UAH 2014 Design Paper

To Whom It May Concern:

This page is our plastic cover and has been included to enable our

design paper to be viewed as printed.

The Table of Contents is on the back of the Front Cover and the rest of the

report is double sided.

To see what the paper looks like in double sided format, click the “view”

tab, scroll down to “page display” and then hit “two-up”.

Regards, Team UAH

\

2014 National Concrete Canoe Competition Design Paper

“PHOENIX” Replenishing the life

i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ············································································································································· ii

Project Management ············································································································································ 1

Organization Chart ··············································································································································· 2

Hull Design ·························································································································································· 3

Structural Analysis ··············································································································································· 4

Development and Testing ···································································································································· 5

Construction ························································································································································· 7

Project Schedule ··················································································································································· 9

Design Drawing ··················································································································································· 10

List of Figures

Fig. 1. PHOENIX hull shape and attributes ········································································································ 3

Fig. 2. Typical paddler output (men’s team) ······································································································· 3

Fig. 3. Performance predictions (all teams) ········································································································· 3

Fig. 4. Design for composite cross section ·········································································································· 4

Fig. 5. Material costs ($1,530) ····························································································································· 7

Fig. 6. Project person-hours (1,095) ···················································································································· 8

List of Tables

Table 1.0 Pertinent Information ··························································································································· ii

Table 3.1 Summary of Mix Proportions ·············································································································· B1

Table 6.1 Bill of Materials and Production Cost Estimate ·················································································· C1

List of Appendices

Appendix A – References ···································································································································· A1

Appendix B – Mixture Proportions ····················································································································· B1

Appendix C – Bill of Materials ···························································································································· C1

cycle of Team UAH “PHOENIX”

ii

Executive Summary UAHuntsville (UAH) is located in Huntsville, Alabama. Our

institution was founded in 1961 as a training facility for NASA’s

scientists and engineers to support the growing aerospace science and

missile fields. We are the anchor tenant in the second largest research

park in the United States. Our current enrollment is 7,376.

This year’s entry is called PHOENIX which symbolizes

resurrection, as well as something that is beautiful, rare, and unique. Our

logo, shown to the right, symbolizes the life cycle of Team UAH and

depicts how we intend to carry the ashes of our previous incarnations to

the winner’s circle in Johnstown, PA.

Although our teams placed 4th

in our conference concrete canoe

competition in 2011, 2nd

in 2012, and 2nd

in 2013, the tail feathers of the

logo represent the five national titles that our predecessors earned while

representing the Southeast Conference sixteen times at that level.

During the past 29 years, our teams pioneered computer generated

mold production, the use of graphite for reinforcement, multi-layered

composite sections, high stiffness ratios, dynamic tuning, and post

processing pre-impregnated materials within a pre-cured matrix. They stressed the importance of section design

based on flexural strength; and, capitalized on atomic bonding and molecular interaction to produce a new

generation of high performance cementitious composites. This year, we developed what promises to be a

revolutionary game changing technology; and, the seven pairs of wing feathers on our logo represent the wide

spectrum of innovations that we made to help us soar to victory; namely,

Management: We reduced person-power by 63% over last year by redesigning our organizational structure

for greater efficiency; and, depicted our organizational structure with a Venn diagram.

Hull Design and Structural Analysis: We made modifications to the bow and stern of our canoe, designed a

splash guard to reduce spillage, and incorporated a seat rail to help keep us and our seats in proper

alignment while racing. We calculated design specifications based on an unreinforced concrete section.

Mix Design: We developed a multilevel material approach to select cementitious materials, aggregates, and

admixtures in the absence of a baseline; and, used spherical binders and aggregates to enrich homogeneity.

Concrete Testing: We developed an efficiency equation to obtain a parameter for comparing our trial mixes.

Structural Design: We designed a lightweight, reinforced core which allowed us to accurately position

reinforcement and maintain dimensional stability while reducing weight over an unreinforced canoe.

Canoe Construction: We introduced game changing ideas and reduced material costs by 36% over last year.

Sustainability: We treated sustainability as a macro concept that applied broadly to our entire infrastructure,

thereby expanding our efforts to incorporate this concept into this competition (Princeton Review 2010).

The concrete properties used for design purposes are listed in Table 1.0; other properties, such as tensile and compressive strengths, are discussed in the section labeled “Testing” on page 6.

Table 1.0 Pertinent information. Canoe Name: “PHOENIX” School: UAHuntsville (UAH) Physical Attributes

[Canoe] Engineering Properties

[Concrete Mix] Primary Reinforcement

[C-Grid]

Mass (Wt): 61.2 kg (135 lb) - Estimated Unit Weight (Wet): 817 kg/m3 (51.0 lb/ft

3)

Composition: Carbon Fiber/Epoxy Resin

Maximum Length: 6.7 m (22 ft) Unit Weight (Dry): 639 kg/m3 (39.9 lb/ft

3)

Tensile Modulus: 234 GPa (34 Msi)

Maximum Width: 86.4 cm (34.0 in.) Flexural Modulus: 345 MPa (50 ksi) Tensile Strength: 2.0 GPa (290 ksi)

Maximum Depth: 29.0 cm (11.4 in.) 7-day Flexural Strength: 3.86 MPa (560 psi) Percentage Open Area: 68%

Average Thickness: 16.5 mm (0.65 in.) Secondary Reinforcement (4)

Predominate Colors: Blue and White Poly(Vinyl Alcohol) (PVA) Micro Fibers, Steel Wire Mesh, Wood Screws, Staples

2001

1993 1994

1996 1998

PHOENIXTeam UAH


1

We focused on teamwork and strengthened our inner circle to produce “PHOENIX“.

