DESIGN PAPER 2015 ASCE CONCRETE CANOE COMPETITION

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI

ULTRA

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………….i

Executive Summary…………………………………………………………...…………..ii

Project Management………………………………………………………………...…….1

Organization Chart………………………………………………………………………...2

Hull Design………………………………………………………………………..………3

Structural Analysis……………………………………………………………………...…4

Development and Testing………………………………………………………………5 -7

Construction………………………………………………………………………..…8 - 10

Project Schedule………………………………………………………………………….11

Design Drawing………………………………………………………………………….12

Appendix A – References………………………………………………………………….

Appendix B – Mixture Proportions…………………………………………………………

Appendix C – Bill of Materials…………………………………………………………….

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For the past 16 years, Miami

has been the home for Ultra Music

Festival, a celebration of electronic

music that not only fills the city

with vibrant and colorful people,

but also generates an economic

boom year after year with tourists

coming from all over the world.

This annual music festival has

become a tradition for the young

generation in Miami, and it is for

that reason that UM-ASCE

Concrete Canoe team decided to call

the 2015 canoe, Ultra. With this theme, we hoped to exemplify the University of Miami’s

energetic, driven, and enthusiastic attitude and bring that excitement to the 2015 ASCE

Southeastern Student Conference, as a taste of one of Miami’s most famous events.

The University of Miami is located in the heart of Coral Gables, Florida and has

become one of the most diverse academic institutions in the nation. Founded in 1925, the

University of Miami is currently home to over 15,000 students from across the globe. The

College of Engineering is one of 13 colleges at the University of Miami with approximately

1000 undergraduate students, 160 of whom study in the Civil, Architectural, and

Environmental Engineering Department.

Each year, the University of Miami’s Concrete Canoe Team competes in the

Southeastern Student Conference (SESC). In 2005, the team revived its canoe program

after a brief hiatus with The U-boat. Four years later, our team made it to top ten two years

in a row with The Storm Surge and ¡La Fuerza! Two years ago, The Heat turned out to be

the best University of Miami canoe finished product through the use of a female mold for

construction.

This being our 10th year

competing and learning from

previous mistakes, we are

confident that Ultra will have great

chances of placing and perhaps

going to Nationals. We hope to be

making University of Miami’s

Concrete Canoe history. Ultra will

showcase the knowledge and

experience that the University of

Miami ASCE chapter has acquired

in the design and construction of

past concrete canoes. Having designed to sail through the water at high speeds with smooth

and stable turns, Ultra will be a top contender at the 2015 SESC.

Image 1: Main Stage at Ultra Music Festival

Canoe Properties

Weight (approximate): 200 lbs

Length: 21.5’

Maximum Width: 36” Maximum Depth: 17”

Average Thickness: ½” Colors: Black, Silver, with Neon Spots

Concrete Unit Weight 62.4 pcf

Compressive Strength 1600 psi

Tensile Strength 385 psi

Reinforcement Ruredil X Mesh Gold

1

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The project management of Ultra incorporated an upgraded method of construction

with proven quality controls to build upon past weaknesses with new designs and

innovations.

To stay on task, responsibilities were divided by the co-captains amongst the team

members. Major milestones included hull design completion, final mixture selection, mold

completion, canoe casting, and form removal. Prior to the release of the 2015 concrete

canoe rules, a tentative schedule was formulated to accomplish these tasks. Multiple

makeup days and contingency plans were formulated to ensure Ultra would be completed

in time for the competition. This schedule allowed the team to keep on track and on budget

despite several hiccups along the way. The project was consistently at or close to the initial

schedule, allowing time to institute levels of quality control. The prescribed schedule also

allowed extra time to implement new ideas, such as a three-part modular mold design.

The team observed proper preparation methods for each task and safety measures

were always a top priority. Required safety standards were implemented for each

individual phase of the project and updated Material Safety Data Sheets for the materials

used were readily available.

Safety was of the utmost concern

throughout the process, both in the

construction phase and the testing phase.

