i

Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................iiHull Design.............................................................................................................................1 Structural Analysis..................................................................................................................2Development & Testing...........................................................................................................3Construction...........................................................................................................5Project Management...............................................................................................................7Sustainability.........................................................................................................8Organizational Chart...............................................................................................................9Project Schedule....................................................................................................................10Design Drawing.....................................................................................................................11

List of Figures Figure 1: Canoe Iteration Waterline Modeled in Orca 3D.......................................................1

Figure 2: Hydrodynamic Analysis ............................................................................................1Figure 3: Pre-Stressing Tendon Placement...............................................................................2Figure 4: Dual Mold Section Used for Injection Testing............................................................3Figure 5: Successful Test Section from Mold Injection............................................................3Figure 6: Spread Test of Final Mix...........................................................................................3Figure 7: Clumped Fibers from Pump Hose...........................................................................4Figure 8: Female Mold Form After CNC...............................................................................5Figure 9: Wood Reinforcing Ribs at 9” Incraments................................................................5Figure 10: Concrete Dobies in PVC Ring...............................................................................6Figure 11: Pump Hose Connection.........................................................................................6Figure 12: Concrete Injection Between Molds.......................................................................6Figure 13: Recruitment Poster On Campus...........................................................................8

List of Tables Table 1: Andromeda Specifi cation Summary..........................................................................iiTable 2: Analysis Recomendations..........................................................................................2Table 3: Admixture Recommended vs. Actual Dosages...........................................................4Table 4: Concrete Recommended vs. Actual Strengths.............................................................4Table 5: Milestone Deviation................................................................................................... 7

List of Appendicies Appendix A - References.....................................................................................................A-1Appendix B - Mixture Proportions......................................................................................B-1Appendix C - B ill of Materials.............................................................................................C-1

Executive Summary W.K. Kellogg, the cereal tycoon, donated almost 400 acres of land that would later become California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (Cal Poly Pomona). Today, the campus covers 1,438 acres and employs over 3,000 faculty members, who facilitate the education of more than 21,000 students, with a “learn-by-doing” philosophy. Cal Poly Pomona promotes this philosophy through the application of hands-on engineering knowledge both in the fi eld and classroom, which has established their concrete canoe team as a major competitor in the Pacifi c Southwest Conference (PSWC). Since 2007, Cal Poly Pomona has alternated between 2nd and 3rd place in the PSWC. From 2005 to 2009, Cal Poly Pomona consistently placed 8th at the National Concrete Canoe Competition (NCCC) during qualifying years.

In 2011, Cal Poly Pomona was the fi rst school to successfully implement a dual mold casting method which involved securing a pre-stressing system and reinforcement in the female mold before pouring the concrete and shaping it to the form with the pressure applied from the male mold. This method was complemented by a signifi cantly improved design paper and presentation. That same year, Cal Poly Pomona placed 4th overall at the NCCC, proving their ability to be competitive at the national level. This year Cal Poly Pomona aims to exceed previous year’s accomplishments by placing in the top three at the NCCC.

After being the fi rst school to successfully utilize a dual mold casting method with reinforcement, Cal Poly Pomona continued to improve and innovate with the construction of Andromeda. Construction techniques were improved by studying industry practices to mimic professional mold construction and by acquiring expert instruction on the processes. This year’s project objective was to further innovate the dual mold method by implementing mold injection. This was accomplished by pumping concrete between the molds rather than pouring it into the female mold. Testing was done to develop a concrete mix that was not only strong but sustainable, and able to comply with the new casting method by meeting pumping constraints. The pre-stressing system was also improved by creating a reinforced steel table, better cable selection, and strategic pre-stressed tendon placement as determined by a more extensive structural analysis. Andromeda’s summary of specifi cations is presented in Table 1.

Project management was also improved from previous years. Traditionally, one project manager oversaw multiple sub captains. The management structure was modifi ed to mimic design-build project delivery by separating the project into planning, design, and deliverable teams overseen by one project manager. The teams were further broken down and lead by 8 team captains to cover the more focused areas of hull design, structural analysis, mix design, construction, fi nal product, design paper, and presentation, see Organizational Chart. Two new captain positions were added to strengthen the overall design and deliverable process. These positions included Hull Design Captain and Design Paper/Presentation Captain.

Cal Poly Pomona’s Concrete Canoe Team is proud to present their most advanced and innovative canoe to date, Andromeda.

Table 1. Andromeda Specifi cation SummaryTable 1. Andromeda Specifi cation SummaryCanoe NameCanoe Name AndromedaDimensionsDimensions

Legth 21.43’Weight 209 lbMaximum Depth 12.5”Maximum Width 29.75”Average Wall Thickness 0.5”

Structural Mix PropertiesStructural Mix PropertiesCompressive Strength 1,599 psiTensile Strength 138 psiFlexural Strength 1,440 psiUnit Weight 55.55 lb/ft3

Patch Mix PropertiesPatch Mix Properties Compressive Strength 1,128 psi

Tensile Strength 118 psiFlextural Strength 1,025 psiUnit Weight 55.08 lb/ft3

Reinforcement TypeReinforcement Type Carbon Fiber MeshPre-stressed Steel Tendons

ColorColor White Concrete with Multi-color Staining

ii

1

Hull Design To accommodate the new NCCC race confi guration with less turning and more straight sections, focus was placed on creating a faster canoe with better tracking. The baseline hull design was the 2008 canoe, Eleanor, because it contained desirable characteristics such as strong initial stability and excellent tracking. Eleanor’s hull design included a fl at shallow vee bottom, fl ared walls, hard chines, and a transom stern. An iterative process was used to modify the baseline canoe in order to fulfi ll the new hull design goals.

The design process began by identifying hull design features that would help in achieving the design objectives. Research determined hull length and velocity to be proportional; however both are inversely proportional to frictional viscous resistance (Larson & Raven, 2011). This research led the lengthening of the baseline canoe by 1.5’, which changed the overall length from 19.9’ to 21.4’. To maintain the length of the longer waterline, the straight bow on the baseline canoe was kept. The transom stern was eliminated from the design because, although it would maximize the waterline length, it would not be effective at the speeds the canoe would be travelling. Instead of a transom stern, a straight stern was implemented. This stern would still maximize the length of the waterline and be effective at the speed the canoe would be travelling.