Our four basic goals were: to seek optimal solutions, maximize our team’s

performance, minimize our mistakes, and win this competition.

Management: At our first chapter meeting, key

stakeholders including last year’s officers, our faculty

advisors, and alumni served as a coordinating committee

which outlined key roles and goals for the Chapter.

Before officer elections were held, each candidate was

asked to make a presentation highlighting their plans for

supporting the Chapter including recruiting and training

new members. After the election, an officers’ meeting

was held during which the newly elected officials

developed and refined a strategic game plan to win this

competition. Due to the small size of our group, they

decided to use a systems approach to look at the project

holistically to see where the overlaps and interactions

lay. Then, they asked the coordinating committee to help

us redesign our organizational structure to achieve

greater efficiency (see the Venn diagram on page 2).

Planning: The Chapter formulated four teams. After

selecting PHOENIX as our theme, we asked the

coordinating committee to help us manage the scope and

monitor project status, budget, and to take corrective

actions throughout the stint. Then, we worked together

as Team UAH to execute the tasks at hand.

Teambuilding: We followed the team building

approach developed by other teams at UAH (Inscape

2014; Bentley 2014) to learn how to interact efficiently

by utilizing each other’s strengths and compensating for

each other’s weaknesses. We realized that championship

teams use adversity as glue to bond while mediocre

teams use it as a wedge to divide. As a result, we focused

on teamwork and strengthened our inner circle by

staying honest, positive, insulated, and confident.

Critical Path: The Venn diagram allowed us to

visualize organizational relationships which were used to

assign responsibilities. Milestones consisting of 1) Hull

Design, 2) Structural Analysis, 3) Mix Design, 4) Canoe

Construction, and 5) Documentation, were established

and a critical path was determined by defining tasks that

had no leeway (float). We studied the projected duration

of each task, overlapping activities in the schedule, and

the milestones experienced by previous teams, and then

modified our schedule to minimize the risks of overrun.

The milestones and critical path are displayed on our

project schedule (see page 9). Each major milestone

marked a significant transitional event for the project. To

date, we have completed all tasks according to schedule.

Risk Management: Recognizing the possibility that

future events may cause adverse effects, we adopted a

policy of continuous risk management (Dorofee et al.

1996). We used our global communication network (see

page 2) to identify, analyze, plan, track, and control risk

and applied the underlying principles for decision-

making in many phases of the project ranging from

structural design to concrete canoe construction.

Resource Allocation: We prepared and distributed

a professional fundraising packet that showcased our

Chapter’s contributions to the local Civil and

Environmental Engineering community. The majority of

the materials required for mold and concrete canoe

construction (see page 10, Appendix C, and Fig. 5 on

page 7) were either salvaged or donated. We spent an

additional $424 on materials and supplies. Person-hours

were compiled for each major activity prior to the

conference competition: 15 for hull design, 30 for

structural analysis, 300 for mix design and structural

testing, and 350 for construction. We spent

approximately 400 hours during this period on tasks

including management, fundraising, and documentation

(see Fig. 6 on page 8). Although not counted toward

project management time, our crew team spent 750

hours training and paddling on the pond and in the pool.

Quality Control: Our quality control program relied

on training sessions and advanced planning for quality

assurance. Everyone was asked to attend informational

sessions to ensure a consistent level of education and

experience. Tasks such as proportioning materials were

completed in advance to ensure efficiency throughout

the placement process. Inspectors carefully monitored

progress, since we developed a new approach to produce

a hull of uniform thickness.

Safety: We stressed the responsibility of working

safely, required at least two team members to be present

at all times, used protective equipment, and followed

OSHA guidelines (OSHA 2014). Project managers

reviewed the MSDS for all of the materials that we used.

Project Management


2

The idea for depicting our organizational structure by a Venn diagram came from

one of our past presidents. The diagram was created by a faculty member who served

as an ACSE faculty advisor for the past 40 years at Wisconsin and UAH.

The project revolves around Team UAH, and team members who contributed to

the design and construction of our concrete canoe. As depicted, we organized ourselves into four different teams:

project management, project engineering, presentation, and crew. Together, we focused on two main tasks: concrete

canoe construction and competition readiness. The subtasks required to address them are highlighted in yellow.

We used our websites, Facebook, cell phones, and email accounts to maintain the global communication

network depicted by the black outer circle. Sustainability was treated as a macro concept that applied broadly to the

entire infrastructure and the project as a whole. As described later, we embraced responsibility for our actions and

encouraged a positive impact through our activities on both the environment and our stakeholders.

