior design students, approximating 25 teams, would fit in the
current EB. This configuration is shown in Figure 5.3.2. The red shapes indicate issues of egress within the
facility if it were to be arranged in this fashion to accommodate 100 senior design students.
Figure 5.3.2 - Current EB Configuration Accommodating 100 Senior Design Students
This configuration eliminates underclassmen design space on the first level and does not provide
additional research space in the facility. As a result, Team EnGrowth determined an addition to the current
facility is necessary in order to meet the Engineering Department’s articulated needs. 5.4 DESIGN SPACE PARAMETERS
5.4.1
Design Project Space
Faculty interviews indicated there should be enough floor space for approximately 100 students.
Projection data confirmed approximately 100 students is a feasible design parameter for senior design
space apportionment. Currently, each senior design team has a space of approximately 144 square-feet,
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
5-4
which includes two 12 ft by 4 ft benches. This was determined to be efficient and adequate space for
senior design teams and, therefore, is the benchmark for senior design team space in the expansion.
Therefore, to provide room for 25 senior design teams with 144 square-feet per design team, the
combination of the Vermeer Engineering Project Center and the new facility needs to include
approximately 3,600 square-feet for senior design projects.
Underclassmen (freshmen, sophomores, and juniors) currently have about 450 square-feet of space used
for class design projects. Assuming a typical class of 30 students, that leaves about 15 square-feet per
student. The new addition or repurposed space in the Engineering Building will have approximately 1,100
square-feet of space designated for underclassmen design purposes.
5.4.2
Classroom Space
The North Hall 050 classroom is the current classroom typically used for upper level engineering design
courses. This room is approximately 500 square-feet and seats about 40 students. Therefore, a classroom
of comparable size is the design parameter for additional upper engineering classrooms in the Engineering
Building.
5.4.3
Office Space
Current offices in the Engineering Building average 146 square-feet per professor, while offices in the
Science Building average 120 square-feet per professor. Therefore, additional offices in the expansion will
range from 120 to 140 square-feet per professor.
5.4.4
Storage Space
Storage on Calvin College’s campus is not defined per department. Storage typically occurs in mechanical rooms where storage will not interfere with mechanical equipment. The only space in the Engineering
Building used for storage is approximately 1150 square-feet. Department faculty expressed storage is a
pressing need for the department. Therefore, storage areas will be included as floor plan alternatives are
considered and developed.
5.4.5
Research Space
Research space is the space provided in the Engineering Building for professor research. The building was
originally designed to provide professors with approximately 5,500 square-feet of research space.
However, there is currently about 4,000 square-feet of research space, because senior design projects
have grown into previously designated research space. Therefore, senior projects will be moved out of
the research wing, and enclosed research facilities will be provided in the new design of the Engineering
Building.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
5-5
5.5 SUMMARY
To summarize, Table 5.5.1 displays the benchmarks that will be used for the design of the Engineering
Building.
Table 5.5.1 - Engineering Building Design Parameters
Type
Senior Design Projects
Underclassmen Design Projects
Classroom
Offices
Research
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
Benchmark Usage
144 Ft2/team
110 Ft2
550 Ft2
120 Ft2/professor
4200 Ft2
5-6
DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
6.1 OVERVIEW
In order to accommodate projected enrollment growth in the Calvin College Engineering Department,
Team EnGrowth has developed four expansion alternatives for the existing Engineering Building (EB).
6.2 DESIGN CRITERIA
Team EnGrowth chose five criteria on which to evaluate each design alternative. These criteria are defined
in 6.2.1 through 6.2.5.
6.2.1
Usefulness
In order to define the basic parameters and components of the project, Team EnGrowth interviewed each
member of the Engineering Department faculty and staff. “Usefulness” describes the degree to which each design alternative successfully addresses and adheres to the recommendations and desires
expressed in these interviews.
6.2.2
Campus Integration
The Engineering Building is currently the only academic building on Calvin’s campus that lies outside of Knollcrest Circle. Discussion with several faculty members indicates that this physical gap introduces a
noticeable philosophical divide between the Engineering Department and the rest of campus. The
department feels passionately that the Engineering Department should be more unified and integrated
with the rest of the college. As a result, Team EnGrowth has made addressing this issue one of the central
focuses of the expansion design.
6.2.3
Ease of Construction
The largest consideration within this criterion was whether construction of the expansion could feasibly
be completed without having to completely shut down the existing space for a significant period of time.
Additionally, this criterion addresses the relative amount of site and utility work necessary for each design
option.
6.2.4
Parking Mitigation
Nearly every possible expansion design would result in some loss of available parking. Refer to Technical
Memorandum 7: Site Plan for further comment. This criterion rates each alternative based on the amount
of parking loss that it incurs.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
6-1
6.2.5
Cost
As with almost all engineering projects, the cost of each alternative was carefully considered as well.
6.3 EXPANSION ALTERNATIVES
6.3.1
Alternative 1: Expand Vertically
One design option for the EB expansion is to add a second floor which would effectively double the usable
work space without increasing the building footprint. This option eliminates the parking lot challenges
present in other design alternatives and also eliminates any need to re-route existing underground
utilities. This plan removes the existing mezzanine by converting it into a full second floor and includes
raising the roof of the building. It has been estimated that this design alternative would cost around
$3,000,000.
One major downfall of this alternative is that it would likely require the Engineering Building to be out of
service for approximately an entire year. However, Calvin College owns a building on the corner of East
Beltline Ave and Lake Drive, so one suggestion was that senior design projects could be housed in this
facility for one year if this design alternative was selected. Retrofitting this facility with the necessary
infrastructure and facilities to make it conducive to project work, however, would add significant cost to
the project. Of course, this also assumes that Calvin administration would be accommodating in allocating
this valuable space to the Engineering Department.