The construction site and the lab were kept

clean, organized, properly ventilated, and

properly lighted at all times. The use of

gloves, masks, and protective eyewear was

a requirement for anyone working with or

near chemicals and certain harmful

materials. Use of power tools was limited to members with proper training and experience.

Closed toed shoes were mandatory during construction sessions to minimize the risk of

injury to any members of the team.

Quality control was of high importance during the construction of Ultra.

Experienced team members arranged teaching sessions to demonstrate proper casting

techniques for the new members. This training helped immensely to familiarize the whole

team with the construction process. At least one of the co-captains was present at every

construction or testing session to provide expertise and oversee development. This year’s

team was incredibly devoted and dedicated to their project, resulting in the clean and stylish

finished product of Ultra.

300 hrs

175 hrs1200 hrs

Man-Hours Spent on Each

Phase

Design

Testing

Construction

2

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

Project Manager

Hector Castaneda (Senior) 2nd year in Concrete Canoe Competition

Project Manager

Michael Herrera (Junior) 1st year in Concrete Canoe Competition

Josh Jordan (Grad.) 4th year in Concrete Canoe Competition

Mix Design and Testing

Valentino Rinaldi (Grad.) 1st year in Concrete Canoe Competition

Michael Herrera (Junior)

Mackenzie Cerjan (Senior) 2nd year in Concrete Canoe Competition

Design Paper and Presentation

Codi Funakoshi (Senior) 2nd year in Concrete Canoe Competition

Jimena Lopez (Senior) 2nd year in Concrete Canoe Competition

Leonard Barrera (Senior) 3rd year in Concrete Canoe Competition

Sergio Claure (Senior) 3rd year in Concrete Canoe Competition

Mackenzie Cerjan (Senior) 2nd year in Concrete Canoe Competition

Eric Antmann (Grad.) 1st year in Concrete Canoe Competition

Sathvika Ramaji (Senior) 3rd year in Concrete Canoe Competition

Crystal Leon (Junior) 1st year in Concrete Canoe Competition

Michael Herrera (Junior)

Hector Castaneda (Senior)

Hector Castaneda (Senior)

Michael Herrera (Junior)

Hector Castaneda (Senior)

Codi Funakoshi (Senior)

Construction and Development

3

HULL DESIGN

The 2015 concrete canoe team set out upon designing a new and innovative shape

for Ultra. This was done by studying the previous year’s design and understanding what

problems the canoe and rowers experienced while it was in the water. We determined there

were two main concerns, which ultimately defined the final hull design for this year’s

canoe: thickness of the hull, and the width and length of the canoe.

The 2014 concrete canoe, The Concrete Jungle, had suffered a longitudinal crack

in its keel during the competition, which compromised the seaworthiness of the entire

canoe. Our primary objective for this year’s canoe was to ensure the integrity of the

structure during the long drive to conference and under the stresses of competition. In

order to increase the strength of the canoe, we developed multiple options to ensure that

this year’s competition went smoothly.

The first measure we implemented in Ultra was to increase the thickness of the keel

of the canoe to a minimum of ¾ inch from ½ inch. The Concrete Jungle, had suffered a

crack running through the keel, which had been constructed too thinly. To account for

discrepancies inherently present between the design and the actual finished product, we

conservatively increased the thickness of the hull by 50% to insure that such an event didn’t

occur again.

The second measure we implemented was to

use two layers of reinforcement that consisted of two

unique meshes. The first mesh consisted of a uniaxial

carbon fiber polymer that would allow the keel to

resist the tensile stresses experienced along the

longitudinal axis. This layer was placed closer to the

water than the second layer, which would allow it to

better handle the longitudinal tensile forces. The

second layer was a biaxial Ruredil X gold mesh that

lent the canoe tensile strength in both the longitudinal

and latitudinal directions.

The rowers from 2014 concrete canoe

commented that they felt cramped inside the canoe, especially during the 4 person races.

They also complained that the canoe did not feel very stable while they turned. To fix this

problem, the design team decided that they would make the canoe 21.5 feet long and 36

inch wide in order to increase the space available to rowers. This also had the added

advantage that it allowed us to decrease the height of the walls of the canoe, permitting

rowers of any size to easily reach over the sides with their paddles.