Organization Chart


3

Parametric analysis techniques and commercially available software (Vacanti 2014)

were used to design a canoe that had the correct weight, and balance of speed, tracking

and maneuverability to achieve maximum performance in two- and four-person races.

We used the unique hull design developed by last

year’s team (Team UAH 2013) and added a splash guard

and seat rail to optimize performance. The streamlined

shape of PHOENIX and its attributes are shown in Fig.

1. Applicable dimensions are listed in Table 1.0 on page

ii, and form dimensions are given on page 10.

The asymmetrical shape was designed to satisfy

conflicting objectives (Ibrahim and Grace 2010). To

increase speed over our 2012 entry, last year’s team

lengthened the hull by 9.1 cm (3.6 in.). They used soft

chines to lower the prismatic coefficient and reduce the

wetted area, reduced the depth of the bow to improve

ergonomics and reduce weight, and increased the rocker

to 7.6 cm (3 in.) to improve maneuverability.

The rounded bottom increased maneuverability while

the canoe’s flared wall reduced the waterline width. The

flare also improved final stability, since the righting

moment was much higher than that achieved in 2012.

It was determined that a combined mass (weight)

[boat and crew] equal to 159 kg (350 lb) would be

required to have sufficient draft [8.9 cm (3.5 in.)] for the

hull to perform properly. Together with correct trim, and

hydrodynamic stability, this minimum weight allows the

hull to displace water efficiently and gives the largest

possible waterline length, the square root of which is

directly proportional to the hull speed.

Typical performance predictions are illustrated in

Figs. 2 and 3. Figure 2 shows the result obtained by

mounting strain gages on paddles. This method was used

to measure the stroke rate and the forces generated by all

of our teams. The yellow ellipses on Fig. 3 pinpoint the

regimes in which we expect them to perform.

To improve our racing skills, we recorded videos of

our teams and scrutinized others taken of our major

competitors. These studies helped us learn how to vary

our stroke and return rates so that we drive quickly

toward hull speed, make better turns, and switch more

efficiently to reduce deceleration. Other video studies,

conducted with the aid of markers on our outfits, allowed

us to adjust our paddling style and paddler positions to

minimize detrimental effects such as rolling and

pitching. Figure 2. Typical paddler output (men’s team).

Figure 1. PHOENIX hull shape and attributes. Figure 3. Performance predictions (all teams).

Hull Design


4

We determined the structural and material requirements for our design based on a

service load derived from strain gage data. Specifications were based on the rules, a

target weight, and the flexure formula for an unreinforced concrete cross section.

Service Loads: Different teams’ choices of critical

parameters such as combined weight, paddler positions,

paddling style, choice of materials, composite lay-up,

and means of transport make their boats’ hydrodynamic

and structural performances very

different. In the past, UAH team

members mounted strain gages

on concrete and composite

canoes at critical locations

reported by our competitors

(University of Wisconsin 2014).

After testing their boats under

transport and racing conditions, our teams proved

that the peak strain occurs directly beneath the bow

paddler in the men’s endurance race. Transport

conditions included when the canoe was supported: 1) by

foam pads placed underneath it in our trailer, 2) at mid

span while on our transport vehicle, and 3) at the ends

while right side up during launch and float testing. They

modeled their critical sections by pure bending and

loaded test plates, having a cross section identical to that

used in the canoe, until the critical strain was reached.

Despite significant differences in hull composition and

shape, they all found that the critical service load was

equivalent to a 0.28 N-m (2.5 in-lb) moment applied to a

2.54 cm (1.0 in.) wide plate.

Composite Lay-Up: When building a concrete

canoe, knowledge of the concrete’s compressive strength

is not as critical as it is in other applications. Since load

reversals take place and cracks need to be prevented, it is

the flexural strength and elastic modulus of the

cementitious matrix as well as the bond strength between

the matrix and the reinforcement that impact the design

most. Material symmetry is important (Vaughan and

Gilbert 2001) and, for a given geometrical configuration,

the stiffness ratio of the reinforcement to the matrix

controls the stress transfer (Biszick and Gilbert 1999). We envisioned reinforcing our canoe with a graphite

C-grid that consisted of 1.27 mm (0.05 in.) thick, 7.62

mm wide (0.3 in.) fiber toes on 4.57 cm (1.8 in.) x 4.06

cm (1.6 in.) centers (see Table 1.0 on page ii for material

properties). Fibers would be aligned along the principal

stress directions. We planned to employ a flotation frame

to space two layers of the grid at a vertical distance of

6.35 mm (0.25 in.) apart, to produce the reinforced core

for the double-reinforced section (Biszick et al. 2013)

illustrated in Fig. 4. We selected a hull

thickness of 15.24 mm (0.6 in.)

based on our construction

scenario and requirements

imposed on the minimum

reinforcement to wall

thicknesses ratio (see Section

4.3.1; NCCC Rules 2014). The outer

concrete layers were added to help prevent us

from sanding through the reinforcement.

