the flaming qvp171/2015 concrete canoe(georgia southern...آ  web view larger aggregate sizes are...

Download THE FLAMING qvp171/2015 Concrete Canoe(Georgia Southern...آ  Web view Larger aggregate sizes are beneficial

If you can't read please download the document

Post on 22-Apr-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

THE FLAMING EAGLE

THE FLAMING EAGLE “We row both ways” 2015 Design Paper (UPDATED 2/26/2015) –Georgia Southern UNiversity

( )

TABLE OF CONTENTS

eXEcutive summary iI

Project management 1

Organization chart 2

Hull design 3

development and testing 4-5

Construction 6-9

Project schedule 10

Design drawing 11

Appendix a - references A-1

appendix b – mixture proportions B-1, B-2

appendix c – bill of materials_________________________________ C-1

( I )

Executive summary

Georgia Southern University is a public research university with an academic history marked by distinction in teaching, scholarship, and service, and is located in Statesboro, Georgia. The University's stamp of personality is a culture of engagement that bridges theory with practice, aiming to extend the learning environment beyond the classroom, and while promoting student growth and success. Georgia Southern has had a Civil Engineering Technology program for over two decades, and also been involved with the Regents’ Engineering Transfer Program (RETP). Over the past four years, Georgia Southern has been in the process of transferring from a CET program to a Civil Engineering program, and has finally become accredited during this school year.

Table 1: 2014 Concrete Properties

Unit Weight (pcf)

Compressive Strength (psi)

Approx. Tensile Strength (psi)

Structural

55.8 Wet; 41.5 Dry

1028

215

Finishing

66.8 Wet; 52.8 Dry

1902

292

Georgia Southern has competed in the ASCE Southeast Student Conference for several years, and this is the second year our ASCE chapter will compete in the concrete canoe competition. Although our canoe from last year was unconventionally made with limited resources, we have boosted our efforts for design and efficiency with this year’s canoe, THE FLAMING EAGLE. We have faced many challenges and overcome many obstacles, but no matter the result, we are going to make big waves come competition time. We hope our unique process of designing and fabricating The Flaming Eagle will be useful to future competitors.

Table 2: 2014 Canoe Properties

Weight

345

Length

17 feet

Width

28 inches

Depth

14 inches

Nominal Thickness

1 inch

Color

Gray

Table 3: 2014 Reinforcement Materials

Continuous Reinforcement

Fiberglass Mesh

Fiber Reinforcement

Nycon PVA RECS15 (8 mm), Nycon PVA RFS400 (19 mm)

( I I )

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The 2015 Georgia Southern concrete canoe team was able to start a semester earlier, in the Fall of 2014, than our previous year’s submission. In order to oversee the overall timing and project effectively, two captains were selected, as well as two co-captains. These four team members aimed to motivate, guide, and organize the other students, and were involved in most every aspect of the project. Furthermore, from the four main team members, team leaders were selected to head up canoe hull design, concrete mix design and testing, canoe mold design and development, and canoe construction.

Financial assistance was received from the Civil Engineering (CENG) department, local businesses were queried for donations, and fundraiser nights were held at local restaurants. Through team fundraising efforts, $1,200 was acquired to supplement department funding.

Team leaders were responsible for purchasing materials relating to their area of the project. Due to the teams ability to reuse materials from last year (e.g. Styrofoam molding and aggregates), the team was able to start right away when a design was formed. Group leaders met on a daily basis while the entire project group met bi-weekly during the design phase. Each team member was able to put forth ideas that the team would vote on and check for time and cost effectiveness. As we entered the construction phase team leaders met every day to discuss and prepare for the week ahead. Construction of the mold, canoe, wooden infrastructure, and transportation apparatus were the main topics discussed. In total, 145 man hours were spent on the concrete canoe project. A break-down of which tasks these hours went into by percentage is given in Figure 1.