In order to reduce frictional resistance, the width of the canoe was decreased. However, in reducing the canoe width, the initial stability was adversely impacted. This instability was mitigated by implementing the stable fl at bottom design from the baseline canoe. Also, in decreasing the canoe’s width, exterior surface area was decreased, directly decreasing the buoyancy force and causing the canoe to sit lower in the water and increase drag. In order to determine the ideal waterline and drag, the canoe was modeled with varying widths in the fl ow analysis software shown in Figure 1. This led to the reduction of the baseline width from 30.0” to 28.8”.

Other factors determined in the design were the chines, rocker, and hull shape. The baseline canoe had hard chines. Hard chines helped with the turning abilities of the canoe but were eliminated because of their poor secondary stability and were not feasible based on the mold injection casting method. For these reasons, soft chines were selected for the design. The rocker from the baseline canoe was 2.19” for the bow and 2.50” for the stern. The bow rocker was increased to 3.0” and the stern rocker decreased to 1.5” in order to maintain reasonable turning and tracking abilities with the added length of the canoe.

Next, an asymmetric, Swede form hull design was chosen for a faster canoe with better tracking. This hull type, typically used in race canoes and kayaks, produces faster speeds by lengthening the bow, maximizing the area of laminar fl ow over the hull (Larson & Raven, 2011). Based on this research the widest part of the canoe was located 17” aft of the midpoint. This design also creates better tracking since it allows the

bow to be narrower and cut through the water more effi ciently. A Swede form hull also prevents the canoe from squatting into the water when paddled, which increases drag. Additionally, a shallow vee bottom was added to the Swede form hull design to further increase tracking capabilities.

Over 10 hull iterations were modeled using AutoCAD® and Orca 3D to determine the displacement and waterline location based on predicted concrete properties and loading. Iterations were then inserted into a hydrodynamic analysis using SolidWorks Cosmos to determine the potential water velocities and drag over the hull. Figure 2 shows noticeably faster velocities with Andromeda’s hull. The fi nal hull was chosen based on the fastest hull that also had the desired tracking and stability features.

Figure 1. Canoe Iteration Waterline Modeled Figure 1. Canoe Iteration Waterline Modeled in Orca 3Din Orca 3D

Figure 2. Hydrodynamic Analysis Showing Faster Water Speeds Over Andromeda’s HullWater Speeds Over Andromeda’s Hull

pppppbbbb

bi d d i lll iii hh iiii d dd i lll ii hh ii

Structural Analysis Two analysis methods were performed on the improved hull design. A fi nite element analysis modeled the canoe as a thin shell structure to obtain the internal membrane and shear stresses within the layered composite. Th e canoe was also modeled as a beam to provide pre-stressing design recommendations. For both models, a total of seven loading cases were considered to predict loading from paddlers, hydrostatic pressure, self-weight, transportation, pre-stressing, and support reactions. Each paddler, as well as the canoe, was assumed to weigh 200 lbs. Th e co-ed race was found to be the controlling case for both analyses.

Th e FEA modeled the canoe as a three-dimensional structure with 5,552 layered shell elements and assumed an initial concrete compressive strength of 2000 psi. Th e weights of the paddlers were imposed as uniform pressure over groups of specifi c elements. To simulate turning, an additional point load of 20 lb was assigned to the sidewall.

Th e FEA was also used to modify pre-stressing tendon placement. Based on a combination of empirical and theoretical testing, tendons where repositioned to the areas of greatest defl ections located at the bottom and gunwales of the canoe. Th e pre-stressing was designed to give the canoe a negative moment to counteract the paddler loading, which produced a positive moment. Flexural stresses were determined from the assumed weight and positioning of paddlers. Accordingly, the desired counteractive forces were calculated and applied through tensioning of the tendons at the gunwales and bottom. Th e iteration process was complete when the jacking forces met concrete limit states, losses, development lengths, and tendon eccentricity. Improved tendon placement is shown in Figure 3.

Th e canoe was then modeled as a two-dimensional beam with non-prismatic cross-sections. Th is determined the maximum fl exural moments and stresses at each section. Pin-and-roller supports were placed directly under the paddlers, with all external and self-weight loads in the transverse direction. Paddlers’ self-weights were applied as point loads while the hydrostatic pressure and the canoe’s self-weight were applied as variable and uniformly distributed linear loads. A basic cross-sectional analysis of pre-stressed concrete was performed to locate critical sections and determine the pre-stressing magnitude (Nawy, 2009). Stresses of 250 lb, 300 lb, and 325 lb were recommended at diff erent locations.

Next additional structural elements were analyzed in the FEA. Gunwales were recommended aft er showing up to a 20% internal stress reduction and reduced wall defl ection. Ribs were recommended for added strength in the middle of the canoe and were easily incorporated. Th e addition of ribs showed an 8% reduction in stresses. Both analyses were used to determine a concrete compressive stress of 864 psi and a reinforcement stress of 1,155 psi. Based on empirical data, a 1.5 factor of safety was applied to produce a 1,296 psi compressive strength and a factor of safety of 1.3 was applied to produce a 1,336 psi composite fl exural strength recommendation. Th e designed pre-stressing forces and layout with the recommended material properties were then inputted into the original FEA model to ensure that the fi nal design recommendations were adequate. A summary of the recommended strengths is shown in Table 2.