Another problem with this design is that it would require significant structural analysis of the existing
building; it is not immediately known if the existing columns could support the added load of a second
story.
Additionally, several professors expressed that the “open” feeling currently present in the Engineering Building due to the tall ceilings is preferable for design space, because it invokes creativity and innovation.
Adding a second floor to the building would make the space more claustrophobic, and would necessitate
the addition of multiple columns in the middle of the existing bays.
Finally, several senior design teams and engineering laboratories utilize the two crane rails incorporated
into the original design of the facility. Adding a second story to the building would effectively destroy the
usefulness of these rails, leading to the need for a creative new solution to the transport of heavy
equipment and machinery.
6.3.2
Alternative 2: Expand West
A second design option is to add a two-story expansion to the west of the building that would expand into
the existing parking lot. This proposed site plan and building layout are shown in Figure 6.3.1 and Figure
6.3.2.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
6-2
Figure 6.3.1 - West Expansion Site Plan
Figure 6.3.2 - West Expansion Floor Layouts
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
6-3
This alternative will result in the loss of a number of parking spaces but will not require the re-routing of
Knollcrest Circle, the campus “ring road.” It also minimizes the number of utilities that need to be rerouted. This option is the least expensive design alternative considered, at an estimated cost of
$2,400,000. Further cost breakdowns for this alternative as well as alternatives 3 and 4 can be seen in
Appendix E.
There is one major weakness to this design: it fails to address the campus integration goals of the project.
In fact, adding a wing to the side of the building farthest away from campus may actually be a step
backwards in terms of campus unification. Additionally, there are some “usefulness” concerns with this design as well. Building usage benchmarks require senior design space be added on both the first and
second floors; this results in senior design projects being split into three distinct locations in the building.
Team EnGrowth would prefer these projects to be concentrated in one location.
6.3.3
Alternative 3: Expand West with Knollcrest Circle Relocation
Based on Engineering Department faculty and staff feedback, Team EnGrowth deemed campus
integration to be an important factor in the EB expansion design (refer to Technical Memorandum 5:
Building Usage Benchmarks). Because of this, a second westward expansion alternative was conceived.
Though not required, this option includes a re-routing of the ring road to the west edge of Calvin’s campus – around the outside of the EB – in a concerted effort to reduce the implied “divide” between the Engineering Department and the rest of campus. Aside from the road relocation, this option is identical
to Alternative 2, with a matching proposed expansion wing. The added cost of the road relocation brings
the estimated cost of this alternative to $2,600,000.
6.3.4
Alternative 4: Expand East
The final design option is to add a third wing to the existing facility, on the northeast corner of the building.
A key component of this option is that it requires the re-routing of Knollcrest Circle, or the campus “Ring Road.” This process will introduce a significant added cost to the project and will also result in the loss of
additional parking. Refer to Technical Memorandum 3: Survey Results for further information regarding
parking constraints on the site. Despite these challenges, this alternative provides significant advantages
as well. In addition, this design option increases the level of safety on campus, eliminating the frequent
Knollcrest Circle crossings by both Engineering Department faculty and students. Furthermore, this
alternative was deemed most accommodating to expressed faculty desires. It provides sufficient senior
design space, re-allocates the EB’s south bay for faculty research, and also incorporates two small classrooms, a chemistry lab, extra storage space, additional offices, and a dedicated space for
underclassmen engineering projects.
The only significant weakness to this alternative is relative cost, as it requires the re-routing of several
utilities as well as Knollcrest Circle. It is estimated that this alternative would cost $2,800,000. Refer to
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
6-4
Figures 6.3.3 and 6.3.4 for site and building layouts for this design alternative. Figure 6.3.5 shows a digital
rendering of this proposed expansion.
Figure 6.3.3 - East Expansion Site Plan
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
6-5
Figure 6.3.4 - East Expansion Floor Layouts
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
6-6
Figure 6.3.5 - East Expansion Rendering
6.4 DESIGN SELECTION
Based on the above project criteria and design alternatives, the decision matrix displayed in Table 6.4.1
was constructed. As mentioned previously, Team EnGrowth decided to weigh the campus integration
criterion most heavily.
Table 6.4.1 - Engineering Building Expansion Decision Matrix
Parking
Mitigation
Cost
Total
Score
Proposed
Construction
Cost
1
2
2
9
2
5
36
$ 3,000,000
0
8
7
9
54
$ 2,400,000
7
8
7
2
7
63
$ 2,600,000
10
10
6
6
4
76
$ 2,800,000
Campus
Ease of
Integration Construction
Criteria
Usefulness
Weight:
Vertically
West
No Road Relocation
2
3
3
0
7
West
Road Relocation
East
As displayed, design alternative 4 – expanding east – was the most beneficial option. Team EnGrowth has
chosen to pursue this option for the expansion of the Engineering Building.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
6-7
SITE PLAN
7.1 OVERVIEW
This memorandum provides the pre-design research, information, and data for the proposed site plan for
the expansion. Significant aspects of the site plan include traffic flow, parking, utility location, and storm
water design.
7.2 TRAFFIC FLOW AND PARKING
Due to the desire to better integrate the Engineering Building within campus, the team decided to design
the new site of the Engineering Building with Knollcrest Circle Drive moved to the West side of the building
along the property line. An initial layout can be seen in Figure 7.2.1.
