Anchorage Remembrance Park

1
Anchorage Remembrance Park

• A UAA Civil Engineering Senior Project
• Created for
• The Remembrance Foundation
• Read reports at http//soe.uaa.alaska.edu/soe/co
  urses/ce438/

2
CE 438 Design of Civil Engineering Systems

• This course is designed to help the students
  transition from academia to real world practice.
• The course is used to
• Provide the students with a life-like engineering
  design experience involving the interaction with
  external clients.
• Introduce the students to design office
  procedures including
• The development of reports, plans,
  specifications, cost estimates, etc.
• Performance evaluation.
• Provide the students with a multi-disciplinary
  design experience

3
Course Organization

• The course is organized much as a consulting
  engineers office.
• Principal Engineer
• Lead Engineers
• One for each of the subgroups
• Staff Engineers

4
Project Background

• The Remembrance Foundation approached the Mayor,
  who in turn approached the University
• The project was attractive because
• It is a multi-disciplinary civil engineering
  project
• It is a large enough project to engage the entire
  senior class
• It was in a phase where some preliminary design
  might be useful to the public discussion
• The project also involves the Slope Stability
  Class
• This group analyzed the seismic risk to the site

5
Project Objective

• The objective was to
• Assist the foundation in refining their vision
  for the project layout
• Identify all the technical and permitting issues
  relevant to the project
• Determine a rough order of magnitude cost
  associated with the infrastructure development of
  the project

6
What We Are Not Doing

• Several important items are not within the
  scope of work for this project.
• We did not design the artifact displays
• We did not design the landscaping
• We did not design the proposed learning center
  building

7
Project Timeline

• The project began before the start of the
  semester with the development of a site survey
  and gathering of site data
• Phase I 3 Weeks
• Developed four alternatives for general park
  layout
• The Remembrance Foundation reviewed The report
  and worked with us to identify alternatives for
  more detailed design
• Phase II 11 Weeks
• More detailed design of two alternatives

8
Project Overview
General Location
Learning Center
Trail System
Artifact Displays
Band Stand
9
General Criteria

• Accessibility
• Must meet ADA Requirements
• Trails designed for minimum slope
• Seismic Safety
• Special attention to seismic risk
• Environmentally Friendly
• The site development is not to cause
  environmental problems

10
Phase II Organization

• Alternative A
• Tasked with designing a shorter path
• Alternative B
• Tasked with designing a longer path
• Pod Design
• Tasked with identifying available space for
  artifact displays and designing representative
  pods
• Band Stand
• Tasked with designing two alternative bandstands
• Environmental, Safety, and Permitting
• Tasked with identifying the environmental, safety
  and permitting requirements for the project
• Cost Estimating Specifications
• Tasked with identifying the ROM Costs and the
  Specifications

11
Topographic Survey
12
Slope Stability of the buttress park

• Steven halcomb
• Ruel Binonwangan
• Gang Xu

13
Procedure

• Soil properties
• Geometry of slope
• Pseudo-static coefficient accounting for seismic
  load
• Performed analysis with Slope/W
• Found factors of safety for static and dynamic
  (earthquake) cases

14
The buttress
15
Results

• Block (or Translational) sliding, not circular,
  is the mode of failure

16
Results contd

• Factor of Safety
• Static 1.50
• Dynamic 1.23
• Both greater than 1.0 which indicates the slope
  is stable in its current state and will be stable
  in a design level earthquake

17
Alternative A Pathway

• Haley Runa
• Ramadan Greva
• Jamie Suttie
• Anthony Yamat
• David Freese
• Steve McGee
• James Smith

18
Pathway Layout
FILLED ALIGNMENT
LANDING
19
3D View
20
Typical Pathway Profile
21
Bridge Crossing
22
Filled Alignment Crossing
23
Alternative B

• Mitch Mork
• Charles Balzarini
• Mat Mollenkopf
• Steven Halcomb
• Ryan Redick
• Binh Nguyen
• Mila Umanskaya

24
Path Layout
25
3D View
26
Bridge Crossing
27
Path Section
28
Conclusion

• Constraints

• Design

• Continuous timeline Flow
• No back tracking
• ADA accessible
• Minimize soil cuts
• Keep existing slope
• Winter friendly

• Continuous loop
• Starts and Ends at visitor center
• Less than 5 grade
• 820 ft path widths
• Small or no net cut
• No slope changes
• Heated path

29
Pod Design

• Olga Federova
• Elijah Keib
• Mike Mott
• Jesse Putman

30
Layout
31
Alternatives
32
Sample Pod
33
Utilities

• Jamie Suttie
• Mila Umanskaya

34
Water

• AWWU
• Length 45 ft.

