Valley View Dog Park & Emergency Preparedness Site

Oliver & Company

Senior Design Project Report
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Utah State University
April 28, 2014

VALLEY VIEW DOG PARK AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS SITE

Final Report
Submitted by: Oliver & Company

Brad Clawson
Enmanuel Febriel
Dane Hurst
Michael Neale
Taylor Sorensen

April 28, 2014

28/04/2014
CEE 4880, Civil Engineering Design III
Submission Sheet
Valley View Dog Park and Emergency Preparedness Site
Final Report
Submitted to:
Family Name, First Name,
Credential (PE, EIT, etc.),

Mentor
(External
Professional
Engineer, PE)
Other
external
advisor or
client
Other
external
advisor or
client
Faculty
Advisor

Hand Signature
and Date

Detailed
Evaluation
Score

Simple
Evaluation:
poor (1) to
excellent
(10)

Young, Bill, PE
(Logan City)

Optional

Draney, Cameron, EIT

(Logan City)

Optional

Optional

Black, Jay, PhD

(Dog Park Committee Chair)

Optional

Optional

Urroz, Gilberto, PhD, PE

By: Oliver & Company

23

4 5
45

4 5
4 5

23
23
23

23
23

III 1
1
1

1
1

4 5
4 5

4 5
4 5
4 5

Denominator =

23
23

1
1

Report is organized and cohesive. Methods & tasks are explained in appropriate chronological or sequential order.
Provides necessary and purposeful graphic/visual content with proper labels, supporting information, and textual
references. Figures and Tables are referred to within the text prior to appearing in the document.
Project is being or was accomplished well and team shows (ed) ability to manage time. (ABET outcome f)
Score =
Weight =
1
[Section III] Salient ABET Evaluation Criteria
Project has a clear engineering design objective. (ABET outcome c)
Structural drawings are well done and easily readable.( ABET outcome k)
Calculations appear correct and are supported by spreadsheets and user-prepared programs on a CD placed after the
Appendix.( ABET outcomes a and b)
Team provides list of engineering tools that show techniques and skills used (ABET outcome k)
Project design (plan) effectively meets desired objective(s). (ABET outcome e)
i

Evaluator name ___________________________________Signature_____________________________Date__________

Section Poor Avg
Exc NA [Sections I and II] General Criteria
Adheres to cee4880FINALProjectReportFormat&InstructionsVs6.pdf & ...ReportSubmissionChecklistVs6.pdf
I1 2 3 4 5
1 23 4 5
Report has required parts & others needed by team. (A below criterion requires putting prepared spreadsheets and
programs on CD in Appendix. In the report body, mention where they are.)
1 23 4 5
Follows required format. Easily readable. Data, calculations, and notes appear typed.
Denominator = 15
Score =
Weight =
1
Executive Summary begins with most important information by clearly stating project objective and results
II 1 2 3 4 5
1 23 4 5
Executive Summary gives important background information (client goals, problem statement, supporting details)
1 23 4 5
Executive Summary includes methods, design, and post construction recommendations
1 23 4 5
Report language use is controlled, active voice, free from grammar, spelling, punctuation, paragraph, structure, &
reasoning errors. Abbreviations are explained at 1st use. Personal voice is used only if necessary.(ABET outcm. g)
1 23 4 5
Alternatives, decisions & logic are clearly explained & reasonable.
1 23 4 5
Report Information is presented in a logical order with most important information at the beginning of each section,
and structure allows smooth transitions between sections of text, contributing to understanding of presented material.

CEE 4880 Civil Engineering Design Final Report Evaluation Form, Sections I-III
Team: Oliver and Company (Evaluator should circle each criterion score and sum by section.)

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
Denominator = 25

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

30

4 5

?
?
?
?
?

100%

15
45
30
25
115
(earned/possible)

I
II
III
IV
Totals
Report Proportional
Score =
Report Percentage
Score =

Section Points
Possible

Section Number

Section
Points
Earned

100%



Section Points Possible

Section Points
Section Weight Earned
Section Weight



Section
Weight

To compute Report Score if all Weights are not equal to 1

CEE 4880 Civil Engineering Design Final Report Grade Form

ii

[Section IV] Constraints Criteria Teams must address at least 5 constraints (Health & Safety and Constructability,
and at least three of those showing ?).
Addresses constraints with sensitivity and accuracy
Economic constraints are properly considered.
Environmental constraints are properly considered.
Social constraints are properly considered.
Political constraints are properly considered.
Ethical constraints are properly considered.
Health and safety constraints are properly considered.
Constructability constraints are properly considered.
Sustainability constraints are properly considered.
Score =
Weight =
1

CEE 4880 Civil Engineering Design Final Report Evaluation Form, Section IV

Project is multidisciplinary (clearly identified different disciplines, CEE specialties, or individual roles) (ABET
outcome d)
Score =
Weight =
1

