Proposal of a Tunnel Extension from

University Centre to Fletcher Argue

Prepared for Mike Ferley by members of UMEARTH’s Campus Integration Directorship:

Amanda Anderson

Jared Kozak

Eva Kwok

Liam McLeod

Lucas Vonderbank

A report submitted to Physical Plant of the University of Manitoba.

October 2017

UMEARTH

University of Manitoba

Winnipeg, Manitoba

2

An extension of the existing tunnel between University Centre and the Administration

building to the Fletcher Argue Building

A new plaza beside the Fletcher Argue Building

An indoor connection to University Centre to replace the existing outdoor walkway

The proposed project will cost approximately $16.1M to build.

The expected tunnel traffic is more than one million trips per year. The consequent reduction in

heat loss through open exterior doors will result in at least 145 tonne per year reduction in CO2

emissions. Reduced heating costs will also save the university upwards of $6,200 annually.

The proposal features a below-grade plaza offering study space and expanded food options. These

additions will increase accessibility, safety, and a sense of community, aligning directly with the

goals of the University’s Visionary (re)Generation Master Plan.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This proposal of a tunnel extension connecting the

Fletcher Argue Building to University Centre has

been prepared on behalf of Physical Plant by the

UMEARTH Campus Integration team, with the

goal of improving the University of Manitoba’s

sustainability. The proposed project consists of

three new additions:

Plaza (below grade)

Figure 1: Administration [1].

Figure 2: Proposed additions, in red. Adapted from [2].

3

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................2

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................5

2.0 LIMITATIONS & CONSTRAINTS ...................................................................................................6

2.1 EXISTING UTILITIES .............................................................................................................................6

2.2 SCHEDULING........................................................................................................................................6

2.3 COST ....................................................................................................................................................6

3.0 MOTIVATION ......................................................................................................................................7

3.1 TRAFFIC ...............................................................................................................................................7

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ...................................................................................................................8

3.2.1 Reduced Heat Loss From Exterior Doors ...................................................................................8

3.2.2 Campus Static Pressure Initiative ................................................................................................8

3.2.3 Sustainability Strategy 2016-2018 ...............................................................................................8

3.3 ALIGNMENT WITH VISIONARY (RE)GENERATION PLAN .....................................................................9

3.3.1 Accessibility and Safety ...............................................................................................................9

3.3.2 Connections and Community .....................................................................................................10

3.3.3 Core Campus Land Use Alignment ...........................................................................................11

4.0 COST AND RETURN .........................................................................................................................12

4.1 COST: TUNNEL...................................................................................................................................12

4.2 COST: THE PLAZA..............................................................................................................................12

4.3 COST: CONNECTION TO UNIVERSITY CENTRE EAST ENTRANCE ......................................................12

4.4 RETURN .............................................................................................................................................12

5.0 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................13

APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................................................14

APPENDIX A – METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING HEAT LOSS AND CO2 EMISSIONS ..........................14

APPENDIX B - COST BREAKDOWN ..........................................................................................................18

ACNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................19

REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................20

4

List of Figures

Figure 1: Administration [1]. ........................................................................................................................2

Figure 2: Proposed additions, in red. Adapted from [2]. ..............................................................................2

Figure 3: Existing tunnel layout on the Fort Garry campus. Adapted from [3]. ..........................................5

Figure 4: Intersections between Existing Infrastructure and Proposed Tunnel. Adapted from [2]. .............6

Figure 5: Traffic Flow at University Centre East Entrance ..........................................................................7

Figure 6: Door Monitor Electrical Schematic ............................................................................................14

Figure 7: Heat Loss Analysis......................................................................................................................16

Figure 8: CO2 Emissions Analysis .............................................................................................................17

List of Tables

Table 1: Traffic Counting Schedule ............................................................................................................14

Table 2: Cost Breakdown of Pedestrian Tunnel, Plaza and U.C. Connection ............................................18

5

1.0 Introduction

The tunnels on the Fort Garry campus provide a convenient way to go from building to

building without having to go outside. They are especially useful during the winter, as

temperatures can drop to -40°C and outdoor conditions can be unpredictable and hazardous.

