Watering Solutions for The University of Toledo Outdoor Classroom Garden

1. Watering Solutions for The University of Toledo Outdoor Classroom Garden CIVE 6900 Sustainability Science and Engineering Class Taught by Dr. Apul November 20, 2009 Presented By: BhavyaParuchuri PavanPenumalla Ryan McChesney S. Amir Motlagh

2. Outline • Introduction • Background • Problem statement • Objective • Alternative Designs • Cost comparison • EIOLCA • Conclusion and Future Work

3. Sustainability at UT • UT has a C+ Sustainability rating • On Earth Day, April 22 2009 UT’s departments and community organizations, including Toledo Grows collaboratively broke the ground for the Outdoor Garden Classroom.

4. Purpose of the Garden • To foster lively discussions about sustainable agriculture and its impact on environmental health and human wellness. • Many departments have incorporated the garden into their classes • To lessen Aramark’s (food services of UT) dependence on shipping its food from distant farms and thus serves as an application to decrease UT's carbon footprint.

5. Location of the Garden UT Outdoor Classroom Garden is located on West Towerview Blvd.; adjacent to the Law Center Figure 1: Location of Garden on University

6. A Glance at the Garden The size of the garden is 117' X 56‘. The garden has the many plants and it produces a variety of vegetables as well. Figure 2: Layout of Garden

7. Problem Statement • History of the current irrigation system at the garden : • Initially, fire hydrant was used. After few months the fire hydrant was broken. • Support from the grounds department at UT. • The trailer uses a Honda GX140 pump. • Trouble with the trailer from the grounds department. • Problem with the current sprinkler system.

8. Objective • Our goal was to explore various designs and provide the university with the most sustainable and efficient option to irrigate the garden. • Application of lifecycle assessment in the project. • Decision making criteria: • cost • feasibility • sustainability • Merits of the system adopted: • energy efficient • water efficient

9. Soil Type and Characteristics • Soil types are Eel loam (Ee) and Spinks fine sand (StB). • The main soil on the site is mostly loam • The permeability of the soil is low on the site Figure 3: Loamy Soil

10. Topography of the Site Support from Bryan Ellis GPS equipment manufactured by Trimble. Figure 4: Group members shooting elevations

11. Topography Auto CADD drawing with spot elevations of the garden Figure 5: Auto CADD drawing with spot elevations of the garden

12. Topography • The garden is at a higher elevation than the road and the base of the law center. • The northwest corner of the garden is the highest point. • The elevation difference between the northwest corner of the garden and the northwest corner of the Law Center is 3.41’.

13. Water Demand • It is an estimate of the amount of water expected to be used by the consumers of the system.

14. Current System • Water trailer (1,000 gallons capacity) • Water pump • Five sprinkler heads Figure 7: Similar pump used on current system Figure 6: Current Sprinkler head

15. Fire Hydrant Option • 2 fire hydrants around the garden • watered the garden with hoses from the one of fire hydrant • took about an hour or more every time • One month later sprinkler system installed • One of the volunteer broke the fire hydrant • water spilled underground • cost several thousands to fix Figure 8: Broken fire hydrant

16. Issues With Fire Hydrant Option • Cost issue • Class-A (1000-1400 gpm) fire hydrant is less than $1,000 • Cost $6,500 when streets and sidewalks have to be opened up and then replaced • Restricted use issue • Any use of hydrants by non-utility employees is restricted • Requires a permit from the water department

17. Well Method • Drill a well approx 120 feet deep to bedrock • Groundwater will be extracted from bedrock and pumped up to the surface • Then Stored in the tank and disbursed through the drip irrigation system Figure 9: Well system

18. Issues With Well Method • Cost = Approximately $12,025 • Hydrogen Sulfide would get into water • Need to filter out? • May not hit water on first try • Could greatly increase costs

19. Method – Tank above the ground • Cost – $10,270 • Involves • Potable water • Tank • Pump • Transportation • Irrigation

20. Issues with Tank above the ground • Involves potable water. • Production emissions • Operational emissions.

21. Method - River • Cost – $15,445 • Involves • Tank • Pipe • Pump • Irrigation • Miscellaneous

22. Aerial view Figure 10: Aerial View

23. Issues with River method • Getting over the road • Length of the pipe (approx 1150 ft) • Tearing up the parking lot • Production emissions • Operational emissions

24. Rainwater Harvesting Method • Collect Rainwater from UT Law Center • Run 4” PVC pipe under ground to the tank at the garden • Tank holds 5,000 gallons • Reference to Drawings • Irrigation System attached to tank to drip irrigate the garden • Split into 6 zones

25. Aerial View Figure 11: Aerial View 2

26. Figure 12: CAD drawing of site

27. Figure 13: Hand Sketch of rainwater harvesting system

28. Issues with Rainwater Harvesting • Cost= approximately $14,695 • Getting over the road • Length from Law Center • Gutters must be water tight • Absolutely no leaks in piping system

29. Positives of Rainwater System • Very Sustainable • Good Educational demonstration • Teaching tool • Show people the power of head pressure and elevation differences • System will last for a long time • Will pay itself off at somepoint

30. Rainwater Hand Calculations

31. Irrigation System • Opted Drip irrigation system for water distribution to the garden. • Our proposed system consists of two products from Netafim. • AuquPro - smart valve watering controller. • TechNet 120- self-cleaning dripping system • Advantages of Drip irrigation system: • minimizes evaporation, • impedes weed growth • 90% more energy and water efficient compared to any other irrigation system Figure 14: Drip irrigation system