To Compute Report Score if all Section Weights = 1

IV

23

Denominator =

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

+++

Denominator =

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Avg

Poor

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

Exc NA

iii

(a) Reported Above: Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering principles to CE problems
(b) Reported Above: Ability to design and conduct experiments, and to analyze and interpret data
(c) Reported Above Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired goals in CE applications.
(d) Reported Above: Ability to function on multidisciplinary teams(different disciplines,CEE specialties,individual roles)
(e) Reported Above: Ability to identify, formulate, solve engineering problems.
(f) Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility. (ethics, law, regulations, duty to client, team, profession, self)
(g) Reported Above: Ability to communicate effectively
(k) Reported Above: Ability to use techniques, skills, & modern engineering tools needed for engineering practice.
Score =
Weight =
1
Section (Score/Denominator) =

ABET Outcomes
How well does project demonstrate ABET outcomes:

Evaluator name ___________________________________Hand Signature________________________________Date__________

Team____________________

CEE 4880 Senior Design Final Report ABET Outcome Evaluation Form, Spring 2014.
NOTE: Below form, to be completed by team faculty adviser, does not affect Team Grade.
It is used solely for ABET process.

Mentor Contact Information

Role
(External PE,
client,
Faculty
Advisor, etc.)

External PE

Family Name, First Name,

Credential (PE, EIT, PhD, etc.),
Position, Organization
Young, Bill, PE

Address
Phone number(s)
Email
290 N. 100 W., Logan, UT, 84321
435-716-9160
bill.young@loganutah.org

External
Advisor

Draney, Cameron, EIT

290 N. 100 W., Logan, UT, 84321

435-716-9162
cameron.draney@loganutah.org

Client

Black, Jay, PhD

2370 W. 200 N., Logan, UT, 84321

465-757-8420
black.jay2@gmail.com

Faculty
Advisor

Urroz, Gilberto, PhD, PE

4110 Old Main Hill, USU, Logan, UT, 84322

435-797-3379
gilberto.urroz@usu.edu

iv

Team Member Roles

Table, listing each team function in alphabetical order, and the team member fulfilling it
(an individual can be listed more than once). Function and specialties can include
discipline, CEE specialty, and function such as team leader, scheduler, records keeper,
among many others. This is used to demonstrate multidisciplinary nature of project.
Function or specialty on team

Last name

First name

Parking Lot, Site Drainage

Clawson

Brad

Structures-Pavilion and Emergency Febriel

Storage

Enmanuel

Site Plan, Structures

Hurst

Dane

Site Plan, Irrigation

Neale

Michael

Team Lead, Structures-Restroom, Sorensen

Site Plan

Taylor

TOTAL HOURS WORKED

Last
Name
Clawson

First
Name
Brad

Febriel

Enmanuel

Hurst

Dane

Neale

Michael

Sorensen

Taylor

Role(s) on Team
Parking Lot
Site Drainage
Pavilion Design
Em. Storage Des.
Site Plan
Structural Des.
Irrigation
Site Plan
Team Lead
Site Plan
Restroom Design

Total Hrs
Worked
84.5

Signature

93.5
102.0
95.0
145.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It has been decided that a Dog Park and Emergency Preparedness site are needed to
improve the life of dog owners and their loyal companions in Cache Valley. The dog park will be
located on a five acre plot adjacent to the Cache Humane Societys main office on 2370 W 200
N, with plans to eventually expand the park to a final size of 10 acres. The scope of this project
includes the design of the site plan, two buildings (public restroom facilities and a combined
pavilion/emergency preparedness facility), irrigation and drainage, and the parking lot. The
designs herein will benefit many citizens and dogs across Cache County by developing a location
where people may recreate freely with their pets, as well as an Emergency Preparedness
location for animals and pets in cases of emergency within the community. This project is of
high importance and will greatly enrich the community.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Final Report Evaluation Form ................................................................................................... i

Mentor Contact Information .................................................................................................... iv
Team Member Roles ................................................................................................................. v
TOTAL HOURS WORKED ......................................................................................................... v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... vi
FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... ix
TABLES .................................................................................................................................... ix
ENGINEERING TOOLS............................................................................................................. ix
CD FILE DIRECTORY ................................................................................................................ x
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement and Background .................................................................................. 1
Project Description............................................................................................................... 2
METHODS/EXPLANATION....................................................................................................... 3
DESIGNS................................................................................................................................... 4
Site Plan ................................................................................................................................ 4
Structures ............................................................................................................................. 5
Pavilion and Emergency Preparedness Site ....................................................................... 7
Restrooms .......................................................................................................................... 9
Structures Foundations ......................................................................................................11
Parking Lot and Site Drainage ............................................................................................11
Irrigation...............................................................................................................................14
Sprinkler Head Selection and Placement ...........................................................................15
Hydro-zones and Valves ....................................................................................................15
Pipes..................................................................................................................................15
Pump House ......................................................................................................................16
CONSTRAINTS ........................................................................................................................17
Economical ..........................................................................................................................18
Political ................................................................................................................................18
Health and Safety ................................................................................................................19
Constructability ...................................................................................................................21
Environmental .....................................................................................................................21
vii