The Campus Integration Directorship of the University of Manitoba Efficient and Renewable

Technology Hub (UMEARTH) is proposing the construction of a tunnel from University

Center to Fletcher Argue which will extend the already existing tunnel between the

Engineering building and the Administration building. Currently, the tunnels do not provide a

convenient path from the west to the east side of campus, as shown in Figure 3 below.

Benefits of extending the tunnel to Fletcher Argue include more efficient heat distribution

throughout the campus, new amenities in a below-grade plaza, and a safer and more

convenient means for students to cross campus.

Figure 3: Existing tunnel layout on the Fort Garry campus. Adapted from [3].

6

2.0 Limitations & Constraints

2.1 Existing Utilities

The proposed tunnel will need to take into account existing utilities. This is including, but not

limited to plumbing, water and electrical lines that currently run underground through the

proposed tunnel location. AutoCAD files of the Fort Garry Campus provided by Mike Ferley

indicate that plumbing, electrical and water lines will all be affected in some capacity by the

installation of a tunnel. Designing upcoming utility replacements to accommodate a future

tunnel development will mitigate the cost of this constraint. Figure 4 below highlights

approximately where the conflicts occur.

2.2 Scheduling

The proposed project will impact the paths students and staff take to walk to their classes, so

the tunnel and plaza construction should be scheduled so as to minimize the impact on

students (i.e. major work during summer session).

2.3 Cost

The cost will need to fit within the university’s budget.

Figure 4: Intersections between Existing Infrastructure and Proposed Tunnel. Adapted from [2].

7

3.0 Motivation

The key motivations for the proposed tunnel extension and plaza are its high projected

traffic, which will lead to a reduction in the university’s environmental impacts, and its close

alignment with the University of Manitoba’s Visionary (re)Generation Plan.

3.1 Traffic

A major motivation for the proposed tunnel extension is its high projected traffic. By

measuring the time doors are open over a 48-hour period and correlating that data with

manual traffic counting, it was calculated that the University Centre east doors have an

annual traffic of 1.7 million people. Figure 5 below is an example of daily traffic based on

that correlation. See Appendix A for details. We expect the tunnel’s annual traffic to be of

the same order of magnitude because of its location the advantages it offers to staff and

students. In addition to increased convenience, accessibility and safety, this high traffic

volume will correspond to significant positive environmental impacts and will enable the

effective implementation of the University’s Visionary (re)Generation Plan.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

9:36:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 2:24:00 PM 4:48:00 PM 7:12:00 PM 9:36:00 PM 12:00:00 AM

Nu

mb

er o

f P

eop

le T

hro

ugh

Do

ors

Time of Day

Traffic Flow at University Centre East Entranceon March 6, 2017

Traffic Volume Based on Counting Data

Figure 5: Traffic Flow at University Centre East Entrance

8

3.2 Environmental Impact

3.2.1 Reduced Heat Loss From Exterior Doors

One of the objectives to be achieved with the new tunnel is to reduce the amount of wasted

energy due to heat loss from the opening of exterior doors. As stated in the previous section, over

the course of a year more than a million people are projected to take the tunnel instead of walking

outside. As a result, approximately 2 billion BTUs of heat will be saved each year. See Appendix

A for the methods used to produce these numbers.

3.2.2 Campus Static Pressure Initiative

The tunnel will allow for more efficient distribution of heated air across campus. Currently,

relatively high pressure, non-permeable arts buildings must vent heated air in winter to maintain

sufficient air circulation. Alternatively, open indoor connections such as the proposed tunnel

allow that same costly heated air to instead be redirected to low pressure, highly permeable

buildings (EITC, ALC). The new tunnel will facilitate pressure stabilization between the west

and the east side of campus, reducing the University’s heating costs. This static pressure initiative

has the potential to create significant heat savings beyond those described in section 3.2.1. It will

require the installation of alarm-triggered door closers on fire doors throughout campus.