After thorough consideration of the final design for the canoe, the team concluded

that a combination of a thicker, wider and more stable canoe would be the key to our

success this year. This innovative design will help Ultra sail through its competition this

year.

Image 2: Rotational analysis of canoe.

4

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Ultra was analyzed structurally by focusing on the critical loads and bending

scenarios placed on the canoe, as well as hydrodynamically, concentrating on the manner

in which the canoe must travel through the water. Ultra spans 21.5 feet and is 36 inches at

its widest point. Using the STAAD Pro software for 2-D analysis, an estimate of the

maximum shear and moment values were obtained which would be compared to our

material testing data to confirm our canoe would safely resist the stresses exerted on the

canoe during construction, finishing and racing.

The first and most critical load scenario for Ultra is its removal from the mold. The

concrete is its youngest at the time of removal (14 days) and at this point our concrete

would reach a compressive strength of roughly 1200 psi. During removal stresses are

placed in localized points and great care must be taken not to over exert the canoe. Utilizing

a female mold bending moments are applied when the gunwales are facing upward. To

start, the moment demand of the canoe was found using a 2D beam model, checking its

capacity with STAAD Pro. The loading was assigned as a distributed load upward with

simple supports at two points which would resist the force. Based on the results, a canoe

with 1.2 ksi strength and a thickness of 0.75” was chosen and sufficient under these loading

conditions.

The first loading scenario modeled was measured for the highest loading condition,

the four person co-ed race. It was assumed that each person would exert 75 pounds on each

knee. The hydrostatic pressure was confirmed after determining the equilibrium of the

model without a floating component and a linear triangular hydrostatic pressure

distribution analysis was sought to address this loading condition. Additionally, the racing

conditions, including the rowing action and rocking of the canoe, make for another critical

scenario. To account for the rocking during paddling, the model was assigned spring

supports spaced at the bottom surface to emulate the forces from the water conditions. The

areas of concern were the curved regions of the canoe as our canoe cracked on the gunwales

in past years. A maximum moment of 673 lb-in was calculated along the curved areas as

well as the stresses due to hydrostatic forces; 12.3 ksi in compression and 8.5 ksi in tension.

The critical areas of the canoe are the gunwale and keel. More notably, we realized that if

the canoe was not smooth and harmonious stresses would not dissipate down the canoe,

we would likely exceed our allowable compressive and tensile strengths.

Transporting and displaying the canoe provided another loading scenario. Two

stands, spaced 10 feet apart and spanning the width of the canoe, are used for canoe display,

acting as rollers for support. Similar to the first scenario, the shear and moment are

equivalent in magnitude and opposite in direction. This year for transport, our loading

scenario has decreased and become almost negligible with the use of the female mold. The

mold itself will act as the transport cradle for the canoe, bracing it at all points.

The Ultra’s largest stress, up to 925 psi, was during mold removal. While on the

display, the stress could approach 640 psi. After carefully analyzing our loading conditions,

we concluded that the critical facets of design contributing to a high level of performance

and future success include a concrete with a compressive strength of at least 1050psi.

These results were reassuring given that our concrete strength is 1,600 psi.

5

DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING

During the planning stage of this year’s UM-ASCE Concrete Canoe, the team was

determined to learn from past designs and improve not only the physical qualities of the

canoe, but also the workability and longevity of our design. We were focused on three main

goals for Ultra, which were as follows: (1) maintain a unit weight of the concrete lower

than 62.4pcf, (2) prevent cracks and holes from happening by increasing the compressive

and tensile strengths, and (3) improve workability during construction. Since the team was

satisfied with The Concrete Jungle’s (2013-2014 UM-ASCE concrete canoe) results, we

decided to base Ultra’s concrete mix on last year’s mix, with some improvements in the

construction and reinforcement. Because the unit weight, aesthetics, and strength were

similar from the 2013-2014 canoe, the team began much of the testing with the final mix

design from the The Concrete Jungle. Ultra’s concrete mix team maintained the same

composition altering one independent variable at a time. In the end, the team was able to

compare each test and establish the most desirable results.