2

Table 2. Analysis Recommendations Table 2. Analysis Recommendations Analysis ResultsAnalysis Results Analysis RecommendationAnalysis Recommendation

Concrete Maximum Compressive Stress 864 psi Concrete Compressive Strength 1,296 psi

Reinforcement Max Tensile Stress 1,155 psi Recommended Reinforcement Tensile Strength 1,732 psi

Flexural Stress 1,028 psi Recommended Flexural Stress 1,336 psi

Concrete Tensile Stress 401 psi Recommended Prestressing 250 lb, 300 lb, 325 lb

Figure 3. Pre-Stressing Tendon Figure 3. Pre-Stressing Tendon PlacementPlacement

3

Development and testing included the formation of the new casting method, new concrete mix, and improved pre-stressing technique. The major goal for this year was further innovation of the dual mold casting method by implementing mold injection. Injection testing was done in the early stages of concrete mix development since it would govern the mix. Both gravity and pumping options were considered but testing quickly led to the elimination of the gravity feed system since it was unable to produce enough pressure. Next, pump testing was pursued and pumps were located through industry contacts. Pump

testing was performed on a section of the dual mold used for the 2011 canoe. Reinforcement, steel cables, and dobies were secured between the molds and concrete was pumped into the injection point. Initial testing using a 100 psi pump proved unsuccessful because it did not apply enough pressure to distribute the concrete into the test mold. A larger, 360 psi pump was selected for further testing and proved successful. Figure 4 shows the tested mold section and Figure 5 shows the successful test section after curing.

After the mold injection technique had proved feasible, further development was required for the concrete mix. The problems encountered with the baseline mix were fl ash curing, bleeding, and fi ber congestion in the hose. To ensure these problems were mitigated, further injection testing was performed to create a mix that was more suitable for the new application.

The concrete mix was developed using an iterative process to create a mix that was compatible with the analysis and pumping. The baseline mix used was the previous year’s canoe mix because it was already sustainable, lightweight, met analysis specifi cations, and had low viscosity. These materials included various gradations of Poraver Glass Microspheres, polypropylene beads, alkaline resistant glass (ARG) and Fibermesh 300 (FM) fi bers, as well as ADVA 575 and Polyplex admixtures. Cementitious materials included Type 1 White Portland Cement, PowerPozz, NHL5, Microwhite, and Vitro Minerals. This mix had a 28-day compressive strength of 1582 psi and a fl exural strength of 2285 psi.

Emphasis was placed on development of a low viscosity, high spread mix as shown in Figure 6, that would freely fl ow between the reinforcement mesh, concrete dobies, and pre-stressing cables. ADVA 575 and Polyplex were used in the 2011 canoe to create a self-consolidating concrete mix. ADVA 575 was used as a high range water reducer and Polyplex was used as an acrylic polymer modifi er to eliminate the 7-day wet cure.

Research into pumping lightweight concrete mixes determined the use of super-plasticizers and high range water reducers lowered the water requirement while maintaining or increasing a constant slump at a constant water cement ratio. Based on this research, both previously used admixtures were used in Andromeda, but proportions were increased to further reduce viscosity and increase pumpability. To further increase pump compatibility, new Recover and Kel-crete admixtures were also used.

Development and Testing

Figure 4. Dual Mold Section Used for Injection Figure 4. Dual Mold Section Used for Injection TestingTesting

Figure 5. Successful Test Section from Mold Figure 5. Successful Test Section from Mold Injection Injection

Figure 6. Spread Test of Final Mix Figure 6. Spread Test of Final Mix (ASTM Standard C1611, 2009)(ASTM Standard C1611, 2009)

4

Recover, a hydration stabilizer, was used to prevent fl ash curing when the mix was exposed to heat from pumping and to prolong workability by one hour. Kel-crete, another liquid plasticizer, was used to assist with the pumpabilty of the concrete mix. The recommended admixture dosages of both Recover and Kel-crete were used. Comparisons of the recommended and actual dosages for the mix are shown in Table 3.

Grout testing (ASTM Standard C1019, 2011) was performed to determine cementitious material proportions since this testing isolated the strength of cementitious materials and removed the variability in aggregate strength. The same cementitious materials were used in different proportions during testing. Vitro Minerals was removed from the fi nal mix after testing showed that it had the weakest strength of all the pozzolans and increased viscosity.

Additional strength testing was done using traditional compression cylinder testing (ASTM Standard C39/39M, 2011) to determine the remaining material proportions. Polypropylene beads were eliminated as an aggregate because they were highly visible and too large for pumping. K25 and K37 glass microspheres were considered as aggregates for their small size, but were eliminated because they increased the viscosity of the mix. Various gradations of Poraver were used as the only aggregate because of their successful applications in previous years and possessed desirable pumping characteristics.

Finally, changes in fi bers were made after further research and supplemental fl exural testing (ASTM Standard C78-02, 2002). The baseline mix used ARG fi bers but research showed that polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fi bers could greatly increase the tensile strength in concrete. However, the manufacturer recommended fi ber range of 1.0-3.0% by weight produced clumping in the hose of the pump. To reduce the potential for fi ber clumps, as shown in Figure 7, the fi ber concentration was reduced to 0.25% by weight. For additional fl exural strength, the carbon fi ber mesh was considered as the primary reinforcement because of its high tensile strength and percent open area of 84.3%. Carbon fi ber mesh had also been used in 2010 and 2011 and was found to be a desirable reinforcement.

The fi nal mix met the concrete mix design objectives of meeting analysis recommendations and was suitable for pumping. The fi nal compressive strength was 1599 psi and the fi nal fl exural strength was 1,440 psi. A comparison of the recommended and fi nal strength is presented in Table 4. A patching mix was also developed by removing the 1.0-2.0 mm gradation Poraver and fi bers. The fi nal compressive strength for the patch mix was 1,128 psi which was acceptable for a non-structural mix. All materials used, and their proportions, are presented in Appendix B.

Empirical testing was done to improve the pre-stressing tendon type used in previous years. A pullout test (ASTM Standard C900-06, 2006) was done to test various cable diameters and strand patterns. The

selection criteria for the tendons were bonding stress, capacity, residual

strength, and development length. The initially selected tendons were then stressed to the forces recommended by the analysis. Testing showed a smaller, 3/32” diameter steel tendon met the selection criteria and had a smaller diameter compared to the 1/8” diameter sized used in past canoes.

