Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Team 5: EnGrowth
Kendra Altena
Mitchell Feria
Bethany Goodrich
Joel Smit
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.
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
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.
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 re-
routed. Additionally, parking lot space will be impacted by the expansion, and options for re-locating these
spaces must be explored.
3
"About Us - Facilities." Calvin College. Calvin College, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2013.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
4.2.2 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.
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 International Building Code 2006. Falls Church, VI: International Code Council, 2006. Print.
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.
4.3.1 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 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010. Print.
𝑃 =𝐶𝑃 𝐶𝑡 = 1.0
𝑃 = 0.7𝐶 𝐶 𝐼 𝑃 Is = 1.0
Cs = 0.6
Ps = 13.23 lb/ft
The maximum speed velocity for design in a Risk II area is 115 mph.
180
160
140
Number of Students
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Year
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.
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.
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.
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).
6.2.1 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.
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.
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.
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
Proposed
Campus Ease of Parking Total
Criteria Usefulness Cost Construction
Integration Construction Mitigation Score
Cost
Weight: 2 3 1 2 2 - -
Vertically 3 0 2 9 5 36 $ 3,000,000
West
7 0 8 7 9 54 $ 2,400,000
No Road Relocation
West
7 8 7 2 7 63 $ 2,600,000
Road Relocation
East 10 10 6 6 4 76 $ 2,800,000
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.
7.2.1.1 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.
1800
1600
1400
1200
Vol cars
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
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).
160
140
120
# of Vehicles
100
80
60
40
20
Time of Day
70.0
Percentage of Total Cars
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.8
10.0
3.6
0.8 0.4 0.4 0.04 0.1 0.7 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.01
0.0
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 Class Class Class Class Class
10 11 12 13 14
Class #
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.
Figure 7.2.5 shows the volume of cars in each class for each day of the week.
1400
1200
Thursday Oct 3
800
Friday Oct 4
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 #
4500
4000
3500
3000
# of Vehicles
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Figure 7.2.6 – Graph Showing the Number of Cars in Each Speed Range Over the Whole Week
800
700
600
Wednesday
# of Vehicles
500
Thursday
400 Friday
Saturday
300 Sunday
Monday
200
Tuesday
100
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.
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.
East Alternative
Description Quantity Units
Existing Total Campus Building Area 2360986 sq-ft
Area of Proposed EB Expansion East 12625 sq-ft
Proposed Total Campus Area 2373611 sq-ft
Total Parking Spaces Required By Code 2374 spaces
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.
7.3 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).
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
7-16
Figure 7.3.8 - Existing Storm Sewer Rerouting Proposal
7-17
Figure 7.3.9 - Existing Watermain Rerouting Proposal
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.
Impervious Surfaces
Alternative Area [sf]
Existing Area 96260
East Alternative 93910
West Alternative with Road Relocation 89780
West Alternative without Road Relocation 96780
Vertical Alternative 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.
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.
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.
8-2
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Figure 10.1.2 - Second Floor Plan
10-2
10.2.2 Internal Building Layout Benchmarks
Impervious Surfaces
Alternative Area
Existing Area [sf]
96260
East Alternative 93910
West Alternative with Road Relocation 89780
West Alternative without Road Relocation 96780
Vertical Alternative 96260
10-3
APPENDICES
Appendix A
CALVIN COLLEGE ENGINEERING BUILDING EXPANSION 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
11-5
Projected Senior Design Students Based on Average Retention Rate
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
South Bay
3000 sf
mezz expansion
Total 12675
South Bay
3000
mezz expansion
Total 12600 sf
11-11
APPENDIX H
STORM WATER ANALYSIS BREAKDOWN TABLES
Stormwater Analysis
East Alternative
Type Area [sf]
Existing EB Roof 20100
Expansion Roof 7825
Road and Parking 58000
Extra Road 4096
Sidewalks 3890
Total 93911
11-12
APPENDIX I
Team Budget
11-13