BUDGET...................................................................................................................................22
SCHEDULE ..............................................................................................................................23
CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................24
REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................24
APPENDIX A- Detailed Calculations
APPENDIX B- Data
APPENDIX C- Miscellaneous Figures
APPENDIX D- Photos
APPENDIX E- Gantt Charts
APPENDIX F- Meeting Minutes
APPENDIX G- Work Logs

viii

FIGURES
Figure 1. Design Process .......................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Pump Curve for Rain-Bird LC3000 ............................................................................17

TABLES
Table 1. Pavilion Service Loads ................................................................................................. 8
Table 2. Parking Lot Dimensions..............................................................................................12
Table 3. Material Quantities .....................................................................................................12

ENGINEERING TOOLS
Software Name
AutoCAD
AutoCAD Civil 3D
Revit
RISA-2D
Excel
Land F/X
Surveying Equipment

Version
Educational 2014
Educational 2014
2013
Educational
2010
2013
From USU

Manufacturer
Autodesk
Autodesk
Autodesk
RISA Technologies
Microsoft
Land F/X
Topcon

ix

CD FILE DIRECTORY
File Directory (Folder Names Bolded)

File Type

Photos

Description
Photos of current site

Project Management
x

Comprehensive Gantt Chart

PDF

Oliver & Co. Gantt chart

Cost Estimates

Excel

Material cost estimates

Meeting Minutes

PDF

Oliver & Co. meeting minutes

Total Hours_Brad

PDF

Individual time card

Total Hours_Dane

PDF

Individual time card

Total Hours_Manny

PDF

Individual time card

Total Hours_Michael

PDF

Individual time card

Total Hours_Taylor

PDF

Individual time card

Aerial Images

ZIP

Contains background images

Irrigation

Site Plan

GroundWaterContours(May 97)

Picture

Last known groundwater contours

Irrigation_Drainage Plan

PDF

Irrigation and drainage systems plan

LC3000

PDF

Pump technical info

LCseries-PumpCurves

PDF

Pump technical info

Pump Curve

Picture

Pump technical info

PVC 200 Table

Picture

Pipe technical info

Storm water
x

noaa_atlas_logan

Pictrue

Location map

noaa_precip_freq_logan

Picture

Storm frequency prediction table

VVDP Storm Water Calculations

PDF

Storm water calculations

VVDP Storm Water Calculations

Excel

Storm water calculations

Excel

Raw data from topographic survey

Topography
x

Field Data

PENZD

Word

Space delineated raw data

Topo Map

AutoCap

Existing (10/13) topography

VVDP Contour

Civil3D

Contour Design

Site Plan

PDF

Presentation site plan

Soil_Path Detail

PDF

Soil and sidewalk detail

VVDP

Civil3D

Final CAD File for Site

Structures
x

Calculations
x

EPB Foundation Calculations

PDF

EPB Load Calculations

PDF

Pavilion Foundation Calculations

PDF

Pavilion Load Calculations

PDF

Pavilion&Storage Design

Excel

Calculations for earthquake and wind

Pavilion Wind

PDF

sdfsdf

Pavilion Wind

Smath

Restroom Axial and Bending Calculations

PDF

Restroom Foundation Calculations

PDF

Restroom Load Calculations

PDF

Restroom Shear Calculations

PDF

Restroom Structural Designs

Excel

Truss1

RISA-2D

Structural analysis of pavilion trusses

Pavilion

PDF

Pavilion and storage construction

Pavilion

Revit

CAD file

Restrooms

PDF

Restroom construction drawings

Restrooms

Revit

CAD file

Final Presentation

Power

Presentation file

Final Report

PDF

Digital version of report

xi

INTRODUCTION

Problem Statement and Background

Cache Valley is home to over 125,000 residents and an estimated 20,000 pet dogs.
Logan City maintains a park system of over 340 acres and 22 miles of public trails (Logan City
website). In all this space, only two parks allow dogs off-leash, and none were designed with
the express purpose of serving dogs and their owners. There are three trail areas which allow
dogs on-leash, but dogs are otherwise not permitted anywhere else in Logans parks system.
Clearly, there is a need for additional recreational space to cater to the needs of these animals
and their owners.

The need for this facility goes beyond simply providing additional recreational space.
Cache Valley is prone to several types of natural disasters, especially fires and earthquakes. In
such events, it is common for people to expose themselves to severe danger in order to care for
their animals. If and when a large-scale crisis presents itself in the Valley, there is currently no
designated facility for people to leave their large and small animals in good care so that the
people can evacuate to safer territory. While the recreational aspects of this park will be
significant the real value will be realized when it becomes a central haven for animals during a
disaster and a resource to allow their owners seek refuge outside the disaster zone.

Project Description

Cache Humane Society has proposed a facility be developed to answer the need for an
off-leash dog park and emergency management center for animals. Land has been set aside for
this purpose behind the Humane Society on Valley View Highway. Five acres are currently
under initial development, with the possibility of five additional acres in the future.

The park will feature separate large and small dog areas. These areas will be fenced in
with double-gated systems for safety of people and various sized dogs. The site will be graded
to be both aesthetically pleasing for people, as well as provide play features for dogs. The area
will be planted with grass and trees, as the project budget permits. A parking lot for the park
will be designed for 70 vehicles and will meet criteria to accommodate large emergency
vehicles.