Quantifying the return on this investment is outside the scope of this proposal.

3.2.3 Sustainability Strategy 2016-2018

Increasing the efficiency of campus heating is part of the University’s commitment to sustainable

development. In the 2016-18 Sustainability Strategy, the University utilizes the Association for

the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education’s Sustainability Tracking, Assessment

and Rating System (STARS) as a means to develop baseline operational metrics to gauge

improvements in campus sustainability [4]. Included in these metrics is energy demand. With the

new tunnel in place, the University will reduce its demand by 4% or more of its current annual

reduction from baseline as outlined in the Strategy’s Baseline Sustainability Metrics. Resource

Conservation and Efficiency, a pillar of the 2016-18 Sustainability Strategy, will see definite

improvements from this reduced energy consumption. Greenhouse gas emissions will also

decline. With the University’s emissions reducing by 145 or more tonnes of CO2 per year, strides

will be taken toward the Strategy’s Ecology and Environment commitment as well as its Climate

strategies by reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions and improving air quality [4].

9

3.3 Alignment with Visionary (re)Generation Plan

The proposed tunnel extension and plaza align directly with the University’s landmark

planning document, the Visionary (re)Generation Master Plan. In addition to improving

campus sustainability, the proposed project will increase accessibility, safety, and sense of

community while following many of the Plan’s core campus land use recommendations. The

tunnel extension and plaza will support the U of M’s strategic priorities by making the Fort

Garry Campus a more connected, livable destination for the university community.

3.3.1 Accessibility and Safety

Accessibility in the core campus: Section 4.1 of the Visionary (re)Generation Plan calls for

accessible circulation in the core campus area [5]. Accessibility between Fletcher Argue, the

Administration building and UMSU University Centre will be greatly improved by the tunnel

extension. Universal design principles can be employed to allow as many community

members as possible access to university programming. This is especially important since

Canada’s population is becoming older and more disabled than ever before, and everyone

benefits from universal design [6]. Extending the tunnel is therefore a much-needed

accessibility improvement that aligns with the University’s goals.

Safety improvement for our community: The tunnel extension will increase campus safety

by creating an indoor pathway across the heart of the campus. The proposed tunnel will be

built following Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and

will be added to Security Services’ CCTV and patrol networks [7]. In addition to increased

crime safety, the tunnel will provide an alternative for those who wish to avoid unsafe

outdoor conditions such as ice and snow on sidewalks and traffic on Gilson Street and

Chancellor’s Circle. These improvements to safety match the (re)Generation Plan, Section

4.1.7.1’s goal of making the university a “space that is inclusive to all” [5].

10

3.3.2 Connections and Community

A central goal of the Plan is to create and maintain a sense of community and shared history.

This stems from the University’s Strategic Plan goals three, four, and five, stated in section

1.2:

3. Creating pathways to Indigenous achievement.

4. Building community that creates an outstanding learning and working

environment.

5. Forging connections to foster high impact community engagement. [5].

The tunnel extension and plaza can address these goals in a meaningful way through an

inclusive, community-based design process and by providing a context for connection and

discussion once built. The project will:

Provide a forum for discussion that strengthens our community. The proposed

plaza will be a high-quality multi-use area ideally located between faculties to

provide a forum for spontaneous interdisciplinary discussion and an increased sense

of community. In addition, administration will have a chance to better connect with

the university community on a daily basis as they pass by in the high-traffic tunnel.

Engage the community throughout the design process. The tunnel and plaza design

process can include engagement from the entire community through extensive

stakeholder consultation to ensure that the project meets the university community’s

needs. This is another opportunity for interdisciplinary discussion on how the plaza

can tell the story of place - its history, present and future - and be designed with a

seven generations view, as called for in section 3.2.5 [5]. The plaza is an opportunity

to create a permanent built reflection of the University community’s commitment to

reconciliation, right in the heart of the core campus.

