1 / 11

EMAP: Chamber Project

This lab focused on introducing engineering economic design principles to incoming engineering students. The lab evaluated the feasibility of constructing a theme park at Lake Nichol using present worth method and various criteria for success.

dzang
Download Presentation

EMAP: Chamber Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EMAP: Chamber Project Industrial Engineering Section Presenters: Khalfani Hardwick, Megan Missildine, Jacob Brunk

  2. Lab Focus • The focus of this lab was to introduce engineering economic design principles to incoming UA freshman engineering students • The principles were applied to the evaluation of the feasibility of a theme park at Lake Nichol

  3. ExperimentalProcedure • Problem recognition, formulation, and evaluation • Development of the feasible alternatives • Development of the outcomes and cash flows for each alternative • Selection of criterion or criteria for evaluation • Analysis and comparison of alternatives • Selection of the preferred alternative

  4. Problem • Interested in building a water park in the vicinity of Lake Nichol • Assumptions: • roughly 10 acres, water park, roller coaster • Open Memorial Day to Labor Day • Similarly sized parks did not have roller coasters

  5. Problem cont’d • Costs:(based on assumptions) • $5 million to construct • $400K to operate and maintain • $500K revenue • 20 year study period • 7% interest rate • Evaluated using Present Worth Method

  6. Alternatives/Criteria for Success • Alternatives: • Construct park • Save money for future projects • Criteria for Success: • Present Worth ≥ 0 • Other Factors: Location, Park Structure

  7. Outcomes • Park: • Present worth = -$3,940,598.58 • Park is not economically feasible

  8. Outcomes: Other Factors • Comparably sized parks did not have roller coasters • Could result in increased attendance • Park is not open while population is at its peak • Park is not easily accessible from highways • Low visibility

  9. Suggestions • Move park closer to the city • Tie into another project… • Include in plans for renovation of Downtown Tuscaloosa • Eliminate water park concept • Utilize traveling carnivals

  10. Lessons Learned • Location is critical for new business • Money management • Networking w/ other groups • Present worth

  11. Questions

More Related