A dog wash station will be provided in addition to a restroom facility for people. A
pavilion designed for 50 people will provide space for picnicking and other gatherings. Adjacent
to the pavilion will be 1500 square feet of storage space for emergency supplies. A portion of
this space will be set aside for HAM radio operations. The open areas of the park will provide
ample space to keep the animals during an emergency and the fencing can double as hitching
posts, as necessary.

METHODS/EXPLANATION

The figure below outlines the process used to produce design solutions to the above
mentioned problems. After a problem was identified, necessary data was collected. With data
in hand, a design was formulated and a solution proposed. The solution was then tested against
known project constraints. After that test, the solution was evaluated for its strengths and
weaknesses. If all constraints were optimally satisfied, it could be implemented as a possible
option. If not, the problems were identified and the cycle repeated.

Figure 1. Design Process

The following subsections outline the way this process was used for each specific design
element of this project.

DESIGNS

Site Plan

As with many civil engineering projects, the site plan was of critical importance to most
aspects of the project. To ensure ease in construction and in access during and after
completion, the dog park needed to be laid out in an orderly fashion. With required facilities
that included restrooms, a pavilion and emergency preparedness facility, areas for large and
small dogs to run, and adequate parking to accommodate large crowds of people; organization
was paramount. The plan was created to meet the needs of prospective visitors. A visitor would
first arrive in a vehicle and need to park. To fulfill this need, a parking lot was designed to
accommodate over 70 vehicles. To allow easy access to buildings from all parts of the park, the
structures were placed at the south end of the parking lot.

Besides the space set aside for facilities, the property was then divided into two areas,
one for small dogs and the other for large dogs. Walking paths circle these separate areas to
allow pedestrians to simply walk around and observe others if they so desire, or for emergency
personnel to find easy access to the park if necessary. The topography is broken up by small
hills and boulders, with the walkway raised to allow people to more easily observe their
surroundings. The topography also provides a more enjoyable terrain for the dogs.

A complete topographic survey was completed in October 2013. The data was then
analyzed and made into a topographic map. With the initial topography set, cuts and fills could
be generated to facilitate the landscaping and construction of the site. Since then, another 2-3
ft of fill has been brought in across the entire site, nullifying the 2013 topographic map. A new
topographical survey will need to be carried out for further development of the plot. Careful
consideration of the existing topography should be given to minimize cuts and fills, both for
features and for drainage purposes.

The final requirement was a dog wash station. To facilitate the design and installation of
plumbing, the dog wash station will be placed on the rear side of the restrooms in the middle of
the park and near the edge of the parking lot. This will allow people to wash down their dogs
near their vehicles, making it more convenient to transport them home.

Structures

The only structure on the plot of land currently is Cache Humane Societys main office,
and it will remain there throughout the design and construction of the site. There will be two
main structures included in the design of the dog park: a combined structure with a pavilion
and an emergency preparedness site, and public restrooms. The designs were created in
accordance with the International Building Code (IBC) and all materials, manufacture, and
quality control in accordance with the American National Standard Institute (ANSI). The main

focus of the design of both structures is to optimize the combination of aesthetics with
economy.

Loads

To begin the design of the structure, the loads were calculated. Many of the loads were
determined by the Logan City and Cache County guidelines and requirements. Because the
structures were designed to be one story, the only dead load to support was their own selfweight. Pre-fabricated trusses were decided upon for the roof with an estimated 45 pounds
(lbs) per truss total weight, and an additional 2.7 pounds per square foot (psf) load for roofing.
These loads contribute to this dead load. The snow load was determined from the Cache Valley
standards to be 37 psf for both structures. Roof live load was not used due to the nature of the
structure and also due to the assumption that snow load generally governs on designs in this
area. For wind load, a wind speed of 90 miles per hour (mph) was used for designs. This site
falls in the category of Exposure C with a topographic factor K zt=1 and exposure adjustment
factor =1.21. The final load determined for the structural designs and analyses were the
seismic load. A geotechnical report was not completed for this site specifically, so assumptions
were made based upon two reports of nearby sites that resemble the soil of this site location
(Pack). The facilities were consequently designed for Seismic Design Category E and both have a
Risk Category of II. Specific loads determined for each structure are included in the subsequent
sections below.

Pavilion and Emergency Preparedness Site

The pavilion and emergency preparedness site will have a combined roof but for
simplicity of design, these were analyzed as two separate structures. When determining the
roof systems, extra trusses were placed on center for reinforcement of the overlapping sides.

In order to determine the loads for the pavilion, its use and occupancy classification as
well as its construction type were defined. According to the International Building Code (IBC),
the pavilion structure intended for community and recreational activities fell under the
commercial category A-3. IBC also defined its construction type to be III-B which states how no
fire-resistant considerations need to be taken for any structural members.