Test (28-day)Test (28-day) Recommended Recommended StrengthStrength Final StrengthFinal Strength Patch MixPatch Mix

Comcrete Compressive Strength 1,296 psi 1,599 psi 1,128.3 psi

Concrete Tensile Strength - 138 psi 118 psi

Composite Flexural Strength 1,336 psi 1440 psi 1,025 psi

NameName Classifi cationClassifi cation Recommended Recommended Dosage RangeDosage Range Actual DosageActual Dosage

ADVA 575 Super-plasticizer 9.0 oz/cwt 75.0 oz/cwtPolyplex Polymer Modifi er N/A 200.0 oz/cwtKel-Crete Water Reducer 5.0 oz/cwt 3.0 oz/cwtRecover Hydration Stabilizer 6.0 oz/cwt 6.0 oz/cwt

Table 3. Admixture Recommended vs. Actual DosagesTable 3. Admixture Recommended vs. Actual Dosages

Table 4. Concrete Recommended vs. Actual StrengthsTable 4. Concrete Recommended vs. Actual Strengths

Figure 7. Clumped Fibers from Figure 7. Clumped Fibers from Pump HosePump Hose

5

ConstructionThe greatest goal for Andromeda was to achieve the most innovative construction method, setting Cal Poly Pomona apart from all other schools. In 2011, Cal Poly Pomona was the fi rst school to successfully implement a dual mold casting method with reinforcement, which was the fi rst iteration for the new mold injection casting method used this year. In 2011, using a male and female mold reduced casting day man hours and produced a more consistent hull thickness which greatly reduced the sanding time. However, some defi ciencies in the dual mold method were identifi ed and mitigated against for the development of the mold injection casting method. This method was further perfected by using the exact materials and processes as used in professional practice.

Mold injection is commonly used to make a variety of products but was yet to be applied to create a concrete canoe. In order to use this method to create Andromeda, extensive research was done on professional mold making. Prior to the start of the project, several members attended a mold making class at a local college to determine the best mold making tools, materials, and procedures for this application. This class also gave access to experts in mold making and concrete injection which provided additional information and mentoring to develop the best way to achieve successful mold injection.

Improvements began with the forms used to create the molds. In past years, the forms were hand fabricated from 1 lb Styrofoam which produced inaccuracies in the molds. This year, the 1.5 lb Styrofoam forms were cut precisely using a computer numerical control (CNC) machine which increased the quality control of the hull dimensions. The CNC cut female mold form is shown in Figure 8. Using the CNC machine also greatly reduced the time required to make the forms and kept the project on schedule. Next, the forms were sealed with latex paint, coated with Duratec, and fi nely sanded to a smooth surface. A thin layer of mold release wax and fi berglass mold release was applied to easily remove the Styrofoam form once the fi berglass mold was built.

The mold material selection was solely based on materials used in professional practice. Before the application of the fi berglass, a gel coat was applied to the cut foam forms. Gel coat was selected because of its ability to be sanded smoothly and directly mimic the foam forms, since this surface would be the contact surface for the concrete in the fi nal mold. A red gel coat was used for the female mold and a clear gel coat for the male mold. This was done as a quality control practice to make any voids visible during the injection process. Next, four fi berglass layers were applied to the gel coat and wood reinforcing ribs were added later to withstand the injection pressures of mold injection. In the previous year, ribs were added at 18” increments, which had shown to be insuffi cient and under reinforced. This year, more ribs were added at 9” increments, shown in Figure 9, to each mold to prevent any mold defl ection. After fi berglassing and the wood reinforcement was added, the molds were rechecked for accurate dimensions and were deemed

adequate for canoe placement.

Mold preparation began by coting the molds with form release oil and securing the carbon fi ber reinforcement and pre-stressed cables inside the female mold. First, a layer of carbon fi ber mesh was offset an 1/8” from the female mold and the pre-stressing was installed. The pre-stressing system was similar to that used in the 2010 and 2011 canoes but incorporated the new tendons and positioning as recommended by the analysis and testing. Tendons were secured to the mold using cylindrical tendon guides developed in 2010 and tensioned to the recommended stresses at the anchors. The second layer of carbon fi ber mesh reinforcement was placed on wood blocks which were temporarily used to create the desired separation

Figure 8. Female Mold Form After CNCFigure 8. Female Mold Form After CNC

Figure 9. Wood Reinforcing Ribs at 9” Figure 9. Wood Reinforcing Ribs at 9” Incraments Along Female MoldIncraments Along Female Mold

6

between mesh layers. To ensure the mesh remained separated during casting, concrete dobies were precast into PVC rings. Figure 10 shows the reinforcement secured using the dobies prior to casting.

To prepare the male mold, three injection points were cut along the mold. These points were fi nished with a pump hose connection to connect the pump hose to the mold and cap when not in use, see Figure 11. Finally, the male mold was placed into the female mold using rebar attached to the steel table as guide rods to prevent horizontal displacement. Then, the molds were secured

together using tie-down straps.

On casting day, a safety meeting was held to split tasks into multiple teams and to ensure organization, safety, and demonstrate to members any dangerous potential hazards. Each step of the process was explained and run through. Members were then asked to go to their appointed positions to prepare for the pour. Once members were in place, the concrete batches began to be mixed in a mortar mixer. An industrial grade mortar mixer was used to uniformly mix the concrete in large volumes. Using a large mixer reduced the labor required for simultaneous mixing from 24 people to only 2 people. The mixer limited the batch size to 30 gallons and batches were prepared as needed. The concrete was pumped between the molds at the injection points. The red gel coat on the female mold was visible through the clear male mold, revealing most voids. Figure 12 shows the mesh between the molds visible at the start of casting. To release any air pockets in the concrete, vibration was applied to the outsides of the mold. In total, 40 gallons of concrete was mixed to completely fi ll the space between the molds and allow for overfl ow and loss.

The canoe was allowed to cure for 1 week before removing the male mold. The female mold was made in three sections to allow for easy removal which took place after 28 days of curing. Using two molds gave smooth surfaces which required minimal sanding before the fi nal aesthetics were applied. Water and acid based stains were applied using an airbrushing technique for an artistic fi nish. Andromeda was completed after a concrete sealer was applied and wet sanded up to 1,000 grit sandpaper.

Overall, the new casting method did not greatly change the time or labor related to construction but both were allocated in different areas. Much more time and labor was required for the construction of the molds but was compensated by the fastest casting day to date. In past years, over 30 people were required for concrete placement but mold injection only required 8 people. This reduction reduced overcrowding and increased safety. The bill of materials was similar to previous years, however there were additional costs associated with the testing required to verify the feasibility of the new method.