Figure 7.2.1 - Initial Drawing of Road Relocation
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
7-1
Several stages in assessing the feasibility of this are a traffic study, a parking study, and obtaining an initial
estimate for the cost of this type of project.
7.2.1
Traffic Study
7.2.1.1
Introduction
The goal of the traffic study was to determine the volume of cars that use Knollcrest Circle and the speed
at which cars travel in order to assess the safety of its current location. Another goal was to evaluate the
impact on the neighboring residents that would occur by relocating the road along the trees on the west
edge of Calvin’s property.
7.2.1.2
Procedure
The team borrowed a traffic counter and the necessary equipment from the City of Wyoming. The team
set up the traffic counter on Knollcrest Circle about 10 feet north of the Science Building service drive at
11:00 AM on Wednesday, October 2, 2013. The type of count set up was a basic count, which records
the number of vehicles, type of vehicle, and the speed at which the vehicle was traveling all per direction
of travel. In order to simplify the analysis, the data for the two directions was combined. The count was
picked up at 12:30 PM on Wednesday, October 9, 2013. The result packets obtained from the City of
Wyoming were analyzed by copying the data into Microsoft Excel.
7.2.1.3
Results
7.2.1.3.1
Volume
The results from the volume count showed that over the course of a week, 10,234 vehicles used the
portion of the road between the Engineering Building and the Science Building. Figure 7.2.2 shows
the volume results by day of the week. One thing that must be considered in the analysis of these
results is that on Saturday, October 5, there was a volleyball match in the VanNoord Arena. This may
have caused the volume for that particular Saturday to be higher than it would be on a normal
Saturday.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
7-2
Volume Count Results
2000
1800
1600
1400
Vol cars
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Wednesday Thursday Oct Friday Oct 4 Saturday Oct Sunday Oct 6 Monday Oct Tuesday Oct
Oct 2
3
5
7
8
Day
Figure 7.2.2 - Volume Count Results
As can be seen in the figure, the two days with the most traffic are Monday and Wednesday,
each with a volume of about 1800 vehicles. Sunday is significantly less (as was expected) with
a volume of about 489 vehicles. The average volume of vehicles per weekday is 1,730. Figure
7.2.3 shows the volume of vehicles for each hour on Wednesday (the highest volume day).
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
7-3
Volumes for Wednesday October 2
180
160
140
# of Vehicles
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Time of Day
Figure 7.2.3 - Graph Showing Volumes for Each Hour on Wednesday
7.2.1.3.2 Vehicle Type
The method used to classify vehicle types was the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Type
F Vehicle Classification Scheme. The traffic counter contains an algorithm that can interpret
axle spacing in order to classify the vehicles. The vehicle classification classes and descriptions
can be seen in Appendix F. The results from the vehicle type data were very similar to what was
expected. Eighty-three percent of the vehicles were classified as passenger cars. Figure 7.2.4
shows the distribution of the percentages of the different classes. The only significant classes are
classes 2, 3, and 14 which are passenger cars, 2-axle/4-tire single unit vehicles (pickups, vans,
etc.), and unidentified vehicles (bikes), respectively.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
7-4
% of Vehicle Classes
90.0
83.0
80.0
Percentage of Total Cars
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.8
10.0
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.7
3.6
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.01
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class
10
Class
11
Class
12
Class
13
0.04
0.04
0.0
Class
14
Class #
Figure 7.2.4 Percentages of Vehicle Classes for the Week
Table 7.2.1 shows the number of vehicles specified as each type of class. As can be seen from the
chart in Appendix F, Class 14 contains all the vehicles that could not be identified to be in Classes
1-13. This class most likely contains bikes, vehicles that the counter could not recognize, and the
times when people tampered with or jumped on the tubes.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
7-5
Table 7.2.1 - Number of Vehicles in Each Class
Figure 7.2.5 shows the volume of cars in each class for each day of the week.
Volume of Cars by Class # per Day
1600
1400
1200
Wednesday Oct 2
# of cars
1000
Thursday Oct 3
800
Friday Oct 4
Saturday Oct 5
600
Sunday Oct 6
400
Monday Oct 7
Tuesday Oct 8
200
0
Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14
Class #
Figure 7.2.5 - Volume of Cars in Each Class per Day
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
7-6
7.2.1.3.3
Speed
The results from the speed data showed that the 85th percentile for speed was 24 mph. This means that
85% of the vehicles that traveled on the road went 24 mph or slower. The 95 th percentile speed
was 28 mph, and the average speed for the entire week was 19 mph. Figure 7.2.6 shows the number
of cars in each speed range for the week and Figure 7.2.7 splits up the cars by the day.
# of Vehicles in each Speed Range for Week
5000
4500
4000
# of Vehicles
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Speed Ranges [mph]
Figure 7.2.6 – Graph Showing the Number of Cars in Each Speed Range Over the Whole Week
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
7-7
# of Vehicles in each Speed Range per Day
900
800
700
# of Vehicles
600
Wednesday
500
Thursday
Friday
400
Saturday
300
Sunday
Monday
200
Tuesday
100
0
Speed Ranges [mph]
Figure 7.2.7 - Graph Showing the Numbers of Cars in Each Speed Range per Day
As can be seen in Figures 7.2.6 and 7.2.7, the vast majority of vehicles traveled in the range of 0- 30 mph.
The higher speeds could be realistic, but some of them could be due to pedestrians jumping on or messing
with the tubes.