Each batch of concrete was tested using the same

procedure. First, the team tested the compressive strength of

the mix using 3”x6” cylinders (ASTM C39). Additionally,

ASTM C138-10b was used to calculate the unit weights and

gravimetric air content of the concrete mix. The modulus of

rupture and flexural strength were obtained using 20” panels

in accordance with the three-point bending tests (ASTM

C78-10).

For fear that the set up in which the canoe would rest

during the curing period would not provide enough

moisture, the team decided to test to observe if the results

obtained in the lab were representative of the canoe in an

outdoor environment. In order to analyze this variable,

Ultra’s mix design team compared a cylinder placed in the

moisture room to one placed inside the canoe tent. As

predicted, the compressive strength of the concrete

decreased by nearly 300psi when not cured in direct moisture. Therefore, special measures

were taken to maintain adequate moisture during the time of curing. Humidifiers were

placed inside the tent, as it was essential to maintain an environment rich in moisture.

Past experiences of canoes cracking led to the decision to implement a second layer

of reinforcement and a third layer of mix. Therefore, developing ideal proportions of

cementitious materials were a top priority in order to maximize the strength while

maintaining or reducing Ultra’s total weight to an acceptable value. Building to decrease

the total weight of the canoe, we incorporated the use of fly ash and ground granulated

blast furnace slag to replace some of the cement. Various proportions of slag were tested

and it was determined that a 60% slag mix gave an optimum strength to weight ratio,

excellent binding to the cement, and sustainable characteristics. Additionally, a small

amount of fly ash was incorporated to further reduce the weight.

Once the cementitious proportions were finalized, the next step was to find

appropriate aggregates. Due to the success of the Poraver ® in the past years, the team first

experimented with various gradations of the glass spheres, opting to use the 0.5-1mm and

Image 3: Sample cylinder of concrete used

6

0.25-0.5mm gradation in Ultra’s mix. The team found that the 1-2mm size used in the past

did not provide ideal binding and workability, so this gradation was omitted.

In previous years, UM-ASCE concrete canoe team experimented with

incorporating perlite, a material commonly used in construction of lightweight plasters and

insulation. In general, Perlite proved unsuccessful as it soaked up large amounts of water

in the batch, reduced workability, and expanded when subjected to heat. It was determined

that the aggregates would only be composed of Poraver gradations.

To provide tensile reinforcing within the mix, Grace Strux Polypropelene fibers

were tested. The amount of fibers were varied during testing, and it was determined that

0.2% by weight was the optimum number for ample workability while still having

sufficient tensile capacity.

Textile grids to reinforce the entirety of the canoe were researched to increase the

structural performance of Ultra. Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers were implemented

between the first and second layers of mix in order to increase the tensile capacity. We

used S&P ARMO-Mesh with a thickness of 0.157mm, and a theoretical tensile force of

628kN/m. Additionally, we used Ruredil X Mesh Gold, a textile typically used for seismic

retrofitting for masonry structures. Ruredil X Mesh Gold is composed of a

Poliparafenilenbenzobisoxazole(PBO) fiber unbalanced network with its rovings disposed

along two rectangular directions at a nominal spacing of 10 mm and 18mm with a width

of 2mm per roving. This results in a 46% open area. Additionally, while most FRP’s use

an epoxy resin, the X Mesh Gold uses a cementitious matrix to harden and bind the mesh

with the existing structure. However, the 2015 rules prohibited the use of such reinforcing

mortars. Therefore, the team researched the capacity of the mesh without the mortar.

Overall, we found that the mesh would adequately harden and bind with the cementitious

material from our 2015 mix design and the ultimate capacity in tension was reduced to

73%. We analyzed these two reinforcements since the CAE Department at the University

of Miami has extensively experimented with these structural reinforcement systems.