Figure 10. Concrete Dobies in PVC Rings Used to Figure 10. Concrete Dobies in PVC Rings Used to Secure and Separate MeshSecure and Separate Mesh

Figure 11. Pump Hose ConnectionFigure 11. Pump Hose Connection

Figure 12. Concrete Injection Between MoldsFigure 12. Concrete Injection Between Molds

7

Project ManagementAndromeda’s project management structure was based on design-build (D-B) project delivery. Although D-B is typically a contracting method, this delivery method was chosen to increase the communication between the design and deliverable areas. This method was also necessary given the time constraints to allow for construction as the design progressed. The project was divided into three teams: planning, design, and deliverables which were under the direction of the project manager. The planning team was responsible for scheduling, tracking task progress, fundraising and informing members of upcoming events. The design team covered the consulting aspect of the project by including captains to lead the areas of hull design, structural analysis, and mix design. To complete the build aspect of the management structure, the deliverable team was responsible for the canoe construction, fi nal product, design paper, and presentation. Each team incorporated numerous volunteers to assist with completion of the team’s tasks.

The project management began with planning and scheduling to create the project schedule based on project milestones while incorporating risk management to compensate for any deviation from innovations. Enough time was allocated to perform an additional canoe casting in case complications arose with the new casting method. The milestone activities were chosen based on project scope and were the tasks required for successful project completion. Milestones were hull design recommendation, analysis recommendation, mold completion, fi nal mix determination, canoe casting, and attending the PSWC. Milestones were achieved through strategic planning and following the critical path. The critical path included the preceding and proceeding tasks that were required for milestone completion. Critical path activities included fl ow analysis for the hull design, injection testing, mold preparation, sanding and patching, fi nal aesthetics, and display completion. Any deviation from the critical path was mitigated by adjusting the schedule based upon risk management practices. Deviations from the milestones are shown in Table 5.

The project budget was developed using information from previous years and adjusting allocations to accommodate innovative features associated with the new casting method. The total project budget was calculated to be $17,000 with the fi nal bill of materials of $7,400 for Andromeda, see Bill of Materials. The planning team was responsible for allocating fi nances to the design and deliverable teams. Projected costs included testing equipment, construction materials, tools, and personal protective equipment. Project costs were met by donations from material and service suppliers, engineering companies, fundraisers, and school funding.

The risk management program included the implementation of a safety program. Upon joining or returning to Cal Poly Pomona’s Concrete Canoe Team, each member was required to complete a safety workshop. Workshops discussed the proper use of personal protective equipment, safe lab practices, and how to identify potential hazards. Each member was also required to receive instruction on the correct and safe way to use testing and construction equipment.

Quality assurance/quality control was also implemented as part of risk management. Quality assurance was implemented throughout the project by having all calculations, reports, and drawings checked by other members and alumni. Quality control was implemented by taking a mold construction class to ensure correct materials and techniques were implemented. By taking this class, control practices were carried into the construction phase of the project. The construction of the dual molds ensured quality control by providing precise dimensions and a consistent wall thickness that was checked to validate correct measurements.

Total man hours were equivalent to previous years based on increased hours in certain areas and reduced hours in others. Additional time was required for the research and testing of the new casting method. Time was saved using the CNC machine to cut the Styrofoam, however more time was required to create two molds. Casting day man hours were greatly reduced by only requiring 2 people to mix concrete and 2 people to pump. Overall, approximately 960 hours were dedicated to design, 1,230 hours to testing, and 2,350 hours to construction.

MilestoneMilestone DeviationDeviation CauseCause

Hull 6 days Flow Analysis

Mold Completeion 10 days Campus

ShutdownCanoe

Casting 4 days Pump Availbility

Table 5. Milestone DeviationTable 5. Milestone Deviation

8

SustainabilityAndromeda is not only Cal Poly Pomona’s most innovative canoe, but also the most sustainable to date. Sustainability was integrated throughout the project to include environmental, economic, and social aspects.

Environmental sustainability was practiced throughout the project and is most notable in the concrete mix design. Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) was reduced to the minimally allowed 30% of the total cementitious materials. In order to replace the need of additional cement, natural hydraulic lime (NHL), metakaolin, and microsilica were used to supplement free lime in the pozzolonic reaction. NHL is a naturally occurring material that yields 75% less CO2 emissions than the production of OPC (About Natural Hydraulic Lime, 2010). Byproducts of industrial processes, metakaolin and microsilica, were added to NHL in order to optimize the pozzolonic reaction. By working to replace OCP, Andromeda’s carbon foot print was reduced by 33%. Four gradations of Poraver, a recycled expanded glass granule, were used as aggregate. These practices made Andromeda’s concrete mix optimally sustainable.

Environmentally sustainable best management practices were implemented to prevent any materials or waste from leaving the construction and testing sites and potentially polluting the surrounding areas. Utilizing Cal Poly Pomona’s hazardous waste disposal program, expired admixtures and waste from the construction of the canoe was properly disposed of. To successfully implement proper disposal of hazardous materials for years to come, appropriate procedures for material storage and disposal were integrated into our safety program.

Economic sustainability was made possible by early planning and utilizing previous resources and donations. Early planning resulted in a list of materials needed throughout the project. This allowed members to call companies and manufacturers for monetary donations as well as material donations, which companies were more willing to provide. A vast majority of materials and services were either donated completely or provided at a discounted rate. This allowed the team to concentrate on other aspects of the project besides fundraising. Any additional project costs were sustained by

early fundraising efforts.

A bigger effort was given to recruit new members and encourage them to consider taking on leadership positions to aid in social sustainability. Active recruitment was done throughout the year by advertising at club meetings, hanging informative banners around campus, shown in Figure 13, and holding social events. The newer members were encouraged to participate in all aspects of the project to fi nd an area they may choose to pursue the following year. Social sustainability was also achieved by selecting the following captain at the start of the project. This has allowed the current captain to mentor the future captain and pass on any acquired knowledge and identify any defi ciencies present in the current year and to consider improvements for future years.