Allow for construction partnerships. The construction process is an opportunity for

the faculties of engineering and architecture to partner with industry to create a space

that meets the University’s needs.

The tunnel extension and plaza is an opportunity to fulfill the University’s plans to celebrate

our shared history and strengthen our sense of community.

11

3.3.3 Core Campus Land Use Alignment

The (re)Generation Plan lays out clear land use guidelines for the core campus area. The

proposed tunnel extension and plaza will meet those guidelines. It will:

Enhance and preserve heritage features. A tunnel is preferable to a less costly

aboveground connection since section 3.4.1 designates the Administration Building,

Duckworth Quadrangle and their surroundings as the ‘heritage campus heart’ [5]. The

tunnel will avoid bisecting this valuable heritage landscape while the plaza will frame

the Quad without compromising it. Since the plaza’s floor will be below grade, its

low roof height will be respectful of the key existing buildings and open spaces

surrounding it, as called for in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.7.1.

Improve walkability and increase building density, safety and vibrancy through

infill development as called for in section 3.4.1.

Be designed for winter. The plan recognizes that a campus that is in use year-round

needs to be well adapted to winter. In addition to creating a walkable, heated

connection across the campus, the tunnel and plaza will be designed with windows

and skylights where possible to maximize natural lighting to create a healthy space.

With the Tier building, the plaza can also frame an outdoor parkette with south-facing

exposure as outlined in section 4.2.7 [5]. Inside, it can host a green wall, trees, or

plants to increase air quality and promote health, such as those in University of

Winnipeg’s Richardson College for the Environment and Science [8].

Offer services and amenities. The tunnel connects the Dafoe Library, the Faculty of

Arts and the Faculty of Social Work directly to the amenities in University Centre

year round. The plaza will also include amenities, such as a study space, lounge area

and expanded food options. By increasing access to services and amenities, the

proposed project aligns with sections 3.2 and 4.1.7.1 since it will help shift the

university from a commuter campus to a place to come and stay [5].

The proposed tunnel extension and plaza are much needed developments that directly align

with the Visionary (re)Generation Plan. This project offers improvements to accessibility,

safety, community and land use that exactly match the University of Manitoba’s planning

goals.

12

4.0 Cost and Return

The estimated cost of $16.1M for this project is broken down between the tunnel, plaza,

and connection to the University Centre east entrance, which are $4.2M, $11.5M and

$0.4M respectively. See Appendix B for further explanation.

4.1 Cost: Tunnel

The new tunnel is estimated to cover 3241 sq.ft. A rate of $1060/sq.ft., provided by Mike

Ferley, was used to determine the cost of constructing the tunnel. This rate is based on the

tunnel built between University Centre and Allen and includes the cost associated with

accommodating central services, as provided by Jorg Klinger [9]. Based on previous

construction on campus, a soft cost margin of 21% was used [11].

4.2 Cost: The Plaza

The Plaza is estimated to cover 8960 sq.ft. The same rate of $1060/sq.ft. and a soft cost

margin of 21% were used [11].

4.3 Cost: Connection to University Centre East Entrance

The walkway connecting the University Centre east entrance to the existing portion of the

tunnel is estimated to cover 675 sq.ft. Based on construction cost indices for university

buildings in Western Canada [10] and costs from previous construction of similar nature on

campus, a rate of $500/sq.ft. and a 21% soft cost margin were used [11].

4.4 Return

It is estimated that by allowing staff and students to travel between University Centre and

Fletcher Argue indoors, reductions in heat loss will provide savings of approximately $6,200

per year. See Appendix A for details.

Disclaimer: Numbers provided by Jorg Klinger of the University of Manitoba are ballpark

approximations based on preliminary descriptions of the project provided by UMEARTH.