7.2.2
Parking Study
If Knollcrest Circle is rerouted to the West side of the Engineering Building, it would have to run through the
existing parking lot. An analysis was done to determine how many parking spaces would be lost. According
to a parking lot survey completed on Calvin’s campus in 2009, approximately 80 parking spaces would be lost. If
Alternative 3 (expanding west with road relocation) is chosen, the addition would cut into the parking lot and cause
an additional loss of approximately 10 parking spaces. (See Figure 7.2.8)
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
7-8
Figure 7.2.8 - Figure Showing Extend of the Expansion for West Alternative into Parking Lot
The Grand Rapids Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space per 1,000 square feet of building (including
all floors) for an academic institution. Using campus AutoCAD drawings, areas for each building were
calculated. The Seminary, Seminary Housing, and DeWit Manor were not included in this process. It was
assumed that each floor had the same area as the footprint of the building. The square footages for the
proposed Engineering Building expansion alternatives were also calculated and added to the existing building
areas to determine how many spaces are required by the code. Tables used in this process can be seen in
Appendix G. Table 7.2.2 shows a summary of the results.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
7-9
Table 7.2.2 - Building Areas and Number of Parking Spaces Required for Three Alternatives
West without Road Relocation
Description
Existing Total Campus Building Area
Area of Proposed EB Expansion West
Proposed Total Campus Area
Quantity
2360986
12418
2373404
Units
sq-ft
sq-ft
sq-ft
Total Parking Spaces Required By Code
2374
spaces
Number of Existing Parking Spaces Available on Campus
Parking Loss due to Expansion
3354
10
spaces
spaces
Total Remaining Parking Spaces
3344
spaces
Quantity
2360986
12418
2373404
Units
sq-ft
sq-ft
sq-ft
Total Parking Spaces Required By Code
2374
spaces
Number of Existing Parking Spaces Available on Campus
Parking Loss due to Road Relocation and Expansion
3354
90
spaces
spaces
Total Remaining Parking Spaces
3264
spaces
West with Road Relocation
Description
Existing Total Campus Building Area
Area of Proposed EB Expansion West
Proposed Total Campus Area
East Alternative
Description
Existing Total Campus Building Area
Area of Proposed EB Expansion East
Proposed Total Campus Area
Total Parking Spaces Required By Code
Number of Existing Parking Spaces Available on Campus
Parking Loss due to Road Relocation
Total Remaining Parking Spaces
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
Quantity Units
2360986 sq-ft
12625
sq-ft
2373611 sq-ft
2374
spaces
3354
80
3274
spaces
spaces
spaces
7-10
As can be seen in Table 7.2.2, the required number of parking spaces on Calvin’s campus for three of the four
alternatives (west, west with road relocation, and east) is 2,374 spaces. Each alternative has a different
number of spaces available due to the road relocation and proposed building footprint for the west
alternatives. However, according to the city’s code, Calvin’s available parking post-EB expansion would
meet the requirement for the three alternatives. The vertical expansion alternative was not evaluated in the
parking study, because it would not cause the loss of any parking. There are no suitable places on campus
to add a parking lot. However, if Calvin desires to replace the number of spaces that are lost, one option
is to construct a parking lot or structure on land via land acquisition of residential lots to the west of the
Spoelhof Fieldhouse. The location for this option is shown in Figure 7.2.9. Calvin owned property is outlined
in orange, with the houses further west outlined in white as possible land acquisition locations.
Figure 7.2.9 - Possible Parking Structure Location
Another option that would allow more parking for staff, faculty, and commuter students would be to
prohibit freshman, and perhaps even sophomores, from having cars on campus. This is a common practice
at many other colleges and universities. According to Calvin’s Campus Safety office, there have been 693
parking permits given to freshman and sophomores. It is not possible to determine specifically how
many freshman have permits/cars. If freshmen and sophomores were not allowed to have cars, there would
be a significant number of spaces available.
7.2.3
Initial Cost Estimate
The team has acquired an initial cost estimate from URS, a worldwide engineering consulting and
construction firm, for both the removal and replacement of the section of Knollcrest Circle between the
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
7-11
Science Building and the Engineering Building. They gave a rough estimate of $180,000 solely for the removal
and replacement of the road.
7.3 UTILITIES
The team has looked into the location of underground utilities in order to consider them in the alternative
decision. Each alternative affects the existing utilities differently and will be outlined below. One
requirement is that there is a 6” gas main that must be avoided for the location of the expansion (See
Figure 7.3.1).
Figure 7.3.1 - Existing Location of the Gas Main
7.3.1
Vertical Expansion
The vertical expansion would not affect any of the existing utilities.
7.3.2
West Expansion without Road Relocation
The utility requirements for this alternative are very minimal. Figure 7.3.2 shows the utilities that would
have to be relocated due to the location of the expansion and the proposed rerouting of those utilities as
dashed lines; they are the electrical conduit utility for the light poles and a small portion of the storm sewer.
The estimated cost for the replacement of these utilities is $50,000, as noted in Appendix E. This is also true
for the utility costs of the next two alternatives.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
7-12
Figure 7.3.2 – Utilities needed to be Relocated Due to West Expansion with Proposed Rerouting
7.3.3
West Expansion with Road Relocation
This alternative is identical to the one in 7.3.2 but also includes the re-routing of Knollcrest Circle Drive. For
this, the storm sewer would need to be re-routed to follow the road in addition to re-routing the storm
sewer and electrical conduit due to the location of the building addition. The estimated cost for utility
replacement for this alternative is also $50,000, however, it is anticipated that this cost will increase after
the storm sewer design is done for the portion of the system along the relocated road.
7.3.4
East Expansion with Road Relocation
The east alternative requires the re-routing of Knollcrest Circle Drive due to the fact that the footprint for
the building expansion is located over part of the existing road as can be seen in Figure 7.3.3.