( Figure 1: Project hour break-down )

( 1 ) Organization chart

Project Captains:

-Mitchell O’Neal (Senior, ASCE 1st year, 1st year Concrete Canoe)

-Anthony Lopez (Senior, ASCE 1st year, 1st year Concrete Canoe)

Co-Captains:

-Jonathan Melton (Senior, ASCE 1st year, 1st year Concrete Canoe)

-William Mason (Senior, ASCE 1st year, 1st year Concrete Canoe)

Project Estimation team:

-Zachary Strickland

-Anthony Lopez

Hull Design team:

-Bowen Jones (3D Modeling)

-Dylan Hightower (Cross-section Modeling)

Mold Construction:

-Dylan Hightower (Cross-section Projecting, Music Coordinator)

-Sonny Peetoom (Mold Cutting, Frame Fabrication)

-Mitchell O’Neal (Foam Cutter Design)

-Jonathan Melton (Mold Cutting, Carpentry)

Mix Design:

-Anthony Lopez

-Zachary Strickland

Canoe Construction:

-Mitchell O’Neal

-Sonny Peetoom

-Will Mason

-Bailey Webster

-Kenneth Givens

-Dylan Hightower

-Jonathan Melton

Transport:

-Matthew Hodell

-Benjamin Pierson

Design Report:

-Mitchell O’Neal

-Anthony Lopez

( 2 )-Jonathan Melton

Hull design

Our approach to the initial design of the concrete canoe was to copy the design of a regular fiberglass canoe and fine-tune the shape mechanics to match our desired specifications. We took note of the ‘cutting power’ of varying canoe shapes while searching for possible materials used by past concrete canoe mix designs from other competitors. Due to our lack of experience compared to other schools, we approached this competition with not the will to win but the will to better ourselves. Our previous submission in 2014 was taken into account when designing The Flaming Eagle. What we came up with was a sleeker design and more efficient mixture for our concrete. Even when constructing our new pride and joy, team members and advisors who participated in the concrete canoe were surprised by improvements we were able to make within one year. Two major improvements can be seen in this year’s canoe design.

The first of these unique improvements is literal copying of your standard fiberglass canoe. The flat bottom that is usually seen on your basic canoe was used to improve the canoe’s water cutting ability come race time. Compared to last year, where our team used a dihedral hull design, our stability decreased and our turning speed increased.

( Figure 2: A standard flat bottom canoe )

The second improvement of our hull design is the canoe thickness. We ran into a number of complications when trying to decrease the weight of our canoe by slimming our thickness. The primary obstacle was to find a mix design that had a smaller unit weight and was stronger than last year’s mix. With help from Zachary Strickland, who worked on last year’s mix design, Anthony Lopez was able to tweak and improve the mix design for this year.

( 3 )These two design features help to manage wetted area of the canoe and water drag while keeping the boat competitive yet operational. On our hull design, an initial height of 14” was selected in a conservative manner in order to make sure there would be enough of the canoe sides above the water line. Due to cost effectiveness and limited time we were only able to fabricate one canoe while banking on our theoretical experimentation instead of any hands on testing. We realize the difference between calculating and actually testing a design, but we were confident in our outcome.

Development and testing

The primary guiding goal of the mix design team has been to develop a concrete mix design with a low unit weight less than that of water, without greatly diminishing the concrete’s strength and ability to withstand the rigors of canoe transportation and competition. Since GSU has never brought a canoe to the regional conference before, there were no past school mix designs to base our design upon. Furthermore, although recent student research has been conducted on extremely high strength concrete, no current students had experience developing extremely lightweight concrete mix designs.

For a materials baseline to begin developing a mix design with, Type I Portland cement and silica fume were selected as cementitious materials. Portland cement was selected due to it being an industry standard, while BASF SF 100 silica fume was selected as another cementitious material due to us already possessing a supply to begin working with, and more significantly for its low specific gravity of 2.2. Also, silica fume provides additional strength, cohesiveness, and durability.

Nycon PVA fibers were selected as secondary reinforcement to provide additional strength and cohesion for the concrete mix, and eventually an 8 mm strand size was selected to serve as fine fiber reinforcement and a 19 mm strand size to serve as coarse fiber reinforcement.

After researching lightweight aggregates, Poraver recycled glass aggregate was determined to be a widely used and reputable lightweight aggregate and was selected as part of our materials baseline. Desirable qualities included the wide selection of available particles sizes, its impressive lightweight (specific gravities ranging from 0.4 - 0.9), its ab

Recommended

View more >