Wilcox Wakeboarding Park: A Boatless Wakeboarding Experience

Team: Henry Barth, Braden Christensen, Mason Lunt, Aaron Mackliet, Ryan Ranere, and Blake Wilcox

Sponsor: JUB Engineering Inc.

Project Summary

Project Overview: Design of cable wakeboarding pond and clubhouse in Syracuse, Utah. The purpose of this project is to provide additional outdoor recreational space to the growing community and to create a state-of-the-art facility to attract global tourists to stimulate the local economy.

Figure 1. The project site (~37 Acres) is located at 700 S 3000 W, Syracuse, UT.

Figure 1. The project site (~37 Acres) is located at 700 S 3000 W, Syracuse, UT.

Project Scope: Tofu-Dreg Engineering provided designs for the wakeboarding pond, sediment removal process, cable tower design, and park clubhouse design.

Figure 2. Concept Sketch of Park Clubhouse

Figure 2. Concept Sketch of Park Clubhouse

Project Deliverables: Project deliverables included construction drawings, details, and calculations for the pond, cable towers, and clubhouse to the client.

Criteria & Selection Process

Alternative Selection Criteria: Tofu-Dreg Engineering developed several different alternatives for liners and towers and evaluated the alternatives against the weighted criteria below:

Cost (20%)

Constructability (15%)

Durability (30%)

Aesthetics (35%)

Alternatives

Pond Liner Alternatives: The team explored the use of the following different liners in the design process:

  • High-Density Polyethylene
    • Pros: Durable,
    • Cons: Difficult to install
  • Polyvinyl Chloride
    • Pros: Low Cost
    • Cons: Not durable
  • Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer
    • Pros: Easy installation
    • Cons: Semi-high cost
  • Concrete
    • Pros: Durable
    • Cons: Expensive

Tower Alternatives: Tofu-Dreg Engineering explored the use of two different tower geometries in the design process:

  • Steel A-frame
    • Pros: Easy assembly, lower cost
    • Cons: No multi-tower tracks
  • Steel Space Frame
    • Pros: Multi-tower tracks
    • Cons: Difficult assembly
Figure 3. Concept Sketch of Space Frame (Left) and A-frame (Right)

Figure 3. Concept Sketch of Space Frame (Left) and A-frame (Right)

Sediment Removal Alternatives: For this project, the team explored different alternatives for cleaning the water before releasing to the pond.

Figure 4. Hydrodynamic Separator (TRCA)

Figure 4. Hydrodynamic Separator (TRCA)

  • Hydrodynamic Separator
    • Pros: Small
    • Cons: Requires elevation head
  • Sedimentation Pond
    • Pros: Has desired aesthetics
    • Cons: Large construction cost

Selected Alternative

Selected Pond Liner: EPDM Liner

  • Estimated Cost: $5.5 million (Entire Pond Construction)

Selected Alternative: Sedimentation Pond

  • Estimated Cost: $340,000

Selected Tower Geometry: A-Frame

  • Estimated Cost: $500,000

Final Design

Final Pond Design: The final pond design area is 9.2 acres, has an average depth of 8.5 ft, and will require 148,000 yd³ of earth to be excavated. The excavated earth will be stored in the southern part of the project site and sold as topsoil.

Figure 5. Plan View of Pond Design. (Note: Sediment Pond on North East, and Park Clubhouse on South End of Pond)

Figure 5. Plan View of Pond Design. (Note: Sediment Pond on North East, and Park Clubhouse on South End of Pond)

Final Tower Design: The final pond tower design is made of 10 inch square hollow steel sections. A pair of towers is designed to span cables up to 450 feet across the pond. Each tower leg sits on 30” diameter concrete foundations.

Figure 6. Final A-frame Tower Design

Figure 6. Final A-frame Tower Design

Acknoledgements

  • Adam Hess
  • Bryce Wilcox, PE
  • Colin Phillips, PhD
  • Austin Ball, SE
  • Josh Peters
  • JUB Engineers Inc.
  • Our Wives