In addition, we incorporated admixtures that would add to the mix properties. The

first admixture we used was Darex® AEA®, which is an aqueous solution of a complex

mixture of organic acid salts. Darex AEA is specially formulated for use as an air-

entraining admixture for concrete. It complies with the requirements of the following

Image 4: S&P ARMO-Mesh used in between first and second layer

Image 5: Ruredil X Mesh Gold used in between second and third layer

7

specifications for chemical admixtures for concrete: ASTM C260; AS1478 and AASHTO

M154. We also used WRDA® 60, a polymer based aqueous solution of complex organic

compounds. WRDA 60 produces concrete with lower water content (typically 8–10%

water reduction), improved workability and higher strengths. It complies with ASTM C494

Type A and D performance. Finally, we added UGL Drylock Latex to prevent water

intrusion into the mix.

In conclusion, for the 2015 concrete canoe various components behind the mix

design were researched and tested to obtain optimal results. Cement, aggregates, tensile

fibers, and admixtures were proportioned adequately to form Ultra’s concrete mix. Carbon

Fiber Reinforcement Polymer was used between the first and second layer of mix and X

Mesh Gold was used between the last two layers of mix to prevent cracking due to external

forces. Through development and testing of Ultra, is a structurally sound, lightweight, and

durable canoe, will be a top contender at the 2015 SESC.

8

CONSTRUCTION

The Mold

The 2015 concrete canoe began with the design and construction of a mold that

would enable the canoe to glide effortlessly through the water. The female mold allows

for a smooth exterior shape, which optimizes the canoe’s hydrodynamics and reduces the

drag caused by the water. Taking into account the success of the previous year’s canoe,

this year’s team decided that using a female mold would be crucial to the success of

Ultra. However, several changes were made during the construction of the mold to

account for the changes in the design of Ultra.

To build the female mold, a CAD model of the canoe and corresponding mold

were first created to optimize the design. This year’s design incorporated a three part

modular mold system that enabled us to more easily de-

mold the canoe than the previous years’ two part modular

mold. The design was divided into 20 unique sections

which were then printed onto 24”x36” sheets of paper.

Using a router, we precisely cut the pieces of plywood to

form the ribbing of the mold in accordance with the

drawings. After the sections had been cut, they were

attached together with the use of 2x4 wood beams and

self-drilling wood screws to form three modular mold

sections. Once all of the modules were completed, metal

flashing was attached to the top of the ribs using self-

drilling wood screws. The metal flashing ensured that

bottom of the canoe was smooth and glides through the

water efficiently

In keeping with the idea of improving the design of the canoe, the bow, stern and

keel line shape were of particular importance this year. Last year, the bow and stern were

raised above the keel, which decreased the stability of the canoe and created many

problems while, turning as were discussed in the hull design. As a result, the construction

team had to be very careful while assembling the mold

because of the complex shape of the keel line and the keel

being elevated above the bow and stern.

Casting and Finishing

In preparation for casting day, the canoe team had

many tasks to complete so that the casting could be done

in a timely and efficient manner. All the concrete

materials were measured out the day before.

Reinforcement was measured, cut, placed, and marked.

Image 6: Co-captain attaching metal flashing to the ribs of the canoe

Image 7: Volunteer carefully verifying measurements of materials

9

On the day of casting, the mold was checked to make certain

the sections would come apart on mold breaking day. The

joints between the modules were then sealed using blue

painters tape to insure that no concrete would fall between the

sections. The interior was wiped down with a generous

amount WD-40 to act as a releasing agent. Volunteers were

divided into three groups: batching team, mold team, and

reinforcement team. Each team worked on their designated

task and moved to another group when they were needed.

This organization provided a steady supply of concrete, an

efficient method of reinforcement placement, and an

overall excellent quality control of the finished canoe. The

desired thickness of 3/4 inch at the bottom and ½ inch on

the sides was verified

using measuring tools.