The pavilion will have a column height of 10 ft., an area of 900 sqft. , and a mean roof
height of 12-6. With these dimensions and rigorously corroborating all values by inspection of
standard pavilions in the area (Logan), service loads were determined. There were 4 service
loads considered that act on this pavilion (See Table 1) and the snow load of 37 psf, being the
highest load, called for specific design considerations. A roof pitch of 4/1-0 was designed as
the most efficient system so none of the structural members fail for snow. Shear and lateral
loads were obtained in order to define the wind load and it was determined to be 11 psf (See
Appendix A).

Pavilion Service Loads

DL (psf) SL (psf) EBS (kips) WL (psf)
7
37
1.8
11
Governing Factored Load (psf):
73.1
DL
SL
EBS
WL

Dead Load
Snow Load
Earthquake Base Shear
Wind Load

Table 1. Pavilion Service Loads

The IBC classifies this pavilion as a partly enclosed structure but for earthquake
considerations, the structure was analyzed as an open structure. The load resulting from the
seismic characteristics of the area, described on the previous section, was distributed among 3
steel columns on the E-W bound of the building. Each of these 3 loads act as point loads on the
pre-fabricated trusses set on top of the columns. The total earthquake base shear, before
distribution, was determined to be 1800 lbs (See Appendix A) All relevant service loads were
obtained and the governing factored load, under the Load and Resistance Factor (LRFD)
method, was determined to be 73.1 psf.

The pavilion and emergency preparedness site design was modeled using the Autodesk
Revit building design software and the loads applied to the trusses were analyzed using
structural analysis software RISA-2D Version 12, which is compatible with the IBC 2012.

The emergency preparedness site will be a low-hazard storage facility and its roof
structure will have the same roof pitch as the pavilion. The system chosen will consist of
prefabricated trusses and these will be supported by reinforced masonry walls. Further
8

information about the design of the emergency preparedness site will comply with the same
considerations for the bathroom, which are explained in the following section .

Restrooms

The restroom designs provide a one-story, two-fixture restroom (lavatories and urinal)
and is double occupancy. The full dimensions of the restroom are shown Appendix C but for
analytical purposes, the screen walls were analyzed separately and the dimensions of 14.67 ft
by 24.67 ft were used to simplify the building design. The height of the walls is 8 ft, with a roof
slope of 4 in/ft, and a roof maximum height of 10.44 ft. Using these dimensions and assuming
that the roofing is only supported by the long walls, the dead load attributed from the roof was
calculated to be 25.6 pounds per length foot (plf) along the long walls. The short walls were
designed to only support the masonry used to fill the space along the edge trusses and was
determined to be 149.1 plf. The self-weight of the walls was 244.0 plf.

The load combinations for Allowable Strength Design (ASD) require the use of the larger
value of 0.7 times the earthquake load or the full wind load. This required the design loads to
be found for both. For wind, using the design process mentioned above and the dimensions
given in the preceding paragraph, the design wind pressure was determined to be 32.2 psf
against the short wall and 28.0 psf against the longer wall, which was equivalent to a linearly
distributed load of 4.4 plf along the shorter sides and 5.5 plf along the long sides. The greatest
wind pressure on any given side was distributed across the entire face for design purposes. To

determine seismic design, a total weight was calculated from the dead loads to be 93.8 kips.
Multiplying this value with the Cs=0.1214 which was calculated using ASCE 7-10, it was possible
to obtain a design Earthquake load of 11.4 k. Because 70% of this earthquake value is greater
than either wind load, only the earthquake loading in the load combinations was considered.

Special reinforced masonry walls with 8 normal weight Concrete Masonry Units (CMU)
were selected due to their cheap price and availability, grouted 24 on center with 140 pounds
per cubic foot (pcf) grout. The specified compressive strength (fm) was 1500 psi. With these
assumptions, the shear stress in the masonry (fv) and the allowable shear stress (Fv) were
computed and compared for the long and short walls, and it was verified that the masonry
could handle the shear stress provided from seismic forces.

Next, it was necessary to make a design choice to analyze for shear, axial force, and
moment bending. Axial and bending forces were analyzed according to the Building Code
Requirements and Specification for Masonry Structures. Three main load combinations were
applicable for this situation: namely D+S, D+0.7E, and D+0.75(0.7E)+0.75S. For both the long
and short walls, the load combination D+0.7E governed but proved #3 rebar reinforcement 24
on center to be adequate.

10

Structures Foundations

Foundations were designed based on ultimate bearing capacity, under the assumption
that the soil was very similar to the boring hole results from the 1700 South Reconstruction
Geotechnical reports. Phi was not given in the report, so was assumed to be a conservative
value of 27, which is the minimum value for silts according to Figure 183-2 in Fundamentals of
Geotechnical Analysis by Irving S. Dunn, Loren R. Anderson, and Fred W. Kiefer. A footing width
of 18 was tried with both lengths of 24.67 ft and 14.67 ft. Cohesion was assumed to be 80 pcf
above and below the footing, with cohesion at 750 psf. These values were chosen from the first
boring log because it most resembled the site being analyzed, and the characteristics of the
second layer were selected for design because they were much more conservative, being a
softer layer. The depth (D) selected was 36 deep according to the Cache Valley standard for
frost protection, but shallow enough that the distributed load would not reach the softer clay
layer beneath. Assuming no eccentricity and a Factor of Safety of 3, the net allowable bearing
capacity was equal to 226740 lbs, which was much less than the load placed on it by the
building even including snow load. Therefore, 18 width strip foundations placed beneath the
outer walls of the restrooms will be more than sufficient to support the restroom facilities.