Figure 4. Design for composite cross section.

Since our plan called for building a reinforced core

that was lighter than one made from plain concrete; and,

we assumed that our reinforced section would be

stronger than one having no reinforcement, we based our

concrete density and strength calculations on an

unreinforced section.

Density: We took the weight of the stain, sealer,

graphics, seats, paddles, and paddlers into consideration

and calculated that our unfinished canoe should weigh

approximately 54.4 kg (120 lb) to place our lightest team

at the proper depth to achieve good hull speed, stability,

and wind resistance. Then, we calculated the concrete

density required to achieve this condition [641 kg/m3 (40

lb/ft3)] based on the thickness 15.24 mm (0.6 in.) and

surface area 1.7 m3 (59.9 ft

3) of our boat.

Strength: We assumed that bending was the primary

mode of loading and applied the flexure formula to a

2.54 cm (1.0 in.) wide by 15.24 mm (0.6 in.) thick

concrete section subjected to a 0.28 N-m (2.5 in-lb)

moment. Under the critical load, the maximum flexural

stress (strength) was 287 kPa (41.6 psi).

We strove to produce a mix with a density of 641 kg/m3. A minimum flexural strength of 287 kPa is needed based on an unreinforced section.

Structural Analysis


5

The development of a multilevel material design approach and use of an efficiency

parameter coupled with a 7-day accelerated test program allowed us to exceed our

design specifications. Test results were shocking, since they showed that anomalies

associated with our reinforced section made it weaker than an unreinforced one.

Primary Reinforcement: Last year, our team

developed a revolutionary new construction method in

which they placed their concrete mix around a pre-

impregnated graphite material that they baked at

elevated temperature once their concrete had cured.

Since the rules prevented us from using this approach,

we decided to use a commercially available C-Grid to

reinforce our canoe. According to the manufacturer, the

tensile strength and modulus are 2.0 GPa (290 ksi) and

234 GPa (34 Msi), respectively (Chomarat 2010).

Mix Design: In 2011, our current project engineer

performed a study to investigate the inconsistencies in

strength and material properties that one of our teams

(Team UAH 2010) observed during their stint. He

discovered that internal flaws created weaknesses which

led to variations in performance and used the method of

Weibull statistics to quantify those (Pinkston 2011).

After tracing the root of the problem to an excessive

dosage of air entrainment admixture, further work was

done on other mixes without this constituent which

revealed that aggregate size and shape also matter.

He challenged us to design a homogeneous,

lightweight and flexible mix, having uniformly sized and

shaped binders and aggregates, that was initially

workable but then set up quickly with good early

strength. It also had to have sufficient flexural strength to

meet our design specifications. Since we did not have a

baseline in our data bank; and, the time and manpower to

design a concrete mix were limited, we developed a

multi-level material design approach and an efficiency

parameter to arrive at our final selection (see Table 3.1,

Appendix B), based on our test results.

Multilevel Material Design: Our multilevel material

design approach involved selecting cementitious

materials first, then the aggregate, and finally fibers and

admixtures to enhance the concrete. Without this

approach, a nearly infinite combination of materials

exists and finding the optimal concrete mix in a timely

manner would have been impossible.

The first step involved selecting the desired

cementitious materials for the concrete based on

maximizing workability and paste volume. We used

Portland cement (ASTM C150) and Class C fly ash

(ASTM C618) as binders in the final mix and made sure

all requirements on mass were satisfied (Section 3.2.1;

NCCC Rules 2014). When mixed with lime and water,

fly ash forms a cementitious compound (Joshi and

Lohtia 1997). Since fly ash particles have a lower

density than cement, their addition lowers weight. They

increase workability, as well as the amount of time

available to place the concrete. This makes it easier to

smooth the surface. Their addition also favorably

impacts environmental sustainability (Yang et al. 2007).

Since fly ash particles are typically a few micrometers in

diameter and nearly spherical in shape (Majko 2007),

they increase bond strength and fill in microscopic voids.

This helps to maintain homogeneity in the cementitious

matrix, and structural integrity in the composite section.

We realized that an aggregate with a higher packing

density would require less cementitious material than

one having more space in between the individual

aggregate particles. Since less cementitious material

means a lighter weight concrete, we selected our

aggregate based on its particle packing density, specific

gravity, and particle shape and size. We chose K1

microspheres (3M 2014a) to decrease density and reduce

particle size. This variety of microspheres has the lowest

density of any of the 3M glass bubbles; K1 are also low

in cost. Since these microspheres are relatively small, it

made it easier for us to smooth the concrete surface.

The final step involved fine tuning the cementitious

matrix by adding fibers and admixtures that conformed

to ASTM standards (ASTM C1116; ASTM 494). We

selected poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) fibers to minimize

debonding and bridge micro-cracks (Xu et al. 2011).

Their hydrophilic nature causes them to bond well with

the cementitious matrix (Wang and Li 2006) due to the

presence of polymer around the fibers (Feldman and

Barbalata 1996). A disadvantage of using the fibers is

that they decrease the homogeneity of the mix (Pinkston

2011); however, this detriment was outweighed by the

high flexural strength that we obtained by adding them.