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
7-13
Figure 7.3.3 - Figure Showing the Extent of the East Alternative over the Exiting Road
This alternative has extensive utility relocation requirements. Figure 7.3.4 shows the existing locations of
all of the utilities while Figures 7.3.5-7.3.9 show the existing and proposed locations of each of the individual
utilities. The estimated cost for utility replacement for this alternative is $250,000.
7-14
Figure 7.3.4 - Existing Utilities In Front of the Engineering Building along Knollcrest Circle Drive
Figure 7.3.5 - Existing Location of the Communications / AT&T Utility Rerouting Proposal
7-15
Figure 7.3.6 - Existing Electrical Rerouting Proposal
Figure 7.3.7 - Existing Sanitary Sewer Rerouting Proposal
7-16
Figure 7.3.8 - Existing Storm Sewer Rerouting Proposal
7-17
Figure 7.3.9 - Existing Watermain Rerouting Proposal
7.4 STORM WATER ANALYSIS
The third major part of the site plan is storm water design. For an initial analysis, the area of impervious
surfaces in a specified site area (seen in Figure 7.4.1) was determined for the existing site as well as
for each alternative.
7-18
Figure 7.4.1 - The Boundary for Impervious Surfaces Calculations
Table 7.4.1 shows the area totals for each the existing site as well as each alternative. Tables with
breakdowns of these totals can be seen in Appendix H.
Table 7.4.1 - Impervious Surface Areas
Impervious Surfaces
Alternative
Existing Area
East Alternative
West Alternative with Road Relocation
West Alternative without Road Relocation
Vertical Alternative
Area [sf]
96260
93910
89780
96780
96260
As can be seen in the table, moving the road in both the east and west alternatives will result in a decreased
amount of impervious surface area by 2,350 square feet and 6,480 square feet, respectively. The
alternative of expanding west without moving the road increases the area by 520 square feet, and the
vertical alternative has no effect on the impervious surface area. Based on the alternative chosen for the
design, this data will be used for the design of the storm water system.
7-19
ARCHITECTURE
8.1 OVERVIEW
Architectural drawings are a key aspect of this project. The architectural plans for the Engineering Building
will need to be produced before the team can move into designing the structural frame for the building,
determining the loads acting on the building, developing the site, and determining the environmental
impact of the building on storm water runoff. The goal of the architectural design of the expansion is to
enhance the design of surrounding buildings and blend in well with the overall campus architectural plan.
8.2 PRAIRIE STYLE ARCHITECTURE
Calvin College is known for its Prairie Style architecture. In 1957, William Beye Fyfe was commissioned to
design the master plan for Calvin College. Fyfe was one of five of Frank Lloyd Wright’s apprentices in 1932. He was a proud supporter of Wright’s Prairie School of Architecture because of its clean lines and integration of the buildings with their landscapes6.
His design of Calvin College clearly incorporates this style of architecture. The academic and residential
buildings on Calvin’s campus have very straight flat rooflines that mimic that of nature’s horizon. Furthermore, the buildings use a very earthy type of brick. This type of brick alludes to the rustic feel of
nature. In Fyfe’s design, he develops a sense of home reminiscent of the Prairie Style. The staircases throughout Calvin’s campus have bay windows in them, because the purpose was to place the viewer
right next to nature. It also allows for the viewers to decide how they should dress to go outside ahead of
time, rather than at the door, like they would if they were in their own home.
8.3 MODERNIZATION OF EXISTING AESTHETICS AND FAÇADE
The intention of the Engineering Buildings Expansion is to demonstrate new innovative technology in the
design that relays a contemporary state-of-the-art engineering program to visitors. Therefore the
expansion will incorporate new concepts that are grand in design and in stature. However, the design of
the Engineering Building should still fit in well with the surrounding buildings and should not look out of
place. The use of existing brick, or “Calvin Brick,” is important because it will allow the building to reflect
the materials of the surrounding brick buildings. The expansion will include many bay windows to provide
6
Hamill, Sean D. "William Beye Fyfe, 90." Chicago Tribune. Chicago Tribune, 11 May 2001. Web. 15 Dec. 2013.
8-1
natural light into the design area and classrooms to reduce the amount of artificial light necessary
throughout the day. Bay windows will also allow visitors who turn around in the round-about in front of
the Spoelhof Fieldhouse Complex to gaze into the Engineering Building and observe the senior design
projects that are representative of the Engineering Department. The exterior of the building facing the
Fieldhouse Complex will reveal the structural components of the building, which will also help
demonstrate the innovation of the Engineering Department. Additionally, visitors will more readily realize
that it is the Engineering Building because structural members are representative of engineering as a
whole. The Façade of the building facing toward the south will incorporate more rustic materials and
colors because the south side faces the park and covered walkway.
8.4 ARCHITECTURAL FLOOR PLANS
8.4.1
First Floor Plan
The first floor of the Engineering Building is shown in Figure 8.4.1. The first floor of the existing research
bay will now contain underclassmen project space. This is a desirable location for the project space
because it is separated from the seniors so the underclassmen are not intimidated by upperclassmen.
Furthermore, the project space can be located on the existing 6” concrete floor slab that is designed for projects. A wall will be added connecting the vibration chamber with the north wall to divide the project
space from the professor’s research space.