Parking Lot and Site Drainage

Cache Humane Society intends on using the park for large events, creating a need for a
large parking lot. As an emergency preparedness site, high traffic situations may also occur in

11

the case of local evacuations. The parking lot was designed for events with a capacity of 200
people. The number of stalls will be 73, with one van accessible parking space with a minimum
96 inch wide access aisle and two spaces with minimum 60 inch wide access aisle (ADA
Standards for Accessible Design 4.1.2 (5)). The number of stalls is roughly 35% of the max
capacity .

For large vehicle accessibility, interior corners have a ten foot radius with 25 feet given
at the entrance. Other parking lot dimensions are as follows, in accordance with the Handbook
of Landscape Architectural Construction (Carpenter).

Stall Width

Stall Length

9 feet

Aisle Width

18 feet

Stall Angle (to aisle)

25 feet

90 degrees

Table 2. Parking Lot Dimensions

With the above parameters, the following material quantities for construction were
calculated:

Area Pavement
(square feet)

Asphalt Depth Volume Asphalt

(inches)
(cubic yards)

32886

406

Depth Base
Course (inches)
6

Volume Base Course

(cubic yards)
609

Table 3. Material Quantities

Logan City requires that all developments provide adequate detention space for storm
water runoff within the property. The requirement is based on the 100 year storm event. A
12

detention basin with an outflow discharge rate of 0.2 cubic feet per acre or a retention basin
that provides for the full 100 year storm event is allowed. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides precipitation frequency estimates based on
historical data taken at local sites. Data taken from the Logan Radio KVNU station was used in
this analysis. The rational method to determine runoff from the precipitation data was then
used, following this equation: Q=CiA (Q=discharge, C=runoff coefficient, i=rainfall intensity,
A=drainage area)
Coefficients of 0.15 and 0.90 were used for landscaped and paved areas, respectively.
Total runoff for the 100 year event was 10026 cubic feet. The peak difference between total
runoff volume and allowable runoff volume was 3749 cubic feet. (See Appendix B)

Avoiding the construction of a drainage basin was determined as a third alternative.

The neighboring parcel to the east, owned by Logan City and currently undeveloped, could
serve as the retention area for the park. The added fill in the park gives it elevation above the
neighboring parcel, allowing for drainage. This method was ultimately chosen because of its
cost effectiveness. Clean out boxes will be placed in the corners of the lot with 12 inch
diameter High Density Polyethylene (HPDE) piping running to an outflow east of the lot. The
pipe diameter was chosen based on the drainage area and a 2% slope. (See Appendix C)

13

Irrigation

The park will provide four acres of green landscape for dogs and their owners to explore.
An irrigation system will be necessary to provide even moisture to the area and maintain grass,
trees and shrubs healthy in hot summer months. The system was designed to provide full
coverage to the parks four acres of green landscape while maximizing water efficiency and
minimizing costs.

Our irrigation design consisted of a layout schema, system functionality and parts list.
The design was produced using Land F/X, an irrigation and landscape design program that
works within AutoCad Civil 3D. The irrigation layout was designed to fit the master layout plan
for the park. Logan City has retained water rights for the site. A well and pump within the
grounds will supply groundwater to the irrigation system.

Logan City has retained water rights for the site. A well and pump within the grounds
will supply groundwater to the irrigation system. In brief, the pump will feed a continuously
pressurized mainline pipe that runs across the park and connects to zone control valves that
control flow to sets of heads or hydro-zones. This way the pump will only be required to
provide flow for one hydro-zone at a time. Sprinkler component specifics are included in the
component list section. (See Appendix C, Irrigation Layout Detail)

14

Sprinkler Head Selection and Placement

First, the type of sprinkler heads and placement formation to cover the entire park area
most efficiently was determined. The fields are irrigated with pop-up rotors (30-32 ft spray
radii) placed in a triangular, equidistant pattern. The head placement is head-to-head where
the spray radius reaches the next head. Triangular formation and 50% of diameter spacing is
recommended by the Rain-Bird Landscape Irrigation Design Manual to ensure proper coverage
(Landscape Irrigation Design Manual, 43). Pop-up spray heads cover smaller areas between
structures, fences and sidewalks (See Appendix C, Irrigation Layout Detail)

Hydro-zones and Valves

The mainline pipe connects to ten separate hydro-zones. Flow to each zone is
controlled by an electronic valve at their entrance. The rotary zones contain 7 or 8 heads with
each rotor emitting 5 gallons per minute (GPM) at 35 psi. The highest demanding zone required
40 GPM, which is the minimum flow needed from the pump. The turf spray heads were
included in one hydro zone needing only two gallons per minute in total.