Development and Testing


6

We selected the admixtures listed in Table 3.1 on

page B1. We added ViscoCrete 2100, a high range water

reducer, at a standard dosage of 355 ml (12 oz) per 45.4

kg (100 lb) of cementitious materials to reduce the

amount of water needed to maintain the desired

workability and improve surface finish (Sika 2013). SBR

Latex was added to enhance the bonding and flexibility

of our matrix (Euclid Chemical 2014). Rheotec Z-60, a

workability retaining admixture, was added at a standard

dosage of 355 ml (12 oz) per 45.4 kg (100 lb) of

cementitious materials to give us the most time possible

to work with the concrete (BASF 2014).

Efficiency Parameter: We selected our final mix

based on an efficiency parameter, E, that we obtained by

modifying an efficiency equation developed for ultra-

high performance concrete (Graybeal 2013) as follows:

The sum is taken over the number of factors to be

considered; is a constant established depending upon

their importance, is the normalized value of the

factor under consideration for the mix in question,

is the average normalized value for that factor over all

mixes considered, is the cost per cubic yard for

the mix under consideration, and is the average

cost per cubic yard for all mixes considered.

We took four factors into consideration: 1) density,

ρ; 2) sustainable content, s, based on the percentage

volume of sustainable material and whether that material

could be obtained locally; 3) flexural strength, σ; and, 4)

workability, w. Since we only considered concrete mixes

having a flexural strength higher than that specified in

the oval on page 4, we associated factors 1-4 with

constants 4,3,2,1, respectively. Specifically, we obtained

our efficiency parameter using:

and selected the mix having the largest value.

Testing: We evaluated 30 trial mixes by testing

unreinforced plates [5.08 cm (2.0 in.) wide by 15.24 cm

(6.0 in.) long by 7.62 mm (0.3 in.) thick]. After allowing

the concrete to cure for seven days, we tested the plates

in pure bending (following

ASTM C78) to get the

concrete flexural strength

and modulus.

After selecting our

final mix, we studied its

micro-mechanical

behavior and failure by pulling tension specimens (based

on ASTM E8 and ASTM D638) from which we obtained

a 7-day tensile strength of 1.31 MPa (190 psi). As can be

seen in the second column of Table 1.0 on page ii, we

obtained a 7-day flexural strength and modulus, and

measured the wet and dry unit weights (ASTM C138).

Since cylinders tested at 7 days did not accurately reflect

the compressive strength, we tested them at 28 days

(ASTM C39) and obtained 4.48 MPa (650 psi). As seen

in Appendix B, we computed the air content (7.6%), and

measured the slump at 2.54 cm (1.0 in.) (ASTM C143).

Design Requirements: We constructed composite

samples by placing our final mix over two layers of C-

Grid spaced apart at the distance illustrated in Fig. 4 on

page 4. We accurately positioned these layers through

the thickness by using removable spacers, as opposed to

using the flotation frame shown in the figure. When we

tested 15.24 mm (0.6 in.) thick, 4.06 cm (1.6 in.) wide

plates in pure bending, they resisted an average moment

of 5.5 N-m (48.8 in-lb), giving us a factor of safety of

12.2.

As described next in the Construction section (see

pages 7 and 8), we designed and built a flotation frame

to accurately position the two layers of C-grid, and

reduce the weight of PHOENIX to the point where,

when reinforced with the heavier graphite grids, our

canoe was lighter than one made with just our final mix.

Revelations: Since our mix has a flexural modulus

of only 345 MPa (50 ksi), it is an excellent choice for

building our doubly-reinforced section where stress

transfer takes place. Remarkably, the mix is so strong

that by placing it at a thickness of 15.24 mm (0.6 in.), we

could have produced an unreinforced canoe having a

factor of safety of 13.3. However, the larger deflection

would have made it difficult to maintain hydrodynamic

stability and dimensional tolerances. Nonetheless, we

were shocked that the safety factor for the unreinforced

section was higher than that for the reinforced one. We

attributed the reduction in strength to poor bonding and

anomalies created when we added the reinforcement to

the concrete; and, plan to investigate these hypotheses in

the future.


7

While constructing PHOENIX, we fabricated a reinforced core which included a

flotation frame. Then, we produced a hull of uniform thickness by employing methods

for quality control. We also used risk management, always paying attention to safety.

Introduction: As mentioned previously, we intend to

carry the ashes of our previous incarnations to the

winner’s circle in Johnstown, PA. Consistent with this

philosophy; and, as part of our sustainability effort, we

decided to make our own refinements but use last year’s

form. Our contributions to the hull design include

modifications to the bow and stern, the addition of an

improved splash guard, and a seat rail. Our biggest

challenge was to design and build a reinforced core to

lighten, stiffen, and strengthen our concrete canoe.