13

5.0 Conclusion

Completing the proposed $16.1M tunnel extension and plaza will have a significant positive

environmental and social impact on the University of Manitoba. It is estimated that the tunnel

will be used more than a million times each year. The resulting energy savings from reduced

heat loss are projected to be over two billion BTUs per year, which is equivalent to 145 or

more tonnes of avoided CO2 emissions. As a result, the University will save at least $6,200

each year in heating costs, and will be closer to achieving its sustainability goals. Building

the proposed tunnel will benefit students and staff at the University of Manitoba as it will

provide a new plaza for the University community and will increase accessibility and safety,

all while implementing the University’s Visionary (Re)Generation Plan for future campus

development.

14

Appendices

Appendix A – Calculating Heat Loss and CO2 Emissions

Traffic Volume Projection

To project total traffic flow through the University Centre east doors during a year, people

entering and exiting the doors were manually counted at both busy and slow times of day.

The data was then linked to total enrollment at the University, allowing traffic to be projected

based on varying enrollments throughout the year. Table 1 list the dates and times that the

manual counting took place.

University Centre East Entrance

Date Time Slot

06-03-2017 12:31-13:30

06-03-2017 14:00-14:45

07-03-2017 12:50-13:50

07-03-2017 14:00-14:45

Projecting the Duration Doors are Open in a Year

While the manual counting took place, a device was installed on the doors that saved the time

of day and duration each door was open. The total time each of the doors was open was then

linked to the total manually counted traffic flow for that time slot, yielding an average time a

door is open per person entering/exiting the building. The time per person was then

multiplied into the traffic projections to yield the total time the doors are theoretically open in

a year.

The device was run on March 6 and 7, 2017 at University Centre. The electrical layout of the

device is shown in the figure below.

Figure 6: Door Monitor Electrical Schematic

Table 1: Traffic Counting Schedule

15

Heat Loss

Using formulas and values from the ASHRAE handbook along with the time the doors are

expected to be open throughout the year, projected heat loss was calculated. An average

cfm/year was then calculated and multiplied by a rate of $4/cfm/year provided by Mike

Ferley to yield the total cost per year associated with heat loss through the doors.

Carbon Emissions

Using formulas from the ASHRAE handbook and our projected heat loss, lbs of CO2

emissions resulting from the wasting of heat through the doors was calculated.

Figures 7 and 8 on the proceeding pages provide detailed analyses of the projected heat loss

and CO2 emissions.

16

AnalysisofCostDuetoHeatLossfromtheOpeningofExteriorDoors

Month

#W

eekdays

#W

eekend

Days

Enrollment

People

Through

Doors

DoorsOpen(s)

People

Through

Doors

DoorsOpen(s)

PeopleThrough

Doors

DoorsOpen(s)

People

Through

Doors

DoorsOpen(s)

September

21

930,000

7,034

16,811

147,714

353,036

1,407

3,362

12,661

30,260

October

22

930,000

7,034

16,811

154,748

369,848

1,407

3,362

12,661

30,260

November

22

830,000

7,034

16,811

154,748

369,848

1,407

3,362

11,254

26,898

December

21

10

30,000

7,034

16,811

147,714

353,036

1,407

3,362

14,068

33,623

January

23

830,000

7,034

16,811

161,782

386,659

1,407

3,362

11,254

26,898

February

20

830,000

7,034

16,811

140,680

336,225

1,407

3,362

11,254

26,898

March

22

930,000

7,034

16,811

154,748

369,848

1,407

3,362

12,661

30,260

April

21

930,000

7,034

16,811

147,714

353,036

1,407

3,362

12,661

30,260

May

23

812,000

2,814

6,725

64,713

154,664

563

1,345

4,502

10,759

June

21

912,000

2,814

6,725

59,086

141,215

563

1,345

5,064

12,104

July

22

912,000

2,814

6,725

61,899

147,939

563

1,345

5,064

12,104

August

23

812,000

2,814

6,725

64,713

154,664

563

1,345

4,502

10,759

1,460,258

3,490,018

117,608

281,084

TotalTim

eDoor

Open(s)