Pipes

The mainline pipe is 2 in. diameter PVC Class 200 and the lateral pipes range from -1
PVC Class 200. An important design constraint was to limit the flow velocity to 5 ft/s in the

15

pipes. This is a standard maximum velocity to avoid surge pressure damage and increased
friction loss. Correct pipe diameter was checked using the PVC Class 200 Pipe selection table
(See Appendix C) for the expected average flow rate of 40 GPM. Considering that the 40 GPM
flow rate through our system and the most amount of pipe used at one time, the table
indicated pressure head loss due to friction of about 11 psi. The rotor heads required at least 35
psi of pressure meaning the pump must account for the pressure loss and provide at least 46
psi.

Pump House

Groundwater coming from the pump was designed to continue on to a backflow

preventer, flow sensor and master valve placed together in a pump house. The three
horsepower pump station chosen can supply the system with enough flow and pressure to
overcome friction loss in the system. Noting the pump curve, a average flow rate and pressure
for this system to serve one of the similar hydro-zones would be 50 GPM and 58 psi (See Figure
2).

16

Figure 2. Pump Curve for Rain-Bird LC3000

CONSTRAINTS

Inherent in every engineering project are multiple constraints which disallow the
perfect project". This project had a number of such considerations which must be made in
order for its successful completion. The constraints discussed here should not necessarily be
viewed as problems, but limitations that could become problematic if not carefully addressed
and planned for in advance. Of particular importance are economical, political, health & safety,
constructability, and environmental constraints. Many of these constraints are different
manifestations of the same root issues (namely the inherent nature of community-based nonprofit projects) and are thus closely related.

17

Economical
Because CHS is a non-profit organization, economical constraints are among the
greatest limitations for this project. The society relies upon grants and donations for its funding
for projects of expansion and up-keep. One of the most significant grants is the RAPZ
(Recreation, Arts, Parks, and Zoos) grant that comes from Cache County. The grant is funded by
a local tax which helps to fund organizations that culturally enrich the community. CHS has
been a beneficiary of the RAPZ tax over the past couple of years, and hopes to continue to
receive support from it in the future. Aside from cash grants and material donations, the society
also relies heavily upon time donations of volunteers and citizens.

To address these economic constraints, the engineering designs were purposefully

simple. For instance, the buildings were designed (within reason) to be easily constructed by
non-contractor volunteers. The final design of the pavilion is much smaller than the original, in
order to save on costs. Additionally, the park can be constructed in small phases, as funding and
volunteer hours allow. Materials were chosen to be durable for a park environment, but
economically friendly for a limited budget. See Appendix A for total cost estimates.

Political

Closely tied to the economical constraints are several political constraints, as much of
the funding comes from public sources. The success of the project will continue to depend

18

heavily on the humane societys close partnership with Logan City. Inherent in this partnership
is the political maneuvering that accompanies public office.

For instance, Logan City leased the current five acres of land to the Society for the
development of this park. Upon substantial progress, an additional five adjacent acres will be
leased by the city for continued development of the park. The city engineering staff has
committed to assist in a critical way in the design and construction of the park. The city has
promised the donation of construction materials, such as earth fill. When the park is
completed, it will become part of Logans parks system and will be maintained by the city.
However, this was all promised under the leadership of a previous mayor. While the new
administration has not significantly altered this agreement, the current sum total of the citys
long-term commitment to the project is still unknown.

Health and Safety

All park development projects must be done with controls in place to protect the health
and safety of the general public who use them. However, this park will also serve as an
emergency preparedness site, requiring even greater consideration of health and safety
parameters. Supposing this purpose can be achieved, special funding sources will be made
possible. With this in mind, planning considerations for this park require emergency vehicle
access and special considerations for animals.

19

The emergency vehicle access requirement will directly affect the design of the parking
lot. Heavy vehicles, for example, require thicker pavement and subgrade layers. For the vehicles
to access the park, there will also need to be space provided to allow for a large vehicle turning
radius and room for operation.

For fire control, Logan City requires that hydrants be built according to APWA
Specifications Section 33 12 19. However, the design of this and other utility connections is
outside the scope of this report.

To assist with citizen compliance of Title 6 of the Logan Municipal Code for animal waste
removal, waste receptacles will be placed in convenient locations. For the safety of persons and
animals visiting the park, a gated vestibule system will be installed. To enter and exit the leashfree zone, guests will pass through two gates, preventing loose dogs from leaving the vicinity.

A portion of the storage building will be reserved for HAM radio operations during a
disaster event.

Since the construction of the park will likely be completed in a piecewise fashion, it is
likely that portions of the park will be in use as others are under construction. So, it will be
necessary to take appropriate extra measures to protect the safety of park users during these
times.

20

Constructability

The Cache Humane Society is perpetually dependent on forthcoming (and often

uncertain) funding, donations, and grants for its operations, and the completion of this project
is no exception. Consequently, constructability constraints are of high importance and will limit
the design to adaptable former constructions that have achieved efficient and effective results.
As noted previously, the designs were completed to accommodate likely construction by nonprofessionals. Professional help will be needed for certain aspects of the project, such as
earthwork and paving; but it is expected that even much of this work will be completed on a
goodwill basis.