8-2
Figure 8.4.1 - First Floor Plan
The first floor of the expansion includes two storage spaces, one for the metal shop and one for the project
bays, a welding room for the metal shop, a chemistry and biomedical laboratory, and more senior design
project space. One of the problems with the current welding location is that it is divided by an ultraviolet
curtain. Although the curtain reduces the amount of light from the arc welder, there is still a possibility
that a student might catch a glimpse of the light through a gap in the curtain. In the expansion, the weld
room for the metal is placed around the corner to eliminate this problem. There will also be a door to the
weld room to ensure a student does not accidently come near the arc welder when it is in operation. The
Biomedical/Chemical Engineering laboratory is placed on the first floor because it is more desirable to
have the laboratory directly on the concrete slab on grade to reduce vibrations. If the laboratory were to
be on the second floor, the beams would all have to be reinforced to eliminate any vibrations. This not
only requires additional engineering analysis, but also requires more costly construction. Placing the
laboratory on the first floor eliminates these unnecessary costs.
8-3
The senior design space is open and connected to the existing design space. This allows for unity between
the teams. The teams will not have to be separated from each other or spread out in different wings or
floors of the Engineering Building. In doing so, they will have the ability to easily visit other teams and get
their advice or help on their project if it incorporates an aspect another team has expertise in. This will
facilitate a more collaborative learning environment.
8.4.2
Second Floor Plan
The second floor of the Engineering Building is shown in Figure 8.4.2. The existing research bay is
expanded to incorporate more professor research space. The space will be divided into research offices
for each professor to have a private space if it is critical to have a controlled atmosphere. The current
storage space across from the new research space will be turned into additional offices for professors.
However, if it is determined that the current mechanical unit for the Engineering Building needs to be
expanded to accommodate the expansion, some of the storage space will be allocated for an expansion
to the mechanical room.
Figure 8.4.2 - Second Floor Plan
8-4
The second floor of the expansion consists of a storage closet, a student club office, and two classrooms.
The current mezzanine in the project bay will be expanded and extend into the expansion. This allows for
a better transition from one bay into another. The mezzanine will also transition into a mezzanine walkway
that gives access to the two classrooms. This walkway will allow students who have classes in the
Engineering Building to look at the senior design projects as they walk to and from class. The students will
be able to see the progress the teams are making and can also see the practical aspects and uses of topics
they are currently learning in class.
The north façade of the expansion facing the aquatic center is shown in Figure 8.4.3, and the senior design
project bay in the expansion is shown in Figure 8.4.4 and Figure 8.4.5, which show the view of the
expansion from the mezzanine hallway.
Figure 8.4.3 - North Façade of the Expansion
8-5
Figure 8.4.4 - New Senior Design Project Space
8-6
Figure 8.4.5 - Expanded Project Space from the Mezzanine Hallway
8.5 CALVIN COMMUNAL PARK
A park will be located between the Engineering Building and the Science Building, where Knollcrest Circle
Drive currently is. This park will be a smaller version of Commons Lawn: a green space located at the
center of the academic buildings. Commons Lawn was intentionally left as an open space to allow for
students to gather together to study, converse, and engage in recreational activities. The proposed park
next to the Engineering Building will hold the same function. However, unlike Commons Lawn, this park
will have more trees because there is a desire to maintain the current, aged trees rather than remove
them. This will be very appealing to Calvin students because it will provide more shade than Commons
Lawn while still allotting some open space for sunshine and recreational activities. This park will also
include benches and tables to make lounging and studying easier and more appealing to students. It will
welcome and draw students in from the other departments and will also help integrate the Engineering
Department with the rest of campus.
8-7
SUSTAINABILITY/ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
9.1 OVERVIEW
Team EnGrowth believes that we are called to be environmental stewards of God’s creation. As Christians
first, and beyond that as Christian engineers, it is largely our responsibility to be at the forefront of
reversing the trend of environmental degradation. We must not only be aware of our call to
stewardship, but also that as engineers we have significant influence over processes that, if handled
improperly, can lead to environmental degradation. This combination puts us in a unique position –
one that should not be taken lightly. With this philosophy, Team EnGrowth intends to be
comprehensive in ensuring that our design incorporates sustainable solutions and properly addresses
any environmental concerns that may be related to the project.
This philosophy is consistent with Calvin’s views, in which stewardship and sustainability are central
factors. It is thus a very natural step to attempt to incorporate these aspects into the project.
9.2 SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS
The primary area in which Team EnGrowth may be able to incorporate sustainable solutions to the
Engineering Building expansion project is through the implementation of a set of land development
strategies known as Low Impact Development (LID). The aim of Low Impact Development is to handle a
site’s storm water management in an environmentally sustainable way. Storm water has traditionally
been managed with conveyance techniques: the removal of storm water runoff from a site as quickly as
possible. In recent years, it has been discovered that many of these conveyance practices can lead to the
subsidence of natural freshwater aquifers; conveyance often causes fresh water supply to exit its natural
watershed which interrupts the Earth’s natural hydrologic cycle. LID aims to reverse this trend by promoting greater amounts of infiltration on a site, providing aquifer recharge as well as reducing the
amount of pollutants in groundwater.
The primary Low Impact Development technique that Team EnGrowth hopes to implement is rain
gardens. Rain gardens resemble traditional gardens, but employ carefully layered soils and native plants
to remove pollutants (especially heavy metals, such as Pb, Cu, and Zn) from storm water runoff through a
combination of physical, chemical, and biological methods.7 Additionally, they serve as small-scale
7
"LID Urban Design Tools - Bioretention." LID Urban Design Tools - Bioretention. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2013.
9-1
infiltration basins to promote aquifer recharge. Our design will incorporate a courtyard/park area
between the Engineering Building and Science Building as a space for students to gather together to study,
converse, and engage in recreational activities (refer to Technical Memorandum 6: Design Alternatives).