Social sustainability was achieved by the implementation of a continuous improvement model. At the end of each canoe year, those involved in the project are required to compile the information gathered throughout the year and prepare advice for the following team. At the beginning of the project, defi ciencies in the past canoe were identifi ed to generate new goals and ideas for Andromeda. Problems in the previous casting method were identifi ed as insuffi cient reinforcement of the molds and table from casting pressures. This year, emphasis was placed on adequate reinforcement by adding more wood ribs to the molds and remaking the casting table out of steel. Some fl exure was still seen in the mold and will be considered for improvement next year. Improvements were also made to the casting method. Benefi ts of consistent wall thicknesses and reduced casting day man hours were seen when using dual molds in the previous year. These qualities were desired for casting but instead of replicating the dual mold method, casting was further enhanced by mold injection. Possible improvements to be implemented in following years were identifi ed and extensive documentation has been done to ensure the success of the following team.

Figure 13. Recruitment Poster On CampusFigure 13. Recruitment Poster On Campus

9

Gabe MoormanProject Manager

Teresa Pham Planning

Paul St. PierreAnalysis Captain

Lawson HoHull Design Captain

Ian BerklandMix Design Captain

Jake WagnerMix Design Captain

Heather NielsonFinal Product Captain

Steven SalehConstruction Captain

Amanda HeiseDesign Paper and

Presentation Captain

Deliverable

Design

Planning

Oversaw entire project and wasresponsible for task delegation, costplanning, and time and riskmanagement.

Assisted in projectmanagement by creatingthe project schedule,tracking task progress,fundraising, planningmeetings, and informingmembers of events

Researched hulldesign alternatives torecommend bestfeatures based ondesign goals.Performed structuralanalysis on proposedhull design andprovide concrete andreinforcementrecommendations.Concrete mix captainswere responsible forproduct research andtesting to develop aconcrete mix based onanalysis output andcasting methodrestrictions.

Responsible for finalproduct deliverablesincluding taskdelegation. Aspectsincluded mold andcanoe construction,final aesthetic designand display, andproduction of thedesign paper andpresentation.

Design Team Members:• Kevin Houng• Danee Beruman• Chris Grahm• Blaine Geviss• Hector Salcedo• Jerome Magsino

Deliverable Team Members:• Calvin Rai• Melis Hilsabeck• Nancy Yoko• Mark Jaudalso• Joe Lee • Mark Tolliver• Mary Haynes• Gibson Phan• Jenifer Akashi• Emerald Manc

Organization Chart

Project Schedule

10

Project Schedule

10

Design Drawing

11

A-1

ASTM Standard C1019, 2011, “Standard Test Method for Sampling and Testing Grout,” ASTM Interna-tional, West Conshohocken, PA , DOI: 10.1520/C1019-11

ASTM Stardard C39/39M, 2011, “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/C1435_C1435M-08

ASTM Stardard C127-04, 2004, “Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specifi c Gravity), and Absorption of Course Aggregate,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/C0127-04

ASTM Stardard C138/C1138-10b, 2010, “Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight),Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/C0138_C0138M-10B

ASTM Stardard C1116/C1116M-06, 2010, “Standard for Fiber-Reinforced Concrete,” ASTM Internation-al, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/C1116_C1116M-06

ASTM Stardard C1315-06, 2008, “Standard Specifi cation for Liquid Membrane-Forming Compounds Having Special Properties for Curing and Sealing Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/C1315-11

ASTM Stardard C125-11b, 2011, “Standard Terminolgy Relating to Concrete and ConcreteAggregates,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/C0125-11B

ASTM Stardard C128-07a, 2011, “Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specifi c Gravity), and Absorption of Fine Aggregates,”rminolgy Relating to Concrete and ConcreteAggregates,” ASTM Interna-tional, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/C0128-07A

ASTM Stardard C150, 2009, “Standard Specifi cation for Portland Cement,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/C0150_C0150M-11

ASTM Stardard C260, 2010, “Standard Specifi cations for Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/C0260_C0260M-10A

ASTM Stardard C309-11, 2007, “Standard Specifi cations for Liquid Membrane-Forming Compounds for Curing Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/C0309-11

ASTM Stardard C494, 2010, “Standard Specifi cations for Chemical Admixtures for Curing Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/C0494_C0494M-11

ASTM Stardard C496, 2004, “Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimins,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/C0496_C0496M-11

ASTM Stardard C78-02, 2009, “Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Th ird-Point Loading),” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/C0078-02

ASTM Stardard C143, 2009, “Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/C0143_C0143M-10A

ASTM Stardard C900-06, 2001, “Standard Test Method for Pullout Strength of Hardened Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/C0900-06

ASTM Stardard C1611, C1611M - 09be1, 2009, “ Standard Test Method for Slump Flow of Self-Consoli-dating Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, DOI: 10.1520/C1611_C1611M-09BE01

Appendix A - References

A-1

A-2

Cal Poly Pomona, Concrete Canoe. Isis 2010. Tech. Pomona: Cal Poly Pomona, 2010. Print.

Cal Poly Pomona, Concrete Canoe. Tamoe 2011. Tech. Pomona: Cal Poly Pomona, 2011. Print.

Computers and Structures Inc. (2009). CSI Analysis Reference Manual for SAP2000®, ETABS®, and SAFE®. Berkeley, California, United States.

Gibbons, Pat. “Pozzolans for Lime Mortars.” Cathedral Communications Limited. Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA, Th e United Kingdon. http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/pozzo/pozzo.htm

Gould, P. L. (1999). Analysis of Shells and Plates. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nawy, E. G. (2009). Presetressed Concrete: A Fundamental Approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nilson, A. H., Darwin, D., & Dolan, C. W. (2010). Design of Concrete Structures. New York, NY: Mc-Graw-Hill.