Ultra was cured by sealing the tent in which

the casting occurred and placing humidifiers inside the

sealed tent. The humidity was maintained at a

maximum to guarantee that the concrete would not

lose any water to the warm south Florida environment,

while allowing two weeks for the concrete to properly

cure. Team members visited the area every day of the

first week of curing to mist the concrete and to check

for cracks or imperfections. Once the concrete was fully cured, the mold was released

into three sections and the canoe was removed by the areas that had been freed from the

form. In order to increase the overall

hydrodynamic efficiency, we initiated a

concrete sanding process at this stage

in the construction. The outside of

the canoe was sanded to decrease the

turbulence that a rough outer surface might

cause on the water. Sanding was also

executed on the interior of the canoe for

comfort purposes so that the

paddlers would be kneeling and

working on a smooth, safe concrete

surface. The grit of the sandpaper used ranged from 60-400 and panels were continuously

sanded until the desired smoothness was attained. Finally, our 2015 concrete canoe team

Image 8: Co-captain (right) and volunteers carefully placing mix on flashing to desired thickness. Notice the blue tape (left) used to secure the gap between sections.

Image 9: Volunteers completing tasks they were assigned to do.

Image 10: Co-captains and volunteers at the end of a successful Pour Day.

10

completed a thorough construction process that is evident by the high-quality of Ultra

and its likely future success at the Southeastern Student Conference.

ID TaskMode

Task Name Duration Start Finish

1 First Meeting ‐ Introductions 0 days Tue 9/9/14 Tue 9/9/14

2 Research boat types 10 days Tue 9/9/14 Mon 9/22/14

3 Previous canoes analysis 10 days Tue 9/9/14 Mon 9/22/14

4 Final selection of shape 0 days Tue 9/23/14 Tue 9/23/14

5 AutoCAD Sections 5 days Tue 9/23/14 Mon 9/29/14

6 Concrete Mix Research 80 days Tue 9/9/14 Mon 12/29/1

7 Material Procurement  60 days Tue 9/16/14 Mon 12/8/14

8 Mix testing 80 days Wed 10/1/14Tue 1/20/15

9 Mix design refinement 9 days Wed 1/21/15Sat 1/31/15

10 Final mix selection 0 days Mon 2/2/15 Mon 2/2/15

11 Reinforcing research 40 days Mon 10/13/1Fri 12/5/14

12 Reinforcement testing 60 days Mon 10/20/1Fri 1/9/15

13 Set up tent 1 day Sun 11/2/14 Sun 11/2/14

14 Cut sections 10 days Sun 11/23/14Thu 12/4/14

15 Frame mold 15 days Sat 1/3/15 Thu 1/22/15

16 Aluminum flashing 5 days Fri 1/23/15 Thu 1/29/15

17 Pour day 1 day Sun 2/8/15 Sun 2/8/15

18 Cure time 21 days Mon 2/9/15 Mon 3/9/15

19 Form removal 1 day Tue 3/10/15 Tue 3/10/15

20 Cross section construction 5 days Wed 3/11/15Tue 3/17/15

21 Sanding 2 days Wed 3/11/15Thu 3/12/15

22 Stain/Seal Canoe 5 days Fri 3/13/15 Thu 3/19/15

23 Brainstorm on Canoe theme 60 days Tue 9/9/14 Mon 12/1/14

24 Compose rough draft paper 20 days Mon 11/10/1Fri 12/5/14

25 Finalized design paper 0 days Mon 12/8/14Mon 12/8/14

26 Presentation compilation 20 days Sun 2/8/15 Thu 3/5/15

27 Presentation practice 10 days Fri 3/6/15 Thu 3/19/15

28 Paddling practice 52 days Sun 1/4/15 Sun 3/15/15

29 Southeast Student Conference 3 days Thu 3/19/15 Sun 3/22/15

9/9

9/23

2/2

12/8

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M Tg 24, '14 Sep 14, '14 Oct 5, '14 Oct 26, '14 Nov 16, '14 Dec 7, '14 Dec 28, '14 Jan 18, '15 Feb 8, '15 Mar 1, '15 Mar 22, '15 Apr 12, '15 May 3, '15 May 24, '15 Jun 14, '15

Task

Split

Milestone

Summary

Project Summary

Inactive Task

Inactive Milestone

Inactive Summary

Manual Task

Duration-only

Manual Summary Rollup

Manual Summary

Start-only

Finish-only

External Tasks

External Milestone

Deadline

Progress

Manual Progress

Page 1

Project: Concrete CanoeDate: Sun 3/1/15

1'-9

1 4"O

VE

RA

LL H

EIG

HT.