Instead of landscaping this area with traditional landscaped gardens, Team EnGrowth will implement rain
gardens in this area. The use of a second LID technique – pervious pavement – is also being explored for
possible inclusion on the site.
9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
The primary environmental concerns present in our design are proper storage and disposal of chemical
waste. According to the Environmental Health and Safety officers, within a chemistry lab, the floors and
countertops must be impervious, electrical panels need 36” of clearance all around, and an eye wash and
a safety shower must be included. The Environmental Health and Safety Department of Calvin College has
articulated a procedure for proper hazardous waste disposal. They have designated containers and
employees that regularly collect chemical waste from chemistry labs and properly store them on-site in a
designated location in the basement of the Science Building, known as the Central Accumulation Area
(CAA). In this room, hazardous waste awaits proper disposal by Calvin’s Waste Hauler, Drug, and Lab Disposal. The Biomedical/Chemical Engineering Laboratory in the proposed expansion to the Engineering
Building would contain a satellite accumulation area (SAA). In an SAA, generators can accumulate up to
55 gallons of hazardous waste in designated containers and once full, must be moved to the CAA within
three days.8 These procedures will be followed to ensure no additional environmental concerns arise.
8
Chapman, Heather. "Calvin College Hazardous Waste Policy." Calvin College Departments: Environmental Health and Safety.
Calvin College, 20 Aug. 2012. Web. 15 Dec. 2013.
9-2
BASIS OF DESIGN
10.1 ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
The first floor and second floor architectural plans are shown in Figure 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 respectively. The
remodel in the existing research bay will be constructed in Phase 1, while the expansion to the north
project bay will be constructed in Phase 2.
Figure 10.1.1 - First Floor Plan
10-1
Figure 10.1.2 - Second Floor Plan
10.2 DESIGN BENCHMARKS
10.2.1 Structural Design Benchmarks
Table 10.2.1 - Structural Design Loads
Dead Loads
Material
Uniform Load
20 Gage Metal Decking: 2.5 psf
18 Gage Metal Decking: 3.0 psf
Mechanical Duct: 4.0 psf
Concrete: 144 pcf
Steel: 492 pcf
Brick Masonry: 115 pcf
Aluminum: 170 pcf
Live Loads
Type of Use
Office Use:
Computer Room:
Stairs:
Hallways:
Classrooms:
Storage:
Laboratories:
Uniform Load
50 psf
100 psf
100 psf
80 psf
40 psf
20 psf
150 psf
Dynamic Loads
Type
Uniform Load
Snow: 13.23 lb/ft
Wind: 100 psf
10-2
10.2.2 Internal Building Layout Benchmarks
Table 10.2.2 - Building Usage Benchmarks
Type
Senior Design Projects
Underclassmen Design Projects
Classroom
Offices
Research
Benchmark Usage
144 ft2/team
110 ft2
550 ft2
120 ft2/professor
4200 ft2
10.2.3 Site Design Benchmarks
10.2.3.1 Storm Water Area
Table 10.2.3 - Areas of Impervious Surfaces
Impervious Surfaces
Alternative
Existing Area
East Alternative
West Alternative with Road Relocation
West Alternative without Road Relocation
Vertical Alternative
Area
[sf]
96260
93910
89780
96780
96260
10.3 DETAILED DESIGN
The structural design portion of the project will be completed with the use of STAAD Pro and RAM
Structural Systems. Once designed, all structural drawings will be completed using Autodesk Revit
Structural software. Architectural drawings will be drafted using Autodesk Revit Architecture software.
These drawing sets will be printed out upon design completion. Scaled drawings are accounted for in
Team EnGrowth’s project budget which can be seen in Appendix I. EPA SWMM (Storm Water
Management Model) is a free hydraulic analysis program that will be utilized to model and design the
relocation of the sanitary sewer. EPANET is a software program that models hydraulic water distribution
throughout a pipe network. This program will be used to model site runoff and reconfigure the storm
sewer system that construction will impact. Once utilities are relocated, a set of site drawings outlining
the new Engineering Building footprint, the courtyard location and dimension, new utility locations, and
parking lot and road design will be developed.
10-3
APPENDICES
Appendix A
CALVIN COLLEGE ENGINEERING BUILDING EXPANSION SURVEY
Engineering Building Expansion Needs Survey:
Talking Points:
1. What are your likes or dislikes about the existing Engineering Building? What would you like to
see changed?
2. Do you have an office location preference: EB or SB?
3. What are the best uses of expansion space and how much? Ex. Offices, classrooms, senior design
project space, storage, research space, etc.
4. Enrollment in the engineering program has increased considerably in recent years. Where do you
expect this growth to taper off?
5. Do you expect a need for additional faculty being hired in the foreseeable future?
a. E.g. office space needs.
6. Do you have a preference regarding direction of expansion?
a. To East:
i. Requires re-routing of Knollcrest Circle
- Likely results in higher costs
- Enclosing all facilities within Knollcrest Circle creates more unified
campus
b. To West:
i. Loss of parking lot space
ii. Keeps Engineering Building/department isolated on west side of Knollcrest Circle
iii. Safety risks with engineering students crossing the street?
7. Do you have any further advice? Are there any additional factors that you think we should
consider?
11-1
APPENDIX B
OUTSIDE UNIVERSITY SURVEY
Hope College, Trine University, Cedarville University, Trinity University, Harvey Mudd, Swarthmore
College, LeTourneau University, and Grand Valley State University were sent an email with the following
questions:

Were there space use benchmarks that were used to design your engineering facilities? (E.g. 40
sq-ft/student, 20 sq-ft/faculty).