Mold Construction: The design for our canoe was

rendered using Solid Edge. The program runs on

Microsoft Windows and provides solid modeling,

assembly modeling, and drafting functionality (Siemens

2014). After determining the final shape of our hull, last

year’s team generated full-scale computer cross sections

at 30.48 cm (12 in.) intervals along the length. Then they

used the drawings to produce plywood templates and

mounted and aligned them on a wooden strongback.

They constructed a male mold by first nailing 6.35

mm (0.25 in.) thick luan strips to the cross sections over

the majority of the length and then fitting foam blocks at

the bow and stern. After placing a fiberglass layer over

the strips and blocks, the team progressively refined the

shape. They worked under subdued lighting so that

spotlighting could be used to identify problem areas.

These were marked, filled with drywall, and sanded until

all discontinuities were removed (Team UAH 2013).

Overall, the mold was in good shape but the bow and

stern sections suffered damage during form removal. We

removed these sections and refined them to improve the

hydrodynamics. Then, we attached pine boards along the

sides of the mold to define the location of our gunwale.

The bill of materials included on the design drawing

(see page 10) lists the materials used to produce the

form. We added the photographs around the border to

illustrate and clarify our teams’ construction techniques.

Core Construction: We designed and built a

reinforced core to accurately position our primary

reinforcement, reduce the overall weight of our canoe,

and help us maintain structural integrity. We began the

process by soaking 6.35 mm (0.25 in.) thick pine strips

in water, then contouring them to the mold to produce

wooden stringers in the transverse direction at 38.1 cm

(15 in.) intervals along the length. Several longitudinal

stringers were fabricated using a similar process. After

they dried, the stringers were notched and glued to

produce a 6.35 mm (0.25 in.) thick flotation frame.

To produce the reinforced core, our team placed a

layer of C-grid on the mold and cut and contoured it to

shape. We used string to temporarily hold the splices in

place as we positioned the flotation frame over this layer.

Then, we contoured and stapled the outer layer of C-grid

to the flotation frame along the majority of its length.

We used a steel mesh in the bow and stern sections so

that they could be more easily contoured.

We used tie wires to temporarily hold the inner layer

of C-grid in place while we removed the core. After this

was done, we stapled the inner layer of C-grid to the

flotation frame while removing the tape, string, and tie

wires. During this process, we made certain that there

were no opposing staples in the same location so that we

could accurately compute the reinforcement thickness.

The 8.89 mm (0.35 in.) thick core weighed 51.3 kg

(23.2 lb) while the percentage open areas of the primary

reinforcement and flotation frame were 68% and 58%,

respectively. When filled with concrete having a density

of 639 kg/m3 (39.9 lb/ft

3), the core weighs 145 kg (65.6

lb) which represents a weight savings of 8.8 kg (4 lb)

over an unreinforced section of the same thickness.

Figure 5. Material costs ($1,530).

Construction


8

This savings may not seem significant but when one

considers that we were able to do this while adding

substantially heavier reinforcement to sufficiently stiffen

and strengthen our boat, it is a game changing idea.

Quality Control: Our quality control program relied

on training sessions and advanced planning for quality

assurance. Everyone involved was required to attend

informational sessions to ensure a consistent level of

education, experience, and attention to detail. Tasks such

as proportioning materials were completed in advance to

ensure efficiency and minimize waste throughout

placement. Inspectors continuously monitored the

construction process to ensure quality control.

Canoe Construction: We began concrete canoe

construction by draping a sheet of plastic over the mold

to which we applied turtle wax and a mold release

compound. Then, we secured 2.36 mm (0.093 in.)

diameter wires across the mold at 15.2 cm (6.0 in.)

intervals down the length.

During concrete canoe construction, we prepared

several small batches of our concrete mix by using a

mechanical mixer to achieve better homogeneity and

reduce the water content, thereby strengthening our

concrete. We also timed the delivery of constituents,

selected the proper mixing tools, and adjusted the mixing

speed so that materials were dispersed evenly. We used a

wire whip and high speed mixing to prevent our

cementitious materials from clumping, thereby

preventing dry particles from forming within the cement

paste. For safety, we prevented microspheres from

becoming airborne by mixing them with SBR latex, and

used a low shear attachment to prevent breakage based

on recommendations from the manufacturer (3M 2014b).

Once the concrete was ready, some of our team

members used drywall knives to level it to the upper

surface of the wires. At the same time, other team

Figure 6. Project person-hours (1,095).

members placed concrete

on the underside of the

core so that when it was

positioned on the mold,

there would be no voids.

We left the wires in place

to insure that the inner

concrete layer would be of uniform thickness as we

worked the core into position. After filling the latter to

capacity with concrete, we secured another set of 2.36

mm (0.093 in.) diameter wires across the mold at 15.2

cm (6.0 in.) intervals down the length. When the layer

cured to firmness, we removed the wires, filled the

grooves, and draped plastic over the configuration. For

the purposes of this competition, we also placed concrete

cylinders (ASTM C31).

Since the latex in our mix coalesced to form a film

that coated the aggregate particles and the hydrating

cement grains (Biszick and Gilbert 1999), we simply left

the canoe and cylinders to dry. From sustainability and

cost standpoints, this step saves water, time, and labor.