3'PLY. WIDTH

1'-6

"P

LY. H

EIG

HT

2'-1012"

BEAM WIDTH

1 4" GA

P1'-6

1 4"2X

4 H

EIG

HT

1'-4

"B

OW

1'-2

"S

TER

N

20'OVERALL BOAT LENGTH

SCALE

4S-1.0

OVERALL CANOE ELEVATION1/2" = 1'-0" SCALE

1S-1.0

TYPICAL CANOE SECTIONS1/2" = 1'-0"

1'-4

"

1'-2

"

SCALE

5S-1.0

OVERALL CANOE PLAN1/2" = 1'-0"

℄

℄

℄ ℄

20'OVERALL BOAT LENGTH

2' -

7"M

AX

. EX

T. W

IDTH

1" T

YP

ICA

L TH

ICK

NE

SS

5'-034" BEAM LENGTH 10' BEAM LENGTH 5'-03

4" BEAM LENGTH

20' BOAT LENGTH

20'-112" FRAME LENGTH

2'-1

01 2"B

EA

M W

IDTH

2'-1

01 2"P

LY. W

IDTH

3'-5

1 2"O

VE

RA

LL W

IDTH

SCALE

W/ CANOE IN MOLD6S-1.0

OVERALL MOLD PLAN1/2" = 1'-0"

1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'

SCALE

3S-1.0

TYPICAL MOLD SECTION1/2" = 1'-0"

SCALE

2S-1.0

NOT USED1/2" = 1'-0"

PRO

DU

CED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ESK

ED

UC

ATI

ON

AL

PRO

DU

CT

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

PRO

DU

CED

BY A

N A

UTO

DESK

EDU

CA

TION

AL PR

OD

UC

T

PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT

APPENDIX A-REFERENCES ASTM (2005).“Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates.”C33-03, West Conshohocken PA. ASTM (2005).“Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens.”C39/C39M-05, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). “Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Fine Aggregate.”C128-04a, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005).“Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates.” C136-06,West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). “Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete.”C138/C138M-01a, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005).“Standard Specification for Pigments for Integrally Colored Concrete.” C979-05, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005). “Standard Specification for Use of Silica Fume as a Mineral Admixture in Hydraulic Cement Concrete, Mortar, and Grout. C989-05, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2005).“Standard for Fiber-Reinforced Concrete and Shotcrete.”C1116-03. West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2006). “Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates.” C136-06, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM (2010). “Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading).” C78-10, West Conshohocken, PA.

A-1

APPENDIX B-MIXTURE PROPORTIONS

Mixture ID: Design Proportions (Non

SSD)

Actual Batched Proportions

Yielded Proportions YD Design Batch Size (ft3): 1

Cementitious Materials SG Amount (lb/yd3)

Volume (ft3)

Amount (lb)

Volume (ft3)

Amount (lb/yd3)

Volume (ft3)

CM1 Portland Cement 3.15 266.76 1.357 9.88 0.050 281.70 1.433

CM2 GGBF Slag, Grade 120 2.90 533.52 2.948 19.76 0.109 563.40 3.113

CM3 Fly Ash 2.50 88.83 0.569 3.29 0.021 93.80 0.601

Total Cementitious Materials: 889.11 4.87 32.93 0.18 938.90 5.15

Fibers

F1 Grace Strux Polypropelene Fibers 0.90 4.05 0.072 0.15 0.003 4.28 0.076

Total Fibers: 4.05 0.07 0.15 0.00 4.28 0.08

Aggregates

A1 Poraver (0.5-1mm) Abs: 0.25

0.52 261.36 8.055 9.68 0.298 276.00 8.506

A2 Poraver (0.25-0.5mm)

Abs: 0.3

0.47 217.35 7.411 8.05 0.274 229.52 7.826

Total Aggregates: 478.71 15.47 17.73 0.57 505.52 16.33 Water W1 Water for CM Hydration (W1a + W1b)