Sierra, Cristina. “Cal Poly Pomona Campus History.” University Library, Cal Poly Pomona. Pomona, CA. http://www.csupomona.edu/~library/specialcollections/history/historyofcalpoly.html

Steinberg, E. P. (1995, November-December). Probabilistic Assessment of Prestressed Loss in Preten-sioned Prestressed Concrete. Retrieved 2011, from Prestressed Concrete Institute: http://www.pci.org/pdf/publications/journal/1995/NovemberDecember/JL-95-NOVEMBER-DECEMBER-10.pdf

TransMineral USA. (2010). About Natural Hydraulic Lime. Retrieved 2011, from Saint Astier Natural Hydraulic Lime : http://www.limes.us/about.php?id=2

“What is Natural Hydraulic Lime?” Saint Astier Natural Hydraulic Lime. Petaluma, CA. http://www.limes.us/about.php?id=1

About Natural Hydraulic Lime. (2010). Retrieved 2011, from TransMineral USA: http://limes.us/about.php?id=2

Hanle, L. J., Jayaraman, K. R., & Smith, J. S. (2011, August). CO2 Emissions Profi le of the U.S. Cement Industry. Retrieved December 2011, from Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei13/ghg/hanle.pdf

Larson, L., & Raven, H. (2011, August 3). Principles of Naval Architecture Series - Ship Resistance and Flow. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME).

Appendix A - References

YD 1.74

SGAmount (lb/yd3)

Volume (ft3)

Amount (lb)

Volume (ft3)

Amount (lb/yd3)

Volume (ft3)

CM1 3.15 196.77 1.00 12.67 0.06 174.50 0.89CM2 2.60 49.19 0.30 3.17 0.02 43.63 0.27CM3 1.52 295.15 3.11 19.01 0.20 261.76 2.76CM4 1.91 114.78 0.96 7.39 0.06 101.79 0.85

655.89 5.38 42.23 0.35 581.68 4.77

F1 1.3 1.96 0.02 0.13 0.00 1.74 0.02F2 1.3 1.96 0.02 0.13 0.00 1.74 0.02

3.92 0.05 0.25 0.00 3.48 0.04AggregatesA1 1.0-2.0 mm Poraver Abs: 20% 0.40 173.16 6.93 11.15 0.45 153.56 6.15A2 0.5-1.0 mm Poraver Abs: 25% 0.47 146.92 5.01 9.46 0.32 130.30 4.44A3 0.25-0.50 mm Poraver Abs: 30% 0.59 115.44 3.13 7.43 0.20 102.38 2.78A4 0.1-0.3 mm Poraver Abs: 35% 0.90 89.20 1.59 5.74 0.10 79.11 1.41

524.71 16.66 33.79 1.07 465.34 14.78WaterW1 262.36 4.20 16.89 0.27 232.67 3.73

99.89 6.43 88.58162.47 10.46 144.09

W2 1.0 137.21 8.84 121.69399.57 4.20 25.73 0.27 354.36 3.73

Solids Content of Latex Admixtures and DyesS1 1.05 51.70 0.79 3.33 0.05 45.85 0.70

51.70 0.79 3.33 0.05 45.85 0.70

% Solids Dosage (fl oz/cwt)

Water in Admixture

(lb/yd3)

Amount (fl oz)

Water in Admixture

(lb)

Dosage (fl oz/cwt)

Water in Admixture

(lb/yd3)

AD1 ADVA 575 8.9 lb/gal 10% 75.00 37.55 38.63 2.42 66.51 33.30AD2 Polyplex 8.8 lb/gal 47% 200.00 58.30 103.03 3.75 177.37 51.70AD3 Kel-Crete 8.5 lb/gal 27% 3.00 1.16 1.55 0.07 2.66 1.03AD4 Recover 9.6 lb/gal 20% 6.00 2.88 3.09 0.19 5.32 2.55

99.89 6.43 88.58

MVTDDAYRy

Fibers

Mixture ID: Andromeda Structural Mix Design Proportions (Non SSD)

Actual Batched Proportions Yielded Proportions

Cementitious Materials

Design Batch Size (ft3):

Total Cementitious Materials:

Portland CementPowerPozzNatural Hydraulic Lime 5Microwhite

0.300.4010.00

105.331.7460.40

53.7311%1.961.13

1635.8027.0860.4060.59

10.001450.71

24.0260.40

RFS 400RSC 15

53.7311%27.00

0%27.00

1.0Water for CM Hydration (W1a+W1b)W1a. Water from AdmixturesW1b. Additional WaterWater for Aggregates, SSD

Total Water (W1+W2) :

Total Aggregates:

Total Fibers:

Water from Admixtures (W1a) :

Admixtures (including Pigments in Liquid Form)

PolyplexTotal Solids of Admixtures:

Cement-Cementitious Materials RatioWater-Cementitious Materials RatioSlump, Slump Flow, in.

Mass of Concrete, lbs

0.300.40

9 +/- 2

0.300.40

Yield, ft 3 = (M/D)Relative Yield = (Y/Y D )

Absolute Volume of Concrete, ft 3

Theoretical Density, lb/ft 3 = (M/V)Design Density, lb/ft 3 = (M/27)Measured Density, lb/ft 3

Air Content, % = [(T-D)/T x 100%]

B-1

Appendix B - Mixture Proportions

YD 0.68

SGAmount (lb/yd3)

Volume (ft3)

Amount (lb)

Volume (ft3)

Amount (lb/yd3)

Volume (ft3)

CM1 3.15 354.14 1.80 8.85 0.05 228.33 1.16CM2 2.60 88.53 0.55 2.21 0.01 57.08 0.35CM3 1.52 531.21 5.60 13.28 0.14 342.50 3.61CM4 1.91 206.58 1.73 5.16 0.04 133.20 1.12

1180.46 9.68 29.51 0.24 761.12 6.24

F1 1.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00F2 1.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AggregatesA1 0.5-1.0 mm Poraver Abs: 25% 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00A2 0.25-0.50 mm Poraver Abs: 30% 0.59 207.76 5.64 5.19 0.14 133.96 3.64A3 0.1-0.3 mm Poraver Abs: 35% 0.90 160.54 2.86 4.01 0.07 103.51 1.84

368.30 8.50 9.21 0.21 237.47 5.48WaterW1 472.18 7.57 11.80 0.19 304.45 4.88

97.01 2.43 62.55375.17 9.38 241.90

W2 1.0 118.52 2.96 76.42590.70 7.57 14.77 0.19 380.86 4.88

Solids Content of Latex Admixtures and DyesS1 1.05 51.70 0.79 1.29 0.02 33.33 0.51