After only three days, the outer layer of concrete was

hand-sanded smooth. Then, we filled voids with the

same mix used during the main construction and sanded

after dark in soft lighting so that the shadows cast from

oblique illumination could help us identify high and low

areas. Sanding the boat earlier saves materials and costs.

We cured the canoe for seven days so that the

concrete would have the same flexural strength as that

measured in our 7-day testing program. After removing

it from the mold, we removed the spacer wires from the

inner surface, filled the grooves, and added the seat rail.

We sanded the interior and applied vinyl lettering

and stain to improve the boat’s aesthetics. Then, we

added flotation to the bow and stern, placed the splash

guard, and sealed the surface. Appendix C describes all

the materials and products used to produce our canoe.

The pie charts shown in Figs. 5 and 6 depict the material

costs and person-hours, respectively. We estimated

person-hours through project completion; paddling is not

included. Compared to last year, we reduced our material

costs by 36% and our person-hours by 63%.

Impact: During the project, we salvaged materials,

and cut waste to a minimum. Our concrete sets up

quickly and can be simply left to dry thereby saving cost

and labor. The use of the reinforced core cut construction

time. Overall, the process can be easily done in the field

making it suitable for applications ranging from

sidewalks and roadways, to bridges and columns.

9

Project Schedule

10

Design Drawing with Bill of Materials

PHOENIX


A1

ASTM C31. (2012). “Standard practice for making and curing concrete test specimens

in the field.” C31/C31M-12. West Conshohocken, PA. < http://www.astm.org > (11

February 2014).

ASTM C39. (2012). “Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens.”

C39/C39M-12a. West Conshohocken, PA. < http://www.astm.org > (11 February 2014).

ASTM C78. (2010). “Standard test method for flexural strength of concrete (using simple beam with third-point

loading).” C78/C78M-10e1. West Conshohocken, PA. < http://www.astm.org > (11 February 2014).

ASTM C138. (2013). “Standard test method for density (unit weight), yield, and air content (gravimetric) of

concrete.” C138/C138M-13a. West Conshohocken, PA. < http://www.astm.org > (11 February 2014).

ASTM C143. (2012). “Standard test method for slump of hydraulic-cement concrete.” C143/C143M-12. West

Conshohocken, PA. < http://www.astm.org > (11 February 2014).

ASTM C150. (2012). “Standard specification for Portland cement.” C150M-12. West Conshohocken, PA.

< http://www.astm.org > (11 February 2014).

ASTM C494. (2012). “Standard specification for chemical admixtures for concrete.” C494M-12. West

Conshohocken, PA, < http://www.astm.org > (11 February 2014).

ASTM C618. (2012). “Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use in

concrete.” C618-12a. West Conshohocken, PA. < http://www.astm.org > (11 February 2014).

ASTM C1116. (2010). “Standard specification for fiber-reinforced concrete.” ASTM C1116/C1116M-10a. West

Conshohocken, PA. < http://www.astm.org > (11 February 2014).

ASTM D638. (2010). “Standard test method for tensile properties of plastics.” D638-10. West Conshohocken, PA.

< http://www.astm.org > (11 February 2014).

ASTM E8. (2013). “Standard test method for tensile properties of metallic materials.” E8/E8M-13a. West

Conshohocken, PA. < http://www.astm.org > (11 February 2014). BASF. (2014). “RheoTEC™ Z-60.” < http://www.caribbean.basf-cc.com/en/products/Admixtures/High-

Range_Water-Reducing/RheoTEC_Z-60/Documents/RheoTEC-Z60-Eng.pdf > (11 February 2014).

Bentley, J. (2014). “Training and development, DISC personality tests, corporate training.” Power2Transform

(P2T). < http://www.power2transform.com > (11 February 2014).

Biszick, K.R., Gilbert, J.A. (1999). “Designing thin-walled, reinforced concrete panels for reverse bending." Proc.

of the 1999 SEM Spring Conference on Theoretical, Experimental and Computational Mechanics, Cincinnati, Ohio,

June 7-9, 431-434.

Appendix A - References


A2

Biszick, K.R., Gilbert, J.A., Toutanji, H., Britz, M.T. (2013). “Doubly reinforcing

cementitious beams with instrumented hollow carbon fiber tendons.” Experimental

Mechanics, 53(4), ISSN 0014-4851, doi: 10.1007/s11340-012-9665-6.

Chomarat (2010). “C50 – 1.8 x 1.6 carbon fiber reinforcing grids for concrete structures.” Technical data sheet.

<http://www.chomarat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/C50-1.8x1.6.pdf> (11 February 2014).

Dorofee, A.J., Walker, J.A., Alberts, C.J., Higuera, R.P., Murphy, R.L., Williams, R.C. (1996). “Continuous risk

management guidebook.” Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute.

<http://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/Continuous%20Risk%20Management%20Guidebook.pdf> (11 February

2014).

Euclid Chemical. (2014). “SBR Latex bonding adhesive.”

< http://www.euclidchemical.com/fileshare/ProductFiles/techdata/sbr_latex.pdf > (11 February 2014).