What do you like about your current facility?

If given a million dollars, how would you improve your current engineering facility?
11-2
APPENDIX C
CALVIN COLLEGE SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY TABLE
11-3
APPENDIX D
PROJECTION CALCULATIONS
Number of Engineering Students Based on Day 10 Data
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
Engineering Students Freshman Sophomores
Juniors
337
129
107
53
357
136
113
56
345
132
110
54
332
127
105
52
349
133
111
55
353
135
112
56
359
137
114
57
366
140
116
58
364
139
116
57
356
136
113
56
372
142
118
59
419
155
133
66
395
151
125
62
400
153
127
63
406
155
129
64
412
157
131
65
418
159
133
66
423
162
134
67
429
164
136
68
435
166
138
68
440
168
140
69
446
170
142
70
452
172
143
71
457
175
145
72
463
177
147
73
469
179
149
74
475
181
151
75
480
183
152
76
486
186
154
77
492
188
156
77
497
190
158
78
503
192
160
79
509
194
161
80
*Data from Day 10 = Engineering Students from 2002 - 2013
Seniors
48
51
49
48
50
51
51
52
52
51
53
60
57
57
58
59
60
61
61
62
63
64
65
66
66
67
68
69
70
70
71
72
73
11-4
Percentage of Engineering Students by Concentration
Percentage of Total Engineering Students*
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
0.38
0.32
0.16
*Based off of 2013 Enrollment Numbers
Senior
0.14
Percentage of Engineering Students Retained
Year
ENGR 101 Students
2002
117
2003
131
2004
114
2005
127
2006
121
2007
123
2008
120
2009
136
2010
123
2011
122
2012
143
2013
155
Average Retention Rate
ENGR 339 Students
65
59
63
58
71
60
63
66
60
% Retained
56%
45%
55%
46%
59%
49%
53%
49%
49%
51%
11-5
Projected Senior Design Students Based on Average Retention Rate
Year
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
Projected Freshmen
151
153
155
157
159
162
164
166
168
170
172
175
177
179
181
183
186
188
190
192
194
Projected Seniors
77
78
79
80
81
82
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
94
95
96
97
98
99
11-6
APPENDIX E
Construction Cost Breakdown
11-7
APPENDIX F
VEHICLE CLASSIFICATIONS
11-8
Class 14-
Will by default identify any vehicle which does not conform to the classification criteria for
Class 1 through Class 13.
11-9
APPENDIX G
PARKING ANALYSIS TABLES
Campus Buildings
Building
Sq ft (all floors) Number of Floors Used/Assumed
Chapel
33200 2 floors
Spoelhof Center
140350 3 floors + Gezon Aud
Hiemenga Hall
99660 3 floors
Library
183500 5 floors
Devries Hall
69600 4 floors
Science Building
105200 4 floors
North Hall
58500 3 floors
Engineering Building
20200 1 floor
SPP
5200 1 floor
LPP
2900 1 floor
Fine Arts Center
113000 2 floors
Commons Annex
39900 3 floors
Commons
55500 2 floors + Upper Crust
CPP
6500 1 floor
SE
78600 4 floors
BHT
106450 bh - 4 floors t - 3 floors
RVD
76800 4 floors
NVW
86000 4 floors
Knollcrest Dining
27800 1 floor
BV
74800 4 floors
BB
80000 4 floors
KHVr
121000 4 floors
Huizenga T and T
66340 1 floor
Hoogenboom and VanNoord Arena
259136 2 floors
Venema Aquatic
29800 1 floor
Surge Building
10250 1 floor
Youngsma Center
18180 2 floors
Bunker Int Center
4825 1 floor
Phys Plant Service Building
50800 2 floors
Mail and Print Serv
23700 3 floors
Devos Comm
54000 3 floors
Prince Conf Center
80600 2 floors
Phi Chi
30900 3 floors
TE
42000 3 floors
Alpha
14670 3 floors
Beta
15600 3 floors
Gamma
15525 3 floors
Kappa
15000 3 floors
Delta
15900 3 floors
ZL
29100 3 floors
Total Sq ft
2360986
Parking spaces required
2361
11-10
ENGINEERING BUILDING ALTERNATIVE EXPANSION AREAS
Additional Sq ft from proposed EB East
Engineering
Building
1st floor
addition
2nd floor
addition
6475 sf
3200 sf
South Bay
mezz expansion
3000 sf
Total
12675
Additional Sq ft from proposed EB West
Engineering
Building
1st floor
addition
4800 sf
2nd floor
addition
4800 sf
South Bay
mezz expansion
3000
Total
12600 sf
11-11
APPENDIX H
STORM WATER ANALYSIS BREAKDOWN TABLES
Stormwater Analysis
Existing Impervious Surfaces
Type
Area [sf]
EB roof
20100
Parking lot
58000
Road
11100
Sidewalks
7060
Total
96260
Proposed Impervious Surfaces
East Alternative
Type
Existing EB Roof
Expansion Roof
Road and Parking
Extra Road
Sidewalks
Total
Area [sf]
20100
7825
58000
4096
3890
93911
West Alternative w/ moving road
Type
Area [sf]
Existing EB Roof
20100
Expansion Roof
5400
Road and Parking
53120
Extra Road
4096
Sidewalks
7060
Total
89776
West Alternative not moving road
Type
Area [sf]
Existing EB Roof
20100
Expansion Roof
5400
Parking
53120
Road
11100
Sidewalks
7060
Total
96780
11-12
APPENDIX I
Team Budget
11-13