7,542,204

TotalTim

ein

Year(s)

31,536,000

AirVel.Through

Door(ft/min)

295

AreaofSingle

Door(ft2)

22

Average

CFM/year

1,554

$/CFM/year

4.00

$

Cost/Year

6,214.53

$

TotalTrafficperYear

1,577,867

FromASHRAEhandbook

Equalstotalweekdaytim

eplustotalweekendtim

e

multipliedby2toaccountforpeopleenteringandexiting

FigureprovidedbyM

ikeFerley

Equalsairvelocitym

ultipliedbydooraream

ultipliedbythe

ratioofthetim

edoorsareopentototaltimeinayear.

Costperyearduetoheatlossfromtheexcessiveopening

ofexteriordoors

23%

ThroughDoors

vs.Enrollment(W

eekday)

30,000

Enrollment

Winter2017

7,034

#PeopleThrough

DoorsonAvg.Weekday

TrafficM

ultipliersfromData

Conditions

TotalWeekends

PerWeekendDay

TotalWeekday

PerWeekday

Tim

eDoorOpen

perPersonThrough

Door(s/person)

5%

ThroughDoors

vs.Enrollment

(WeekendDay)

2.39

Figuresfromdatacollectedat

theUniversityCentreeast

doors.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

Time(s)

Month

TotalTim

eDoorsareOpeninEachM

onth

Weekday

WeekendDay

Figure 7: Heat Loss Analysis

17

AnalysisofC

arbo

nEm

ission

sDue

toHea

tLossfrom

theOpe

ning

ofE

xteriorD

oors

2)2)

Mon

thT i(°C)

T r(°C)

c pa(kJ/kg°C)

h i(kJ/kg)

h r(kJ/kg)

v(m

/s)

A(m

2 )ρ r

(kg/m

3 )D t

()

Total

Wee

kday

Time(s)

Total

Wee

kend

Time(s)

q t(kW=kJ/s)

(kJ)to

(BTU

)q t

(BTU

/s)

Wee

kday

Hea

tqt*s(BTU

)

Wee

kend

Heatq

t*s(BTU

)

Weekd

ay

Resulting

CO2

Emission

s(lb

s)

