Following the completion of iWG assessment for the PWR003 Recycling Bins recommendation, it was forwarded to F&S on May 4, 2015.

See iWG assessment of PWR003 Recycling Bins here.

See SWATeam recommendation PWR003 Recycling Bins here.

From: quad-day@illinois.edu [quad-day@illinois.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 1:03 PM
To: Roedl, James M
Subject: Quad Day Registration Confirmation

This is to confirm that we have received your 2015 Quad Day registration. However, this does not guarantee you a spot for Quad Day until a balance check has been done on your credit card or RSO account.
If you have any questions, please email quad-day@illinois.edu.

Organization Name: The Bike Project of Urbana-Champaign
Organization Type: Non-Profit, Community Organizations
Primary Name: James Roedl
Primary Phone: 217-244-1196
Primary Email: jmroedl illinois.edu
Second Contact Name:
Second Contact Email:
Payment Type: CreditCard
Payment Amount: $28.00

Dear iCAP Working Group Members,

As a reminder, we will be meeting this Thursday at 1:30 (and also next Thursday, 4/9, at 1:30).

This week we will discuss the timeline for completing our work on the iCAP, and then turn our attention to the 7 attached formal recommendations we've received from the Transportation and Purchasing, Waste, and Recycling SWATeams.  Please review these in advance of the meeting, so that we can discuss them most efficiently.  If you will not be able to join us due to a schedule conflict, please email me in advance if you have any particular concerns.

Next week (4/9), we'll be joined by Kent Reifsteck and Mike Larson from F&S, and also Scott Willenbrock from the Energy Generation SWATeam, so that we can discuss what the iCAP should say about charting a pathway for clean energy for our campus.

Thanks,

Ben

Professor Benjamin J. McCall

Associate Director for Campus Sustainability Institute for Sustainability, Energy, and Environment University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign campus-sustainability@illinois.edu

Yes it is implemented and we are currently getting 3-6 40 gallon bins of food waste a week from Busy Evans and harvesting vermicompost out of the bottom.  We are still perfecting our technique for sure, for a while we were letting it get a little too hot for the worms which made them eat less than they would otherwise because they couldn't be in the zone where the food waste was due to the micro-organismal composting causing high temperatures.  Then we were making it too dry and now it's too wet, so we are still perfecting our vermicomposting skills but it is getting better for sure!

The second idea we wanted to pursue was putting on the TS 101 courses.  The normal cost that Cynthia charges is $65 per person.  We thought we could contract with CCB $400 or $500 to do a full day lunch provided TS101 training for 10-15 people.  It would be offered to students and staff who wanted to learn more about safety and promised to be a safety advocate.  This would save money over the total cost of training and allow a larger group of folks receive serious safety training. - James Roedl
 

The existing structure was assessed based on the original 1966 drawings prepared by Lev Zetlin and Associates (see Appendix A). The current roof structure consists of a 6 in. reinforced concrete slab supported by steel trusses that span 84 ft across the Great Hall. The trusses are made up of teeshaped chord members and double-angle web members. Secondary wide flange beams spaced at approximately 21 ft span between the trusses and create two-way action in the slab. Analyses conducted during Phase 1 of this Feasibility Study showed that the secondary components (roof slab and beams) do not have sufficient capacity to support the added load of the photovoltaic array. Consequently, support systems were conceptualized that would deliver the new loads directly to the trusses. Analyses conducted during Phase 2 therefore focused on the roof trusses.

Loads and stresses on the trusses were determined using the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-10 design loads and typical material weights. Taking into consideration the dead loads (truss members, roofing materials, concrete slab, catwalks, and ceilings) and snow loads, the total load on the roof structure is estimated to be 130 lbs per sq. ft (see table below). With a distance of 21 ft-4 in. between trusses, this equates to approximately 2,800 lbs per lineal foot applied to the truss.

• Existing Load Summary - Load (lb/ft2)
• Truss (Self)                                     10
• Slab                                                   75
• Catwalks and Ceilings                   13
• EPDM Roof                                       5
• Insulation                                          3
• Live Loads (Snow)                         25
• Total                                                131 lb/ft2

Using structural analysis software and hand calculations, it was determined that the members of the existing roof trusses labeled T-3 in the original drawings do not meet the current structural steel code for compression capacity under these load conditions. At the time of original construction, the members met requirements called for by the applicable code, the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) 6th Edition Steel Construction Manual. The AISC Steel Construction Manual has since been updated to account for torsional and flexural-torsional buckling and strength limitations of slender elements within members.

The trusses were also analyzed for the addition of the PV cells and accompanying concrete knee walls. The weights of these materials and associated snow drifting loads would apply an additional 30 lbs per sq. ft (see table below), or approximately 665 lbs per lin. ft to the T-3 trusses at the locations of the new walls.

• Additional Load Summary - Load (lb/ft2)
• Concrete Wall                                    18.75
• Photovoltaic Cells                               5
• Snow Drift                                            7        
• Total                                                    31 lb/ft2

These loads would introduce an additional sixty thousand pounds (approximate) into each of the steel chord members, causing four additional chord members to be stressed beyond code-prescribed limitations

The SWATeam reviewed priorities for recommendations to make.