51.70 0.79 1.29 0.02 33.33 0.51

% Solids Dosage (fl oz/cwt)

Water in Admixture

(lb/yd3)

Amount (fl oz)

Water in Admixture

(lb)

Dosage (fl oz/cwt)

Water in Admixture

(lb/yd3)

AD1 ADVA 575 8.9 lb/gal 10% 75.00 37.55 15.00 0.94 48.36 24.21AD2 Polyplex 8.8 lb/gal 47% 200.00 58.30 40.00 1.46 128.95 37.59AD3 Kel-Crete 8.5 lb/gal 27% 3.00 1.16 0.60 0.03 1.93 0.75AD4 Recover 9.6 lb/gal 20% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

97.01 2.43 62.55

MVTDDAYRy

Fibers

Mixture ID: Andromeda Patch Mix Design Proportions (Non SSD)

Actual Batched Proportions Yielded Proportions

Cementitous Materials

Design Batch Size (ft3):

Total Cementitous Materials:

Portland CementPowerPozzNatural Hydraulic Lime 5Microwhite

0.300.40

10.0054.780.66

82.59

52.3337%1.051.55

2191.1626.5382.5981.15

10.001412.78

17.1182.59

RFS 400RSC 15

52.3337%27.00

2%27.00

1.0Water for CM Hydration (W1a+W1b)W1a. Water from AdmixturesW1b. Additional WaterWater for Aggregates, SSD

Total Water (W1+W2) :

Total Aggregates:

Total Fibers:

Water from Admixtures (W1a) :

Admixtures (including Pigments in Liquid Form)

PolyplexTotal Solids of Admixtures:

Cement-Cementitous Materials RatioWater-Cementitous Materials RatioSlump, Slump Flow, in.

Mass of Concrete, lbs

0.300.40

9 +/- 2

0.300.40

Yield, ft 3 = (M/D)Relative Yield = (Y/Y D )

Absolute Volume of Concrete, ft 3

Theoretical Density, lb/ft 3 = (M/V)Design Density, lb/ft 3 = (M/27)Measured Density, lb/ft 3

Air Content, % = [(T-D)/T x 100%]

B-2

Appendix B - Mixture Proportions

C

Bill of Materials

Material Quantity Unit Cost Total Price

Portland Cement 25.33 lbs $0.09/lbs 2.28$ NHL5 38 lbs $0.90/lbs 34.20$

PowerPozz 6.33 lbs $1.20/lbs 7.60$ Microwhite 14.78 lbs $1.67/lbs 24.68$

RSC 15 0.25 lbs 12.5 lbs 3.13$ RSS 400 0.25 lbs 12.5 lbs 3.13$

1.0-2.0mm Poraver 22.29 lbs $0.70/lbs 15.60$ .5-1.0mm Poraver 18.91 lbs $0.70/lbs 13.24$ .25-.5mm Poraver 14.86 lbs $0.70/lbs 10.40$ .1-.3mm Poraver 11.48 lbs $0.70/lbs 8.04$

Polyplex 1.31 gal $23.00/gal 30.13$ ADVA 575 0.49 gal $24.99/gal 12.25$ Recover 0.04 gal $15.00/gal 0.60$ Kel-crete 0.02 gal $49.95/gal 1.00$

C-Grid CT275 25 yd. $18.00/yd. 450.00$ 3/32" Steel Cables 175 ft. $0.54/ft. 94.50$

3/4" CTG 7 ft. $2.00/ft. 14.00$

Stains 6 Bottles $30.00/Bottle 180.00$ Thickener 1 gal $50.00/gal 50.00$ Stencils Lump Sum $700.00 700.00$ Sealer 1 gal $69.8/gal 69.80$

CNC Milling Lump Sum $3,875.00 3,875.00$ Latex Paint 8 gal $25.00/gal 200.00$ Fiberglass Lump Sum $1,500.00 1,500.00$ Gel Coat 2 gal $50/gal 100.00$

7,399.56$ Total Production Cost

Cementicious Materials

Concrete Fibers

Aggregates

Admixtures

Reinforcement

Finishing

Female and Male Molds

C-1

Appendix C - Bill of Materials

Material Quantity Unit Cost Total Price

Portland Cement 25.33 lbs $0.09/lbs 2.28$ NHL5 38 lbs $0.90/lbs 34.20$

PowerPozz 6.33 lbs $1.20/lbs 7.60$ Microwhite 14.78 lbs $1.67/lbs 24.68$

RSC 15 0.25 lbs 12.5 lbs 3.13$ RSS 400 0.25 lbs 12.5 lbs 3.13$

1.0-2.0mm Poraver 22.29 lbs $0.70/lbs 15.60$ .5-1.0mm Poraver 18.91 lbs $0.70/lbs 13.24$ .25-.5mm Poraver 14.86 lbs $0.70/lbs 10.40$ .1-.3mm Poraver 11.48 lbs $0.70/lbs 8.04$

Polyplex 1.31 gal $23.00/gal 30.13$ ADVA 575 0.49 gal $24.99/gal 12.25$ Recover 0.04 gal $15.00/gal 0.60$ Kel-crete 0.02 gal $49.95/gal 1.00$

C-Grid CT275 25 yd. $18.00/yd. 450.00$ 3/32" Steel Cables 175 ft. $0.54/ft. 94.50$

3/4" CTG 7 ft. $2.00/ft. 14.00$

Stains 6 Bottles $30.00/Bottle 180.00$ Thickener 1 gal $50.00/gal 50.00$ Stencils Lump Sum $700.00 700.00$ Sealer 1 gal $69.8/gal 69.80$

CNC Milling Lump Sum $3,875.00 3,875.00$ Latex Paint 8 gal $25.00/gal 200.00$ Fiberglass Lump Sum $1,500.00 1,500.00$ Gel Coat 2 gal $50/gal 100.00$

7,399.56$ Total Production Cost

Cementicious Materials

Concrete Fibers

Aggregates

Admixtures

Reinforcement

Finishing

Female and Male Molds