Wee

kend

Resulting

CO2

Emission

s(lb

s)Septem

ber

2014

1.006

20.12

14.084

1.5

141.514

135

3,03

6

30,260

191.91

0.94

7817

181.89

64,215

,290

.94

5,504,167.80

9,016

773

Octob

er20

61.006

20.12

6.03

61.5

141.514

136

9,84

8

30,260

447.79

0.94

7817

424.42

156,970,71

1

12,843,058

22,039

1,80

3

Novem

ber

20-4

1.006

20.12

-4.024

1.5

141.514

136

9,84

8

26,898

767.63

0.94

7817

727.58

269,092,64

8

19,570,374

37,781

2,74

8

December

20-14

1.006

20.12

-14.084

1.5

141.514

135

3,03

6

33,623

1087

.48

0.94

7817

1030.73

363,886,64

9

34,655,871

51,090

4,86

6

Janu

ary

20-16

1.006

20.12

-16.096

1.5

141.514

138

6,65

9

26,898

1151

.45

0.94

7817

1091.37

421,986,19

8

29,355,562

59,247

4,12

2

February

20-14

1.006

20.12

-14.084

1.5

141.514

133

6,22

5

26,898

1087

.48

0.94

7817

1030.73

346,558,71

3

27,724,697

48,657

3,89

3

March

20-6

1.006

20.12

-6.036

1.5

141.514

136

9,84

8

30,260

831.60

0.94

7817

788.21

291,517,03

5

23,851,394

40,929

3,34

9

April

205

1.006

20.12

5.03

1.5

141.514

135

3,03

6

30,260

479.77

0.94

7817

454.74

160,538,22

7

13,760,419

22,540

1,93

2

May

2013

1.006

20.12

13.078

1.5

141.514

115

4,66

4

10,759

223.89

0.94

7817

212.21

32,821

,149

2,283,210

4,608

321

June

2017

1.006

20.12

17.102

1.5

141.514

114

1,21

5

12,104

95.95

0.94

7817

90.95

12,843

,058

1,100,834

1,803

155

July

2020

1.006

20.12

20.12

1.5

141.514

114

7,93

9

12,104

0.00

0.94

7817

0.00

-

-

-

-

August

2019

1.006

20.12

19.114

1.5

141.514

115

4,66

4

10,759

31.98

0.94

7817

30.32

4,68

8,73

6

326,173

658

46

ww

w.h

olid

ay-w

eath

er.c

om/w

inni

peg/

aver

ages

/28

9,351

23,232

1)h=cpa*

T

note:

where:

hisenthalpy[kJ/kg]

cpa

isth

especifiche

at(inthiscase,ofa

ir)[1

.006

kJ/kg°C]

Tisth

etempe

rature(inthiscase,ofa

ir)[°C]

2)qt=v*A

*(hi–hr)*ρ

r*Dt

note:

where:

qtisth

eaveragerefrigerationload[kW]Inou

rcon

text,thisisth

erateofh

eatlosstoexterior.

visth

eaverageairv

elocity

.Ran

gegiven

byAS

HRA

Eis0.3to

1.5[m

/s]

Aisth

eop

enarea[m

2]

hiisth

een

thalpyofinfiltratedair[kJ/kg]Inourcon

text,thisisth

een

thalpyofh

eatedairleaving.

hristh

een

thalpyofrefrig

erated

air[kJ/kg]Inou

rcon

text,thisisth

een

thalpyofcoldexterio

rairen

terin

gthebu

ilding.

ρristh

ede

nsity

ofrefrig

erated

air[kg/m3]Inourcon

text,thisisth

ede

nsity

ofthe

coldexterio

rair.

Dt

isth

ede

cimalportio

noftimethedo

orisope

n[]

3)CO

2Em

ission

s=Hea

t*0.00

0140

4

where:

Heat

inBTU

0.0001

404

=117/10^6*1.2

TotalLbsCO2

Emmitted

Each

Year

312,583

117lbsCO

2pe

rmillionBT

U(h

ttps://w

ww.eia.gov/too

ls/faqs/faq.ph

p?id=73&

t=11);

multip

liedby120

%due

to80%

efficien

cyfo

rtheUniversity

'sheatin

gsystem

s

Thisbasicenthalpyform

ulawasta

kenfrom

http://www.engineerin

gtoo

lbox.com

/entha

lpy-moist-air-d_

683.html.Usingth

eothe

r'moistair'

versiongivenon

thesameweb

pagem

aybeausefulim

provem

enttotakeintoaccou

ntanyinterio

rhum

idity

.

Thisisth

e'InfiltrationbyDire

ctFlowth

roughDoo

rways'fo

rmulaused

byAS

HRA

Etocalculateheate

xchangethroughop

enre

frigeratordoo

rs.

Ourfirsta

ssum

ptionisth

atsinceth

isisafo

rmulaforh

eate

xchang

eviaaire

xchangethroughan

ope

ndo

or,itcan

beap

pliedtoourcon

textofo

pen

exterio

rdoo

rsonawinterd

ay.Thisisfo

rmula(15)at

http://ftp.dem

ec.ufpr.b

r/disciplinas/TM14

0/PR

OJETO

_REFRIGER

ACAO

/Material%20

de%20

estudo

/REFRIGER

ATION%20

LOAD

_R02

_12SI.p

df

3)1)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

CO2Emissions(lbs)

Mon

th

TotalResultin

gCO

2Em

ission

sinEachMon

th

Wee

kday

ResultingCO2

Emission

s(lb

s)

Weekend

ResultingCO2

Emission

s(lb

s)

Figure 8: CO2 Emissions Analysis

18

Appendix B - Cost Breakdown

Cost Summary

The table below breaks down the cost calculation for the tunnel.