Furthermore, the project plan will be of a continuous project improvement process as

designs are completed and funding becomes available. It is recommended that earthwork be
completed first, followed by the parking area, irrigation, basic landscaping, pavilion/storage
building, restrooms and then additional landscaping, each completed as resources permit.

Environmental

The park is designed to minimize impacts on the surrounding area, much of which is
wetland. Once completed, proper park upkeep practices can ensure that runoff from the site
does not contain excess chemicals that could impact surrounding wetlands. A system for dog

21

owners to clean up after their pets will be necessary and excess fertilization of the grass must
be avoided.

The current design allows for storm runoff to be discharged to a neighboring field. It is
hoped that this field (5 acres) will eventually be developed as an expansion to the park. Should
that be the case, a more sophisticated storm water system would need to be implemented. A
detention basin will be recommended at that point, as a retention pond would pose a risk to
the park users. The current parking lot design is sufficient to serve the full 10-acre park, so the
impervious area will not significantly increase with the park expansion.

The high water table at this location in the middle of the valley also poses
environmental concern. The restroom will need to be on a septic system, so careful
consideration must be taken for this aspect of the project. The fill which has been brought in to
raise the grade of the park is significant in minimizing effects of the water table on drainage and
foundation systems in the park.

BUDGET

As a non-profit organization, Cache Humane Society relies upon donations from

community members as well as grants for all its operations. Initially, J-U-B Engineering was
contracted to develop a basic plan for the dog park and to create some cost estimates for the
entire project. The total project cost estimated by J-U-B was over $1.5 million dollars. For a

22

non-profit organization, that is a particularly high cost and far exceeds the typical annual
donations made. For this reason, expenditures must be minimized. The first phase of the J-U-B
plan consisted of laying fill material for building foundations, the parking lot, and berms. The
estimated cost of this fill was over $140,000. This cost was minimized however when Whitaker
Construction donated over 10,000 cubic yards of fill from the 10th west expansion,
considerably reducing the amount of additional fill needed. Additional donation of fill and
grading work by Logan City has significantly reduced projected costs.

Oliver & Company completed a cost analysis for the designs detailed in this report.
Understanding the nature of the Humane Society and of the work completed on the site thus
far, it is assumed that much of the labor for the remainder of construction will need to be
donated. For this reason, only material costs are included in the total cost breakdown (See
Appendix A).

SCHEDULE

A work schedule was created and followed throughout the design process using a series
of Gantt Charts. See Appendix E for Gantt Charts.

23

CONCLUSION

Oliver & Company enjoyed completing engineering designs for the Valley View Dog Park
and looks forward to watching the plans put into action. The goal of Oliver & Company was to
provide a detailed layout along with comprehensive engineering designs of the site plan, public
restroom facilities and pavilion, irrigation system, drainage plan, and the parking lot. The final
designs provide a basis for construction to commence and further development in the future.
Once completed, the park will be a great benefit to Cache Valley.

REFERENCES

APWA Manual of Standard Specifications. Logan: Utah LTAP Center, 2007. Print.
"Building Code Information." Official Site of Cache County, Utah. N.p., n.d. Web. .
<https://www.cachecounty.org/building/building-inspectors.html>.
Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures. Boulder: The Masonry Standards Joint
Committee, 2011. Print.
Carpenter, Jot D.. Handbook of Landscape Architectural Construction. McLean: Landscape
Architecture Foundation, 1976. Print.
Das, Braja M. Principles of Foundation Engineering. 7th. Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2011.
Print.
"Design and Construction Manual." Logan City Council. Logan City Council, n.d. Web.
<http://www.logan.qld.gov.au/planning-and-building/planning/current-planningschemes/beaudesert-planning-schemes/design-and-construction-manual>.
24

Dunn, Irving S., Loren R. Anderson, and Fred W. Kiefer.Fundamentals of Geotechnical Analysis.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1980. Print.
"Landscape Irrigation Design Manual." Rain Bird. Rain Bird, n.d. Web. 04 Apr 2014.
<http://www.rainbird.com/documents/turf/IrrigationDesignManual.pdf>.
Leet, Kenneth M., Chia-Ming Uang, and Anne M. Gilbert. Fundamentals of Structural Analysis.
4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2011. Print.
Mays, Larry W.. Ground and Surface Water Hydrology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012.
Print.
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Reston: American Society of Civil
Engineers, 2010. Print.
Pack, Phillip. "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation: Proposed 1700 South Reconstruction."
CMT Engineering Laboratories, 29 JULY 2013.
Pack, Phillip. "Logan City 1800 North 1200 West- Geotechnical Investigation and Pavement
Design" CMT Engineering Laboratories, 08 MARCH 2013.
Stryker, Jess. "Irrigation Tutorials." Irrigation Tutorials. Jess Stryker, n.d. Web. .
<http://www.irrigationtutorials.com/>.
"U.S. Seismic Design Maps." Earthquake Hazards Program. U.S. Geological Survey, 10 MARCH
2014. Web. 05 Apr 2014. <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php>.

25