35
Waste Water

• AWWU
• Length 155 ft.

36
Gas

• Enstar
• Length 650 ft.

37
Electric

• MLP

38
Fencing

• An 8 tall fence will surround the 2277 ft
  perimeter of the property.

39
Site Lighting

• Kaity Longden

40
Lighting

• Chosen to match existing downtown Historic
  District lighting
• Park lighting complies with Municipal design
  standards including Title 21, MASS, and MOA
  Design Criteria Manual- Chapter 5
• Specifications and calculations for the fixtures
  are found in Appendix J. of the report- Site
  Lighting Plan

41
Band Stand

• Matt Dougherty
• Jessica Armstrong
• David Hardy
• Robert Limstrom

42
Band Stand Criteria

• Capacity to support high school bands
• A structure made from timber
• A structure made from steel
• Partially enclosed to provide better acoustics

43
Specifications

• Traditional Gazebo Style
• 30 ft x 20 ft
• Floor Area
• 500 sq. ft.
• 100 people at 5 sq. ft. per person
• Stairs at the front

44
Band Stand Rendering
45
Environmental, Safety, and Permitting

• Katie Russell
• Emily Eidam
• Kurt Meehleis
• Wendy Parker

46
ESP Overview

• Site Characteristics
• Ownership
• Alaska State Department of Transportation and
  Public Facilities
• (AK DOTPF)
• Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC)
• Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
• Permits
• American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards
  and Safety Requirements

47
Site Characteristics
Approximate Park Location
Source MOA Advanced Mapper
48
Flood Hazard Zone
Legend 100-year flood limits 500-year flood
limits
Potential Problem Area
Source MOA Advanced Mapper
49
Ownership

• Tract 3 State of Alaska DOTPF
• Tract 5 Alaska Railroad Corp.
• Tract 7 Municipality of Anchorage

50
Ownership

• Three options to resolve ownership conflicts
• Leave as-is and obtain numerous Access
  permissions and agreements
• Re-plat the three tracts into one property
• Draft a legal agreement of understanding for
  long-term use

51
Easements

• AK DOTPF owns a 60 wide ROW around abandoned
  C St., and a 60 wide ROW around these stairs

52
AK DOTPF Right-of-Way
53
AK DOTPF Right-of-Way
54
Alaska Railroad Corp.

• ARRC owns tract 5 the land could be leased

55
Municipality of Anchorage

• MOA owns tract 7
• Compliance with Anchorage Municipal Code with
  respect to development is required and is
  regulated through MOA departments
• MOA is also in charge of enforcing certain
  federal regulations

56
Permitting
57
Utilities

• Encroachment permits are required where the
  project crosses existing utilities

• A private system permit is required to connect to
  the AWWU water and sewer system

58
Storm Water Pollution Prevention
59
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards
and Safety Requirements

• Americans with Disabilities Act requirements must
  be met
• Slope considerations
• Minimum width
• Non-slippery surfaces
• Proper drainage

60
Specifications Cost Estimating Phase II

• Group Members
• Gilliland, John
• Goodell, Christopher
• Jemison, Jennifer
• Longden, Katherine
• Oliveira, Nickolas

61
Project Specifications

• All specifications follow the Municipality of
  Anchorage specifications unless otherwise noted
  under special provisions.
• Items requiring special provisions
• Bridge
• Heated sidewalks
• Lighting

62
Cost Estimating

• Assumptions

• Not Included In Estimate

• Rough Order of Magnitude /- 30
• Examples taken from MOA Average 2007 Bid
  Statistics

• Design Costs
• Landscaping
• Learning Center Structure
• Bandstand foundation

63
Alternative A LayoutEstimated at 1,870,000

• Included in Estimate

64
Alternative B LayoutEstimated at 2,210,000

• Included in Estimate

65
Pod DesignEstimated at 465,000

• Included in Estimate

• Materials List included in Alternatives A B

66
Band Stand DesignEstimated at 28,000

• Included in Estimate

67
Environmental Permitting

• The application
• cost for the
• permits needed is 48,820

68
Total Project Estimations

• Alternative A

• Alternative B

• 2,690,000

• 3,100,000

69
Sample Pod