Table 2: Cost Breakdown of Pedestrian Tunnel, Plaza and U.C. Connection

Large Ped.

Tunnel

with Central

Services

Plaza Connection to

University Centre

East Entrance

Total

$/sq. ft. $1,060.00 $1060.00 $500.00 -

Area (sq. ft.) 3241 8960 675 9110

Soft Cost 21% 21% 21% -

Cost $4,157,000.00 $11,492,000.00 $408,000.00 $16,057,000.00

Connection to University Centre East Entrance Cost

In their 2016 cost guide, Altus Group quotes $200-$430/sq.ft. for university building costs

[10]. Their report uses Calgary as the index city for Western Canada, which includes

Edmonton, Regina/Saskatoon and Winnipeg. Historic building construction costs for the

University of Manitoba are approximately $500/sq.ft. [11]. Taking these two numbers into

account, the higher of the two was chosen for the cost calculation.

Disclaimer: Numbers provided by Jorg Klinger of the University of Manitoba are ballpark

approximations based on preliminary descriptions of the project provided by UMEARTH.

19

Acknowledgments

UMEARTH’s Campus Integration team would like to thank Don Petkau, Douglas Thomson,

Dean McNeill, Scott Ormiston, Liqun Wang, John Frye, Jorg Klinger and Rick Jansen for

their support.

Special thanks to Mike Ferley for giving us the opportunity to pursue this proposal, and

guiding us along the way.

20

References

[1] University of Manitoba, The Administration Building. 2017. Available:

http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/departments/anthropology/media/UofM-Campus-5578-

web1.jpg [Accessed: 03-Apr.-2017]

[2] M. Ferley, University of Manitoba Drawing PDF. 2016.

[3] University of Manitoba. University Of Manitoba Tunnel Map - Fort Garry [Online].

Available: http://www.umanitoba.ca/about/map/tunnels/ [April 1, 2017].

[4] University of Manitoba. Sustainability Strategy 2016-2018 [Online]. Available:

https://umanitoba.ca/campus/sustainability/media/Sustainability_Strategy_2016-

2018_WEB.pdf [April 1, 2017].

[5] University of Manitoba, "University of Manitoba Visionary (re)Generation Master Plan",

Winnipeg, 2016. Available:

http://www.visionaryregeneration.com/media/160520_WEB_Master_Plan.pdf. [Accessed 01-

Apr- 2017]

[6] "Universal Design History", North Carolina State University’s Center for Universal Design,

2017. [Online]. Available:

https://projects.ncsu.edu/www/ncsu/design/sod5/cud/about_ud/udhistory.htm. [Accessed: 01-

Apr- 2017].

[7] "University of Manitoba - Security Services - Programs", Umanitoba.ca, 2017. [Online].

Available: http://umanitoba.ca/campus/security/programs/Index.html. [Accessed: 03-04-

2017].

[8] "Richardson College for the Environment and Science Complex Fast Facts | About

UWinnipeg , The University of Winnipeg", Uwinnipeg.ca, 2014. [Online]. Available:

http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/about/fast-facts/richardson-college.html. [Accessed: 02- Apr-

2017].

[9] J. Klinger. (2017, Mar. 27). “RE: Tunnel Costs.” Jorg.Klinger@umanitoba.ca.

[10] Altus Group. (2016). Canadian Cost Guide 2016 [Online].

Available: http://www.altusgroup.com/media/5133/cost_guide_2016_web.pdf [03/28/2017]

.

[11] J. Klinger. (2017, Mar. 28). “RE: Tunnel Costs.” Personal email.