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!

see file

see file

Administrative Information Technology Services (AITS) has played a large role in leading this discussion and is working with Facilities & Services to try to implement a bike share program before Fall 2014. AITS hopes to partner with other departments on campus to create a cohesive and connected bike share system within the University.

On March 3, 2015, the Chancellor's Capital Review Committee formally approved the 2014 Campus Bike Plan for inclusion in the official Master Planning documents.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) in Facilities & Services is finalizing the 2014 Campus Bike Plan, a master plan to direct our efforts for future bicycle infrastructure improvements and program development.  The official public comment period for the Campus Bike Plan ended in April 2013, but additional feedback is always welcome via the online bicycle feedback form.

The draft 2014 Campus Bike Plan was available for public input during a four-week period, and members of the campus community were encouraged to review the plan and submit their comments and feedback via the online Campus Bicycle Feedback Form. 

• Download Campus Bike Plan (PDF) (updated July 2014)
• Submit feedback through the Campus Bicycle Feedback Form

see file

see file

see file

The Office for Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education in the College of Education hosted Morgan Johnston as a guest speaker on February 27.  One part of the overall Climate Action Plan is to increase the use of renewable energy generation for our campus power requirements. This presentation reviewed the progress toward increased use of renewables for our campus, and discussed current efforts underway, including the forthcoming Solar Farm.

https://youtu.be/edg5OfDCfck

I have been working with Jeff and there were two things we thought would be a good use of resources.  The first is a safety  booklet.  It would be modeled after a "zine" which is a DIY publication that is popular with young people.We were thinking it would be cool to have the same guy who did last year's Bike Month t-shirt illustrate the zine with content we provided. - James Roedl

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
 

see file

The University has been examining the benefits and possibilities of installing a solar photovoltaic (PV) systems on one or more of the roofs at Krannert Center for the Performing Arts (KCPA) and the use of photovoltaic glass units (PVGU) in the Great Hall on the west curtain wall. Phase 1 of the study has already been conducted and the University has chosen to further consider the PV system through Phase 2 of the study, which involves evaluating the structural load of the PV system, considering the acoustic impact of the PV system, and an assessment of the existing roof.

The budget for this project has also been established. Construction would be $585,000 -- of that $457,00 would be for the purchase and installation of solar panels and electrical work and $128,000 would be spend on general construction and construction access. The payback estimated by this budget cost is substantially longer than 25 years, but the roof would require no additional cost to the University upon completion of construction.

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