1.00

167.80 2.689 6.21 0.100 177.19 2.840

W1a. Water from Admixtures 28.95

1.07

30.57

W1b. Additional Water 138.85 5.14 146.63

W2 Water for Aggregates, SSD 1.00 130.55 4.84 137.86

Total Water (W1 + W2): 298.34 4.781 11.05 0.177 315.05 5.049

Solids Content of Latex, Dyes and Admixtures in Powder Form S1 UGL Drylock Latex 1.00 0.49 0.008 0.02 0.000 0.51 0.01

Total Solids of Admixtures: 0.49 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.51 0.01

Admixtures (including Pigments in Liquid Form)

% Solids

Dosage (fl

oz/cwt)

Water in Admixture (lb/yd3)

Amount (fl oz)

Water in Admixtur

e (lb)

Dosage (fl

oz/cwt)

Water in Admixture (lb/yd3)

Ad1 Darex AEA 8.5 lb/gal 5.00 2.79 1.57 0.92 0.058 2.95 1.65

Ad2 Darex WRDA 60 9.6 lb/gal

17.50 7.44 4.09 2.45 0.151 7.86 4.32

Ad3 UGL Drylock Latex 8.6 lb/gal

25.00 51.99 23.29 17.12 0.863 54.90 24.60

Water from Admixtures (W1a): 28.95 1.07 30.57

 

B-­‐1  

 

 

APPENDIX  B-­‐MIXTURE  PROPORTIONS  

Cement-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.300 0.300 0.300 Water-Cementitious Materials Ratio 0.336 0.335 0.336

Slump, Slump Flow, in. 4.000 4.000 4.000 M Mass of Concrete. lbs 1670.70 61.88 1764.25 V Absolute Volume of Concrete, ft3 25.20 0.93 26.61 T Theorectical Density, lb/ft3 = (M / V) 66.29 66.29 66.29 D Design Density, lb/ft3 = (M / 27) 61.88 D Measured Density, lb/ft3 65.340 65.340

A Air Content, % = [(T - D) / T x 100%] 6.66 1.44 1.44

Y Yield, ft3 = (M / D) 27 1 27

Ry Relative Yield = (Y / YD) 0.947

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B-­‐2  

APPENDIX C-BILL OF MATERIALS Material Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost

Concrete Mix Portland Cement 29.64 lb $ 0.22 $ 6.52 GGBF Slag 59.28 lb $ 0.05 $ 2.96 Fly Ash 9.87 lb $ 0.10 $ 0.99 Poraver (0.5-1.0 mm) 29.04 lb $ 0.70 $ 20.33 Poraver (0.25-0.5 mm) 24.15 lb $ 0.70 $ 16.91 Polypropelene Fibers 0.15 lb $ 11.35 $ 1.70 UGL Drylock Latex 3.60 lb $ 4.36 $ 15.70 Darex AEA 0.39 lb $ 1.53 $ 0.60 Darex WRDA 60 0.72 lb $ 1.25 $ 0.90

Reinforcing Carbon Fiber Mesh 160.00 sf $ 3.00 $ 480.00 Ruredil X Mesh Gold 160.00 sf $ 5.23 $ 836.80

Construction Plywood 8 sheets $ 26.00 $ 208.00 Lumber (2x4 & 2x2) 300 lf $ 0.66 $ 198.00 Screws / Nails 5 box $ 4.64 $ 23.20 Safety Supplies 1 ls $ 129.99 $ 129.99 Tools & Equipment 1 ls $ 147.72 $ 147.72 Bondo 2 gal $ 23.99 $ 47.98 Sand Paper 80 sheets $ 0.12 $ 9.60 Angles 46 ls $ 1.00 $ 46.00 Sand Paper 40 sheets $ 0.12 $ 4.80 Stain 1 ls $ 39.99 $ 39.99 Sealer 1 ls $ 14.99 $ 14.99 Lettering 50 letters $ 1.16 $ 58.00

Total Cost of Production $ 2311.41  

 

 

 

 

C-­‐1