Feldman, D., Barbalata, A. (1996). “Synthetic polymers: Technology, properties, applications.” Chapman and Hall,

London, 101.

Graybeal, B., “Development of non-proprietary ultra-performance concrete for use in the highway bridge sector.”

US Department of Transportation, FHWA-HRT-13-060.

< http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research/resources/uhpc/publications.cfm > (11 February 2014).

Ibrahim, R.A., Grace, I.M. (2010). “Modeling of ship roll dynamics and its coupling with heave and pitch.”

Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2010, Article ID 934714, 32 pages, doi:10.1155/2010/934714.

Inscape. (2014). “DISC personality test profile.” Inscape Publishing.

< http://www.onlinediscpersonalityprofile.com/ > (11 February 2014).

Joshi, R.C., Lohtia, R.P. (1997). “Fly ash in concrete, production, properties and uses.” Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Majko, R.M. (2007). “Fly ash resource center,” information on coal combustion byproducts (CCBs).”

< https://sites.google.com/site/flyashresourcecenter/home/flyash-html> (11 February 2014).

NCCC Rules. (2014). “2014 American Society of Civil Engineers national concrete canoe competition rules and

regulations.” < http://www.asce.org/concretecanoe/rules-regulations/> (11 February 2014).

OSHA. (2014). “Laboratories”; “Hazard communication”; “Construction, concrete masonry”; “Personal protective

equipment”; “Ventilation.” < http://www.osha.gov > (11 February 2014).

Pinkston, M.E. (2011). “Quantitative evaluation of polymer-enhanced cementitious materials. M.S. Thesis,

University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Princeton Review. (2010). “Guide to 286 green colleges.” Rob Franek Publisher, Framingham, MA, 127.



A3

Siemens. (2014). “Solid Edge.”

< http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/products/velocity/solidedge/ > (11

February 2014).

Sika. (2013). “ViscoCrete 2100.” Product data sheet.

<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%

3A%2F%2Fusa.sika.com%2Fdms%2Fgetdocument.get%2F89b7c847-c480-3324-989c-f7e29de95099%2Fpds-cpd-

Sika%2520ViscoCrete%25202100-

us.pdf&ei=BuH6UrjnLfC10AHvwIEw&usg=AFQjCNHKP5upVMtLuTqDsBh9931gvr2bQg&bvm=bv.61190604,

d.dmQ> (11 February 2014).

Team UAH. (2010). “SUPER CHARGER.” University of Alabama in Huntsville ASCE concrete canoe

competition design paper.”

< http://canoe.slc.engr.wisc.edu/Design%20Papers/2010-UAH.pdf>. (11 February 2014).

Team UAH. (2013). “APOLLO.” University of Alabama in Huntsville ASCE concrete canoe competition design

paper.”

< http://www.uah.edu/student_life/organizations/ASCE/2013Nationals/UAHDesignPaper.pdf > (11 February

2014).

3M. (2014a). “3M™ glass bubbles K1 for cryogenic insulation applications.” Product information.

< http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?6666660Zjcf6lVs6EVs66ssr1COrrrrQ-> (11 February 2014).



A4

3M. (2014b). “3M™ glass bubbles – Metering and mixing guide.”

<http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?mwsId=66666UF6EVsSyXTtlXM

6LxfVEVtQEVs6EVs6EVs6E666666--

&fn=metermixguideGB.pdf&cshift_ck=null&client_id=752rfn6820 > (11 February 2014).

University of Wisconsin. (2014). “NCCC design papers 2000-present.”

< http://canoe.slc.engr.wisc.edu/designpapers.html> (11 February 2014).

Vacanti. (2014). “PROLINES 7.” < http://vacantisw.com/DemoSoftware.aspx > (11 February 2014).

Vaughan, R.E., Gilbert, J.A. (2001). “Analysis of graphite reinforced cementitious composites.” Proc. of the 2001

SEM Annual Conference and Exposition, Portland, Oregon, June 4-6, 532-535.

Wang, SX., Li, V.C. (2006). “Polyvinyl alcohol fiber reinforced engineered cementitious composites: material

design and performances.” Proc. International RILEM Workshop on High Performance Fiber Reinforced

Cementitious Composites in Structural Applications RILEM Publications SARL, In: Fischer, G., and Li, V.C.

editors, RILEM Publications SARL, 65-73.

Xu, B., Toutanji, H.A., Lavin, T., Gilbert, J.A. (2011). “Characterization of poly(vinyl alcohol) fiber reinforced

organic aggregate cementitious materials.” Polymers in Concrete, 666, 73-83.

Yang, E., Yang, Y., Li, V.C. (2007). “Use of high volumes of fly ash to improve ECC mechanical properties and

material greenness.” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 303-311.



B1

Table 3.1

Summary of Mixture Proportions

Team UAH 2014

Appendix B - Mixture Proportions


C1

Table 6.1

Bill of Materials and Production Cost Estimate

Team UAH 2014

Appendix C - Bill of Materials

UAH 2014 Design Paper

Documents

Transcript of UAH 2014 Design Paper