32. Tanks • Different types of tanks: • Fiberglass tanks, • Polyethylene tanks, • In-ground polyethylene tanks, • Swimming pools, • Wooden tanks, • Metal tanks, • Concrete tanks, • Stone and mason tanks, • Plastered tire cistern etc., Figure 15: High capacity polyethylene tanks

33. Comparison of Tanks of Different materials --Low/No + High/Yes Table 1

34. Tanks Tank chosen : Polyethylene tank They are: inexpensive, lightweight, and long-lasting Figure 16: Tank drawing

35. Tank Sizing • Excel spreadsheet taken from the Texas Rainwater Guide (Texas water development board, 2005) to help us in sizing the tank. • Input to the spreadsheet • Catchment Area (sq. ft.) = 2,400 • Monthly Indoor Demand (gals) = 0 • Outdoor Demand (gals) = 4,000 • Water in Storage to Begin (gal) = 1,000 • Tank Size (gal) = 5,000 • Recommendation after using the spreadsheet: • Since we do not want our system to freeze up in the winter months, our system will be drained and we will not be collecting rainwater.

36. Tank Sizing Spreadsheet Table 1

37. Cost Comparison of Alternatives Table 2

38. Summary of Methods Table 3

39. Outline • Introduction • Background • Problem statement • Objective • Alternative Designs • Cost comparison • EIOLCA • Conclusion and Future Work

40. Construction phase Use phase Not considered Life Cycle Thinking Figure 17 Image taken from: http://www.ami.ac.uk/courses/topics/0109_lct/

41. EIOLCA Method • The Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment • Estimates the materials and energy resources required for, and the environmental emissions resulting from, activities in our economy • Results can be useful for identifying areas with high environmental impact, and for evaluating and improving product designs

42. EIOLCA Procedure • Choose a desired model • Then select the industry and sector • We then provide the amount of economic activity for the respective sector in dollars • The category of impact is chosen before running the model • From the output, we took a note of the GWP measured in MTCO2E and Total energy consumption measured in TJ values in the ‘total for all sectors’

43. EIOLCA for Current System Table 4

44. EIOLCA for rainwater harvesting system Table 5

45. CO2 Emission Baseline & Rainwater Comparison Energy Use Figure 18 Figure 19

46. Conclusions • After evaluation of the 5 proposed alternatives we recommend installation of rainwater harvesting system to water the UT Outdoor Classroom Garden • Decision was made based on • cost • feasibility • sustainability

47. Future Work • Figure out a system to go over road • Sealing downspouts • Filtering downspouts • Approval with university • System tie in (downspouts) • Find exact utility locations (OUPS) • Toledo laws on rainwater harvesting • Gutter overflow • Drainage of system • Test water quality

48. Acknowledgments • Kimball Well Drilling • Scott A. Heckathorn - Associate Professor of Ecology, Department of Environmental Sciences • Dave – T.A, UT outdoor classroom garden • Mike – Water supply company, Toledo, Ohio • Marc Jobe– Landmarc Inc. Ida, Michigan • Dr. Nicholas Kissoff - UT Professor Department of Engineering Technology • James Martin-Hayden - UT Professor Department of Environmental Services • Bryan Ellis - Glass City Engineering and Services • Stacy Philpott – UT Professor – ‘Client’ for our project • DefneApul – CIVE6900 Professor • ChirjivAnand – Graduate student, Civil Engineering, University of Toledo

49. Reference • Agriculture Guide. (2009). “Main Units Required for a Drip Irrigation System.” <http://agricultureguide. org/main-units-of-drip-irrigation-system/> (Nov. 16, 2009). • “Ask FireHydrant.org” (2009). <http://www.firehydrant.org/info/faqs_ask3.html> (Oct. 28, 2009). • Crystal Quest. (1997). “Iron and Hydrogen Sulfide Water Filter.”<http://www.crystalquest.com/Iron %20and%20Hydrogen%20Sulfide%20Water%20Filter.htm> (Nov. 12, 2009). • Doug Pushard, Rainwater Harvesting: Comparing Storage Solutions, November 2009 • “A Primer on LCA, Economic Input-Output Life cycle Assessment” (2009). <http://www.eiolca.net/cgi-bin/dft/use.pl> (Nov. 2, 2009). • HAMweather. (2007). “Climate for Toledo, Ohio.” <http://www.rssweather.com/climate/Ohio/Toledo/> (Oct. 27, 2009). • Mone J. (2009). “Everything You Need to Know about Ultraviolet Water Purification.”; <http://www. harvesth2o.com/uv.shtml> (Nov. 10, 2009). • Lucas County, Ohio Soil Survey. 1979. USDA-SCS. • Murphy, J. D. (2009). “Means Construction Cost Index.” R.s. means Company, 67th edition. • “Saving water Outdoors, Southwest Florida, Water Management District.” (2009). <http://www. swfwmd.state.fl.us/conservation/files/SavingWaterOut.pdf> (Oct. 20, 2009). • Texas Rainwater Guide, Texas water development board, Chris Brown, Jan Gerston, Stephen Colley and Dr. Hari j. Krishna; 2005. • “Water Distribution” <http://www.greeleygov.com/water/waterdistribution.aspx>, (Oct. 30, 2009). • “Water Rates” (2009). <http://www.ci.toledo.oh.us/Departments/PublicUtilities/ UtilitiesAdministration/Rates/tabid/351/Default.aspx> (Nov. 5, 2009). • Water System Design Manual, August 2001; 5-15. • “Water Tanks” (2009). <http://www.watertanks.com/tnt-water-tanks> (Oct. 23, 2009). • “Winter Cover Crops Build Garden Soils.” Ohio State University Extension. July 28 2009 <http://www. extension.org/pages/Winter_Cover_Crops_Build_Garden_Soils> (Oct. 30, 2009).

50. Any Questions? Thank you